Review: Brokeback Mountain

Starting in the early 1960s in Wyoming, open-faced Jack (Oscar nominee Jake Gyllenhaal) and silent, tightly clenched Ennis (Oscar nominee Heath Ledger) are hired as sheep-herders by Joe Aguirre (a surprisingly sour Randy Quaid, showing his versatility) on the title mountain. One is supposed to camp at the foot of the mountain, whilst the other stays up in the hills with the flock. Then one night, the somewhat bolder Jack makes a move on Ennis whilst sharing a tent on a cold night. The next morning, Ennis, engaged to long-suffering Alma (Michelle Williams, also Oscar-nominated) calls the incident a ‘one time deal’ (he’s seems a little more aware of the consequences given the time and place and from his own experiences with a homophobic dad), but still the duo keep coming back to Brokeback Mountain, on secret ‘fishing trips’, unable to get the other person out of their head or heart. Anne Hathaway is good as the spunky Rodeo queen rich girl Jack ends up marrying. She shows an awful lot of charm in a scene-stealing turn (but isn’t in the film a whole lot), before her character turns somewhat embittered. Linda Cardellini (whose Velma in “Scooby-Doo” seemed stuck in the closet herself) also scores in a smaller role as another woman in Ennis’ life as the years go by.

The first time I saw this film, I mostly liked it well enough. It’s a lot better than “Crash”, which won the Best Picture. However, I felt its praise was more politically-motivated than anything artistically-motivated. For me, the central relationship in particular lacked definition, and it seemed like Jack and Ennis were less in love and more taking advantage of the fact that they were the only other gay person they knew at that time and place, and also had an obvious bond. But I didn’t think it was so much romantic, as sexual, and I don’t believe that really makes a love story. Seeing the film again, I still have that issue. Yes, Jake Gyllenhaal’s big blue eyes give Ledger some longing looks, but most of that is just in the first half of the film, and whilst I wouldn’t necessarily suggest that their subsequent relationships are indicative of heterosexuality, it does seem to muddy the waters in regards to Jack and Ennis being deeply in love with one another. Jack for instance, when in scenes with Anne Hathaway, you’d swear he was not merely bi but actually straight as an arrow. It just muddies things too much, and Jack seems a different guy with Ennis than he is with Hathaway. Completely different, as in he doesn’t seem uncomfortable with being with someone other than the man he supposedly deeply loves. With Ennis, there’s definite inner turmoil and he’s obviously using a heterosexual marriage as a cover. You could argue that Jack is bisexual, fair enough. However, if he’s in love with Ennis, he sure has a funny way of showing it. At least with Ennis he’s with a woman ‘coz he’s coming to grips with his sexuality and trying not to get killed for it. I get that the time and place would’ve put restrictions on how often they could be together, but based on the evidence of what I saw on screen, I just wasn’t seeing this great love story, much as I would’ve liked to. And the restrictions of the society and period in the film is no excuse not to give us the sense of romantic bond. The second time they have sex, you can kinda see a connection forming between them (and to be fair, it’s hard to get much out of Ennis’ introverted character at all), but the longer the film goes on, and they’ve gone their separate ways, the harder it is to see the bond. Besides, their sex, in an otherwise sensitive and beautiful film (perhaps a little too sensitive and restrained), isn’t exactly tender. It seems almost like uncontrolled horniness, if anything. It looks like lust, not love, and thus the impact was lesser for me. You figure if Ennis had never met Jack, he’d get what he needed elsewhere anyway, and vice versa (And indeed Jack does seem to be longing for love, I’m just not 100% convinced he wants that solely with Ennis).

The other big issue that still bothers me is with the Michelle Williams character (Alma). It’s not much of a spoiler to reveal that she sees Jack and Ennis together in a compromising position, and yet she takes forever to do anything about this information. I’ve read some people excusing this as Alma being ill-equipped to understand what she has seen due to the time and place. Bullshit. She sees her husband sticking his tongue down another dude’s throat. Even in the 1960s, there ain’t much room for interpretation there. Your husband likes dudes, sweetheart. I mean, come on, at the very least she should’ve worked it out when he decides to do her in the arse at one point. Hello? Forget the fishing equipment, lady, he was kissing a guy! Maybe the time period puts pressure on married couples to stay together, but that doesn’t really wash here, given what happens to their marriage anyway. It just strained credibility for me and had me not sympathising with her as much as I would’ve liked. I also think the episodic structure hurts things a bit (so do some clunkily integrated flashbacks), and ultimately the film seems to say a bit less than Mr. Lee perhaps thought it did. The ending is a mixed bag. The scene involving one of the men’s parents is extraordinary, with the actors playing the parents saying a helluva lot without actually having much dialogue. It’s a shame the film doesn’t end there, because the symbolism in the final scene is awfully stinky. Make no mistake, though. This is a good film and an important one, it’s just that it’s a flawed film, and it could’ve been a lot better. Perhaps it was rushed out in order to make a timely political statement, as it indeed was accused of at the time (not the rushing part, just the politics).

The performances are excellent all-round, especially the two leads. Ledger gives one of those vocal inflections that sounds like it’s painful for Ennis to form words, and although a bit actor-y, it suits the role. More so than the last time I saw this, Ledger’s death had me looking back on his work in this film with a mixture of pride (as a fellow Aussie) and sadness that such a talent would only live a little while longer. Here, as in “The Dark Knight” you could see he had grown into an interesting and versatile actor. Gyllenhaal is great as his polar opposite; open-faced, charismatic, and somewhat naive, unlike Ennis who knows what it’s like to be who they are in this sometimes-unfriendly world. Yes, they share things in common, but their personalities are definitely wildly different. You don’t worry so much about Ennis as you do the less experienced and more naïve Jack. Your heart breaks for poor Jack, because the guy clearly just wants to be loved. Whether Ennis was his one true love or not, I think is debatable, however. Credit where it’s due, you get a real sense of how lonely it must’ve been to be these guys in the 60s, even when Ennis has gotten married and started a family. Is he specifically lonesome for Jack? I’m not so sure, but nonetheless there’s a genuine sense that it wasn’t easy for these guys to be who they were. The film is very much a plea for tolerance, making the ending, heavy-handed or not, quite devastating. Despite the subject matter and my problems with the character of Alma, it’s really sweet to see Ledger and Michelle Williams together here, given this is the film where they met and fell in love (and subsequently split, but let’s not think about that). Anne Hathaway is absolutely incandescent and hot as hell here, in one of her best-ever performances. She’s lively and amusing early on but even sells the later bitterness really well, despite some horrible wigs. At any rate, I love Anne Hathaway, and it’s wonderful to see her mature as an actress. Linda Cardellini doesn’t have much screen time, but she and her amazing cleavage liven up the latter stages of the film. It’s kinda funny seeing Velma from the “Scooby Doo” films playing a straight woman in a film about gay sheepherders. Frankly frivolous lawsuit (against the filmmakers) aside, Randy Quaid’s turn as the no-nonsense employer is top-notch and a reminder of the Emmy Award-winning actor’s genuine talent and versatility. He’s certainly smart enough of an actor not to take too much of a heavy-handed approach with the role, even if the word ‘subtle’ will likely never be associated with Randy Quaid. Such a shame that subsequent to this film, he appears to have completely lost his mind. Like Hathaway and Cardellini he’s not in the film enough, but his weight, some coded dialogue, and a few chosen glances say a helluva lot about his character, and he definitely has a slight intimidation factor about him.

As I’ve said earlier, the film’s use of symbolism is rather heavy-handed and annoying. It’s really a gay sheepherder movie rather than a gay cowboy movie (and the term ‘gay’ might not even be appropriate, either), but with all the pretentious Marlboro Man posing the main characters do, it’s tough to tell the difference sometimes. And did we really need the transition from Ennis taking Alma from behind and cutting to Gyllenhaal riding rodeo? I thought that was a tad unnecessary. Also worth mentioning are the Gustavo Santaolalla music score and cinematography by Rodriego Prieto. It’s a beautiful-looking and sounding film, even if Santaolalla’s score (impossible to get out of your head) is a bit repetitive.

The screenplay is by Larry McMurtry (“Hud”, “The Last Picture Show”, “Lonesome Dove”) and Diana Ossana (who apparently wrote most of the relationship scenes), from a short story by Annie Proulx. This isn’t my kind of western (no, not because it’s about gay sheepherders), and the film isn’t everything it could be, but there’s no doubt that this is still a solid film. It’s a sad, sensitive film that I’m sure lots of people took something important away from.  

Rating: B-