..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

Brokeback
Mountain

Directed by Ang Lee
Focus Features

INITIAL REVIEW

Whoa there, cowboy!

The mystery movie of the awards season this year has not been the Spielberg effort, Munich, which few know much about and is still in production. Thing is, we know the basic subject and we know that if it is good, it will lauded and if it is deadly bad, it will be one of the year’s big disappointments.

The real mystery has been Brokeback Mountain, endless touted as “a gay cowboy movie” that in reality is...

Here is a spoiler warning... because given the way the film has been pitched so far, the reality of what it is will surprise most audiences.

Okay...

Fair warning...

Brokeback Mountain is not really much of a cowboy flick. The gay content of the film is the central issue (pretty much the only issue) in a shockingly conventional love story narrative that just happens to feature two cowboys (at least, both are cowboys early on) and little more that qualifies it as a western, revisionist or otherwise.

Surprisingly, the most recent film it suggests is Neil Jordan’s The End Of The Affair. The lovers belong together, we just know they do, and circumstance stands firmly in their way.

But here is where Brokeback Mountain lost me... the only circumstance that really stands in their way is the fact that the film starts in 1963. Nevermind that Stonewall took place in 1969 and this dusty duo is still whining about their tragic fate into the late 1970s. They are, after all, in the west.

But for me, this dramatic excuse that seems to want to excuse the lack of choice made by these two very strong, very focused men, is a complete copout. If these men want to be together so badly, why not risk it?

The West is, pointedly, the home of Matthew Sheppard and Brandon Teena. The threat of violence, not any of the moral issues of being in a marriage in which there is real love and tenderness or of really considering one's person choices. In fact, I am a little shocked to think back to the idea that sexual preference is, for at least one of the characters, his central driver. The frustration for me as a viewer is that the movie doesn’t have the courage to really examine that issue. We do get the classic “he’s secretly gay, so he makes his wife flip over on her belly” schtick. But is he demanding anal sex? What is it about the male-on-male sexual experience that has so bewitched these men? We don’t know because it’s all too precious to really discuss or even to explore in any meaningful verbal way.

The more I think about the film, the more frustrating it gets. Jake Gylenhaal’s character, when off on his own, comes across a sexually aggressive woman. Great. How does this play into his secret life? Is she a willing partner at first and then turned off by more demands? Does their sex life tail off after she gives birth? Is it good but not enough... bad because it’s a girl? What is he looking for?

Even in the spectacularly chaste Far From Heaven, which is not far from this film in many ways, we have a real sense of the secretly gay husband’s sexuality from more than specific expressions of the sex act. He is business straight and in that era, the sexual expectations of his wife were limited. Here, both men seem to have very sexually willing other halves... yet, that nagging need for something else is always there.

And, damn it, lines like, “You just don’t know how much I need it!” don’t turn the trick.

And the argument that it is still a dangerous world for gay men even in big cities, but especially in rural areas, doesn’t make me feel like the story was well told, but more so that it would have been a real challenge and far more compelling to put this film in modern day. Do you think it is easy for men to come out now? Do you think cowboys like riding with gay counterparts now?

My huge objection to this film is that it answers the questions it chooses to pose with great ease and alacrity. The harder questions are not far from the surface. And if this wasn’t a gay romance, we would expect those questions to be answered.

My God, even after getting a divorce, one of the characters can’t move forward into this life.

The last 15 minutes or so of the film does, in a quiet way, suppose to bring the perspective of the other characters into play... finally! But too little, too late.

The performances are excellent. Both guys do really well, though Ledger’s mouth-shut speech pattern will draw a laugh when imitated at parties. It is another flaw of the film, however, that these are two beautiful men. It is not unusual in movies to have lovers of hyper-real beauty. But it would have been nice to have this sexual relationship – with moments of friendship that are more talked about that dramatized – between two people who had some physical imperfections... even minor ones. I mean, really.

There are a lot of specifics that I won’t go into here. But the big picture is, this is a star-crossed gay lovers movie that doesn’t really examine the urge to be gay, the experience of being gay, or the love between two men that can be in so many ways the same as the love between a man and a woman.

If you are willing to put blinders on to how thin the movie is and if you are into mushy romance, you will probably love it.

If you are one of 60%-plus of Academy members, you won’t be in theater after the first act.

I would be pleased to say this is the kind of movie that is really good but that will freak out older awards voters I would be pleased to say that this is the kind of movies that regular audiences won’t get, but that awards voters will embrace. But alas, it is neither.

It is, at best, well acted and mediocre. I expected more from Ang Lee. I expected to be a little challenged. And I wasn’t. Except by the running time.

(Please see the other pieces by David Poland on Brokeback Mountain... on Link-O-Rama above.)

- David Poland