BlueWizard goes to the movies: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and KING KONG- Page 3

[DG]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 5:24pm

"It's always been my unpopular opinion that ROMEO AND JULIET is a comedy gone wrong...."

It may not be the common perception, Blue, but one of our favorites - Sir Ian - I think shares your view

[eslgr8]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 7:59pm

There is room for many different kinds of stories. Maurice and Beautiful Thing are films I have seen over and over again, and I love their (unrealistically?) optimistic endings. But there are times when, oddly enough, it feels good, or at least right, to leave the theater feeling devastated. Brokeback Mountain could most certainly have been given a Maurice-like happy ending, but it would be having nowhere near the impact it is having. Films like Beautiful Thing and Maurice are necessary, if only because they can help gay viewers to feel good about being gay. I love them both for that reason. But neither film can speak to straight audiences about the depth and longevity and legitimacy of same gender love the way Brokeback Mountain can, and neither film, even if released today, could cross over to general audiences the way that Brokeback Mountain has been able to. Neither film would be having the impact or generating the discussion that Brokeback Mountain has. As far as a film made about people like Barbara Gittings and Frank Kameny, well that's a fine idea (and a similar historical subject was treated in the lauded recent film Brother to Brother), but that's kind of like saying, rather than King Kong, I'd much prefer to see a film like Gorillas in the Mist. A bit off topic, in my opinion.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 8:12pm

What I found most remarkable about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was simply the subject matter and its truthful depiction: gay ranchers and farmhands living in rural America. The vast majority of gay narratives over the ages has revolved around urban gay men, the intelligentsia, pastoral princes, teenagers, etc. It was quite startling to see two rough, uneducated, tobacco-spittin', macho men making love up there onscreen in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. Hearing and reading about it was one thing, seeing the gritty reality of such persons was quite another.

Speaking of KING KONG, I'm preparing my review....

Updated On: 12/20/05 at 08:12 PM

[DG]

Posted: 12/20/05 at 9:37pm

Steven, the fact that you put 'unrealistically' in parentheses in your first statement pretty much establishes where you're coming from. I don't disagree with your assessment about what has the ability to reach a wider straight audience. However, I said MY reaction to this is based on what I'M looking for in a film - and this isn't it. It's depressing, negative and full of the realization of the very fears that have kept gays 'in there place' for far too long.

Enjoy it, revel in it and celebrate the power that it has to introduce some people to thoughts and feelings they may not have encountered otherwise.

I have NO NEED NOR DESIRE to wallow in what it presents as reality. And for the record, reality can most certainly be represented by the positiveness in the films you question as unrealistic - some of us are living proof.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 1:50am

We can keep discussing BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but I just can't stop talking about KING KONG. So here's my ridiculously long review. (Why do I write these? Maybe I just like the attention. )


KING KONG

I haven't been so enthralled at a cinema since....well, since Peter Jackson's last offering. Is there anyone making movies today with as large an imagination as Jackson's? This new KING KONG could easily have been a disaster, especially when one considers that its cousins are the remakes of MIGHTY JOE YOUNG and GODZILLA. Instead, the sheer audacity of this movie makes it one of the most overwhelming experiences I've had the cinema this year. Although not as finely-crafted as his sublime LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, Jackson's KING KONG is still an impressively rich feast for the senses, while also satisfying the heart.

The original storyline has been fleshed out considerably, with the screenwriters exploring several themes that I didn't even know existed in the KONG plot. More than anything, they have taken the famous last line -- "it was beauty killed the beast" -- and have run with it, examining the nature and effect of beauty. Jackson's film puts a spotlight on how Carl Denham and his sensation-starved audience take one of the last wondrous mysteries of the world and exploits, cheapens and ultimately kills it. Kong wasn't just destroyed by his love for Ann Darrow, or his desire to see a sunrise, but by Man's need to possess beauty. The true monster in Jackson's KING KONG isn't Kong himself, but humankind.

Jackson's biggest contribution to the KING KING story, though, is how he has changed and developed the relationship between Kong and Ann Darrow. The giant gorilla in this remake doesn't love Ann because she's blond and white; he takes a liking to her because her vaudeville act fills him with wonder, and his affections grow because she allows him to be her protector. The addition of the Central Park scene to the story is a risk that could have easily fallen into ludicrousness, but - amazingly - it works. There's a palpable loneliness and understanding shared between the two of them. For all the movie's dazzling spectacle, it's this poignant and bittersweet relationship between Kong and Ann that is the film's greatest accomplishment.

That said, what dazzling spectacle! I felt like a little boy again at the movies. The ridiculously over-the-top battle between Kong and the three T-Rexes must be the coolest action sequence ever committed to film. Some of the other set pieces are iffy (particularly the brontosaurus stampede, which really should have been cut), but the recreation of 1930s New York and Kong himself are remarkable achievements. I was shocked at how real the CGI-rendered Manhattan looked, and how liberal the camera was in capturing it all: we see congested traffic on Brooklyn Bridge, birds-eye views from a skyscraper being built, even an elaborate car chase scene through busy streets that don't actually exist outside a computer.

Kong himself is a marvel. He must be the first photo-realistic CGI character in film history, even more fully realized than LOTR's Gollum. I was a little confused as to why Jackson asked Andy Serkis to "play" Kong (he's still a beast, not a speaking individual like Gollum); but this so-crazy-it's-genius decision pays off in spades, for Kong now has a real soul. He possesses an air of nobility that was somewhat missing from past incarnations, a natural majesty and intelligence that demands respect. (I'm surprised that this revolutionary technique of blending an actor's performance with CGI hasn't been adopted by other filmmakers since Gollum. It represents the future of believable CGI characters, and is a novel way of employing good actors in effects-heavy movies.)

Naomi Watts is positively radiant and really carries the movie. It's a difficult role to do, considering you're playing the quintessential damsel-in-distress and you're reacting to nothing but a guy in a monkey suit, but she does a remarkable job and really fleshes out a character from its archetypal foundations. I was less impressed with Adrian Brody, but that's because I found his entire role superfluous. I'm probably in the minority here, but I thought Jack Black gave a fine performance. He seemed completely at home in this 1930s fantasy story, and had an unexpected screen presence.

As enjoyable as the movie is, it has several major flaws, chief among them the pacing. The film is much too long, and a good half hour could be cut or tightened without it being detrimental. I thought the opening scenes in New York were fine, but the sea voyage really needs trimming, with its screwball dialogue (an homage to the original, but still) and excessive character threads. The encounter with the natives could also be tightened, and there is just one action set-piece too many. At least the film is long in the right place (the first hour), and I see the value of building up the tension and developing the characters; but Jackson would have done better to reduce the film's scope, since we're only really invested in Kong and Ann's relationship.

Jackson employs some of same bag of tricks he used in his RINGS films, but less effectively here; he uses his blurry slo-mo technique ad nauseum, for example. I also wish he kept Howard Shore onboard as composer, because James Newton Howard's rushed score is rather generic. At times the film threatens to collapse under its sheer size, but it's still refreshing to find an action blockbuster this wildly imaginative and genuinely moving. This is why we go to the movies, folks: thrilling adventure, spine-tingling surprises, and a heart stirred.

Updated On: 12/21/05 at 01:50 AM

[DG]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 1:59am

Blue - if you keep writing like that, it can be as ridiculously long as you want it to be. That was great reading!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:01am

Aww, thanks DG. You're the sweetest. This is what happens when I have grad school applications to do.

[DG]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:08am

Which, interestingly, isn't getting them completed

EDIT - UNLESS you're using them for submissions! Updated On: 12/21/05 at 02:08 AM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:09am

No, it's just me practicing my procrastination techniques.

[eslgr8]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:11am

David, the endings of Beautiful Thing and Maurice were absolutely unrealistic, given their time and place. At the same time, they were gloriously hopeful, and I loved that.

The countless happy gay and lesbian couples in the United States are proof that happy endings are realistic in this time and place, U.S.A., 2005. Thank God for that, and that people like you and your partner are living proof.

I can't tell you how many films I've not seen, regardless of their reviews and awards, because they were depressing and negative and I just didn't want to go there. I still can't get myself to see Sling Blade, and I'm amazed I actually saw Boys Don't Cry. I bought the DVD of Soldier's Girl. Haven't watched it. And I've had it for months.

No one, including myself, should make you feel obligated to see Brokeback Mountain, if it's not your cup of tea. I personally will never see a movie by Lars Von Trier (Dancer in the Dark, Dogville, Breaking the Waves, etc.), no matter how many people tell me what great films they are. I'm not going to pay money to see those folk suffer in his Danish never been to the U.S. view of America.

As to Brokeback Mountain, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do disagree with your assessment of the film, quite strongly. It is a wonderful film, and not once did I wallow in its despair; rather I found hope in the knowledge that this film will change hearts and minds, for which I am truly grateful.

[DG]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 2:11am

Blue - You're getting very good at it . . .
Updated On: 12/21/05 at 02:11 AM

[DG]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:20am

Steven - I've said before, and I'll say again, that if BROKEBACK gets people to address their point of view and perhaps change, then BRAVO. And you're right, we obviously do disagree about the content of the film. It's very difficult for me to look at the situation that's presented and not see the despair involved - despite the fleeting moments of connection that Ennis and Jack share. I notice, though, that you use the word 'hope' in describing what you want the reaction to the film to be, rather than the content of the film itself.

And as to Maurice still being unrealistic, perhaps Mr. Forster misinterpreted the reality he saw upon which his book is based - but I'm rather inclined to take his word for it - as well as the biographical information available on the actual men themselves.

I think perhaps we have a fundamental difference of opinion in what constitutes a 'happy ending' type existence. I think Jack and Ennis could have found a way and place to let their love find expression - but they didn't, they caved into fear. No, it couldn't have been like we live openly today - at least some of us - but it didn't necessarily have to simply not exist. People have overcome many obstacle to be able to live their lives - Ennis and Jack choose not to. And even if society is oppressive, if someone DOES choose to find a way to experience their life, then - to me - they HAVE had a happy ending. It's society that hasn't, and more the shame on them.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:32am

So very well said DG. I watched The Wedding Banquet again last night. Other than Cinderella, it is my favorite film. It is much the better gay love story than Brokeback. Interesting that it was all but overlooked when it was released. Had it had a big budget and some 18-34 demographic hotties, it might not have been. While not the better film, I think it is the better story. While there is fear and angst and denial there are also gay people who don't cave to society and their own moroseness and make choices to empower themselves to be happy.

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:38am

yeah, that's exactly what i think was wrong with romeo and juliet. i think the play/movie would have been much better if they both lived, had a baby and moved to france.

and, thelma and louise, wouldn't it have been great if the car jumped the ravine and then landed safely on the other side - out of reach of the authorities and opened their own home improvement chain store.

and, in west side story, tony lives and he and maria start a whole latino american acceptance movement that sweeps the nation and makes everyone so much more self aware.

and...

Updated On: 12/21/05 at 08:38 AM

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:43am

*orders RobbO a McDonald's Happy Meal and a Friendly's Happy Ending Sundae*

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:46am

**accepts the happy meal AND the friendly's happy ending sundae and sneaks into another showing of brokeback mountain**

[DG]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:52am

RobbO - the interesting thing to me about the examples you cited is that the different pairs were trying to 'buck the system' and find a way to have their love together. Obviously, it didn't work out, and the price paid was tragic - but that's what gives them resonance. I don't see that happening in the BROKEBACK story - they capitulate. Well, Ennis does, despite Jack's attempts.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:54am

RobbO is all about capilulation!

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 8:58am

see. in the examples i gave and in brokeback, i think they all made a choice (although in WSS the choice was forced upon them). they could have stuck with it and fought for their love but they didn't - with tragic results.

i think the story in brokeback is that much more powerful BECAUSE of how tragic and sad it was. plus, i feel better knowing that, even in such a short perioed to time, things have gotten better in the US for gays - in my own experience anyway.

the fact that i am able to live openly with my partner under one roof and come out daily to neighbors, the cable guy, our doctor, the garbageman is an amazing experience that (for the most part) was not widely accepted 40 years ago.

so that's where i find the hope and promise in ennis and jack's story.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:01am

DG... you appear to have no patience or empathy for anyone that hasn't been able to overcome the hurdles and challenges of living in a predominately homophobic society. Bravo for you for having carved a rose-colored niche for yourself! But alas, we don't all live in your world of happy endings.

[DG]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:08am

Wait a minute - if that's the impression I'm giving, then I'm failing miserably - that's not the intent at all. There's no rose-tinted reality here - the obstacles faced are as present here as other places (although, not nearly as bad - I don't live in Iran.) And I certainly understand that those are the challenges faced.

The only thing I've said is that i'm not drawn to a story that I interpret as focussing on the negative aspects of reality - that's it. It doesn't mean that I don't understand what causes those situations to exist, it just means that I choose not to participate. I've tried to make it clear that i understand the necessity and value in this story being told - I just don't need that lesson.

And while I may have empathy for the challenges faced, I'm not inclined to feel overly remorseful because someone never tries to confront their fears. I'm very allowing of other people's choices - and the results that come from them.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:15am

Do you find hope and promise in their story RobbO or do you see hope and promise because Hollywood made a big budget gay movie to be shown to the masses?

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:20am

no, i really find hope and promise in the story. when i left the movie i was frankly disappointed in the film because i felt the characters never really got a chance to really connect. every time i was enjoying them being togehter, they were quickly out of the mountains and back with their wives, etc.

it felt incomplete and i felt nothing when jack died. it wasn't a shock to me and i didn't like how it was so matter of fact.

after thinking about the film and taking everything in, i really do realize how things have changed for the better for the reasons i mentioned earlier. so, yeah, i do find hope and promise in their story.

and the fact that a film like this was even made does make me happy, but i'm always reluctant to think in blanket terms of "this one film will give us the acceptance we are looking for, etc." i don't think it is that simple or instantaneous.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:25am

"I've tried to make it clear that i understand the necessity and value in this story being told - I just don't need that lesson."

Well said. I can accept that you just don't feel that this movie has anything to offer you, personally. But would you (do you) feel the same way about stories with subject matter having nothing to do with homosexuality? For instance, Sophie's Choice; another tragic love story, and one whose characters are ultimately unable to overcome their devastating circumstances and the cards they've been dealt.

[DG]

Posted: 12/21/05 at 9:48am

Luscious - I feel exactly the same way. Very valid story - with a serious necessity of being presented - but a lesson I don't need. I went through a phase when there was a spate of Vietnam flicks (PLATOON, FULL METAL JACKET, etc.) where I saw each and every one of them - sometimes many times. I felt like I had missed something important by not living through that era as a fully conscious adult. And obviously, a movie can't really let you know what it was like, but it can at least give you an idea. And having done that, I won't revisit that theme again. I've gotten what I need to, and don't need the lessons again. That's kind of how I approach things.

And really, the gay angle really has nothing to do with it other than being a facet of which I have more understanding than others (not other people, other facets of existence.)