Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 2

"Cowboys"

It's incorrect to say that Ennis and Jack are cowboys. Cowboys work with cows. Ennis and Jack met on a sheep operation, which makes them shepherds. This is a very annoying meme that shouldn't make its way into Wikipedia. I am going to change that in the main article. Chris64.131.157.221 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say ranch hands? That's pretty much what they do as far as I can understand. After all, the men are not shepherds by trade. They're general labourers who work with cows, sheep, laying asphalt, whatever work they can find. JustADuck 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

They were NOT "shepherds." If you want to say they herded sheep in the summer of 1963, fine. To call them "shepherds" as if that was their permanent job is ludicrious. I could settle for ranch hands, but not shepherds as an introductory description of them. Moncrief 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Moncrief, do you even know what a shepherd is? I used to work on a cattle ranch, so I know a bit about this stuff. To quote the Wikipedia article on shepherds, "A shepherd is one who takes care of sheep, usually in flocks in the fields... Unlike farmers, shepherds were often wage earners, being paid to watch the sheep of others." The 1960s weren't Biblical times. Shepherding had long since become one of those crappy jobs that down-and-out laborers got when they could get it. In fact, that's an important part of Proulx's story, characterizing them as a particular kind of wretched of the earth. Calling them cowboys is yet another example of arrogant coastal ignorance.

Yes, anonymous, unsigned person, I do know what a shepherd is. However, that term was being used as an introductory, defining adjective for these two men, which is as ludicrious as defining you now, and in an overall way, by the job you held in the summer of your nineteenth year. It isn't that anyone was disagreeing that they were sheep herders at age 19; it was that we were disagreeing that "shepherds" was an appropriate introductory descriptor of these two men who are the protagonists of a movie that spans twenty years. I have no objection though to how this issue was resolved. Moncrief 17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am more sensitive to the argument that they only worked on the sheep operation that one summer. Afterwards Ennis worked with cattle and Jack worked most of his life in an office job (not as a "rodeo cowboy" to whoever made that remark). However, the bulk of the movie painstakingly details that crucial first summer, the summer that so defined them. Therefore, I'd say that the relevant description, especially in this paragraph discussing THAT SUMMER, would be shepherds. That, however, is more up for debate. I would settle for calling them laborers who got jobs herding sheep. Although anybody who's ever worked on a ranch or knows a damn thing about ranching knows that that's just a circumlocution for shepherd. But since I don't want to make a personal hobby of constantly changing this page, I'll settle for that as a compromise. Chris64.131.157.221 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Except now there's no place to link to the Wikipedia article on shepherds, which most definitely is the most relevant article. I'll let someone else add the shepherd link if they want, since I seem to be in a minority here. I do know what I'm talking about in this particular case, though, unlike certain other commenters. Chris 19:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they call themselves "Cowboys" in the movie? The Wikipedia entry on cowboy says that rodeo performers are called "cowboys", and "The long history of the West in popular culture tends to define those wearing Western clothing as cowboys or cowgirls whether they have ever been on a horse or not." "Cowboy" has meanings beyond the precise definition. I do not think calling them cowboys is incorrect or even a stretch. -- Samuel Wantman 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets see what Proulx herself had to say on the subject:

"Excuse me, but it is NOT a story about 'two cowboys.' It is a story about two inarticulate, confused Wyoming ranch kids in 1963 who have left home and who find themselves in a personal sexual situation they did not expect, understand nor can manage."[1]

So per Proulx, they should not be called cowboys. Autiger 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the quote goes on to say:

"Yet both are beguiled by the cowboy myth, as are most people who live in the state, and Ennis tries to be one but never gets beyond ranch hand work; Jack settles on rodeo as an expression of the Western ideal."

No point arguing, "Two poor young men who meet on a sheep herding job" is a good solution. --Samuel Wantman 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a petty and pointless argument, in my opinion. I don't think it's inacurate to call them cowboys, given their upbringings and work choices in later life (not to mention the way they dress). Exploding Boy 02:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link showing what Proulx has to say about this. I think that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not intended to be cowboys, since she's the one who created them. I think the current version, "Two poor young men who meet on a sheep herding job," with a link to shepherd, is a very good solution. I'm just glad this counteracts the very wrongheaded, misleading, and anti-Proulx meme about "gay cowboys." Chris 64.131.157.221 08:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In a making-of-the-movie feature, the actors repeatedly refer to their characters as "ranch hands". See for yourself, the Google Video link is here (and no, this isn't a link to one of the countless parodies, it's real):[2] -- SleepyheadKC 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Ennis describe himself as a cowboy? When he said to his daughter, in their last scene together, that "they can get themselves another cowboy," in reference to his attending her wedding?Hank chapot 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

Sorry, this is my first post on Wikipedia, so forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly or am stepping out of line, but I question the NPOV of this article. In the "Praise and Controversy" section, it references "commentators Bill O'Reilly and Cal Thomas, accusing Hollywood of pushing an agenda while telling their viewers that the Christian themed Narnia has more merit for "best picture of the year." I fail to see how Narnia is relevant to the article at hand and the statement was obviously written in such a way as to be persuasive or to make a point. Also, in the links section, perhaps links to some of the sources of this controversy?

Yeah it is a bit off somehow. I think it makes it out to be more successful than it is too. It's doing alright, but after reading this article I got the sense it was this enormous blockbuster or something and wondered why I've heard little of it. It's really not unusual for a smaller film, as this one is, to have higher per-theater sales. The way it's word is slightly misleading somehow.--T. Anthony 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Its sales are much higher per theather. Munich was playing in about 500 theaters a few weeks ago yet it had nowhere near the gross that Brokeback does now in about 500 144.35.254.12 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you and the previous anon commentator are talking about the same thing but I'm not really sure since you only use pronouns (without any context reference). The anon seems to believe the O'Reilly Narnia reference is off-topic and included merely to push an anti-Brokeback POV attempting to minimize its success. You seem to be talking about Brokeback itself. The film continues to maintain high per-theatre box-office numbers even as it expands its theater count - this weekend saw it pull in almost $12K/screen compared to Narnia's $4400/screen and Kong's $3600/screen. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is written in the most neutral voice possible. I think the person who claims it is not NPOV may be taking issue with the opinions being deescribed in the article. May I point out to the editor that the opinions are described in a manner that does not endorse any of the opinions being described. It is therefore written NPOV style.

The person who put the POV tag on the article never explained why on this page. I'm removing it. If anyone feels like putting it back, please do; but please say why on this page, so we can discuss it. -- Samuel Wantman 03:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

i faqqin love that this won critic' choice for best pic

ozz bless 'em, they're gonna give at least some lead love come accadamy time, too. i'm guessin the actory guy with the great accent, and maybe best pic too, tho that could split to true-man or capote. either way, ozz bless that they gave the gay cowboy thing a prize. sypathies to cash, but stars are aligning. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

link to BFCA or to Critic's_Choice_Award when referencing the Critic's Choice Awards or Critics' Choice Awards in this article?

A touch call, to be sure. A touch, unimportant call, to be sure. My guess is it will sort itself out rather quickly. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Normal practice is to use the direct link unless it is not available. I linked BFCA to the Critics Choice article, so I see no reason to link it to BFCA. -- Samuel Wantman 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

there should be a faqqin spoiler alert on this type of shipe

there should be a faqqin spoiler alert on this type of shipe. i'm gonna look that shipe up. -:)Ozzyslovechild 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

wow, is that perchance Olde Englysh ye be speakin? :P Jafafa Hots 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Praise and Controversy"

I'd simply like to go on record as saying that the division of this section may be a serious mistake. Giving the "controversy" its own category is rather unnecessary, especially when many of these sections are no more than a few lines in length (or in the case of the Concerned Women, a single piece). Furthermore, it seems to add more to the notion that the film is really more debated than it is, or that a serious "problem" continues to exist. A reversion to the initial format would be far more appropriate. - AWF

"brokeback" as new slang

In Toronto I have heard a similar expression, "Has he been to Brokeback Mountain," meaning "has he [heterosexual] ever had a same sex romance or fling." However it is unsourced and could at best be mentioned as rudimentary, new, gaining momentum, etc. JustADuck 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think the guidelines established at Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms outline a good direction to go on this issue. -- MisterHand 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ways to quantify cultural effects?

I'd like to add information or a section on the widespread effect this movie appears to be having both within the gay community and, to a leseer degree, outside of it too. I don't want to overstate the case at all, but I think it would be worth a shot to try and describe quantifiable, sourceable effects it's had - i.e., increased number of blogs about the film, quotes from published articles that give context, that sort of thing. If anyone has any ideas or links on how to do this, I'd be curious. Moncrief 02:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how you would be able to source facts that were quantifiable and not speculative. The fact that the film has received much attention in the gay community was to be expected and I don't think that that in and of itself constitutes as 'cultural effect'. Similarly, I imagine Philadelphia would have generated much interest when it was released, but quantifying the effect that it had is more difficult. I don't have any suggestions unfortunately, other than to suggest that you discuss any proposed changes here first so as to avoid potential edit wars. Good luck. -- Adz|talk 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right. It's certainly not like "Philadelphia" - it's something greater, but rest assured I'm cautious and won't proceed unless there's some quantifiable hook I feel merits inclusion. Moncrief 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking to external copyvio site?

I'm curious what the wikipedia policy is on linking to an external site that is a clear copyright violation. The Short Story link goes to Blogspot and I doubt seriously that Ms. Proulx or The New Yorker (the only two entities that would have rights to publish) posted it there. I started to just delete it; but thought I'd seek opinions or see if someone knew of official policy. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 04:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as it's not on Wikipedia itself, isn't it ok to link to it? I guess I'm honestly not sure. Moncrief 04:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The official policy, from Wikipedia:Copyrights, states: (emphasis mine)

Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a site that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us.

I have removed the link to the infringing work. eaolson 04:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Awards noted upfront?

Hmmm. Mention of this movie garnering a Golden Globe Award upfront, despite their importance, appears rather unbalanced and perhaps too Americentric. Precision of this sort isn't required in an introduction: the movie has garnered more than a dozen awards and nominations worldwide, which are listed further down in article. I recommend replacing this notation with either "acclaimed" (point taken) or – actually, in retrospect – merely "award-winning." Thoughts? This isn't a big issue, BTW. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The Golden Globes aren't exactly "Americancentric" since they are given by the Hollywood Foreign Press. And it's by far the most prestigeous, recognizable award given to the film so far. If the film wins an Oscar, than I would think we'd change the introduction and include that note instead. -- MisterHand 17:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the lead for the GG article indicates they are American awards. I'm not challenging their importance or rationale for selection, but merely that such a statement upfront might obviate or occlude the plethora of other awards and acclaims the movie has garnered around the world. And, while this varies, movies like The Godfather, Schindler's List, et al. are not as precise upfront regarding the awards they've received ... though I'd be easier about noting an Oscar if BBM received one. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Acclaimed", your proposed change, is actually rather POV as an adjective for the film but we take care of it in the next line with "critical favorite" which is more factual. It's ironic that you would call the Golden Globes "American-centric" considering that Americans don't vote for GG winners, the non-American press does. I think the fact that BBM is a GG winner is important enough for the introduction and I'm one who believes absolutely in streamlined and not-overly-detailed introductions. For all the awards that BBM has won, the GGs are by far the most important and noteworthy so I think they merit inclusion in the intro. Moncrief 17:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think that, like the rest of the article, that intro can be changed as the situation warrants. For example, I expect next Tuesday "Oscar-nominated" will replace "Golden Globe-winning" in the intro, which would be entirely appropriate IMO. Moncrief 17:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See above regarding "acclaimed" (point taken) – in retrospect, the preferred term is "award-winning". The overarching point here is to better balance the introduction and note that the movie has received many awards, not just one albeit important one; this is something the introduction still doesn't account for. As for if it'll win an Oscar, that's a point of view I'm unwilling to concede just yet.  ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed change is this?:

>Brokeback Mountain is an award-winning 2005 film directed by Ang Lee. The film, which has been a commercial success and critical favorite, stars Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Williams, Anne Hathaway, and Randy Quaid. Its frank depiction of a same-sex relationship, including its physical and emotionally romantic aspects, has generated praise as well as some controversy.

I guess my issue with that version is that many, many films have won awards. Pretty much every film critics' society in any municipality gives out an award. All kinds of little film festivals give out awards. You might as well take out any qualifier for "2005 film" if you're going to say "award-winning." It doesn't mean much. (Did it win an award for best adapted screenplay from the Toledo Critics' Association? Who knows?) Noting that it is "Golden Globe Award-winning," on the other hand anchors the film as having won a particular kind of acclaim and puts in a particular, unique category. That being said, if BBM had won some relatively minor category in the GG, it wouldn't need to be in the intro. But the GGs are the biggest award ceremony so far this season and BBM won Best Picture-Drama. That's an important enough fact about the movie right now, January 27, to include in the first graf. We can put this to a vote if you want.

And I don't think anyone said here that it would win the Oscar. I just said that if and when it is nominated (and it's pretty clear it will at least be nominated), that info can supersede the GG info in the intro. Moncrief 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily oppose removing arguably subjective qualifiers from the introduction: this is an encyclopedia, after all, that should objectify topic matter.

Yes: many films have won awards, but even fewer have garnered ones of global note ... as BBM has. I wouldn't expect just any article to note that, however, or upfront. And note that all of the awards/nominations are noted below – including multiple GG awards? – and I believe an upfront mention of one can dually anchor the intro and obscure it. This isn't a huge issue (i.e., a vote is unnecessary), though – upon perusing, the GG mention merely leapt out at me as being too specific/focused for an introduction. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I hear you about having intros that are too detailed, but I just don't agree that mentioning the GGs is too detailed in this case. I do understand where you're coming from because I've seen many intros on Wikipedia with too much specific information up front. I just think it's relevant enough for inclusion there (repeating myself here... I'll let others say their piece now). Moncrief 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

He he; no problem – like I said, it's not a clincher for me. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

E Pluribus, you say Schindler's and Godfather aren't upfront about awards, but more recent Oscar Best Pics are; see Million Dollar Baby, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film), Chicago (2002 film), and Gladiator (film). Clearly though the Oscars are the 'gold standard' and the lead should reflect whatever success (if any) BBM has at that event. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 06:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

True: my concern was in having TMI in the introduction – many awards and nominations are noted below. Prior notation of the GG award (in the first sentence) leapt out at me as awkward and unbalanced (I'm trying to objectify the topic matter). You'll also note above, however, that I'm more comfortable with noting an Oscar award/nomination vis-à-vis others in the introduction: it currently reads fine. Besides: there are many ways to skin a cat. :)

That being said, I wonder if there should be – or is – some sort of standard regarding award notations in movie articles? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for WikiProject Films.  :-) That project's current guidance on the lead doesn't mention awards. Interestingly enough, it doesn't even specify an awards section. Time for a discussion there I think. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 07:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'll pay 'em a visit. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Love and Lust, Two separate fields, in Plot Section

I’ve edited the main page’s plot section to reflect that loving someone of the same sex is not frowned on by most, it is lust. Loving people of any sex has never been a question, it’s lust and sexual act, so please stop removing the edited sentence of, “Through it all, Ennis and Jack struggle with societal and family pressure, and their own fears that prevent them from fulfilling the lust and love that captured them both during their first summer together.”

>to reflect that loving someone of the same sex is not frowned on by most, it is lust.

What does this mean? It is both a run-on sentence and rather contradictory. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

I also don't know what the rest of your post means. Should we include the word "lust" in all descriptions of love stories and movies anywhere on Wikipedia? I don't see you on the Romeo and Juliet page adding in "lust."

While certainly lust was an element, as it is in all stories of people who fall for each other enough to consummate their love, it isn't "lust" that sustains their 20-year love affair. Moncrief 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Love is a general term and in context to the plot, lust would be more appropriate. A mother can love her children and there is zero lust, along with two friends of the same sex. Lust is in question and is a more fitting word in the sentence used in the plot section.

Calling same-sex love impossible is YOUR POV, based on your assumption that two people of the same sex can't fall in love, which counters what we know about sexual orientation and which would make us ignore the many millions of long-term gay relationships on this planet. Obviously the two are not in platonic love, such as the love a parents has for a child; don't be insulting. Your "review" above (now removed) makes clear your agenda. Because you don't believe two men can be in love doesn't make it true that they can't be; it's just your own belief system. Moncrief 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking this matter to Requests for Comment. Please keep in mind the three-revert rule. Moncrief 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I said love is not restricted in any society. A man can love a man and it's totally accepted, but not lust. Lust is the appropriate word in the sentence of point. Please stop tainting the article with your bias to gay promotion. We want a perfect article not a opinionated one. Druidictus 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)