Snyder’s main argument is summarized in the first few paragraphs of his article.

Before seeing the film,

he hoped for a Hollywood rendering of “what life could be like as an openly gay man.” And, “a
homosexual whose natural desires were not deemed to be pathological.” Regrettably, what he viewed
in the film was not change, but instead another Hollywood representation of the homosexual as
demonized, outlawed, and as usual, left for dead.

Within his essay, Snyder shares the aspects of the film which led him to his conclusion. Throughout the
film the author sees the continuance of “homosexual” stereotypes. He claims that Jack is shown as a
predator toward Ennis, who is seen as more homosocial than homosexual. Furthermore, he expounds
that Ennis is in a way drawn into the sexual relationship, which he did not want. In addition, the film
shows the gender roles of the two characters, as Ennis trades places with Jack, as he tends the sheep,
and Jack stays in camp to cook and clean. It is also Ennis that shoots the Elk, because of Jack being a bad
shot and wanting more to eat than just beans. The result of these implications, Snyder argues, is to
“create distance between the homosexuality of Jack and the homosexuality of Ennis.”

The author further contends that the film affirms the idea of the homosexual as a deviant who needs
disciplinary action. Snyder points out the film’s repeated portrayal that acting on homosexuality results
in death. As a viewer of the film we see through Ennis’ eyes, and even beyond to where a gay rancher
has been murdered because of his living with another man. In addition, we see Ennis imagining how
Jack’s overt homosexuality resulted in his death. Consequently Ennis, although unhappily, lives because
of his secrecy, whereas Jack, because of his openness, is murdered.

Despite the fact that Snyder presents many interesting ideas in his review of the film, I do not agree with
everything he states. The comment I am referring to is when he says, “we (the viewer) assign blame for
that trauma not on the men who committed the crime, but onto the homosexual(s) that caused the
crime.” Perhaps there is a minority of the viewers that feel this way toward this scene in the movie, but
I do not believe it is what is commonly felt.

Although I can see and understand many aspects of Snyder’s argument, I view this film as transcending
much of what we have seen in “The Celluloid Closet.” This judgement is made as a result of what I have
observed from friends and family that have watched Brokeback Mountain. Despite the fact that the
story was quite sad and evoked a great deal of sympathy, it also disclosed awareness and sparked
understanding. As was discussed in the forum with Equality Utah, storytelling is important. Hollywood
is very powerful, and although this film might not have been perfect, it was a step in the right direction.

The main questions I have are:

Can you explain this phrase better? This imbalance in sexual subjectivity proves to be a critical element
when looking at cinematic pleasure because it results in a form of cinematic discipline.

Does the audience see disciplinary actions on the gay body as normal and justified?

Why did the movie show the 4th of July scene with Ennis kicking a man in the face?
I guess the main reason for this scene would be to show more masculinity in Ennis. This would add
further validation to Snyder’s argument of the film’s portrayal of manliness in Ennis.