Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005)

[Michael]

I know a number of posters don't care for the ending finding it either emotionally abrupt or formally clumsy.

Not me. I couldn't think of a better ending than this - Mathieu sitting on the beach looking out at the ocean. In the previous scenes when he's talking to Pierre on the beach, pay close attention to Pierre's beautiful, expressive eyes which I think say everything about Mathieu's future. Pierre living with his mom, playing with a dog on the beach... life can be okay. Mathieu clearly absorbs all that. All of that leaves me the impression that he will be okay. How can you end something that's a "slice of life" anyway?

[marty]

Oh please not you again. Now who's really whining?

Please do tell me that you're 8 years old because then I would be able to forgive you.

If Brokeback Mountain was directed by Todd Haynes or Gregg Araki and starred two actors who were homosexual in real life, I think it would been more acceptable to gay audiences. The fact that it was directed by a presumably straight man and starring two straight actors who had girlfriends, just rubbed gay audiences the wrong way. But then again the film has received tremendous support from GLAAD. Go figure.

[Doctor Sunshine]

In response to the fourth post up by Michael:

What I'm specifically addressing is this:

... the comment from D. Scott that I just came across on Amazon. It sums up everything I think of Brokeback Mountain:

and this:

...Hollywood films time and again deliver the same message about the fate of anyone who engages in "the love that dares not speak (or in the case of Ennis Del Mar, mumble) its name." The heterosexual norm can only be maintained if gay lovers either die or end up miserable and alone.

That D. Scott--and apparently you, too-- feel Brokeback Mountain is furthering an Anti-Gay Agenda Hollywood Agenda. That's what I'm talking about. What you're saying now sounds reasonable--though unrelated to what I'm saying--but I feel D. Scott's reading of the film is off-base and his amazon post is crackpotish.

[Michael]

That D. Scott--and apparently you, too-- feel Brokeback Mountain is furthering an Anti-Gay Agenda Hollywood Agenda.

I wouldn't go that extreme. More like Same Old Shit Gay Agenda Hollywood Agenda. It just keeps staying in the closet.

[zedz]

If Brokeback Mountain was directed by Todd Haynes or Gregg Araki and starred two actors who were homosexual in real life,

it would not be Brokeback Mountain and it would not be sweeping the awards.

[che-etienne]

This is ridiculous. "Brokeback Mountain" is a good film, and was made as a love story by Ang Lee, who had I think no intention of raising controversy or for that matter of accumulating praise and awards. If one looks at Ang Lee's career, his interests are fairly consistent, and "Brokeback Mountain" is in keeping with his other examinations of other cultures from an outside point of view. Some may call his filmmaking too traditional in style, and too based upon Hollywood cliche, but I think he like many good filmmakers has developed a style regardless of what other people think. Why criticize him for doing something he does not intend to do? Why can we not just appreciate the film for what it is, instead of criticizing it for what it is not?

A straight actor is I think just as capable of playing a homosexual character as a homosexual actor. A good performance of any type of character depends on a lot of factors, but sexual orientation I believe is not one of them. I'll repeat myself by saying that the whole Spike-Lee-like notion that you have to be black to make a movie about Malcolm X or Rubin Carter or Ali is preposterous and is just the kind of attitude that only maintains cultural strife.

[franco]

Thank you, che-etienne. Thank you.

[marty]

This is ridiculous. "Brokeback Mountain" is a good film, and was made as a love story by Ang Lee, who had I think no intention of raising controversy or for that matter of accumulating praise and awards. If one looks at Ang Lee's career, his interests are fairly consistent, and "Brokeback Mountain" is in keeping with his other examinations of other cultures from an outside point of view. Some may call his filmmaking too traditional in style, and too based upon Hollywood cliche, but I think he like many good filmmakers has developed a style regardless of what other people think. Why criticize him for doing something he does not intend to do? Why can we not just appreciate the film for what it is, instead of criticizing it for what it is not?

A straight actor is I think just as capable of playing a homosexual character as a homosexual actor. A good performance of any type of character depends on a lot of factors, but sexual orientation I believe is not one of them. I'll repeat myself by saying that the whole Spike-Lee-like notion that you have to be black to make a movie about Malcolm X or Rubin Carter or Ali is preposterous and is just the kind of attitude that only maintains cultural strife.

Finally, someone made some sense!
=D>

[The Invunche]

che-etienne, prepare for the "homophobe" attacks.

[marty]

EDIT: Oh and Marty dry up! Youre a total pain. And an imbecile.

[The Invunche]

Invunche TOI! Mon petit. (And all who sail in you.)

I have no idea what that means. Is it as gay thing?

[The Invunche]

I'm so gay. I admit it.

[marty]

I'm so gay. I admit it.

BRAVO!

( remember this is Am-er-ca..)

You guys need a room.

[Jun-Dai]

I'll repeat myself by saying that the whole Spike-Lee-like notion that you have to be black to make a movie about Malcolm X or Rubin Carter or Ali is preposterous and is just the kind of attitude that only maintains cultural strife.

You can repeat it, but it's kind of meaningless if you don't have some sort of rationale to support it.

Besides, I don't think the point was ever that you can't make a film about Malcolm X if you aren't black, the point was that you can't make a film about Malcolm X that's any good if you aren't black, and this idea depends on "good" being defined as (a) reflecting Malcolm X's struggle and cultural and social background with any kind of authenticity and (b) offering an insight into Malcolm X's thinking and relevance that will be meaningful to a significant black audience. I suspect that Spike Lee wouldn't doubt for a second that a white director would be capable of directing a film about Malcolm X that is "good" by the terms of conventional white cinema.

Even if you set aside the notion that a white person, without having gone through the difficulties that Malcolm X was fighting against, would lack the personal capability to relate the story effectively, there's also the fact that a white director wouldn't have any credibility, and his attempts at focussing on authenticity would have a ring of condescension--at the very least the fact of him directing it would be tantamount to saying that the story can't be told effectively by a black director.

To quote Jane Elliott (who I suspect was quoting someone else): "white people talking to white people about racism is simply sharing ignorance."

How does this maintain cultural strife? I would suggest that colorblindness, the notion that people are capable of not being racist, de facto segregation, inequitable educational privileges, and the fact that the dominant cultural group is reluctant to cede power over the cultural definition of this country are significant reasons why cultural strife continues to exist in this country. The idea that minority groups feel that their viewpoint cannot be effectively told by white men doesn't strike me as having any significant effect on the cultural strife in this country.

Going back to Brokeback Mountain, I don't think anyone here (except to some extent me) is really advocating the notion that straight directors are incapable of directing a good film about gay people. The biggest critics of Brokeback Mountain have listed more films directed by straight men about gay people that they consider quality than most of their antagonists have mentioned about gay people that they've seen period. Similarly they have listed straight actors that have carried off convincing gay roles. In the end, however, Brokeback Mountain is a production that seems to be completely absent of any gay input, which seems like it would be a pretty serious limitation of its capabilities in speaking about a gay experience.

[marty]

Besides, I don't think the point was ever that you can't make a film about Malcolm X if you aren't black, the point was that you can't make a film about Malcolm X that's any good if you aren't black, and this idea depends on "good" being defined as (a) reflecting Malcolm X's struggle and cultural and social background with any kind of authenticity and (b) offering an insight into Malcolm X's thinking and relevance that will be meaningful to a significant black audience. I suspect that Spike Lee wouldn't doubt for a second that a white director would be capable of directing a film about Malcolm X that is "good" by the terms of conventional white cinema

I think its a crazy notion that white directors cannot make films about black people and vice versa. Or American directors making films about Chinese people. This is nuts. If this were the case then many great films would never have been made. This is the continuous and demeaning process of categorisation of people that causes segmentation in the first place. Its all about depicting humanity and any decent director can do that despite his race or gender. Why do we need to label everyone? Cannot we all be human beings without shouting to the world "I am black and proud!", "I am gay and proud". Really no-one cares! Just live your life.

[marty]

Marty. Get a fucking life. Of your own.

Davidhare, I have never made any derogatory comments that were directed towards you, yet recently you have done so with me. I respect your arguments and have always found your debates to be constructive and intelligent. Why do we always have to agree? We can still debate our points without making direct insults. You have made some terrific points that have been very insightful but now you are just being mean!

[che-etienne]

"Wim Wenders had better watch out 'cause I'm waiting for his ass. Somewhere deep in my closet I have a Louisville Slugger bat with Wenders' name on it." - Spike Lee

oh yeah that has a real rationale behind it...

So and who says that Spike Lee has the ability to make a good movie about Italian Americans and Irish Americans... which he has done...

There is an underlying hypocrisy there that I cannot condone. It's like saying that Scorsese and Coppola, and all there fellow Italian American immigrants are the only people who can breath life into their own experience living in Urban America. Or that Leone, who was not Jewish but Catholic, and who had as well never even been to the US before he made "Once Upon A Time in the West", shouldn't have been allowed to make a movie called "Once Upon A Time in America", one of the greatest films ever made (at least in my point of view). I agree that an artist's life experience has a great deal to do with how he/she develops and grows as an artist, but it's just segregatory in of itself to say that someone lacks the understanding of certain emotions. I don't think Ian Mckellan has ever felt what it's like to be a god or a wizard, but he tries to portray one in "Lord of the Rings". Nor have Robert de Niro or Joe Pesci killed anyone before but they still manage to make it convincing. Will Smith grew up in an America and in neighborhoods far different from those Ali knew, but his portrayal was moving nonetheless. To segregate art so politically and culturally is to deny that a filmmaker or actor has an imagination, or to deny that people feel the same emotions.

When Dustin Hoffman was working on "Marathon Man" with Laurence Olivier, it is said that Hoffman, one of the great method actors, stayed up all night for days to prepare himself for his torture scene. Olivier turned to him one day and said "why don't you just try acting." Now, as I like both actors, and as this story is in all probability just a legened, I don't want anyone to think that I'm supporting either method one way or the other. My only point is that Olivier was right in at least one sense that Dustin Hoffman could really not muster up exactly what it was like to be tortured. An actor must no matter what method he or she uses also never forget that they have an imagination.

In my experience, it is not that a black person experiences emotions that are out of the range of a white person, or that a gay person experiences emotions that are unreachable by a straight person, it is simply that these emotions manifest themselves in different ways. An actor is often payed to show how a person's individuality manifests itself, and a director is more often than not payed to show why it does. Well, then why should Norman Jewision not be able to make a good movie about Rubin Carter, or why should Mann not be able to make a good movie about Ali, and why should Ang Lee not be able to make a movie about two American cowboys, who fall in love with each other.

[marty]

marty we simply dont agree because your idea of discourse is totally ridiculous and conspiritorially invasive and destructive. I have not read one single post from you - anywhere - in which you demonstrate a sinlge trace a trace of insight, or reflection upon anyone else's posts. You are way, WAY out of your depth here, and maybe you should go and practice someother place until you grow up.

Great, I respect your opinion. Although I am not gay, a have dear friend of mine who is and we have been friends for over 12 years. I am not a homophobic and those who think so, I really don't care for their opinion.

In my opinion, Ang Lee, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenahal have tried to make a different film from the norm. Yes, it may be a Hollywood-friendly version of gay cowboys but the very reason it is successful because its a somewhat original story for Hollywood films. The last thing we wanted was another lame Legends of the Fall which was abysmal. I think everyone involved including James Schamus and the people at Focus and Universal were trying to defy Hollywood conventions and yet they still get slapped in the face by the people they were innocuously trying to please. BB may not be totally accurate but its the closest Hollywood has been in years.

[marty]

"Well, then why should Norman Jewision not be able to make a good movie about Rubin Carter, or why should Mann not be able to make a good movie about Ali, and why should Ang Lee not be able to make a movie about two American cowboys, who fall in love with each other.

I agree and that's what I have been trying to convey but to no avail. While BB is a story about two homosexual or bi-sexual cowboys, in the end its about lost love. Everyone can relate to having loved and lost and that is why it has been such a success and a huge hit. Why some want to label the film to be everything that its not is perplexing and counter-productive.

[marty]

Why, Invunche - that depends on you. The verbal formation is in fact reflexive, I believe.

You are right. I can never convey the rigorous intellect of your posts.

[GringoTex]

"Wim Wenders had better watch out 'cause I'm waiting for his ass. Somewhere deep in my closet I have a Louisville Slugger bat with Wenders' name on it." - Spike Lee

oh yeah that has a real rationale behind it...

What's the point of cherrypicking this quote? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

There is an underlying hypocrisy there that I cannot condone. It's like saying that Scorsese and Coppola, and all there fellow Italian American immigrants are the only people who can breath life into their own experience living in Urban America.

The point is- how many great films were there about the Italian American experience before these guys jumped in? Is Hawks' Scarface a great movie about the Italian American experience? Or is it a great movie about a broader American experience that happens to feature Italian American characters? There is a distinct difference. No WASP could have made Goodfellas. The reason there are so many great films about Italian Americans over the pasr 35 years is because Italian Americans strated making their own films.

Lee's point was that blacks had never been allowed to tell their stories on film, so now that they are in a position to, why should white directors keep on doing so? Again, how many great films were made about the African American experience before Lee came along?

In my experience, it is not that a black person experiences emotions that are out of the range of a white person, or that a gay person experiences emotions that are unreachable by a straight person, it is simply that these emotions manifest themselves in different ways.

How do you know? Did you pull a HomoSoul Man routine or what? Even if you do know, isn't cinema not about the emotion itself, but a manifestation of those emotions?

Well, then why should Norman Jewision not be able to make a good movie about Rubin Carter, or why should Mann not be able to make a good movie about Ali, and why should Ang Lee not be able to make a movie about two American cowboys, who fall in love with each other.

I have no idea why they weren't able to make good movies out of these stories, but it could have something to do with the fact that they really couldn't understand the experiences at the their core.

[kieslowski_67]

This is ridiculous. "Brokeback Mountain" is a good film, and was made as a love story by Ang Lee, who had I think no intention of raising controversy or for that matter of accumulating praise and awards. If one looks at Ang Lee's career, his interests are fairly consistent, and "Brokeback Mountain" is in keeping with his other examinations of other cultures from an outside point of view. Some may call his filmmaking too traditional in style, and too based upon Hollywood cliche, but I think he like many good filmmakers has developed a style regardless of what other people think. Why criticize him for doing something he does not intend to do? Why can we not just appreciate the film for what it is, instead of criticizing it for what it is not?

A straight actor is I think just as capable of playing a homosexual character as a homosexual actor. A good performance of any type of character depends on a lot of factors, but sexual orientation I believe is not one of them. I'll repeat myself by saying that the whole Spike-Lee-like notion that you have to be black to make a movie about Malcolm X or Rubin Carter or Ali is preposterous and is just the kind of attitude that only maintains cultural strife.

Great post, Thanks!

Ang and his crew never intended to make a propoganda movie targeting towards only the queer audience. To criticize BBM for lacking 'gay pride' or 'gay culture' is laughable since the story took place in Wyoming from the 60s instead of in SF or New York, and the two poor guys probably never heard of the stonewall. Forget about "gay gone with the wind in the West", BBM is itself a simple love story where two loners and social outcasters fell deeply in love with each other while the romance was doomed from the beginning because of the society those two guys lived in. It's an overwhelming story about lost love, lost chance, and lost youth, about how terrible living in lie can do to destroy the people you love and care, and eventually yourself. The flawless script play, direction, greatish performances by the ensemble (including the male performance of the decade), DP work and haunting score made it the most emotional satisfying film watching experience for me and my wife in a long time.

Judging from the overwhelming positive response the film gets from the gay community (there are lots of worthy blogs, forums that are dedicated to BBM on line) and straight people, BBM is destined to make history especially in the US where homophobia still rules. Time will tell, but personally I feel that the movie is very likely to become a classic in years to come.

Not all classics need to be loved/liked by everyone.

[David Ehrenstein]

Ang and his crew never intended to make a propoganda movie targeting towards only the queer audience.

Of course they didn't. They made a propaganda movie targeting only the straight audience. Gays are, needless to say, are taken for granted. "Give it to Mikey -- he'll eat anything."

To criticize BBM for lacking 'gay pride' or 'gay culture' is laughable since the story took place in Wyoming from the 60s instead of in SF or New York, and the two poor guys probably never heard of the stonewall. Forget about "gay gone with the wind in the West", BBM is itself a simple love story where two loners and social outcasters fell deeply in love with each other while the romance was doomed from the beginning because of the society those two guys lived in.

Which is precisely why it was made for straights without knowedge of, or interest in, gay history -- who are nontheless aware that "the gays" just "can't be avoided" anymore. What to do? How about a nice weepie set ina remote region of the recent past with doomed characters we can pass the crying towel around over?

[The Invunche]

You are the most bitter and jaded person I have ever encountered on the internet.

[David Ehrenstein]

Wow! Thanks!