A Review of Brokeback

[UTUSN]

I could not find a link to this. It was e-mailed to a mailing list of movie poster collectors. I don't think there are copyright issues, so this is it in its entirety. It is not intended as flamebait--and PLEASE, there is NO homophobia here. It expresses adult, honest criticism, not a catering to fond, childlike, wishful thinking. I have not seen the movie, but regarding the comments in the review about character depiction, IFC recently aired "The Sum of Us" in which the Gay son and his father and the other characters spoke truth about their individual dilemmas.

& I'm going about other things, so this is also NOT a post& run AND I won't be checking on it till possibly tomorrow morning.

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=MOPO-L&H=LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU

[email protected]
Movie Poster Discussion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David Kuspa" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: (MOPO) Brokeback Mountain: answering David Kusumoto's question

I finally saw Brokeback Mountain and although this topic seems to have run its course on the list, no one has stepped up to the plate to answer David Kusumoto's original question, which I thought was a legitimate and provocative request. No, not his first question: "How many people on this list are gay?" (that was awkward and silly--hey, how many of you are fat? I want to know what you thought of The Nutty Professor). I'm referring to his question whether Brokeback Mountain reflected reality or not.

Hold on, 'cuz yer about to git a hol 'nuther take on this movie. I confess to not liking this film within the first 30 minutes, and although I was hopeful that it would grow on me under the direction of the very talented Ang Lee (his "Wedding Banquet" is a personal favorite), it didn't. For me, it never had the ring of truth and wasn't at all what I expected. The buzz was that this was a "great love story" and I had hoped to see something groundbreaking. I really wanted to like this movie and have had to fight conflicting feelings of pride and satisfaction that this gay film was being seen and praised by such a large, mainstream audience. What I came away with was this very minimalist portrait filled with cliches and cardboard characters which only reinforce the popular notion that a gay life is by definition alienating, unfulfilling and tragic. I know that this was most likely not the author's intent, but I just wish a more worthy story had garnered the attention and praise of the mainstream movie audience.


Remember, this is a work of fiction, crafted in the mind of a middle-aged, white (and as far as I know, heterosexual) woman who could have chosen to paint from the much richer palette of universal human emotion and experiences instead of the narrow picture of repressed homosexuality represented here. I'm not denying that her story of these two characters is plausible, just that it didn't ring very true for me based on my life experiences and this wasn't a story that I particularly wanted or needed to see. And once I realized these characters and this story weren't really going anywhere, I grew bored.

The original author, screenwriters and director made deliberate choices to tell this story using a long list of cliches and stereotypical scenarios--so I was very disappointed. It wouldn't matter to me as much if the movie weren't so darned popular. I guess I should feel better knowing that most of the audience probably feels sympathy for these characters, but I'm saddened that the mainstream public has chosen this film as a credible and momentous love story about Gay America. I've never known any gay men as one-dimensional as Jack or Ennis, but I have known many gay men--closeted or openly gay--who are pretty much like most anyone you'd typically run into. This is the world I live in, where I don't see much difference between the relationships of couples gay or straight. We're all human beings and as much as some would like to emphasize our differences, there's more sameness about us than difference.

So even in the imagined world of Brokeback Mountain, I expected to recognize a little more familiar territory from the landscape of intimate relationships. I kept waiting for more revelations of what cemented the bond between Ennis and Jack as human beings beyond sexual objects. Why were they drawn together? What did they even LIKE about each other? I didn't even really get why they would be best friends, much less lovers. So from my point of view, I was really watching two heterosexual men who happened to have occasional homosexual sex together. I couldn't help thinking this made it a little easier for a straight audience to digest. And the prurient lure of seeing a couple of (presumably) straight stars play gay no doubt is part of the draw for some--and part of the comfort factor for those who would normally shy away from such a story (after all, they're just actors pretending). Do you think many people would have gone to see Brokeback Mountain if it had starred Harvey Fierstein and Richard Simmons--no matter how fantastic the acting or the direction was?

Face it, mainstream society is more comfortable with the stereotype of the tough, silent "straight-acting" male icon than it is with a man capable of sharing feelings, passion and--dare I say it--romance with another man. I get the tragedy part of this story, as contrived as I felt it was, but if this is a great love story, where was the romance between them? I was uncomfortable during their first physical encounter as I'm sure most others in the audience probably were, not because of what they were doing, but because it wasn't playing out in a way that made sense to me. The tired device of getting the two characters drunk first wasn't enough--by the logic of this author's homophobic world, you could get killed for barking up the wrong tree. There was no seduction leading up to this (or did I miss something?)--it just started abruptly happening. In retrospect, I guess it was too much to expect a romantic seduction from these one-dimensional characters, but I did expect some hint, some testing of the water earlier in their relationship to clear the way for this to begin happening between them--if only so they would know the other wouldn't kill them if they made the first pass. The possibilities that come to mind would be casual joking around, teasing or a confession of a previous gay or near-gay experience to gauge the other's reaction.
>
Sure, I understand that the authors were trying to depict Ennis and Jack's lust for each other in their first sexual encounter. I just wasn't buying the way it was set up, nor that this was enough to sustain a great love affair over the years. Obviously, there is a small percentage of the gay population that is into anonymous or impersonal sex (as there is in the straight population), but I didn't think that was what this movie was supposed to be about. I was embarrassed, knowing that thousands of straight audience members, after seeing the depiction of sex between men for perhaps the first time, would walk away with the idea that this was normal or even commonplace among gay men--much less between two men in a "great love story". And the love that supposedly existed between these two thinly-drawn characters didn't develop or deepen from my point of view. I never felt their physical relationship evolved into much of anything else--no tenderness, not even much comraderie or companionship beyond simple grunts and small talk. Oh right, that was the point. These were tragic characters trapped by their own repression of sexuality. ZZZZzzzzzzzz.

What I really wanted to see was the story of the two men that Ennis told Jack about, the gay couple who had set up a ranch together--and of course, were brutally killed off by the author (can't have too many tragic reminders of the dangers of a gay "lifestyle" around here). I'll bet theirs could've been a great love story--even if you kept the tragic ending. It certainly would have been more interesting. These two men made a commitment to each other, to live, love and grow together. Like people do in real life. Plenty of gay couples survived throughout middle America in the last century--I'm sure some even in Wyoming--living personally satisfying lives together even if they couldn't be open about the true nature of their relationships.
>
There's a good reason why the conservative moral majority hasn't launched a full-scale attack on this movie. Why bother? The authors have done the work for them by reinforcing their beliefs that such a tragic "lifestyle" can only result in unhappiness, condemnation and death. Again, these comfortably familiar cliches were deliberately chosen by the authors to create their fictional world. There are other movies, based on real-life gay tragedies, which are more worthy of our sympathies and praise ("Boys Don't Cry").
>
If it's true that some well-known scripts were originally written for two gay characters, then there's hope that someday a really great script won't
have to be subjected to gender changes to make it commercially acceptable. Just to use a few examples of movies I've watched recently, imagine if the two lead characters in "Something's Gotta Give" were gay men, or the lead character in "Under the Tuscan Sun" was a lesbian. The gay characters in these stories would be far more interesting and rewarding to watch than the one-dimensional cowboys in the narrowly-defined universe of Brokeback Mountain.
>
There has been a long list of gay-themed movies in recent years that are truthful and meaningful stories of what it's like to be gay in America.
Some are awkward and immature, hobbled by poorly-written scripts, amateur acting or low budgets. But most have a far greater ring of truth than Brokeback Mountain, partly because many of these movie's writers, directors and actors ARE gay. Some are based on real people or drawn from real-life experiences. Some are wonderful romantic comedies and poignant love stories. But as good as some of these movies are, they haven't been seen by most of the mainstream movie-going public. I'm saddened that Brokeback Mountain will probably leave them in the box office dust. I continue to hold out hope that someday, someone will craft a truthful, romantic, inspiring gay love story that is enormously successful and really captures the heart and soul of the nation. One that doesn't have to rely on so many negative images long associated with being gay. I ain't seen that movie yet.
>
> --David
>
> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.

********UNQUOTE*******

[mitchtv]

1. It was too boring to read through

The movie seemed very true to life to me.But I am gay, and have no agenda(other than ruling the world and mandatory homosexuality, of course)

[William769]

3. I thought I was the only one who wanted to do that.

:evilgrin:

[SkipNewarkDE]

2. Eh, disagree with this review...

This is review is a bit silly, because the author is looking at this story through the context of today's more accepting views, and also apparently desires that the character's themselves have some perspective and basis or even CONTEXT for their own feelings and plight. The point of the story is that these two, BECAUSE of the repressed view of the society and their upbringing, didn't even have THEMSELVES a context for discussing and thinking about what they were feeling. Their monosyllabic, completely inarticulate interactions on the subject was dead on in portraying the repression, and absolute inability to deal with what they were feeling.

And the romance doesn't have to be all flowers and rose petals, for crying out loud. I think the most telling thing about these two being in love was the fact that Ennis was incapable of putting two words together EXCEPT when he was around Jack.

The first sex between the two was as clumsy, and inarticulate and embarassing as first encounters always are. Oh darn, the awful straight people are going to think this is how all gay sex is. Who the fuck cares? Again, it ain't all romance and birds twittering, for crying out loud. The clumsiness fit right into the overall theme of the piece.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Very good points

In my disagreement below, I had forgotten about the silence in which most gay men of the era lived. There were NO role models, and often not even words to describe what they were doing. I will need to see the movie again to make sure, but I don't think any of the common epithets used against gay men were uttered in the movie. The closest came when Ennis' wife said, "Jack Twist? Jack Nasty!"

That the only time Ennis spoke much was when he was with Jack... good catch, I missed that. I did notice that it was the only time he ever showed any emotion at all: he was cold and distant to everyone else in his life. When he was preparing for a tryst, though, he became animated, he smiled, he became alive. And Jack became confident in his own abilities; we was pretty much a wimp and failure except when he was with Ennis.

You are certainly right in saying that romace is not all rose petals and twittering birds (great image, btw.) It was very clear to me, hopeless romantic that I am, just how desperately in love they were with each other. To use a cliche, when they were together they were complete. The tragedy of their story -- and every good romantic story has a tragedy -- was the intense pressure that their culture placed on them to keep the love hidden, even from themselves.

[skypilot]

4. I'll be the first to admit...

...that I haven't seen the movie, and the reason I haven't is that every, EVERY review I've read of it--even the good ones--make it sound just the way the above author made it sound. I know that reviews aren't always a reliable indicator of how good or bad a movie is or of how much one might actually enjoy it, but in my experience it's possible to get a "feel" for a movie after reading several reviews. The impression that I was getting after reading the reviews I read wasn't much different from what was described above. I tend to trust my instincts about these things these days. I was excited about this movie initially but even the good reviews of it left me underwhelmed. I decided a couple weeks ago to just wait for the DVD.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. Just go see it. What's the big deal? How many movies do you go to see

anyway? I thought it was GREAT..

If there's any movie I really anticipate, I try NOT to read reviews so I don't get spoilers or have my impression "tainted" by critics too much.

I would say that even if you thought it was just "meh" it's worth seeing in the theater just for the incredible cinematography and scenery on the big screen versus DVD.

I disagree with the review above, but it's not worth debating specific points in a review if you haven't seen the film.

[skypilot]

12. "Just go see it. What's the big deal?"

I didn't say there was a "big deal". It just doesn't sound interesting to me. Awkward fumbling and grunting inarticulateness just doesn't sound compelling to watch. I'm considering reading the short story because I'd imagine that the author who created the characters would do a good job of getting you inside their heads, more so than images on the screen.

And what does the number of movies that I go see have to do with my decision to see or not see this one? I don't particularly want to see this movie anymore, that's all. So, I'll throw your question right back at you, "What's the big deal?"

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. I strongly disagree that the movie was cliched or stereotyped

I will agree, though, that the one and only sex scene could leave a negative impression. It would have been nice to see other romantic interactions, even if it was just cozying by the fire on one of their trysts, or sharing a blanket while sleeping.

By and large, though, their relationship is very much how two guys raised in a very rural, very conservative ranching community would have acted. I'm one generation removed (I was born in 1967, the year when their regular "fishing trips" began in the movie) but I have known quite a few guys who could have been Ennis' or Jack's drinking buddy. And I grew up in rural southern Arizona; I can assure you that things were much the same in the mid 80s as they were in the mid 60s and 70s. Even today, there are a great many married men who would rather have a wife and the occasional "fishing buddy" (great euphemism) than to admit they prefer men; many of them are only in their 20s and 30s.

Part of the reason for the characters' supression of their sexual orientation is the fact that gay bashings were very, very real. It is easy to forget that nowadays, when many people live in liberal cities with anti-discrimination laws. But gay people -- particularly gay men -- are still being beaten to death throughout the country, and it was much more common 60 years ago, when the incident told by Ennis would have happened. That is not killing off "tragic reminders of the dangers" of being gay, that was the reality that Ennis and Jack faced.

"Brokeback Mountain" is, essentially, a period piece. Just because it is set from 1963 to about 1980 rather than Victorian England or the Tang Dynasty does not make that any less true. This is about two men raised in a very oppressive environment -- remember when Ennis said he was raised by Pentecostals? who could not afford to be open because, in a very real way, their lives depended on them staying in the closet. That things have changed in the 25 to 40 years is irrelevant; evaluating the movie based on today's attitudes and reality is just plain ignorant.

[clitzpah queen]

6. I think this review is very valid and substantive. I myself liked the

film, didn't LOVE it. But it DID linger with me days after I saw it. So I took that as a sign of some significance. While reading this review, I kept saying "Yeah, he's right, yeah that too....etc." So now I feel gullible and caught up in the marketing of this movie...particularly to the community I live in, which is Chelsea (in NYC).

[CatWoman]

9. I have been planning on seeing this movie

just to see what all the commotion is about.

I don't care whom sleeps with whom, or whom falls in love with whom.

I have my own life to worry about.

[deutsey]

10. It ain't about who you love. It's all about DO you love, do you love

--Michael Franti www.spearheadvibrations.com

:hi:

[donheld]

11. This review wasn't worth my time

The reviewer didn't see the same movie I've watched twice.

[mitchtv]

13. same here

not realistic? who'e he kidding. He describrd the affair as lust, noybe true, but when ennis got divorced and Jack drove up from TX and said "I'm here," I almost cried; it was so much more than what the reviewer claims

[Rowdyboy]

14. I admit I haven't seen the movie, but I find his criticisms misplaced....

This is a period piece in a peculiar setting with two young men overwhelmed by something bigger than both of them. The short story was beautiful and I have a hard time believing that Ang Lee would screw it up when translating to the big screen.

The critic wants a story about mutual, longlasting love in a problem free world where gays are considered equal just different. That world didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now. His story would have no drama. "Brokeback" does. He sounds as though he wants them to sit around reading Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman to each other. That would not fit the characters as written.

I don't expect it to be the forerunner of a cosmic shift. I don't see it as even a particularly important cultural indicator. I do think its probably an exceptional movie and I fully intend to see it ASAP

Lastly, author Annie Proulx said that Heath Ledger interpreted Ennis brilliantly, and seemed to have a deeper understanding of the character than did she. When an author says something like that, it says far more than some minor movie critic with a chip on his shoulder.

[xchrom]

15. those of you who missed it -- the reviewer is imposing not

an ''artistic'' criticism -- but a moral one.

oh there is some blather in the beginning about being bored -- but right away you get this: ''reinforce the popular notion that a gay life is by definition alienating, un fulfilling and tragic.''

folks this is a period piece. and it takes place where it was very easy to lose your life if you were to ''positively affirm'' your affection for another man.

these people are poor and live in a region of the country where it's pretty to look at, yes -- but grindingly, mind numbingly unchanging and poor and if not poor then certainly rigid.

if those aren't recipes for alienation -- i don't know what is.

think about the stories of hard drinking and native american reservations, cowboys who can't keep body and soul together, etc.

gay people DEAL with alienation internally and externally all the time.
it is a very real part of our story .

chekoff himself didn't write plays about ''remarkable'' people -- isn't that the very essence of realism -- these are characters drawn rather precisely.

the whole point is their lives don't go swimmingly -- not every one's does.

and i don't need the gay version of the titanic to redeem the lives gay men for mainstream audiences.

this paragraph is naive at best with regards to what i'm talking about: ''If it's true that some well-known scripts were originally written for two gay characters, then there's hope that someday a really great script won't
have to be subjected to gender changes to make it commercially acceptable. Just to use a few examples of movies I've watched recently, imagine if the two lead characters in "Somethings Gotta Give" were gay men, or the lead character in "Under the Tuscan Sun" was a lesbian. The gay characters in these stories would be far more interesting and rewarding to watch than the one-dimensional cowboys in the narrowly-defined universe of Brokeback Mountain.''

the characters in both of these films have a sweetness about them that is PRECISELY not the subject matter of brokeback mountain.
ennis and his partner in many don't have redeeming heroic qualities -- they don't rise above their circumstance and fate -- how many among us do?

and that is the point to repression -- and not just gay repression -- it's a thief, something that steals twenty years from someone -- and they can be twenty agonizingly unremarkable years in some respects -- EXCEPT that thievery, the suffering from is oh so very human and worth, worthy of writing about, acting about, talking about.

finally there is this paragraph, the one that is in it's way the most dismissive because of it's clawing ache for unreality: ''Some are awkward and immature, hobbled by poorly-written scripts, amateur acting or low budgets. But most have a far greater ring of truth than Brokeback Mountain, partly because many of these movie's writers, directors and actors ARE gay. Some are based on real people or drawn from real-life experiences. Some are wonderful romantic comedies and poignant love stories. But as good as some of these movies are, they haven't been seen by most of the mainstream movie-going public. I'm saddened that Brokeback Mountain will probably leave them in the box office dust. I continue to hold out hope that someday, someone will craft a truthful, romantic, inspiring gay love story that is enormously successful and really captures the heart and soul of the nation. One that doesn't have to rely on so many negative images long associated with being gay. I ain't seen that movie yet.''

gay people aren't living their lives so that we can be heroically romantic, we aren't living our lives to solely be role models for ''enlightened'' straight people with emasculated{yes, both men and women in this case} views of their gay friends and the gay world.

if someone were to write the biography of mathew shephard -- and be truthful -- it would be a fuckin heart breaker -- but it wouldn't be pretty.
mathew was very much a modern day version of an alienated ennis or travis.

gay people are just people -- we have rich and varied lives -- from individual to individual -- but we also live grinding lives, everyday lives, trapped lives.

and hopefully artists will continue to want to talk about these characters as much as they want to talk about something fresh out of the latest, g-rated gay romance novel.