MUBI

Being revolutionary is both an asset and a burden for movies. Their success and, in some cases, their acclaim is spearheaded by the controversy they trigger. Ultimately, however, these movies are remembered only for the controversy they stirred and their other virtues (if any) are all but forgotten. When a movie offers little value outside of its innovations, this is just. When, however, a movie’s greatness extends beyond its controversy, this is sad. It is especially sad in the case of Brokeback Mountain, which is one of the greatest screen romances.
By now the film is well known even to those marginally interested in cinema as the first mainstream film to deal frankly with homosexuality. Like few other movies have done, Brokeback Mountain has lead to discussions outside of the arena of cinema. Discussion is healthy and the treatment of gays in society deserves the kind of seriousness that Brokeback Mountain gives it, but lost in all this controversy is the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a beautiful movie outside of its controversy. Even conservative film critic Michael Medved admitted as much when he said that the film was “deeper than that”. This is a sweeping tale of forbidden love, stunningly filmed, and superbly crafted. Like many of Ang Lee’s love stories, it uses the surrounding natural beauty to symbolize the moods of its leads.
Frankly, a mainstream gay love story was well overdue in Hollywood and it is fitting that, when it was finally made, it was as a Western. Jon Stewart may have been joking when he commented in sarcasm that there have never been any homosexual undertones in Westerns during the 2005 Academy Awards, but the subsequent montage of clips from various Westerns demonstrated that inhibited homoeroticism has long been detected in many Westerns. The Western, after all, is the cinema’s ultimate playground for developing masculinity.
Brokeback Mountain was, then, the first film to take the American genre out of the closet. But this film is by no means exploitative or an expose. It is a sincere and heartfelt movie and one of the best Westerns ever. How fortunate that the first film to give homosexuality with the seriousness and sensitivity it deserves, is also such a well made film.
The story is simple enough. In 1963, two young cowhands are assigned to watch a grazing herd of sheep in the isolated mountains of Wyoming. Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) is the more idealistic of the two. Ennis (Heath Ledger), by contrast, is withdrawn and taciturn. They are strangers when they first take this job, but as they spend days of loneliness in the mountains, Ennis becomes comfortable enough to open up to Jack. He tells him of his troubled childhood and the struggles of his family when his parents died. One night it gets cold and they share their single tent. That is when their romance starts.
This ostensibly simple story is magnificently told by a master director and two talented lead actors. Beginning first with style, Brokeback Mountain is a triumph. Lee’s use of color palettes is amazing. The scenery is naturally breathtaking, but there is one shot in particular that stands out. Jack Twist sits on a hill overlooking a flock of sheep. For a moment, everything is tinted in a mysterious blue, reflecting the loneliness of the character.
Brokeback Mountain also makes great use of narrative devices. In subliminal ways, the film uses Realization of Danger technique. This is when the characters, at first oblivious to the danger in their midst, gradually become aware of its presence. In Brokeback Mountain, the danger is the watchful eyes of bigotry. In a chilling scene after their first passionate night, the two young men are happily chasing each other in the hillside unaware that their rancher boss (Randy Quaid) is spying on them from a distance. When their job is done, the rancher expresses displeasure in their work performance. To Ennis and Jack this seems to be because they did lose a few lambs, but the viewers know the real reason. That spring, when Jack returns to the rancher looking for another job, the rancher makes it clear that he knows what happened between the two of them. The look on Jack’s face is telling. He knows that the secret is already known, and if it spreads it would mean death for any hope of getting a job in Midwest of the middle of the 20th century.
Ang Lee’s use of nature as it relates to the love between the two leads is evident in Brokeback Mountain. They find love in the wilderness, they bond through a job that pits them against nature and, in the scene right before they make love for the first time, there is a quick shot of the full moon watching over them. It is nature that brings them together and the conventions of “civilization” that forces them apart.
Of course, Brokeback Mountain is an important film because of its subject matter. It is a film that is innovative only because homosexuality is so often ignored by Hollywood in the first place. By seeming so revolutionary and causing so much controversy, it reflects how far we still need to work to remove discrimination. Brokeback Mountain is a brave film in the way it condemns society’s treatment of gays. In the film, both Ennis and Jack go on to marry and have kids. They can only share their passion once a month when they meet near the mountain where they first found each other, covering by telling their wives that they are going on fishing trips. In a truly tolerant society, Ennis and Jack would not have had to hide their love and could have been together. Indeed, intolerance has not only hurt them, but their wives as well since Ennis and Jack married them only because that is what society mandated them to do. That a film like Brokeback Mountain was even released in mainstream theaters is a sign of progress, but a sign of the ultimate demise of bigotry will be when a film about gay lovers comes along in which the two lovers have to make no secret about the love they share.

In adapting literature, even short stories, the audience knows that there are sacrifices to be made. Since literature is a medium that primarily consists of words and film is one where the visual is crucial, there are obvious changes to be made to make the text more accessible to film-goers. Over the years, it would seem that by now studio executives would be getting something right. Sadly, this is not always the case. Stakes need to be heightened for film and the exposition and occasionally internal thought need to be cut down, but largely the end result remains the same. However, on occasion there are films that bear nothing more than a passing resemblance to their source material, even instances where the only similarity is that the two share the same title. However, it is particularly offensive when a beautiful short story is turned into a film for reasons other than its exceptional story. The particular atrocity I’m referring to is that of Brokeback Mountain, originally written by Annie E. Proulx for The New Yorker in 1997 and directed for the screen by Ang Lee in 2005. The original short story is a compassionate account of two men’s love affair which plays out through the course of their lives. Ang Lee’s account of the story stays faithful to the events of the short story, but being that it is a film, loses most of the emotional complexity of the characters. Although Proulx felt that her source material was done justice, it is my personal belief that Brokeback Mountain should be understood merely as a product of its time and not as some great beacon of hope for the gay community.
Let me begin by saying that I commend Brokeback Mountain, Proulx’s short story and Ang Lee’s film, for addressing a topic that was considered so taboo in both polite society and rural America as well. In 1997, when the story graced the pages of The New Yorker, it took readers by storm. It engaged the author herself and her readers in a manner that few publications really do. Proulx’s inspiration, the examination of homophobia in “cowboy country”, brought the topic of homophobia out of the West and into the minds of people everywhere. It even won several awards, most notably the 1998 National Magazine for Fiction Award which was awarded to The New Yorker for its publication. However, we must also understand that this was in the end of the 20th century. It would still be over 5 years before the story was ever made into a film. This is not to say that the screenplay didn’t exist for all these years before Lee was approached about making it into a film, because the fact of the matter is that it did. A little known fact is that there were actual several directors that had signed on, but too few actors or studios were willing to back the making of this film. This fear of “gay” and what it can do to a career or to profits is still alive and well today. It even existed during the commercialization of this film. One instance of this can even be seen in the trailer of the film. The text reads, “It was a friendship… that became a secret.” throughout the rest of the trailer homosexual love is alluded to, but never once is the term “love” used in the trailer. After all, that’s what we’re meant to understand this to be, isn’t it? Doesn’t Proulx make it a very clear point that, although complicated and although the times will not allow Jack and Ennis to be together, the two men are in love? Sadly, the importance of time in the process of making Brokeback Mountain and even the marketing of the film should not be underestimated. Yes, people were provoked by Proulx’s prose when it appeared on the page, but what was there to draw audiences into the theater? There is a very clear difference between reading about the love between two men and seeing it on screen. Studio executives knew that there was nothing that would convince people to see the film. They knew that they had to downplay the significance of the film until the time was right. It was at this point that Brokeback Mountain ceased to be a mere short story or an idea for a film, and it became a tool for the studios to ride out until the time was right.
Studios felt that the time was right almost a decade after the original publication of the piece. Brokeback Mountain was issued a wide release in the United States on december 16, 2005. Now, being that we live in a Capitalist society it is understood that films are expected to be released based on the potential for profitability. However, this film’s release also has severely political implications in its release. 2004 had been a Presidential election year. The combative nature of the campaigns between George W. Bush and John Kerry had been one of the most aggressive in recent years. One of the major issues that had seen America divided was about the issue of gay marriage. The debate still rages today but in 2004 it was a major cause of controversy. The religious right sided with george W. Bush that a Constitutional amendment ought to be passed defining “marriage” as strictly between a man and a woman. An almost equally impressive voice from the left, and particularly the gay community, fought back declaring such an amendment as unconstitutional. However, from a studio perspective, it was clearly a profitable market. On one hand, the religious right and social conservatives were openly condemning the film. Whether the conservatives liked it or not was irrelevant to the studios, because it was causing controversy and controversy, in economic terms, is essentially free publicity. The protests from conservatives forced average Americans to ask themselves “What are they getting so worked up about?”. In essence, in boycotting the film, figures like the Reverend Fred Phelps, piqued people’s curiosity, resulting in more people seeing the film. Then, from a more progressive standpoint, you also have the gay community who showed up in droves to support a film that contained a homosexual love story. It’s no wonder that Brokeback Mountain has the highest per-screen gross of any non-animated movie in US history. People were driving from all over to see the film that had caused such a stir in the wake of such a divisive Presidential election.
Furthermore, Americans outside of the gay community praised this film for its “realistic telling” of a love story between two men. It would be another several years before even another gay-themed film would be nominated for Best Picture. The difference between Brokeback Mountain and Milk, although both Best Picture losers, is that Brokeback Mountain dealt with the homosexuality in terms that Americans were able to deal with at the time. There’s no doubt about the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a gay-themed film, but the representation of homosexuality is so subdued that audiences could handle it. Although the loves scenes between Jack and Ennis are explicit, they are no more explicit than the scenes with their respective wives. One could even make the case that in the film portrayal the sex scene between Jack and Lureen is more explicit than any of the scenes between him and Ennis. More importantly, sex between two men, on screen at least, was something that people were hesitant but willing to see on one condition. The love story is not a triumphant one. It has no happy ending. Most of the short story and the film deal with wanting to be “different”. “Different”, clearly meaning gay in this instance, was something to be feared and something that was so clearly undesirable. While this is an accurate portrayal of the times, it also is somewhat telling of audiences as well. In recent history essentially every gay-themed film (Boys Don’t Cry, Brokeback Mountain, Milk, etc.) ends with one of the characters being killed because they are gay. It’s difficult to take anything away from this “great love story” between Jack and Ennis when Jack is dead in the end. Once again, the “gay” becomes something tragic and pitiable, rather than a celebration of homosexuality, because American audiences have proved themselves, repeatedly, unable to deal with the real celebration of homosexuality.
Brokeback Mountain is a complex movie. While it is true that it was one of the first high-grossing films with two mainstream actors willing to play gay, it also must be understood as a political and almost exploitative look at homosexuality. Its origins, in writing, are filled with good intentions, but its pathway to being made forces me to question the motives of the studios and the filmmakers themselves. Meanwhile, when it finally was made it capitalized on the political attitudes of the time to make money, something that I still wish didn’t shock me as much as it did. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this film is often praised for breaking boundaries, which it certainly did. However, it also played it safe in many regards, particularly the marketing and the illustration of Jack and Ennis’s relationship. While the film certainly does have its finer attributes, I feel it’s important to understand it as a pawn in a larger game that still has yet to be played out.

As debate breeds fire among the acolytes of clashing causes, art tends to meddle in, not looking for a solution but raising questions, whether it be in political matters like Steven Spielberg’s Munich, or in social concerns such as the sexuality of its members, like Brokeback Mountain has been said to do.

Unfortunately the film doesn’t have the required sensibility that Gus Van Sant would have certainly given to it. His meditative style and his concern for the homosexual rights would have given this film a much needed dose of passion, so, why the Eastern director, Ang Lee, ended up working on this project is beyond any reasoning but can only be explained by Matt Damon’s refusal to participate. Lee is indeed a man who can play the part of a poet such as his Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’s final scene suggests it it was a very beautiful film overall, but Brokeback Mountain, in spite of the perfect work by most of its collaborators, seems stalled and rambling.

After this brief eulogistic paragraph in favor of Van Sant, it must be said that this story of a couple of cowboys who meet in 1963 in Wyoming and hide their love for each other throughout 20 years of their lives suffers greatly from disjointed scenes that tend to stumble into nowhere. As in any epic film, such as this one should aspire to be, the events in the character’s lifelines are present, but they are treated as if they were rather unimportant and only a few occurrences actually affect the main storyline and the way the protagonists, beautifully played by Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, change over time. Only a few scenes achieve a great beauty, but when they do so, it’s thanks to the wonderful cast and crew, not to its director, whose decision of making the beginning painfully slow certainly affects the sensibility of the viewer throughout the rest of the film.

During the first act, scenes of nature and sheep are constantly interweaved in a poetic manner, but they never get even close to the works of directors like Andrei Tarkovsky or Akira Kurosawa, whose films move as slow, but never as boring, since the images they show always have a point to make. That’s also a huge flaw within the film, it doesn’t know what it’s saying, since the relationship between Jack Twist and Ennis del Mar is never questioned because of its very nature, but because of its collateral effects; for instance, they lose the jobs that led them into meeting each other not entirely for being seen tenderly fooling around by their boss, but for losing a sheep to a coyote’s attack, and though it seems like a mere excuse, no one would hire a couple to make love while they should be sheepherding.

Another important aspect of the film’s self conscious nature lies within the relationship Jack and Ennis share with their wives: they are both deeply hurt and transformed by their husbands’ secret, so they’re certainly not put in a good light, a feeling added by Anne Hathaway’s and Michelle William’s flawless and moving performances. So in the end, pity sides with the supporting cast rather than the main characters whose relationship isn’t confronted enough for being a homosexual one, but for being promiscuous.

The fact that the main characters’ homosexuality doesn’t seem to be central it is, but it could be stronger could also be making a point by saying that they’re just normal people who should be judged for other reasons rather than for being gay, but it still puts them as the selfish misfits, a situation caused by the lack of background which a normal epic film would have included in order to comprehend some things better, and although Ennis’ story is told in a flashback, it isn’t told in a way that the audience is made to feel his pain, growing up a different person among a conservative environment; it’s as if he had actually forgotten he was homosexual until he met Jack. On the other hand, Jack’s pain and nature are only explained by the end of the film, which doesn’t help a lot.

In conclusion, the film’s main issue is its lack of scope; Lee should have made a film about a great, enduring, castigated love, but he only made a story that could have resulted almost the same way had the couple been heterosexual, and even though Rodrigo Prieto’s images are beautiful and truly express the loneliness of the characters, as well as Gustavo Santaolalla’s haunting score does, Brokeback Mountain relies on everything including the weak script but its director; a shame truly, since it could have been the defining love story of the 21st century.

People should open their minds, and think about this film more universal. It’s about people who couldn’t love who they want to love. The society doesn’t let them to live their lives.
It’s a shame Ledger couldn’t be with us anymore, there are lots of great performances in the movie. Maybe 3 Oscars was a bit too much but it’s worth a watch… I’m curious what would’ve happened if Jack stays alive, and they still trying to get on. It could be more interesting in… I think.

This is a good movie. The music is AMAZING and highly recommend it, whether you want to see the movie or not.

In my opinion, I think “Memoirs of a Geisha” should’ve walked away with Best Original Score and Best Picture. Mountain deserved all the others it won, ESPECIALLY Ang Lee and his Best Director win. He is AWESOME!

Go check this movie out, though I’d recommend borrowing it first before you make a purchase.