Brokeback Mountain Review and Response

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by dissention

I only have a few real complaints about it. Ang Lee is as subtle as a jackhammer to the groin. The "visual imagery" he uses metaphorically is obvious and conventional. I got a bit bored by his subjecting me to frame after frame of lush mountainscapes with gurgling streams running in the background when the two leads are onscreen together. What is it meant to signify? Why, the natural beauty of their love, of course

or...
the role of nature as deus ex machina
Ennis and Jack as an oasis in an unforgiving reality
a love story protected from the shield of nature against rules and conventions

He uses nature as a living character, his nature isn't reassuring, but keeps changing, is fascinating, tormented, seeks revenge, gives another chance, seals emotions. It's where revelations, absolute feelings, death take place. And it's been this way in movies like Pushing Hands, Eat Drink Man Woman (where nature is in the most carnal shape, food) , Sense and Sensibility, The Ice Storm, Ride With The Devil, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Brokeback Mountain.

Originally Posted by dissention

Lee can't find it in him to be anything but pure and chaste to an extreme degree. For example, take the sexual encounters between Ennis and Jack. If Lee had taken a cue from John Waters and filmed these scenes in Odor-Rama, chances are that after I scratched the corresponding dots on my card and held them up to my nostrils, I would have smelled lilies & rose water, not the scents of dirt, sweat, & the foul stench of booze. The scenes are almost as unrealistic as heterosexual sex scenes in other mainstream pictures. In those het-sex scenes, there is a lot of light kissing, heavy petting, slow gyrating, and just a hint of shoulder to make it seem erotic. Then each character rolls over onto their respective side of the bed, sheet pulled up to their armpits, and seem to happily lie in the resulting wet spot. Realistic? Not a chance.

So two cowboys in love have to stink? That's Hollywood, not Oriental way to see love. Lee shows passion as most directors of his culture do. His sublimation is apparent, it's an easy path to an uncompromising and universal sphere, that usually western cinema portrays through cliches. He goes to the core of feelings, as it usually happens making love with someone you (saying it in general) care for, no?

Romy

[sparky]

Originally Posted by dissention

I could have done without Anne Hathaway, but that was mostly because her character was so poorly written and developed. She was nothing but a cartoon character; as one-dimensional as a Little Lulu comic book panel and inspiring nothing but a snicker and a roll of the eyes from me.

She scarcely exists in the story, and I also wanted to know a bit more about her. She wasn't given all that much to do, but I thought she revealed some interesting things about her character in the backseat scene and in the dinner scene with her parents. Ultimately, I think the function of the character was solely to show what Jack's marriage was about - a mostly lifeless, stifling, and castrating marriage of convenience.

I only have a few real complaints about it. Ang Lee is as subtle as a jackhammer to the groin. The "visual imagery" he uses metaphorically is obvious and conventional. I got a bit bored by his subjecting me to frame after frame of lush mountainscapes with gurgling streams running in the background when the two leads are onscreen together. What is it meant to signify? Why, the natural beauty of their love, of course. Like I said, the man is as subtle as a jackhammer to the crotch and as imaginative as latter-day Stephen King.

Well, he was subtle with the sex anyway. I have to agree with Romy about the use of the landscapes. I knew you would find it tiresome, but let's face it, most people are stupid and need a 2x4 in the head with the symbolism. A good part of the movie going audience doesn't know the definition of the word symbolism, so some artists go way overboard with it to make sure it sinks in under the radar.

Lee can't find it in him to be anything but pure and chaste to an extreme degree. For example, take the sexual encounters between Ennis and Jack.

I thought the tent scene and the reunion scene were pretty sexy. I knew that Lee was going to be subtle - he is not the kind of film maker who shows a lot of sex. Like so much of the tone of the film, that is completely in line with the story. I could have done with more physical intimacy between them. Not that they needed it to sell their passion. They did that in spades.

If Lee had taken a cue from John Waters and filmed these scenes in Odor-Rama, chances are that after I scratched the corresponding dots on my card and held them up to my nostrils, I would have smelled lilies & rose water, not the scents of dirt, sweat, & the foul stench of booze.

That is a funny image. I know what that tent smelled like. Add the musty moldy tinges of being stored in the shed for months to that little melange you described and you about have it. Mmm. Happy Sparky.

My gripes with Lee aside, I absolutely loved it. It made me think a lot about some things going on in my life and I'm sure my great enjoyment of it was colored by those things.

I ? am thrilled you enjoyed it.

Tried to see it again last night. I bought tix Thurs night. By the time we got done with dinner it was 10 minutes before showtime. It was sold out, the only two seats together were in the front row. After two hours, I would have been Brokeneck Sparky, so we bailed. Came home, built a huge fire, had a shot of tequila. If Mr. Lee would have had a spy cam, he would have been shown what for.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by markolas

What exactly is identified as "gay culture."

Living close to Weho, which is a mecca gay ghetto, the culture there I have observed consists of living there, going to bars, doing crystal meth, hanging out in mostly homo only places, the rainbow flag thing, dah dee dah. Seemingly living a life where your sexual identity is front and center. I can see it as a thing to do as a kid, to get the feel of a group, but not a full time adult life.

And is the only alternative camping in the woods and driving a pick-up truck?

Certainly not. It just happens to be one that I grew up with and a life that makes me comfortable and happy. When I was younger I never thought that I could reconcile that with being a homo. I didn't think I could reconcile a LOT of traditionally masculine things with that fact. Thus I rejected many things I grew up with and things that I always liked. My mistake. So, I did the gay ghetto trip. Shortly. It never worked for me. It was a set of clothes that never fit. So I reclaimed a great part of my background, and fit it together with my young adult experiences to make the life that feels best to me.

I've got news...I have no sense of direction, and if it's not an automatic transmission, I can't drive it. Hey, there's something else for the "I Can't..." thread!

Silly Mark. Almost all pickups are automatics these days. In fact, you have to order a manual special from Ford, at least in some models. I could learn ya to drive a stick.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by sparky

Living close to Weho, which is a mecca gay ghetto, the culture there I have observed consists of living there, going to bars, doing crystal meth, hanging out in mostly homo only places, the rainbow flag thing, dah dee dah. Seemingly living a life where your sexual identity is front and center. I can see it as a thing to do as a kid, to get the feel of a group, but not a full time adult life.

Hmm...never having lived anyplace where there was a gay ghetto, I can't entirely relate to something like that. I don't like bars or drugs, but I will admit to not having any straight friends...I also don't have any Christian friends or any Republican friends. I tend to insulate myself from all that, for better or worse. I just don't want to have to deal with it.

Certainly not. It just happens to be one that I grew up with and a life that makes me comfortable and happy. When I was younger I never thought that I could reconcile that with being a homo. I didn't think I could reconcile a LOT of traditionally masculine things with that fact. Thus I rejected many things I grew up with and things that I always liked. My mistake. So, I did the gay ghetto trip. Shortly. It never worked for me. It was a set of clothes that never fit. So I reclaimed a great part of my background, and fit it together with my young adult experiences to make the life that feels best to me.

Ah. See, I never liked those things. Much to my father's chagrin. They all thought I was an alien from the time I was born, basically.

I could learn ya to drive a stick.

Who knew you were a bottom?

[sparky]

Originally Posted by markolas

I will admit to not having any straight friends...

Funny. In real life I only have about 3 gay friends. Almost all my friends are straight. Online, I have lotsa gay chat friends, like here.

Ah. See, I never liked those things. Much to my father's chagrin. They all thought I was an alien from the time I was born, basically.

I liked some, and disliked others. Now, I am all about the outdoors and have become fond of hockey. WHO KNEW.

Who knew you were a bottom?

Lord Have Mercy. I didn't.

We need to teach you so much, Markster.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

Ultimately, I think the function of the character was solely to show what Jack's marriage was about - a mostly lifeless, stifling, and castrating marriage of convenience.

I think that could have been achieved without displaying her as nothing but a cartoon character. She didn't even seem human; she was a caricature, a cliched parody of loudmouthed women.

Originally Posted by sparky

Well, he was subtle with the sex anyway. I have to agree with Romy about the use of the landscapes. I knew you would find it tiresome, but let's face it, most people are stupid and need a 2x4 in the head with the symbolism. A good part of the movie going audience doesn't know the definition of the word symbolism, so some artists go way overboard with it to make sure it sinks in under the radar.

Lee certainly falls into that category. It was so predictable and lacking such imagination that at times I wondered why he bothered. He doesn't strike me as a dummy filmmaker, so I don't understand the need to hit you over the head with symbolism that is as obvious as the sun above our heads.

Originally Posted by sparky

I thought the tent scene and the reunion scene were pretty sexy. I knew that Lee was going to be subtle - he is not the kind of film maker who shows a lot of sex. Like so much of the tone of the film, that is completely in line with the story. I could have done with more physical intimacy between them. Not that they needed it to sell their passion. They did that in spades.

That is a funny image. I know what that tent smelled like. Add the musty moldy tinges of being stored in the shed for months to that little melange you described and you about have it. Mmm. Happy Sparky.

Maybe Proulx's story spoiled me a bit and I shouldn't have expected the movie version to faithfully recreate their sexual encounters, but they just lacked realism. She writes it as reeking of cum, sweat, and smoke, he films it in a way that completely ignores anything of that nature. It was too prettied up. Lee was too concerned with staying within the boundaries of what he considers to be tasteful and that took away from certain aspects of the story for me.

Originally Posted by sparky

I ? am thrilled you enjoyed it.

I really did. What we're discussing are really only minor quibbles that I have with it and Ang Lee, I honestly thought it was a fantastic movie. You certainly nailed it when you expressed how great it was. I can't tell you how good I thought Heath Ledger was.

Originally Posted by sparky

Tried to see it again last night. I bought tix Thurs night. By the time we got done with dinner it was 10 minutes before showtime. It was sold out, the only two seats together were in the front row. After two hours, I would have been Brokeneck Sparky, so we bailed. Came home, built a huge fire, had a shot of tequila. If Mr. Lee would have had a spy cam, he would have showed been shown what for.

If only Lee had you to consult, it would have been an even more amazing movie.

I ordered our tix online because I knew the Cambridge queers were going to storm the theater for every seat available. And they did.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think that could have been achieved without displaying her as nothing but a cartoon character. She didn't even seem human; she was a caricature, a cliched parody of loudmouthed women.

I will look for this again in my second viewing. Nonetheless her phone call scene is pretty damned good.

Lee certainly falls into that category. It was so predictable and lacking such imagination that at times I wondered why he bothered. He doesn't strike me as a dummy filmmaker, so I don't understand the need to hit you over the head with symbolism that is as obvious as the sun above our heads.

Hm. I think most people are dumber than you believe.
You know what visual I really wanted to see ? Them holding hands at some point.

Maybe Proulx's story spoiled me a bit and I shouldn't have expected the movie version to faithfully recreate their sexual encounters, but they just lacked realism. She writes it as reeking of cum, sweat, and smoke, he films it in a way that completely ignores anything of that nature. It was too prettied up. Lee was too concerned with staying within the boundaries of what he considers to be tasteful and that took away from certain aspects of the story for me.

I see both sides. I think his "distant" way of directing served most aspects of the story extremely well. Could I have done with a more explicit sex scene somewhere ? Absolutely. You know those guys had the type of sex that leaves you literally bruised and beat up. In the story, that reunion kiss leaves one of them with a bloody lip. Now that's some intensity. Me likey.

I really did. What we're discussing are really only minor quibbles that I have with it and Ang Lee, I honestly thought it was a fantastic movie. You certainly nailed it when you expressed how great it was. I can't tell you how good I thought Heath Ledger was.

So glad it passed the Diss Keal test. Heath was really something. That scene where he punches the wall was EXACTLY what I had been picturing.

If only Lee had you to consult, it would have been an even more amazing movie.

And NC-17.

I ordered our tix online because I knew the Cambridge queers were going to storm the theater for every seat available. And they did.

The crowd we left last night was only about 30% homo.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

I will look for this again in my second viewing. Nonetheless her phone call scene is pretty damned good.

I thought Michelle Williams was incredible out of the two female characters. Granted, I've always liked her, but this movie proved she's got some serious chops. She got my pulse racing with just one look at certain points in the movie.

Originally Posted by sparky

Hm. I think most people are dumber than you believe.

Oh, there's no doubt that the average moviegoer is as stupid as you make them out to be. Even with his heavyhanded schtick, I doubt half of them even got what he was trying to convey.

Originally Posted by sparky

You know what visual I really wanted to see ? Them holding hands at some point.

Ooh, good call.

Originally Posted by sparky

So glad it passed the Diss Keal test. Heath was really something. That scene where he punches the wall was EXACTLY what I had been picturing.

You just named my favorite scene in the whole movie.

Originally Posted by sparky

And NC-17.

They'll slap anything with an NC-17 these days. Three thrusts and you get one.

Originally Posted by sparky

The crowd we left last night was only about 30% homo.

The crowd we left the theater with last night was 99.9% Mary-fied. I've never seen so much tissue on the floor in my life.

[BombaySapphire3]

originally posted by dissention The crowd we left the theater with last night was 99.9% Mary-fied. I've never seen so much tissue on the floor in my life.
__________________

Ditto for San Francisco .The only heterosexuals at the show I noticed were an Asian couple .probably fans of Ang Lee.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

I thought Michelle Williams was incredible out of the two female characters. Granted, I've always liked her

Me too...LOVE LOVE LOVE HER!

*and she is big on the second amendment, which rocks my socks!*

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . I ordered our tix online because I knew the Cambridge queers were going to storm the theater for every seat available. And they did.

You paid the service fee

[sparky]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Ditto for San Francisco .The only heterosexuals at the show I noticed were an Asian couple .probably fans of Ang Lee.

Isn't this true of SF in general anyway ?

Couldn't help it.

[SpyNote]

Asian couple must have been there because they were fans of Ang Lee? Uh, ok.

[sparky]

OMG, second weekend. 20 new cities, and Diss, my beloved Diss, is the only one with a review ? What is UP with you people ?

I thought this place was SWIMMING with homos.

What gives?

BTW, I just saw a hysterical show in LA at Casito del Campo called Fruitcake Follies. If anyone else here has a chance, SEE IT. I hate musicals and I laughed my ass off.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by sparky

I thought this place was SWIMMING with homos.

I haven't seen it yet...

but when I do see it...it's not going to be so much for the homo story line, as it is for...

MICHELLE WILLIAMS!