Brokeback Mountain - the Jasun Review... **Major Spoiler Alert**

[Jasun]

Well, Ang, you've done it again...

You've managed to take otherwise strong, proud and enduring Hollywood Staples and turn them into whiney and spineless turds. Your characters all have superpowers of some sort, like flying through the air while awkwardly flailing their arms, turning into big boogers or having really great gay sex, but you still manage to make them all into wimps. I'm impressed with your track record.

You've done it to Martial Arts Warriors, making them all irritating, obnoxious, annoying and just plain boring people... The only part of Crouching Tiger worth seeing was at the end when that chick finally offed herself. I had felt like doing it for the back 2 thirds of the movie. Fuck, I hated that bitch.

You've done it to Comic book heros, with your abominable "Hulk" which is quite possibly the movie that took the crown of "Worst comic book adaptation" away from "Spawn". Not an easy thing to do. In your inept hands, Bruce Banner was just a hansom twit who was unable to find his nads with a magnifying glass. Seeing him whine and wimper and moan his way through his "Oh-So-Unfair" life and then turn into that Green thing (which was supposed to be The Incredible Hulk but seemed more like that Toenail Fungus thing from the TV commercial) for no apparent reason was just painful.

Well, congratulations. You've done it yet again. You've now taken cowboys and turned them into whiney, wimpy, spineless losers. Not able to actually be "gay", they need to go through all that "I'm not queer but I'll take it in the ass from you" shit.. hey it was the 60s.. I get it... and then they marry women. But once that's all said and done, they just whine and wimper and cry and sneak and secretly love each other through the years.. but even when the sad truth is discovered, nothing really happnes.. shit, nothing really changes. Their wives just kinda help them cover it all up because hey - they're spineless too.

Sure, it's got some good performances in it, and yeah, I really did care for a bit, but eventually, I get tired of seeing people who just need to stand up for themselves instead choose to just roll over and play dead.

**Major Spoiler Alert**

And to just drive it home that these people deserve all the pain and suffering heaped upon them, they can't even tell the truth once one of them is beaten to death. Once a lame-ass liar, always a lame-ass liar I guess. I suppose that if one is a lame-ass, spineless, sneaky, whiney, wimpy, lying turd who'd rather be miserable than be happy, I'm sure you'll see a bit of yourself in this movie.

The rest of us will just walk out of the theater happy that we have nads.


I'm going to be nice and give this 2/5

[MiamiB]

Sounds like a load a crap to me...

Thanks for the review...now the boyfriend and I can save the money and see "Walk the line" instead this weekend.

Lee

[desslock]

by Joe Morgenstern in today's Wall Street Journal

One of the best lines in Ang Lee's beautiful "Brokeback Mountain" is the last line of the spare Annie Proulx short story that the movie was adapted from: "If you can't fix it you've got to stand it." The it is the dilemma faced by two cowboys, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. Ennis and Jack, who are played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, love each other passionately. Yet they can't live together in the Marlboro Country of the 1960s and 1970s, so they try to hide their love behind shaky façades of heterosexual domesticity. The it is also the love itself, which at first seems baffling to these two manly men, as if it were a thing apart, rather than the force that gives meaning to their lives. Love stories come and go, but this one stays with you -- not because both lovers are men, but because their story is so full of life and longing, and true romance.

The film takes its own good time getting started. Ennis and Jack meet when they're hired to herd sheep on the mountain of the title. Soon they've got all the time in the world to savor the glories of alpine Wyoming -- crystalline skies, wildflowers, snow showers, a slow-moving tide of sheep alongside a fast-running stream. They become part of the landscape, a pair of lonely, overgrown boys with tales of failure to tell and energy to burn. (Ennis, the taciturn one, turns downright garrulous in Jack's presence.) Their first sexual encounter grows out of huddling together in a pup tent to keep warm. It's explosive, animalistic and so unbidden that both men hasten to agree it was a "one-shot thing." Yet their bond will endure for a decade, which the film spans with bold leaps that may initially seem like disjunctures. "Brokeback Mountain" aspires to an epic sweep and achieves it, though with singular intimacy and grace.

Movies made from short stories often seem thin; it's usually sprawling novels that provide rich detail and texture. This one is an exception, thanks to the superb adaptation by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, but Ang Lee's film is exceptional in other ways. The Taiwan-born director works like an American master; every nuance feels right, every scene has its rewards and surprises. As for the performances, they range from superb to superlative. It's no news that Jake Gyllenhaal is a fine actor, and his Jack is a mercurial mix of plain, poetic and practical. But the triumph is that of Heath Ledger, a young Australian who has been known until now as a hunky heartthrob. He's certainly handsome enough here, but in a touchingly bleak, self-contained way. He doesn't portray his powerful, sometimes rageful cowboy so much as release him -- slowly, quietly, tactfully, economically, even reluctantly, or so it would seem, until he has outed Ennis's lyrical soul.

Is America ready for Marlboro men who love men? That remains to be seen, but "Brokeback Mountain" ought to be seen for the stirring entertainment that it is. Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams are eloquent as, respectively, Jack's and Ennis's uncomprehending wives. Rodrigo Prieto's camera feasts on the lovely simplicity of Judy Becker's production design, while letting the scenery sing for itself. Gustavo Santaolalla's score reflects the film as a whole -- it's simultaneously spare and deeply affecting.

[Jasun]

Yeah,. I read a lot of five star reviews and got shamed into going being told that I was totally wrong about what I thought the movie would be.

Well, I wasn't.

Apparently Jake Gyle-thing-a-hootie said that the movie plays better to stragith audiences who like to see their homosexuals full of internal torture than to gay audiences who like to see their homosexuals strong.

Whatever. I thought it was a piece of crap.

Like all Ang Lee movies, nobody really learns anything, even in the end. Looks good, though.. cinematography was really good, which is something, anyway.

[Jasun]

I should point out, though, that I fucking HATE chick flicks, and this is just a chick flick with an extra dick.

But I'm sure my mom would LOVE it. Mind you, she also likes Jullia Roberts movies.

[XXXWriterDude]

Well, Jasun, you knew that *I* was going to disagree with you on all counts. In fact, I don't agree with a single one of your assessments, and I think you focus on all the wrong aspects.

What your review of the movie fails to address is that the two main characters are a product of their time, which is a key point in the film's portrayal of gay love. The two men meet in 1963, in a time in which living an openly gay life was uheard of. It carries them through the early '80s, sure, but again, they are products of a time in which such a thing was unheard of. That they do not embrace being gay is an entirely plausible situation. I dare say that if you met a man you were in love with in 1963 in Montana (of all places), you would have a much different outlook on the film. Forget that you're an openly gay man living in 2005. Put yourself in their shoes. Hell, even just coming from Pennsylvania, I completely understand what these characters went through. I eventually chose to come out when I was 20, after gonig away to college, but even then, in the early 90s, "gay" was something that was more commonly accepted than it was in the 60s, 70s and early 80s.

Also, one of the characters is not beaten to death. The vision that Ennis has at the end is that of Jack being gay-bashed, but in reality, that is more than likely not what actually happened to him. In his mind, Jack's wife is making the story up to cover up what Ennis suspects could be a fag-bashing, but I'm pretty sure this is shown only to further demonstrate how Ennis cannot let go of his internalized homophobia.

The movie is lyrically majestic on all counts. Most importantly, it avoids all the common clihes and pitfalls that most gay films are commonly riddled with (the over-the-top histrionics, the heavy-handed theatrics, the ridiculously gratutitous and sensationalistic focus on sex) and instead captures with vivid reality the universal experience of falling in love. The film lifts itself out of the "gay ghetto" of filmmaking and presents itself as a movie for ANYONE -- gay or straight -- to enjoy. There is nobody that cannot relate to the basic experiences that these two men have. Forget about the fact that they are two men. Just focus on the love itself.

Not all love stories should end happily ever after. Not everybody is able to see life from the same point of view that you do. Hell, even today, there are people who live in the closet. The film presents a true-to-life scenario that remains a cautionary tale for anyone who chooses to do so. It presents us with a very important question: When it comes to love, what kind of a world do we want to live in?

By the way, I thought you were adamantly opposed to even seeing the movie. Aren't you the one who posted on this very board that you refused to see it because you didn't want to sit through a movie in which the characters didn't end up together? Seems a bit silly to me that you would go see it, knowing exactly what to expect, then come on here and lambast it for being exactly what it was and what you knew it was going to be. That's like going to see the movie version of Phantom of the Opera and then panning it because it was a musical. Silly head.

Personally, I think it's a bold, brave and intensely fulfilling movie. Everybody should go see it, if only for the reason that should the film prove to be successful, it will pave the way for many other mainstream films with gay characters and themes. Get off your asses and go see the frickin' movie. You owe it to the gay community.

[Jasun]

What your review of the movie fails to address is that the two main characters are a product of their time, which is a key point in the film's portrayal of gay love.

Actually, I think I said "Yeah, it was the 60s.. I get it"

Also, one of the characters is not beaten to death. The vision that Ennis has at the end is that of Jack being gay-bashed, but in reality, that is more than likely not what actually happened to him. In his mind, Jack's wife is making the story up to cover up what Ennis suspects could be a fag-bashing, but I'm pretty sure this is shown only to further demonstrate how Ennis cannot let go of his internalized homophobia.

Ok, one of us read this wrong... I thought it was the wife, yet again, pretending the nothing was out of order and making up a cover story about how he died.

The film lifts itself out of the "gay ghetto" of filmmaking and presents itself as a movie for ANYONE -- gay or straight -- to enjoy. There is nobody that cannot relate to the basic experiences that these two men have.

well, I must be neither, then, cuz I thought it was boring as hell.

By the way, I thought you were adamantly opposed to even seeing the movie. Aren't you the one who posted on this very board that you refused to see it because you didn't want to sit through a movie in which the characters didn't end up together?

That's not exactly what I said... I didn't want to sit through a movie that I knew would have a bunch of wimps for characters.. my motorcycle club insisted that I go for a matinee. And hey.. at least I got to hang with them. It wasn't because they didn't end up together that I didn't want to see it, exactly, it was more like "Why bother with another 'I love you but I'm going back to women'" movie?

You owe it to the gay community.

Ok.. that's just silly. What you owe to the gay community is to be out and proud and live your life that way, not see a movie about people who couldn't do that.

[desslock]

Apparently Jake Gyle-thing-a-hootie said that the movie plays better to stragith audiences who like to see their homosexuals full of internal torture than to gay audiences who like to see their homosexuals strong.
Whatever. I thought it was a piece of crap.

Well I haven't seen the movie yet, but will. However I noticed in the WSJ review that the screenplay is by Larry McMurtry. Well I've read Lonesome Dove and the Last Picture Show..... I think it would be safe to say that many of McMurtry's characters - depicting the modern day male in the West - are all filled with internal emotions.

Just go watch Hud sometimes, which is a great old movie. It's not really a gay thing - more of a genre thing. Movies like the Last Picture Show are what made the Westerns in the 1970s different from the John Wayne "strong" western man characters from decades earlier.

Maybe you just don't like the way that genre treats men in general.

Steve

[Jasun]

Maybe you just don't like the way that genre treats men in general.

Steve

That's possible. I did like HUD, as I remember, but I saw it years ago. I dont' expect everyone to walk away from this movie as irritated as I was.. but I figured I'd let y'all know what I thought. And I thought it sucked chunks.

[XXXWriterDude]

That's possible. I did like HUD, as I remember, but I saw it years ago. I dont' expect everyone to walk away from this movie as irritated as I was.. but I figured I'd let y'all know what I thought. And I thought it sucked chunks.

Well, and I would say that's b/cuz you walked into the theater already clearly expecting not to like it. You said yourself a while back you didn't want to see it, and so you walked in there having (by your own accord) been dragged to see it, knowing full well that you were not going to like it, and you still come out bitching about it for all the wrong reasons. How can we take you seriously when you admit to having a bias against it in the first place? You were looking for flaws right from the moment you sat down.

What I personally LOVE about Ang Lee's films is that they are not, as you insinuate, glorifications of "spineless" characters. Lee's films gently and humanely capture the despair and loneliness of societal repression and oppression. From Sense and Sensibility to The Ice Storm to Crouching Tiger, Lee reveals the evils that come from forcing societal restraints upon his characters. To call the characters "spineless" is to completely overlook the whole point of the movie (and, indeed, all of his movies), which is to show that it is not the characters who are fault, but rather society at large for shoving such constraints upon them. In this token, Lee's films are, in fact, message films that incite people to break out of these constraints and live their lives free from such suffocating boundaries.

And why blame Ang Lee for the way the movie turns out, when the real "culprit" is Annie Proulx, the author of the short story. Lee didn't write the script. What was he supposed to have done? Change it so they end up happily ever after?

Furthermore, it's important to note that not all of Lee's films follow this same trajectory. If you look at either The Wedding Banquet (his first "gay film"), it ends quite happily, and the characters do break out of their social constraints in the end. Also, in the luminous Eat Drink Man Woman, the film is a loving testament to familial bonds and tradition that does not end unhappily for its characters. So, in fact, you're quite mistaken in your assessment of Lee's oeuvre.

To view this film as one that glorifies gay characters being spineless is, again, to miss the point. It's no different than, say, The Age of Innocence, or even Romeo and Juliet, films that show that not all love stories end happily ever after. Sometimes, love just isn't enough. In this case, it happens to be two men in love with each other.

And if you really "got" the whole 1960s thing, then you wouldn't accuse the film of perpetuating the notion that gay characters can't stand up for themselves. You can't fault a movie for honestly revealing the reality of its day. If the film had been set in contemporary times, then, OK, you would have a point, but you choose to overlook the fact that the movie is , for all intents and purposes, a period piece so that you can't rant and rave about it portrays the "wrong" images of gay people--when, in fact, the film's message couldn't be more opposite.

But again, what I would suggest to others to consider before letting Jasun's review sway you into not seeing the movie is that he has admitted to A) not like love stories (or, as he refers to them in sexist terms, "chick flicks") and B) he did not want to see the movie in the first place, so his opinion of it was tainted from the start. Meaning no disrespect at all to you, Jasun, but you're not exactly the person I would ask for an honest, ojbective review of this movie.

[XXXWriterDude]

Ok.. that's just silly. What you owe to the gay community is to be out and proud and live your life that way, not see a movie about people who couldn't do that.

You know what I mean. If we want to continue seeing movies that reflect our lives, then yes, we are obligated to go out and support them. If gay movies bomb, Hollywood will continue to say that they are not marketable. It's up to us to make sure that [IBrokeback[/I] and movies that depict gay life get the attention and respect they deserve. Otherwise, we have no right to complain that Hollywood won't make movies about our lives. That's my point.

[XXXWriterDude]

I should point out, though, that I fucking HATE chick flicks, and this is just a chick flick with an extra dick.

I must also address this point, b/cuz as I pointed out in my other post, I find this terminology to be archaic and rather sexist. I know you didn't coin this phrase, Jasun, so I'm directing my comments at you directly, but I do resent the notion that men cannot relate to films that tell love stories. I think it's absurd to categorize movies such as, say, Pretty Woman or even Steel Magnolias, as movies that only women can appreciate. If that were the case, then Brian's Song would not have been the huge hit that it was. The same is true for Titanic. Obviously, "weepers" (as they are also referred to) might do better among women, b/cuz let's be honest, women are usually a lot more in touch with their emotions than men are.

But you do not have to be woman to appreciate Brokeback Mountain. You need only be a person who appreciates movies that explore the universal experiences that all people--male or female--go through.

[XXXWriterDude]

I know you didn't coin this phrase, Jasun, so I'm directing my comments at you directly,

Shit, that was supposed to say "NOT directing my comments at you directly."

Damn it.

[Marc]

I didnt see the movie yet and wont read your entire post because I dont want a spoiler, but I say thank you to Ang for putting this together. He didnt have to do a story about us for us.

As gay people we get shit on and kicked in the stomach all day long by people who "Dont approve of homosexuality", so I am ALL FOR anyone who wants to show gay people in a positive light.

Maybe when you live in LA or NYC or SF and are totally surrounded and immersed by gay life, then you can be picky about a gay movie not being totally to your liking.
But if it can make some people who dont live in a major city and arent exposed to gay people open up their minds to the idea that 2 men are genuinely in love and they have to live a lie to try to fit in, then it might make people see that were human too, and not the 18 year old anonymous barebacking partying bathhouse hopping meth addicts the news portrays us as so often.

15 years ago you never say gay people on tv. It was never even mentioned. So stuff like this is very good for us.

Some people will see that movie and say that its sad those 2 cowboys had to lie and get married to women when they didnt want to. They should have just stayed together.
Isnt that great?!

People like Ang are doing us a big favor.

[rhys]

how 'bout READ THE STORY?

i'm not a fan of short stories generally but Proulx's Brokeback Mountain was excellent for its spare use of language to draw out the characters of these two men.

It was an evocative story well worth reading.

From what i gather, the movie has been 'filled out' with narrative to build up the 'non gay' portion of the cowboys' lives. Unfortunately, the only thing this does is take the focus away from the core relationship that these two men have.

I'll wait til the movie comes out on video to see Jake and Heath.