Then what was? Note that I also included in the point of the movie the obstacles they face and the raw deal they’ve been dealt.
Then what would you call an egotist who lies, cheats and threatens violence against the people he claims to love?
I think the central dramatic arc of the story is not the love story but Ennis’ struggle with his own emotional repression, self-loathing, denial and fear and how those feelings cripple his ability to be a whole person and destroy almost all of his relationships, including his relationship with Jack. I don’t believe the love story per se is the arc or the point – at least not in the traditional “can these two crazy kids find happiness?” kind of way. I don’t think the resolution of the love story really matters very much. The story is about Ennis coming to grips with who he is. More broadly, it’s also about homophobia and about how destructive it can be not only to gay people but to those around them. It’s not about rooting for two lovers to make it, it’s about one character slowly learning that his own fear is poisoning him and destroying him more than the thing he’s most afraid of (being outed).
I’d call him an emotionally crippled human being who eventually gets better. I disagree that he does those things out of egotism, though. He does them for a range of other reasons, including fear, self-loathing (and in the case of the cheating) even love, but not egotism. Ennis isn’t a narcissist. He hates himself. I also think it’s worth pointing out that none of those actions are supposed to be viewed as admirable, heroic or justified. They’re sins caused by emotional weakness and fear.
Male?
An uneducated, uncultured roughneck?
Typical for the day and place?
Somebody with issues?
I didn’t dislike it as a whole, but I did find some of it far less effective than the rest.
I found the Ennis family scenes (especially those dealing with his relationship with the adult Alma, Jr.) to be the only ones that moved me. The scenes with Jack and his family (wife, father-in-law, etc.) left me with a “who gives a fuck about this guy” attitude. Not sure if this was Gyllenhall’s performance or simply the way the character was written.
I honestly think I would have enjoyed the movie more if the entire focus of the film had been Ennis’ attempts to come to terms with his homosexuality, and Jack had simply been an off-screen character.
And though I know most of you who have mentioned it are simply going for a chuckle, I understood every word Ledger said. Maybe it is my southern ear, and the fact that I grew up around people who talked in a slow drawl as if they had to mentally scramble just to find the next word out of their mouths. Ledger nailed the accent!
So, liked the Ennis stuff, disliked the Jack stuff, and when they were on the screen together, liked the Ennis side of things.
Sir Rhosis
Agreed on Ledger’s accent (and his whole performance, for that matter). I think Gyllenhall’s accent was actually a little amateurish and that his performance was a little weak over all. Ledger’s performance really carried the movie for me (though there were some good supporting performances as well). On repeated viewings you can really see that Ledger really acts circles around Jake. It’s kind of ironic that the Australian actor nailed the regional accent and body language so much better than the native born American.
Agreed. I think Lureen had no idea about the true nature of Jack’s “fishing trips” all those years…until she gets the phone call from Ennis. Watch her face as he tells her that he and Jack herded sheep on Brokeback Mountain 20 years earlier. She starts to tear up and has to collect herself. I think it’s at that moment that she finally realizes why the mountain meant so much to Jack, why he wanted his ashes scattered there–and who it was who had shared the mountain with him, one summer back in 1963. All that time, she’d thought Ennis was just the fishing or hunting buddy. Now she knows that’s not true.
I’m not sure it’s that surprising. For an actor, going from an Australian accent to that regional accent might be no more difficult than going from, say, a New York accent to that regional accent. Also, Ledger has built his whole Hollywood career on being able to pull of a different accent, whereas Gyllenhaal hasn’t had to make such frequent use of voice coaches.
Also, i think that Aussie actors in general seem to be very good at American accents. Cate Blanchet certainly does an excellent job every time she plays an American, and Rachel Griffiths was excellent in Six Feet Under. There are a bunch of others, too, who do a good job.
You know, i think that if the movie was “about” anything, it was about homophobia, and its consequences for gay men, rather than homosexuality or a love affair. That’s my take, anyway, FWIW.
Or any of the great classics that involve adultery, such as the Arthurian legends of Lancelot and Guinevere, or Tristan and Isolde.
Damn, I still haven’t see Brokeback-I’m gonna try and rent it this weekend.
Projection. The rest of us aren’t all like that.
Other words for asshole. We all have issues. Not all of us destroy other people’s lives.
Keep in mind that it’s supposed to be a very slow, lyrical, quiet movie. Think Days of Heaven, which is so beautiful, but would probably bore the hell out of many of the people who were bored by Brokeback Mountain. Not a lot happens, really, and most of the action takes place in the expressions on people’s faces, and in the very spare dialogue. The scenery and sets play a big role too. It does reward repeat viewings because as “simple” as it seems on the surface, there’s a lot going on that I missed the first and second time I saw it and it gets richer and deeper. And yes, sadder.
Did Ennis knew he was gay when he got married? If not, what do you think he should have done when he realized?
Right. And, I don’t care for the Soprano’s either. It gets awards as they can (and do) say “fuck”, which means the critics like it as it’s “different”. I admit that if had to watch and critique a lot of the crap out there in Televisionland, I’d want something different too.
Don’t get me wrong- there was some good acting going on in Brokeback (and fantastic cinematography). But I still didn’t care for the film. Nor did I care much for Bridges of Madison County, either, even though Clint did a masterful acting job.
The thing is- DtC seems to be saying that Priceguy and I have to like this film. We don’t. We can dislike it for this reason, or any other reason. It’s a matter of personal choice- like or dislike. Nor do I care for the Hollywood notion that cheating is “romantic”.
Well, I for one am not saying that you or anyone else is required to like the movie. What I’m saying is that your stated reason for not liking it, that Jack and Ennis have sex while married to other people, shows an extremely low level of critical thought. It’s about on par with those Christian Coalition-type “reviewers” who decide whether a movie is good or bad after counting the number of swears in it.
I guess the question would be do you dislike all movies that explore adultery in their plot line?
I know you weren’t asking me, but it seems to me not that same thing. I personally loathe movies with adultery in them - but I don’t see, really, that they had a choice in this one. That’s my only point…that that is part of the plot, and homosexuality must be treated differently from heterosexuality. In my mind there is a great deal of difference in cheating because you’re bored with your current partner (or whatever the case may be) and cheating because you have very little other choice and no other way to be with your desired partner.
But that’s just me.
I don’t see what the subject matter has to do with the quality of the film. Watching the story unfold and enjoying the art of the film doesn’t mean you have to approve of adultery (or any subject a movie might cover). Otto was right. It’s a superficial, simplistic basis on which to judge the quality of a movie.
You know, again with someone saying “you’re not allowed to dislike a movie for that reason”. It’s not just the adultery, it’s how the adultery is portrayed, it’s the fact that it’s supposed to be a romantic movie and I find nothing at all romantic about cheating. What sorts of things am I allowed to dislike a movie for, things that show “an extremely high level of critical thought”? Who are you to decide “levels of critical thought”? Tell me a movie you didn’t like and why, how about? It seems if anyone dislikea Brokeback for any reason they thought of as wrong for some reason. I suspect many of the dudes that claim they like it are only making that claim as they want to be seen as “with it”. Well, dude- the Emperor has no clothes.
Anaamika- while I have no problem with the protagonists in Brokeback concealing their affair- they didn’t have to go out, marry someone they didn’t love, cheat on them, and live a lie. They could have led a outwardly single life, as “confirmed batchelors”. Although that would have been a lie too, in a way, it wouldn’t have been hurting someone else and ruining their chances are a meaninglful love filled marriage.
Are you incapable of grasping the difference between saying you don’t like a movie and saying it’s a bad movie?
At this point I think it’s best to be clear. We have been talking about characters, but given the strength of opinion against them, I’m curious if those who feel this way agree that this is true of all gay men who get married? Since your above objections have nothing to do with the cheating, I mean.
Good question, Ensign. Because honestly - what are gay men supposed to do? I am quite sure that gay men want families, and someone to love them too. And if they can’t get it from another man, they’ll get it from a woman who maybe is their best friend or a good friend even…it may not be fireworks and it may never be true love but at least they’re not alone. It’s not as though gay men exclusively are guilty of this behavior - I’ve known plenty of straight people who married for reasons other than love.
I’m not saying cheating is the answer! Honestly, this question isn’t directed toward cheating at all…it’s honestly asking, is being a bachelor the only option? When you’re only allowed to marry the opposite sex, is it completely wrong to do so?
It’s easy to stand here and say they could be confirmed bachelors…but I know for a fact I wouldn’t and probably couldn’t be alone for my whole life.
Just some more thoughts from me, the peanut gallery.
You’re judging made-up characters the way you’d judge your own mother. *That’s * what’s wrong with your critical skills. We’re not talking whether or not adultery is right or wrong. We’re talking about scripting, forward progression of plot, cinematography, dialogue, character development, costuming…everything BUT whether or not adultery is right or wrong. How can you not see the difference?