Well, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion about these things, I thought that the fact that the film only sort of "touched the surface" of some of these issues is part of what made it such a "big deal."

There are plenty of low-budget, independent, gay "issue" movies out there that explore more deeply the roots and effects of homophobia. What was so significant about Brokeback was that it didn't make any political or social statement about the gay romance at the center of the story. It was just a love story, plain and simple, set against the backdrop of a homophobic culture.

Plus a big part of the slow pace and the way the characters don't talk in depth about the complexities of what is going on is part of co-screenwriter Larry McMurtry's aesthetic. He (rather accurately, I think) portrays the twentieth-century Western American as being a person who has this stoicness forced upon him or her self. He or she is expected live up to an ideal image of a rough, unemotional archetype of either the "cowboy" or the "frontier wife," and in keeping up these facades, are prevented from expressing their emotions to others.

Combine that with the haiku-like filmmaking of Ang Lee, who crafts his movies in gentle, subtle, yet broad strokes. Rather than have the characters act out their every thought, In his movies, and perhaps this one more than most of his others, he gives the audience precious few solid details and allows them to fill in the fertile blanks on their own.

I could write for days on this movie, but for your sake (and mine), I won't.

Was it made a bigger deal out of in pop culture than it warranted? Definately. Was it really all that groundbreaking of a "gay" film? Outside of getting so much mainstreem, hell no.

But it was still the best movie I saw in 2005.

Boxclocke,

Your point about the archetype cowboy is an interesting one. One that I hadn't considered. When I do, however, it confuses me even further.

It seems that someone who is gay can be stoic. So it would fit. I'm not even 100% sure how that would change the story.

I guess the set against the homophobic culture just didn't come out strongly enough for me. Boys Don't Cry was a bit stronger on this. I suppose my biggest disappointment was when I heard that it was a "gay" love story that it would directly take those issues on.

I may even have been more inclined to enjoy it if they had ignored the issues entirely, instead of just scratching the surface.

The other thing I should re-iterate is that westerns aren't really my cup of tea so even if it had hit the issues head on I probably still wouldn't have enjoyed it.

I'm giving you my real reaction to it as someone who was, more or less, drawn in by the hype. Because if it had been a cowboy love story (i.e. heterosexual) I wouldn't have seen it.

I should add that I thought Crash was much better as for 2005, in my opinion. That's the beauty of movies, no opinion is better than any other.

The story itself was supposed to take place in like 1960, when stuff like that was never spoken of.

Cass,

That's true. But my bet is the way homosexuals were treated (private and publicly) was vicious. And I didn't get enough of those stakes when I was watching it.

Outside of one dead man being shown to the child, which they hardly touched on.

And the loss of a job...which would seem to me should have had way more implications. Wasn't that an example of them being "out-ed" if you will? If that boss suspected it, wouldn't he have done something?

I guess as I think more about it, I wonder what dialogue it has created. It seems that it's put more gas in the engine for anti-gay sentiment. Who knows, maybe that's what the cycle is (sort of like what Gandhi talked about).

It's no more than a vehicle for the gay lobby. You're not supposed to come away with it with a kinder and gentler view of homosexuals. It's propaganda, pure and simple. Not unlike many Hollywood-produced films made in the past 10 years.

I think the film was incredible and did a tremendous and judicious job of bringing a billiant short story to the screen. Actually, Annie Proulx also agrees.

The short story, and the film, are incredible and much appreciated, albeit incremental vanguards, in chronicalling the Gay experience in the United States.

But then, I am a Gay man and fully understood both the experience and the film's place in this country's cinematic history.

That would be the difference in our outlooks where this film is concerned and why I have seen it several times and now own the DVD.

Steve
San Francisco

To answer another question you posed, the film created, and continues to create, tremendous dialogue which is what a great film should do.

The resonance, in this country and abroad, was unprecedented which is why the film is considered groundbreaking.

Brokeback Mountain was the most honored film in 2005, and in recent memory for that matter, having been honored, many times, in this country and abroad.

Few films, especially low budget films, achieve that level of artistic recognition.

Crash, on the other hand,.....

"Homosexuals are the most discriminated against people today"

Not quite. Marijuana smokers are, by far and away, more discriminated against. You won't get thrown in jail (in the usa) for being gay. You won't get denied student loans for being gay. Saying, "I'm Gay," at an upscale cocktail party won't silence the whole room like, "I'm going to go out and smoke a joint" will. The list is endless. And to anyone who responds with, "but smoking MJ is illegal..." needs to be reminded that--for Oscar Wilde--smoking cocks was illegal, once, too.

Steve,

I didn't know that it was a short story. And perhaps, because it was, that might help explain why the movie moved so slowly.

I probably didn't articulate it clearly enough but the fact that it got so much national acclaim is wonderful because, at least, it wasn't summarily dismissed because of the characters being gay. On top of that, the characters weren't camp either. They both were two people I could relate to (I am heterosexual and I can relate to them, even more after boxclocke's point about the stoicism of cowboys....).

And yes it has created dialogue. Dialogue including a seemingly increased determination to ban gay marriage.

This crossed my mind yesterday as I thought about most of the posts that people have put up here. When I saw Mississippi Burning (which certainly had a point of view on things of course) I was, quite literally, shocked to see the way white people treated black people. I knew the outright hatred existed, but to see it so brutally in front of me reminded me that this is what they faced and is likely what they face today.

Driving Miss Daisy on the other hand was a sweetly told story (in my opinion) and touched on some discrmination issues. To me it was an engaging movie but I didn't come out with any discrimination issues on my mind.

Brokeback Mountain felt like it was right in between them for me. I didn't walk out shocked by an accurate depiction of what I know has happend to gay friends of mine and what I believe happens to even more gay people in the world today. It touched on it, ever so briefly, on several occassions, none of them very deeply (I think it could have gone even deeper into the frustration felt by the two men in the film...but that's me).

On the other hand if I were to look at the story itself, it just wasn't very engaging for me. I put at the beginning of the review that westerns aren't my cup of tea. If it would have been a "straight" western I wouldn't have seen it.

So, I just didn't like the film, personally. Ironically, this dialogue created is a wonderful by-product of it.

I have no idea whether any of this makes sense to you Steve, but thank you for your comment.

Tim
SF

Bob,

Debating who is most discriminated group in society has nothing do with the movie. I only put that in the review so people would have a sense as to where I was coming from.

Tim...my comment was on the article. And, yes, it has nothing to do with the movie but everything to do with your review--thereof--since your into to your review began with that declaration. Take Care.

correction: INTRO to your review...

Tim,

I am not quite sure I got your point. I saw both Mississippui Burning and Driving Miss Daisy. Both told their respective stories and both did it well. Under no circumstances did I expect either one to recount the Black experience in total. I expected them to tell their individual stories from their individual perspectives. If you are looking for a general, overall telling of the Black experience in the United States, I would suggest you read "From Slavery to Freedom by Dr. John Hope Franklin". With that I will also say that no one film could possibly be made to recount that book...nor should it try.

I am never sure why anyone feels a single vehicle, of any sort, should take on the task of telling the complete stories of extremely complex sociological paradigms. That expectation actually does disservice to any issue.

What I can tell you about Brokeback Mountain is that this film was not intended to tell the story of the Gay experience in The United States. It was intended to tell Annie Proulx's story and it accomplished that beyond measure. I read the story when it was published in the New Yorker, in 1997, and tracked its progress once I learned that McMurtry and Ossana had purchased the rights almost immediately after reading it. Fortunately, the project finally landed in the appropriate hands. I shudder to think what could have happened in less respectful hands.

I am a Gay man and I can also tell you that I understand every nuanced frame of this film as did any number of heterosexuals based on the
25-30 reviews I have read from around the world.

(The only problem I had with the film was the editing and later learned that the original editor died, during post production, and someone else had to finish editing the film and still make the deadlines for entry into the mid-year (2005)film festivals and the Dec. 9, 2005 release. Other parts of the editing can be attributed to Ang Lees's style as you will see in some of his other films. I also see that some of that has been corrected in later releases)

Other films and documentaries have already told, and will continue to tell, the stories you are apparently looking for with respect to the Gay experience in America.

Tim, it is abundantly clear that this little love story has resonanted in ways that no one involved with the film ever anticipated. (Their words, not mine) I am sorry you could not see it.

What is also clear is that Brokeback Mountain has a solid, well deserved place in cinematic history. The film will certainly hold its place in my collection along with all of the other films and documentaries I respect enough to purchase

Lastly, and with respect to Gay marriage, I will only say that I fail to see the connection to Brokeback Mountain. Actually, the stats, with respect to opposition to Gay marriage, indicate that, nationally, opposition has dropped by 15 -20% since Shrub was elected in 2004. Issues around Gay marriage do not concern me. That day will be won.

Steve
San Francisco

P.S. I typed this rather quickly, so my apologies in advance for any missing or misspelled words.

Steve,

Your comments are beautiful and appreciated. I can see your points and understand, better, your point of view.

I am failing to articulate exactly what it is I am feeling. But I do know now, based on your post that I was expecting this movie to take on way more than at all possible.

That doesn't change the main point that I didn't find the movie compelling (gay or straight, it didn't matter). Your response seemed to leave no word out or misspelled.

Thank you.

On a side note, I've never really considered a film's success in the context of how it told an author's story. It's an interesting point. I guess I've always just looked at a movie and compared it to the book if I'd read it (like better or worse, not did it live up to telling the author's story....)

Thank you again for your thoughtful and expansive response. I can go into my MI Burning and Miss Daisy thought process more if you want, but will leave it up to you.

btw, thank you everyone for your notes on this, I never expected that it would generate such rich interaction.

Tim

At least you are open-minded. Thanks for sharing your review with us!

John

You're welcome and I appreciate your intention and thought on my open mind.

It's rewarding to read.

Hi Tim,

I see your review received more sober comments than mine. You weren't stung for using the word "homosexual" either.

I, too, was unimpressed by Brokeback and thought it was overhyped. I agree that Boys Don't Cry does it better.

Christopher,

I read your review and yes, my review resulted in more constructive discussion, but it may have simply had to do with when I published it, enough time had elapsed.

I agreed with your review as it says above. The toughest thing about all of this is that what we want is a constructive dialogue and what is lost is its ability because of the politically correct sensitivities around the movie, which is totally understandable and unfortunate at times.