Brokeback Mountain

[Chris Knipp]

Ang Lee: Brokeback Mountain

Powerful adaptation with great acting is the year's best American film

Review by Chris Knipp

"Brokeback Mountain," published eight years ago, is one of E. Annie Proulx's most admired stories. Quietly, understatedly, it describes the tragic epic love affair of a cowboy and a ranch hand who lived in Wyoming and Texas in the Sixties and Seventies. It's very much about an American time and place where such a love cannot be spoken, barely even lived, but in this case is so intense it comes to dominate the two men's lives. These "two deuces, going nowhere" meet working one summer on the named mountain tending sheep. One cold night their latent sexual desire for each other grabs them while they're snuggling to keep warm in a tent. It doesn't stop there. In fact it never stops.

After the job ends and they part, there's a huge longing that clings to both of them even though they don't see each other for four years and both get married. They wind up meeting every few months for twenty years, whenever they can, pretending to go on fishing trips.

The dirt poor ranch hand, Ennis Del Mar-- the Heath Ledger character in the new Ang Lee film -- continually tries to deny the intense desire for the other man and fight it, but Jack Twist (the Jake Gyllenhaal character) nonetheless is the love of his life. If we learn nothing else we learn that. Ultimately the story hits you with a wallop of emotion that's all the more powerful because of all the self denial, the barren terrain, you might say, on which this one big bright flower of forbidden and denied love still insistently and powerfully and painfully grew.

Annie Proulx's story touched me when I first read it. It spoke to something deep inside of me that I can't explain. I'm no cowboy. I didn't grow up in the rural West. But in some strange way it seemed my story. The repression, the hiding, the passion, the sadness, fit experiences of mine. I knew the feeling of hiding and not being able to talk about experiences that were more important to me than anything, while trying to feign conventional feelings and tastes. This is a story that gay men from other times and places have lived and that unfortunately many still live: the self denial, the repression, the fear of others' opinions and danger of being found out; the living of conventional "straight" lives that in the end don't really work and may even go very bad. Gay men who have lived this story know its sadness but also its hidden beauties and excitements. Much of Proulx's story isn't pretty, but it contains in it secrets of forbidden love you don't find many places.

The movie has to add stuff, to flesh out the details of the men's lives when they're apart that you may not remember from the story, but it hits you with the same wallop. The screenplay Larry McMurtry (of The Last Picture Show) and Diana Ossana have written expands Proulx's dry, terse tale without changing its essential pain, though it's a tough job -- and a tribute to the writing -- that it doesn't, because Ang Lee has made things so pretty, and clear, that you have to look for moments when the original spareness comes back.

It's in the way Heath Ledger talks. Ledger develops such a rich range of mumbles and coughs and grunts it's like a symphony built out of three notes. The movie has several performances in it that are peerless, but the standout is Heath Ledger, who has emerged in 2005 as the serious actor he wanted to be. Ledger's Ennis Del Mar is a wonderful character, tough, laconic, lonely, passionate, repressed. This performance of Ledger's alone is a joy, and it will endure.* Most every scene between Jack and Ennis evokes the tension and force of Proulx's tightlipped style.

The story's original spareness is there in the way the men make love, or mix kissing and fighting. It's especially there too in the way the film's bookended: the opening sequence of Ennis and Jack waiting for the boss (Randy Quaid) to show up so they can get hired. They're standing wordless, seemingly for hours, hiding under their hats, but as Anthony Lane suggests, even then they're probably already falling in love. At the end when Ennis visits Jack's parents, this is one of the best places. Their spaces and their faces are as lean as Proulx's sentences. It might have been nice to feel more of that leanness in between, but the wives and families had to be fleshed out; that was part of the game the filmmakers took on.

The Ang Lee version, with its beautiful photography and surprising actors, brought out in this viewer a sense of cumulative awakening of all the repressed awarenesses the story had first aroused eight years back. I remain so shaken it's hard even to write about it objectively and seems ridiculous to try to find fault with something that seems so right as a filming of Annie Proulx's tale that it would be a personal betrayal for me not to consider it the American movie of the year. Brokeback Mountain may or may not be a great movie (it's already well on the way to becoming a celebrated one), but it's a great cinematic realization of an outstanding piece of writing. There's nobody in it who isn't good; you'd have to simply list the whole cast. Suffice it to say that Jake Gyllenhaal, who's had quite a good year in movies himself, is just right for the other main role: he has the sweetness, the strength, and the sincerity to balance Ledger's sad aching self repression.



_______________

*Stephen Holden in the New York Times: "Mr. Ledger magically and mysteriously disappears beneath the skin of his lean, sinewy character. It is a great screen performance, as good as the best of Marlon Brando and Sean Penn."

[cinemabon]

There's plenty here to absorb from many points of view. Even the straightest man can identify with being trapped in a marriage of convenience when longing for someone else they truly love. Very nice review, Chris; heartfelt and sincere.

I've been interested in this project since I first heard about it last year when it was still in production. But seeing Eng and Ledger on Charlie Rose revealed details they hadn't spoken of in other interviews. Eng was especially keen on building up a true relationship with the two actors, making them spend time with one another both on the set and off. From the moment they did their first dry read, the two men knew they would have to portray genuine moments of affection. Eng purposely did not shoot any sex scenes until the end, knowing by then Jake and Keith felt comfortable around the other. On the night before the [sex] shoot, Keith's girlfriend told him not to worry and to "get into the part." After that, he said he felt liberated, but that he still was not gay. An open affirmation for publicity purposes and male ego, I'm sure.

Eng called this film his most personally satisfying film, and likened his previous directing job on "The Hulk" to 'building a space craft with hand tools.'

I look forward to seeing the movie on its release this Friday. Whether straight or gay, this film represents a milestone in Hollywood where a love story between two men may just be nominated and win, Best Picture of the Year... maybe. It's up against a big ape and a communist.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for this contribution. I think Brokeback Mountain will have some advantages for awards because it is warm and emotionally intense, and some of the other contenders are good but pretty dry. Anyway I don't really care about that issue of the awards at this point so much; I just want people to see the movie. The Charlie Rose interview sounds good. Ledger said in another interview to Sarah Polley he hopes people see it, that "it's important." This goes ten steps beyond Demme's tame Philadelphia, which as somebody said recently is really a movie about a man who hates homosexuals (Denzel Washington's lawyer character

[hengcs]

Director: Ang Lee
Cast: Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal

The official website
see
http://www.brokebackmountain.com/


My thoughts ...
-- Wow, it is one of those films that you go for the acting and cast! Heath is excellent, but so are Jake and the rest of the cast ... go for it! It is one of those films that you go to FEEL for the characters (as the plot is simple enough and not many events happen) ... so please have an open mind ... if you feel for the characters, you will think it is an excellent film; otherwise, you will wonder why the pace is so slow and what all the hype is all about ...
-- I like the tagline "Love is the force of nature" ... well ... to me, it has a pun, their love are ignited by the force of nature (the external environment) as well as their own force of nature (their internal desire) ... excellent! Yet, their love are also bound by their external environment (time and place) as well as their own internal environment (feelings and emotions) ...
-- Despite being an independent film, it looks great cinematographically! wow ...
-- I also like the score and song ...


What could be better ...
-- Hmmm, the marketing ... frankly, it is not a gay cowboy film nor an old Western film ... cos it is much more than that ...


Conclusion:
-- Highly recommended ... but please go with an open mind ... cos it is so much more than just a story about two gay cowboys ...
;)

[hengcs]

Interestingly, many reviewers forgot to mention that Ang Lee also had an earlier well known film about gays too ...

* drum roll *

The Wedding Banquet ...

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, Wedding Banquet should be mentioned, but only to note how different this is and how much deeper it goes into gay experience. I guess it's more germane than The Hulk, but only just. I hope Filmwurld viewers don't have to be asked to keep open minds because they already do that. It is true that whether the story touches you very much personally, as it does me, or hardly at all, it is worth watching for the strength of the two main performances, as well as many other good ones. Yes maybe the plot is "simple enough" but it carries considerable emotional complexity. I am not sure whether or not the movie was "marketed" as a "gay cowboy film," or whether it simply is typed as that. But it is a film about gay cowboys, as far as I can see, so there's nothing wrong with that, and other reviewers have stressed that it is "just" a love story and actually a pretty "straight" one. cinemabon pointed out that you don't have to be gay to relate to loving somebody you're not able to be with. Marketing can't be too complicated. Some were turned off totally by the trailers, others were turned on by them. You can't control that. The "marketing" that I have seen didn't distort the nature of the movie, but it's bound to turn off some people. That's inevitable.

[cinemabon]

Sentiment in Hollywood is growing strong. The Los Angeles Times entertainment reporter Patrick Goldstein writes today that industry insiders are picking "Brokeback Mountain" to win Best Picture this year. Current odds place the film higher than Speilberg's Munich and Jackson's King Kong or Walk the Line (biopic of Johnny Cash). Several critics have lambasted Speilberg, including Variety's Todd McCarthy for the handling of Munich's release. Ang Lee is well liked in Los Angeles and seems the odds on favorite, along with Best Actor favorite Heath Ledger. Look for Mountain to take Pix, Director, Actor and screenwriting.

[Chris Knipp]

That would be amazing, for gay people like Denzel Washington winning the Best Actor Oscar was for African Americans. It's not for me to compare it with anything else; I simply find it the most moving and emotionally valid. I am waiting to see Munich. Spielberg can be masterful and the topic interest me, I am eager to see how he deals with it. Otherwise, Walk the Line is a nice biopic, but not as powerful as Brokeback. You know my opinion of King Kong. Jackson got justly rewarded already for a much more significant body of work on LOTR. I simply don't share the high opinion of A History of Violence that some have. My Best Foreign list is another whole list.

[oscar jubis]

Random Thoughts About Brokeback Mountain

*Seems to me, when you boil it down to its basic purpose, that Brokeback Mountain aims to put that knot-on-your-throat_that physical manifestation of deep empathy, that sign indicating you share the heartbreak experienced by characters who are decent and good. My knot came well into the movie, perhaps because I hadn't read Annie Proulx's story. As a result of its linear chronology, the full realization of the principals' romance remains a possibility until the last chapter, which creates a sort of suspense. I wonder how the film would affect me if the filmmakers had at least given a hint of the extent of the tragedy at the beginning and flashed back. I think I would have liked to watch the whole thing with that delicious knot making my breathing shallow.

*What's novel about Brokeback Mountain is inherent to the premise of Proulx's story: the juxtaposition of same-sex romance with western milieu. The story casts a spell on all those notions we've developed for decades about "the West" and the people who tamed it. It opened doors inside my mind about the nature of the relationship between cowboys in some classic westerns that I love.

*Brokeback Mountain may be called a "gay-interest" film or "gay romance" but it's certainly not "queer cinema" (the heterosexual grizzly man in Herzog's doc IS queer but not Jack and certainly not Ennis). I'm contemplating the notion that this will help Brokeback Mountain gain wide mainstream acceptance, including awards. A comment from a conservative, apparently a Christian, on IMdb leads me to believe that the film may help develop more open-minded attitudes about homosexuality in our society.

*What's truly old-fashioned about Brokeback Mountain is the filmmaking. As far as the visual approach to it, the film could have been made 60 years ago. It's a capable, solid film in every aspect of its production. I don't think the film looks any different because Ang Lee directed than it would had it been made by any of a large pool of competent current directors. The big surprise for me was that Brokeback Mountain was lensed by Rodrigo Prieto (DP for Amores Perros, Frida, 25th Hour,etc.) because there isn't any trace of his style to be found here.

*Adapting Proulx's story was a no-brainer. What makes the resulting picture truly special is the outstanding performance by Heath Ledger. He's the reason I'll be watching Brokeback Mountain again in the future.

[Chris Knipp]

A comment from a conservative, apparently a Christian, on IMdb leads me to believe that the film may help develop more open-minded attitudes about homosexuality in our society. That would be nice, and I think it's what a lot of gay people are expecting and hoping for in welcoming this film. I'd like to know more about that without wading through every Imdb comment -- there are many. In fact, due to this movie's mainstream appeal plus gay interest, the blog content, etc. lavished on it has been huge.

The lack of Queer Cinema edge in Brokeback means that young gay hip urban males will tend to find it lacking, and don't care if it has a positive effect such as you refer to. I consider this a lack of perspective, but "mainstream" is a bad word for some -- who may complain about being marginalized while at the same time counting themselves out of society in general by choice. The contradiction may not even be seen . As I've said lots before, when "mainstream" and "good" come together -- which I don't consider to be oxymoronic -- that in my view is cause for rejoicing.

I'm not sure Ang Lee has shown a very clearcut personality, so your saying this movie hasn't a particular stamp of his work is hard to interpret. He's done Chinese (gay) social comedy, martial arts, East Coast suburban Seventies angst, The Hulk -- where is the common thread, other than the fact that he is capable of good work, but can also disappoint? Are you sure you're not being seduced by the mainstream (Ebert/Roeper et al.) reviewers' strategy of repeating over and over that this is "just a love story," when scenes in it show you it damn well isn't straight; they want to co-opt it and thereby neutralize its potentially radical effect.

I can't tell from this whether or not you have read the story now, but your remarks prompt me to stress that my response to the movie can't be separated from the fact that I read the story earlier, as i said in my review, and was deeply impressed by it. I can't possibly imagine what it would be like to see the movie without having read Proulx's story, but I don't think that a disadvantage, just a fact. I think the story is a very fine piece of work and I am not alone, obviously. As you say, making it into a film is "no brainer". But then, making a movie of Patricia Nell Warren's novel The Front Runner from `1976 was a "no brainer," but although Paul Newman bought the rights to it, it never came to be. So I don't know what the "no brainer" is. If you're saying it had to happen that ignores the fact that it very well might not have. The majority of people who see this movie will not have read the story so I don't know what their experience is. But as far as I'm concerned they're at the disadvantage,, not the person who's read the book or story. Likewise with the new Pride and Prejudice. Not knowing the book doesn't give you more license to praise the movie, it just means you don't know what you're talking about.

When I first read the story, while intensely relating to it, I also thought that it might be considered anti-gay, because it presents gay life (once again) in such a sad light. Now I can see that in representing in a vivid and intense light a tragedy of gay experience, it can bring home to the mainstream the predicament of gays forced to live in a closed straight world.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Are you sure you're not being seduced by the mainstream (Ebert/Roeper et al.) reviewers' strategy of repeating over and over that this is "just a love story," when scenes in it show you it damn well isn't straight;

I'm baffled and a bit annoyed by this. What prompts you to ask ME that question? "Just a love story" is not my line, not even remotely. Maybe you'll find someone who takes that angle so you can raise the issue with him/her. It's a "gay romance" and the story is so good that adapting it is a "no-brainer". And "what's truly old-fashioned is the filmmaking" (the crafting of images to tell the story, which has nothing to do with whether is "just a love story" or something else).

The majority of people who see this movie will not have read the story so I don't know what their experience is. But as far as I'm concerned they're at the disadvantage, not the person who's read the book or story.

I was simply wondering what it would feel like to watch it with the knowledge of the tragedy within me from the beginning. I liked getting that knot in my throat. I think it would have been there throughout had I walked in knowing how the story turns out.

[Chris Knipp]

Revolutionnaries often write very conventional, straightforward prose. The better to get their points across. The content is often what makes a thing radical. I may appear to misinterpret your words. I know you said it is a gay love story. But when you say the filmmaking is conventional, you are undermining the radical content.

Why does everybody harp on the fact that this movie is "conventional" ? That's all I'm asking. Aren't most movies "conventional" in style? Otherwise people couldn't foillow them.

As for lumps in throats, I am not the type to start crying during the opening credits. I never understand why knowing how a story turns out is supposed to "spoil" a movie--or, in your view this time, make you start feeling sad during the early parts. In fact my friend Helen who saw Brokeback Mountain with me, found the movie less affecting than the story.

Even if you didn't read the story I should think you'd sense that a cowboy and a ranch hand in Wyoming having a secret romance were headed toward tragedy or at least bad trouble.

But I don't buy the idea that in a movie it's somehow better to be surprised by the content or the plot.

"When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise"? But the whole experience of a movie, book, etc. is enhanced the morre we know about it, including reading the story Brokeback comes from before you see the movie.

However, my friend Helen found it less moving than that story. Having read the story earlier somehow may have weakend the effect.

So, there's no accounting for taste, and there's no accounting for lumps.

[cinemabon]

I lived and worked in Hollywood in 1976 when The Front Runner was on every coffee table of every house in town. Then they made that awful film with Muriel Hemmingway (Personal Best) which bombed. The same story twist with a far different ending and involvement. I don't mean to digress from your discussion with Oscar, but when you mentioned that story I had an absolute flashback! The whole town gasped when Newman declared he wanted to play the part. Then he went Oscar hunting instead, probably advised playing a gay part would hurt his career. Well, I say let's get the story resurrected. I read the book and cried. Great drama.

As to Brokeback Mountain, its wide release did not include Raleigh. I've watched all the clips and read all the reviews, but won't be seeing the film anytime soon. I feel the same way Heath Ledger must have felt when he described his stone-faced acting style for this film on Charlie Rose. "I figured [my character] could say more with a look than with many words. So that's the way I played it."

I'm very upset with the distribution system right now. You should see my face.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
As to Brokeback Mountain, its wide release did not include Raleigh. I've watched all the clips and read all the reviews, but won't be seeing the film anytime soon.

Brokeback Mountain is not on wide release yet. It's currently playing at 69 theatres, according to industry reports. (I don't know if by "theatres" they mean "screens" as the Regal SoBe, where I watched it, is showing it on three screens simultaneously). Anyway, the film broke per-screen records during its opening weekend. Universal has moved up the date for wide release to Jan 6th, when the film will be playing at close to 400 theatres nationwide. I would hope that includes Raleigh.

[Chris Knipp]

I lived and worked in Hollywood in 1976 when The Front Runner was on every coffee table of every house in town. Then they made that awful film with Muriel Hemmingway (Personal Best) which bombed.

Gee, that is frustrating, though I don’t personally think of Personal Best as that awful film with Muriel Hemingway that bombed; I think of it as one of the savviest movies about track and field ever made. That was the time of the “running craze,” which I was kind of a part of, and hence they had Kenny Moore as an advisor, a real runner.

As for The Front Runner, it is like Brokeback Mountain the story, something by a straight woman that seems uncannily, and it that case in much more detail, accurate about gay experience. A straight woman friend of mine read it recently at my urging and pronounced it a damn good read. It's really a page-turner, and, well, amazing and exciting and a good weepy, and it should make a great movie. But you have to have the right people to make it; in the wrong hands it could be another awful film that bombs..

I am sure Oscar's right about the release plans for Brokeback. It has done intensely well in a very limited release, which I'd have to say has turned out to be a good strategy. In SF it is also on three screens; I dare say Miami has a strong gay population. I imagine they mean theaters not screens in the count, but I don't really know.

[Chris Knipp]

I lived and worked in Hollywood in 1976 when The Front Runner was on every coffee table of every house in town. Then they made that awful film with Muriel Hemmingway (Personal Best) which bombed.

Gee, that is frustrating, though I don’t personally think of Personal Best as that awful film with Muriel Hemingway that bombed; I think of it as one of the savviest movies about track and field ever made. That was the time of the “running craze,” which I was kind of a part of, and hence they had Kenny Moore as an advisor, a real runner.

As for The Front Runner, it is, like Brokeback Mountain the story, something by a straight woman that seems uncannily, and it that case in much more detail, accurate about gay experience. A straight woman friend of mine read it recently at my urging and pronounced it a damn good read. It's really a page-turner, and, well, amazing and exciting and a good weepy, and it should make a great movie. But you have to have the right people to make it; in the wrong hands it could be another awful film that bombs.

I am sure Oscar's right about the release plans for Brokeback. It has done intensely well in a very limited release, which I'd have to say has turned out to be a good strategy. In SF it is also on three screens; I dare say Miami has a strong gay population. I imagine they mean theaters not screens in the count, but I don't really know.

On Charlie Rose's end-of-year movie roundup with Denby, Corliss, Schwarzbaum, and Scott, they discussed Brokeback in detail, and it seems to be moving rapidly toward Oscar glory in their view. Isn't that partly because a good weepy beats out more intellectual stuff like Capote, A History of Violence, Good Night, and Good Luck, etc.? This year I liked Denby's first choices, whereas other years he's really annoyed me. Most seemed neutral toward King Kong, and negative toward Geisha except for Corliss.

The ones coming out in the next week that look most important are Munich and Match Point, with The New World looking like an interesting disappointment

[wpqx]

Well my verdict is this, overrated. I wasn't surprised, I mean hard for any film given this much insane praise to measure up. People seem more interested in praising the subject matter than the actual film itself, just as I believe the Crying Game was vastly overrated. Ledger is good, but damn I was expecting something more. I think that Jake's got the harder roll, and when he pulls it off it is much more rewarding. Although my favorite moment in the film came from Anne Hathaway. When Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) finally tells his father in law off during Thanksgiving, you see her crack a very brief and subtle smile, she's loving it, and everyone in the theater knew it.

Michelle Williams' Alma seems downright tragic here, and she seems poised to burst into tears at any moment. It's a sadness I haven't really seen from her, and makes us sympathetic to her, even though Ennis is the main character here. He is a man of few words, but you get the feeling that he chooses his words wisely, and doesn't just open his mouth, as other character invariably seem to.

Now there are some things the film avoids. Most notably is a confrontation between Jack and Lureen, but you get the feeling that she knows what's been going on, just as you get the feeling that his parents know the truth. The only real confrontation comes from Alma, who confronts him years after their separation. It is a scene for dramatic effect, that I'm not sure I particularly felt.

Ledger has most of the best moments to himself, and I'd say the highlight of that comes from him visiting Jack's parent's house, and going in his old room, finding that old denim outfit still covered in his own blood from that fight they had the very first time on Brokeback. It is the one time where we really feel what Ennis feels, where his lack of articulation is appropriate. The film is full of good and inspired moments, but far from the best film of the year praise that it's been racking up.

*spoiler*
Now perhaps the story is a little predictable. Love has to be tragic, especially gay love in movies. America doesn't take to kindly to queers and naturally these two had to pay. I figured both would be killed as was foreshadowed. Perhaps and Easy Rider like execution, but we weren't given that route. Instead a classic case of Hollywood moralizing came into play. Surely Jake's cowboy had to die, he was the promiscous one, and he was the agressor during that first night together. He started it, he was the "wicked" one so of course he has to pay with his life. It's all trivial nonsense and I think the film could have prospered without going that route, I also felt perhaps an AIDS reference would pop up, because his death does coincide nicely with the epidemic.

Grade B+

[Chris Knipp]

It may be overrated by the critics; I personally am glad of that, because this is the American movie that has had the biggest emotional effect on me this year. And even you acknowledge that it's a damn good movie. I can sympathisize; I also tend to underrate movies I think the critical majority have gone overboard on. But weren't you the one who was saying it sounded horrible, before it had opened?

I'm not sure the ending coincides with the AIDS epidemic. But anyway, such an ending would have had little to do with the western milleu, which is central to the story by Proulx, which the movie follows closely, only expanding the parts about the families.

[wpqx]

Well they said 20 years, and the homosexual community seemed to be affected by 1983. And yes I did think the movie looked horrible. Trailers have a way of making even the best films look like god awful pieces of crap. And all homophobia aside, I wasn't really sure I was jumping up and down with excitement to see Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal have wild butt sex in the mountains. I do find it odd though that since this movies release everyone seems to have forgotten all the praise given to Ledger for his supporting work in Lords of Dogtown, a film I found to be a little underrated by most sources.

[Chris Knipp]

We come at this from different points of view to put it mildly. A lady I just met said the trailer looked to her like it was a very good film indeed; I think it just brought out intuitive reactions in you which are purely yours. I'm not sure what you mean by "all homophobia aside" or if you yourself know what that means. But where we do strongly agree is Lords of Dogtown, which I am not forgetting by any means. It is very likely to be on my Ten Best U.S. Movie list. But Brokeback will be there too, and good for Heath. He had a breakthrough year I’d say.

[wpqx]

What I mean is that I'm not trying to sound homophobic, but I'm not really a fan of men having sex with men on film. Angels in America was close to my favorite film of 2003, but that doesn't mean I jumped for joy at the sex scenes.

[Chris Knipp]

I think you've made your point. I.e., you're not prejudiced....very.

But to begin with, that was not the best possible way to phrase that idea. “Homophobia apart” sounds more like you are saying “apart from my homophobia, which is a given, I also didn’t like….” Etc. Which in a way is what you ARE saying. Anyway you’ve made your point. Like a lot of people, you think gay people are fine, if you don’t have to see what they do in bed. That is fine I guess, but suppose I said I do like to see male to male sex on screen, is that relevant to anything re the merits of any film? Or suppose I said "I think it's fine to have heterosexual lovers onscreen as long as we don't have to see them French kissing or having sex....yech!!" Is that a good contribution to a balanced discussion of any film?

[wpqx]

I see what you mean, and yes it is an unfair double standard, because I'll never complain about two women having sex on film, but again that seems to go without saying.

[arsaib4]

Or suppose I said "I think it's fine to have heterosexual lovers onscreen as long as we don't have to see them French kissing or having sex....yech!!"

Don't worry, that doesn't very often, at least not in American films.

All kidding aside, you've made a good point, even though it's an obvious one. If the subject matter/situation demands it, then I don't have a problem watching gay sex. Films like Son frère wouldn't be the same without intimate moments. But, if I had a choice, I'd also go with two women.

[trevor826]

I don't know about the US but all the hype in the UK has pushed it as a "Gay Western" and I have no doubt at all that this will put a number of people off.

Another little point that shows it is not going to get a good run, it opened before Christmas but only with limited circulation, the most it's likely to get is a two week run in the multiplexes. We in Cardiff will not get the film for another week or two (if at all) which is pretty annoying but what can you do?

But, if I had a choice, I'd also go with two women. Ditto!

I can't help it. I'm a tart!

Cheers Trev

[pmw]

Originally posted by trevor826
But, if I had a choice, I'd also go with two women. Ditto!

Well in another person's work (filmmaker's / writer's) you dont have a choice ... no need to assert heterosexuality in the presence of homosexuality. Your money is always good here.
P

[trevor826]

It wouldn't surprise me if this does really well in Japan, a huge section of the Manga market is devoted to gay male romances, apparently they sell very well with females.

As for asserting heterosexuality, I'm past caring about things like that.

Cheers Trev.

[Chris Knipp]

All this belies some mainstream critics' claim that the sexuality doesn't mean anything here, "Come on, get over it, this is just a love story..." The sexuality does mean something, it pleases mainstream gay men, it apparently pleases women, it pisses off the Christian right, it turns off straight men, or puts them off, and it pisses off hip edgy young gays. How can it go wrong? But I'm surprised that it has seemed to do so well, at least with critics, and hugely well in its limited screenings so far.

[arsaib4]

The sexuality does mean something... it turns off straight men, or puts them off, and it pisses off hip edgy young gays. How can it go wrong?

So I guess this film has helped you let go of a grudge you once held.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't follow you. What grudge do you have in mind?

[arsaib4]

I tried to imply that you perhaps had one which prompted you to make that comment, but obviously that's not the case.

It should be noted that some Christian Right critics have approved the film for what it is. And yes, it has done extremely well at the box-office. Some say a critical backlash is coming, but it wouldn't matter if the film continues to collect awards and nominations.

[Chris Knipp]

First a couple of comments from the New York gay paper,Gay City (23-28 Dec. ’05) that show specific gay angles on the movie:

1. The paper's capsule review of Brokeback Mountain says it preserves the prevailing qualities of “sentimentality and archaism” of the story. Is this a put-down? It certainly sounds like one, of both story and movie. And there is good reason, from the gay point of view, for seeing both story and movie as retro.

2. An op-ed article in the paper by Clarence Patton and Christopher Murray relates the lives of Ennis and Jack to living “on the Down Low," which means in black parlance living as straight while having a gay sex life kept secret because of the danger of violent reprisals against them. The writers give recent examples to show this threat of violence and need to live on the Down Low is just as true for gay men of color today. The article concludes:


Annie Proulx's heart-wrenching story about two ranch hands whose overwhelming passion for each other is at odds with everything they think they know about themselves and their world is not, as has been pointed out ad nauseum regarding the film version, a 'gay cowboy' story. In fact, the film's depiction of ostensibly straight men in a hyper-masculine culture can more easily be understood as a metaphor for the experience of many men who do not identify as gay or even bisexual, but who nevertheless have sex with other men."

In a statement that has been quoted elsewhere, Nathan Lee, gay chief film critic of The New York Sun, replying on Dave Kehr's website to a brief dismissive review of Brokeback by Dave Kehr on Kehr's website (http://davekehr.com/?p=37#comments), wrote this:
Why is it that all the straight critics think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN isn’t gay, or at least gay enough? Spit-lubed buttsex and onscreen kissing and, gee, two men falling desperately, tragically in love with each other? Sounds pretty gay to me, but then I don’t take for granted a corny Hollywood romance that reflects my sexuality since, uh, they don’t exist. I’ll concede that BROKEBACK is, with the exception of Ledger’s performance, mediocre filmmaking, but I wish all you hip, with-it heteros would stop running to the defense of us ill-served gays. Three cheers for middle-brow man-on-man masochistic romanticism, says I. I’ve been watching you straights wallow in it long enough, Nathan Lee is not overly pleased by Brokeback Mountain but he won't stand for its gayness being surgically removed for us by commentators.

As always, if an experience can be felt as universal, it must first be specific.

Dave Kehr replied to Nathan Lee:
I don’t dislike “Brokeback Mountain” for being insufficiently radical — we are not talking Fred Halsted here — but for its preening self-congratulation, when all it’s doing is offering a compromised, conventional take on gay life that goes back at least to “Victim” in 1961.

Someone else then made the obvious reply that Victim congratulated its gay hero for remaining celebate while Ennis and Jack have hot sex on those “fishing trips”; this movie is an advance in mainstream representation of gay experience--which Kehr (I would comment) is covertly undermining. People on both sides of the sexual orientation fence seem to have trouble seeing what is and isn’t there in Brokeback Mountain. It is revolutionary, but revolutions take place in small increments.

I think it is inevitable to feel a certain degree of guilt as a gay man for praising Brokeback Mountain as highly as I have, since it represents another "negative" picture of gay experience as "doomed" as the mainstream has so often done in the past. However I think that it is still a fine film, as the story, which has exactly the same cast to it, is a fine story, and I also think -- know -- that in achieving mainstream acceptance one must make compromises, and move forward in small steps. I'm not sure Brokeback is really that small a step, considering that it shows "spit-lubed buttsex" and kissing intense enough to draw blood between men played by two young Hollywoood hunks in the roles. That is what I was trying to say a few posts back when I remarked that the movie must be worth something, if it offends everybody. The fact that it displeases everybody shows that it is a real shift forward, but too small a shift to satisfy the debunkers of its gay content or radical gays who (understandably) want a lot more and want it now.

[Chris Knipp]

Nathan Lee further replies on the Dave Kehr site with the following rather impassioned statement, which says it for me, as well. (I urge others interested in this discussion to go to the Dave Kehr website for the discussion, but Lee’s remarks are the most incisive.)Lee says:
How many mainstream movies have we seen this year in which a male star kisses a female star in plain view? Fifty? A hundred? Now how many have shown two major male stars sticking their tongues down each other’s throats? One. Let’s take a step back. How many movies IN THE HISTORY OF HOLLYWOOD CINEMA have presented such images? Edgy Hollywood gay = Hanks and Banderas slow dancing in PHILADELPHIA.
BROKEBACK rebukes the tradition of sexless mainstream movie homos. In an ideal world, I’d side with Armond White when he attacks BROKEBACK vis-a-vis marginalized films that treat gay sexuality and love with greater daring, subtlely, nuance. But we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world in which this “compromised, conventional take on gay life” - I agree! - is nevertheless radical in terms of representation. BROKEBACK’s conventionality is, in fact, an asset. This movie is not opening at the Quad.
Straight people simply can’t understand how epochal such images are to gay viewers fed up with the celluloid closet, hetero homogeneity, and neutered film fags (cf. CAPOTE, PLUTO, etc). Straight crix should stop congratulating themselves on breaking down what BROKEBACK isn’t, and try to see how very much it is.
Defending this tame, corny movie breaks my heart, as it reminds me how ill-served gay people are by mainstream culture. I get Dave’s beef with the film, I really do, and I respect his objections to the film on any and all stylistic/dramatic grounds. But I think his disappointment with the sexual politics holds the movie up to an imaginary standard, one that only straight privilege could think applicable.
Yeah!!

[arsaib4]

I posted Lee's earlier reply to Kehr's review and have read his follow-up which you just added. Needless to say, he's made some painfully relevant points. But I don't think enough has been said regarding how backward we are when it comes to honestly dealing with sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular, whether in real life or on screen. (Hollywood will certainly try to make up for it by giving it the Oscar, not unlike what they did when questions dealing with their negligence of black actors were raised.) A film like Brokeback Mountain wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in many European and Asian countries; in fact, they just might laugh at us for celebrating it. But hopefully, like you said, it's a start!

[Chris Knipp]

I agree completely, except I don't know about those Asian and European countries. We are dominated by our Puritan roots, but I don't know that homosexuality is A-ok in any other parts of the world either. I just don't know about that.

And I feel a lot better about the progress represented by this movie than I did about Philddelphia, which in fact was a sign of Demme's disintegration from the fresh, amusing, exciting filmmaker he had been in the Eighties earlier. As Lee says, Hanks walzing around with Banderas is a lot different from what happens -- among young Hollywood hunks -- in this movie. Philidelphia was a P.C. yawn. This is a story that as I said, packs an emotional wallop that stays with you. It's way, way different from Philadephia, and HOllywood's congratulating itself on producing it is fine with me, as long as it gets more people to see the movie.

[trevor826]

Sorry to jump in again despite not having seen the film yet.

Talking about Asian cinema though, there are literally dozens of gangster films especially from Japan where there is no issue of Gay, males have sex with males and this goes way back. There are also films such as "Happy Together" from Wong Kar Wai, I don't remember anyone questioning Tony Leung's sexuality, plus of course there are the films of Tsai Ming-liang and many others from Thailand, Singapore etc.

The only problem I know of in Asia is the Chinese Governments stance on gay/ lesbian issues which is basically total denial.

It isn't the same issue as in the US and UK, we're in part to blame for your Puritanical roots and although being "Gay" is at times trendy in just the same way as being lesbian, there is still a huge problem with it being "seen" whether on screen or in public.

Cheers Trev.

[Chris Knipp]

.There are lots and lots of American gay films. The point is that they are marginal--like Tsai Ming-liang or the Thai director you're thinking of. Brokeback Mountain is mainstream and has two Hollywood hunks having sex and in love.

But thanks and I would like a list of Japanese gangser films in which men have sex with each other. That's just a little problem you've got in China there, not recognizing that homosexuality exists...... I wouldn't say the UK has "puritanical roots." It wasn't founded by Puritans. But Puritans had a big influence in colonial America, or so we (north) Americans believe, and that has affected later morality over here.

[trevor826]

I'll try and list some, I'm not really into the whole "Yakuza" genre but I do remember seeing scenes in films from Kitano, Miike, Fukasaku and Ishii amongst others.

I'm hoping to see Brokeback Mountain Friday so I'll hopefully have something to add to the comments then.

Cheers Trev.

[Chris Knipp]

I have no doubt that you are right, though I personally have not seen these moments, or, probably, most of the movies youy're referring to. A spot check shows others note gayness in yakuza films and something by Kitano. Whether these show how "backward" we are is another question, since they are not gay love stories nor do they represent issues of homosexuality at odds with the surrounding society. It's easy to say "gay" is taken for granted in Asian films, but you could as easily say it's taken for granted in American films. But the statement doesn't hold up against social atttitudes. I just can't see that Asian societies are more sexually tolerant. Brokeback Mountain is a mainstream widely shown movie with well known start that takes up the issue of a homosexual affair within the context of a highly straight society, and that is almost unique.

[cinemabon]

Chris, I still haven't seen this film, although I've read a great deal about the movie via critical reviews, etc. Still, one of the things that I find remarkable, in contrast to recent films in the past when focusing on AIDS, is the lack of effeminacy in the main characters. One of the most blatant Hollywood stereotypes is that all gay men are slightly, if not overtly, effeminate. Whereas, the two main characters of this film are rugged men; men who on the outside at least appear what most people would call straight. What makes this film unique in some people's eyes is that there is a break with the usual stereotypical "gay" man roles. This is a story about regular men, and how they discover, against the grain of the society they live in, that they are not just attracted but love another man. "The love that dare not show its name" has been the subject of legend throughout history going back to the time when it was most accepted in ancient Greece. However, as blacks were given the "step and fetch it" roles in the first half of the 20th Century, only recently with Superior Court rulings do we find gay men reaching an open and more accepted status in society. As time progresses, we will lose the "Will and Grace" view of what it means to be gay, and perhaps, one day accept the fact that like any aspect to society, the gay world is made up of men from all walks of life, with more similar to those from Brokeback Mountain than society now is ready or willing to realize.

[trevor826]

Kitano may be cult in the West but in Japan he is huge, apart from directing and starring in films he is exceptionally busy with several TV shows.

Again where his or other films are cult hits at the most in the US, Europe etc, in Japan and other parts of S.E. Asia they are mainstream. He (amongst others) has directed films with "Gay" scenes and has taken "Gay" roles, the difference is not that it's taken for granted, it's just not a big issue.

I think that you would also find that in Thai cinema, it's not just one or two "Art-house" films, it's more the norm and definitely the mainstream.

Cheers Trev.

[Chris Knipp]

I'll be on the lookout to see if it is as you say.

[oscar jubis]

I'm always interested in this type of cross-cultural discussion. For the time being, I'm not buying into trevor826's argument. But I'm no expert on Asian cinema and I remain open-minded. This is what I know:

Of course, we have Kar-Wai's Happy Together which trevor mentioned.

The recurring character in Tsai's films has had two "gay" scenes: in Vive L'Amour he crawls into a bed where a man is sleeping and it's clear he desires him. And there's that great scene in The River (still my fave Tsai) in which he realizes that the man in the dark room, with whom he's having anonymous sex, is his father. I don't think that either film was a blockbuster in Asia but I could be wrong.

There are no gay scenes in films directed by Takeshi Kitano, but Beat Takeshi (his name when he's acting) played a character that lusts after a very handsome, younger one in Oshima's Taboo. If I knew of more films like this one I'd be inclined to agree with trevor 826, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the exception.

Sogo Ishii: I've only seen Gojoe and Angel Dust. No gay scenes.

Fukasaku:I've only seen the Battle Royale films. No gay scenes. Not impressed. Not half as talented as Miike.

Miike: I'm convinced NOBODY has seen all his movies. He makes at least 6/year. I've seen about 8 and I don't remember gay content but I could certainly be wrong. He is an expert shock-meister. I remember a sex-with-corpse scene, unimaginable gory mayhem, etc. He would include gay sex to shock, not to validate it, understand it, or normalize it.

I've seen two Thai films with "gay-content", both from the Chicago-educated, openly-homosexual Apichatpong Weerasethakul. He has said in interviews that his films are more popular in Europe than in Asia. The two films are: the very campy, outrageous The Adventures of Iron Pussy, and the sublime. experimental and masterful Tropical Malady, my favorite movie of 2005 that has gay content of any kind.

[trevor826]

Saw Brokeback Mountain early today, I'll write my opinion a little later except to say I enjoyed it and there was a good sized audience (mostly female) which for an early screening was a very positive sign.

I'm no expert on Asian cinema, neither am I but I'll try and respond as well as I can to your post Oscar.


There are no gay scenes in films directed by Takeshi Kitano

Yes there are in either Boiling Point or Sonatine, not sure which one.

but Beat Takeshi (his name when he's acting) played a character that lusts after a very handsome, younger one in Oshima's Taboo. If I knew of more films like this one I'd be inclined to agree with trevor 826, but as far as I'm concerned, it's the exception.

Try Gonin where he plays a Yakuza heavy who happens to be gay.

Sogo Ishii: I've only seen Gojoe and Angel Dust. No gay scenes.

Sorry, I knew when I typed Ishii I should have been specific, I was talking about Takashi Ishii and Gonin in particular.

Fukasaku:I've only seen the Battle Royale films. No gay scenes. Not impressed. Not half as talented as Miike.

You obviously haven't seen any of his earlier films plus he's only responsible for the first Battle Royale, he died at the start of filming of the second and his son took over. Also, Miike has remade at least one of Fukasaku's 70's Yakuza flicks, Graveyard of Honor.

Miike: I'm convinced NOBODY has seen all his movies. He makes at least 6/year. I've seen about 8 and I don't remember gay content but I could certainly be wrong. He is an expert shock-meister. I remember a sex-with-corpse scene, unimaginable gory mayhem, etc. He would include gay sex to shock, not to validate it, understand it, or normalize it.

Having seen at least 15 Miike films I can safely say he can make films of subtlety not just of shock value. Dead or Alive has gay sex, more like gay rape for shock value but the far more thoughtful Dead or Alive 2 is pretty homo-erotic.

As for Thailand, try Iron Ladies, Monrak Transistor or Tears of the Black Tiger. By the way, a lot of the characters in Iron Ladies seem really effeminately over the top but it's based on a true story and the actual people are seen at the end and are even more effeminate.

Cheers Trev

[trevor826]

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Directed by Ang Lee

Starring Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Williams, Anne Hathaway

A tragic love story about two people who can only steal precious moments with each other while leading ordinary lives, married with children. The major difference in this tale of illicit love is that the two people are both men.

The first thing that hit me on seeing the two principals was that it was obvious who would start the relationship, Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a slut, his nonchalant slouch speaking volumes. Sure enough on a night of temperamental weather, he instigates the relationship with Ennis (Heath Ledger), a relationship that will dominate the rest of their lives.

Both men sign on to take care of a flock of sheep in some of the most photogenic landscapes I’ve seen in an American film. Taking it in turns to play husband and wife, one caring after the sheep, the other ensuring there are enough provisions, cooking the food etc. Slowly but surely they are drawn together despite Ennis’s statement of “I ain’t no queer.” At the end of the season they both head their separate ways, Jack returning home to help his father, Ennis to join his betrothed.

Ennis marries and has children, seemingly happy with his lot in life until four years later when he receives a postcard from Jack, they meet and straight away the love they had resurfaces and they head off on a supposed fishing trip together.

From then on these trips take priority over everything else, wives, children, work until tragedy strikes, leaving one of them pretty much alone in the world having virtually lost everyone he cared about.

History tells us that a great many gay men and women hid their sexuality and led what we consider normal lives while often having relationships with the same sex outside of their marriages. Being gay has until recently had a stigma attached to it, indeed there are still professions that find it intolerable, where being openly gay could lead to serious physical abuse and/or ruination.

The sex scenes within the film are negligible, most passion shown through heavy kissing and hugging, the acting is excellent and it’s nice to see Anne Hathaway doing something different from the normal disposable fluffy roles she’s known for.

What did I like, the scenery at Brokeback Mountain, absolutely stunning. The acting, convincing all round. The story, had more than a ring of truth to it.

What didn’t I like, the music, sorry but I can’t abide Country and Western music. Anne Hathaway’s blonde wig, right for the film period wise but butt ugly, also Jake Gyllenhaal’s moustache, all I could think of was The Village People when I saw it.

Would I recommend it? Hell Yeah, I’m sure some gay people might not feel it goes far enough sexually but it should attract a good mainstream audience which an overtly sexual film wouldn't.

Cheers Trev.

BBFC rated 15.

[Chris Knipp]

In haste -- just got back from trip East -- as I hinted, a Google search did suggest there are a number of "gay" oral servicings in some Yakuza movies, and that there is something gay somewhere or several places in films by Kitano.

I appreciate your comments on Brokeback, trevor, but differ with you at several points or just don't think your comments are relevant, e.g., that you hate country and western music and that Jake's moustache reminds you of Village People; I don't think either comment relates to the people in the story. The scenery is beautiful, but most critics I've seen didn't think that a huge asset to the story, sinc emost consider the early, sheepherding sequences the least powerful in the movie. In my opinion they detract from the hardscabble quality of the original story, which certainly doesn't dwell on any scenic aspects of the men's work or relaltionship.

I strenuously object to the characterization of Jack as an "obvious slut," based on nothing but what you call his "nonchalant slouch" in the initial scene. This interpretation of Jack has been repeated by others, and one reviewer, not a very favorable one, has called Jack a "sexual predator." This is ridiculous. The only thing you can say about Jack in the movie is that he is made clearly the more accepting of his gayness and the less willing or able to resist it. How can he be considered the "predator" or the "slut" when it is Ennis who is the "top" as indicated in several scenes, and when you are saying there is nothing much but heavy petting and kissing, you are choosing to overlook the however briefly quite clearly indicated (as Nathan Lee puts it) "spit-lubed buttsex" between the two men. This interpretation of Jack as predator or slut is a way of going along with Ennis' "internatlized homophobia," and making him a victim. False. It takes two to tango.

[trevor826]

I'm sorry you found so much fault with my comments but after all the build up to the film, it was a lot lighter than I expected.

The slut comment wasn't meant to be taken too seriously and I was surprised that Jack was the one to be the (I don't know how you would word it), the one to recieve rather than give.

and when you are saying there is nothing much but heavy petting and kissing, you are choosing to overlook the however briefly quite clearly indicated (as Nathan Lee puts it) "spit-lubed buttsex" between the two men.

What I actually said - The sex scenes within the film are negligible, most passion shown through heavy kissing and hugging

Oh come on Chris, be honest that one scene is negigable, if the film had been between a man and a woman or two women, there probably would have been far longer and stronger scenes.

Another point, aren't passionate kissing and hugging signs of love and/or lust?

If they're not then please notify my wife in writing.

This interpretation of Jack as predator or slut is a way of going along with Ennis' "internatlized homophobia," and making him a victim. False. It takes two to tango.

A tragic love story about two people note the words love story and two people no mention of victim.

who can only steal precious moments with each other while leading ordinary lives, married with children. The major difference in this tale of illicit love is that the two people are both men.

I'm sorry Chris but this film is a mainstream product, just because the main relationship is between two men doesn't mean I have to look at it differently from any other tragic love story, why do I need to keep the emphasis on gay?

So what if I liked the scenery, that's the sort of comment I'd make on any film, same with my dislikes, the only time I had to grit my teeth during the film was because of the music.

Jake's moustache like Anne's wig were both suitable for the period of the film and in the case of Jake used to signal the passing years but I'd be happy not to see either again.

I did merit the relevance of the story in terms of reality and history, it's good to see a mainstream US film with a relationship that happens to be between two men, but in terms of the World as a whole, the fact that it's between two men is not a big deal.

I enjoyed the film and found it tragic in the fact that their love had to be hidden, not just because of the ending.

You cannot help but feel more for Ennis because his whole life seems to be one huge struggle throughout the film, the scene he describes from his childhood prevented him from making the break, coming out and leading a happier life with the person he truly loved, now that is tragic.

Cheers Trev.

P.S Up until this point I have not read one review of the film, I'm glad I went to see it blind but will now read yours and other reviews and comments.

[Chris Knipp]

trevor,

Your response is your response. I can't find fault with it on that basis. It reflects what you saw and felt. But when you say it's a tragic love story and then say it's lighter than you expected, that to me just means you didin't respond to it as much as a lot of people have, not as much as you may have expected to yourself. LIkewise when you say the sex scenes are "negligible," that has a subjective ring, in other words, it suggests not just that they are short but that they are not so important, but in fact they are very important.


The first thing that hit me on seeing the two principals was that it was obvious who would start the relationship, Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a slut, his nonchalant slouch speaking volumes. Sure enough on a night of temperamental weather, he instigates the relationship with Ennis (Heath Ledger), a relationship that will dominate the rest of their lives. This in my view clearly suggests Jack is a sexual predator. Hence "a love story about two people" doesn't extricate you from your implication, which I think is unjustified in the story or the movie. If one of the two is helpless to resist his feelings it's Jack not Ennis, who does (Ennis does) resist as much as he can, though obviously since it goes on for twenty years, they're both helpless. How do you get to see a "nonchalant slouch" as sluttish? Hve you got gaydar? Maybe I should write to your wife about that.

I'm just kidding, but though my gaydar might show me that Jack is going to start the relationship, though it didn't, and in that case I would know something neither of the two men knew, nothing would tell me from just the way he's standing that he's a "slut."


I'm sorry Chris but this film is a mainstream product, just because the main relationship is between two men doesn't mean I have to look at it differently from any other tragic love story, why do I need to keep the emphasis on gay?
You're taking us back to Square One. The thread has been about this for a while now. Please go back and read Nathan Lee's comments on the Dave Kehr website (which I quoted above) or read his thumbnail review in the current Film Comment. If the story didn't have universal aspects it wouldn't be getting audiences and awards, but as I said earlier, to be universal a story must first be specific and vivid and grounded in a certain world, and the mainstream critics who have said "aw shucks, this is just a love story," are consciously or subconsiciously trying to sweep the strong gay content under the carpet, because the mainstream (liberal) attitude toward being gay is "fine, that's okay with me, now let's not mention it again, okay?"
So what if I liked the scenery, that's the sort of comment I'd make on any film, same with my dislikes, the only time I had to grit my teeth during the film was because of the music.
If you liked the scenery you liked the scenery. That's fine. I was just ocmmenting on the response I've seen to the scenery, that's all. And I'll agree the music is very conventional and boring, maybe to you even seriouslyl irritating. But since I was deeply into the story, I didn't let the music bother me, I guess. In a longer review I might comment on it and probably wouldn't like it any more than you did.
I did merit the relevance of the story in terms of reality and history, it's good to see a mainstream US film with a relationship that happens to be between two men, but in terms of the World as a whole, the fact that it's between two men is not a big deal. What particularly gives you the authority to speak for "the World as a whole," and why is this "not a big deal" when much evidence is to the contrary?


You cannot help but feel more for Ennis because his whole life seems to be one huge struggle throughout the film, the scene he describes from his childhood prevented him from making the break, coming out and leading a happier life with the person he truly loved, now that is tragic.
It is true that after marriage Jack has an "easier" time of it financially by far than Ennis, but still, you seem to be putting your foot in your mouth here, because what happens to Jack in the end, eh? I think we have to feel for both guys equally, trevor, not pick one.

[oscar jubis]

DISCUSSION FUEL

"Brokeback Mountain raised the specter of a neo-Western first-wives club via its emotional investment in the disappointed spouses. Far from diluting the film's queer power, the hetero element emphasized the durability of Ennis and Jack's rawhide passion"
(Graham Fuller)

"A tender makeout between two hairy, paunchy midlifers_now that would be radical"
(Jessica Winter)

"Brokeback is not just another story of tragic, helpless victims. Repression, specially the internalized variety, is the clear villain here. It comes in many forms. Straight people claiming the authority to determine queer legitimacy and fetishizing it is one"
(Steve Erickson)

"The year most transgressive homo love story was Tropical Malady. Just as the crags and bluffs of Brokeback swallow up the star-crossed lovers, at once creating and destroying for them a false Eden, the Thai jungle to which Malady's young men retreat becomes both an erotic sanctuary and a literal fantasy world."
(Michael Koresky)

"If I hear one more straight critic complain that Brokeback Mountain isn't particularly gay, I'm gonna spit on my hand, lube up my cock, and fuck him in the butt. I'm only kissing if he looks like Heath Ledger, though."
(Nathan Lee)

[trevor826]

This is just getting bloody silly, you interpret what I say to suit your own means despite my explanation. You can twist and turn things as much as you like, it doesn't change my original intention.

This in my view clearly suggests Jack is a sexual predator

My initial comment was light-hearted, I can't help what you make of it.

What particularly gives you the authority to speak for "the World as a whole," and why is this "not a big deal" when much evidence is to the contrary?

I should have said the World in terms of cinema judging by films I have seen, also Gay is not just a male thing.

You're taking us back to Square One. The thread has been about this for a while now. Please go back and read Nathan Lee's comments on the Dave Kehr website (which I quoted above) or read his thumbnail review in the current Film Comment.

I did note that I hadn't read any reviews of the film before seeing it and writing my comments.

I think we have to feel for both guys equally

Yes I felt more for Ennis, that is my personal viewpoint and I did go on to explain why, what happened to Jack was tragic but when somebody dies you can't do anything for them, the real pain is felt by those left behind.

I hope you are not classifying me with your comments regarding (liberal) attitude or is there something wrong with me in treating gay friends and relatives in the same way I treat the straight ones?

I assume things aren't that easy even these days for people who are gay in the US? Over here things may be a little different, sure you've still got people who are homophobic just as we have racists and bigots of every description, most people I know of my own age and younger do not hold it against someone just because they are different in any way.

What really bugs me is that you enjoyed the film and I enjoyed the film and although we may be viewing it from completely different perspectives it doesn't change the fact that it was a good story well told with fine performances and good direction. The fact that you're gay may make it a hell of a lot more relevent to you, if by chance a love story is made that has personal relevence to me, I'm sure I'll get more out of it than you would.

Cheers Trev.

[Chris Knipp]

trevor,

I'm not trying to attack you--my intention is purely to address the issues.I don't think empathy is a direct function of personal relevence; if it were, we'd be awfully limited in what we responded to, as maybe some audiences are. I don't see that you are any more qualified to speak for the whole film world than for the world as a whole. Your generalizations about "things" being not "that easy" or otherwise seem pointless and vapid to me, but I am happy that younger people are mostly cool with gayness nowadays, you're right there, that's very true and a great thing. But the more there's liberalization, the more there's backlash. San Francisco is the gay mecca, but there are hate crimes in San Francisco. That's part of how it works.


Oscar, Good quotes.

Graham Fuller's brings up the fallout aspect, which is not so much in the story but is in the movie. A radio discussion I heard this morning brought that out. Façade marriages forced upon gay people by homophobia have led to a lot of pain for the others involved. Thus straight people trapped in marriages with gay people, or their offspring who themselves saw and felt that pain the situation caused, are also responding to this movie, which might turn out to be as much a landmark in this country as Lee Tamahori's Once Were Warriors was in New Zealand for its portrayal of alcoholic spousal abuse (for example).

Jessica Winter--hairy midlifers? That ain't romantic, man. People en masse like to identify with matinee idols, that's the way mainstream movies work. You reach a wider audience through more generically perfect looking people. Otherwise you're going indie. She makes the same mistake as Koresky.

Koresky's point I think has been answered by Nathan Lee et al. in the Dave Kehr website discussion of Brokeback. Tropical Malady was seen by a relative handful of people, so to call it "The year['s] most transgressive homo love story" is fine, but gets us no further. Things done on a mainstream mass appeal level are far more transgressive (or "radical") even when what they show is milder, because they affect a relatively huge audience (but I haven't seen Tropical Malady, so I can't comment specifically on it).

Nathan Lee's latest salvo is stated to shock, but I am with him all the way. I have rarely seen a better example because I understand something about this topic for once, of the way the mainstream critics misread stuff and sweep all minority interests under the carpet. I still don't know if they do it willfully or not. I think not. But that doesn't help or excuse it.

[mouton]

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
Written by Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana
Directed by Ang Lee


Before the accolades began falling around Ang Lee’s modern western, hype had already planted its spurs into the public’s anticipation. It was becoming known as “The Gay Cowboy Movie.” Yes, it’s gay and yes, the leads are cowboys but that title doesn’t do justice to the love that grows between these two men throughout the span of a twenty-year period. A love that lasts that long despite every challenge is the foundation of a good home. It cannot be explained or defined; it merely is. The fact that it is between two men is not relevant. All that matters is that the love itself lives on and the two affected by that pull are man enough to face it.

Brokeback Mountain is a quiet film that takes place in a simpler time. Conversations don’t run long or deep; the buildings in town are no more than two stories high; and work involves using your hands when you can find it. And if you were a man, you made sure you found that work to ensure having enough money to raise the family you were about to create. There was no time to waste wondering about where your life could take you as the life that you had brought with it certain responsibilities. If that meant herding sheep up on Brokeback Mountain all summer, then you made sure you were the first in line to get that job. The first two in line for the job here are Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, respectively).

Ennis and Jack meet each other in silence outside an office where they await work orders. And though they say nothing until they both have the job and are sharing a drink in celebration, they sneak glances when the other isn’t looking. It isn’t long before they’re on the mountain, a mountain of immense beauty with lively rivers and protective forestry. The sheep they are herding move up the mountain in waves and flow like the river they walk alongside. And once the two men, their dog and the hundreds of sheep have reached their camp, the foundation of love begins to be laid down. Amidst the purity of the nature that surrounds them, something innately natural begins to emerge, tying these two men together in a way they had never expected. They build themselves a home without even realizing as one tends to the camp all day while the other goes out to labour with the sheep. When Jack no longer wants to eat beans, Ennis makes sure to get soup despite his distaste for it. When Ennis cuts his head after being thrown from his horse, Jack is there with a wet towel to wipe away the blood. Their caring is shown through actions that come without thinking. They may not be able to verbalize the compassion one has for the other but the words aren’t necessary anyway. The trust they build opens the door for the men to share about their past lives and future hopes, neither having felt this safe with someone else before. And as their intimacy deepens, they are seen wearing less clothing, lingering longer before looking away until, on one cold night, Ennis joins Jack in the tent for a night that changes their lives forever.

It is one thing to walk around all day after you’ve had sex the night before when you weren’t expecting to. It is a whole other thing when you’ve had that sex with someone of the same sex when you didn’t think that was who you were. And it is yet another thing entirely when that someone is someone you care about. This turmoil can be read all over the face of Ennis, played with a fierce stoicism by Ledger whose silence screams how deeply he internalizes his confusion. Jack on the other hand, will not say how much he loves Ennis but will sing loud and proud about his happiness. And though the two will reach an understanding that their lives are not complete without each other, the complicated nature of their relationship creates a direct contrast to the simplicity that surrounds them. Consequently, this complexity seeps into their regular every day lives, threatening everything they’ve worked for.

The women of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN give varied perspectives on how it was to be married to Ennis & Jack throughout all those years. As Ennis’ wife, Alma, Michelle Williams, in a revelatory and eruptive performance, looks used and defeated as the years press on. She is introduced as boisterous and as a lover who might actually have a chance of getting into Ennis’ heart. In time, the obvious nature of Ennis’ relationship with Jack becomes as impossible to ignore as her disgust is to put into words. In drastic contrast, Jack’s marriage to Lureen (Anne Hathaway) is transactional. Neither feigns any love for the other and both are content with their arrangement. In fact, Jack has found a woman man enough to rationalize being married to a woman. Lureen’s lack of interest in her husband leaves Hathaway with a cold, distant performance while Williams’ performance is fueled by so many inner conflicts – love for her husband, hatred for his infidelity, disgust over his homosexuality, fear for her future and her children’s future – that she always looks unsettled, tense and desperate.

Outside world left outside, Lee’s love story is both tender and tragic. Gustavo Santaolalla’s somber acoustic guitar score carries you gently along for the journey as it exposes all the trappings life has to offer. Ennis himself says it best when he says, “If you can’t fix it, you gotta stand it.” And this certainly applies to his career of unsteady work or loveless marriage. Jack knows better though. Jack knows that Ennis and him have what it takes to have the good life, that they’re love is the kind that everyone wishes they had. Theirs is a love is that helps you through your problems if you let it grow but it is also a love that brings you nothing but trouble if you keep it all boxed up.

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is an important film and one that I’ve been looking forward to all year. It is a film that transcends its homosexual imagery allowing for the communication of the basic elements of the story to reach the viewer, any viewer. I took a deep breath before watching in an attempt to remove some of my expectations but I’m glad to say that it was everything I had hoped for it to be. Lee has created a benchmark film about how love can take hold of any two people at any time. I cried three times before the credits ran and was barely able to speak after the lights came up. My big, tall cowboy hat is off to you, Mr. Lee. A

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by mouton
The fact that it is between two men is not relevant.

Brace yourself for Knipp's retort to this. Ooh, I just can't wait.

[mouton]

I'm not terribly worried ... although he seems pretty adamant about this one. However, I feel it a testament to the filmmaker that he is able to convey human emotion to an audience that might simply get stuck on the imagery of two men as after all the story is about love, not about sexuality. We shall see; thanks for the heads up!

[Chris Knipp]

No, mouton, you have nothing to worry about from me. I don't feel the objections Jubis anticipated because you wrote a beautiful, understanding and generous review, truly one of the best and most touching I've read.

And you do justice to the special sexual element here very effectively when you say
It is one thing to walk around all day after you’ve had sex the night before when you weren’t expecting to. It is a whole other thing when you’ve had that sex with someone of the same sex when you didn’t think that was who you were. And it is yet another thing entirely when that someone is someone you care about. But the part in the review that impresses me the most is this:
They build themselves a home without even realizing as one tends to the camp all day while the other goes out to labour with the sheep. When Jack no longer wants to eat beans, Ennis makes sure to get soup despite his distaste for it. When Ennis cuts his head after being thrown from his horse, Jack is there with a wet towel to wipe away the blood. Their caring is shown through actions that come without thinking. They may not be able to verbalize the compassion one has for the other but the words aren’t necessary anyway. The trust they build opens the door for the men to share about their past lives and future hopes, neither having felt this safe with someone else before. And as their intimacy deepens, they are seen wearing less clothing, lingering longer before looking away until, on one cold night, Ennis joins Jack in the tent for a night that changes their lives forever. Wow! You saw it all. That whole paragraph about the relationship is beautifully written. All I can say is that you underplay the pain that comes for all concerned over the years when the two men marry and their families are set to one side and society is an unseen threat to their relationship all the time But you describe the development of that relationship most perceptively and write about your strong response to the movie with emotional honesty. Finally somebody really makes clear on this site how moving Brokeback Mountain can be to audiences. You captured that, and how the relationship develops without words, better than I did. You also describe the "pretty scenery" in a way that shows me better than I saw how it's integral to the love story. Bravo!

Another good line among many:
This turmoil can be read all over the face of Ennis, played with a fierce stoicism by Ledger whose silence screams how deeply he internalizes his confusion. Beautifully put.

I loved the generosity and enthusiasm of this review and have absolutely no problem with anything in it. In this context, the statement that it doesn't matter that they're two men works fine. It's not discounting what the relationship is, only saying that love is love.

[mouton]

Chris, you honestly just made my day. Your comments helped remove any doubt I was having about trying to convey how I truly felt about this film. It is truly haunting and tragic. And I agree with you completely about underplaying the other aspects of the film. Perhaps, I will revisit it later. Thank you again.

[Chris Knipp]

I was just saying what I thought but I'm glad you liked it.

[Howard Schumann]

I know you will disagree with many aspects of my review but this is how I saw it.

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

Directed by Ang Lee (2005)

"We kiss in a shadow. We hide from the moon. Our meetings are few and over too soon…" - Rodgers and Hammerstein (The King and I)

Based on a short story by Annie Proulx and adapted by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, Brokeback Mountain is the heartbreaking story of the unfulfilled love between two men set in America's contemporary West. Directed by Ang Lee and beautifully shot in the Alberta Rockies by Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto, the film has an epic quality, but is also a very intimate and complex human drama. While Brokeback Mountain is, in some respects, a classic love story with its nostalgia for the defining moment of first love, it is also the first mainstream film to depict gay men without exaggerated effeminate characteristics and to convey the rampant homophobia that exists in Middle America.

Set in Wyoming in the early 60s, Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) meet when they are both young ranch hands working together protecting a flock of sheep in the Brokeback Mountains. One is garrulous and outgoing, the other inarticulate and repressed. Heath Ledger's performance has been critically acclaimed and it is strong. He captures the confusion, the longing, and the profound sadness of a person who has been living a lie. Though proclaiming they are not "queer", the two men form a relationship that expresses itself in a sudden physical intercourse (surprisingly without any normal first-time experimentation). They have no language to describe their feelings but know that something vital has taken place and that their lives will never be the same. Separated at the end of the summer, the two men go their separate ways, trying to hold their affair as an insignificant blip but knowing otherwise.

Jack marries Lureen (Anne Hathaway), the daughter of a wealthy farm-equipment salesman and Ennis is married to Alma (Michelle Williams), a convenience store worker. Both have settled into a conventional lifestyle but as the years pass, in spite of wives and children, their inarticulate longing for each other has not disappeared but has grown more solid. After four years, they meet again. When the two men embrace and exchange kisses by the side of the house, Alma catches a glimpse of their passion but is shocked into a silence that remains over the coming years. As the two camp out in the wilderness, Jack suggests they leave their families and live together on a ranch, but Ennis is unwilling to commit to the potential danger that such an arrangement might entail, recounting a story about a rancher who was dragged to his death because he dared to live with another man.

Over the next two decades, the lovers meet as often as they can as Ennis tells his wife he is going on fishing trips, a story she suddenly rejects during a Thanksgiving dinner. Eventually, Alma divorces Ennis because she cannot confront his double life. Instead of providing an opening for a commitment to Jack, however, their love remains unattainable because of money problems and fears of homophobic reprisals. Though the ending has an undeniable power, I did not experience any deep connection with the characters. I understand the limitations imposed by the restricted emotional range of the men in the novel, yet the fact that neither developed very much in the way of conversation, understanding, or intimacy over a long period of time did not enhance my emotional involvement with the film.

Although the mincing stereotypes have disappeared, they have been replaced by regional stereotypes as well as by tight-lipped cowboy "Marlboro Man" stereotypes. Sadly, the women are little more than ciphers, defined only by their long-suffering relationship to their husbands. While many tears are being shed (justifiably) over the men's lives of isolation and unfulfillment, let me also shed a tear for the wives who expected love and commitment from their husbands, and for the children who will grow up without a father figure to nurture them.

Nevertheless, Brokeback Mountain's importance as a cultural statement cannot be denied, and those involved with the film should be acknowledged for their courage. While it is an honest film that may act as a catalyst for change, it should also be noted that there are no gay people involved in the project, no gay actors, producers, or directors and that coming out in Hollywood still means the loss of key roles for most actors. Even if change in people's attitudes does not happen overnight, however, the film will strike a responsive chord with those who have gone through life hiding their true feelings, and may bring the day one step closer when they can "kiss in the sunlight and say to the sky: "Behold and believe what you see! Behold how my lover loves me!"

GRADE: B+

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I'm sorry you can't relate more to the two main characters, apparently because they are inarticulate and handsome. Chris, tell me where I said I couldn't relate to the characters becuase they are handsome. I said I was not as emotionally involved as I might have been because I did not experience much in the way of intimacy, understanding, or growth over a period of 20 years. Frankly, I didn't find them to be very interesting.
It's not true that these are the first mainstream movie gay men who aren't effeminate. Tom Hanks in Philadelphia (1993) wasn't. I guess that qualifies although it isn't a gay love story but more of a courtroom drama.
Despite being a landmark, I don't think the movie (or its source) were exactly meant to be about "the rampant homophobia that exists in Middle America." The story is far too specific to be about something so general as that -- though the movie can make people think about it. I don't think Brokeback Mountain is in "Middle America" at all since it's the Southwest, unless you define "Middle Amerca" as everything between New York and the West Coast. I define Middle America more as a state of mind than a geographical location.
BUt I don't see why the kids necessarily are growing up "without a father figure to nurture them." I'm sure you don'g mean to imple that gay men can't be good parents, and that isn't something that's in the movie. In fact Ennis's only strong relationship at the end is with his daughter. I hope we'd agree a gay person can be a good parent. And around here there are clearly divorces where both parents still do a fine job of nurtuing their kids. I expressed a sadness in my review for all parties concerned. Obviously ( to me at any rate) there was a feeling of isolation and disconnection in the relationship, not the nurturing environment required to bring up kids. Having had some experience in the matter I would say that a relationship to work requires communication, committment, and honesty. Neither of those was present here. I'm not passing any judgments here just expressing my sadness. It's a sad movie, n'est-ce pas?

You say this is from a short story but further down you call it a "novel," and the phrase "Set in Wyoming in the early 60s" (it's set in Wyoming and Texas in the Sixties and Seventies) is a dangling modifier. Pardon my dangling modifier.

[Chris Knipp]

If this satisfies you that's fine, though your can't exactly define what Philadelphia is about and what "Middle America" means just however you want. I've replied already.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
If this satisfies you that's fine, though your can't exactly define what Philadelphia is about and what "Middle America" means just however you want. I've replied already.
Wyoming isn't in the Southwest anyway.

[Chris Knipp]

Touché. But Texas is surely. West. Not middle.

[cinemabon]

Well the art film finally arrived in Raleigh, packing them in on a Monday night; I was amazed to find most of the audience women (Slasher/Fiction?). The opening shot (also one of the last) demonstrates the power of great cinemaphotography. Hispanic photographer Rodrigo Prieto (Alexander) has captured the flavor of the west with its sweeping grandeur, the sharp snow capped peaks of the Grand Tetons, the steep green valleys with babbling streams, et al. In stark contrast we keep cutting back to the bland and minimalist lives of Jack and Ennis, making Brokeback Mountain a special magical place; one that evokes emotion connected with the characters, sort of.

Unfortunately, we do not dwell there long enough (except during the opening travelogue about Sheep Herding - a nice music video). Instead the film prods slowly through long scenes of "normal" life, with the wife and kids. Yes, you too can have a dull and horrible life if you marry and have screaming sick children. The long thankless years pay off when Ennis is sent a postcard from Jack. He can't wait for him to show up and when he does, he smothers his former lover with passionate kisses in the presence of an unintentioned witness, his wife. But why?

From his first emotional breakdown (after Jack leaves on the side of the road) to his last emotional breakdown in Jack's bedroom, I grow increasingly confused as to what Ennis really wants. Nor do I believe his character knows either. His struggle however is lost in a sea of back and forth adventures meant to further involve the audience with their relationship. Instead, I found myself further alienated away from it, as if they trivialized it all down to sex and romping naked through the meadow in slow motion (overdone cliche).

Long artistic shots between emotional scenes between the two men does not a movie make. I couldn't be more disappointed in a film that had so much build up in the press. I don't know what I was expecting, but that was not it. I found the ending too convenient. I found Ennis too disturbing to ever sympathize with. And I found Eng's direction confusing at times to the point of being silly, along with the dialogue and unmotivated emotional outbursts of frustration between the two men.

The only scene in the film that gave away any reasonable explained emotion was when the two men meet at Brokeback Mountain for the last time. Ennis finally breaks down and hugs the other man. Emotion at last! However, I considered it too little too late. The unfeeling unemotional Ennis has given us nothing through the film, suddenly has the inspiration to express his feelings by falling on his knees and crying. Then what? He drives away.

Brokeback Mountain isn't a gay movie or a love story. I found it full of betrayal, dishonesty, and its only use as a social tool to start a dialogue, but one I felt no involvement in it. As I left the theater, I felt more like Ennis, flat, emotionless, and unable to express myself as a caring person. So why care?

[Howard Schumann]

Thanks for your review. It is very well written and deeply felt. I didn't see as much sex between the men as you did (maybe I blotted it out) and I sure don't remember naked slow motion shots. I guess I have a very selective memory.

Anyway, I understand how you felt about the film, though I am not entirely in agreement as to its ultimate merits. One of the problems I do face, however, with films about characters whose emotional range is so limited is that I find it hard to really care about them and my emotional involvement in the film is limited. I felt this to some extent with Brokeback Mountain and more strongly in watching Jarmusch's Broken Flowers this week.

Thanks again for your strong review.

Howard

[cinemabon]

The best "gay" film I know from the last decade that helped the cause in fighting the "gay disease" was "...and the band played on." Taken from the book by Randy Shilts, this film, with all its flaws, reads like a riot act on how the US government and its agencies dragged their feet on HIV inquiry resulting in millions of domestic deaths (the exact total unknown since many deaths were diagnosed with other causes, some of our fear of stigma from families and relatives... "Johnny died of cancer, etc.") Only briefly does it discuss how the gay community helped to perpetuate their very destruction by insisting "bath houses" remain open, further spreading the disease, esp. in New York and Los Angeles, and wiping out entire neighborhoods before health authorities finally closed them all down by the late 1980's.

As a health official and nurse, I worked in the "AIDS Wards" in Seattle for two years (1981 & 1982) when most workers refused to even enter their rooms out of fear and panic. We were gowned and double gloved, covered head to toe. I can't begin to tell you how many men perished with out a friend ever visiting or relative ever coming to pay a visit. Sometimes we had three and four die in one day. They died alone, in pain and suffering, with only a handful of nurses and doctors offering words of comfort in their final days.

In the case of my very good friend and artist, David Glynn; he was unable to reach me in time. He died alone in a hospital in Indianapolis, one of the finest artists I have ever known from any gallery I've ever strolled through. There isn't a plaque with his name on it or a showing of his huge volume of work anywhere. His passing, like so many others I once knew, has transpired without so much as a square on a quilt or a byline in the local paper.

What's the real focus of today? It should not be Brokeback Mountain, but a disease that kills millions of poor ignorant people still unaware of how it is spread or if they even have it. Sites that promote gay love without condoms should be banned. Period!

"And the Band Played On" HBO Pictures (1993)

[pmw]

Nathan Lee wrote in the Times that Johnny Knoxville's "Ringer" was "the Brokeback Mountain of disability flicks". The film's ad team picked up the quote, and built the ad campaign around it. Take a look in your local paper!... if this dreadful film ("Ringer") is still in theaters that is... amusing.
P

[arsaib4]

Does "The Ringer" feature any spit-lubed buttsex? Anyway, I think it's one of wpqx's all-time favorites.

[Chris Knipp]

The New York Review of Books has a review (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18712) of Brokeback Mountain by Daniel Mendelsohn in the current (February 23, 2006) issue that I recommend to anyone who has been sympathetic to what I have been trying to say about it. The one essential point that I've been harpoing on by quoting Jason Lee (who's typically provocative comment on Ringers I'll let slide) comes out in Mendelsohn's last paragraph:
The real achievement of Brokeback Mountain is not that it tells a universal love story that happens to have gay characters in it, but that it tells a distinctively gay story that happens to be so well told that any feeling person can be moved by it. If you insist, as so many have, that the story of Jack and Ennis is OK to watch and sympathize with because they're not really homosexual—that they're more like the heart of America than like "gay people"—you're pushing them back into the closet whose narrow and suffocating confines Ang Lee and his collaborators have so beautifully and harrowingly exposed.
That's all I'm asking anybody to grant, though it seems way too much for a lot of people -- and if it didn't, this wouldn't be a significant issue.

[Chris Knipp]

Deroy Murdock is a syndicated columnist for conservative publications including National Review. He has written a column where he takes the events depicted in Brokeback Mountain as having serious implications for conservatives. What's really best for family values? This was refereinced on IMDb: (http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/thread/35376539?d=35827244#35827244)
The real lessons of Brokeback Mountain
By DEROY MURDOCK
Feb 3, 2006, 00:20


Having lassoed eight Academy Award nominations, millions more Americans likely will see director Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain." Social conservatives should be among those who catch this widely lauded motion picture.

Socio-cons probably have sidestepped this so-called gay cowboy movie. Too bad. While it hardly screams, "family values," "Brokeback" engages profound issues that merit consideration by those who think seriously about the challenges that families face.

Stylistically, socio-cons need not fear "Brokeback" as a didactic, in-your-face, gay screed. "We're here. We're queer" it is not. Nor is this film a flamboyant camp-fest, like the flighty but hilarious "The Birdcage" or much of "The Producers," both coincidentally starring Nathan Lane.

Indeed, as a romance between two thoroughly masculine ranch hands, "Brokeback" begins to reverse the damage caused by "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and similar offerings that reinforce the stereotype that gay men are indispensable when one needs to select fabulous neckties or striking pastels for stunning interiors. How sad that such entertainment still elicits laughs, even as most Americans would be justifiably outraged at any show titled "Jewish Guy with a Banker's Eye" or "The Mexican Gardening Hour."

Beyond equating same-sex affection with manliness, "Brokeback" addresses important matters on the political agenda. It is impossible to discuss these themes without revealing key plot points. So, if you have yet to see "Brokeback," please do so soon, then finish this column after the credits roll.

Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar, movingly portrayed by Academy Award nominees Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, respectively, find themselves inexplicably drawn to each other one booze-filled evening in 1963. While huddling in a tent from Wyoming's bracing winds, a spontaneous moment of intimacy triggers for Jack and Ennis a long summer that combines hectic days of tending sheep with tranquil nights of tending to each other.

As the young men depart the mountain pastures when their gig ends, they split up and do what society expects of them. Jack competes in the Southwestern rodeo circuit where he meets, marries, and has a son with Lureen (Anne Hathaway), herself an equestrian. Ennis weds Alma (Ledger's real-life girlfriend, Oscar nominee Michelle Williams), a quiet, loyal woman who raises their two daughters.

After four years apart, Jack returns to Ennis' small town of Riverton, Wyo. Their still-smoldering passion flares like a zephyr-swept campfire. They stoke these flames during periodic fishing trips.

Jack's and Ennis' marriages grow increasingly cold, leading to a loveless union for the Twists and divorce and a broken home for the Del Mars.

As this adulterous relationship spreads pain all around, one need not hark back to the Rockies of the 1960s and '70s to find parallels to Jack's and Ennis' situation. Former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey's wife, Dina, bore him a baby girl before his clandestine affair with an Israeli man named Golan Cipel erupted into view in 2004. The McGreeveys split, and their daughter's live-in dad is now just a visitor.

Similarly, J.L. King's book, "On the Down Low," discusses seemingly heterosexual black husbands who cheat on their spouses with other men. The luckier wives land in divorce court; the most unlucky unwittingly become HIV-positive.

"Brokeback Mountain" should prompt social conservatives to ponder whether it is good family policy to encourage gay men to live lives that are traditional yet untrue. Would honest gay marriages be less destructive than deceitful straight ones? I think so. Many disagree. Even if they oppose it, however, seeing this film may give heterosexual marriage proponents a better insight into why so many Americans advocate homosexual marriage.

"Brokeback" also concerns homophobic violence. The October 1998 beating death of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyo., the July 1999 fatal baseball-bat attack on gay Army Pvt. Barry Winchell, and the non-lethal assault on gay soldier Kyle Lawson last October, among other incidents, should remind filmgoers that this grave matter was not buried on the Great Plains decades ago.

Beautifully acted, photographed, written, and directed, "Brokeback Mountain" quietly but powerfully asks questions that are relevant today. Americans left, middle and right should see this touching, haunting love story, then give it the thorough mulling over it deserves.

[arsaib4]

Brokeback Mountain, which opens (finally) next week, is less a movie than a chunk of American landscape, or perhaps, as director Ang Lee suggests, a pioneering settlement on Hollywood's "one last frontier." Are those storm heads massed around Lee's conveniently designated "gay western"—or is it only a radiant cloud of hype?

As all media savants know, Brokeback Mountain has transformed Annie Proulx's 1997 New Yorker short story into a sagebrush Tristan and Isolde in which Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) are the tragic loves of each other's lives. The Drudge Report has already managed to dredge up a playwright from the land of Matthew Shepard, claiming that she never met a homosexual cowboy and accusing Brokeback Mountain of ruining the state's image. Focus, which finally financed a script (by professional westerner Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana) that had been languishing for eight years, must be hoping that some higher-powered culture warriors will attack their movie as a manifestation of the Antichrist—or, at least, the anti–Mel Gibson.

Hysteria can only help: From the opening scene of semiconscious cruising to the final scene of ultimate bereavement, Lee's accomplishment is to make this saga a universal romance. Brokeback Mountain is the most straightforward love story—and in some ways the straightest—to come out of Hollywood, at least since Titanic. (Several websites offer the posters for comparison.)

One summer, chatty Jack and taciturn Ennis are hired to watch some curmudgeon's flock. It's a boy's-life Eden, camping out in a tent under the stars in a national park environment (actually Alberta), and one cold, liquor-lubricated night the thing just happens. Are these tough yet tender shepherds fighting or fucking or just doing what comes naturally? Wouldn't you know that would be the night the coyote picks off a sheep? And that soon after, their boss (Randy Quaid) spies them wrassling?

A last tussle, a farewell of unspoken regret, and a venture toward normality. Ennis takes a wife (Michelle Williams); Jack meets a nice cowgirl (Anne Hathaway) who is both sexually forward and born rich. Both men father children. But a nervous reunion washes away the sand castles of their current lives in a raging tide of feelings, and sends them hightailing for the nearest motel, the vulnerable Mrs. Ennis sobbing quietly in the background.

Graduating from weird adolescent roles to bronc-bustin' cowboy here and combat-primed marine in Jarhead, Gyllenhaal is a throwback to the (relatively) sensitive, if not androgynous, male stars of the late '60s and early '70s—the period during which Brokeback is ostensibly set. But moony as Gyllenhaal is, he's only barely able to hold up his side of the equation; it's the self- contained Ledger's repression and scary, sorrowful, hard-luck rage that fuel the movie. (While a $13 million production like Brokeback Mountain will have to make some real money to lasso any Oscars, Ledger and Williams, the real-life mother of his child, seem a cinch for nominations.)

The western has always been the most idyllically homosocial of modes—and often one concerned with the programmatic exclusion of women. This is hardly a secret and thus the true cowboy love between tight-lipped Ennis and doe-eyed Jack precipitates the not-so-latent theme of early-'70s oaters like The Wild Rovers and The Hired Hand—not to mention Andy Warhol's hilarious disco western Lonesome Cowboys and its more conventional Hollywood analogue Midnight Cowboy. (Conventional up to a point, that is: Midnight Cowboy not only made a gay fashion statement but included Joe Buck's incredulous cri de coeur, "Are you telling me that John Wayne is a fag?!")

Inflated with Marlboro Man imagery and pumped with pregnant pauses, Brokeback Mountain is, like most Lee films, a good half-hour too long. The director wrings as much pathos as he can out of every Same Time, Next Year "fishing trip," but the guys' first reunion and parallel Thanksgivings aside, the real handkerchief moment comes late in the day, when forlorn Ennis visits Jack's parents and sees his life pass before his eyes.

The sex scenes may be hot, but it's difficult to believe that Madonna found them "shocking." All is tasteful, and far more convincing than the movie's representation of passion is its only-the-lonely evocation of a punishing social order. The closet has never seemed more cruelly constricting than in comparison to the wide open spaces of what Americans are pleased to call "God's country."

[Chris Knipp]

I certainly would agree with 97% of this, Hoberman's November 29th, 2005 review, even if the tone is far less admiring than mine. Why quote it so late in the game? Most of us have already read it, and I thought you didn't like to quote mainstream critics, or people, at length like this? But it's fine, and as far as I'm concerned, there is only one little (but important!) thing in it that could be misread:
Brokeback Mountain is the most straightforward love story—and in some ways the straightest—to come out of Hollywood, at least since Titanic. "In some ways the straightest"? Why? I refer you and everybody back to the recent NYRB review by Daniel Mendelsohn (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18712)
The real achievement of Brokeback Mountain is not that it tells a universal love story that happens to have gay characters in it, but that it tells a distinctively gay story that happens to be so well told that any feeling person can be moved by it. If you insist, as so many have, that the story of Jack and Ennis is OK to watch and sympathize with because they're not really homosexual—that they're more like the heart of America than like "gay people"—you're pushing them back into the closet whose narrow and suffocating confines Ang Lee and his collaborators have so beautifully and harrowingly exposed.
I'm not saying Hoberman is doing that, or would want to, but just that his phrase could be misread in the larger context of mainstream critics and even the filmmakers' own surrounding hype. I'd also like to remind you of my several earlier more pungent quotes from Jason Lee on the actual queerness of the story of Jack and Ennis, to explain why a gay person might want to insist this still definitely is a gay romance, however boringly conventional and romantic it is, and that we (as gay people) can't knock it, because of its value to mainstream culture; plus I personally am still very moved by it no matter how conventional and a little too long it may be. But, yeah, I don't ever agree with everything J. Hoberman or anybody else says, though despite what you say I do listen to and am influenced constantly by other people's arguments; and I usually expect Hoberman to say something balanced and smart, and he doesn't disappoint me here. That's still true even though maybe from some quotes, e.g.
Are these tough yet tender shepherds fighting or fucking or just doing what comes naturally? I wouldn't say Hoberman is the most sensitive of observers of the movie (even the usually glib Anthony Lane is more serious about it), but he's basically right in his observations, including the conventionality, the slighly overblown adaptation, the merely well-meaning and acceptable "moony" acting of Jake but better and stronger work by Heath and Michelle -- it is indeed "the self- contained Ledger's repression and scary, sorrowful, hard-luck rage that fuel the movie." No one can quarrel with that, and H. acknowledges that there is fueling and there is rage there. I'm not at all sure what H. means by the word "precipitates," but the "oater" thumbnail history is obligatory, and not always given. Above all H. ends with the point of Mendelsohn's NYRB review: "The closet has never seemed more cruelly constricting than in comparison to the wide open spaces of what Americans are pleased to call 'God's country'" -- and though this is nothing new, especially being reprinted after several others have reiterated it elsewhere, I think it's a very balanced statement. Nothing to discuss, really.

[cinemabon]

From the pre-Oscar telecast last night:

"There are some 80 plus Gay Cowboy Rodeos given in this country every year."

You learn something every day. I just want to know if there are any gay Indians. Now that would make a great shoot 'em up. Incidently, I liked the "references" made in past films that used innuendo to imply gay cowboy themes were not new. Very funny.

"Let's give them something to shout about!"

[HorseradishTree]

OK, so I know I'm coming in late to the conversation, but since I've mostly gotten sick of going to theaters, rentals have become the vessel of my income. So, now that I've finally seen the film, I feel extremely compelled to talk about it. I am, as always, too idle to structure a pretty little review. However, I will do my best to hopefully emit some profundities on the matter of this film. Spoilers may appear erratically throughout this post. So, here we go.

I've been driven by Brokeback Mountain to consider the concept of homosexuality itself. I am not questioning its status of being innate, but it leads me to think about what it means in terms of society's outlook on the matter. Roger Ebert says in his review that any forbidden love would have sufficed for the backbone of the story, but I would have to disagree. Homosexuality has carried various images throughout civilization, and in the first two acts I was reminded of perhaps the Greek interpretation of brotherhood, and its indifference to sexual conduct. I am also reminded of a quote I once heard Morrissey that talked about his belief in the natural lack of these "prefixes." He says we are neither homo-, hetero, a-, or whatever. We are simply sexual.

I think we are led to believe, at least for most of the film, that Ennis sort of has this feeling described above about his relationship with Jack Twist. It is merely a sexual matter, and their conduct is simply an offshoot of their natural brotherhood.

Jack, on the other hand, embraces the notion of his homosexuality. He loves Ennis in a different way than Ennis loves him, and their bond is important to him. However, he sees his desires as not bound to Ennis only, as exhibited by his prostitution run. His cravings are innate and necessary.

In the end, however, (and in what makes me find this film brilliant), we find that they are really not different at all. Ennis's whole brotherhood buildup is shattered by his devotion to those memories of Brokeback Mountain, as represented by the bloody shirts. There was something more immaterial between them that we didn't see, something that we couldn't.

I really don't understand love much, being a 17-year-old film geek who posts on message boards. But this film really makes me want to love. I can't explain it. It's a level of spirituality that I can't even begin to comprehend; I recently became agnostic and thus very wary of many so-called illusions. I really don't know what goes on with you crazy lovers, but I'm really compelled to find out.

I almost forgot to mention the natural beauty in the film. The beautiful landscapes and whatnot alone would make me want to see it again. The panoramic views reminded me of Crouching Tiger. Hmm, I wonder why that is? :)

[oscar jubis]

Regulars on this site are aware of your many qualities. And your posts keep getting better! That's one sensitive and insightful piece of writing, Horseradish Tree. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Thanks.

[Howard Schumann]

Originally posted by HorseradishTree
I really don't understand love much, being a 17-year-old film geek who posts on message boards. But this film really makes me want to love. I can't explain it. That's ok. I've lived a lot lot longer and I still can't explain it. Anyway, it is beyond understanding.

[Chris Knipp]

Very touching remark and a huge tribute to the film.