Brokeback Mountain

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."

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.

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

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 ...
;)

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

* drum roll *

The Wedding Banquet ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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?

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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!!

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!

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.

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.

.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.

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.

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.

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.