welcome, Lw, and thanks for starting the thread.
gustavratzenhofer wrote:In a recent interview, Annie was asked what she thought of the movie....
Knocked for a loop. I had no idea of what to expect as I had had no input into the making of the film beyond some conversation with Diana Ossana and Larry McMurtry when they were writing the screenplay, and a letter to Focus president James Schamus and Ang Lee begging them to keep the language of the story intact. I did not visit the set. I feared the landscape on which the story rests would be lost, that sentimentality would creep in, that explicit sexual content would be watered down. None of that happened. The film is huge and powerful. I may be the first writer in America to have a piece of writing make its way to the screen whole and entire. And, when I saw the film for the first time, I was astonished that the characters of Jack and Ennis came surging into my mind again, for (hence the lie in Missouri Review ) I thought I had successfully banished them over the years. Wrong.
Wow!!
This is one of my favorite short stories ever, have been
wincing since I saw they were making it into a fairly mainstream movie with name actors as I didn't think they would possibly dare translate it faithfully, looks like they did! Amazing!
The New Yorker has not blocked the link to the short story -- you have to subscribe to read it!
Box Office Mojo updates "Brokeback Mountain"'s climb up the box office ladder with around 109K per venue, especially the three theaters at the LA The Grove theaters and San Francisco (well, duh, a huge gay audience would boost those figures!) LINK:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1961&p=.htm
Eye-opening article for those who have never met a gay cowboy:
Toronto Star on Gay Cowboys Link
Wonder if the ignorant playwright who decided it was impossible has read it!
The film has reached it's cost by this weekend -- unheard of for an indie.
Canada:14A (Alberta/British Columbia/Manitoba/Ontario) / Ireland:16 / Switzerland:14 (canton of Geneva) / Australia:M / Finland:K-11 / Canada:13+ (Québec) / Switzerland:14 (canton of Vaud) / UK:15 / Norway:11 / USA:R
These conflicting Certifications say something about the various countries that we live in and their different stances on gay issues. Germany have declared Brokeback Mountain a family film and give it a PG cert.
I'm very pleased for Ang Lee (who was ready to quit directing after the Hulk)
Film director Ang Lee of Taiwan receives the Golden Lion for the best film at the Lido, during the awards ceremony of the 62nd Venice International Film Festival.
"The Hulk" wasn't as bad as it's perceived but I wouldn't encourage him to do more in the genre of comic book themes. It did actually get 60% on the Rotten Tomatoe's gauge. It didn't do well at the box office as it was certainly a quirky adaptation.
Brokeback Mountain
Okay, let's talk about "Brokeback Mountain".
For many years, as a writer,talk-show host, and political activist, I have been a strong advocate of gay rights and have never understood why any straight person, other than a radical Bible-thumper, could care a whit about homosexual couples wanting to share their lives in the same legal manner as heterosexuals.
But the gushing over "Broadback Mountain" has me baffled. The travails of star-crossed lovers - Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, J.Lo and Ben,et al - have been the staple of drama since the dawn of civilization. In fact, just last week, I saw a 1982 TV movie starring Harry Hamlin called "Making Love" - same plot as Brokeback except the Hamlin character was a doctor, not a cowboy. And yet, despite the centuries-old universality of such tales, critics everywhere are suddenly jumping through hoops over "Brokeback".
Now I have no problem with a gay-themed love-story accruing accolades - I'm sure the L.A. Times' Kevin Thomas could recount dozens of wonderful movies with the same theme that never saw the light of day other than a screening at "Outfest". Ahh, but put a couple of stars into a big-budget gay love-story directed by an acclaimed director and suddenly it becomes something unique, daring and original. The "gay" theme doesn't matter - it's just a love-story, pure and simple. Humbug!
Since 1963, when the story was first published, many, many gays and lesbians have come out of the closet, and despite the overwhelming objections to granting these folks equal rights - up to and including a call for an amendment to the Constitution which would make marriage exclusively between a male and a female! - this kind of story, no matter how well told, no longer has the visceral punch that it had some 40-odd years ago. Let's face it -- older people with deep-seated prejudices will not be swayed and probably even be turned off and hide their eyes during the explicit sexual scenes between two men, while younger viewers will likely take for the relationship for granted and wonder, "What's all the fuss?" (I wouldn't be surprised, however, if these same old gay-hating guys would be in the front row to see a movie about two lesbian lovers, just as Megan Daub in her op-ed piece has declared it's front row stuff for women.)
I honesty believe that critics have heaped their kudos upon this movie not so much for its artistic merits but for the fact that mainstream Hollywood has dared, finally, to put a gay love-story on film. Although the cinematrophy is beautiful, the direction excellent, and the acting okay, (although I could not make out much of Heath Ledger's mumbling dialog,) I, personally, found the picture to be too slow and predictable to be deserving of all the accolades. And if, indeed, the subtext to its production was to change people's minds about gay love, I doubt there will be many converts.
I look forward to the day when movies about love are judged on their artistic merits and not simply because they dared to be different.
Which story was first published in 1963? ("Brokeback Mountain" is much more recent than that.)
I haven't seen the movie but the short story is fantastic, one of my all-time favorites, and was before there was even a rumor of a movie (you can do a search here for my mentions of it to confirm this if you so desire). I do think it can have something to do with the story as separate from anything specifically gay or lesbian. (I've read plenty of fiction featuring gay and/ or lesbian characters that didn't pack a fraction of the wallop that this one did...)
In fact the short story was published in The New Yorker in 1997 and while everyone has the right to assess the stature of the film, underestimating its impact can only be attributed to a blind spot. It is still an independent film, not a major studio feature, but I disagree that the acting by the ensemble was not less than superb. I believe the "slowness" is a methodical exposition of the story of these two "star-crossed lovers" and one can either appreciate what Ang Lee has done here, or they may not. I'm not one to believe there is any such things star-crossed lovers but a meeting of providence of two people who should have been together and were denied their relationship by pressure of the overwrought neurosis of the dubious societal authority on morals.
It's latest per screen average is in excess of $10,000.00, unprecendented for an independent film and seldom achieved by a big block buster movie. Internationally, it has a very good chance of hitting 100M.
You're right, my bad - the story WAS published in 1997....I was confused by the fact it was SET in 1963 (before it traveled through time)...As for that business about "presure of the overwrought neurosis of the dubious societal authority on morals", that's too pedantic for me....Would the same standard apply to a film like "Same Time Next Year", where the dubious societal authority on morals would cause Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn who were married to other people, to sneak off to consummate their love? Sorry, but you haven't convinced me that the hurrahs and the potential for a larger-than-expected box-office for this movie are NOT because of it's gay theme and resultant hype....In the plethora of tragic gay love stories that have been produced over the years the fact that the lovers are gay and unaccepted by society is ALWAYS the source of the tragedy (can you name one where that rule does not apply?)...Make the exact same story, word for word, shot for shot, starring two total unknowns, or between a man and a woman and...well, you get the picture (no pun intended)
I thought films like Goodnight and Goodluck, Capote, The History of Violence, The Squid and the Whale, and Crash are much better examples of superior film-making.
It has a ready-made barrier, though, that is always good for romantic dramas but rarely exist in present-day life. (Rare enough that even this present-day story begins in 1963...) Stands to reason as a conceit/ dramatic device, but the devil is in the details -- and Proulx is a magician with this story. (Again, speaking as someone who has only read the story, not seen the movie. Though I was thrilled when I found out that Proulx liked it, as I was terrified of it being bastardized and homogenized.)
If it was a man and a woman, it wouldn't have that same barrier or that same drama. A young woman and a young man go off into the mountains together and fall in love -- yawn. So they get married, big whoop.
I'm not going to comment on the film until I've seen it, but I do admire the courage of the main actors. People have been trying to make this film for years but couldn't get actors to commit (on advice from their agents and 'the money').
I think it's probably a very important film that was due to be made.
Good to see Independent films doing so well this year.
The films mentioned as obvious contendors for the Oscar are also superior film-making but doesn't make "Brokeback Mountain" any less of an example of superior film-making. The difference in quality between all these films, and I'd add "Syriana" and even "King Kong," and "Cinderella Man," is miniscule. This will be one of the tightest races for the big prize in many years.
The slip that the story was written in 1997 about an affair that began in 1963 when homosexuality was still in the relegated to a shadow world is telling.
Any film or book can be compared to another example which travels some of the same landscape. Means nothing, except how well it's done.
(Hate "Same Time, Next Year," incidentally and probably because Alan Alda bugs me).
