Well, if you read this week's Entertainment Weekly, you know that even the editors there--despite the fact they think more controversial movies could be popular this fall--have to worry of the potential enormous consumer backlash over this movie. If there is anything Hollywood worships above all, it's making money; a consumer backlash is the LAST thing they want. This does explain why Focus Pictures--the distributor for Brokeback Mountain--kept the publicity of the movie relatively low even with the Oscar nominations due in January 2006.

A backlash because they featured Heath and Jake on the cover?

There's no controversy (except good reviews, a Golden Lion at Venice and lots of buzz) and there's no backlash seen anywhere that I can tell, except those "supposed" ones people whisper about...yet haven't seen. Heck, even the religious right aren't doing a damn thing to boycott/protest the film. So...exactly what is so controversial again? The film is SO apolitical and overly classical that any "controversy" is just stupid. And sorry, but there has been a ton of gay films more political than this. This isn't Fahrenheit 9/11 (which made over $100 mil anyway despite, as you called it, "controversial" and polarising, despite being - gasp! = a doc!).

This film would be controversial IF it actually had the two try to get married and fight for gay rights, but Jack gets gay-bashed to death by fanatical right-wingers and Ennis is prevented from seeing him because he's not "relative" and is denied any rights to Jack's (substantial) will and inheritance. But then, it wouldn't be based on the book either.

In other words, what controversy?

i thought the same thing from the trailers, but then that's context for you.

in fact, it really earns every drop of it's drama. i just saw it, and it's very good. i'm not sure it's a great film, but it's close. definitely worth seeing. it's very well directed in regards to the tone and mood, but visually it was at times rather ho-hum (definitely no 'days of heaven'). and probably a bit overlong. but what carries the film are the performances, which are incredible.

the gay sex scene was rather abrupt, graphic, and even a tad violent in it's own way, but wholly realistic and organic (and very brief). as the film progresses, you might find yourself thinking less of this as a "gay love story" and more of a "tragic love story." i think in that respect the film did a great job of treating the "gayness" more like, say, living in the lower ranks of the caste system, rather than some sort of agenda-pushing soapbox issue. it's a very subtle and deliberate film, and what really connects are the characters and the emotions involved.

having said that, i *am* in LA so the idea of "gayness" is not nearly as taboo as someone from, say, the states where these characters are from. but i really think once you get past the initial jolt of "gay cowboy love" you begin to look at the characters themselves rather than their labels. it's so well written and acted and so beautifully observed tonally that i found it impossible not to. i'm very curious, however, how people in places less tolerant than LA (which is basically anywhere else) will react to this film. i really hope that people who are turned off by the "gayness" of the film will actually challenge themselves and their own core reactions- and what could be a safer, more passive challenge than going to a film?

oh, and heath ledger gives the best performance i've seen this year. his character was tremendously haunting, and he really infuses it with that intangible sense of soul that only great performances do.

Hey, Grimfarrow- thanks so much for the plot spoilers. Not all of us have seen this/read the story.

There's a great 9-minute "making of" featurette that's currently being shown on cable. You can get it/view it online at The Malcontent blog (which I'm not linking to for strategic reasons, look it up...)

Did you read? I said IF - as in, hypothetical. What I wrote is not in the book or the film.

Humor's lost on him ;)

Interesting review in the S.F Chronicle this morning. It's very good by the way.
Here are some exerpts:


It's about two men who are in love, and it makes no sense. It makes no sense in terms of who they are, where they are, how they live and how they see themselves. It makes no sense in terms of what they do for a living or how they would probably vote in a national election.

The situation carries a lot of emotional power, largely because it's so specific and yet undefined. The two guys -- cowboys -- are in love with each other, but we don't ever quite know if they're in love with each other because they're gay, or if they're gay because they're in love with each other.

It's possible that if these fellows had never met, one or both would have gone through life straight. That's one way of looking at the movie, though only one. In any case, because their attraction is not defined as some inevitable consequence of sexual orientation but as something that just happens to them, we see them as irreplaceable to each other -- like Romeo and Juliet. There's no notion that either could go out tomorrow or 10 years from now and find someone else.

I apologize.

Note to self: never post before second cup of coffee.

Hey, don't worry, I read it the same way. For some reason, I thought everything after the "gay rights," part was what really happened in the movie.

For those who have access to <b>LOGO</b> channel - there are several scheduled broadcasts of a 1/2 hour show about the movie. (actually, only runs about 23 minutes)

I saw this the other night and mentioned it above.

Yeah, going back and reading it, I can see what Grimfarrow meant- especially with the last sentence. But it's poorly phrased.

Ditto, I originally read the sentence as:

"This film would be controversial IF it actually had the two try to get married and fight for gay rights, but what really happens in the film is Jack gets gay-bashed to death by fanatical right-wingers and..." I stopped reading at this point because I figured I had already been too spoiled, so I didn't read his wrap-up about that not being what's in the story.

Uhmmm...I think the big IF and the last sentence makes it clear. The fact that you inferred the "but" as "what really happens" is something I did not intend. And seriously, who in the world actually thinks that's the real plot, especially since I just said that the film's NOT controversial?

Sorry. I'm with you, Grim. I got it about halfway through the paragraph. I got yer back, bud. ;)

Sorry, it's still poorly phrased. That's why clarity in writing is usually stressed. We don't know what you mean, only what's written. Others seem to agree with me.

When you follow "if" with "but", it is usually read that the second conjunction contradicts the first. In this case, it would indicate that the entire second half of this sentence is true.

Okay, I relent that if the "But" was changed to "then", then it would be more clear. But there's also a bad habit of people rushing through posts without reading the whole thing properly. IF (again) you had bothered to carefully read the whole paragraph, especially the last statement (which makes it painfully clear - there's no denying that, sorry), then the context would still be correct, despite the "But/then" problem. So ultimately you STILL didn't bother to read it through properly.

Thanks ;) Crazy how I stated so clearly that it wasn't controversial, so why would I be contradicting myself with the following paragraph? People's logic sometimes, really...

Well, that's true- but when I read it, I thought I had been spoiled and stopped reading. I didn't want to further spoil the movie for myself.

OK, let's agree on that then. Plus, we're getting seriously off-topic ;)

I was recently at a press screening for another movie and I overheard four guys in the theater lobby talking about “Brokeback.” They were resolute in their refusal to go see it and they couldn’t stop loudly one-upping each other about how they had no interest, were not “curious,” and were, in the words of the loudest guy in the group, “straight as that wall over there.” Oh, the wall with poster for the Big Gay Cowboy Movie on it? That straight wall? Well here’s something that everyone else now knows but that guy: he’s probably gay. Being silent marks you as too cool to care about how other men see you. It means you’re comfortable and not freaked by your own naked shadow. Did Steve McQueen go around squawking about how straight-as-a-wall he was? No, he didn’t. He was too busy being stoic and manly.


I kinda feel the same way when guys go so out of their way on these boards to say they have no interest. Really make you go, Hmmmm.

The money-quote from the New York Times review, just out:

"...Both Mr. Ledger and Mr. Gyllenhaal make this anguished love story physically palpable. Mr. Ledger magically and mysteriously disappears beneath the skin of his lean, sinewy character. It is a great screen performance, as good as the best of Marlon Brando and Sean Penn. The pain and disappointment felt by Jack, who is softer, more self-aware and self-accepting, continually registers in Mr. Gyllenhaal's sad, expectant silver-dollar eyes."