BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005)

SHORT REVIEW: There are times when the “fast” on the fast forward button ain’t fast enough. I just sat there muttering, “Well, I don’t do that.” It is easy to mock many parts of this film. It’s about gay cowboys, the jokes are inherent. Furthermore, it is difficult to speak about this film without falling into juvenile double entendres (not that I’m above being juvenile.) Much of this has to do with the average reaction to homosexuality in particular when it is hung* over a mismatched environment. Even more of this has to do with the unbelievably stupid marketing that surrounded the release of this product. Much has been said about the agenda framing this production and I have nothing new to add there. The main thrust* of the piece is to deconstruct the American image of the cowboy to muddy* the image. This is the well-worn path of post modernists. You don’t accept a social construct, remake it in your image by lowering its standards. Once the image has been destroyed, you can shove in* a new icon or idea that is more to your liking. By now this kind of over reaching redefining of American culture, language and attitudes has become tedious in most respects and a mockery of itself in cases like this. This is a shame because this fully realized and forceful film is very well done. The direction and acting are exquisite on many fronts. Heath Ledger in particular proves himself to be one of the best actors of his generation once again in his role as Ennis, a mealy mouthed loner who apparently likes to ride the range**. Ledger and company coupled* with Ang Lee’s masterful direction, and Rodrigo Prieto’s heart stopping cinematography, this film is, in many respects, one of the better made films of 2005. But then there is all of that gay sex stuff. Listen, I’ll be honest, I’m not reflectively against exploring all aspects of human behavior. The human experience is rich and interesting and should be discussed in film but let’s be real about it. It’s one thing to speak to homosexual behavior its another to shove it down the audience’s throat*. This is by its nature a controversial film but the way it was marketed was disgusting. At first it the whole gay cowboy thing was ignored and the original commercials simply played up the images of men herding their sheep*. Once poor grandma and grandpa were lured in thinking they were getting a western to find two guys locking stirrups, the ads changed. The Oscars were coming* around and there ads splashed* around claiming this to be the “date movie” of the year. No guy in his right mind is ever taking his lady out to see two confused sheepherders play slap and tickle. The first set of ads lied by omission and the second just lied. Something that irritates me about this film is people’s reaction. Liberals and gays tend to try to use this as a social barometer of how “accepting” America is towards homosexuality. If you have issues with this film you’re a homophobe. If you mock the stupidity at the heart of the film, you’re hateful. This is unfair. The concept of two apparently straight (or at least one of them is) cowboys falling in love while on the job* and doing whatever it is they do when they get together is laughable. This may be why every one is laughing. This film is not a reflection on American values it is a reflection on how out of touch the elite class is with the world. While there are many honest and believeable parts of this film, the relationship at the middle of the story is flimsy. The initial homosexual encounter between the two main characters Ennis and Jack Twist in the infamous “pup tent scene” is inorganic to say the least. I think we can assume that two men who supposedly are tough cowboys don’t rush into a homosexual adventure without due diligence. Even if they did, the way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth*. The two guys are just hanging out and then they decide to go for a test drive? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been that drunk. Furthermore, the two leads don’t have a deep enough emotional connection to support the notion these two being obsessed with one another of twenty years. If we’re to understand these two men love one another, the roots of that love are not explained or shown. If it were simply lust, said lust wouldn’t sustain the hell these two guys are forced to inhabit. Speaking of hell. I watched the whole film and I found this film to be surprisingly moral if taken a certain way. The two men have an “encounter” otherwise known as “rough gay sex” up on Brokeback Mountain and spend the rest of their lives drowning in their obsession for one another. Their “love” destroys their lives and the lives of their families. I found this film to be less about homosexuality (actually these guys are bisexual but who’s keeping count) and more about sin. The two guys commit a sin on Brokeback Mountain and ruin their lives trying to retain that moment. In fairness to the production, this is hardly an advertisement for homosexual behavior, as many believe it to be. While the film makes some lame attempts to blame the horror of these men’s lives on society not allowing their love to speak its name, it ends showing what happens to those who are unable to turn from their selfish desires. Do I recommend this film? No. But that “no” is soft. This is a well-done film and it has a humanity to it that is undeniable. The problem is that the bloated agenda at the core of the film is undeniable as well. If one is able to get over the homosexual scenes (see my Short Review) and look at this film from the standpoint of sin more than gayness, one may get something from this piece. Then again, dropping the homosexual aspects of this film is like trying to drop all of that “holocaust stuff” from Schindler’s List. * - no pun intended ** - pun intended Categories: film, movie review, DVD, Brokeback Mountain, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhall, Anne Hatchaway