Posted on 12/14/2005 11:22:00 PM PST by Antioch
"Brokeback Mountain" the much publicized "gay cowboy love story" adapted from a New Yorker magazine piece by Pulitzer Prize-winner Annie Proulx, arrives at last, and the film itself -- a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection -- belies the glib description.
While it is the story of an intimate relationship, more to the point it's the relationship of two emotionally scarred souls. Ranch hands Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) share a sheepherding assignment on a mountain in Signal, Wyo., in 1963. Ennis is a man of few words; Jack is somewhat more open.
Their friendship gradually grows despite Ennis' taciturn manner. At first, it's only Jack who sleeps in the camp near the sheep (with Ennis ensconced down the mountain), but come to realize it is more practicable to guard the sheep in tandem. Ennis resolutely insists he'll sleep outdoors, but the cold drives him into Jack's tent, where the two awkwardly, then roughly, have sex. Incidentally, that scene -- short and with the men mostly clothed -- is the only onscreen gay sexual encounter in the film.
In the morning, both are too embarrassed to talk about what has transpired, but a bond has formed, and we are led to understand that the relationship has deepened. Later, some outdoor wrestling is observed by their boss, the unsympathetic rancher Joe Aguirre (Randy Quaid), who watches them with a knowing eye. At the end of the season, they come down from the mountain, and dismissing what happened on the mountain as a "one-shot deal," go their separate ways. Ennis is engaged to Alma (Michelle Williams, Ledger's real-life girlfriend). But we see him crumple in despair as soon as he's alone. The first human connection he's had is coming to an end.
Jack, for his part, makes a tentative attempt to pick up an Ennis-like cowboy in a bar, but eventually meets former prom queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). Both men marry and have children. Time goes by, and Jack sends a postcard to Ennis telling him he's coming to town. The air is rife with anticipation as Ennis waits for the reunion. When Jack finally drives up, the unexpressive Ennis can barely contain his excitement, and rushes out to meet him.
They embrace passionately, not realizing that Alma is sadly viewing the interaction from behind the screen door. She says nothing, but understands all. On the trip, Jack proposes that they chuck their families and buy a ranch, but Ennis -- who as a child witnessed the aftermath of a hate-crime murder of two rancher neighbors who had lived together -- can't bring himself to do it.
Thereafter, Ennis and Jack initiate meeting several times a year for "fishing" trips where they can be alone together. Lureen, for her part, senses the importance of these trips to her husband, but remains engrossed in her own business. As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack's continuing physical relationship is morally problematic.
The adulterous nature of their affair is another hot-button issue. But the pain Jack and Ennis cause their families is not whitewashed. (The women are played with tremendous sympathy, not as shrill harridans.) It's the emotional honesty of the story overall, and the portrayal of an unresolved relationship -- which, by the way, ends in tragedy -- that seems paramount.
Director Ang Lee tells the story with a sure sense of time and place, and presents the narrative in a way that is more palatable than would have been thought possible. Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana's screenplay uses virtually every scrap of information in Proulx's story, which won a National Magazine Award, and expands it while remaining utterly true to the source.
The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, as his repressed manly stoicism masking great vulnerability is heartbreaking, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the more demonstrative of the pair, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from "The Princess Diaries," giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.
Looked at from the point of view of the need for love which everyone feels but few people can articulate, the plight of these guys is easy to understand while their way of dealing with it is likely to surprise and shock an audience.
Except for the initial sex scene, and brief bedroom encounters between the men and their (bare breasted) wives, there's no sexually related nudity. Some outdoor shots of the men washing themselves and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the flick overall. Mostly eye-candy crap. The cybernetic thing has been around for a while as a theme and is really the grandson of Shelley's Frankenstein. I thought you were refering to the plot rather than the theme.
###"As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack's continuing physical relationship is morally problematic."###
Change the word "problematic" to "sinful" and you have a banned movie. Saved by the "R" is Hollywood.
The bishops lined the pockets of the producers with that one word and we do not know how many people to sin?
As I said, the plot was stolen from a woman's screenplay, and she won in court. The thematic material was ripped from PKD.
The rating has been changed to Morally Offensive.
The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two brief sex scenes without nudity, partial and shadowy brief nudity elsewhere, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, alcohol and brief drug use, brief violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, and some domestic violence. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O -- morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R -- restricted.
Agree -- on both counts.
I think its high time for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to send in a HazMat team into USCCB headquarters.
***
Good one!
Sounds like it will be a boffo hit with all the gay priests. Disgusting.
Now that is more like it. I hope somebody got "re-assigned".
Thank you for that post.
I doubt it...Catholic News Service has this on the change (reformatted for easier reading):
Editor's Note: "Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling), has been reclassified O -- morally offensive. This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating -- which restricts films in that category to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie -- is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because there are some in this instance who are using the L rating to make it appear the church's -- or the USCCB's -- position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been revised specifically to address its moral content.There it is - it seems as if the classification was changed because many could not properly comprehend or understand what was in the glowing review and how it related to the “L” clasiification. Nice!
Over on Bettnet.com, someone is suggesting we all start bombarding more orthodox bishops with requests to leave the USCCB. I have to admit, my first reaction is that it's a great idea. However, I am not sure prudentially - perhaps the move would precipitate a schism of the liberal wing of the American Church (not that **I** would mind, I'm just not sure that's what God wants us to do).
I think what USCCB is saying that they wouldn't want those who can assess movies from a Catholic perspective, to miss this heartfelt and universal theme of two men abandoning their marriage vows and children for the joy of impaling each others backsides. The power of the blogosphere outed these flamers, now they're scrambling to feign orthodoxy, until the next opportunity.
Benedict has an e-mail. Here ya go... Tell him all about AmChurch
benedictxvi@vatican.va
At heart it is. Read Annie Proulx's other books and that's the impression you might get. The plot is more believeable as a lesbian cowgirl love story.
There's some cleverness involved in putting the story in male drag. A heterosexual romance like The Virginian or Oklahoma is pretty much old hat. A lesbian cowgirl film like Desert Hearts or Even Cowgirls get the Blues also wouldn't attract much attention today. Make the characters two cowboys and the romance gay male, though, and people can't stop talking about it.
I think you've hit nail on the head...The problem is, after decades of "problematic" things like coming from the USCCB and its bloated bureaucracy, I don't believe they can even come close to feigning orthodoxy.
Someone needs to clean the Augean stables in Washington, so to speak - or if that task is too daunting (and it very well may be), perhaps the Holy Father might require some other "conference" be established - maybe one more concerned with imparting the Faith and the salvation of souls?
yuck. blech. queers in the usccb offices. ick. like Steve Martin said, all the world thinks hollywood -- and its reviewers are gay.
Wouldn't that be a hoot? I wouldn't be surprised in the least.
If we (the general Catholic faithful) were as sophisticated and learned as Harry Forbes/the reviewer, we would have properly understood the review and accepted the "L" rating... (sarcasm off)
This is a "no retraction" retraction...it blames others. No responsibility for the review and rating is accepted by the editor. Someone there is deluded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.