It was quite clear that the writer wanted to take a stance on the movie; however, along the way while writing, he lost his objectivity and, instead, his essay has deteriorated into a debacle of unauthorative rhetoric.
First, consider the tone that he sets at the beginning with the complaint that "Brokeback Mountain" will prosper and tries to equate it with the following:
"the bitter culture war surronding the gay-themed western will continue to be fought".
Almost immediately, he presents 2 paragraphs outlining a "Liberal" viewpoint and then a "Conservative" viewpoint. So far, the reader is being presented with a complaint that there is even a debate. How is the reader supposed to understand this staff writer? That he is writing this begrudgingly? Is the reader to sympathize with the writer's complaint that he does not want to complain and further his own debate?
Next, why would the writer write:
"Boys, boys, boys, settle down. Put them shootin' irons away. It's only a movie"?
Does he want to exercise his own paternal nature? Does he only want boys to settle down, but not the girls? No, he knew that what he wrote just before would inflame the sensibilities of some of his readers. So what should a reader think of this writer's comment? That he is proud that he is able to express his complaints so eloquently that it makes people angry? That he is our daddy and we are doing something wrong? Already, we have to start questioning whether the writer was writing this while baby-sitting his own "boys" since the tone already takes on a weak attempt to pen the reader into obeisance.
The writer continues by exaiming whether "Brokeback Mountain" has an agenda. Again, the reader has to stop and ask themselves what does he mean by "agenda"? All movies have agendas, otherwise, they would not be entertaining or throught-provoking. It is not surprising that the writer's choice of words suggests a hidden agenda... since the phrase "hidden agenda" has been used ad nauseum by paranoid schizophrenics who cannot trust anyone. So what is the reader suppose to think about the writer? That the writer has employed secret agents and spies to collect copies of memos from the desks of "Brokeback Mountain"'s executives? That he has seen the press releases, but interviewed them backstage in exclusives? That he is paranoid? What is his hidden agenda?
Later, the writer tries to separate the images from the words of "Brokeback Mountain". Fair enough... the writer wants to look at just the images; however, we are treated with a progressively narrower scope of what these images mean. And in the absence of an analysis of the words, the reader must realize that the writer is therefore substituting his own. His analysis is flawed. A proper conclusion to find out what the movie's agenda would be, is to treat the movie and its context as a whole. His analysis is like a blind man touches an elephant's trunk and exclaims "An elephant is exactly like a snake!".
As the reader follows this writer's tour of "Brokeback Mountain"'s hidden agenda, he introduces us to his edition of the movie: "Brokeback Mountain" is about homosexual life versus hetereosexual life. If the writer's credibility has not started to dissolve, then it is surely melting now. He does not like the debate, but he must debate. Is he presenting facts or interpretations? Does he know the difference? That would be a good question... so the reader continues to read the rest of this writer's tour of the movie. Is he lucid or is he not? Is he sane or is he not?
Grandly, the reader reads
Homosexuality in Brokeback Mountain is always associated with a river.
At this point, we wonder was this writer on the wrong movie set when he interviewed the director? Next, he proudly proclaims that
"Metaphorically, it's the great river of homosexualilty, and safe and free
immersion in it is utterly joyful to them [Jack and Ennis]. Indeed, most of the two men's
squabbling and (mostly off-camera) lovemaking takes place next to the
river."
Please excuse the reader, but just what is meant by "mostly off-camera"? The writer seems to indicate that he has seen Jack and Ennis, mostly off-camera making love beside the river. Now we know that he must have been the paparazzi snapping up those unofficial pictures. Does the writer want to be know as the peeping tom or did he confuse the "Brokeback Mountain" movie set with the pornographic one that he is directing? Should the reader inform Jake Gyllenhaal's and Heath Ledger's lawyers?
Now he contrasts the great river of homosexuality with the imagery of family and hearth. with himself in the director's chair... from here on... I think you can guess the picture... and it is not a pretty one. Apparently, Jack and Ennis "weren't true men; they failed at the man's one sacred duty on Earth, which is to provide.".
I believe it is clear to the reader that the essay is a poorly written one and it is unfortunate that Washington Post's readers may include those that sympatize with the writer; however, it is very clear that the writer did say one truth: that the movie is not preachy, but he certainly is.
Peace,
Frank
