I am considering how delicately the film handled the love scenes despite the fact that full on nudity, with simulated thrusting and orgasmic facial expressions have been stable Hollywood heterosexual fare for "R" rated movies for over 20 years.
We were even exposed to Dennis Franz's butt in action over a decade ago in NYPD Blue. That type of intimacy was carefully skirted around in this movie to appeal, I suspect, to a "broader audience" and eliminate any talk of the movie being gay porn. :o
Before you start throwing bricks, consider the following examples:
Take, for example, from the Short Story "Jack's choked 'gun's goin off'" at the height of his orgasm (p-14 of the story and p-7 of the Story to Screenplay book). This is not in the screenplay. That would have certainly made the scene seem a lot more pleasurable for Jack. By the same token, it would have made the scene (Jack?) more intimate but less animalistic. What was Annie's true intent here?
See also page 12 of the short story (in the screnplay to short story book):
"Ennis lay spread-eagled, spent and wet, breathing deep, still half tumescent . . ."
I know Hollywood is scared of showing a penis in anything but a full flaccid state but they do still show them. They were shown in this movie from a distance when the actors jumped off the cliff (but we never saw them frolicking or kissing while they were in the water, did we?) Most recently, remember the scene shot from behind Colin Farrell in Alexander as he was getting in bed just before motioning to his male lover to join him? That movie had a great deal more suggestiveness all the way around but was welcome from the "main stream" movie-going public.
Remember 1981's R-Rated "Body Heat" where Kathleen Turner shoved her hand under the sheets and messaged William Hurt's penis and then again as he was standing in front of the window and from behind she reached around with both hands and he said something like "Give me a little time to get ready again."?
Ang Lee made the comment he was more concerned about the gay reaction to this movie and if that is what he was talking about, I can understand why some people feel he feared "crossing the line." Jake made the comment (on Oprah or Leno?) that some of the comments the film is receiving is that it is "not gay enough."
Although not mentioned by either screen writers in the book (hopefully this will be addressed by either them or the director in the DVD), I think they had a fine line to draw between being true to the short story while still fleshing out the characters and not falling prey to the very thing that Annie Proulx was trying to say about homophobia in her book. It is my impression that they were going for a more emotional rather than a titillating response.
One of my gay friends who is also deeply touched by both the story and film, commented to me that he did not think the love scenes in the film were "realistic." I will stop short of saying they copped out but honestly, as much as I loved the movie, it was excellent showing the awkwardness and roughness of the characters but it did not leave me with the same raw intimate impact of the short story. :'(