As I've mentioned a number of times over the years, I consider myself a romantic (at least at heart). Give me a potent love story where, to quote myself, "two lonely human beings bind themselves in this cold chaos we call life and stand united till death do them part" and I'll eat it up with tears glistening at the corners of my eyes. And on principle, I am an equal opportunity romantic- man and woman (Last of the Mohicans), two men (Angels in America, Philadelphia), two women (obviously), woman and giant gorilla - it's all good to me. Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain exists as if to say, "you thought you knew the boundaries of who can fall in love, well you ain't seen nothing yet." It is safe to say that the general public is aware that Mountain tells the story (although "story" is being generous) of two macho, whiskey swigging, chain smoking cowboys (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal) who meet as young men while herding sheep in Wyoming and engage in a life long, somewhat closeted love affair. There is really not much more to the movie than that . Sure, we get the scenes with respective spouses confused and distraught, and some plot points unique to each lead, but the film is content to make one statement and send you home: two rugged men showing no overt signs of homosexuality can love each other and only each other - and this love will express itself physically - and this physical expression will not emanate from loneliness or desperation or lack of choice, but rather from a deep, genuine emotional connection. Now, I guess you can buy that or not and regardless of whether you choose to, it certainly makes for provocative cinema. However, if you don't buy it, and there are many reasons not to (and unfortunately the movie does not do enough to persuade otherwise) the film proves utterly irrelevant. What will remain relevant regardless of whether cowboys bond in such a way, is the eloquent direction of Lee and the vivid performance by Ledger (Gyllenhaal, as the more effeminate of the two, ironically named Jack Twist, is less convincing as a Texas rodeo novice). Ledger turns in outstanding work and despite my previously stated misgivings about the particular chemistry evoked here, he manages to convey a passionate, palpable desire for, if not his alleged  lover Twist, for something that he is deeply missing.

 

The danger with a movie like this is that audiences and critics will champion its artistic merit purely based on its controversial content. The liberal body of big city film journalists will (and have begun to already) shallowly (almost subconsciously) decide that what they have seen is great - because why else would two mainstream studs subject themselves to such scrutiny unless Ang Lee was knocking this one out of the park? Lee also made the abominable Hulk remember. Another reason for Mountain's accolades, sadly, is that in our society being labeled homophobic is like being called a witch in Salem.. A line needs to be drawn very clearly with Brokeback Mountain. It is a very daring and good movie, not a very good and daring one.

 

A romantic can't help but revere the concept of forbidden love and pity those ensnared in its clutches. Forbidden love has bee depicted many times and in many ways, and writer    Annie Proulx has simply come up with a new, shocking one. The pain and involvement for audiences experiencing forbidden love on screen, however, rest entirely in the degree with which they can believe in that love in the first place

---
Please send all comments to Jordan Hiller at jtrick1@aol.com

From BeachDancer

Mr. Hiller:

The art of writing a good review is in teaching the viewer something they did not know, or articulating something they felt but had not yet found the words for.

Your review of Brokeback Mountain is (in my rarely humble opinion) such a piece of writing. I write this note to thank you for that.

My family and I discussed this movie at length after seeing it. I was struggling with presenting my reaction---very impressed with the acting, directing and cinematography, but having the feeling that if one actually believed this movie's basic premise, one would have no reason to believe that ANY two young men with no obvious, nor to me even subtle, homosexual interests would not leap into anal intercourse the first time they shared a tent. I was so annoyed---yes, that is the right word, given the hype leading up to my seeing the movie, annoyed and almost angry---with that scene because it was so intensely implausible (based on the prior actions and the reality of the times) that I almost left the theater.

I'm very glad I stayed. There is so much excellent acting by so many people; there is superb scene setting via cinematography and set design; and while I still feel the actual love between the two men was not successfully portrayed, the fact of that love and its importance to the two men could be taken as a "given" and make the remainder of the story work.

I wrote to a friend who uses the movie in a class on adolescent development, after a long conversation about it: That conversation was intense and good. I can't quite say "fun" because I don't like being in such strong disagreement with you about something for which you obviously care deeply. It is not that we totally disagree---there are many more things on which we would agree about the movie---but the bottom line is different. I would be using this movie as a teaching tool to show great cinematography and great acting and excellent directing and editing; but as deeply and almost irredeemably flawed with respect to its basic portrayal of the key relationship.

Your review articulates the problem, while giving full respect to the art in that movie and the powerful acting.

My discussions with my professorial friend continued. She sent me a copy of the original short story, which I read. It is excellent. Indeed, if someone HAD READ THE STORY FIRST and was told that the movie was a visualization of that story assuming the reader knew it, it almost completely works. (I still don't like the tent scene for various reasons---it is too violent; in the story Jack put's Ennis's hand on his penis as an unambiguous request, while in the movie it looked to me like he was just putting Ennis's arm around his waist.) But I still feel that the movie, alone, does not work. It just doesn't communicate enough of Jack and Ennis intense attachment. It is there (i.e., taken as a given by the latter half of the movie), but never PORTRAYED.

Another key thing is the symbolism and poignance of the shirts, at the end. In the movie the images are presented. But in the book there are a couple of heart-wrenching paragraphs that fill in so much of the story about these two men that it will stay with me a long time. Again, the movie is a good visualization of that, but failed (for me) to communicate it effectively.

Sincerely, BeachDancer

From Aubrey

Dear Jordan,
I enjoyed reading your review of Brokeback Mountain. I would like to bring to your attention that this movie was made for people like you. I think it is very revealing that you are skeptical about the general plot line and found it hard to see this as a believable scenario. You are one of the target audiences. I grew up in the country around cowboys, and let me tell you, there are as many queers as any other group of people, they just hide it a little better.

This movie shouldn't be controversial- I agree that in some regards it is just another love story, but ultimately our country has a difficult time dealing with this this topic- you fail to acknowledge the importance of this type of movie in you review. Gaining social equality is important for every group of people- Jews and Gays alike. People need to be aware that gay people are just like everybody else- they come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and qualities (including cowboys and Jews).

We have yet to gain racial equality in this country, and we aren't even close to gaining social equality for everyone.

I am waiting for the Gay, Jewish cowboy movie...

;)

Aubrey
---------------------------------------------------------------

From David

So, of all of the movies you have seen in the past two years, where would you rank Brokeback? Having seen it twice, read the short story twice, and now reading screen play, for me, it ranks at the very top, all time. Then, again, having found what turned out to be the love of my life in 1972, and still, two aging guys together and very much in love, it was life affirming in so many ways. Thank God, WE faced the fear and the hostility and have lived our lives. Yet, we know that there are still far too many Jack's and Ennis's.

When you use words like "effeminate", whatever that means, (Jake?!), it says a lot about you. What do you mean? Why do you care? What scares you? What is "sad" about a minority standing up to being killed, reviled, and at best shunned, just like those Salem witches? In what sense, are you a "romantic"? Ennis aches to be with Jack; how could you miss that?

"Buy it?" Pretty irrelevant. It exists; it's not going away. I recommend you do some reading on how certain stages of homophobia are being studied as possible mental illness. Many guys could care less; more women for them. Others? "Rugged men showing no signs of overt homosexuality" seem to really freak them out. A mystery. Good luck.

I believe we ALL have biases against gay people; some more hidden than others. It is cultural (human?) and inevitable, just like sexism and racism. I catch myself all the time saying, "Zheesh, gay men...." Just some stereotypical take on something observed. Closets are internalized homophobia, like passing as a Gentile. While words like "effeminate" have less meaning than once (witness Survivor's talk of "girly girls" and "sensitive" guys); such words often are still used as put downs all the time. I guess it is human nature to build one self up; but why does it have to be at expense of another? My fear? Not too many--physical violence mostly. (How DID Jack die? Even short story allows interpretation; (1) Lureen told the truth; and Ennis visualized his worst fears or had a flash back about "Earl"; or (2) Lureen lied and gave the sanitized version, but why would she lie to Ennis; wouldn't she want to hurt him with the truth?; or (3) We saw what really happened to Jack foreshadowing Matthew Shepherd; or (4) We will never know what happened to Jack; we just know he and Ennis will never be together except in the distant past in a distant place. Again, I find solace that I did not take their path.

In general, I continue to be amazed at the spark that seems to exist between any two people I see together, who to me and others, seem totally unlikely partners. Ennis' actually taking a whole day (!!) off, putting on a clean shirt, and practically sitting in the window waiting for Jack, then inhaling him almost as if he were oxygen were more than enough to convince me of the mutual spark. Jack's heat for Ennis is almost tangible; he always makes the first move, and he traveled hundreds of miles over and over. It is wild: I have heard "Jack" variously described by different people as a "sexual predator" (ALL gay men?), as "androgynous" (a kind of "femininity"), and as having been "raped." Wow! Is it the acting, the direction, or the script? The short story really captures the mutual hunger; the movie could have shown us more; but I believe Ang Lee wants us to long and ache.
David