Rob, I don't share your position, because as I watched it it became not
a movie about gay or non-gay, what stuck me was it was a tragic love
story between two people and the gay sex and stuff was more or less the
setup, not the crux.

I was impressed that it did not cow to Hollywood endings, that it did
speak to the ineptness of many men who are unable and unprepared to
deal with their sexuality (straight or gay), and found that it did
explain that both men had lousy male role models in their past, which
might leave some insight into their sexual identity issues. Even the
opening shot where Ennis could hardly look up showed a lot about his
insecurity and laid the foundation for his vulnerability to the much
more secure and aggressive Jack.

The movie played the conflict algorithm to perfection, without the use
of typical excessive violence, drugs deals, female sex exploitation, or
heists. Philadelphia had some great moments but relented to Hollywood
in some major scenes. Sometimes less is more - when we know the score

I have not seen the other movies you have mentioned so I cannot compare
those. But I do feel that even if it was not the greatest or most
honest movie of its genre, that movies are more than movies and their
timing at crucial junctures of history play a big part in their overall
relevance. Brokeback Mountain is a courageous film for this weird time
in American history, just as Midnight Express was many, many years ago.

Just my take, Mark


On Jan 15, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> I'm just curious--am I the only person in the Valley who was bored by
> "Brokeback Mountain?"  I simply didn't buy the central relationship
> between Jack and Ennis--neither character was well enough developed
> for me to understand their attraction to one another (unless we want
> to buy into stereotypes of male non-communicativeness, or accept an
> equally unpalatable view that it was all about lust. Or maybe 'stupid'
> cowboys?)  I also felt more than a little manipulated by the
> heavy-handed Jack-as-Matthew Shepherd analogy. 
>  
> I agree that the film was gorgeous, but I couldn't escape the feeling
> that if this had been a hetero relationship few people would be
> drooling over it.  I felt like the thing should have been rated PC for
> the free ride it's been getting!  I share the view that it would be
> nice to have a good film about gay relationships, but I don't think
> this is it.  If sexuality is what you want, I'd suggest a German film
> called "Taxi zum klo."  If one wants to see honest non-hetero
> relationships with depth, Sayles' "Lianna" is far superior.  So too is
> an older film that excoriated at the time, "Personal Best."  And
> there's nothing--and I mean nothing--in "Brokeback" that even comes
> close to the majesterial "Angels in America." 
>  
> I'm also curious as to why people think "Brokeback" is so 'honest'
> when "Philadelphia" was taken to the cleaners.  Is it simply b/c there
> was sex in it?  (Not that any reviewers have noted the irony that most
> of the on-screen sex is straight....)  I actually found the
> much-lampooned Tom Hanks/Maria Callas scene from "Philadelphia" far
> more moving that Heath Ledger monosyllabing his way through
> "Brokeback" as if he was a grad of the Marlon Brando School of
> Mumbling.
>  
> Is there anyone else who feels this film is *way* overrated?  I read
> an interesting piece from Ty Burr in the Globe who said that he feels
> a film must be evaluated on the basis of what it tries to do.  I like
> that.  Maybe I'm a crank--but "Brokeback Mountain" is an early
> contender for my Most Disappointing Film of 2006.
>  
> Rob
>
>
> Noho Film Group http://www.movietalk.org
> movietalk@yahoogroups.com to email the rest of the group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> ▪  Visit your group "movietalk" on the web.
>  
> ▪  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  movietalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> ▪  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>