When good critics/pundits/journos go bad -- Who got it wrong on Brokeback?

[Dave Cullen]

What's the latest dumbass piece or innane comment in the press or on the web about Brokeback?

Or what old review by a respected critic still sticks in your craw? (Maybe that should be "old"--we're only a month into this.)

Or feel free to flip it on us? Who's over-reacting to negative views on Brokeback?

[Dave Cullen]

desperadum actually suggested this thread, a few minutes after posting this in the main thread:

How's this for annoying: I was just reading an article in this morning's New York Times about "Flabby Films in Need of a Little Nip and Tuck." Here are a couple of quotes:

"If the audience knows...the cowboys will tun out to be gay, the movie shouldn't waste 15 minutes getting there."  Huh?

"A 2-hour-and-14-minute movie isn't unusual today - the bloat has been happening for years - but 'Brokeback Mountain' spends so much time offering scenic views of the range and all those sheep that you begin to wonder if Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger's characters are ever going to sidle up to each other. The film takes off only after their romance begins, nearly a half-hour in."

Now I would agree that I go to many movies that would benefit from tighter editing, but this ain't one of 'em! The other films cited by the critic are King Kong and Munich. Whatever.

[BillN]

desperadum actually suggested this thread, a few minutes after posting this in the main thread:

How's this for annoying: I was just reading an article in this morning's New York Times about "Flabby Films in Need of a Little Nip and Tuck." Here are a couple of quotes:

"If the audience knows...the cowboys will tun out to be gay, the movie shouldn't waste 15 minutes getting there."  Huh?

"A 2-hour-and-14-minute movie isn't unusual today - the bloat has been happening for years - but 'Brokeback Mountain' spends so much time offering scenic views of the range and all those sheep that you begin to wonder if Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger's characters are ever going to sidle up to each other. The film takes off only after their romance begins, nearly a half-hour in."

Now I would agree that I go to many movies that would benefit from tighter editing, but this ain't one of 'em! The other films cited by the critic are King Kong and Munich. Whatever.

I've seen BBM twice, with #3 shortly, and didn't feel that it dragged one bit. The short story takes an even longer time to lead up to the first tent scene than the movie, and I think it is important that the characters be allowed to develop. The NY Times article misses the point that characters don't just meet and hop into the tent without the time to have reasons to do that.

[waynerman]

This is petty, and I should be grateful for Roger Ebert's positive review, which appears here:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051215/REVIEWS/51019006/1023

But I just couldn't stand the fact that he included the following sentence:

I can imagine someone weeping at this film, identifying with it, because he always wanted to stay in the Marines, or be an artist or a cabinetmaker.

Yes, I understand. He's making a case for the universality of the theme. But it's also true that this is a story about homosexual love.

Let the repressed cabinetmakers get their own movie, dammit!!!

[cyoung]

On another forum, a friend of mine posted this negative review she read elsewhere, and I was really surprised by it. I disagree with the writer on so many levels that I wouldn't even know where to start! Thoughts?

Cara

>Edward Cole - 01:11pm Jan 8, 2006 PDT
>
> I saw Brokeback Mountain last night. This was my most anticipated film
> since
> Todd Haynes's Far From Heaven. The latter film rewarded the wait with a
> rich, complex, layering of themes and details. I've seen that film a
> number
> of times now, and each time I find something new in it to admire.
> Brokeback
> Mountain, not so much.
>
> My disappointment with it is in two, broad, categories: thematic and
> technical. About the second category first: it's a Hollywood film, but a
> bad
> Hollywood film. For example, it covers a long period of time, over twenty
> years. In the typical Hollywood film, the actors are shown to age in stock
> get-ups: hairpieces, make-up, clothes. Brokeback Mountain does these
> things,
> of course, but does them badly. Heath Ledger is shown to age mostly
> through
> really bad lighting, making him look pale and sickly. Which wouldn't be so
> bad if he were an aging goth-kid. But, as he's a ranch hand who would,
> presumbably, be perpetually tanned and hardened, the effect is bizarre.
> Poor
> Gyllenhaal ge's terrible hair and sideburns. At one point it looks like
> the
> fake sideburns are peeling off the side of his face.
>
> There are period details the film gets wrong, particularly in dialogue.
> These fellows say things that weren't in usage in 1963.
>
> The use of music is a disaster. To squeeze in the songs that were recorded
> for the film two of them are within two minutes of each other, and then
> only
> for fifteen seconds each.
>
> Unfortunately, the thing the film gets most wrong is the gay stuff. It's a
> schizoid mixture of styles and stunts. It was not a good sign that I was
> giggling within the first minutes of the film. As the two protagonists
> meet
> for the first time Gyllenhaal swaggers toward Ledger with a look on his
> face
> that one usually only sees in gay bathhouses. The scene is so sexually
> loaded one isn't a bit surprised these two cowboys wind up buttfucking in
> a
> tent. It's just a matter of time. And, so that there should be no doubt
> this
> a gay film subverting the cowboy genre, there is a close-up of Randy
> Quaid's
> ass (also within the first few minutes of the film).
>
> Later, post-tent-coitus, the boys wrassle like something out of Song of
> the
> Loon or one of Bob Mizer's AMG movies of the '50s.
>
> About the film's sole sex scene: Brokeback Mountain presents it as
> uncontrollable passion. Ledger and Gyllenhaal go at like animals. It seems
> Ang Lee wants to have it both ways. He wants to present this slice of gay
> reality while at the same time suggesting that there is nothing gay about
> their sexuality. Perhaps the fault originates in Proulx's story. If we
> lived
> in a more enlightened society the film could have honest about it's real
> subject: bisexuality. It could have been honest about the premeditation of
> desire.
>
> Oh, and the movie is incredibly, fatally, dull. I was positively twitching
> in my seat waiting for it to be over. The only praise I can offer
> whole-heartedly is for Heath Ledger's performance. He's miraculous in the
> film.
>
> ***
>
> Edward Cole - 03:54pm Jan 8, 2006 PDT
>
>>>and sad<<
>
>
> See, I didn't think it was sad. It wanted the viewer to believe it is a
> sad
> movie, but there is no emotional resonance between Jack & Ennis. They're
> like a couple of teenagers sad because the don't get an opportunity to
> neck.
> I dunno. I was never persuaded of their love for one another. The one
> clear
> sex act is more like violence than lovemaking.
>
> The only people for whom I felt bad were the women associated with Ennis.
> Which, now that I think about it, kind of irritates me. It's so Making
> Love
> I want to barf.
>
> Oh, and I wanted to mention my annoyance at the characters' names: Twist
> and
> Del Mar. Both suggest wrongness. What was Proulx thinking? It can mean
> several things, but, unhappily, one of those things is a negative
> judgement
> on homosexuality.
>
> I guess I think that the film is another example of an essentially
> conservative film being propped up as art by well-meaning, but ignorant,
> liberals.
>

[jack]

may i nominate poland for the hall of shame lifetime achievement award awarded only to those with heads so far up their rectum they wouldn't know sunlight from a proctology tool?

[desperadum]

desperadum actually suggested this thread, a few minutes after posting this in the main thread:

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/movies/13shor.html?8hpib

If for some reason this requires registration or subscription (as part of the NYTimes website does not) I included the relevant quotes in my original post.

[Dave Cullen]

This is petty, and I should be grateful for Roger Ebert's positive review, which appears here:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051215/REVIEWS/51019006/1023

But I just couldn't stand the fact that he included the following sentence:

I can imagine someone weeping at this film, identifying with it, because he always wanted to stay in the Marines, or be an artist or a cabinetmaker.

Yes, I understand. He's making a case for the universality of the theme. But it's also true that this is a story about homosexual love.

Let the repressed cabinetmakers get their own movie, dammit!!!

Wow, I felt just the opposite. I loved that line, thought it was one of the best I ever read about the film.

And I kinda take exception to this line: "Let the repressed cabinetmakers get their own movie, dammit!!!"

I'm certainly not against gayguys IDing with this film or feeling a special affection for it, affiliation to it, a sense that it's "our" film. It is ours, in the sense that any art can belong to a group. For us, it's ours. (Just as for a lot of gayguys "All About Eve" and all of Joan Crawford and Bette Davis' work is ours. I don't get that, but I recognize it.)

It's fine for any group to feel a film belongs to them, as long as they don't mean it in the sense of forcing everybody out.

Films belong to everyone. The great thing about films/art is that they can resonate with the most unlikely people, in the most unlikely ways. That's what they're for. I was never an English boy, and I never lived through the London bombings in WWII, but I will cherish Hope & Glory till the day I die. Felt like home to me. Felt like me.

It was supposed to. It wasn't just for Londoners who lived through the bombs.

Brokeback is for everyone. And all those people who wanted to stay in the Marines, or be an artist or a cabinetmaker . . . this film is every bit as much for them as for you or me.

[desperadum]

It's fine for any group to feel a film belongs to them, as long as they don't mean it in the sense of forcing everybody out. Films belong to everyone.

Hear, hear, Dave. You are absolutely right. I can understand a protective feeling of ownership, but it is for everyone, and more that better. It's one of the reasons this particular film has struck such a chord. And I'm sure there are plenty of straight people who like Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, too. I even know some of them.

[brokebackLJ]

I'm certainly not against gayguys IDing with this film or feeling a special affection for it, affiliation to it, a sense that it's "our" film. It is ours, in the sense that any art can belong to a group. For us, it's ours. (Just as for a lot of gayguys "All About Eve" and all of Joan Crawford and Bette Davis' work is ours. I don't get that, but I recognize it.)

No more WIRE HANGERS...EVER!!!!!!
(sorry i couldnt resist...)

[waynerman]

OK, let's see what other folks in Kansas City are saying. In today's Star, thr results are posted from an e-mail survey (which I missed, dammit  ) on BBM. People were invited to send in their comments.

Out of the 89 people who responded:

• 53 were men, 36 were women.
  Of the 30 people who listed sexual preference (sic), 16 said they were gay.
  2 respondents said that they were gay men married to women.
  2 respondents asked that their responses not be printed.
  64 people said the movie was good.
  19 people said the movie was bad.
  13 of the 19 people who said the movie was bad had not seen the movie.
  6 people said they had mixed feelings.

The positive comments that the paper did print are very similar to ones we have seen throughout this forum. Of the negative comments, this one rather gave me a chill:

The worldview that produced Brokeback Mountain insists there are only two options for society: Reject homosexuals or accept what they do as normal. In fact, God commands a third way: Love the person but turn him or her from a life that leads to unthinkable eternal consequences.

That's the latest from Cowtown.

[imennisshesjack]

"13 of the 19 people who said the movie was bad had not seen the movie."

That's quite a comment on our society, isn't it, to condemn something you know nothing about.

*sigh*

[waynerman]

What I should have said, to be more accurate, is this: "13 of the 19 people who said the movie was bad admitted that they had not seen the movie."

Makes you wonder about the other 6--had all of them really seen it? 

[Wayman Wong]

Jack, you may nominate Dave Poland for the ''Hall of Shame Lifetime Achievement Award'' for having his head up his #$% ...

But when it comes to ''dumbass and inane comments,'' Roger Friedman at Fox News has everyone beat by a country mile.

Here we present a litany of the lamest things he's said about ''Brokeback'' so far ... and it's only Jan. 13.

Dec. 9, 2005: ''Focus Features has a lot of trouble on its hands with 'Brokeback.' ... You can [catch] the 30-minute special on VH-1. Maybe it's to desensitize the audience because once 'Brokeback' gets out of San Francisco, it may be harder to fill seats.''

Dec. 14, 2005: ''The most awarded movie of the new season (so far) is Ang Lee's 'Brokeback Mountain,' in which two cowboys make John Wayne spin in his grave by falling in love and having sex. ... Of course, all of this has played out so far only on the coasts. Will 'Brokeback' make it into the suburbs and up into the hills? Will Memphis, Oklahoma City, Hartford and Pittsburgh embrace it as enthusiastically? How about Larchmont, Grosse Point, Scottsdale and River Oaks?''

Dec. 22, 2005: ''Clogged streets may also account for what looks like a slight dropoff in attendance for 'Brokeback Mountain.' ... Has every gay man, sympathetic woman and sensitive straight guy already been through the turnstiles?''

Dec. 23, 2005: ''You wouldn't know it from all the hype and endless critics' awards. But Ang Lee's 'Brokeback Mountain' may be suffering a little burnout in its third week in release. ... Reality is setting in, and reality bites. ... There is hardly a straight male in the U.S. who will see this movie voluntarily. No matter how well made it is - and it is very well crafted - it's hard to imagine a suburban wife coaxing hubby to the Cineplex on Saturday night to see two men consummate their passion.''

Dec. 27, 2005: ''The trend seems to indicate that as 'Brokeback' makes its way into polite society, the interest is starting to wane. It doesn't matter. 'Brokeback' is still assured of a Best Actor nomination for Heath Ledger and maybe Best Picture.''

Dec. 28, 2005: ''If the [Golden] Globes go big time for 'Brokeback Mountain,' that could be the death knell for this film. ... If 'Brokeback' sweeps, this could be curtains for the rodeo romance and set the stage for a 'Munich' march to the Oscars.''

Jan. 5, 2006: ''['Brokeback'] is starting to slow down at the box office. ... Is the novelty of 'BM' starting to wear off?''

Jan. 6, 2006: ''The 'Capote' script is superior to the one for 'Brokeback Mountain,' which is boring and repetitive, in every way. I think the WGA will appreciate Futterman's dialogue much more than McMurtry's mumbling, inexpressive caballeros.''

Jan. 13, 2006: ''While both 'Brokeback' and 'Walk the Line' will make the Academy final five, neither of them will win.''

So far, Friedman seems to be clinging to his Dec. 7 ''Munich'' prediction that ''the Oscars are all [Spielberg's] for the taking.''

Meantime, his drumbeat of ''Brokeback'' bashing has been incessant, and there ''ain't no reins'' on his ignorance or arrogance.

[Timothy]

On January 6, Alex Beam a columnist for the Boston Globe wrote a gloating article about how BBM was playing outside the urban areas.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/01/05/the_passion_of_the_cowboy/

He compares quotes from Frank Rich (predicting success) and Mickey Kaus (predicting no success) and has this to say:

It looks like Mickey Kaus was right and Frank Rich was wrong. After opening strongly in New York and Los Angeles a month ago, ''Brokeback Mountain" is now the 13th most popular movie in the country, according to Variety. It's no failure, but it's not headed for resounding success, either.

His analysis:

Why will ''Brokeback" fail to break out? First and foremost, outside of major cities, many Americans remain jittery at best and disapproving at worst of homosexuality. Even in oh-so-tolerant Hollywood, it's amusing to see ''Brokeback" stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal play up their home-on-the-range heterosexuality in publicity interviews. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

...

Another explanation for the limited appeal of ''Brokeback" is that millions of moviegoers don't want to see men making love to each other on the screen. ''If heterosexual men in heartland America don't flock to see 'Brokeback Mountain' it's not because they're bigoted," Kaus writes. ''It's because they're heterosexual."

Not content to predict doom, Beam gives us a taste of the reason behind his glee:

The movie has its moments -- of unintentional hilarity, that is. Starting with Ledger's dead-on George W. Bush imitation, proceeding through the pretentious, useless soundtrack, directly to this Great Moment in Movie Dialogue: ''I used to wonder how come you never brought any trouts home," Ledger's screen wife says of her husband's regular creekside rendezvous with Gyllenhaal. Silly girl; she thought they went on those trips to go fishing.

If this were a routine boy-girl oater, you could laugh at yourself for spending $9 to ogle sexual disport in the sagebrush. But, alas, it's so much more: a story of men ''crippled by a society that tells them how a man must behave and what he must feel" -- Ebert again. So endure the heavy-handed morality play; just don't plan on having a good time.

I e-mailed Beam and pointed out that the pic had actually gained in the past two days and was (at that time) back up to #8.  I pointed out that it had done amazingly well in its limited foray into the heartland and closed with a suggestion that he actually go see the movie.

His response to me in its entirety was:

seemed pretty clear that i HAD seen the movie, no? or did i just make up those quotes?

Well, since the only quote he used can be seen on the official website for the movie, it's hard to tell if he had seen the movie.  He did not address the fact that his gloating about BBM's "failure" was premature and plain wrong.

I do plan on following up with Beam when it is clearer how Brokeback has done this weekend.  If it stays in the top ten (which is projected) I'll ask him to retract his smarmy review - at least to me.  If Brokeback does much worse than projected and it is clear that the movie is being rejected by Middle America, I'll apologize for criticizing his critique.  somehow I doubt he'll retract anything.