|
|
|
|
|
How “Brokeback Mountain” Appeals to Us
All...and why the
best film of 2005 won't win the Oscar
(January, 20 2006) The year is over
and the Oscar Race is upon us. The early indicators—the victory at Golden
Globes and the critics’ picks—have all but guaranteed “Brokeback Mountain”
the little golden baldie for Best Picture. But is it really the best film of
2005 or a safe consensus pick? By safe, I don’t mean content, because the gay
love story of two cowboys is anything but safe. It’s controversial, if not
incendiary. But that’s also what makes it safe. Let me explain, a safe film
for critics and Hollywood types, is one that pushes the boundaries, but stays
within the boundaries. If that sounds like circuitous nonsense, I’ll cite
“American Beauty,” “Midnight Cowboy” and “Forrest Gump.” At the heart of each
lies a seminal motif, which fronts a socially sensitive subtext. For “Midnight
Cowboy” it’s the pursuit of the American Dream layered over the failure of
that dream and homosexuality. At the core of “American Beauty” is longing for
love, coming of age and self-discovery while familial dysfunction rages away
underneath. And “Forrest Gump” is about learning to live with disability,
finding that something special in you and fighting the odds while darker
issues of sexual abuse and how we as a society treat the mentally challenged
with poor regard, claw from the fringe. In the case of “Brokeback
Mountain” it’s the torment of forbidden love with two rugged A-list actors
making out and humping away. It’s edgy, sentimental, well-crafted and blends
an archetypal theme with a socially provocative issue. In short, it’s safe. “Brokeback Mountain” has been well
received, and rightfully so. The only harsh (and surprisingly few) words
about the film have come from voices tied to ideologies that condemn
homosexuality. Sure, it has its flaws—the formation of the bond between the
two men, which the story hangs on, is anemically developed, and the aging of
two boyish men over decades requires some suspension of disbelief—but the
wrenching saga of being trapped and unable to love freely is heartfelt and
universal. That said, when I first saw
“Brokeback Mountain” last November, I walked out of the theater feeling I had
witnessed a gorgeous and sweeping film that would generate provocative
dialogue, but I didn’t think I had just seen the movie that would be
universally lauded as the best of 2005. Then, in early December, I sat
stunned¡ªnot disappointed mind you¡ªwhen the Boston Society of Film Critics
(of which I am a member) tallied up the votes and named “Brokeback Mountain”
the Best English Language Film, edging out “Munich.” No one vigorously
campaigned for the film during the discussions, but it’s what we picked.
Other critics’s circles followed suit and when I sat down to compile my top
ten after the holidays I felt anxious, almost negligent, when “Brokeback
Mountain” didn’t make the cut. I didn’t feel that way about the others that
landed on my second ten (“Murderball,” “Pride and Prejudice,” “Nobody Knows,”
“Old Boy,” “Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room,” “Happy Endings,”
“Jarhead,” “Sin City,” and “Match Point”), but I did feel the need to check
myself and reaffirmed in my mind that films like “Syriana” and “Crash” (which
are on my top ten) presented more relevant and timely issues. A weekend of
reflection and the answer was an emphatic yes, especially “Syriana” with its
disturbing depiction of the international labyrinth of politics and shifting
allegiances in the Middle East, driven by oil and greed. It’s critical, eye
opening and cautionary. Films like “Syriana” hold
a lot at stake and take the viewer to places they hadn’t been before.
Strangely, I felt as if I had seen large swaths of “Brokeback Mountain”
before. It was brave, yes, but was it bold? Movies like “Midnight Cowboy” and
“Philadelphia” had put A-list actors in gay roles before, and “Making Love”
(1982), which dealt with a prominent doctor’s repressed homosexual love while
trapped in a heterosexual marriage, seemed to have already blazed the path.
And yet “Brokeback Mountain” has an undeniable air of freshness to it. Much
of which can be attributed to the epic scope and feel that director Ang Lee
and screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana have imbued the film with.
The scrumptious rendering of the central landmark by cinematographer Rodrigo
Prieto is a beguiling wonderment and of course, Heath Ledger’s simmering performance
is both heroic and breakthrough. It’s only too bad he’s up against Philip
Seymour Hoffman in “Capote” and David Strathairn in “Good Night and Good
Luck.” Overall, 2005 has been a banner year for male roles/performances. One could ponder that
over the past year or so, gay marriage has become such a social political
lightening rod, that “Brokeback Mountain” has struck a nerve and critics as
well as the Hollywood rewards machine have taken up the cause with their
selection. Of course many would retort that “Brokeback Mountain” is a
universal love story where the protagonists just happen to be gay. And I’d be
quick to remind them, that if Ennis Del Mar (Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake
Gyllenhaal) weren’t gay, there’d be nothing to it, Ennis and Jaclyn (I’m
placing a heterosexual twist on the couple) could go live up on the bucolic
mountain and fish and hunt and live in bliss without the burden of barriers
imposed by society and their own conflicted sense of manhood. The movie would
end before it started. The point
being that their sexual orientation has everything to do with it, otherwise
movies with forbidden or impossible loves, like “King Kong” and “Memoirs of a
Geisha,” would meet the draw. Of course, one, while heartfelt, is purely
fantasy, and the other, while a promising premise, never lives up to its
potential. Perhaps most of all what
makes “Brokeback Mountain” the safe choice is its eternal twisting duality.
It’s traditional, yet controversial, old, but new, foreign, but familiar,
passionate, but not racy, macho, yet tender. It packs a lot in. And it’s a
tribute too, how easy anyone with an open mind can access the emotional
current. It’s a predicament few have been in, but all can recognize. Plus
there’s an inordinate amount of intimacy communicated through the banality of
the characters’ lives¡ªlives that are not all that different from anyone
watching the movie. Films like “Syriana,” “Munich” or “A History of Violence”
are more straight faced, single facetted beasts that ask a lot of the viewer,
both throughout and afterwards. They are not films that that creep into the
heart the way “Brokeback Mountain” does. They may carry a greater power to
provoke, but they’re not as accessible. And maybe that’s the power of
“Brokeback Mountain.” Not everyone agrees on “Syriana,” Munich,” “Crash” or
“A History of Violence,” but everyone is comfortable with “Brokeback
Mountain.” It may not be anyone’s
number one, but it touches everyone. It’s been a solid year in film (perhaps
not at the box office, but in terms of quality) and maybe that’s why no one
can agree. With choice comes debate and dissent, and that’s when the safe
choice rises to the top. - TBM |
|
|
|
|
|