The fiasco over the "gay cowboy movie" Brokeback Mountain had me wondering what real cowboys thought about the film. As I suspected, the common answer is "Not much."
"Jim-Bob Zimmerschied is not a happy cowboy. ‘They’ve gone and killed John Wayne with this movie,’ he says angrily, beer in hand. ‘I’ve been doing this job all my life and I ain’t never met no gay cowboy. It wouldn’t be right.’
[…]
"But away from the bellicose posturing, a more subtle view emerged. Dave Miller, 48, a rancher in regulation black cowboy hat, leather waistcoat, blue jeans and boots, said: ‘It’s not the sort of movie that I’d go to see, but this is America and people can watch whatever they want.’ Nonetheless, he repeated the common refrain that he had never encountered a gay cowboy. ‘Well, not that I knew,’ he added. ‘I just don’t think our way of life is conducive to them.’ And like many others, his concern was that the film would give the wrong impression of life in the West."
My favorite reaction:
"Lee Hagel, 47, who was herding cattle there last week, had his own objections to the film. ‘They aren’t even cowboys — they’re sheep herders,’ he said witheringly. ‘You can’t just put a hat on someone and say they’re a cowboy.’"
(NOTE: The article, although written for a mainstream newspaper, contains some crude language that may not be suitable for all readers.)
(JIMMY ADDS: JimmyAkin.Org rates the newspaper piece L for limited adult audience, articles whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.)
“They aren’t even cowboys — they’re sheep herders.” I was wondering when someone was going to make that point!
“(JIMMY ADDS: JimmyAkin.Org rates the newspaper piece L for limited adult audience, articles whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.)”
LOL! Thanks for the morning laugh, Jimmy.
They’ve gone and killed John Wayne with this movie
What a fantastic quote! LOL. Oh the humanity!
I’ve been doing this job all my life and I ain’t never met no gay cowboy. It wouldn’t be right.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen triple negatives before. Fantastic!
As a former rodeo cowboy, (12 years), I’m surprised no one else has made the point of sheep herders vs. cowboys. Ang Lee may be an excellent film maker, but as anyone from the western US knows, there’s been significant animosity between those who herd sheep vs. cattle. Mr. Lee’s lack of pre-film research is unfortunate.
And like the others noted, I’ve not ever met any gay persons in the rodeo / western world. It simply is not a lifestyle where persons of a “intrinsically disordered” or even an “objectively disordered” nature exist.
(Quote)As a former rodeo cowboy, (12 years), I’m surprised no one else has made the point of sheep herders vs. cowboys. Ang Lee may be an excellent film maker, but as anyone from the western US knows, there’s been significant animosity between those who herd sheep vs. cattle. Mr. Lee’s lack of pre-film research is unfortunate.(End Quote)
Well they do adress this in the movie. In the start of the movie when the two first meet their is a bias between them becuase ones a rnacher and ones a rodeo star.
(quote)Jim-Bob Zimmerschied is not a happy cowboy. ‘They’ve gone and killed John Wayne with this movie,’ he says angrily, beer in hand. ‘I’ve been doing this job all my life and I ain’t never met no gay cowboy. It wouldn’t be right.(end quote)
Again, adressed in the movie. These two characters go out of their way to hide the fact they are gay. Plus other tragic events that happen throughout the film paint the west as no place for gay people. I think that’s the point of the movie.
I can’t say I am at all suprized with the reactions of the people you interveiwed. As it’s clear none of them have seen the movie. I would be interested to see how real coboys would react after they seen it. I’m better this story would have turned out a lot different. As the movie is playing to sold out theaters whereever it’s opened, even in cowboy country.
Then you ain’t never lived in no state south of the Mason Dixon!
Hiz spelin’ ain’t two gud ether!
My husband’s biggest beef with this movie has been the cowboy persona. He, too, feels that an icon is being destroyed. I can’t help suspecting that this was exactly the intent.
There is an International Gay Rodeo Association, which would tend to indicate that there are gay cowboys other than those in Hollywood fantasies.
“…the movie is playing to sold out theaters whereever it’s opened”
The publicity machine for this movie is now trying to hype it’s popularity based on “per screen” average viewership.
Since when do we measure the popularity of a movie in this way?
Movies like LWW and King Kong don’t have to scrounge around for scraps in the per-screen numbers, as they are actually popular.
Brokeback is being shown mainly on the coasts, and in areas known to be sympathetic to it’s message, hence the per-screen average.
In real numbers, it is barely on the radar.
If these guys make a distinction between sheep herders and themselves, I am pretty sure they would make a distinction between cowboys and rodeo contestants. Growing long gourds to enter in the county fair doesn’t make me a farmer.
I haven’t seen the film and probably will not. Nevertheless, the fantasy of some about “cowboys” is remarkable [John Wayne killed????]. Come on. Wake up and smell the coffee. There are gay priests, accountants, engineers, scientists, actors, firemen, policemen, doctors, gardeners, etc., and certainly cowboys. Of course, that includes those who live below the Mason/Dixon. If you do not believe this there are books on the subject of homosexuality among those cowboys who settled the west. Read and learn.
“The publicity machine for this movie is now trying to hype it’s popularity based on “per screen” average viewership.”
Yes. And, as I’ve pointed out in other threads, note how BM is being sold on TV: it looks like a movie about 2 guys in cowboy duds & their wives, since both male start are begin shown embracing women. I call that *bait & switch* since quite a lot of regular folks simply do not pay much attention to cinematic controversies. Recall how Million Dollar Baby was sold a year ago as a feel-good, female Rocky? Same thing with BM.
When asked why the Indians didn’t just shoot the horses during the famous chase scene in the 1939 version of Stagecoach, director John Ford quipped something like, “Then you wouldn’t have a movie!” In Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch, they shot the horses – a very purposeful decision on Peckinpah’s part, deconstruction of the traditional western. Whether Ang Lee meant to do the same with BM or not, he ended up adding to the deconstruction of the cowboy myth (if I may call it that) that John Wayne, John Ford, James Stewart, etc, effectively created & perfected.
To be fair, a case could be made that John Ford himself contributed to the deconstruction of the western with films like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. It’s not one that I necessarily agree with, though. Directors like Sam Fuller were more actively deconstructing the western in the late ’50s with films like Forty Guns by combining it with film noir sensibilities; compared to that . . . interesting film, Ford was a traditionalist his whole career!
If these guys make a distinction between sheep herders and themselves, I am pretty sure they would make a distinction between cowboys and rodeo contestants.
As someone who frequently attends rodeos, I can assure you that–whether or not a particular cowboy in a rodeo has a day job working with cattle–“cowboy” is the standard term for rodeo contestants of the male gender.
In fact the major professional organization for contestants is the PRCA or “Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association.”
got news fer ya jim-bob, there are real gay cowboys in the world. get over it.
I wonder how he knows.
According to the 2001 US census report there is gay people living in every county, in even state in the US. And that only counts the people who admitted it when they filled out the papers. Yes, you all are right about one thing, being gay in the heart land mostly means living in silence or fear. But odds are, everyone here that has posted knows a gay man or women whether you realize it or not.
Evidence, please.
Bill,
I can’t vouch for the “every county” assertion, but this page will tell you how to check the federal cenusus data for any area for yourself.
http://lib.uchicago.edu/~lar1/LIS424/samesex/tutorial.html
Jimmy,
I was refering to a distinction in personality types. I think it takes a different kind of cowboy to ride the rodeo circuit than it does to ride the range.
I learned that from reading a web blog a while back but it seems the information is not correct. I did some reasearch and the correct information is as follows:
601,209 total gay and lesbian families were reported by the 2000 U.S. Census. 304,148 gay male families, and 297,061 lesbian families.
Gay and lesbian families live in 99.3 percent of all counties in the United States.
This only counts gays and lesbains that are domestic partners. The Census did not count single gay and lesbains.
The point is they are in every corner of the US, even in cowboy country.
Jimmy –
For someone that claims to find “Brokeback Mountain” so morally offensive to his faith, you sure do initiate an AWFUL lot of blog entries on this topic. Methinks you’re somewhat infatuated with this movie 😉 It can’t just be a shameless ploy to drive up your blog viewership, can it?
Apparently, you’re also not above presented a one-sided version of a topic either. For example, you could have balanced out your “aint no gay cowboys” quotes with this widely read NYT times article from Dec 18th:
Excerpt:
—————————————
“….But to gay men trying to forge lives in a world where the shape of masculinity is narrow, and where the ”liberated” antics of the homosexual minstrels so often depicted on television can seem far off, the emotional privation and brutal violence of ”Brokeback Mountain” seems like documentary.
”That could have been my life,” Derrick Glover said one bitter cold afternoon last week, referring to the film, which he had seen at a special screening a week before in Jackson, Wyo. A 33-year-old rancher, Mr. Glover comes from a family that has worked the land around Lusk for generations. His father still runs 300 head of cattle.
Seated at a table in the smoky Outpost Cafe alongside Highway 85, Mr. Glover laid out the story of a typical ranch-country boyhood: herding, branding, culling and haying, horses hobbled on picket lines and calves pulled forcibly from their mother’s bodies during spring calving. Every summer Mr. Glover sets out with his brother in a panel truck carrying their two quarter horses, to compete in calf and steer roping competitions. ”I never had any intention of leaving the cowboy lifestyle,” Mr. Glover said. ”Ranching is who I am.”
Yet next month Mr. Glover will quit Lusk and that part of himself in order to move to the bright lights of Lander, Wyo. (population 6,864). ”I don’t really want to do it,” Mr. Glover said. Yet he has to, he explained, if he ever wants to live his life openly. Like Jack Twist, the rodeo-loving character portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal in the movie, Derrick Glover is gay….”
———————————-
If the NYT is too liberal for you, Jimmy, there is always this article from today’s Casper Wyoming Star Tribune:
———————————-
“….Like many gay Utahns, Ritchie Olsen has been bursting with anticipation over “Brokeback Mountain,” the acclaimed film about a secret love affair between two Wyoming cowboys. After all, the movie could almost be the story of his life.
Olsen grew up in Neola, Utah, a conservative town of about 500 people on the southern edge of the Uintas. His family ran a small cattle ranch, where Olsen spent much of his youth on a horse. Although Olsen struggled with his attraction to men, like the characters in the film he kept quiet and married a local girl, his true nature stifled by community pressure and his own fear.
“I didn’t feel like I had any other choice,” said the 32-year-old, who didn’t come out of the closet until he divorced his wife 18 months later and moved away. “I was expected to fit a certain image, and I did. It created a lot of anxiety….”
———————————
In fact, I’ve seen a few similar articles from major newspapers in the West, quoting guys who literally saw their own lives onscreen in BM. But you’re not really interested in being objective on this topic, are you, Jimmy? A NYT article won’t likely get suckers like ‘Gene Branaman’ and ‘bill912’ to post their homophobic ravings on your blog, driving up your webstats. Right?
As to the fiction that “Brokeback” is only playing well in New York and San Francisco, here is a snippet from the December 19 BoxOffice MoJo report:
———————————–
“…Among Brokeback Mountain’s encouraging numbers, Foley noted two theaters in conservative markets that Focus used as an experiment for the picture’s crossover appeal: the AMC Yorktown 18 near Chicago and the Cinemark Legacy 24 in Plano, Texas—”one of the biggest grossing theaters in the nation for The Passion of the Christ,” explained Foley. Brokeback Mountain ranked No. 2 and No. 3 in the complexes, respectively. “[The movie] is playing to the smart set as well as the boomer set, the senior set and the gay community,” Foley said……”
——————————
None of this makes the film acceptable to those who strictly adhere to Catholic dogma, of course. But since Jimmy is making a part time career of creating new “Brokeback” blog entries, he’s exposed his real agenda – to heap as much criticism on a film he will never see (but should).
Jimmy – you are a Grade A “RULE 1 VIOLATION DELETED”.
“Homophobic ravings”? Quote just one of mine, please. By the way, your last comment was exceptionally classy, not to mention intellectual.
D’Alessandro,
This was Michele Arnold’s post.
Also I would like to point out that using offensive language is “morally inferior” behavior.
You told Bill912 that you were done reading this blog. I guess you couldn’t resist commenting either?
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
Per the 2000 US Census, 69% of America’s 105 million households were represented by families. (The US Census Bureau defines a “household” as “all the people who occupy a housing unit, regardless of their relationship” & a “family household” must have “at least 2 members related by birth, marriage, or adoption, one of whom is related to the householder.”) Cohabitating couples (“people who live with unmarried partners” – which would include homosexuals in 2000) represented less than 4% of all households in 2000. (See URL below for source.) Note that this 4% includes all cohabitating couples. What percentage of those couples are made up of homosexuals, I could not find but, by definition of inclusion of all cohabitating couples, it has to be less than 4%. That’s a darn small number.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/profile2000.html
Based on how the US Census Bureau views it’s numbers, a gay or lesbian cohabitating couple are not considered a “family” per se; one of them had to have a relative living in the same household. So, while homosexuals may be in 99.3 counties of the USA, their numbers are quite, quite small so as to be not identifiable in all areas. One should not read into this that these individuals are not identifiable due to fear of some presumed attack.
In fact, per the FBI, hate crime statistics for 2004 (the most recent year for such stats) showed a decrease from 16.4% to 15.6% in such crimes based on perceived sexual orientation, a 3.39% decrease from 2003. Race (52.8%) made up the majority of hate crimes in 2004 (a 5.15% increase over 2003), & religion (18%) was second (a virtual tie with 2003’s 17.9%). Unfortunately, there is no breakdown by state for each type of hate crime so I can’t say definitively which regions/states have the highest hate crimes against homosexuals. But there was an overall increase of hate crimes between 2003 & 2004 of 2.163%. So, race was up 5.15% & sexual orientation was down 3.39% while the overall was up 2.163%. That’s a statistically significant shift for one year, if you ask me. In fact, 2004 is the 3rd year in a row in which crimes based on perceived sexual orientation declined. In 2001 there were 1393, up from 1299 in 2000, & in 2002 there were 1244. This makes for an overall percentage decrease from 2000 to 2004 of 14.07%! Again, that’s statistically significant. Compare this to racial hate crimes which, though down by 16.6% between 2001 & 2002, had an increase of 10.98% between 2002 to 2004, but a 6.8% decrease from 2000 to 2004. Overall, hate crimes have decreased 5.14% from 2000 to 2004 with a spike of 9730 in 2001, up a whopping 20.68% from 2000, while 2002 was down 20.87% from 2001. Some significant shifts but the general decline of hate crimes against sexual orientation are very telling in light of the increases of others. Religious crimes, BTW, have seen a fairly steady decrease of 6.65% from 2000 to 2004. (All stats above are for crimes perpetrated on persons, not property. See source URL below.) So, even lacking regional or state-specific data, it seems to me that homosexuals have cause to be rejoicing rather than “living in scilence & fear.”
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/openpage.htm
“Yes, you all are right about one thing, being gay in the heart land mostly means living in silence or fear.”
Please define “heartland.” Do you mean the Mid-West USA? Do you mean the more rural parts of every state? Please specify. Otherwise, it’s just vague generalities that mean nothing & do not support your assertion.
“A NYT article won’t likely get suckers like ‘Gene Branaman’ and ‘bill912’ to post their homophobic ravings on your blog, driving up your webstats.”
D’Alessandro, like bill1912, I respectfully request that you please quote back to me my “homophobic ravings.” And be specific. Because I do not recalling anyone on this or any other thread re: Brokeback Mountain an “asshole.” See, that was your raving.
“Conservative markets” like “the AMC Yorktown near Chicago”. Yup, that’s Chi-Town, all right, a bastion of conservatism!
Hey, Gene, let’s not forget “blind sheep”.
Gene,
This is the listing you were looking for:
PCT14. UNMARRIED-PARTNER HOUSEHOLDS BY SEX OF PARTNERS
Male householder and male partner 301,026
Female householder and female partner 293,365
Which equals 594391 or 0.0056351007855 percent of the 105,480,101 households.
Take care and God bless.
J+M+J
bill912- what have you said that is NOT homophobic? all of your remarks make you seem brain dead and retarded.
Gene Branaman- Instead of parsing everyone’s comments and playing devil’s advocate in the annoying way you do, why don’t you travel to Kansas City or Memphis and talk to a few gay people to understand what their lives are actually like? I’m not sure who’d actually suffer through a conversation with you, given your plentiful charm, but it’d be worth a try. Go collect your own data, dude! You might learn something!
Inocencio – Yeah, Jimmy’s blog keeps popping up on Goggle’s sidebar links – mainly due to the plentiful braindead and self-righteous remarks of RULE 1 VIOLATION DELETED like bill912 and Gene Branaman, prompted by Jimmy’s pointless blog entries.
Boy, if this is the future of Catholicism, we’re all in trouble.
Baaa-aaaa.
“But you’re not really interested in being objective on this topic, are you, Jimmy?”
Are you, D-man? Are you willing to do what you want us to do & see the Catholic side of this issue? If so . . . please begin by reading John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Christopher West has a couple great books that break it all down in language that’s easier for layfolk than was JPII’s. We’re coming from a Christian, Biblical point of view, here. It’s a very specific one. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals themselves are not disordered, but that their actions & inclinations are. But, please, do not think that heterosexuals are left off the hook! We, like homosexuals, are called to be chaste. Sex, per JPII’s TOTB, is to be shared between a married man & woman who allow God into every part of their married lives & work with Him in the creation of new life. Just as the Holy Spirit is a product of the love God the Father has for God the Son, a baby is the product of the love a man & woman have for each other. The family is an impefect image of the Trinity! This is why the Catholic Church teaches that acts of contraception & homosex are intrinsically disordered: they are not open to the start of new life.
BTW, D . . . have you read Jeffrey Overstreet’s review of BM? You need to. It’s a brilliant piece of journalism & I agree with every last word. Please read all of it. Then you’ll know better where we’re coming from. Here’s the URL:
http://www.lookingcloser.org/movie%20reviews/A-G/brokebackmountain.htm
Again, please read the entire review.
I challenged you to QUOTE one (just one!) post of mine that was a “homophobic raving”. I guess the above is a tacet admission on your part that you can’t. You have a great opportunity to prove me wrong by just quoting one. I defy you to do it. Come on! Pick up the gauntlet or apologize.
Okay, D’Allesandro, you’re done.
I’ve let you have your say. I haven’t complained about your tantrums, snide remarks, and general provocations, but you’ve committed two flaming Rule 1 violations, and you’re done.
You are hereby disinvited to participate in this blog in any way.
Further participation will constitute harrassment.
Grow up and learn to keep a civil tongue in your head.
Till then,
Scram.
“All of your remarks make you seem brain dead and retarded.” “Blind sheep.” “You are a grade A asshole.” “I’m not sure who’d suffer through a conversation with you, given your plentiful charm.” Well, we’ve managed to tolerate your charm.
BTW, D’Allesandro: If my blog keeps popping up in your Google sidebar (why that is, I wouldn’t know) then please ignore it or change your settings so that doesn’t happen.
Everyone else, D’Allesandro is hereby relieved of any responsibility to document his accusations against you since he has been prohibited from participating in the blog.
If he violates this prohibition and attempts to participate please notify me and further action will be taken.
In the interim, do not feed the troll.
Thanks.
D’Alessandro,
Again I point out that this entry was MICHELLE ARNOLD’S POST.
I understand that you get very angry when you comment. But you and Downtown Lad are the only ones raving like brain-dead, self-righteous immature children who lower yourself to using vulgar language. You have admitted that you are not going to change our mind (especially when your argument consist of name calling only).
Yet you keep returning, why? It becomes obvious that trying to justify sinful behavior causes people to do illogical things. If we were what you say we are, you would not care what we post. And yet you keep returning? You need to ask yourself why?
Take care and God bless you D’Alessandro.
J+M+J
POST BY DISINVITED INDIVIDUAL DELETED.
THIS IS THE MILDEST OF THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN FOR IGNORING A DISINVITATION TO PARTICIPATE. IT GOES UP FROM HERE.
“Gene Branaman- Instead of parsing everyone’s comments and playing devil’s advocate in the annoying way you do, why don’t you travel to Kansas City or Memphis and talk to a few gay people to understand what their lives are actually like? I’m not sure who’d actually suffer through a conversation with you, given your plentiful charm, but it’d be worth a try. Go collect your own data, dude! You might learn something!”
You assume much, D. I’ve known many, many homosexuals. I was an actor for 15 years & I have many dear friends who know my disagreements with their lifestyles. But that has never harmed our friendships. One of my dear friends is a very well-known gay poet who recently taught at Harvard. I’ve spoken at length with these folks about this topic &, I can honestly say, that none of them are as reactionary as are you. Not one of them would even think of reducing a discussion to ad hominem attacks such as calling someone “brain dead and retarded,” “self-righteous,” or “assholes.” Not one of them would, when presented with the facts as Jimmy, bill912, Inocencio, & many others have in this & many other threads, would go on the defensive, as you have, & call names. If you think this is pointless, then stop reading. Take your ball & go home, D. But, please, at least have the intellectual honesty to know that you do not know me or anything about me. What you’re doing is the equivalent of what you (wrongly) perceive we’re doing to you.
So . . . I repeat my request. Rather than name-calling, please quote when I’ve been guilty of “homophobic ravings.” Otherwise, you’re just a troll, trying to subvert this thread with your attacks on the rest of us.
“Cowboys” are in rodeos, but “real cowboys” work on ranches.
And the last generation of “real cowboys” would likely punch you (if you’re male) for calling them “cowboys,” because that refered to part-time ranch hands that drifted from job to job. Kinda like the folks who get a job, work until they get unemployment eligibility, then quit… Until unemployment runs out again. Only in the old days they became rustlers if they couldn’t find a job.
My gut tells me they did some major digging for the John Wayne line.
“Everyone else, D’Allesandro is hereby relieved of any responsibility to document his accusations against you since he has been prohibited from participating in the blog.”
Agreed, Jimmy. Thanks.
“Balance”? What the Sam Hill are you talking about?
Did you actually read J.O.’s review, or just cherry-pick it for something to quarrel with? He isn’t offering a moral critique of everyone in the story. He’s offering a critique of the portrayal of this relationship as a “love story,” which he doesn’t think it comes across as at all.
The morally problematic issues regarding E. and J’s behavior go to this point. The (obvious, uncontroverted) obscenity of the gay-bashing violence doesn’t go to the point — rather obviously, don’t you think?
And on that note, we’re all done for this thread.