'Brokeback Mountain' - A Review (Unmarked Spoilers)
 

'Brokeback Mountain'
Directed by: Ang Lee

Last night, I had an opportunity to see ‘Brokeback Mountain’ at Harvard University’s Film Archive Theatre. The interesting thing about this event was that it was initially billed as ‘An Evening with James Shamus’ where you were able to speak to him about his long list of film collaborations (‘Crouching Tiger’, ‘Happiness’, ‘The Hulk’, ‘The Ice Storm’). There was no mention of ‘Brokeback’ at all. Then an email came to me from the head of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus asking the members of the HGLC if we would be interested in seeing the film that same night after Shamus spoke. Ralphie and I jumped at the opportunity. Within hours the event was completely sold out.

The plans were to have a Q&A session with James Shamus, the president of Focus Features, and then show the movie. However, a flight delay postponed Shamus’ Q&A session to after the movie. For once in my life I was happy to hear about a delayed flight.

I had read Anne Proulx’s short story a couple of years ago after hearing about a scramble in Hollywood to obtain the film rights for a ‘gay cowboy movie’. Curiosity killed my cat and I bought Proulx’s book ‘Close Range’ a collection of short stories which contained ‘Brokeback’. It’s a short read, but it’s miles long in emotion. It was the very first thing I have read that made me cry. You know, the good kind of cry. Needless to say, I loved the story. So, when I heard about the movie release I was thrilled but mortified. Thrilled that this was going to be visualized by an independent film company and mortified that they were really going to screw it up.

Now that I’ve seen the film, I realized that there was no reason to be mortified at all. ‘Brokeback’ the film was in good hands and is simply wonderful.

I know, you’re thinking ‘of course it’s wonderful, you’re as gay as a Paul Lynde's picnic basket’. Well, that’s true. However, if you’ve seen as many of the stinko movies directly marketed to the gay community as I have, all I have to say is stink is stink even if it’s pink. Not only this, but I’m for certain that this is a movie not only gay men will get. It’s a universal love story about having someone you can’t possibly have. Everyone can relate to that. I know I can. I’ve been both characters in some way or another in my life but that’s another thread altogether.

Let’s get the bad stuff out of the way first:

1. The movie’s running time is a little long. For someone not already in love with the tale, it may seem about 15 minutes too long.
2. The budget did not afford a flawless transition of the characters as they aged 20 years. Anne Hathaway, although perfect in this film, still looks like a 22 year old all the way through . Even a bad set of wigs couldn’t mask her youth. I blame this on the modest budget and not so much on Anne herself.
3. I know I just took a jab at the film’s length but certain scenes ended too quickly. Lingering close-ups of the characters here and there would add to the intensity of what they were feeling. Example, there’s a great reaction by Michelle Williams (Heath Ledgers’ real life wife) when she figures out the truth about her husband. The shot is terrific, we’re really feeling what she is and suddenly the shot ends and we’re moving on. Savoring a meal is as fun as eating it…

Now the good stuff:

1. All of the characterizations are right on the money. But the one to watch in this film is Heath Ledger’s Ennis Del Mar. He takes a risk on what Ennis talks like and it pays off. If it didn’t, the whole film would have suffered for it. There has been some Oscar buzz for Ledger and rightfully so.
2. The cinematography in this movie is great. It captures the isolation and loneliness perfectly. It’s slow and methodical as the two men are and shows the world as being big enough to swallow everyone in it as they are overcome by the plight of their own lives.
3. The love scenes were done to perfection. Carefully blocked and paced, they are tender when they’re supposed to be and down and dirty where they need to be. Ang Lee gets his audience used to unfamiliar waters slowly and deliberately. When Jack and Ennis make love for the first time, it’s not displayed on screen for the shock value of it, it’s portrayed as inevitable and real. Although my gay side wanted the first love scene to go on forever, my film fanatic side was relieved it didn’t delve into soft porn. Being at a showing with a room full of gay men, I was surprised to see that the audience was dead silent during ‘the scene’. At first I thought it was an indifferent silence but I was fascinated to realize that it was a stunned ‘I can’t believe what I’m seeing’ silence. That was nice to experience.
4. As much as I loved watching Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, I found my eyes riveted to the performances of the wives of these two men. They were tragic and dramatic, everything a queen looks for in a female lead in film.
5. There’s a wonderful shot of Ledger in front of a fireworks setting that could make the best poster or desktop wallpaper.
6. My favorite scene is a scene where Ennis’ tender side slips out as Jake Gyllenhaal’s character falls asleep on his feet. It made me melt. Good stuff.

I applaud Ang Lee’s bravery in filming this very tender and sad love story. There were no punches pulled to cater to the close-minded conservative viewer whatsoever. It was right on the money.

Shamus spoke to us after the film was over. I’m glad it was done afterwards because there were many great questions asked. Not only this, but it helped me go from weeping queenie to interested film studies man in a flash. Shamus was a good speaker and was quite funny. Best of all, he was informative. I have a few good morsels to pass on:

1. He said that Ledger and Gyllenhaal are straight. Oh well. But that they handled the scene professionally and without high school protestations. Ang Lee bogged his actors down in direction for the scene so that they couldn’t concentrate on anything else. I also found out, for all you ‘Sense and Sensibility’ fans, that he used the same strict blocking technique on Emma Thompson for the scene where she finds out the Hugh Grant’s character is not married. It’s a wonderful scene which Emma was pumped up for but was pulled back by Lee by him telling her that she couldn’t move her head more that a couple of inches for shooting purposes. This stress of not being able to move made her reaction reserved yet maniacal all at the same time. Brilliant.
2. I had asked him if Anne Proulx had seen the film and wanted to know what she thought of it. He said she did and absolutely loved the way the film panned out. I can have my diva moment right now by saying that in a room full of men raising their hands, a studio president picked me for a question. Ha ha.
3. ‘Brokeback’ opened in NY, LA and San Francisco first deliberately. He wanted to hit liberal America first. It’s going to be released to 500 theaters countrywide and, red state be damned, he’s going to open it in even the most conservative of cities in the US. Nicely done, I think.
4. The movie was made for $10 mil. He expects it to make a profit in a couple of weeks. He says he’s not wanting it to be ‘Narnia’ numbers but it will make a profit. That’s nice to hear.
5. It’s being promoted as a ‘chick flick’ and not so much a ‘gay flick’. He’s hyping it up to women who want to see it and take their stuffy straight husbands with them. There’s a bug push in marketing to the female filmgoer. I think this is a neat strategy, too.
6. He introduced Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams. They are now married. That’s so sweet.
7. He’s not interested in conservative backlash from the extreme religious groups out there. In fact, he’s heard that they are backing away from protesting this film. They want it to fade. Even if there was any sort of 'Brokeback' boycott, he says he wouldn’t care about it. The way he said that, I believe him. I think that’s great. This is one of the best movies I have seen in awhile.

So, there it is. I went, I saw, I loved it and oh yes, I cried. Yes, all you sensitive Lords, Ladies and Queens, it’s a tearjerker. Bring the Kleenex. What makes me extremely happy is that ‘Brokeback Mountain’ is now a great love story on film that belongs to us all.
:)

Yesterday the L.A. Film Critics Assn. named "Brokeback Mountain" best picture of 2005.:)

Paul Lynde's picnic basket was gay?

I had no idea......:eek:


(Great review, GC! :snap: ).

You know, it's been a couple days since I've seen this film and I'm still thinking about it. For me, that's always a good sign that a film is really good.

lh ~ I heard the same thing. I would have to agree. :)

wb ~ :D

Firstly, allow me to be really immature and say that I find it hilarious that a gay guys name is Ennis.

Secondly, I really want to see this. Jake Gyllenhall is ho-ot!

Hmmm, not sure if I want to read GC's review yet, before I see the film.

I tried to see it today with my boyfriend at the only theater it's playing at in L.A. (where parking is a freaking nightmare) - but by the time we got there at noon, all the day's shows were sold out.


I doubt I'll have the chance to see the film before next weekend (when I hope it opens wider), and perhaps not even then. So I might just break, and read Brad's review.


But not quite yet.

I haven't seen the film yet but based on GC's review, I look forward to seeing this film when it hits a theatre near me.

This film looked like it was right up my alley the moment I saw Jakey's name. Add to the fact that they were straight fellas... I was SO going to be there. Also, Heath and Michelle have a little baby, Matilda (I keep on thinking Waltzing Matilda).

I applaud the fact that now there is a fantastic movie that portrays a genuine love relationship between two men that is a drama feature and not an over the top representation (examples: Kiss Me Guido, The Birdcage). Aside from Philadelphia, there really hasn't been a mainstream movie that has garnered a lot of press over the fact that the main characters are gay.

Since my NorCal friends here haven't shown a lot of interest in going to see this film, I will bring myself as a date who will love and appreciate this movie. Oh, and I plan on bringing some tissues with me (thanks for the tip Brad!)

I thought the same reading the story. Then I found out during the movie that 'Ennis' is pronounced with a short 'e'.
;)

Now, about dear Jake. I went to this film to see Jake, Jake, Jake. But, girls, I left saying 'Heath, Heath, Heath'. I can't explain it. Something about his character. Yum.

iSm ~ I say don't read it. Go see it and post a review of your own. I'd love to hear LoT views on it.

i'm afraid i'll weep in public like a little phag.

Honey, I cried three times during this one. i haven't done that since 'Cinderella Man' and 'Billy Elliott'. I cry during movies, I admit it. In real life, not so much... :)

Also, if anyone's interested, Anne Proulx's original short story can be found here on the New Yorker's website. Reading it would depend on whether you like to do so before the film adaptation or not.
:)

I had been psyched up to see this film from the moment I head about it. Ang Lee: one of my favorite directors of the past ten years. Jake Gyllenhaal: not as appealing as Maggie but still, a solid Gyllenhaal. Gay cowboys: my idea of a good time. So you can imagine my disappointment when I didn't like it as much as I wanted to.

GC, LV, you're right: this isn't the treacle of "Trick" or "Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss." (Though I enjoy "Beautiful Thing.") And for that, I am pleased.

It is a fine film. Performances were good, and Ledger's in particular quite surprised me. But it has real problems, and I think that it's critically overrated.

I haven't read E. A. P.'s story, so I can't speak for the adaptation. But I found the stand-alone screenplay-- not the dialogue, but the structural narrative-- to be lacking. Tom pointed out that it shared a problem with Cold Mountain in that we've got to connect and completely feel the power of their relationship before they spend the majority of the rest of the film apart. Fortunately the men had more screen time together than Kidman/Law, but I still feel that it didn't hit me quite deeply enough to sustain itself for the rest of the film. Ennis' nature demands a slow burn to resonate with audiences, and that felt too rushed for me; the lengthy "now we are suffering" part made the film feel lopsided. I understand that others feel differently about that, but it simply didn't hit me at my core.

Entire characters were unnecessary. We understand that the men are struggling with their identities and going through empty connection after empty connection-- we don't need long scenes with Linda Cardellini or Ana Faris to demonstrate it. (That all four female characters were billed alphabetically, those two preceeding the wives, was unforgiveable in my opinion. The wives were excellently portrayed with much more screen time and deserved higher billing.)

I really couldn't get over the aging. Small budget, perhaps, but it doesn't excuse an experienced director like Lee from completely ignoring everything save some sideburns and a farrah wig. I was completely pulled out of the last scene between Ennis and his daughter because she looked to be about three years his junior, not twenty. This is not the mark of a best-picture film.

I felt modestly positive about the film, but mostly disappointed that it wasn't the powerhouse that I wanted to be. In every aspect, I thought that Capote was a stronger film, and I am sorry to see it slip down in the critics' races.

LSPE ~ Loved, loved 'Beautiful Thing'. And 'Big Eden' as well. They're not all bad, but some are just downright stinko.

I agree with you about Ennis' female love interest after his wife left. What was that about...? It did seem unneccesary.

I want to see 'Capote'. I've heard great things about it...
:)

Go see it, Capote is the best movie I've seen this year.

Haven't seen Brokeback Mountain yet, but Capote is an awesome film.

I love reading Charles Karel Bouley's take on gay culture. Here he's talking about the media constantly calling Ledger and Gyllenhaal 'brave' for playing gay on 'Brokeback'. It's a good read.

Source

I guess it's only brave if you consider bucking opinions of idiots to be brave. Sure, some people will think the actors are gay because they played gay in the movies. There are indeed fools who will not think Cate Blanchett is a Renaissance-era queen of England, or that Julie Andrews really is a faux cross-dressing homosexual man in 1920's Paris, but will think that any actor who can pretend to be a homo in front of the cameras must really be a homo.

Heath taking the oh-so-tired step of marrying his female co-star doesn't help in this instance, as it's the most blatent beard-attempt move ever conceived ... in the minds of those who think he must be gay to play gay (and in the minds of us who wish he were).




As for thinking Heath and Jake are brave for man-kissing, or simulating gay sex .... puhfv<kinginglease!!! People who feel themselves far less foolish than the fools I mentioned above are still quite the fools for thinking ACTORS can't pull this off professionally and without requiring any more 'courage' than you or I need to pull into freeway traffic.

And, by all accounts, Jake and Heath were quite professional about it. [Heheheh, and yeah - I think they liked it]

A liberal media could use these terms because they view most of America to be unrehabilitated clods. Therefore, even if you don't personally view anything wrong with homosexuality it is brave to "risk" a career by starring in a homosexual movie. A socially conservative media wouldn't ask "is America ready for a gay movie" but "why is Hollywood forcing this down our throats?"

I don't buy into a "liberal" media bias but rather a "progressive" media bias which tends to overlap liberal more than conservative but is still a bias that is overwhelmed constantly by manipulation of the media savvy.

I caved and read Cricket's review. It's not like I was spoiler-free for this movie. And so I also went and read the short story that G.C. kindly linked to.

Having done so, I'd have to say that ... if you don't get the connection between the two cowboy lovers while they're up on Brokeback Mountain, but rather feel it only when they spent years apart pining for each other ... it's that way in the source material and I feel that the movie can't be blamed for that.


From what I hear, the movie has more emphasis than might be hoped for on the wives of the cowboys. I would also find this to be expected in a movie expanding upon a 30-page short story. I will find it a shame if the sadness of the wives who find their husbands more in love with their gay lovers overshadows the sadness of the gay lovers who spend most of their lives in denial and in the closet till it's too late. But the source material leaves it open for the women to be more expressive and clearly has the guys being less expressive than your average labrador.

In short, before even seeing the film for myself, I think many of the film's reputed shortcomings are the fault of the source, not the screenplay.

Heheh - my favorite quote from the Bouley story G.C. linked to:

Hahahaha - so true.

I finally read the source material, too. In some ways, I agree with you. But in some ways, I actually thought the men were *more* expressive in the story than in the film. There was a bit more ease to one of the characters that I think they purposefully steered away from in the film. There was a level of honesty between them that I think the adaptation sort of pushed away.

As for the wives, I didn't loathe the emphasis on them; it was not overdone and they didn't get a majority of screen time (nor did their emotional journey overshadow.) I definitely had a problem with the secondary female characters, which really deserved no more than a mention in conversation within the film. They were, after all, just part of the lovers' conversation in the story, and I'm far more interested in the lovers communicating this to each other than in their dull fookbuddies.

That's the trouble with adapting a short story into a film. It's dense and rich for a reason, and if you spread it out it's stretched too thin.

But I want to make clear that there was much that I enjoyed about the film.

Well, I could be forced to surrender my gay card for having waited till the second weekend of release, but I finally saw "Brokeback Mountain." I liked it far better than I expected to.

It turns out that a short story is the perfect literary form to adapt to a movie ... because with the addition of perhaps three scenes, and deletion of as many from the source ... it turns out that laying out a story that spanned 30 pages in writing takes just about two hours to unfold on screen. As such, it was just about the most perfect literary adaptation that I’ve seen.

This is a tale where the sense of connection between Ennis and Jack comes from the lovers being apart, not from their original time together on Brokeback Mountain. It’s a dramatic structure that many have complained about, but it’s one that accentuates the sadness and poignancy of the story.

A lot of people also fail to recognize that it’s a period piece - - running from 1963 to 1983 and taking place in Wyoming and Texas. Attitudes about coming out, and confusions about bisexuality all have to be taken in context of the time and place. A time and place which I believe were very consciously chosen to coincide with the last bastions of intense homophobia in this country, thus pointing a subtle finger at the centuries of deadly persecution faced by homosexuals which only came to an end, for the most part, in the 60's and 70's when the story takes place. I think this adds something to the film’s thesis that gay love is just love ... nothing more, nothing less ... not to be excoriated or denied or hated.

In a perverse way, I found it refreshing that the tragic death of a gay character was not because of AIDS, but resulted from the far more time-honored method of lynching and bludgeoning.


I credit the fine script and the able directing for making me feel that the slowness and deliberateness of the storytelling was meant to inspire thoughtfulness, and to fill the silences with meaning and purpose arrived at by the viewer’s contemplation. That the film was also blessed with fine performances and beautiful cinematography argue for a finely crafted film. That I found it touching and dramatically moving makes it, in my opinion, simply a fine film all around.



(Oh, and though Heath Ledger’s performance was amazing, it’s still all about Jake, Jake, Jake for this particular g.b. What a hottie!)

Time-honored methos of lynching and bludgeoning?! Oy gevalt. :D But, I must say, I do agree with you...it is refreshing... I can't believe I'm saying that... I mean, how many gay films end with someone dying or getting AIDS. Bleh.

But I must add that how Jack died is up in the air. At least to me. In the book and in the movie, Jack's death by bashing was in Ennis' head. Ennis is very gloom and doom about being together. He felt their relationship would end in tragedy like the man in the ditch. The delivery of how Jack died by his wife does not give us any indication if she's lying or not. She was lukewarm about him towards the end of their relationship anyway. It seems like she was over the idea of she and he being perfect for each other... That's my take on it...
There was a terrific zen feeling to this film. Lots of thoughtful spots for your own feelings to be inserted. Nicely done, imho.
On that note, here's a shot from the film I don't remember:

It may be a behind the scenes shot. But it is from the 'Brokeback' set... Now, that's hot.

Honey, I don't know about you, but Jake's nice to look at, but hmmm, that macho cowboy thang Heath had going on made me melt. I'd be center to Heath's quarterback any day ... ;)

Yeah, I was reading a piece about the screenplay in today's Variety, and the writers (Larry McMurry and Diana Ossana) are quoted as saying that they worked really hard to maintain the feel of the original story all the way to the finished film (success, according to me), and that the way Jack died was left for the viewer to discern.

I must say that I felt the movie was far more decisive about that element than the story was. It showed Jack being bludgeoned (time-honoredly) and did not show an alternate version of him getting hit with a tire rim by accident. In film, seeing is believing. Further, if the bludgeoning shots followed a shot of the wife vs. following a shot of Ennis, there's not even film language presented for it all being in Ennis' head.

I'll have to see it again, but of course I will give them the benefit of the doubt that the Jack death visuals followed a shot of Ennis, not one of Lureen. But regardless, I found Lureen's delivery of the death story so cold and creepy that she could easily be lying, and the visual of Jack's death just seems to confirm - to me - what really happened. I concede that, technically, it's open to interpretation.


I'm still busy interpreting much of the rest of the movie. Like G.C., I'm still thinking about it 24 hours later. That's a good sign of a good film.

Unfortunately the trend isn't looking good for a huge success when it goes wide.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...ckmountain.htm

In it's wider limited relesae, the per screen average is down almost 75% after a week into the very modest $12,000 range (over the weekend) so apparently it wasn't the event in the new cities that it was in the first weekend cities (LA, SF, NYC, Chicago, I think).

I'm still torn. I really want to see it because of Ang Lee (I pretent that Hulk didn't happen) but I really don't want to see it because of Jake Gyllenhaal and I can't stand him (perhaps if they had replaced him with his sister, but then the story wouldn't quite be the same) and his dopey hangdog expressions.

Interesting info...

Source

I like this bit:
Oh, Ted. You say the kindest things.
:D

But was it manly, Ted?

Yeah, Ted. Are you more of a Jack or an Ennis?

I wanna see it again, but - get this - my gay boyfriend doesn't want to see it with me. Can't he be drummed out of the family for that?

Whatcha wanna bet he doesn't want to see either New World or Munich (aka Munch) or Match Point this weekend either? Grrrr, we have different movie tastes. But we're both so gay, how can one of us not want to see Brokeback? I don't get it.

I think maybe Mr. pppop wants to see something more upbeat? Less sad? That would be my take on it.
I need to see it again. However, we both want to see 'Narnia', 'Syriana', 'Munch' and 'The Producers' too.

HA HA - you have a gay boyfriend.:)

Yay! My sister got an academy-hopeful screener DVD of BB Mountain and she doesn't want it. Haha - it's all mine.


(And my gay boyfriend will be watching it someday ... even if'n it means I have to Clockwork Orange his eyeballs)

Color me Envy Green.
:p

Top Ten Signs You're A Gay Cowboy from Late Nite w/David Letterman

10. "Your saddle is Versace"


9. "Instead of 'Home On The Range', you sing 'It's Raining Men'"


8. "You enjoy ridin', ropin', and redecoratin'"


7. "Sold your livestock to buy tickets to 'Mamma Mia'"


6. "After watching reruns of 'Gunsmoke', you have to take a cold shower"


5. "Native Americans refer to you as 'Dances With Men'"


4. "You've been lassoed more times than most steers"


3. "You're wearing chaps, yet your 'ranch' is in Chelsea"


2. "Instead of a saloon you prefer a salon"


1. "You love riding, but you don't have a horse"

:snap:

GusGus and I finally saw it this evening.

GC's review was right on the money. I could not add more (besides I am not feeling verbose tonight). The movie did not seem too long to me. Ennis' wife needs to get an Oscar for her performance.

I agree that the aging issue was problematic. It was the one distraction from the movie itself that bothered me.

However, there were two issues that really spoiled the experience:

1. Since the movie has been out for a while, the print we saw was bad, including a couple of burned out frames and a bad splice. However, if I had seen the movie earlier, this would not have been a problem, so shame on me for that.

2. The three idiot women behind us. As you would expect, at a Tuesday night showing a month after the movie is released, the theatre was fairly empty. The seating capacity was 244 (don't ask me why I remember that!) and there were about 20-25 people in the theatre. We all sat a repectful distance away from each other. Except for these three morons who sat behind us. They came in just as the previews were starting. They talked (about NOTHING about the previews) through the previews. Once the movie started to rolling, there was constant chatter. Not loud, but loud enough to be disruptive to the people in front of them (Susan and I). And the remarks were so stupid. I heard uncomfortable rumblings and noises during the first intimate encounter between Heath and Jake. When they shot the elk, and were drying some of the meat and cooking and eating some, one of the morons claimed "eww, that's gross; I could never be on Survivor."

But the kicker was at the end of the film. As soon as the credits started to roll, they stood up and started talkng. We actually like to watch the credits. Also, the music during the credits was exceptional and I was trying to enjoy that. (After a movie like this, I use it as a great opportunity to absorb the story in its entirety, letting the whole thing just kind of soak in.) Out of courtesy, I tolerated the boorish behavior for 30 seconds or so. But finally, I turned around and politely asked if they would please finish their conversation in the lobby. The answer I got was "what are you watching? The movie's over." I then said that I was trying to watch ther credits and listen to the music. "Well how stupid. There's nothing to watch." To which I responded with a few choice expletives and had to control the urge to take Susan's coke and throw it on them.

Freakin' morons!

Not feeling very verbose tonight, huh? ;)







I'm one of the "credit watchers" too and I will say something if a person stands in front of me. I've never had anyone say anything back to me. You know, I don't go to the theater often enough anymore for this to happen I guess. Maybe this is one of the reasons why.

Eh shuddup


:D

I've been meaning to comment on this since G.C. first mentioned it, but forgot to ... until now. (Thanks, Kevy).


Try and remember what I look like. Me, :iSm:

I'm 45 years old. 5 years older than Ennis at his oldest in the movie. Granted, I'm not a weathered ranch hand ... and granted, I've obviously drunk from the fountain of youth. But 40 years old is not terribly old, and the make-up in the movie was perfectly in keeping with a weathered man at 40 years old. Crows feet around the eyes, a few wrinkles lining the face, a little gnarlyness in the hands. He's 40, not 80.



But good on you, Kevy, for going postal on the movie morons.

I though Ledger's aging was fine-- other than the scene with Ennis and his daughter-- there was hardly an age difference between them at all and that pulled me out of the scene.

My biggest problem with aging, really, was Anne Hathaway and her look-I'm-aging wigs. They did nothing to her at all except the Farrah hair, and I thought that was a strange choice.

Actually, her hair actually changed remarkably well to reflect the changing times. A character like her would be keeping up with the latest from Hollywood.

"Bill's thirty-two. He looks thirty-two. He looked it five years ago, he'll look it twenty years from now. I hate men." ~ Margo Channing 'All About Eve'
:D

I agree with Kevy.. :eek:

It distrubed me at first, then I started thinking, with her money, and her exposure, she'd have kept up with the trends.
To me, it said a lot about a character that the viewer was told very little about.

Oh, I don't have a problem with her having Farrah hair. I have a problem with them only aging her with hair. She looks about 19 when she's playing 40.

See, the way they clothed and coiffed Lureen, I just took her for someone who keeps herself up.

Exactly. She aged her mannerisms, and the jewelry and the hair... there was a bit of aging on the face.. not a lot... but some lines...
And the makeup helped with that too.
My only compliant was that I felt she needed more smokers lines.

Straight Oscar Members
 

According to news reports (or report) straight Oscar voter's are not seeing brokeback mtn. Seriously though, how big of a difference could that really make?

Hey; those three votes could make or break a film!

Speaking of "revised" trailers...

I giggled

Okay, that was good. Thx, Prudence!:snap:

Yesterday, I went to see 'Mrs. Henderson Presents' and 'Brokeback' for a second time.

I wanted to point out a couple of things.

I totally, completely and severely missed out on something during my first viewing of 'Brokeback'. Sometimes I think my ADHD gets the best of me. Or maybe it was that I was sobbing like five rows of a church funeral the last time I watched this film.

I understood the whole significance of the shirts thing at the very end of the film. But I hadn't realized that Jack stole Ennis's shirt. It completely escaped me. Totally. I think I may be a buffoon for missing this. Ennis mentions how he forgot his shirt up on the mountain. Jack stole it. I love that! Not only this, but Jack had a shrine of sorts to their relationship in the closet! Doy. In the closet. And then Ennis has his shrine in his closet. I'm not sure how the homage to their relationship got in the parent's house, but I'm not gonna dwell on it...

Something terribly funny happened in the theatre this second time that I had to share. During the scene where Jack stands up to Lorraine's father, there was applause. That was great. Not only that, after Jack has his yelling fit at daddy-in-law, a queen in the back of the theatre shouted, "Don't piss off a bottom!"

I almost peed myself.

:D

Anyway, don't listen to a word of advice I have about films any more. I can't believe I missed out on that plot point. Makes me ill to think on it...
:rolleyes: :D

:eek: How... I mean... how did you miss that?
That was the saving grace of the film for me...

I am however glad you caught it this time through.

I don't know. I guess I was looking at the story from Ennis's point of view and watched him take a fond memento from Jack's room and that's it. I must have a brain cloud.
:D

GC, GC!!!!! You have to see this auction!!

Not that I think you have $30,000 to just burn, cause why would you have to shovel snow if you did, but but...but................. LOOK!!!!

JACK'S SHIRTS FROM BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN! JAKE GYLLENHAAL!
Proceeds to benefit Variety - The Children's Charity

Oh my-lanta!
$30 K?!
Shoot.
Well, maybe if it was 20K.
Ha ha. Yeah, right.
:D

What a good idea for a charity fundraiser. I'm going to keep my eye on it and see how much it goes for.
Thanks for the link!
:)

I hope the winner makes an appropriate closet-shrine.

What if the shirt came with Jake in it to "shovel your snow"?

Hmmmm, snow-balling with Jake G.


Might be worth a few bucks.

Jake to dig on, Heath to do the plowing...
Oh, the possibilities.
:D

Ummmmm, plowing.

I know this is me beating a dead horse (horse, cowboys, get it?), but I just read this in my issue of The Advocate that showed up today. It's an interview with the writers of the screenplay.
Source

I know, I'm simply obsessed with this film...
:D

Tee-hee, I have the DVD.

I'd burn you a copy, GC, but you know I would never flout the Academy's rules about distributing screeners.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I present to you, Brokeback Moutain, in Legos
For your Consideration