Brokeback Mountain

[joyfulgirl]

it's a movie.

a very good one. in some ways a remarkable one. but it doesn't have a halo. and it can't be expected to be anything more than what it is.

The more I think about it, the more problems I have with the movie itself, lol. I was so wrapped up in the brilliant performances yet I don't think it was great movie-making. The rhythm is off or something, especially in the second half of it, almost like a cut and paste job, like Ang Lee filmed all of these beautiful scenes and then slapped them together. I don't know. I think in the end I see it as incredible acting and flawed film-making.

 

[martha]

And a boon to Canadian tourism I imagine.

 

[Irvine511]

The more I think about it, the more problems I have with the movie itself, lol. I was so wrapped up in the brilliant performances yet I don't think it was great movie-making. The rhythm is off or something, especially in the second half of it, almost like a cut and paste job, like Ang Lee filmed all of these beautiful scenes and then slapped them together. I don't know. I think in the end I see it as incredible acting and flawed film-making.

you don't think that "brokeback" was the best film of the year?

why do you hate gay people?

*and* Asian directors?

 

[Irvine511]

[BLast year, Jake confessed he was flattered by rumours he is bisexual.

The actor insisted he only fancies women and has never had a gay experience - but wouldn't be worried if he found he was attracted to a man. He said at the time: "You know it's flattering when there's a rumour that says I'm bisexual. It means I can play more kinds of roles, I'm open to whatever people want to call me.

"I've never really been attracted to men sexually, but I don't think I would be afraid of it if it happened." [/B]

 

[joyfulgirl]

you don't think that "brokeback" was the best film of the year?

why do you hate gay people?

*and* Asian directors?

I would maybe say most important movie of the year. I'm still insisting that everyone I know see it. I just think it could have/should have been better.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

looks like my lame theater is FINALLY getting it this weekend, yay!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08012006/364/ledger-teased-early-gay-role.html

Heath Ledger is thrilled his new role as a gay cowboy is being received warmly because the first time he played a homosexual on TV, he was mercilessly bullied in his native Australia.

Ledger's role in Brokeback Mountain has been acclaimed and the actor is being tipped to win an Oscar, but he still recalls how his fellow Aussies teased him when he first played a gay man.

The Four Feathers star made his acting debut on Australian TV show Sweat and admits his role was a terrible mistake.

He tells gay magazine The Advocate, "I had no idea what I was doing. It was a terrible performance; it was a terrible TV show I'm awful in it.

"It's just a teenage kid who confesses to his friend that he's gay. It's not really that interesting.

"I had small occasions where I'd get bullied on the streets for it. But I was never out to prove myself or my sexuality - it didn't really bother me."

 

[martha]

Jake Gyllenhaal says smooching Heath Ledger in 'Brokeback Mountain' was like exfoliating - because of all the stubble. The heartthrob star reportedly claims kissing Heath in the gay cowboy movie was like giving his face a good scrub. He told Empire magazine: "When we kissed it felt like we were exfoliating.

Welcome to my world dude.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Nice letter, maybe GLAAD is too quick to accuse and label people. Not for me to say I suppose, I don't know..

In an emotional letter (made public) dated Monday to the LGBT non-profit's executive director, Neil Guiliano, and entertainment media director, Damon Romine, Shalit says that by suggesting that his father was homophobic, GLAAD had "defamed a good man, by falsely accusing him of a repellent form of bigotry."

Dear Damon [Romine], and Neil [Guiliano],

Peter Shalit here - Gene Shalit's son. I have been a member-supporter of GLAAD for years. I assume you were not aware of that, but I am disappointed that you did not do a little background research on my dad, or try to contact me, or attempt to reach my dad through me, before issuing your press release this past week calling him homophobic because of his review of Brokeback Mountain. I did notice the "editor's note" which mentioned that he has a gay son, i.e. myself.

By way of background, I am a gay man, a physician, serving a mostly gay patient population in Seattle, and author of Living Well, the Gay Men's Essential Health Guide, which is a guide to gay health for gay men. I frequently comment to people that I can't imagine having another job that would immerse me in the gay community as much as the one I have. The gay community is my life.

I say this because it's important background for understanding that my dad has always been completely loving and supportive of me, my life, my partners, and my choices. He wrote a piece about me in 1997 for The Advocate (currently posted on their home page) - and agreed to have his picture on the cover of the magazine - because what the piece says is true about how he feels and how he has always acted.

I spoke with my dad yesterday about the issues with his review. He had no idea that his review of a movie, and his reaction to a particular character, would be seen as homophobia. Of course he is not homophobic. Actually the truth is the opposite. Agreed, he didn't particularly seem to like Brokeback Mountain, and he found the character of Jack unsympathetic. But his negative response to a particular character is not "defamation" and had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character. The interpretation-generalization of this as "homophobic" is unfortunate and incorrect. It is precisely because my Dad is not homophobic that he felt free to criticize the move as he saw it, and not anticipate that he would be accused of homophobia for doing so.

(Incidentally, I loved the movie - and it sure isn't the first time I have disagreed with my dad about one of his reviews. I was sorry he didn't like it, but hey, these things happen. I have always felt that he was entitled to his opinion and I leave it at that.)

When I first saw your press release a few days ago my reaction was "goodness, this is silly" and I decided to sit tight and hope it would blow over. But it hasn't, judging by the e-mails I have received from friends, and the buzz I have seen online. People are concerned about these accusations about my dad, and some bloggers are talking about him as if he is an enemy of gay people. I decided to contact you because there could have been better ways to handle this situation, and I am hurt by your mischaracterization of my father, a man who does not have a molecule of hate in his being. It does not speak well for GLAAD, and it is not helping our community.

We are all really on the same side - you, my Dad, me, my family, our community. The gay community has enough enemies that we should not be attacking or alienating those who, such as my Dad, are part of our family and are our true friends. We may disagree with his opinion of a movie and his interpretation of a particular character, but that is his job as a critic to give his opinion. He may have had an unpopular opinion of a movie that is important to the gay community, but he defamed no one, and he is not a homophobe. It is you who have defamed a good man, by falsely accusing him of a repellent form of bigotry. It is ironic and sad that an organization whose mission is to combat defamation has committed such an act itself, an act which amounts to character assassination with so little consideration of the repercussions.

I am happy to discuss this further with you by e-mail, or you can feel free to phone me...

Sincerely, Peter Shalit

 

[joyfulgirl]

Nice letter, maybe GLAAD is too quick to accuse and label people. Not for me to say I suppose, I don't know..

His take on Jack as a sexual predator seemed a bit homophobic to me since I don't often hear hetero male characters with a healthy sexual appetite being characterized that way, but hey, glad to hear he's supportive of his son.

 

[Irvine511]

His take on Jack as a sexual predator seemed a bit homophobic to me since I don't often hear hetero male characters with a healthy sexual appetite being characterized that way, but hey, glad to hear he's supportive of his son.

ditto.

GLAAD can fly off the handle with the best of them. i think Shalit unknowingly made comments that fit right in with hackneyed "causes" of homosexuality -- that gay men must "recruit." i'm more than happy to give Shalit the benefit of the doubt, and it sounds like, at the very least, he's a good dad and raised a very nice son.

also, the biggest criticisms i've heard of "brokeback" have come from other gay people. some thought the story was much better than the film, others were offended by the lack of sex in the movie, since there is much more in the short story, and, heck, there was more man-on-man action last Sunday on "Desperate Housewives."

 

[YellowKite]

... others were offended by the lack of sex in the movie, since there is much more in the short story

I didn't read the short story - but I am pretty sure there was enough sex in that film. I know I saw enough boobs flying around to more than fill my quota - or is it specifically the man/man sex that there should be more of? What there was, was intense enough and implied enough to 'get' that they were carrying on a sexual relationship over the years.

 

[Irvine511]

I didn't read the short story - but I am pretty sure there was enough sex in that film. I know I saw enough boobs flying around to more than fill my quota - or is it specifically the man/man sex that there should be more of? What there was, was intense enough and implied enough to 'get' that they were carrying on a sexual relationship over the years.

i suppose much of it comes down to taste, but you bring up a good point that there is more heterosexual sex in the film than homosexual sex.

there was way more sex in "munich."

 

[nathan1977]

I hesitate to say that Shalit's criticism of the film is homophobia. Male sexuality in general, not just homosexuality, is more likely to be considered "predatory". Considering where we sit with the priest scandal (priests preying on boys), rape, etc.... male sexuality seems to be more aggressive by nature, so it doesn't surprise me.

But that's not really the point of this thread.

 

[martha]

there was more man-on-man action last Sunday on "Desperate Housewives."

Apparently I need to start watching more TV.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

i had this experience too in our theatre. especially when Michelle Williams saw them kissing from the upstairs apt. how anyone can laugh at someone else's pain is beyond me.

Same thing happened when I saw it, I don't understand that at all. For me that was one of the most painful scenes in the movie. Maybe that pain makes some people so uncomfortable that they laugh, or maybe the men kissing makes them so uncomfortable. There was a girl sitting behind me who looked to be in her early 20's, she laughed at that and when they were naked. I would think someone that age would be mature enough to handle that, I don't know..guess not. People laughed at other scenes when I thought there was zero to be laughing at. I went to a late matinee and it was more than 90 percent or more females, other than men who were with their wives/girlfriends. So many older people and senior citizens, which surprised me in a good way.

Anyway, I thought it was an incredibly heartbreaking, beautiful movie. One of those that when you leave you just want to sit quietly, and everything in the world around you seems silly and superficial. That's just how it felt for me.

The scene at the end at the parents' house for me was the most powerful. I was just reading Roger Ebert's review and he said this about the flashback re what happened to Jack. I assumed that really did happen, did everyone else?

"A closing scene involving a visit by Ennis to Jack's parents is heartbreaking in what is said, and not said, about their world. A look around Jack's childhood bedroom suggests what he overcame to make room for his feelings. What we cannot be sure is this: In the flashback, are we witnessing what really happened, or how Ennis sees it in his imagination? Ennis, whose father "made sure me and my brother saw it."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I was just reading on Amazon, some interesting tidbits here..


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/07...103-9168310-1051865?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

"She makes it clear that this story, while a love story, is also about homophobia, Jack's and Ennis' and everybody else's. Rather than being about "two gay cowboys," as urban critics have said, Ms. Proulx states that she is writing about "destructive rural homophobia. Although there are many places in Wyoming where gay men did and do live together in harmony with the community, it should not be forgotten that a year after this story was published Matthew Shephard was tied to a buck fence outside the most enlightened town in the state, Laramie, home of the University of Wyoming." Even as late as 1997 when Proulx got the idea for her story after observing an older, weathered man in a bar who was not watching the women in the bar but rather the young men playing pool, she noted that in a rural cafe the owner was "incensed that two 'homos' had come in the night before and ordered dinner.'"

Although Ms. Proulx expected protest letters from religious types when her story was originally published in THE NEW YORKER on October 13, 1997, what she got were letters from men, some from Wyoming, who said that she had told their story or their son's story. She says she is still getting these kinds of letters eight year later."


"Proulx's essay, "Getting Movied", is the most interesting in that she tells us the genesis of the story through years of subliminal observation in her adopted home of Wyoming. It apparently started when she saw an old ranch hand in a bar packed with good-looking women, yet he was only watching the guys in a furtive fashion. This image so affected Proulx that she counted back from his age and decided to set the story in the 1960's when he would have been a young man. She ruminated on the themes of rural homophobia and the internalized challenges of gay men in these areas"

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Golden Globe for best picture drama, I hope that bodes well for the Oscars

Ang Lee won best director too

 

[Irvine511]

was happy to see a beautiful film honored last night, though i tend to think the Golden Globes are rather pointless.

my attitude towards all award shows is not that an award tells you what movies are of quality or not, but that it is simply a nice thing when good movies/albums/plays/whatever are recognized by institutions.

 

[YellowKite]

was happy to see a beautiful film honored last night, though i tend to think the Golden Globes are rather pointless.

my attitude towards all award shows is not that an award tells you what movies are of quality or not, but that it is simply a nice thing when good movies/albums/plays/whatever are recognized by institutions.

And the more recognition said institutions offer projects that seem to be so controversial, then the better chance that another "risky" project can get a green light.

 

[coemgen]

Hey Irvine, I saw this and thought you'd find it interesting. I haven't posted anything on this thread because I haven't seen the film yet, but I know you like it a lot so here's this for whatever it's worth.

coemgen


"Finding God on Brokeback Mountain"

www.relevantmagazine.com/pc_article.php?id=7101

or jsut go to www.relevantmagazine.com and go to the "progressive culture" section.

 

[Bono's shades]

Brokeback Mountain is opening where I live next Friday.

The theater manager told me lots of people were asking that this film be shown. He'd been trying to bring it here before they started asking, but it wasn't in wide enough release yet.

I never thought it would play in my little city of 30,000 in the middle of nowhere, and in a Red State to boot.

This is so cool!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

"Finding God on Brokeback Mountain"
www.relevantmagazine.com/pc_article.php?id=7101

that's an interesting article

"The plot revolves around homosexual encounters, but it is far more than just that. The film is filled with emotion, discouragement, pain, security, hope, loss and love—all of which echo human experience and God’s heart. The strength of the movie is the depth of character it mines—and the acting supports this in tremendous ways. The raw, carnal, male emotion displayed in the film is something not easily drawn out of most men and even more infrequently portrayed in a major motion picture. While at times these men are confused and bewildered by their emotions, Brokeback shows a true depiction of how males do and do not deal with emotion."

I'd be interested to hear from the men here who saw this movie, how true they think the depiction is of how men deal with emotion.

I agree though, this movie for me went beyond the fact that it involved two gay characters, though of course obviously so much of it wouldn't ring true for two straight characters. Also I am still wondering about what Roger Ebert said about the flashback, what I posted a few pages back.

 

[dandy]

this movie is finally opening here on friday.

the synopsis off the local theatre site is rather vague:

Two young men -- a ranch-hand and a rodeo cowboy -- meet in the summer of 1963, and unexpectedly forge a lifelong connection, one whose complications, joys, and tragedies provide a testament to the endurance and power of love.

 

[YellowKite]

The scene at the end at the parents' house for me was the most powerful. I was just reading Roger Ebert's review and he said this about the flashback re what happened to Jack. I assumed that really did happen, did everyone else?

"A closing scene involving a visit by Ennis to Jack's parents is heartbreaking in what is said, and not said, about their world. A look around Jack's childhood bedroom suggests what he overcame to make room for his feelings. What we cannot be sure is this: In the flashback, are we witnessing what really happened, or how Ennis sees it in his imagination? Ennis, whose father "made sure me and my brother saw it."

That parenting technique of showing the young boys the violence done unto someone who was 'different' was one of the most disturbing parts of the whole story. That is partly why I could not answer the question on whether the movie was explicit or disturbing. It is too hard to define what is distirbing or explicit to others.

Mrs. Springsteen - I agree with you that Jack's last scene took place. I think that helps explain why Jack's wife is so distressed at telling the story. To me, her behavior on the phone call was more than just simple grief. The "not said" is practically a character in and of itself.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I agree with you that Jack's last scene took place. I think that helps explain why Jack's wife is so distressed at telling the story. To me, her behavior on the phone call was more than just simple grief. The "not said" is practically a character in and of itself.

Yes that makes perfect sense

I don't understand why Roger Ebert said that in his review

 

[Irvine511]

great discussion, but let's be sure not to give away too much plot.

and, yes, i think the scene happened, and the sadness i felt was that ennis will never know the truth.

lies upon lies upon lies upon lies.

that is an apt description of life in the closet. been there. lived that.

this is what i felt was so tragic about the movie. not the love affair, per say, but about people learning to live with the limitations placed upon them by society. these are people of limited means, and limited opportunity, and then a glimpse of a better life is given to them, and then taken away, and then the time spent in pursuit of that dream destroys (metaphorically, the marriages aren't exactly successful) everyone around them.

reminds me of what might be Springsteen's best line: "is a dream a lie if it don't come true/ or is it something worse?"

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

the synopsis off the local theatre site is rather vague

They make it sound like some after school special

Hey kids, Jack and Ennis like to skip through the tall grass and play Twister

Yes the love part is true, but why are they afraid to be more candid about it?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

this is what i felt was so tragic about the movie. not the love affair, per say, but about people learning to live with the limitations placed upon them by society. these are people of limited means, and limited opportunity, and then a glimpse of a better life is given to them, and then taken away, and then the time spent in pursuit of that dream destroys (metaphorically, the marriages aren't exactly successful) everyone around them.

I think that sums up beautifully what the movie is all about

 

[dandy]

They make it sound like some after school special

Hey kids, Jack and Ennis like to skip through the tall grass and play Twister

Yes the love part is true, but why are they afraid to be more candid about it?

i'm somewhat surprised the theatre's even showing it. i had my doubts they'd pick it up all, due to the "subversive" subject matter. (yes, that was intentional sarcasm.) i live in a *very* conservative part of the country, and there's a disturbing level of homophobia, mysognyny, racism, xenophobia, etc. around here. it wouldn't be surprising if people protested the showing of this film.

just this morning there was a report on the morning news about the mayor of a local municipality calling for the definition of marriage to be changed back to a man and a woman. sadly, a lot of people here agree.

i'll be going to see this as soon as i can, before it disappears.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I think that sums up beautifully what the movie is all about