I saw Brokeback Mountain a few days and felt the story was quite poignant. Your review, on the other hand, added some perspectives of which I had not thought. I really enjoyed the story written by Annie Proulx so I probably would have seen the movie regardless of reviewers' critiques. Regardless, I found your points valid and appreciate that someone else noticed things were a little "off" in that movie.
Paul
***
I must say, I disagree with this essay. It seems to me that Mr. Brown's central thesis is that the movie is damaging to the gay rights movement, as it portrays the anti-gay "self loathing homosexual suffering for living a deviant life" storyline, like something out of an old pulp novel.
While there might be certain similarities, the big difference is that both characters aren't self loathing. The character of Jack seems to want nothing more than to spend the rest of his life w/ Ennis. It's Ennis' fear of potential violence against them that keeps him from fulfilling Jack's wish.
Is it sad? Yes. Is it complicated? Of course. Most of the best love stories are tragedies. I'm sure someday we'll have decent gay romantic comedies, but for now I'm pleased to have this film tide me over as a sort of gay Romeo & Juliet.
Timmy
***
Sounds like Russell Brown actually dislikes the marketing of Brokeback Mountain more than he dislikes the movie itself. So, it didn't live up the promise of its distributors who tried to market the film two ways ("groundbreakingly gay" and "not even necessarily gay.") No big surprise there—the movie's primarily urban market always clings to the idea that its favored entertainments are more important than mere recreation. The problem with the marketing has been the same problem I have seen in the over-hyped reviews and the same problem Mr. Brown seems to enact in his essay: nobody wants to watch and criticize this movie on its own terms.
Creative acts seem to fall loosely into two categories: those which are primarily interventions, and those which are primarily expressive. Brokeback is, clearly enough for anybody who has watched it with an open mind, among the latter. Though it takes its place in the unreeling history of cinema, the story is not called upon by its producers to change anything in the world (other than, perhaps, the immediate experience of its audiences). I hope that there will continue to be movies that advance justice and equality. I also hope that not every movie has the same mission. Whether or not Brokeback advances the cause of civil rights is not a question that is germane to its quality. Neither Ang Lee nor Annie Proulx are personally responsible for changing the perception of gay people by individuals or communities. If you want to evaluate a film according to its anticipated effects, consult Pat Robertson who has mastered the art.
Emerson
***
I am a Gay man living in New York City. I didn't realize it is Hollywood's responsibility to 'teach" us anything. Brokeback is a period film, this is what life was and in case you don't remember Matthew Shepherd, still is in Wyoming. People are so busy looking for what the movie isn't ( The Big Gay Film that changes everything and comes out of the celluloid Closet) that they miss the poignancy that the film does have. That two men can love and have real, life affirming, loving relationships just like any heterosexual couple , even in the homophobic constraints of the rural west in the 60's. Perhaps our problem here is we have placed a responsibility on film and Hollywood that is undeserved. Lets not even speak of the violence, racism, vapid ness etc,, that most Hollywood films perpetuate. Brokeback is art as is any film, appreciate it for what it is not what YOU want it to be. perhaps you should write a story and maybe adapt it for the silver screen and produce it yourself. I suppose films about the holocaust should be happy feel good movies also, and slavery in the Us etc... Get Real. The author never referred to the characters as cowboys herself, only the PR campaign and writers such as yourself.
John
***
I think Russell Brown puts too much things and responsibility on Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain." Often the "gay movie" is for the particular group to see, it contains more "gay-like" scenes, such as nude guys, homosex, etc. And the market position of these film is also clear, particularly for the gay community or some horny femal/male. However, "Brokeback" is far more than that. It just tells a quite-real story that could happen in the real life, only, its material is "two cowboys fall in love." its position is for all, for all who can think, can feel, can be touched human beings! And that maks this film "groundbreaking." I think "groundbreaking" means Ang Lee's master directing, the ability of telling a story, —-the most important element of a movie—, transfering the emotion to the audience, with such forbidden, unfamiliar, and not-everyone-accepted gay subject. It means Ang Lee can direct any king of materials, can turn any kind of subject into a real movie, thus, the film is "groundbreaking," so is Ang lee. The "groundbreaking" is this film could be a real "movie", which can connect the people's soul, touch people's heartstring, and give people a profound experience. It doen't have to chang anything. and it's not the film could change anything, so it is called "groundbreaking." However, it definately may arouse people's sympathy for gay people, and start to pay attetion to it. NOT What you said about the responses of the straight men. They are not straight, but homophobia. Like you white people see "Crash," but probably say"Gee — what a shame to be a nigger." Or seeing "Pianist" and say "thank god I am not Jewish!" Can you disagree with them?
Lu
***
This critic didn't get it. The overlying theme of the movie is simple: Let people be themselves and love who they want or everyone suffers. If you really think that this movie won't do well everywhere, wait until it opens nationally.
Mark
***
Your point of view is stupid. This is a period piece. Did you ever see the Ice Storm? Would you say the swingers were doomed losers? No. This is Ang Lee style. The movie is very stealth. You, for some reason, are skimming the surface and dwelling on the unimportant. Everyone else I spoke to regarding this film was still thinking about it days later and felt connected to it based on some sadness in their own lives.
This is the success of this movie.
William
***
what a mean spirited article!
you made it sound like the movie has such a political agenda or whatever it is from your paranoid perspectives.
If you have seen all Ang Lee‚s movies (including the Chinese ones), you‚d know human relations is the only thing he cares about, not the subject matter. If you‚ve read the book, you‚d know the author had no idea she was going to get any response of this sort. She wrote it from her long-term stance of trying to describe sections of rural life, individuals in particular rural situations and places. That it came out this way it just happened to touch certain nerves in people. If you have talked to the lead actor, you‚d know the primary reason he took the role because it was the best script ever offered to him.
So what that it‚s a depressing movie? Many good movies are depressing! You think ŒMillion dollar baby‚ is cheerful?
I think the only person who has any political agenda in all this is YOU!
Steve
***
With regards to your recent article on Brokeback Mountain*, your comments are cynical, overthought, too "clever" by half, and in some cases, simply wrong. You start your article by saying that this movie has been perceived as a critics' darling, and that other critics and movie-goers felt they could say no wrong with regards to this film, and then you proceed to have at it like a freaking pinata in some sort of perverse ego display of nit-picky intellect over emotion.
Dude: the "critics" you delight in calling "sheep", and positioning yourself as brighter than? Newsflash: you're one of them. And if you want to be hard and cynical for about 750 words about this film, that is your right. But I feel tremendously bad for you that you didn't seem to "get" it: this is a film about inarticulate people (your quote: "painful, groan-inducing dialogue") who will not, and can not allow themselves to love. These men have no words, not even full realizations, of what it is they're experiencing. I don't know if you yourself are gay or not, but we get far too few films at *all* that address any gay themes, that when we do, it's a cause for celebration—because of exposure, because of validation, because for once we can see ourselves in the media—despite this particular film's final bleakness and doomed denouement.
But make no mistake: the first half of Brokeback Mountain *is* a love story: a deconstructed, reluctant, rough-hewn love story, but one nevertheless. As for the "energyless pacing", the film is a tone poem, and it moves as the lives of its characters move; ambling, unravelling slowly, taking turns. Yes the film is flawed in places, as you and I are flawed, and as the story's loving shepherders were flawed. Your critique reads as so sour that it seems you have to artificially whip yourself into a frenzy to have enough invective to get through your grocery list of petty complaints (straight actors, boohoo; the gay sex is shot in partial darkness, boohoo) about this sad, majestic, beautiful film. And you also seem like a self-loathing fag, dude. Sorry for the buzzkill.
And in closing: the reason no one mentions "Making Love" as a film these days is because it was a piece of mediocre dreck that did nothing but kill Harry Hamlin's career.
I thought that early, early westerns had the bad guy in a white hat because that fancy, clean hat symbolized the rich, fat cat land baron. You know, the guy who keeps getting fatter off the poor and down-trodden. Much like the royalty of Medieval times. A character in a Monty Python film asks another character, "How can you tell he's the king?" The other peasant, grimy from his poorness, answers, "Because he aint got shit on him." Yes, the king and company can afford to bathed on a regular basis. Eventually, the bad guy, like Black Bart, began wearing a black hat and the good guy, like Roy Rodgers, wore virtuous white. These seem like trivial details when studying the archetypes perpetuated in the film genre that is westerns. We have the rugged cowboy, the dedicated prairie wife, the saloon floozy, the spaghetti western bandito, the savage Indian and the noble Calvary soldiers who saved all us Indo-Europeans from being scalped or eaten alive by the heathens. Thankfully, as stereotypes are continually being challenged in all facets of life, modern images of the West, and its players, have become more complex and perhaps more real. As the modern world grapples with homosexuality, the idea of cowboys choosing their smelly counterparts over the whores at the local saloon seems timely. Enter Brokeback Mountain. Landmark film? Maybe. Still, if the movie wanted to keep it real, they might have picked less pretty guys to play the leads. Imagine two strapping hairy dudes, dentally challenged, sharing a bedroll out under the stars. Ah the passion. Like grizzlies on the nature channel. Perhaps that's too "real". Anyway, long ago I grew skeptical about the supposed benevolence of these here United States and that includes everyone from the good guy cowboys and bad guy Indians to the Desert Storm heroes. It's not that I discount our ideology completely. I just don't accept it blindly without question. That would be too much like the fundamentalists that have been continually waging wars and perpetuating very day. Oh well, these opinions are coming from a pasty, white guy, well beyond the glory of his youth, who very likely is less relevant, and entertaining than a gay cowboy.
