The Hot Blog

Rather than just reiterating several points made in my review at a newspaper that I won't mention as I don't want to be accused of plugging (if you want to know, just ask), I'll post the review below. Point being, I was in agreement with many of the points in Saris's piece, as well as Poland's analysis (with one major disagreement), but that doesn't mean I didn't like the movie. Just because it's slightly more complicated than being 'the great homosexual American love story', doesn't mean it should be faulted as such.
.
.
.

Based on E. Annie Proulx’s short story, ‘Brokeback Mountain’ has been allotted plenty of industry attention due to the obvious fact that it is one of the first big-studio homosexual romantic dramas. Yes, in this film, you do see Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal engaging in sexual activities, kissing, hugging, etc. Now that that’s out of the way, one must view this film not on its noted status as the first such film, but its quality if it were merely the 50th such film. And, in fact, ‘Brokeback Mountain’ does feel like the 50th such film, as it’s not really about being gay at all. Like all of Ang Lee’s previous movies, it is about regret, missed opportunities, and the crippling nature of social expectations and very real responsibilities. And, by that standard, it’s quite compelling.

Ennis (Ledger) and Jack (Gyllenhaal) are young cowboys in 1963 Middle America. They meet and spend a summer working as sheepherders in a place called Brokeback Mountain. They eventually engage in a torrid romance that ends as August arrives. Four years later, they meet up again, as they will for the next sixteen years, every few months, for a brief respite from their own very different lives.

While Ledger and Gyllenhaal share top billing, this is clearly Ennis’s story, as we see far more of his life then Jack’s. Aside from romantic yearnings for Ennis, Jack’s life seems content. He is seemingly happily married to Lureen Newsome (Anne Hathaway), the daughter of a wealthy salesman, and he has most of the comforts of a financially stable household (it’s implied that Jack is either bi-sexual or merely attracted to Ennis as a person regardless of gender).

Ennis, however, is the model of lower-class tragedy. As the summer of 1963 ends, he immediately marries Alma (an Oscar-worthy Michelle Williams) and, within four years, he has two children, a one-sided marriage, and bills that keep him and his wife working non-stop in menial, psychically demanding jobs to support their bare minimum lifestyle. For Ennis, Jack is an escape from this impoverished and joyless life. Alma has no such outlet for her burdens, and her pain becomes the most devastating aspect of the film. She quickly discovers the nature of Ennis and Jack’s relationship and heartbreakingly realizes that she has based her future with a man who can barely support her, does not love her, and eventually cannot be passionate with her.

For twenty years, Jack and Ennis meet for occasional ‘fishing trips’ and for twenty years, even when seemingly able, they do not take their relationship beyond romantic getaways. Jack wishes this, while Ennis refuses, blaming social intolerance. But Ennis is really afraid of being truly destitute, of abandoning his children, and afraid of the possibility that he cannot open up emotionally to anyone at all. Alas, Jack and Ennis’s relationship is not a great love affair, but a fantasy, based on idealized memories of their first encounter. Jack and Ennis are wildly different people, and their lust would likely not have been enough to sustain their differences in a normal relationship. Of course, had they tried and failed early in life, they both could have moved on. The tragedy is that their yearning is both what sustains them and what renders them unable to rebound from their respective problems.

Like most of Ang Lee’s previous work, ‘Brokeback Mountain’ is a good, emotionally potent film about lives unfulfilled due to fear and the excuses we make to stop ourselves from pursuing what we really want. Bruce Banner runs from Betty Ross’s nurturing love because he fears that his inner rage will hurt her. Master Li uses his potentially final breaths to confess his love for Yu Shu Lien, now that possible death has freed him from the social constrictions that have rendered him silent. And Ennis uses social intolerance and family responsibilities to disguise his fear of being incapable of baring his soul to another person. In the end they all lose, they all end up wasting their lives. As the film winds down, Ennis must come to grips with the life he has made for himself as he undertakes a journey that will vaguely remind people of screenwriter Larry McMurtry’s literary masterpiece, ‘Lonesome Dove’ (the mini-series adaptation of which is perhaps the finest western ever made). But in the end, there is a glimmer of hope, and a potential first step. Perhaps all of these lives we see connected through Brokeback Mountain, will not be in vain.

Feel free to discuss, but again, it was easier than just retyping.

Scott Mendelson

Nice review there Scott. You really seemed to have actually thought about the film and not just decided on face value.

It's surprising when people say the movie is too long or too slow. It's Ang Lee for cryin out loud. He takes his time.

by the way, why should it make you sad or not what this Andrew Sarris guy thinks? Would it have made you sad if he thought otherwise?

I'm a bit confused is all.

sorry, me again.

Why on earth does this guy need THREE PAGES for his review? Christ, for a movie he didn't like he sure can talk about it.

Plus, there's a mistake on page 2. The cinematographer is Rodrigo Prieto, not Gustavo Santaolalla who is actually the films composer.

3 pages does seem a little much for this movie. I have read reviews that seem to be more about what the movie is about and its themes than of the movie itself.

Andrew Sarris has been one of the most prominent film critics/writers around for at least the last 40 years, so certainly almost anyone who writes about movies (like DP) would be pleased to see that their reactions to any particular movie were similar to Sarris'. That's not to make any judgment on my part about this Sarris article in particular (I haven't read it).

My question is can a movie with obvious faults win Oscar gold because of what it represents and what it is about in terms of story?

It's the top contender right now. Going into it I thought it was a two man story. Now I'm seeing it is really Heath Ledgers movie.

Has there been a movie that's won Oscar gold that hasn't had its obvious faults?

I also don't get why, if Dave isn't so certain he likes or can get into BM (or however he phrased it), that he put it as his number two movie of the year?

Terence D,

The answer to your question is a qualified yes.

Most 'Oscar' films of recent years (some might argue many years) are easily more about the message than how that message is delivered. That does not mean obvious junk will win. But good can and will be elevated to great depending on how politically correct the subject matter is. I quit watching the awards for precisely this reason several years ago.

The politics of the awards season sadly has become overwhelming. By politics I do not just mean ideology (but certainly that too), but the lobbying and the campaign strategy perfected by Miramax has really hurt the perception of the awards for many over recent years.

Again, when you compare the company of those who have never won an Oscar; Hitchcock, Scorsese, Kubrick, Wells, Griffith, etc.

...with the company of those who have...Ron Howard, Steven Soderbergh, Anthony Minghella, Jonathan Demme, James L. Brooks, its puts a lot into perspective. None of those on this bottom list are as consistently great as those on the top list.

Throw in other categories with winners like Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Halle Berry, Gwenyth Paltrow...and you see that the Oscars are little more than your high school popularity contest broadcast to an international audience.

When Spielberg gets 'dissed' this year for Ang Lee (a good but not great director with a very scattershot resume) he should keep this in mind. Hopefully Spielberg, if he really does believe in Munich will not take the bait and not campaign. Gibson backed out last year and kept his dignity in the process. Spielberg, love him or hate him is a cinematic genius...he should be big enough to rise above the politics of Oscar.

Scorsese's whimpering puppy dog Oscar desire since Goodfellas' loss has lessened his stature of recent years. Incidently, the fact that Munich has not been resoundingly praised has made me want to see it even more. He must have really done something that is a little off the beaten path.

I know many will say I am being Mr. Grumpy Pants here...but critiquing what the Oscars have become cannot be stated enough.

Is "what the Oscars have become" really all that different from what it used to be? Does anyone bemoaning the politics of Oscar campaigning today recall that Citizen Kane was the target of negative industry politics that dwarfs anything even remotely possible today? Not that I mean this as a criticism of the movie it lost out to (How Green Was My Valley), which I love. But how can anyone think that there was EVER a time when industry politics didn't dominate, or even define, the Oscar race?

For the record, Nicol D and I are not the same person. But I'll be damned if I could have said it better.

(BTW: TCM had Kong '33 last night with AMC following it directly with Kong '76. It's interesting to see how 3 very different generations have told this tale.)

Isnt Sarris the guy who said Kubrick was not an auteur. Yeah, Im glad my opinions match his..(sarcasm) Didnt he develop the so-called auteur theory?

Yeah, Sarris was one of the main champions of the "auteur theory" in American film circles, but of course it originated with French critics. I think Truffaut is generally credited with being the first one to use the term in the context that it developed into.

With all of the controversy over Memoirs of a Geisha not letting Japaneese actors play the main characters. Why aren't real gay actors playing these parts like Freddie Prinz Jr. and Ashton Kutcher?

LOL, metsys. Dude, Where's My Oscar?

"Dude, Where's My Car" was pretty gay already. In a good way.

Sarris is my favorite critic, currently. We often disagree and I could not stand reading him when I was at NYU. But he makes me think in his more recent years.

And it doesn't matter in terms of shaping my beliefs about the film... but it is lonely out here for a pimp.

I know what you're saying poland... critics ain't nothing but tricks and hos.

Wait, I have no idea what you're saying.

Loneliness has driven David to consume massive quantities of Colt 45, to deaden the ache in his heart. How tragic.

Speaking of tricks and hos and favorite critics, has Ebert not liked any film this year? I love his written reviews still, but the guy has thumbs everywhere.

i dont know about the whole weight loss thing either. he looks sickly lately.

So does Peter Jackson. First time I saw him recently, I was stunned.
(Does Ebert wear a hairpiece? I figured he couldn't stand to be both the fat AND bald critic).

Roper is taking all the weight that Ebert lost. He's packing on the lb's.

The '76 Kong is just really unintentionally funny. But Jessica Lange looks damn good.

I forgot she was that hot.

As much as I love the guy and his reviewing style and such, Ebert is giving 4 star reviews out to everything. So many that when his top 10 came out I was like "aren't there another 30 movies he apparently loved just as much".

Metsys, lol. I don't think casting hetero actors to play gay cowboys is offending anyone because it's not insulting an entire nationality of people.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: