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.
ROFL!!!
Bold emphasis mine.
"Only one"? Weeeelllll wooooo-hoooooo!! Take the whole family!!! There's only one gay sex scene. Just one. We are indeed blessed to have film makers of such taste, modesty and understatedness. I mean hell, they could have shown sodomy from the get go until the final credits but instead, they gave us only a single, tastefully done humping scene. Excellent.
Gag!!!
Whoever wrote this review is a homo. Period. He's positively thrilled at the homosexual fantasy he's just witnessed and it sticks out like a sore thumb. This film is just a homo's wet dream and nothing more. The themes, i.e "inside every straight guy there's a little bit of the homosexual" and "even tough ranch hands like to walk on the wild side occasionally", are simply perverse.
" A serious contemplation of loneliness and connection", my fanny.
USCCB shows why the recent Vatican document and current seminary visitation are so desperately needed.
Can we finally declare AmChurch in shism, yet?
"...-- a serious contemplation of loneliness and connection..."
For shame. This should be used as a teaching moment. That loneliness should be addressed by sex is wrong. That is what has created this messs of a culture. People are lonely and are convinced sex is the way out, or that pleasures taken in the wrong way in the wrong relationships with the wrong attitude are someone enriching.
For shame on these Shepherds of Christ who foresake what God actually wants humanity to resemble, and embrace the World's notion of what humans must become.
Let them eat cake.
"Women will see this." I doubt it. Why pay for a stomach-turning view of something you can see in the big city any day? YUCK.
This whole post cracked me up. =D
Wyoming + cowboys + story of hate-crime murder + gay + sheppard = Matthew Sheppard
The USSCB needs to be disbanded...yesterday. They are worse than useless. They actually do harm and cause scandal to the faithful.
I suggest that the reviewer has issues the reviewer needs to consider before reviewing things...like Catholic teaching.
The president of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, will be on Scarborough Country tonight. I called the League this morning and was told I was the first one to complain about the USCCB review, so if anyone is interested please call the Catholic League and let them know that you hope that Mr. Donohue addresses this matter in his TV appearance and website. They did suggest that I call my Bishop, which I intend to do. Please do the same. I would never ever have thought that this movie would get an L rating from the USCCB.Ever.
That's for sure.
It also should have gotten a rating of RSA-p (racist, sexist, anti-police). Same ole formula: weak non-minority male gets straightened out by the strong, good, smart, balanced, sane minority males and women (especially minority women) while police are all sexist, racist, non-minority thugs.
Typical Sleazywood fare.
Um, chae? That is every bit as sick and wrong as male homoerotics. If your boyfriend seriously finds lesbian sex scenes attractive, then his sexuality has been distorted by the porn culture. It isn't healthy for men to relate to women that way, and it isn't even authentic to the nature of man and woman. It's a serious disorder, not a joke.
I agree. Why not an O rating ? They missed the boat on this one.
There is a lot of inconsistency among the movie reviews put out by the USCCB. If you go to their website (just Google "bishops movie reviews") You'll find that they have a review for nearly every movie ever made. Obviously there are many different reviewers that have worked on this task since no person could have seen all these movies. Many of the reviewers are not bishops themselves, they are lay Catholics. In fact I imagine that the typical bishop is too busy to be a movie critic.
In any case, there's a lot of inconsistency among the reviews, probably due to different reviewers. Some reviews are overly sensitive and end up giving an O (i.e., no one should see it at all) to movies like "Caddyshack." Other reviews are overly permissive and give a pass to movies that should clearly get an O.
Even though lay people are mostly responsible for these reviews, it is still very bad that the USCCB is putting a stamp of approval on these things. Of course given the past activities of the USCCB, this is hardly a surprise. I thought I remember hearing that Pope Benedict would like to limit the power of national bishops conferences - if so, I hope he gets cracking soon!
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.