She says she found it slow, the Ennis Del Mar character maddeningly passive, and Michelle Williams as his wife pouty and irritating.
Okay, that's cool. Everyone sees films differently.
But then she says that 2-3 days after having seen the flick, she agrees with those who call it gay propaganda.
I have e-mailed her to ask her to explain, because I'm rather floored by this assessment, which I would not expect to be coming from a liberal, open-minded, unhomophobic pal.
I asked my friend this, and let me ask you, too:
Do you think that gay people will ever be able to have cinematic love stories that aren't about AIDS, that aren't de-sexed (i.e., fade to black before we see anything explicit), and that don't conform to a bunch of hetero stereotypes (which, in the case of "BBM," would have had required either Jack Twist or Ennis Del Mar to be fairly limp-wristed) without being accused of being gay propaganda?
People, the way our culture allows or disallows stories of people's real lives to be told is a justice issue.
When the majority population dictates the terms of the depictions of real life, we not only suffer for it artistically, we suffer for it morally. This is, perhaps, why Hollywood has seemed so spiritually bankrupt to me for so many years: the story they keep telling again and again reinscribes the Accepted Truth that macho men run the world, that love is a matter between beautiful men and beautiful (younger) women, and that the most interesting people on the planet are sociopathic torturer/murderers.
In fact, to answer my friend most distinctly, I would say, "No, I don't think that 'Brokeback Mountain' is gay propaganda. I think that the majority of films produced in Hollywood are white heterosexual male propaganda."