Broke Back Mountain

nganok said:

Anything Ang Lee touches is golden anyway.

Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the total sh1t-fest that was The Incredible Hulk.

Well Nag,

only you can answer the question of whether or not your values and beliefs are shading your take on the film.

I haven't seen it yet. Likely will not.
I like my men straight up. I just can't get my mind and heart in the mode to accept hottie Heath Ledger as in love with another cute man.
No thank you, I'll take the Casanova.

Smart, smart actor though to do what he did.
Take this risk, this film, do a really strong, pivotal drama about homosexuality and then follow it right up with Casanova.
How did he get so lucky?
I mean the chances that those two films would /could go back to back like they did?
Heath's one smart guy.

And I hope he gets the Oscar just because I like him. I think he's a very solid actor with lots of potential.

you don't have to be a gangster to truly appreciate the Godfather, do you?

LOVE

the new avatar!!!!!


And to whom was that comment directed?

Society doesn't "need" this film. It's just a good film about complex relationships and love set against a unique social backdrop. If we just look at the film for what it is -- the script, the directing, the cinematography, the editing, the music, the acting, etc. then we can see that it's a fine film. Is it the best film ever? That's up to everyone to decide. Some people might not like it because it's slow -- and it's a character piece, not really plot driven. It's episodic. What I like about it is that it captures a period and a piece of Americana. Also the themes explored are very universal. The heterosexual part of the story is just as strong, if not stronger. Personally, I think as a filmmaker or screenwriter, we should see as many films of a wide variety as possible. I think we're shortchanging ourselves if we say, "I'm not going to see that film because it's about gay cowboys." Of course, we see what we want to. But if "gay cowboys" upset or offend you, then it has more to do with your own hang-ups than with whether the film is good or not. I mean, I loved the Godfather but I did think the violence was upsetting, but I loved it anyway because it just was a great film.

maestrowork said:

you don't have to be a gangster to truly appreciate the Godfather, do you?

Click to expand...

No, but just like in a successful novel, the reader has to be able to identify with the character.

Now, I haven't seen the movie but I'm guessing that there are some universal factors that will appeal to a broad audience. But then again, it won't be the first time I've been severely disappointed in what the critics or the Academy have chosen to hail as great.

True. But sometimes I try to judge a film after I see it. I can honestly say Dodgeball is horrible because I saw it. If someone saw Brokeback Mountain and didn't like it, I would respect that. But the original poster's questions intrigued me. He first said, "It's a great film." Then he questioned if the film was worth all the praise. What I mean is, if he said, "I think it's a great film in all aspects, but I just didn't really care for the main characters and didn't feel that emotional impact everyone was talking about," then I think it's a valid point. You either identify with the characters or you don't. I can watch Good Fellas a thousand times I still wouldn't identify with the characters in that film. But the Godfather, I dig.

BTW, I happen to like Hulk (except the ending, however).

nganok said:

I unlike many many people, I actually thought the Hulk was a good film. It totally captured what a comic/movie should be. Was it a franchise maker...No.. but it was undeniably the Hulk. It remained true to the comic book unlike X men which I thought BLEW. My personal opion of course.

Click to expand...

Um...the directing was horrible. The editing was atrocious. The story was non-sensical. The script was a total mess.

And, it didn't remain true to the comic at ALL.

X-Men did a pretty decent job of sticking to the comics.

I don't really know where you're getting that from.

Perhaps it's been a few decades since you've read the comics?


And, if you want a movie that truly captures what a comic-based movie should be, then might I suggest you go watch Spider-man and Batman Begins.

I haven't seen Brokeback but I do intend to. My question here is more of a general nature. People mentioned the Hulk. This is a movie I;ve not seen and have no intention of seeing. I am very picky about the films I go to see, and If I know somethingis not for me, I just won't go. There are hundreds of films that I know are more to my taste, and those are the ones I go and see. That would include films such as Memoires of a Geisha and Brokeback mountain. I don't like action films, or comic book films; I like character driven films, and those are the ones I'll write. Though I do make some exceptions: Kong, and Spiderman, for instance.

I have a feeling that most screenwriters don't behave in this way: they see EVERYTHING, good or bad, whether or not it's to their taste, and try to be neutral when judging it. Is this correct?

No.

I don't know if I'll go see Brokeback Mountain, it's about cowboys isn't it? But it's not a Western, it's one of those "character" things, brrr. I think I'll stay in and wash my hair instead.

I second Opty's "No." I only watch films I think I might like. And even then, maybe not.

-Derek
My web page - Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror - published fiction and WIPs.
Take the critiques you get with a grain of salt. Invariably, some of the critics will be kooks, bitter curmudgeons, or complete fools. ~odocoileus

Is that the same with reading screenplays? Do you only read those of films you liked, an dthought were good? Do you ever read those of films you thought were bad, to find out WHAT made them bad? Or is life just too short? For me, it's the latter!

Reading a free online script is different than paying to watch a film I might or might not like and then having to sit through it for a couple of hours. Not sure if the same decision process applies to these two very different activities...

I visit www.imsdb.com every week to download and read new scripts as they appear, regardless of what they are (unless they're transcripts typed by illiterate monkeys with no understanding of script format). Sometimes the ones I think will be complete crap surprise me, and the ones I expect might be good reads, aren't. Just for example's sake, I don't like the Hellraiser films, I've little time for them, but I've found the scripts clever and engrossing, with writing styles and approaches that interest me.

Example of a recent script I just couldn't get into: Antitrust. I suppose I could look it up on imdb.com to find out what it's about, but the opening dozen or so pages utterly failed to engage any of my brain cells, so what the hey, pass. I know what made the script bad, no further analysis necessary.

-Derek
My web page - Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Horror - published fiction and WIPs.
Take the critiques you get with a grain of salt. Invariably, some of the critics will be kooks, bitter curmudgeons, or complete fools. ~odocoileus

dpaterso said:

I don't know if I'll go see Brokeback Mountain, it's about cowboys isn't it? But it's not a Western, it's one of those "character" things, brrr. I think I'll stay in and wash my hair instead.

I second Opty's "No." I only watch films I think I might like. And even then, maybe not.

-Derek

Click to expand...

In saying that, and IMO, one of the greatest Western pieces ever to be translated was the mini-series Lonesome Dove. It achieved that unique balance between character and action, and sustained it throughout. If one is looking for a love affair between two cowboys, look no further than Gus and Woodrow.

I'm also a movie critic, so my experience might be different. I see good stuff and crap all year long, and IMHO, I learn a lot from them even if it's utter crap (e.g. the Brothers Grimm, a Heath Ledger stinker).

I think if you specialize in one genre (say, sci fi), then you tend to focus on that genre, whether they're good or bad movies (there are so many bad sci-fi movies, for example, IMO). I'm more of a generalist -- I like movies of all kinds. I'd see Brokeback Mountain today, then Serenity the next, then Fast and Furious. I'd see the Hulk and Pride & Prejudice on the same day. Then a foreign film the next day. I'm just a total movie buff, I guess. I do know what I like in general and what I don't, but I try to see different stuff.

As a novelist and a novel reader, I tend to be a little less generalistic. I read different genres, too, but I tend to read more mainstream or thrillers. It comes down to time. I am a slow reader and I only read maybe less than 20 books a year (as opposed to over 100 movies a year) and it takes me at least a week to read a book, so I'm more discriminating that way on what I choose to read. Movies, however, only takes about 2 hours to watch, plus there are DVDs, etc. Also, since I review movies, I get to see them without paying -- so that's another thing. I can understand that if you have to pay $10 for a movie (or $3 to rent a DVD), you might not as eager to see something outside of your comfort zone.

The intensity of the emotion portrayed by the characters rocked me. Their sex, station in life etc. was irrelevant. I was transported into the beauty of Wyoming and their lives. That's what I look for in a film. I am a total fan of Annie Proulox because of how she writes about relationships. Plus I really like Larry McMurty. (I am probably misspelling these names) Upon arriving home I was moved to write a smashing poem and I bought both the screenplay and the music. The film was a huge success with me.

If you're interested in how the movie went from short story to the silver screen, get the new book (From Story to Script.. .or something like that). I think it's educational for screenwriters. The book includes Annie Proulx's orginal New Yorker story, the complete script, and notes from Proulx, McMurty, and Osana. It's quite insightful.

nganok said:

"Great film, yeah I guess I agree with that"

Was my full statement. I questioned not only all of you but, I questioned myself therefor asking those who viewed the movie to question themselves about whether or not they thought the movie was really that good. I am simply torn with the issue and wondered if others felt similar. I also stated that I felt accolades for the script (film itself) were not deserving. Health did a great job and I actually felt like he carried the movie.

Click to expand...

To answer your question:

The reason why I liked it:

1. The production is top-notch -- looks, smells, tastes and feels like an American classic

2. The acting is excellent and not just the leads. E.g. Randy Quaid is very good in his relatively minor role.

3. It's complex character study and the characters are flawed. They cheat, lie, and betray, but at the same time, they have real emotions and reasons for their behavoirs.

4. The story and the script touch on universal themes such as loss, missed opportunities, fear, society expectations/restrictions, betrayal, etc. without banging you over the head with sermons. It doesn't justify the characters' behavior nor does it condemn anything.

5. Heath Ledger's character carries the whole film without much dialogue. It showcases his acting ability, but it also showcases the screenwriters' restraint: you can say so much without saying anything

6. The sex is kept to minimal -- it doesn't become gratuitous and alienate straight audience, but at the same time, it doesn't really pussyfoot around it either. It feels honest.

7. The emotions transcend genders and experiences. You don't have to be gay to understand. We've all loved and lost before. We've perhaps been betrayed by a loved ones before. We've perhaps lied to someone we loved or been lied to before. We've made mistakes in our lives that cost us happiness... everything is universal... I mean, if Gyllenhaal's character is a woman, the story may still work (they'll have to come up with a reason why Heath can't be with "her" though).


What I didn't like about the film:

1. It's a little too long. There are parts that I'd have cut out if I were Ang Lee.

2. The music, while wonderful, is a bit repetitive.

3. We understand why Ennis can't fathom a life with Jack, but at the same time, I am not sure if I buy it completely. Perhaps I have no idea how much fear Ennis feels -- because I've never been in his shoes -- but he's not really living a life he wants. Then again, in real life I know people like that, who is stuck in their reality that they don't feel they have any choice. What I don't understand, though, is why someone like Jack would stick with him for 20 years. I think that's maybe why some of us can't identify with the characters, especially if we're not gay. There are just so many things that suggest Ennis and Jack are wrong for each other. To me, anyway.

4. (SPOILER....) Alma and Ennis's divorce came too suddenly. It didn't give me the emotional punch as it intended. (However, Alma's reaction to her husband's secret was heart-wrenching... Michelle William's performance is amazing.) Also, Jack's reaction after that seems out of character -- he's too callous and insensitive.

5. The ending seems a little long and seems like a coda. I think it'd have been stronger if it ended at Jack's house.

It's fascinating, I think, to compare the short story with the screenplay. Gives me some idea on how to adapt my own book to a script...

Ciao!

I'm too homoverloaded already. I hope Joaquin beats Heath on Oscar night. WTL was excellent.