Brokeback Mountain

Quote:

---

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

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+

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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