I laughed my ass off at ANNE HATHAWAY's hair in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN!- Page 2

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 6:37pm

Glad you brought that up, Auggie. SPOILERS TO FOLLOW


When that initial contact took place (Jake grabbing his hand and placing it around himself) I thought "now where did THAT come from?" I swear I saw no chemistry between the two and for me there was no building up to that tent action. From that point on it was all about sex for me. FOR ME. I feel I have to be on the defensive when posting an opinion!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 6:51pm

For what it's worth, the blocking is exactly as Proulx described it in her short story. Maybe it could just be attributed to a straight, elderly woman not knowing the standard protocols of "initiation"?

Yet I always thought having Ennis and Jack have actual intercourse was a nice way of suggesting the natural, even animalistic quality of their relationship. "No instruction manual required," as Proux writes.

(ETA: Some grammatical corrections.)

Updated On: 12/24/05 at 06:51 PM

[darkmist115]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 7:00pm

Jane2 wrote:
>>When that initial contact took place (Jake grabbing his hand and placing it around himself) I thought "now where did THAT come from?" I swear I saw no chemistry between the two and for me there was no building up to that tent action. From that point on it was all about sex for me.


I actually definitely saw some VERY subtle hints being dropped at random points. There had been a few, albeit minute, eye glances with the slightest tinge of yearning, and just some other things. Perhaps Jack's character had slightly ulterior motives when he invited Ennis to come into his tent. Maybe not.
As for it all being about sex, I think that sex being their initiation into such a deep relationship. In some eyes (including mine), sex is the utmost gift of love you can grant unto someone; it can be lustful, yes, but can also be love (hence the phrase, 'making love.') So, to give the utmost affection at the beginning shows the start of a long and passionate relationship. As roquat said in the 'Climb the "Mountain"' thread, "Ang Lee and his cast recreate the process of sexual awakening (gay or straight) with painful, intimate accuracy." I agree totally.

I really want to read the short story now that I've seen the movie. Was it better than the movie?

As people have said and I did a little before, the aging is (as Auggie27 wrote) "less than stellar," but it didn't take anything away from the movie at all.
Heath did mumble quite a bit - I actually could hardly understand the last conversation he had with Jake - before he said "I wish I knew how to quit you."

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 7:23pm

I really want to read the short story now that I've seen the movie. Was it better than the movie?

I think they compliment each other well. I read the short story after seeing the movie, and although I found Proulx's text more emotionally resonant, I think my reading was helped by the experience of having seen the story dramatized.

Updated On: 12/24/05 at 07:23 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 7:27pm

Good points-I respect your opinion. the problem I have is that even though you say that Jake may have had ulterior motives for inviting Ennis into the tent is fine but why didn't I see or feel that? Most people did see and feel a relationship brewing but I just didn't. And the aging question-yes I DO think it's important to be accurate and believable with hair, makeup and wardrobe. In that way, transitions are smoopth and don't provide divertissements. Instead of me being enveloped in the film, I was noticing how off the aging aspects were, and wondering why this should happen. Anyway, we agree to disagree and that's the beauty of it all. Huh?

[darkmist115]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 9:09pm

>>Anyway, we agree to disagree and that's the beauty of it all. Huh?

But of course, Jane2, but of course!
:)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 9:53pm

but I always thought having Ennis and Jack have actual intercourse was a nice way of suggesting the natural, even animalistic quality of their relationship.

Very well put, BlueWizard. That's what I thought, too; that there were feelings established, but ignored, and that they simply couldn't take it anymore. It just happens, in a fairly natural way. I really liked that. It taps right into the way a lot of their is so animalistic, heading right back to the notion of their intimate moments looking like a decision between whether to kiss or beat each other up. I think it's a fantastically important part of their characterization. Their bodies know what to do; it's their minds that don't.

I remember thinking at first that it felt a little bit random, that it happened so early on, but after I thought about it, I came to the above conclusion.

Updated On: 12/24/05 at 09:53 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 10:41pm

"Their bodies know what to do; it's their minds that don't."

Yes, which is why it always starts with a BJ. Trust me on that one.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/24/05 at 10:42pm

I wouldn't know, so... point taken.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 12:46am

FindingNamo and everyone else--if you want to see a truly hideous aging job, check out Russell Crowe in "A Beautiful Mind"--not a movie that could claim it didn't have a budget. And that's the last I want to hear about that.

As far as this incredibly distasteful debate about how gay sexual initiation should or shouldn't start--it made perfect sense to me that the first, impulsive, unthinking act was one of sodomy. I've heard several straight men say that they would rather sodomize another man than kiss another man, becuase they could always close their eyes and pretend they were screwing a woman. Kissing, touching, oral sex, etc., are more intimate and more difficult, especially for a confused straight man who has no idea what he's doing. That's why, for me, the second encounter between the two (where they merely kissed and held each other) was more personal and more effective for me than the first encounter.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 12:53am

Nail on the head, roquat -- as I saw it, anyway. Not that I can claim to know much of the topic, but as far as the characters, in my eyes, were concerned. I think between the two types of acts, there's obviously a very different level of awareness, and that's important, at least considering where Jack and Ennis stand at that point.

I think I most often hear of an out gay man giving oral sex TO the confused straight man, on the premise that pleasure is pleasure. But if we're to go by the fact that BOTH Jack and Ennis say they're not queer, then I don't think having it written that way would've been nearly as effective as the way it actually is in the movie. It's much more urgent and immediate.

(I can not believe I'm having this discussion.)

Updated On: 12/25/05 at 12:53 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 12:55am

I agree about Crowe's aging in A Beautiful Mind.

Help me out here-you just mentioned how incredibly distasteful this debate is on how the sexual encounter was initiated, yet you went into a full detailed description of the sexual encounter-far more descriptive of anything I read in this thread.

[DG]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 12:56am

"this incredibly distasteful debate"

I'm just a little curious as to why these words were chosen?

[roquat]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 1:28am

I think that it is just a little distasteful to be debating the mechanics of seduction. FindingNamo said something to the effect that first-time homosexual encounters "always" start with oral sex, or should. Is this an official rule, and if so, according to whom?

Having said that, I had to explain, in detail, just why I thought he was wrong in this case. Sorry if that was too graphic for some people (I rather doubt it), but I didn't start the conversation going at this level. I was trying, in fact, to pry it back up out of the gutter. Do you have any better suggestions?

[vbplayer]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 2:12am

Bad hair in a film........this could apply to every film ever made.......how pointless. I think there are other underlying feelings going on here. Very interesting.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:51am

VbPlayer -- its not about the choice to include "bad hair" - its about bad makeup and hair design. I don't doubt the choice of making Hathaway a blond - even a trashy blond, but the horrible wig and makeup took me completely out of the film at a crucial moment. And I sincerely doubt it was to include a shot of humor into the film. I think too much of Ang Lee as a director to think he chose to deliberately make Hathaway's character visualy absurd to somehow playup the pathos of Gyllanhaal's character's marriage - so I'm going to assume it's just shoddy craft work.

Many, many films have extraordinary hair and makeup design. Look at Julianne Moore's "aging" makeup in THE HOURS for one. Its superbly done.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 12:02pm

Michael you are so right. Since films are in such a large part visual, that's much of what we have to react to. If part of the visual throws you off, then it truly is a distraction to the viewer and causes too much diversion, as far as I'm concerned. I'm somewhat a purist in my aesthetics, so it bothered me.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 2:18pm

"Look at Julianne Moiré’s "aging" makeup in THE HOURS for one. Its superbly done."

Really? I thought it was awful. But it still didn't decrease (or increase) my appreciation of the film.

BROKEBACK is pure perfection on every conceivable level. Could I find something to nit-pick about if I looked long and hard enough? Sure. The same can be said about any movie, or any ANYTHING, for that matter. It's far too moving, poignant, meaningful, groundbreaking and important a film to be debating the hair and makeup of one or two characters. But if that's the best you can come up with in an attempt to undermine the film's brilliance, then go to it.

Updated On: 12/25/05 at 02:18 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 3:23pm

"But if that's the best you can come up with in an attempt to undermine the film's brilliance, then go to it."

Okay! Because I was so bored with the film and my mind started to drift, the flaws in the hair and makeup became something to focus on. thanks!

[roquat]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 10:30pm

Then I really feel sorry for you.

I read the story today. Like several posters on this board, I didn't cry during the movie. Once I read the story and grasped what the filmmakers had achieved, I crumpled and bawled like any baby. The story and film are inseparable to me now; there are moments in each (descriptions, facial expressions, a host of intangible details) that bring back extremely personal memories for me (of growing up, first love, first sex, pain, rejection, et al). I really don't feel able to discuss this film objectively as a film any more; it means too much to me, and I am getting majorly pissed at the people who don't respond to it as I do and who make cheap jokes about it. This doesn't happen often at a movie (usually I'm the one making the cheap jokes). So lay off, okay?

Actually, one other thing before I go--Anne Hathaway did a brilliant acting job, especially considering her role barely exists in the story (her only real "scene" is the telephone call near the end.) And both Proulx and the screenwriters basically dismiss her in this scene, describing her as "polite, but cold as snow." The actress goes beyond that easy designation, adding shades of regret and guilt to the scene via little pauses in lines, a trace of a tear, a harder grip on the phone. Not easy, as the actors among you will know.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:31pm

"The actress goes beyond that easy designation, adding shades of regret and guilt ...," not to mention two high pitched little squeaks.

Which brings this whole thread full circle, right back to the dimestore wig and costume jewelry that Bob Mackie would have rejected for Cher's Laverne character as being too tacky.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/25/05 at 11:58pm

Hello-Rockquat-wake up-we're talking about a FILM here for Christ sake. You liked it, I didn't. So what. I posted how much I liked Transamerica-Rath didn't. So what. You can't handle other's opinions. It is I who feels sorry for you. Respond as nastily to me as you want, I can't continue these fights over opinions, I just won't.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 9:55am

This film was such a powerful and viscerally emotional experience for me that I feel very protective of it. So much so that I almost don't want to share it with anyone, let alone someone who doesn't appreciate it as much as I do. I want to keep it all to myself. Of course, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. (You know what they say about opinions; they're like assh*les. Everybody's got one, and everybody thinks everyone else's stinks.) But there will always be a handful of individuals who aim to provoke by taking an opposing view of something that, in their view, is too popular and receiving too much attention. That's how they get attention paid to them.

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 09:55 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 10:11am

"But there will always be a handful of individuals who aim to provoke by taking an opposing view of something that, in their view, is too popular and receiving too much attention. That's how they get attention paid to them."

If you're referring to me, sorry Sigmund, wrong. I posted an honest opinion, hoping it would be respected just as I respect everyone else's. You are also a person who doesn't seem to be able to handle that I didn't like this film without resorting to personal insults. That's a juvenile reaction and I feel sorry for you.


p.sp re: posting for attention. You DO realize that any time anyone posts on a message board they are looking for attention, do you not? Just like you just did. I wish you and everyone else who is so emotionally involved in this movie would stop giving my opinion on it so much attention and move on to something else.

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 10:11 AM

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/26/05 at 10:16am

I wasn't referring to you. But your reaction is just a wee bit on the defensive side. Wouldn't you say?

Updated On: 12/26/05 at 10:16 AM