Ivan DouglasApr 2nd, 2006 - 20:43:11

Patrick Luce's Review of Brokeback Mountain is well written and he describes the story beautifully and then he reveals that he completely missed the point of the entire film when he describes Ennis's relationship with his daughters as superfluous footage that doesn't gel with the rest of the story. It was the whole story. Ennis couldn't connect with anyone(wife, children, lover) because of his background . That's what makes this film great. When he agrees to go to his daughter's wedding and he recognizes her love for her fiancee, he also fully appreciates all that he has lost and all that he might gain by embracing his children and the need for love in his life. The final scene with his daughter which was wholly contingent on seeing their full relationship throughout the film is the most important scene in the film.

Report this comment

TimmreckApr 2nd, 2006 - 20:58:33

The first reviewer who saw Brokeback only once needs to see it more than once because that reviewer missed a lot!

Report this comment

PatrickL.Apr 2nd, 2006 - 22:59:42

I agree the film's ending is extremely emotional and sums up Ledger's character. I also didn't want to give it away in the review. As far as the relationship with the daughters goes, I didn't mean to make it sound like it was superfluous footage, but that I thought Lee was going over what we already knew about Ledger's character. By the time the daughters really come into the film (at least the older daughter), it was already clear that Ledger's character was not able to connect with people. We see it in his failure of a marriage, his failure to admit and accept his true love for Twist, and even his inability to remain with the girlfriend he develops towards the end. That is all I meant by saying that it was ground already covered. The ending where he discovers that his daughter has found love - something that he can not do - is extremely good filming. It once again shows Lee's ability to capture emotion even without dialogue. We see that in Ledger's eyes as she drives away. The movie does have a lot in it - like most of Lee's movies. My biggest point of the review is that the movie is worth taking the time to watch and appreciate. As always, thanks for taking the time to read and leave a comment.

Report this comment

ErnieApr 3rd, 2006 - 01:12:37

For me, it was not long enough. I thoroughly enjoyed the film in every way.
I can't imagine anyone not liking it 100 percent.

By the way I saw two slightly different versions. The first that I saw in NYC soon after it opened, was edited differently than the one I saw six weeks later in New Jersey. I am curious which version the DVD is.

The second time one sees it, you you notice more of the subtleties, the furtive glances and the absolute heartbreak at the story's center.

It effected more than any movie in decades.

I was about the same age in 1963, only a couple years older. And they got it right. Particularly the subtle way gay people connected through eye contact and hidden meanings of spoken dialogue. Jack's scene when older with the husband of the talkative women is a fine example of that.

There is always lots going on in the visual details of the story. In manyways it is classic storytelling and I am so sorry it did not get the OSCAR.

However, it obviously does not have universal appeal. No one, besides me in my office saw it or wanted to. A lot of men are very frightened of it.

Later

Report this comment

Patrick LApr 3rd, 2006 - 01:35:29

I haven't heard of two different versions of the film so I too would like to know what was different. Amazon only has the one version listed. Does anyone else know about a second version and how it may differ?

Report this comment

TonyApr 3rd, 2006 - 02:31:46

Brokeback Mountain is a masterpiece -- from the short story to the screen adaptation, from the director's eye to the performances of the cast and support of the crew. The synchronization of the actors, the cinematography, the soundtrack, the dialogue -- all a wonderful example of art at its best. I recall Diana Ossana's acceptance of the Oscar. She said something to the effect that the purpose of art is to enlighten the hearts of men. From my perspective, this movie does just that -- if you let it. To anyone who has a fear of same sex love, I strongly encourage you to view this film. And when you see and hear the characters' dialogue and pain, listen to how they experience their own humanity and struggles in a dogmatically ruthless and biased world. The film was a huge help to me.

Report this comment

PaulApr 3rd, 2006 - 02:35:55

Mr. Luce needs to see the movie again. I liked it the first time, but was not overwhelmed. This was due, I am sure, to overly great expectations and the huge hype. The second time there was a huge amount that I missed on first viewing. I absolutely love this movie, and have seen it 8 times and I haven't gotten the DVD yet.

I doubt a straight person will want to see it more than twice, but for me, it is so relevant to everything I know and love, it will never grow old.

Report this comment

Ivan DouglasApr 3rd, 2006 - 06:02:24

I am straight (no big deal) though very open minded. I saw this move three times because it is a great movie. Every piece of dialogue and every camera angle speaks volumes about what film can achieve when everyone gets it right. Ang Lee never panders to the audience. Never manipulates emotion. He has included no music video tansitions. He tells the story so flawlessly and never resorts to captions to tell the audience that time has passed or that we're in a different year (not as easy as it looks considering the film takes place over 20 years). Smooth and beautiful filmaking with a story that earns your tears for each character--the men, the women, the children. Ledger and Gyllenhaal are remarkable. 'You girls need a push or somethin''?

I saw the movie in L.A. and I never heard of two versions. Hopefully Ernie will tell us what the differences are.

Report this comment

Patrick L.Apr 3rd, 2006 - 17:16:31

With all the double dipping going on in DVD, I am sure sooner or later we will see a director's cut or extended edition.

Report this comment

GeoApr 3rd, 2006 - 22:18:17

I find it ironic that the Patrick L. repeatedly criticizes Brokeback for being overly long--in the course of an inaccurate review whose most notable characteristic is its excessive length. I suppose people can legitimately disagree over whether Jack is a windbag. My impression of him is he's average in that respect; he only seems garrulous alongside Ennis who barely says anything at first. And when Jack does do some talking, it's a conscious attempt to draw Ennis into a conversation. Anyway, that's my take on it, and others might see it differently. But there are also some statements in the review that are just plain wrong. An obvious one: how could one logically infer that Jack's finally putting his obnoxious father-in-law in his place would be 'the final nail in the coffin' of Jack's and Lureen's marriage? Lureen tries (twice) to get her father to leave the TV off, but he disregards her just as he disregards everyone in his family. When Jack turns the TV off a second time (no football till the kid 'finishes eating the meal his mama spent 3 hours fixing'), Lureen looks surprised but not unhappy. In the end, just after Jack bawls him out and L.D. meekly returns to his seat, you can see an amused smile briefly on Lureen's face before it disappears (presumably to avoid further family strife). If anything, this event should have bolstered the marriage as Jack and Lureen present a united front against her father. Much of the greatness of this film lies in its huge wealth of characterizing detail--dialogue, facial expressions, gestures, etc.--which is too extensive to be completely absorbed in one viewing. This is highly typical of Ang Lee's work of which Patrick L. claims to be an admirer. If so, I think he should see the film again to see what he missed. Assuming, of course, that he was being intellectually honest about his reaction to the subject matter . . .

Report this comment