I’m curious whether anyone posting in this thread has seen it more than once or would like to. I’d go back and see it again. I’m asking because there are people out there returning to the film two, three, four or more times.
I’ve seen it twice and will see it again, very soon. After my husband and I saw it the first time, there were scenes that stayed with me and that I wanted to see again, such as the vistas, Ennis returning to the tent and Jack’s tender embrace, the look on Ennis’s face when he sees Jack again after 4 years (it’s a look of pure joy), the scene where Jack finally stands up to his father-in-law and the slight smile on Lureen’s face, and Ennis buttoning up the shirt and straighening the postcard. After seeing it the second time it became my favorite movie of the year. Seeing it more than once let me notice little glances, bits of dialogue, and pieces of music that I hadn’t seen/heard/noticed the first time, and became an even richer experience to me. It’s so beautiful, so tragic, so poetic.
Forgetting the subject matter completely, this movie generally wouldn’t appeal to those who don’t like slow, quiet, understated movies. With all the awards and attention, it’s easy to sit there and demand “Ok, now be brilliant like they said!” and when it doesn’t seem so on the first viewing, it’s easy to feel underwhelmed. This movie is so subtle that it almost requires a second viewing to understand why it’s getting so much acclaim. It’s not only the subject matter. The writing, the acting, the directing, the scenery, the atmosphere, everything works together to make it more than just a tragic love story, and far more than just a story about two guys who get it on. It’s a work of pure art. I suppose some might consider it odd to want to see a tragic love story over and over, but no one would think it weird if I (we) were watching Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet over and over (which I have).
I think it’s an instant classic and I can’t wait to see it again.
Neither can I.
The “it’s boring and/or slow” complaint that I’ve read here and there is similar to complaints I’ve heard from a few students about short stories that involve more character development than action-packed plot lines. I thought it was a very wise move on the part of the screenplay team to allow BBM to build up the characters during the first 20 minutes or so until their intimate encounter. Without that build-up, there wouldn’t have been as much of a pay-off, dramatically or emotionally.
Agreed, if you’re a three-year old who enjyos the collected works of Vin Diesel and generally don’t like unstated dramas, this isn’t for you and that’s fair enough. But if not, then this film is really a great film, and anyone who knows what that is seems to recognize it. There aren’t any car chases or bikinis, yes, but that’s not what a good love story drama is all about. In these sorts of movies, you know things are giong to end sad, that the movie is going to try and tug at your heartstrings. The only real question is how. And the shirts thing that was mighty powerful along with the final, somewhat cryptic line. That’s haunting stuff.
This made me laugh. These guys sound completely full of it, in precisely the way that the characters from the movie would have exactly the same reaction.
As for the cowboy stuff: the movie was probably the most authentic cowboy movie I’ve seen in years. No big gunfights, no glorified nonsense about being a cowboy, ruler of the open West. Just lots of crummy pickup jobs, dirty bars, and hard work for shit pay. Now I suppose a modern cowboys life might not be like that, what with GameBoyAdvance and modern farm methods, but everything rang true to me and more importantly to my wife who grew up in this sort of environment. If the screenplay was written by Studio-idjiot A then come on. But it’s Larry McMurtry for goodness sakes.
Heath Ledger’s character, in particular, was amazing. Yeah, he’s quiet and mumbly and keeps everything inside. That’s exactly what’s so authentic about him. He pretty much is my father-and-law (except for the ability to love thing) and the twisted, alcohol and neglect filled home is pertty much exactly how my wife grew up.
If they haven’t seen the movie then their opinions are rather ignorant, aren’t they? What exactly, is inauthentic about the “cowboy” aspects of the movie?
That last line really got me, too.
My friend was deeply affected by the shirts because she’d lost a younger sibling years ago and remembered wanting to hold on to some of his shirts and jackets.
That last scene really stays in the mind. Those two shirts entwined together on a hanger is as perfect an image as I can remeber seeing in a movie. The more I think about, the more evocative I find it. There’s something so intimate about it, but there’s more to it than that. It symbolizes their whole relationship. It’s the two shirts they were wearing when they were first on the mountain. They still had blood on them from their fight. The image evokes both the intimacy and the pain. The fact that Jack hid them in the back of his closet evokes the secrecy and the shame.
I think that even the fact that Ennis hung the shirts on the door of his closet, and that he placed the postcard over it is meaningful in itself. Ennis still keeps the shirts “in the closet” but he’s not ashamed of them any more. He treasures them now, at least in his own mind, even if he can’t tell anyone about it.
This was a great movie and I can’t say enough about Heath Ledger’s performance. It’s very subtle but that works to make it so much more believable. His decision to go to his daughter’s wedding is seems quiet and unemotional but it’s a major change for Ennis and as far as his daughterwas concerned, he might as well have broken out into a jig.
This is a great movie. I’m almost sorry that the gay theme seems to be detracting from its accomplishment as a film. This thing is brilliantly written, directed and acted and I hope it gets appreciated for those things rather just hailed for being a “message film.”
From what I heard on another message board the International Gay Rodeo Association worked on the film and helped try to make it as authentic as possible.
I just love the fact that there’s an International Gay Rodeo Association!!
No gay cowboys, eh? HA!
Given that there aren’t any gay rodeos in the movie, and the characters don’t self-identify as gay, what was the point?
Yeah, I second that. While the exact plot and setting and even the images may not have worked as a heterosexual romance, the film and most of its themes and emotions could have been worked that way and still have been a great film. At once it’s important because it’s a gay film, and also that’s a drag because fewer people will be able to appreciate it.
There were rodeo scenes with both Jack and Lureen. Maybe it was easier getting the Gay Rodeo Association to help in procuring locations, props, animals, sets and extras.
One of the characters works in rodeos. What difference does it make if they’re gay rodeos? Do you think the IGRA only knows about gay rodeos or that they can’t possibly no anything about authenticity in rodeos in general? Do you think that self-identified “gay” saddle their horses or ride bulls any differently than straight ones?
That’s my question, too.
It shouldn’t matter at all. Re-reading Reloy3’s post, you can’t really blame gays who want to rodeo to band together to have a good time in an atmosphere where they’re completely supportive of each other. One day it won’t matter at all, but that day is a long way off (a couple of generations of bigots have to die off, I think).
The answer is that it doesn’t matter. The filmmakers used them as advisors because they know about rodeos. The “gay” part is pretty much incidental.
I definitely hope/plan to see it again during the theatrical release, and will certainly own it as soon as it is out on DVD.
Regarding NinjaChick’s question:
I don’t think it’s supposed to be knowable, the question of how Jack died. Ennis imagines that he was killed, but he was also quite paranoid about the fate of men who love other men, due to the incident where his father took him out to see the dead gay cowboy. Ennis may have taken Jack’s death as a confirmation that they wouldn’t have been safe together in Texas, just as he suspected. It was hard to tell if Lureen’s brittle tone was from grief, anger, or what.
As for the gay question: I think Jack Twist was gay. He was clearly the more experienced of the two, and went on to have other gay relationships, even resorting to prostitutes. Had he never met Ennis, I think he would have pursued relationships with men anyway. He even said he needed the gay sex and it made him crazy only to have it 2-3 times per year.
Ennis, on the other hand, probably would have gone through life never exploring his sexuality if he hadn’t met Jack. He’d have married Alma and just muddled through, being emotionally closed off but not knowing why. Maybe Jack was simply his one and only love, his gender being less important than their connection. The hell of it is, maybe Ennis even could have been happy with Alma; it wasn’t the sex that was so important to him as the fact that he could be himself with Jack, open in a way he couldn’t be with anyone else, and it spoiled him and ruined his chances of happiness with anyone else. That’s the real tragedy, to me. Poor Ennis.
Poor Alma, too. I don’t think she said anything about Jack to Ennis for all that time because she didn’t even possess the vocabulary to talk about such things. Also, she had to know Ennis would freak out when she mentioned it, and their marriage would be over. I don’t think she wanted that; she really loved him and was in denial for as long as she could be. She finally got up the nerve to confront him in a situation of seeming security-- she’s remarried, pregnant, in her own home with her family in the next room. It still wasn’t safe enough. I don’t find it surprising or unbelievable at all that she’d keep quiet about the whole thing. I’m sure it was one of the most humiliating, terrifying, and confusing issues she’d ever faced in her life.
The film finally got to Las Vegas and went to see it Sunday, first show matinee at the local casino multiplex. I was expecting the audience to be the biggest Gay bar in Nevada - boy was I wrong. The audience was filled with women, with quite a few hetero-date couples, lots of quite elderly couples, and only a smattering of what appeared to be Gay couples - but the theater was jammed - and for that time of day, quite amazing.
At any rate, we loved the film.
I think one of the major features of this film is how it grabs you and you think about things later - little things, but nice touches here and there. So many parts of this film were very true to life and realistically portrayed
Although I understand why they set the film in the early 60’s, it could just as easily have take place today.
Jack could envision a life with Ennis, working a ranch together.
Ennis couldn’t.
Things haven’t changed much. Guys like Ennis will always have a problem coming to terms with their real feelings vs what society and they themselves expect to happen. Self loathing is a strong emotion, and Ennis pretty much is a poster boy for every man still stuck in the closet. The true tragedy of the film is that Ennis finally realized what he lost by not taking the chance and choosing the life Jack had envisioned for them both.
Haven’t seen the film yet - who knows when it will make it to my area. Have read the story. Am so looking forward to the movie.
Anyway - has anyone else heard of Gene Shalit’s review wherein he called Jack a “sexual predator”? [He has since “clarified” his review: http://www.glaad.org/action/alerts_detail.php?id=3849 but did not retract this characterization.]
My question: Nothing in reading the story would lead me to describe Jack this way. Does the film portrat him so, or is this just a very strange description by a reviewer?
The latter.