i saw this movie two nights ago and im still thinking about it. I'll admit i was a bit skeptical of a movie about gay cowboys but its about love or ,moreso, forbidden love and its just such a good movie. i wanna know what other people think?
>>By Too Smart for a nickname (Monday, 9 Jan 2006 16:39)
I saw it on the weekend: it's a faithful adaptation of the short story/novella by Anne E Proulx of the same name. Larry McMurtry (and his wife, I think) worked on the screenplay. Given that the original story is quite short, it has been expanded in some areas - we get more detail about the protagonists' lives apart from each other, for example - the intent of the original story is intact (it has not been bastardised by the typical Hollywood ending)
The cinematography is lush - incredible vistas of country (in, I assume Wyoming) Heath Ledger as Ennis was awesome. Ang Lee's direction is understated but capable and he succeeds in bringing the story to life on the big screen.
I found the film worked on a number of levels: the most basic reading of it is that it's a love story about two cowboys (albeit somewhat star-crossed); at another level it explores the myth of the cowboy and what might lie underneath that; at yet another level it's a story about the limitations that society places upon people and the compromises they might feel forced to make in order to survive.
It's also about seizing the only chance for love that you might ever get and valuing what you have before it's gone again.
I read an interview with Anne E Proulx and she said she wrote the orignal story as a response to the murder of Matthew Sheppard in Montana some years ago. He was bashed to death and his body mutilated in a homophobic attack.
It is by no means a polemic, however. Spanning the early 1960's to the early 1980's it's more an exploration of their relationship between each other and the few chances they get to see each other in the twenty years or so that it covers. There are quite a few subtexts: the effect of their relationship on the others arounds them; the different ways that the characters deal with the situation they find themselves in; the different stages of their life and their relationship, etc.
Ennis appears as the stoic: life has never been easy for him and he has developed the habit of accepting how things are. Jack, on the other hand, appears unable to accept the staus quo and doe shis best to transform their lives into what he can imagine is possible.
I'd strongly recommend both the story and the movie to anyone: I'd love to know what anyone else who has seen it thinks
>>By Sarcophilus (Wednesday, 1 Feb 2006 14:49)
I do not know that this movie is that good, anyway, i do thank you for sharing your thoughts and i will definitely watch this movie.
>>By Zhenn (Tuesday, 7 Feb 2006 05:50)
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I really want to. I think its good that people are making movies with gay scenes and themes in them. Its not like its going to go away, you know? People need to start accepting it as change.
>>By Wednesday (Monday, 13 Feb 2006 01:37)
Wasn't it completely heart wrenching when Michelle William's Charachter saw Ennis and Jack kissing and just couldn't say anything. I thought that was heartbreaking!
>>By Too Smart for a nickname (Wednesday, 22 Feb 2006 18:50)
here's da deal
let's remake this flitty-flitty-cowpoke-flick
2 cowGALS gettin' their tatas' in a twist in a flimsy tent
i WOULD pay to see that movie
are ya with me on this one guys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>By Helmet (Thursday, 23 Feb 2006 01:18)
I agree with you too smart:
Some of the most powerful moments in the film involved what wasn't said.
For example, Ennis' conversation with lurlene towards the end....the flashes of what might have happened but were actually mentioned.
Helmet - they've already made a few movies like that for you: try 'even cowgirls get the blues' or 'fried green tomatoes'
>>By Sarcophilus (Thursday, 23 Feb 2006 14:56)
oops - "weren't mentioned"
>>By Sarcophilus (Thursday, 23 Feb 2006 14:57)
Ha ha i loved the way you corrected your grammar there, nice touch!!!
>>By Too Smart for a nickname (Thursday, 2 Mar 2006 21:56)
why it hadn't won the oscar award?????/
>>By 003 (Monday, 6 Mar 2006 15:52)
I think it got a little to hyped up in the lead up to oscars, maybe they just thought it would it would be better to give it to crash, which , in fairness is a powerful movie also.
>>By Too Smart for a nickname (Tuesday, 7 Mar 2006 17:08)
Forbidden love refuges,
In Wyoming ridge,
One Stoic - the other Emotive
>>By ftad (Wednesday, 15 Mar 2006 05:58)
I didn't think it was that great. I was pretty excited to see it because of the homosexual theme, but as a love story, it was rather lame. I mean it's an ok movie to watch when you're bored, but it's not something I would pay money to see. It was definitely overrated. I do agree that Crash deserved the Oscar more. Brokeback couldn't even come close to Crash. Crash was one of the most amazing movies I've ever seen.
>>By pedanticsatire (Thursday, 16 Mar 2006 05:26)
the oscar had let me down
it's a moving love story about ture love.love have no matter about whether we have a perfect result
>>By 003 (Sunday, 26 Mar 2006 09:12)
I have never seen such complex analysis of a movie as I have seen of this one elsewhere on the net. Like the way one char is shot against buildings and the other against open country; others are brown vs blue/green, opening shot vs closing shots; mythological descent/rebirth in the visit parents scene at the end, a whole lot more. I was happy to cry when I saw this movie. :-)( Forget the gay stuff, this was a great story of thwarted love, with subtle scenes of understated emotion to illustrate the thwarting pressures.
>>By flamencoprof (Monday, 22 May 2006 20:10)
Offensive, tasteless, vulgar.....appealing to the artsy elite and those that believe that it is chic to be gay or to 'party' with gays. We are now told that our heroes (the American cowboy) are men of clay feet. Gays have attacked our icons for years, asking us to believe that Elvis Presley and Abraham Lincoln (diverse as they are) were both gay. A shoddy attempt to legitimize the inclination of the 8-10% that really are so inclined. Movies like this (in your face homosexuality) damage the spirit of tolerance in evidence recently and most likely will usher in an age of repression.
>>By lv2read (Monday, 12 Jun 2006 23:38)
I didnt like it.... Its got nothing to do with it dealing with a controversial issue, I just thought it was a weak, veeeeery slow, boring movie. And I tried to see the love-story in it, but I just didnt feel it.
There is way better films out there. I honestly got so bored in the cinema that I almost chewed my wrists off, just so that it can end. Too harsh? Well, at the time I felt like that.
P.S: I love Heath, but it seemed like he had a speech impediment in the movie. Open your mouth Heath!!!!
>>By Honey Bunny (Friday, 16 Jun 2006 14:00)
Does anyone have the courage to agree with me or to (at least) agree in part with mu review. Your comments, however vitriolic OR kind, will be appreciated.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 17 Jun 2006 05:09)
Courage to agree with you?
If gays are N% of the population, then why shouldn't N% of the movies be about gay experience? including all the gay cowboys, marines, firemen, football players, and so on. Sorry lv2, but there are a lot of straight ballet dancers and interior decorators, and lots of gay jocks,cops, etc.
And if someone lives a life that is heroic, why should their sexuality matter? Is the couragous police officer any less admirable because he or she is gay? How about Father Mychal Judge, the "Saint of 911", the openly gay fireman & priest. Should they have not made a film about his courage and ultimate sacrifice because he was gay?
I admire them more because not only are they taking on these dangerous and altruistic roles, they are doing it despite all the crap they have to endure because of their sexuality.
We need a lot more movies making the point that gays are just human beings, period. Some heros, some cowards, some noble, some swine, all subjected to struggle and grief because of fear and prejudice.
As for the "in your face" comment, I honestly couldn't tell if your original comment was serious or a parody of what racists said about the civil rights movement. It may seem a reasonable thing to say. but really it is asking them to just accept injustice and prejudice, soemthing no one should ever be asked to do.
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 17 Jun 2006 22:25)
greenfyre: In your stab at political correctness, you completely missed the point. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading your reply.
Gay sexual expression is offensive and vulgar to the vast majority of people world wide. Most people are 'very uncomfortable' with the sight of men kissing---and the more that this behavior is thrown in a person's face, the less likely they will be to approve legislatiom which further extends rights to gays. Think about it.
The movie did not convince people that men so inclined are normal, but quite the contrary. You may be hearing things that you WANT to hear, and believing that which you WANT to believe.
Are you confused about the American expression, 'in your face?'
Brokeback Mountain is in your face homosexuality and gay sexual expression and offensive to most people. The dominant societal mores were established long before I was born, and have changed scarsely little. The offensive content of Brokeback Mountain are not moving those mores in the direction of your choosing.
To equate the struggles of blacks (in America) and the women's movement to the gays' issues of today is just plain silly. I suppose that neither of us could win the other over to our side even if we had a millinum to do so.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 17 Jun 2006 23:05)
>> could win the other over
A good start would be too avoid the following:
Completely failing to address the actual points and instead labeling the other person or their arguments dismissively, such as â€œâ€¦In your stab at political correctness â€¦â€
Making false claims of universality that cannot be substantiated in an attempt to establish credibility, such as â€œto the vast majority of people world wideâ€.
These are disingenuous, fallacious and contribute nothing. If you want actual discussion, fine â€“ but these rhetorical tricks are a waste of time.
>> â€œGay sexual expression is offensive and vulgar to the vast majority of people world wide.â€
At the moment that may be true of the majority, but I doubt that it is the â€œvast majorityâ€ and it is changing.
Even if it were so, whatâ€™s your point? The â€œvast majorityâ€ of â€˜people who countedâ€™ were once offended by black people daring to stand up as human beings, by women voting, by workers demanding fair pay. Everything that we now recognize as progress was once unpopular and labeled offensive and unnatural by â€œthe majortyâ€. I am interested in what is right, what is just, not what is popular.
Further, in the past homosexuality was tolerated in many societies, and even considered quiet normal, or at least nothing remarkable, in some. The virulent homophobia of our recent past is specifically rooted in the Judaic tradition coupled with some other socio-economic factors. The fact that at the moment and the recent past it has been dominant does not tell you anything about whether it is either normal or right.
â€œ Most people are 'very uncomfortable' with the sight of men kissing---â€œ
Technically not true. Kissing is a popular greeting in much of the world. I acknowledge that men kissing romantically in public is less common.
>> â€œand the more that this behavior is thrown in a person's face,â€
A movie that is shown in closed places that you have to pay to get into and which is openly advertised as being about gay men can hardly be described as â€œthrown in a personâ€™s faceâ€ It seems rather that it is the mere acknowledgement of the reality of gay sex that offends you.
>> â€œThe movie did not convince people that men so inclined are normal,â€
I believe the intent of the movie was to tell a specific story. I had not heard that is is a pedalogical work intended to achieve specific political ends. Could you please provide a credible source for this?
>> â€œYou may be hearing things that you WANT to hear, and believing that which you WANT to believe.â€
I donâ€™t think I have made any claims about what I have heard or what I believe. Could you please explain what you are referring to and where you got it.
>> â€œAre you confused about the American expression, 'in your face?'â€
Not in the least. I think you are confused in thinking that things carried on in closed venues where you are excluded from unless you specifically ask to be permitted in and pay for the privilage constitute â€œin your faceâ€.
>> â€œBrokeback Mountain is in your face homosexuality and gay sexual expression and offensive to most people. â€œ
Yup, the immense popularity of this movie sure proves how appalled and disgusted the â€œvast majorityâ€ are, yes siree.
>> The dominant societal mores were established long before I was born, and have changed scarsely little.
Actually quite a few of them have changed radically in my life time. Colin Powell served in a segregated army that a black man could scacely hope to ever become even a junior officer, and my elder sister was offered only very limited life choices such as mother, nurse, or secretary.
>> â€œThe offensive content of Brokeback Mountain are not moving those mores in the direction of your choosing.â€
That is true. Justice, fairness, common sense decency are certainly declining in our society, but I donâ€™t think we can blame this movie for that.
>> â€œTo equate the struggles of blacks (in America) and the women's movement to the gays' issues of today is just plain sillyâ€
Look again, I equated the response, not the movements themselves:
A) Please confine yourself to what I actually say.
B) And I stand by the point that your response is pretty much verbatim the response that reactionaries have had to those and many other struggles for justice.
C) I will note that you have not actually addressed a single one of my points or questions.
Now, you took it upon yourself to also Flork me, and while the content is not specifically about Brokeback Mountain or the issue of gay visibility it is very much in line with the sentiments you express here, so Iâ€™ll add my response to that as well.
>> What have you got against a free and democratic Iraq??
I never said I was. This is something you have made up. See A) above
>> â€œ?? Do you believe in the internet ....an elementary search function will get you there.â€
Actually DC, I am fairly good with it
>> â€œWhat have you got against the liberation of the women in past Taliban controlled Afghanistan??
Again, nothing I have ever said â€“ again something you have made up. See A) above.
However, since you bring them up; apparently you are too young to know that the Taliban are very much a USA creation. During the Soviet Afghan war the US financed, armed, supplied, and otherwise supported the Taliban. They were always homicidal fanatic idealogues, but apparently this troubled the US not the slightest as they continued to support them materially and politically.
Once the Taliban established control of Afghanistan and began the oppression of minorities and women the US immediately began to â€¦ do absolutely nothing. They stuck to this policy of steadfast inaction through years of the repression of women.
It was only when the Taliban refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden (another US creation) that the US went to war against Afghanistan. The war was not about the oppression of women or any other issue related to human rights, human dignity, or democracy. It was only and totally about the Taliban not doing what the US told it to do.
Incidently, where in International Law or Agreements is any nation obliged to hand over one of their residents to another nation simply because that nation insists?
Yes Osama bin Laden is a criminal. Yes he should be brought to justice. But when you break the law to achieve this or any other end, you become a criminal yourself (look it up) and you should be brought to justice as well.
The Taliban did what any Nation on the planet would, or should have done, which is refuse to render someone without some appropriate diplomatic or judicial process. No one, and especially the US, would agree to just turn someone over simply because another nation insisted.
Equally Saddam has always been a criminal and homicidal petty demagogue, but for a long time he was a homicidal maniac armed and supported the US. Supported while he arbitrarily arrested and tortured opponents, supported while he massacred civilians with chemical weapons supplied by the US, supported while he tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons (yes, he did try to buy yellow cake, but this was long ago while he was still a US lap dog, not since), supported while he tightened his grip by crushing every attempt by Iraqis to establish democracy.
Saddam was removed not because he was a brutal, murderous dictator. He had always been that and it was fine with the US; they paid him to be one. Saddamâ€™s crime was not even invading Kuwait, it was not getting out when the US told him to. For the US Saddam could do anything he wanted as long as he continued to engage Iran in a savage and pointless war.
The US needed Iran to be punished for ousting another of their puppets, the Shah, and becoming an independent state. Saddam and Iraq had been the flail used to punish Iran, and then Saddam decided to pursue his perception of Iraqi interests, not US interests.
>> â€œWhat have you got against the neighboring Arab nations that consider the current Iranian president to be dangerous and a destabilizing force in the area??â€
Nothing. Again, something you have made up; certainly nothing I ever said. See A) above.
But since you raise it. The US was perfectly happy with the anti-democratic, oppressive, corrupt Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Like Saddam, like Osama, like the Taliban (and Noriega, and â€¦) there was not the slightest concern or interest in the people of Iran having a democratic, fair, just, or representative government. As long as the State sat up and begged when the US told it to there was no problem with mass murder, torture, oppression, etc. Iran became a problem when the Shah was deposed and Iran began to pursue itâ€™s own interests.
Just so we are clear I will make the following statements and ask that you confine your comments to my actual points.
Saddam, the Taliban, Osama, and the Iranian Revolutionary Council were/are all oppressive, murderous criminals. The people of their respective nations have suffered greatly as a result of them and those people deserve better. The criminals themselves should be brought to justice.
All I ask is that we not pretend the US has shown any real interest in the well being of these people, or about justice, or democracy, or the welfare of women, or human rights. Rather the suffering of these people was prolonged as the US supported and helped keep these monsters in place (and many others).
The US only moved against these criminals when they stopped obeying the US, not because they were criminals. In their foreign policy the US has acted just like a Mafia Don or Biker leader. The underlings can do whatever they want as long as they obey the boss. And like the leader of a bike gang or Mafia Don, the punishment for those who disobey is swift and terrible.
And of course these are not the only examples. See also Chile, Indonesia, Guatamala, Vietnam, Nicauragua, Namibia, El Salvador, etc.
>> â€œI think that you may be the poster boy for the 'Ostrich syndrome.'â€
See my first point about name calling and labeling.
Again, if you chose to reply please confine yourself to what I actually say, and make valid points that can be substantiated. Also, if the digression to issues not directly related to the movie continues it might be best to move this discussion to another place. I suspect the thread for â€œRoad to Guantanamoâ€ might be appropriate.
>>By greenfyre (Friday, 23 Jun 2006 23:13)
Saddam, the Taliban, Osama, and the Iranian Revolutionary Council were/are all oppressive, murderous criminals. The people of their respective nations have suffered greatly as a result of them and those people deserve better. The criminals themselves should be brought to justice.>>>>>
..and we made them the way they are.....right. The statement above does not redeem you.
What have you got against a free and Democratic Iraq??? The recently had a nationwide election wherein the percentage voting (in some areas) was outstanding. What is so difficult here?
The Taliban did not encourage the degradation of womern? You don't appear to understand the muslin view of the female is substantially different than yours or mine. Bit why??
Where have you been? Fidel Castro was politically supported by the NY Times (and other US newspapers) as he was fighting in the Sierra Maestre mouintains. But once he came to power (1959) he ended public dissemonation of the news, the flirtation with democracy abnd proceeded enslaved his people and, as dementia appears to take hold, is still chasing windmills in the dawn of his life. Some banana rerpublic dictators never learn. Do you know what I mean?? Hint: The man from Panama, the brothers in DanieNicaragua---as YOU know the list is endless.
So to summarize......
The Talibav were forced to enslave women. The Burka is really a western prop. And, mind you, many women (there) accept it as standard dress because of fear of American, British and Canadian interests/power and the like. Redeem yourself here, you have the chance.
Again, what have you got against a free and democratic Iraq? I'm waiting..............
I almost forgot---WWII. If the Americans and British and Russian had stayed out, the War would have ended sooner. Can you see any good in our involvement? Surprising because mane people can. What history books are you reading??
And again, the sight of two men kissing is offensive to the vast majority of people worldwide. The key word here is community standards....easy to search on the Internet. All societies have community standards in place and serve to regulate some forms of behavior. Another recommended search for you would be to survey the varying community standards worldwide---you might check the tolerance level in Muslim countries (accepting of course that the Americans put them up to it in the first place)...... And you will find that even in the Bible Belt in Amrtican women have far more opportunities than in Afghanistan---I think you'd be surprised.
And have you noticed that women have more freedoms there since the Americans left. You may have missed this.
In closing, what have you got against a free and Democratic Iraq?
While most will consider your statements foolish and ill advisedm I have enjoyed reading your 'reply.'
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 24 Jun 2006 04:52)
This discussion continues to be way off topic, so rather than abuse Marek's space even more I have posted my response at http://www.greenfyre.org/phpBB2 NOSPACE /viewtopic.php?t=234 .
The discussion can continue there as appropriate
>>By greenfyre (Saturday, 24 Jun 2006 19:50)
To someone of your persuasion, opposing viewpoints are always off topic, inappropriate and uncomfortable. Again, for all to read, what problem do you have with a free and Democratic Iraq? And a follow-up question: Do you see any relationship between American actions and that occurance?? Take your time on this on, but...no help from the audience.........
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 24 Jun 2006 22:05)
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 25 Jun 2006 22:02)
http://www.greenfyre.org/phpBB2 NOSPACE /viewtopic.php?t=234
>>By greenfyre (Monday, 26 Jun 2006 23:34)
HERE is the place. Let Marek think for himself about the best use of his space.....I would be more than surprised if he sought out your guiidance.
Now do you want me to repeat or restate the question??? This is your chance.
P.S. My identity and nationality is not hidden or obscured. My picture is posted. I am from Southern Orange County in Southern California in the USA. Where do YOU hail from.
Right here in this quasi public forum explain to me how Democracy in Iraq is a bad......or good thing. I get flork mail as you do, and rest assured that others are following this discussion (with interest) as well.
My next question will be decidely tougher as it will deal with gay behavior and the Brokeback Mountain theme.
The floor is yours....but, please stay on topic.
Newport Beach, California
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 27 Jun 2006 02:41)
>> Let Marek think for himself
He already has and posted his thoughts as the "Discussion Guidelines"; you might look at them some time.
Fine, here's one for you: have you stopped beating your wife? As unjustifiable as that question is, it's no worse than your demand that I justify a statement that I never made. These sorts of "tricks" may have worked in grade six, but Flork does have a minimum age.
Yes, I am aware others are following this, although the ones talking to me have been impressed by my patience, while questioning why I bother with someone who is clearly .... OK, filling that in would violate other Flork guidelines.
I guess I'm fascinated to discover whether you are being deliberately dishonest and obtuse, or if you really are unaware that you haven't actually made any points.
As before, I'll defend anything I actually said. Things that you make up are your problem, not mine. I have said this at least 3 times before - how long before you get it?
Supposedly you have something to say that might actually fit the topic of this thread. How about answering the questions I asked in my first post? For all your theatrics the fact is that you are the one who is unwilling or unable to defend his position.
Let me spell one of those out for you. One of the greatest heros of 911 was a gay fireman, loved and respected by his brothers and sisters in the Dept regardless of their sexual orientation.
Are you saying this amazing man should have been ashamed of what he was? that the people he worked with should have been disgusted by him instead of honouring and respecting him as they did? The US Congress nominated him for the Medal of Freedom - should they have issued a statement of disgust instead?
And before we break into "America the Beautiful", better recall that it was written by a lesbian.
How about Mark Bingham on Flight 93? He died heroically doing extraordinary things; tell me why he shouldn't have just lived his life as who he really was, being affectionate with his partner in the same places and situations that straight people would. No more, but no less either.
I'd have no problem saying what I think of these men on the many tribute sites for them. Would you be willing to post whatever you have to say here at those sites as well? If not, why not?
>>By greenfyre (Tuesday, 27 Jun 2006 17:14)
Thank you for responding. And the folks that have florked me regarding our discussion do not call you names, are courteous, and--in most cases--are old enough to vote and can stay out after 11 PM. And, again, Marek doesn't need your assistance in deciding what is politically correct, and what is not. He is giving you the right and 'reign' to be foolish. And I am giving you an ear--figuratively speaking.
Again, but no doubtedly not for the last time, I'll restate: American action directly led to Saddam's ouster and the establishment of democratic constitional government in Iraq.. What do you have against that??
Here's another one for you. The USA banished Iraq from Kuwait. Another fact for you: Iraq INVADED Kuwait. And the US ran out the invaders in 7 days. Surely you can be complimentary about America and THOSE actions. You need some balance in your viewpoint....and here is a good place to start.
And what is your country (assuming that you are not an American) when and IF Iran choses to atmospheric test a nuclear weapon. Try to answer this one.....and, in the meanwhile, be grateful that America will never let it happen!!!
What is wrong with a free and Democratic Iraq?? Many are awaiting your response.
Have a nice day.
>>By lv2read (Tuesday, 27 Jun 2006 18:04)
*CAT- FIGHT * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
only ONE way to resolve this ......................
cramped pup- tent
isolated mountain location
* a HARD fought
BALLS to the wall
CLIMAX being a STIFF resolution
to agree that.........
"hey....sodomites scare da bejeezus outta SOME people" *
>>By Helmet (Wednesday, 28 Jun 2006 03:28)
The discussion board is currently closed.