Brokeback Mountain, Christianity Today, and an opening door

I'm a long-time devoted reader of Christianity Today.  It's indisputably the flagship journal of American evangelicalism, a tradition to which I in part do very much belong.  I'm well to the left of most of the editorial positions taken by CT, and well to the left of most of the magazine's readership.  But the magazine "speaks my language" much of the time, and I enjoy keeping tabs on what going on. 

On December 16, Christianity Today published a review of Brokeback Mountain.  The film is already the Oscar front-runner, but its review in the nation's leading evangelical publication is sparking heated debate.  CT gives the film three out of four stars, but the editors add this caveat at the beginning of the review:

The film is a hot topic of conversation around the nation, and we'd be remiss to simply ignore it. Part of our mission statement is "to inform and equip Christian moviegoers to make discerning choices" about what films you'll watch—or won't watch. And this review, just like all of our reviews, certainly accomplishes that. As for the 3-star rating, that is only in reference to the quality of the filmmaking, the acting, the cinematography, etc. It is not a "recommendation" to see the film, nor is it a rating of the "moral acceptability" of the subject matter.

The review, by a Lisa Ann Cockrel, is largely positive.  The direction and the acting are praised, though Cockrel (like other reviewers) is disappointed at the relatively small screen time given to other characters besides the two leads.  And she suggests to her largely conservative readership that the film is nuanced enough to allow moviegoers to approach the subject of homosexuality from a variety of worldviews:

Brokeback Mountain creates vast plains of space for the audience to interpret Jack and Ennis' actions and the hopes and fears that motivate them. It's quite possible that no matter what the viewer believes about homosexuality, he or she will be able to read their own stance on the issue into this story.

That's a clever way of giving conservative folks "permission" to see the film, by stressing that Brokeback is not another Hollywood offering in the culture wars, designed to insult the values traditional evangelicals hold so dear.

Predictably, CT has come in for a firestorm of criticism for the Cockrel review.   They've published some of the responses they've gotten.  While a few readers praise the courage of the CT editorial staff in running such a positive review of a gay-themed film, the majority of respondents are outraged.  Some feel CT shouldn't have reviewed the film at all, while others think that the review should have focused solely on the moral depravity of the protagonists.  Four samples:

Yes, you should review it, but it shouldn't warrant anything close to 3 stars, because its content is despicable,and is a clear, ideologically inspired attempt to drag the culture down even further. CT readers want a different perspective.

We need an informed opinion about films, especially when they are controversial. So many times Christians react to movies with the jerk of the knee instead of the mind. Your reviews of such films help me at such times.

So, sodomites write reviews for you now? I had heard that cT (small case intended) had become a notoriously banal depiction of christian writing (small case intended). Your review probably broke the camel's back for many. I expect that a Christian magazine would review movies considerably different than a local newspaper. Obviously it is no longer your intent to look at movies with a biblical frame of reference. You failed your target audience and perhaps your (G)god. Perhaps your god is the one who calls his people to slavishly impress the secular reviewers rather than those backwards evangelicals who are still looking for some help. Cowboys know how to chase women, and perverts need no encouragement. May God have mercy on you.

I think it is responsible and necessary for Christian publications to review all films—no matter what they depict. Christians are called to be light in the darkness. If we don't know what we are fighting, we can't effectively go to the places or speak logically/rationally about the darkness we are trying to overcome. If we speak out against something without understanding about what we are speaking of, we come off as brainwashed and unable to think for ourselves.

Now, I loved Brokeback Mountain.  I "bought" every minute of the film, and was deeply moved by it. (Oh, and whatever your politics, if you love "alt.country", you've got to get the soundtrack to the movie.  Emmylou Harris, Rufus Wainwright, Willie Nelson -- sweet indeed.)  Obviously, I've reconciled my evangelical faith with a belief that homosexual activity is not inherently sinful, so I'm in a different category than most of my fellow Christianity Today readers.  But I'm heartened, deeply so, that such an influential voice in the evangelical world would subtly encourage its readers to see the film, even with a plethora of caveats.

As the responses to the review indicate, some Christians just aren't ready to engage the culture.  Others are willing to do so, but will insist on interpreting what they see through a lens of what they believe to be reliable biblical teaching and tradition.  And a few others are, thankfully, interested in separating what Scripture actually says (and doesn't say) about same-sex sexuality from centuries of accrued cultural biases.

As a progressive evangelical, I understand that changing the hearts and minds of my fellow Christians on this subject is not going to happen overnight.  It's a slow, gradual process.  It involves a great deal of prayer.  My secular activist friends don't understand my deep and abiding affection for my conservative Christian brothers and sisters; my evangelical companions don't understand how I reconcile a personal relationship with Christ and a belief in limited biblical inerrancy with a enthusiastic response to the prospect of same-sex marriage.  But I'm convinced that I don't have to choose between the cross and inclusion, and I'm eager to find new avenues for dialogue about this most controversial of subjects.  From that perspective, the CT review of Brokeback Mountain is an enormously positive step, and may indeed mark a watershed moment for this most influential of evangelical publications.

Comments

[john alan turner]

Unfortunately, Hugo, it is most often the Christians who aren't ready to engage the culture who are most willing to do so. I am glad CT reviewed the film favorably and boldly. I think they are encouraging a sane approach to cultural engagement.

However, I think your three categories (those who aren't ready, those who are ready but insist on maintaining a classical position and those who believe as you do) are too broad and reflect and unfortunate bias.

[The Gonzman]

Two men who go off, get married, and carry on a multiyear affair that wrecks two marriages, and how many children's lives?

I really can't say as BBM did gay folks any favors. I sure didn't come out with anything but disgust at a couple of hedonists who were bound and determined to have their cake and eat it too, and be damned whoever they hurt in the process. And no matter how much hand-wringing was done to get there, they still chose to hurt other people in the name of their own gratification and "fulfillment."

Your inclusion may extend to gays - so be it. Does it extend to the breaking of one of the commandments? That's a moral gimme, Hugo. Adultery is adultery, and doing it with someone of your own sex still counts as it. It's wrong, no matter how you slice it, and no matter how much angst you season it with or how liberally you season it (pun intended.).

"Beyond the Green Door" was a well made film, too. Does "Art" excuse anything else?

[Hugo]

If you came out of the film with a sense that the Heath Ledger character met, in any way, the definition of a "hedonist" you were watching a very different film than I was, Gonz!

Why assume that an endorsement of the film is an endorsement of the characters' choices? Does liking Romeo and Juliet mean endorsing teen suicide?

[sophonisba]

I was going to say, does the movie treat the women as badly as the short story does? Because Gonzman is right, (although the bit about not doing gay people any favors means what, exactly? It's a fictional romance, not a educational filmstrip.) I am impressed at the ability of the studios to market this as a "gay cowboy" movie rather than as just another "men treating women like garbage" movie, which doesn't sound as novel and groundbreaking, does it?

But I haven't seen it, and maybe the worst parts of the story are taken out or toned down. It's possible.

[Hugo]

Yes, sophonisba, the women are treated badly -- but again, that treatment isn't glamorized or glossed over. The pain of Michelle Williams's character is very real, beautifully realized.

It's not a film designed to idealize a particular relationship, it's a film about love in all its messy reality.

[Chip]

Hugo,

I can't comment on the film, as I haven't seen it. From a film standpoint, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't high caliber, given Ang Lee's track record. (Even The Hulk was quite underrated.)

I am surprised, though, that you would find CT's review to be so ... well, is revolutionary too strong a word? CT has been engaging the arts in such a manner for several years now. It's really just an extension of the same perspective that led to the founding of the magazine in the first place: the conscious attempt to develop an evangelical, as opposed to a fundamentalist, publication. Besides, even CT was a bit of a latecomer to the arts criticism scene; other publications such as (the lamentably late) Re:Generation Quarterly were doing this back in the mid-90s.

Furthermore, I think you've misread the review on this point: It's not "subtly encourag[ing]" readers to see the film. It is engaging the culture, yes, but the writer is not even "subtly" telling readers to go and see it. (That's for the reader to determine, hence CT's caveat at the beginning of the review.) At least one other critic (James Bernadelli [sp.?]-- find him along with the millions of other critics over at Rotten Tomatoes) has agreed with CT's reviewer that different views can be read into the film; that's not a hidden message to be open-minded and go to the theatre.

Finally, of the three reactions you mention, the last one in particular is a caricature of reality.

Peace of Christ,
Chip

[NancyP]

Gonz said: "I sure didn't come out with anything but disgust at a couple of hedonists who were bound and determined to have their cake and eat it too, and be damned whoever they hurt in the process. And no matter how much hand-wringing was done to get there, they still chose to hurt other people in the name of their own gratification and "fulfillment.""

You just summarized one of the most popular movies of all time....
GONE WITH THE WIND

[The Gonzman]

The definition of hedonism I use is the one of pursuit of pleasure, of finding pleasure to be its own justification. A euphemism of "fulfillment" is the same thing.

If you had a film where a married straight man kept after an old flame, or where he pursued a new one after the vows, he'd be scum, and an unsympathetic character. He made a vow, and broke it, which makes him a liar and betrayer for starters. Romeo and Juliet? Apples and oranges.

And where it does gays no favors is that it depicts them as ruled by their gonads, unable to keep faith when faced with lust. If I were gay, I wouldn't be too quick to embrace it.

[The Gonzman]

And Nancy, I just summarized Scarlett O'Hara - and I finished that film feeling like she'd got her comeuppance. The theme on that is at the end, Rhett Butler redeemed himself - and Scarlett didn't.

[sophonisba]

If you had a film where a married straight man kept after an old flame, or where he pursued a new one after the vows, he'd be scum, and an unsympathetic character.

Have you ever seen any weepy romantic movies? The English Patient? The Bridges of Madison County? The conventions of the genre must be entirely new to you if you are shocked, shocked! by the romanticization of adultery and the valorization of physical passion over vows and truth-telling. I'm sorry that you think making a gay romance that follows the conventions of straight romance in nearly every particular is "doing them no favors," but that's kind of ridiculous in context.

It's an unpleasant story because it's an old story, not because The Gays in the movie are doing anything different or new.

[Catty]

The reason I think this movie could be seen as a positive portrayal of gays... is that they portray these two men as people with feelings, lives, flaws, mistakes- they are ultimately portrayed as human. The biggest issue with media portrayal of many minorities (whether it's racial, religious or other minorities) lies in the fact that we're often portrayed as a caricature or stereotype (with gay men, it's often the stereotype of the funny gay friend, the fashionsita/interior designer), with the lack of individuality, complexities and variation following suit.

[NancyP]

We could have a movie set in the same time period and society about a woman who cheats on or leaves her virtuous faithful gay spouse because he doesn't like to do heterosexual sex much, and spends too much time trying to pray the gay away, though he treats her well otherwise and is a good father to his children.

I daresay the repressed and societally responsible/respectable gay man in the hypothetical scenario above would be dissed by conservative movie critics, who might excuse the woman for breaking her vows.

[The Gonzman]

You might "say" it, but it would be another stereotype and caricature.

[Richard Bennett]

This movie sounds incredibly self-absorbed and boring to me. I don't share Hollywood's fascination with all things gay, preferring to see movies that have more to do with the real issues that affect most people. Gay cowboys can get together or not, it has nothing to do with me or any of the people I know.

Yawn.

[The Happy Feminist]

In response to Richard Bennett's comment: I have always viewed one of the glories of literature and film to be the opportunity to see the world through the eyes of people who are not like me. To only watch movies that are about people who live similar styles or face the same issues as oneself sounds like a recipe for insularity.

[Hugo]

Richard, given that the top movies in America right now are "King Kong" and "Narnia" (two fantasy pieces), it's a bit difficult to suggest that most folks want movies about issues that affect "most people." Even if gays and lesbians are a distinct American minority, they considerably outnumber talking badgers and massive simians.

[Richard Bennett]

Hugo, the concept of the day is "metaphor". Narnia is apparently some sort of Christian thing, and Kong is supposed to be an adventure flick about the clash of the animal and the human and all that, basically another Christian theme in which the human is supposed to triumph over the animal.

Now if you look at BBM through the lens of metaphor, it becomes a very odd and anti-Christian story, as previous comments indicate: a couple of dudes bail out on their responsibilities for a self-indulgent life. Normally, religious people are against this sort of thing, but when the protagonist is a member of the oppressed group du jour, values are conveniently inverted.

But yes, escape is another reason to go to the movies, for sure.

[JodyTresidder]

Richard,
You don't fool me for a moment with your first comment ever-so-casually proclaiming a bored yawn with BBM!

However, that's simply my opinion based on some familiarity with your usual blog style.

Perhaps, though, you should give the movie a whirl? If only to correct your silly second-hand misapprehension that it's about "a couple of dudes [who] bail out on their responsibilities for a self-indulgent life"?

[mythago]

"Beyond the Green Door" was a well made film, too.

No, it wasn't.

I admit to being a little amused at the reader who complained about "sodomites". Such persons might as well put in a footnote saying "By the way, I have a pretty rigidly limited sex life."

[Richard Bennett]

Jody, I'll catch it on HBO if at all. I've had gay friends and co-workers all my life so the gay lifestyle isn't such a great novelty to me that I have to rush out and see every gay-themed entertainment that's on offer. I saw Alexander on HBO and found it pretty dreadful. It sounds like this movie is as sappy as Bridges of Madison County and I didn't like that one either.

Now if somebody does a gay movie with blowing stuff up and great car chases, that's entirely different, especially if the gay characters are hot lesbians.

[JodyTresidder]

Richard,
Cool reply.

I'm with you on the cinema thrills of stuff blowing up but - as a straight woman - I'd prefer the gay characters in such circumstances to be deliciously hot men.

One merry little secret those of us who have seen BBM hug to ourselves when we consider those who might one day cast a cold eye in its direction on, say, HBO is that it's simply a cracking, gripping movie.

Director Lee is no dummy and has anticipated your (speaking very generally here) likely criticisms.
The message is in the narrative and the characters, not a pinkly pursed-lip agenda.

I actually envy you being able to see it for the first time. A surprising treat is in store - and I say that with no irony whatsoever.

[Joe Perez]

Richard, thanks for writing a post for me. I simply put your comment on my blog as a self-parody. Funniest thing I've read in a while on BBM.

"It's self-absorbed because it has nothing to do with me."

http://www.joe-perez.com/2006/01/its-self-absorbed-because-it-has.html

[Tom]

Typical bigotry in a lot of these comments. If it weren't for the persecution of gay people by ignorant Christian twits, if there weren't such incredible societal pressure to conform to some imaginary being's "code," no gay men or women anywhere would have had to enter into phony marriages. Fortunately, BBM takes place in the past and things are quite different now - now it's mostly only Baptist preachers in Oklahoma who feel the need to live false lives.

[The Gonzman]

Typical bigotry

ignorant Christian twits

The sad thing is, the cognitive dissonance and delicious irony here will be completely lost. But thanks so for rendering the entirity of the comment self-negating. It does provide a chuckle.

[john Morgan]

Hardly any of your correspondents seem to think that there's anything important about expressing real aspects of life, not only now but all through the history of the human condition. It's hard to believe that there are people who think that the movie is concerned with anything which is not a part of everyone's life, gay or straight and easily visible to anyone who hasn't been self indulgent (quoting on of you letterwriters) enough to tune out a large chunk of real life. The makers of the movie were not concerned with produing a piece of propaganda; they were primarily involved with producing a work of art. And they were successful. The screen play is a masterpiece of tight structure, and it is structure which reflects and strengthens the character of the two invented men. I rrefer to the series of parallel fragments of the two men's lives; the disastrous family Thanksgiving dinners, the progression through dance hall settings for new relationships for both of them, the resonating reference to tire irons, and especially, near the beginning, the emergence from a lower part of the earth of the monstrous bear which leaves a bloody victim behind. There is another example (just one of many more) in the confusion and anger caused by the inadvertent mingling of two flocks of sheep, and the frustration of not being able to separate the animals again to their own flocks. These are examples of the genius of Larry McMurty, who is an old hand at doing this sort of thing - and he does it so well and so often that hardly anyone pays any attention to it. Your correspondents who think that the movie is some sort of recruiting device need to open their eyes and ears and become aware of the possibility of creating a work of art which may not be exactly in Missionary Position.