Topic: Brokeback Mountain (Read 9968 times)

Schmendrick · « **on:** 25 Apr 2006, 16:00 »

This thread may have already appeared earlier on, but if it hasn't then well go me!
I've seen this movie several times and I now loathe the 'gay cowboy' stereotype of the film because when it comes down to it is not just about two gay cowboys.
I've heard numerous people say that this is a story about a love that never dies and I agree it is terribly romantic and in fact I think it is the most romantic movie I have yet to see, but it also the complete tragedy of the movie that makes it so endearing.
So I'm sorry if this movie has been talked to death, but nonetheless ignore all the hype and watch it if you haven't already.

Gryff · « **Reply #1 on:** 25 Apr 2006, 18:22 »

http://forums.questionablecontent.net/viewtopic.php?t=7370&highlight=brokeback" target="_fresh">LOL BUTTSECKS

thermodynamics · « **Reply #2 on:** 27 Apr 2006, 20:51 »

i'm only gonna see it if two dudes are fucking in the ass for 2 hours.

otherwise, it isn't worth renting [is it even out yet on dvd?]

SloppyJo · « **Reply #3 on:** 10 May 2006, 11:36 »

I get annoyed when people say its just about gay cowboys too - but thats because theyre not cowboys! They look after sheep = shepherds, although I suppose shepherds are for some reason less associated with homosexuality...

alyosha · « **Reply #4 on:** 10 May 2006, 12:12 »

this was an amazing movie. The Direction and cinemetography was impressive and significant-- even for Ang Lee. There wasn't a wasted shot, word, or action in the entire movie, and the cast carried it off eloquently.

THat is all

pip_helix · « **Reply #5 on:** 10 May 2006, 12:14 »

i loved it, i thought it was a beautiful story, and visually stunning. the scenery was so perfect.

on a related note, and because we all need a laugh, i present...ricky gervais and friends.

Tergon · « **Reply #6 on:** 10 May 2006, 17:54 »

While the movie was very well shot and directed, and the actors did a good job, I just didn't like Brokeback Mountain because of its story. Not because I don't like gay men, just the opposite - a good friend of mine is gay and nobody cares.

The problem with Brokeback Mountain was that the story wasn't new, or original, or anything. It's cashing in on political correctness by "going there" when other people won't. That's all well and good for social rhetoric, but it does NOT make a good story. And aside from the homosexual protagonists, this story was basically a cliche'd chick-flick.
Don't believe me? Well, imagine if Heath Ledger's part had actually been played by a woman. Nothing else in the story changes - just that he becomes a she. And as soon as we do that, it's a rom-tragedy like all the millions of others out there, except that this one is set mostly outdoors rather than in an office in New York.
You cannot just claim that a story is new and on a different emotional level just by cashing in on the discriminate-a-minority bandwagon. Even if it's in their favour, you're abusing the system of political correctness. Which is bad.

The movie was well done, but the story? Utter shite.

pip_helix · « **Reply #7 on:** 10 May 2006, 18:16 »

but even if it were a heterosexual couple, there's the emotional aspect of some sort of forbidden love. imagine if it were an interracial romance. or intergenerational. at one time or another, any of those relationships would make people antsy as well.

Tergon · « **Reply #8 on:** 10 May 2006, 18:34 »

Exactly my point. It's the "forbidden love" cliche that has already been done to death.
Shakespeare did it better in Romeo & Juliet, and literally thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of writers, have done it since. This time it was done with gay cowboys instead of star-crossed lovers on a Verona night. That doesn't make it a new or interesting story. It's just cashing in on the fact that making a movie about gay people will get attention at the moment.

Like that show Commander & Chief. You know, the one with the female US President?
If it was a male president, it'd just be a less-interesting version of The West Wing, which is saying something. Instead, they claim it's a different show with a female president. The *message* here is that the ONLY thing that makes this show interesting is that the president is a woman. And to me, that is really not that exciting or interesting. Okay, she's a woman. So what?

A story does not become new and exciting just because you put a new socio-political spin on an older, pre-existing story. And you can't pretend that it does.

pip_helix · « **Reply #9 on:** 10 May 2006, 19:12 »

Quote from: Tergon

doesn't make it a new or interesting story. It's just cashing in on the fact that making a movie about gay people will get attention at the moment.

the same way guess who's coming to dinner cashed in on interracial relationships.

the same way harold and maude cashed in on intergenerational relationships.

it doesn't fucking matter if they're black, white, old, young, gay, straight, whatever. it's just an emotional piece. anyone is well within their right to dislike it or disagree with it, but to flat-out call it shit? that's just disrespectful.

stories are recycled all the time. that doesn't make them any less poignant or relevant.

Bunnyman · « **Reply #10 on:** 10 May 2006, 19:22 »

Ah, the fine line between poignancy and emotional manipulation.

pip_helix · « **Reply #11 on:** 10 May 2006, 19:24 »

oh, agreed, it's a very fine line.

i'm not saying the movie didn't have it's shlocky moments (heath ledger hugging the shirt? ehhh...) but for the most part, i think it was tastefully done.

Tergon · « **Reply #12 on:** 10 May 2006, 19:47 »

Don't misunderstand me. I said before that the movie was well done and I meant it. Directing, filmography, acting... the movie deserves all of its hype in those categories. It's a genuinely good film.

My sole beef is with the story. Look, I like writing, and I read a lot. My dream is to be published one day, which should occur around two weeks after world peace is declared when the pope farts monkeys. So it was the story, the way that the film was written, that got to me.
It's virtually impossible to come up with a NEW story today. Everything has been done. Therefore, the trick of a good storyteller isn't to write a totally new story, because that's not possible. Instead, the trick is to take the story and make it your own. To change it just enough so that it becomes undoubtably "your" story.
And this is just opinion, but Brokeback Mountain didn't do that for me. It was too cut-and-dried for my tastes. Too much like every story before it.

For the record, Harold & Maude was the way it *should* be done. It's a classic. But Brokeback Mountain just didn't appeal, and I've tried to explain why. Hey, maybe it's just me.

nuisance · « **Reply #13 on:** 10 May 2006, 19:48 »

I think the story is only done to death if you look at it in such incredibly general terms. If you made it about a mixed-gender couple you'd still have the setting, 1960s Wyoming, which I think is very important to the details of the story.

The particular situations the characters face seem quite different from, well, where I'm living.

Think of all the thematic stuff about trying to manage work and so on - Ennis dumping the kids on his wife at the supermarket so he can go to the ranch; later giving his wife crap about taking extra shifts when it's dinner time, etc. Sure this isn't all of the story, but there's a lot of shit in there about autonomy and the economic situation and so on. This stuff would still be of interest (to me) whether or not he had conflicted romantic intentions towards a woman or a man.

I dunno, it's not my favourite movie or anything, but it was much better than I had feared.

Tergon · « **Reply #14 on:** 10 May 2006, 20:00 »

Yeah, all that stuff in there is true. There's a lot of themes explored in the movie. I just...

*sigh*

I don't know. It's not like I can convince you to change your opinion any better than I can explain my own. I just didn't really like Brokeback Mountain, is all... and that's really the reason why. Like I said, it's probably just me, not much I can do about it. But that's my main problem with the story.

*shrug*

I can't change the way I think or feel. And since I can't really articulate either of them, it just comes down to a matter of opinion. Rather than debate that endlessly, I'll just submit that we agree that the REST of the movie was very well done, and we disagree on the quality of the story. Deal?

nancygirl · « **Reply #15 on:** 11 May 2006, 07:53 »

Quote from: SloppyJo

I get annoyed when people say its just about gay cowboys too - but thats because theyre not cowboys! They look after sheep = shepherds, although I suppose shepherds are for some reason less associated with homosexuality...

Actually one was a very good rodeo rider (note the huge belt buckle) and it is hinted that the other dabbled in it for a while.

alyosha · « **Reply #16 on:** 11 May 2006, 08:28 »

Quote from: Tergon

And aside from the homosexual protagonists, this story was basically a cliche'd chick-flick.

I think that this was the point of the film-- It may have been hyped as a movie about gay cowboys, but in reality, the movie was not about the two men being gay. The idea was to take a cliche, and tweak it a bit, and show how nothing really changes by changing that one thing. WHat I'm trying to say is that I'm glad you had this reaction, it just proves that the movie was successful in its goal...

Schmendrick · « **Reply #17 on:** 11 May 2006, 15:35 »

I believe that in many ways I found it went against the cliche'd love story. For instance they never once said 'I love you' in the movie. There was never any tender love scenes and instead of everyone ending up happy and joyful it does not only end sorrowfully, but in many aspects all of the characters in the film are unfulfilled.
Also the story between Jack and Ennis and their wives is also very interesting and the story between Ennis and his children.
As much as I have heard numerous times that this is nothing but a chick flick I have to say that I think that is what it seems like on the service, but you have to look at the supporting characters as well.

missscenester · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 May 2006, 02:21 »

Cliche? I don't think it was at all cliche. There's no happng ending, no passionate kisses with a sunset.

What I liked about this movie was the realism, nothing was candy coated. You need to see a movie that grounds you like that sometimes. It doesn't matter if they are gay or heterosexual, thhe message is the same. the characters are products of their enviroments and that is what made them so real.

dusktodarkness · « **Reply #19 on:** 01 Feb 2007, 23:34 »

I'm sure it wasn't intended to be, but this film ended up being one of the greatest comedies I have ever seen.
The only film I think I laughed harder at was SAW III and that's because I'm a morbid bastard.
But back to Brokebutt Mounted --err, I mean mean Enlarged--- god dammit.

Anyway. Almost every scene that involved the main characters I found hilarious. I loved how they totally were like, "I ain't queer" and then they just jump on each other in an embrace of love. Some serious cowboy-lovin'. But these boys weren't about cows at all. It was sheep. And cock... and balls.

What startled me though was when we got to to see that chick's boobies. The one from Princess Diaries and that other terrible film... the Devil Wears PITA or something.. Meryl Streep kept that film from bombing, I swear. Awful writing.. gah! This post is about.. you know! So yeah. That part caught me off guard. I did not expect that film to turn me on at any level of its production. Something about Jack Twist and that hot chick's boobs.. He definitely wasn't queer. Ennis on the other hand. He got bored of his wife's wazoo and went about putting it in her butthole.. That was utterly gut-busting. It was a little embarrassing. I mean, surely there were some homosexuals in there making out and probably even masturbating at points.. But me, the potentially heterosexual, who found something kinky about a non-queer cowboy who takes it up the ass, giving it to a former princess.. was laughing his ass off in the middle of the theatre throughout the film.

What a night. I was with a gay friend of mine too. He got really emotional on the way home. Something about it being impossibly difficult for gays to find true love... kind of a buzz-kill, but we got some Del Taco and he cheered up when one of my Jew friends joined us, who my gay friend is attracted to.

I've only seen it once.. but honestly, I don't know how many times I could watch Heath spit in his hand to lube up before the big plunge.

BillAdama · « **Reply #20 on:** 02 Feb 2007, 09:24 »

Brokeback Mountain is a very good movie, but I think it got a little over-hyped because it's about the second biggest hot-button political issue in America right now.

And like everything that gets over-hyped, it became over-bashed.

I see the movie as not just about romantic love, but about balancing what you know you really want with what society tells you you're allowed to have and allowed to do. The big tragedy of the picture being that what's his name wasn't willing to make that final sacrifice of becoming what society hates, even though he wished he could.

öde · « **Reply #21 on:** 02 Feb 2007, 09:29 »

dusktodarkness do not give up your day job to become a film critic.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #22 on:** 03 Feb 2007, 07:28 »

Quote from: Tergon on 10 May 2006, 18:34

It's the "forbidden love" cliche that has already been done to death.
Shakespeare did it better in Romeo & Juliet, and literally thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of writers, have done it since.

This is nitpicky but as a possible classics major I gotta point out that you're giving the bard way to much credit. romeo and juliet is the story of pyramus and thisbe, written around 8 B.C. (R&J was printed first in 1597). The story is essentially the same and no, it's not just a coincidence. this, however, backs up your point. People have been doing the cliched forbidden love story for literally thousands of years. it's been done to death and i for agree that this movie is only as lauded as it is b/c of the nature of the romance. make it a traditional relationship and you have a wellshot chick flick.

Johnny C · « **Reply #23 on:** 03 Feb 2007, 09:57 »

Quote from: dusktodarkness on 01 Feb 2007, 23:34

words

I am unsure about whether or not this post is real.

dusktodarkness · « **Reply #24 on:** 03 Feb 2007, 12:18 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 03 Feb 2007, 09:57

Quote from: dusktodarkness on 01 Feb 2007, 23:34
words
conflicting words

You may pretend it so. But you would be lying.

Sythe · « **Reply #25 on:** 04 Feb 2007, 08:53 »

If it's featured on Oprah, it's not worth watching.

bujiatang · « **Reply #26 on:** 04 Feb 2007, 20:10 »

I'm sorry the weatherman just said that at -15 frostbite is easy to get on unexplained flesh. And I seem to have lost my thought.

ah yes. How do you catagorically dismiss things?

dusktodarkness · « **Reply #27 on:** 05 Feb 2007, 06:19 »

Fahrenheit or Centigrade?

beat mouse · « **Reply #28 on:** 07 Feb 2007, 08:37 »

While I'm not about to spew on and on about how boring and dull this mundane pile of somethin is, I really really hated this movie and I much rather would've spent my money watching Milo and Otis. THAT'S a sad story.

dusktodarkness · « **Reply #29 on:** 07 Feb 2007, 20:35 »

It's not Friday.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Brokeback Mountain (Read 9968 times)

Schmendrick

thermodynamics

SloppyJo

alyosha

pip_helix

pip_helix

pip_helix

Bunnyman

pip_helix

nuisance

nancygirl

alyosha

Schmendrick

missscenester

dusktodarkness

BillAdama

dusktodarkness

bujiatang

dusktodarkness

dusktodarkness