'Brokeback Mountain' - A Review (Unmarked Spoilers)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

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...

[Alex]

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

[CoasterMatt]

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

[Gemini Cricket]

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.

The media seem to be running with a recurring theme around this movie: the “bravery” of the actors playing the roles, the “courage” it took them to do it, and the “speculation” about whether America is ready for a “gay cowboy movie.” Certainly not a position a liberal would take, so it befuddles me how the media is labeled “liberal.” Because the media has all but compared these two to war heroes for their portrayal of two closeted cowboys in a story of unrequited love and personal deception.

Say it with me: poppycock.

Source

[innerSpaceman]

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]

[Alex]

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.

[innerSpaceman]

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.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

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.

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.

[innerSpaceman]

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

Originally Posted by Charles Karel Bouley II

Yes, I know gay people play straight people all the time in movies, in life, at work—and no one writes on and on about their bravery. Oh, the courage they must muster, right? I mean, if it takes so much courage for a straight guy to play a gay person, then imagine what it must be for a gay person to play straight. How does Rupert Everett or Sir Ian McKellen do it? I seem to have missed the volumes written about the courage of gay actors playing straight.

Hahahaha - so true.