Brokeback Mountain won and it just seemed so ordinary- Page 10

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 3:54pm

Sidebar point about attributing sweeping worldview or POV to director's singular vision. The auteur debate is exhausting, and film school fodder. Still, as someone who has long tired of directors receiving all credit (and blame) for masterpieces (and flops), I'd like to remind one and all that Lee's movies were written, either as original screenplays or as adaptations. By writers. Smart minds with strong opinions on character, motivation, story rhythm, and structure. The source.

I used to bristle when people referred to THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST (a favorite) as "Larry Kasdan's," since to my thinking, Kasdan reverentially translated the delicacy of the Ann Tyler story to another medium. It was Tyler's take on loss, love and redemption that we experienced. Yes, dramatized and visualized thanks to Kasdan, but all from Tyler--again, the source. Having read Proulx's BROKEBACK, I dare say that Lee's masterfully served the same function, with a generous assist from McMurtry. Love it or hate it, but my advice is: the person to cheer or boo is Ms. Proulx. It's her story, her characters.

And check out how the idea came to her: observing a 60 year old gay man watching younger guys play pool. That was the spark, and she'd long known about people she calls "country gay." Her how/why I did it with the published screenplay is illuminating -- and would be very useful to those on both sides of the debate in this thread.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:00pm

Jane2, you are not alone. I also failed to see ANY sense of attraction or chemistry between them. And without that, the entire film failed for me.

[DG]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:00pm

Very good point, Auggie. The best thing I've said about the movie is that it absolutely captured the tone and intent of the short story - with the problem being that I didn't like the story to begin with.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:05pm

Master LcZ, thanks for reiterating what I've been saying all along. There are plenty of people who share this opinion with us, they may just be hesitant to post it.

[DG]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:10pm

Actually, Jane, there's been a few of us who posted that very thought - but the reaction to it was enough to make it not worth pursuing.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:20pm

Yeah, I guess you're right, DG, I'll give up now too.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:28pm

You boys don't ahve to give up on anything--I saw the attraction right away, but if you didn't, you're not a bad or less intelligent person--you simply have a different sensibility. I wasn't wowed by Gods and Monsters, but that doesn't mean that Ian wasn't successful or Condon was at fault. I just wasn't compelled, and obviously, neither were you boys. No big deal.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:32pm

thanks, lildogs! And I'm a girl!

[DG]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:32pm

lildogs, if your response had been the one received, the conversations would have seemed more enticing. Getting hit in the face with something along the lines of, "How can you call yourself gay?!?" somewhat diminished the appeal.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:33pm

It would seem that Brokeback is going to keep winning at the Oscars too and I have to say it really isn't that great a movie.

But everyone seems to feel that it is politically correct to vote for the movie and show how enlightened they are in accepting a gay love story when in fact most thinking gay people I know feel the love story is lacking. First of all, it is two gorgeous guys (which of course you'd expect of Hollywood) and neither of the actors are gay but much has been made of how HARD IT WAS TO PLAY THESE ROLES, when no one says that if a gay actor plays a straight role.

Secondly, this is just more of the a) gays are asexual and funny (ala Will and Grace) or b) they are tragic figures who die broken hearted OR of AIDS because of their life style. So why on earth anyone would want to tout this as a breakthrough movie for the gay population being accpeted is beyond me.

Frankly, I find all the fuss insulting and condescending...as if the country is patting itself on the back for being so advanced in their thinking.

The European countries find our backward attitudes toward sex quite Victorian!

Maybe someday there will be a movie in the mainstream that reflects gays and their love for their partners as 'just like everyone else' and we can put this chest thumping mainstream enlightenment to rest once and for all.

Read some of the good articles in the gay press right now and see what everyone else is saying. Not everyone thinks that we should rush out and see the movie 20 times to support it simply because it is about gay love.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:38pm

Really, Jane? And that's a Mapplethorpe pic right?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:44pm

One of my favorite moments of pure love in the story is the memory Jack has in 1983 of when they simply held each other, standing up. Gorgeous, gorgeous writing.

---

What Jack remembered and craved in a way he could neither help nor understand was the time that distant summer on Brokeback Mountain when Ennis had come up behind him and pulled him close, the silent embrace satisfying some shared and sexless hunger.

They had stood that way for a long time in front of the fire, its burning tossing ruddy chunks of light, the shadow of their bodies a single column against the rock. The minutes ticked by from the round watch in Ennis’s pocket, from the sticks in the fire settling into coals. Stars bit through the wavy heat layers above the fire. Ennis’s breath came slow and quiet, he hummed, rocked a little in the sparklight and Jack leaned against the steady heartbeat, the vibrations of the humming like faint electricity and, standing, he fell into sleep that was not sleep but something else drowsy and tranced until Ennis, dredging up a rusty but still useable phrase from the childhood time before his mother died, said, "Time to hit the hay, cowboy. I got a go. Come on, you’re sleepin on your feet like a horse," and gave Jack a shake, a push, and went off in the darkness....

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 4:47pm

yes, it is, lildogs. I love that one.

[DG]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 5:02pm

Joey - that really is a lovely passage, and is a perfect example of what frustated me in reading the whole story. Taken seperately, there truly were moments of transcendent beauty that were almost palpable in their loving content. But taken as a whole, I was left somewhat chilled, and quite honestly, I still haven't figured out exactly what it was. But whatever it was, it also pervaded my experience of the film.

The post by Peter earlier (which was wonderful, by the way) really has had me thinking, and I think he may have hit on something that resonates with me. I DO have a tendency to react more to the 'fairy tale' (NO pun intended) - I think, perhaps, because I have such a grounded experience of my own reality, that I look for the 'ideal' in entertainment.

Not sure about that, but it has got me to thinking about it, anyway!

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 5:09pm

I know I'm not a gay guy, but I hope I can just say this. You can't just take two attractive screen idols and put them in a film and expect there has to be chemistry. This applies to men, women, and mixed couples. For many people, the chemistry was there, but not for many others.

Yeah, I know I said I give up but I have a hard time doing that!

[DG]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 5:12pm

Jane - it is indeed a rare thing, that chemistry - which makes it all the more spectacular when it works.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 5:13pm

DG--I believe Annie Proulx's intent was to give the reader only brief glimpses of beauty as a way of dramatizing the idea that all most people get--certainly most people in that hardscrabble world, certainly two men in that place and time who found themselves in love with each other--are brief glimpses of beauty. From out of nowhere, and then your life is changed.

I don't think her point is that gay people are only entitled to that--I think that suggestion would make her quizzical. If anything, her point is that having to be closeted reinforces that. But politics did not drive the writing of this story; humanity and compassion did.

I find her prose breathtakingly Hemingway-like in its economy, but much more feminine it its imagery. The form and the content merge in the story: it is all too brief and over too soon, like a love that comes and goes. The first time I read it, I immediately read it again.

[DG]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 5:31pm

"I believe Annie Proulx's intent was to give the reader only brief glimpses of beauty as a way of dramatizing the idea that all most people get--certainly most people in that hardscrabble world, certainly two men in that place and time who found themselves in love with each other--are brief glimpses of beauty. From out of nowhere, and then your life is changed."

Very well presented, sir, and enough to make me go back and revisit the story with it in mind.

Don't know about the movie, though. Unfortuantely, I do deal with what Jane is mentioning, which is simply a basic 'non-resonance' with the relationship as it was presented. Maybe it's just a chemical thing

I do have to say, however, that I disagree somewhat with some of the thoughts prented here that categorically dismiss the possible impact of the movie. However minimal it might turn out to be, it has undeniably caused a heightened level of discussion and potential exposure. And my own experience with PHILADELPHIA (which I similarly didn't resonate with, but then found out how it had impacted others) leads me to think that any amount of discussion could be a good thing.

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 6:58pm

What a perfect note that would be for this thread to end on; positive, balanced, open-minded, and respective of another's opinion. (You even have my blessing to delete this post before throwing a pad-lock on it.) But I guess that would be asking and expecting too much.

Oh well... a girl can dream, can't she?

Updated On: 1/18/06 at 06:58 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 7:00pm

It seems that whenever a movie with gay content is released, there are those who are incapable of judging it as a film (i.e., is it good or bad?) and insist on subjecting it to tedious political scrutiny--does it have the "right message" for the gay movement, does it say the politically correct things, does it contain "good role models", etc. Is that really what we want--neutered Hollywood minstrels like Greg Kinnear in "As Good As It Gets?"

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 11:17pm

After this post I'm stepping out of this ****ing thread. I mean, you've got jrb giving film school vocabulary lessons and asserting that conservative can mean more than one thing, yes, by golly, papa's right! And Joey, when I read your post of about 2 this afternoon I thought, "Oh. I. Just. Don't. Care." And I can't think of a better reason not to read that damn short story than the fact that you compared it to Hemingway. Of course, that that means "good" to you is another discussion entirely.

But yes, I meant that The Ice Storm was politically reactionary for the reasons that I mentioned in the earlier thread and that Robbie echoed in this one, its judgmentalism about the sexual liberation movements of the sixties as played out in his vision of the '70s (oh, sorry, his vision of the NOVEL'S vision of the '70s) and, in his entire filmic oevre, artistically conservative meaning safe and tradition bound. (Thank you papalovesmambo for being a close reader. You're the only Papa worth reading.)

And as a final point, I would like to say I was never one to worry whether Brokeback is "good for the gays or bad for the gays." I just don't think it's a good movie. And every time I read a post saying "we all have to unite because of all the good Brokeback is doing for us by winning a Golden Globe," I will respond.

I'm super psyched for those of you it meant something for and I hope you enjoy your Jake and Heath pinups. As for me, I went into the movie with no expectations, unlike Blue Wizard who has apparently been counting the minutes til the movie was released for about two ****ing years. Perhaps one should recuse oneself from being able to pretend to view a movie critically after that kind of build-up.

I hope you all get the gay representations on film you deserve, but I wish you had higher expectations.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 11:22pm

Ah luvs ya, Namo.

Updated On: 1/19/06 at 11:22 PM

[Luscious]

Posted: 1/18/06 at 11:56pm

"After this post I'm stepping out of this ****ing thread."

"And every time I read a post saying "we all have to unite because of all the good Brokeback is doing for us by winning a Golden Globe," I will respond."

I was about to pour myself a Boli-Stoli cocktail in celebration, but aren't these two statements contradictory? God knows, I wouldn't want to be presumptuous.

Ah... who's he kidding? He’ll be back. He was heard mumbling under his breath as he left, "I wish I knew how to kwit you."

Edited: for accuracy (and PalJoey).

Updated On: 1/19/06 at 11:56 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 12:05am

How many times do I have to tell you people?

It's "I wish I KNEW HOW to quit you" not "I wish I could quit you"!

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/19/06 at 12:20am

Ooooh, maybe "I wish I could quit you" (and in this case, I mean to use this phrase, PalJoey, so put that vein back in your forehead) will become a modern line that everyone misquotes, akin to "Play it again, Sam."