Contextualising Choice in Bisexuality: An analysis of Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Call

Contextualising Choice in Bisexuality: An analysis of Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Call

Me By Your Name (2017) (Won the best paper for "Gender and Media")

Shraddha Kumar* and Divina Sethi* 1

Jesus and Mary College

Abstract: This paper seeks to explore portrayals of bisexual relationships in two films set over a

decade apart. Both the films under consideration- namely Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Call

Me By Your Name (2017)- have bisexual male protagonists and have been received favourably

by critics worldwide. In this analysis, we aim to delve deeper into the various social and

contextual factors that define and subsequently influence the characters’ relationships as well as

the decisions associated with engaging in homosexual or heterosexual relationships when one is

attracted to both sexes.

* Authors contributed equally to the study 1

Aim: To examine choice in bisexual relationships by examining the role played by context in the

films Brokeback Mountain (2005) and Call Me By Your Name (2017).

Introduction

The year 2005 saw the release of Brokeback Mountain- a pathbreaking cinematic masterpiece.

Nearly twelve years later, we saw the release of Call Me By Your Name, initially pegged as an

“indie film” by critics, but later emerging as a commercial success. Both Academy Award

nominated films had a striking commonality that set them apart from mainstream cinema:

bisexual protagonists.

Spanning a period of twenty years (1960’s to 1980’s) in rural United States, Brokeback Mountain

depicts the commencement of a romantic relationship between the protagonists Jack and Ennis

while on a summer job. Upon terminating their relationship after that summer, the two soon get

married and start families with their wives. However, despite their respective marriages, the two

reignite their relationship that continues for over a decade until Jack’s premature demise.

Notably, for most of the movie, both Jack and Ennis are married or have a female partner while

simultaneously seeing each other.

Call Me By Your Name, on the other hand, depicts a summer in the 1980’s in the fictitious town

of Crema in Italy. The film shows the teenage Elio commencing a physical relationship with

Marzia, a friend. Despite his obvious attraction to Marzia, Elio also initiates a relationship with

Oliver, who is nearly a decade his senior. On Oliver’s return to the United States, however, their

relationship reaches its culmination. The film concludes with Elio making amends in his

relationship with Marzia, followed by news of Oliver’s engagement to a woman.

For the purpose of this paper, films depicting bisexual protagonists have been considered

because the bisexual community at large faces discrimination from both heterosexual society and

the lesbian and gay communities. This concern is even more apparent in the media where

bisexual protagonists are few and far to be found. (Barker, 2012).

Bisexuality as a sexual orientation has been scrutinised by both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

In his book, The Bisexual Option (1993), Fritz Klein notes that bisexuals are often seen as worse 2

than lesbians, as “Gays view bisexuals as spies and traitors.” Another common assumption

associated with bisexuality is one that views it to be a pre-identity state. This perspective restricts

bisexuality to a mere sexual practice, discrete from any other personal or political commitment

(Borgos, 2007). Borgos considers this stand to be the “major root” for biphobia both among

straight and gay identifying individuals. Additionally, Zaylía (2011) writes that that

homosexuals are distrustful of bisexual individuals because they always have the option of

having a conventional heterosexual life if their ‘gay’ relationships don’t work out.

Zaylía further reflects on bisexuality through her own experiences as a bisexual woman. She

believes that bisexuality falls outside the traditional discourse of gay/ straight boundaries, and

Interestingly, the use of the word ‘option’ itself implies a degree of choice. 2

thus is by itself a discrete identity. While homosexuals often seek to legitimise their sexual

orientation by attempting to biologise homosexuality by finding a ‘gay gene’ and stating that

their ‘gayness’ is not a choice; Zayía argues that there is a degree of choice inherent in

bisexuality.

She uses a taste analogy to explain sexual orientation, and likens being heterosexual to being a

‘spinach eater’, in a world that proclaims spinach as the right thing to eat. She further compares

being homosexual to a being a 'chocolate eater’, wherein you discover you are attracted to

some aspect of chocolate, leading to a flurry of questions. However, Zaylía critically argues there

are several different ways of enjoying either spinach or chocolate, and that bisexuals are free to

choose whether to eat spinach or chocolate, which are only two options among the ‘plentiful

food choices’ available. This somewhat simplistic analogy serves to assert that sexuality goes

beyond a simple gay/straight binary.

This perspective is in accordance with Malena Gustavson’s (2005) work on deconstructing

bisexual relationships. The idea of bisexuality signifying a novel sexuality independent of an

object of desire with a fixed gender has been emphasised in her research.

According to her, this position poses a threat to the object choices of both heterosexuals and

homosexuals since it violates the traditional ontology of having a fixed gender as an object of

desire- be it the same gender or the opposite gender; such resistance requires an entirely different

discourse to explain the bisexuals’ object of desire ontology. She further asserts “What if

bisexuality were to be conceptualised from within a bundle of factual relationships, rather than

from the abstract heterosexual representations of gendered and sexualised differences that still

operate within conventional discourses of homo- and heterosexuality?” According to her, this

reconceptualisation would imply a shift from an ontological gender/sex understanding of

intimacy, to one that involves an undecidable gender in the object choice

Due to this unfixed object of desire amongst bisexuals- male at one point and female at another-

they are automatically assumed to be polyamorous in their inclination by the heterosexuals and

homosexuals. Gustavson criticises this stand by asserting that monogamy itself is a

heteronormative construct that is imposed on homosexuals and bisexuals in order to normalise

their relationships, for instance, through gay marriage.

Discussion

In this paper we seek to explore choice in bisexual relationships as manifested through the

relationships depicted in Brokeback Mountain and Call Me By Your Name. As per Zaylía’s

analogy, the male protagonists of both the films do not confine themselves to a single ‘taste’,

although this is accomplished through different ways. Similarly, Gustavson’s work brings forth

narratives of bisexuals in willingly open partnerships. The presumption of polyamory, thus,

depends on the choice of the individuals. Furthermore, the privilege of choosing one’s object of

desire rests on the context of the relationship.

In Brokeback Mountain, Jack and Ennis can both be effectively said to be in a polyamorous

relationship, as both of them get married and have children soon after their initial encounter on

Brokeback Mountain. Moreover, Jack also engages in a brief encounter with a sex worker in

Mexico, and later takes on another male partner when he and Ennis are unable to meet as

frequently as he likes. While Ennis and Jack do not seem to show any discomfort about having a

long term female partner, Ennis is incensed when he discovers Jack’s liaison with the prostitute,

thus implying that a same-sex exclusivity (which is assumed to be absent in bisexual

relationships) was implied in their relationship. This shows the importance of choice to engage in

both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, as well as choice to engage in either a

polyamorous or a monogamous relationship- both of which become evident if the context in

which the films are set is considered. While Jack is keen that he and Ennis become monogamous

and start a life together in Vermont, Ennis’s upbringing by a homophobic father and personally

witnessing homophobic crime as a child do not permit him to live a publicly bisexual life. Yet

keen on continuing their relationship, Jack and Ennis choose to have female partners- well in line

with societal norms and expectations.

Furthermore, the assumption of bisexuality serving as a middle ground between the two more

“concrete” orientations of heterosexuality and homosexuality by virtue of fixed gender objects is

absent in this film; both characters have simultaneous heterosexual and homosexual relationships

and in the process, confirming another assumption, that of bisexuals having parallel relationships

with men and women.

In Call Me by Your Name, Elio and Oliver ’s relationship terminates prematurely as a

consequence of Oliver’s engagement to a woman. While Elio is raised in a progressive

household, he is seen conforming to religious standards, as evidenced by his thoughts about his

Jewish forefathers watching over his and Oliver’s union. Furthermore, Oliver belongs to an

orthodox Jewish family that would repudiate him if he chooses to be with Elio. Thus, Elio’s

religious views contribute to his rejection of polyamory, but not homosexuality- an orientation

openly accepted by his family. Oliver, on the other hand, is in a double bind due to his religion as

well as his familial background; therefore, he must resist both polyamory and homosexuality.

Oliver, thus, does partially conform to the notion that bisexuality is a pre-identity stage. Oliver’s

ultimate engagement to a woman supports the fact that his relationship with Elio was more of a

transitory one before settling on heterosexuality, and thus choosing a female partner to commit to

in order to have access to the shelter and privilege that it affords as an orientation. (Borgos,

2007). Thus, like in Brokeback Mountain, the notion of choice appears in both decisions made by

the protagonists of Call Me By Your Name: choice of the partner’s gender and choice of having

more than one partner at the same point of time.

Gustavson also asserts that monogamy has been idealised through the institution of marriage, and

is therefore used to critique polyamory. In such theoretical terms, the existence of adultery in

homosexual and heterosexual relationships goes unnoticed. It is, however, visible in bisexual

relationships and is equated with polyamory owing to the stereotype of bisexuals having loose

morals due to availability of both sexes as object choices. It is thus taken for granted that a

bisexual individual will cheat on his/her existing partner with a partner of the current partner’s

opposite sex. Such stereotypes have been internalised by bisexuals to an extent that monogamy

seems unnatural (“a sort of protest”) to them.

However, according to Gustavson, partners of the opposite sex are not threatened by one another.

Such adultery in a heterosexual relationship is present in Brokeback Mountain, since both Jack

and Ennis cheat on their wives. However, despite Ennis having two partners of the opposite sex,

his wife Alma is clearly envious of Jack. In case of Call Me By Your Name, adultery itself is

absent- Elio refuses to date Marzia since he is in love with Oliver. Furthermore, even upon

declaring his absence of feelings for Marzia, she is visibly unthreatened of Oliver. These

differences in the two films can be attributed to the level of commitment to the heterosexual

object; Alma’s reaction is in response to her role as Ennis’s wife, who is neglected in favour of

Jack. Marzia, on the other hand, is not in an official relationship with Elio, and thus does not call

out his homosexual relationship with Oliver as the cause for their “break up.” Therefore, yet

again, context becomes a relevant influence on the heterosexual object’s choice to react to the

homosexual relationship.

To summarise, assumptions like bisexuality signifies a pre- identity state, and that bisexuals

engage in polyamorous relationships may or may not operate in practice, depending on the

choice of the individuals (a) to engage in a homosexual or a heterosexual relationship (b) to have

simultaneous relationship with two partners of the opposite sex. Furthermore, these choices are a

result of and operate in a specific context.

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it becomes evident that a degree of choice can be indisputably

ascribed to bisexuality. Bisexual individuals can choose to remain in privileged heterosexual

frameworks, or shun prevailing societal norms and engage in a homosexual relationships. This

paper serves to argue that contextual factors play a key role in the choices made by bisexual

actors. In both the movies under consideration, the overall societal structure remains unfriendly

towards homosexuality, yet the protagonists of both the movies make different choices in order

to attain public acceptance. In Brokeback Mountain, this is accomplished by engaging in a

polyamorous relationship, where affection toward both the male and female partner are present.

In Call Me By Your Name however, the protagonist’s (specifically Oliver, but also Elio’s) beliefs

do not permit multiple partners, making heterosexist monogamy the choice. This serves to justify

the argument that theorisation about relationships and choice in bisexuality fails to be relevant

unless the context and the lived realities of individuals are taken into consideration.

References:

Barker, M., Richards, C., Jones, R., Bowes-Catton, H., Plowman, T., Yockney, J., &

Morgan, M. (2014). The bisexuality report: Bisexual inclusion in LGBT equality and diversity.

Retrieved from www.open.ac.uk/ccig/files/ccig/The Bisexuali- tyReportFeb.2012.pdf

Borgos, A. (2007) “The Boundaries of Identity: Bisexuality in Everyday and Theoretical

Contexts” In Beyond the Pink Curtain. Everyday Life of LGBT People in Eastern Europe. eds.

Kuhar, Roman and Takács, Judit, Mirovni Institut, 169-183.

Guadagnino, L (Director), Ivory, J (Producer), Ivory, J. (Writer). (2017). Call Me By

Your Name [Video File].

Gustavson, M. (2009) Bisexuals in Relationships: Uncoupling Intimacy from Gender

Ontology, Journal of Bisexuality, 9:3-4, 407-429, DOI: 10.1080/15299710903316653

Klein, F. (1993). The Bisexual Option. New York: Haworth Press.

Lee, A. (Director), Ossana, D., & Schamus, J. (Producers), & Ossana, D., & McMurtry,

L. (Writers). (2004). Brokeback Mountain [Video file].

Zaylía, J. L. (2009) Toward a Newer Theory of Sexuality: Terms, Titles, and the Bitter

Taste of Bisexuality, Journal of Bisexuality, 9:2, 109-123, DOI: 10.1080/15299710902881467