ARTSETC.
Slated favorite may fall short
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ray Gustini:
- Gambling tale plays good hand (May 8, 2007)
- Quoteworthy Sanders forecasts cloudy film season (April 30, 2007)
- 'Sopranos' must break static streak, end with a bang (May 2, 2007)
- What would Cusack do? Hollywood needs new John (April 23, 2007)
- Old films boost film fest success (April 16, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Love blooms on cattle ranch (December 9, 2005)
- Ledger heats up screen with 'Casanova' (January 15, 2006)
- Fincher serial thriller filmed under good sign (March 5, 2007)
- Oscar surprises, woes both plentiful (March 7, 2006)
- Film aficionado weighs in on Oscar nominees, makes picks (February 3, 2006)
by Ray Gustini
Monday, February 27, 2006
2005 will be defined as the year of "Brokeback Mountain." Undoubtedly, when film historians consider the year that was 2005, they will immediately point out that it was the year that America embraced Ang Lee's quiet, melancholy epic about the forbidden love of two gay cowboys. They will remember Lee's elegant, nuanced direction. They will remember Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger's brave and earnest performances. They will remember it as a watershed moment in the history of gay cinema.
There are certain things, though, that these historians won't remember — things they probably should remember, since these are going to be the things that cost "Brokeback Mountain" the ultimate prize — the Oscar for Best Picture.
They won't remember, for example, how everybody made fun of the film's painfully earnest catchphrase, "Wish I knew how to quit you!" and how, for a period of time in early 2006, 82 percent of all jokes told somehow revolved around two gay cowboys (the other 18 percent were about hunting with Dick Cheney)
They won't remember the film's seemingly endless press tour, where the stars appeared on every glossy morning magazine show to relentlessly whore out this deeply personal film. They won't remember those painfully awkward moments on the press tour, where all the actors sat around a table and we had to listen to Gyllenhaal and Ledger tell giggly stories about what it was like to kiss each other, only to segue into a conversation about Ledger's (straight) love for his co-star Michelle Williams. People also won't remember how out-of-place Williams and co-star Anne Hathaway seemed (in a movie that features two terrific performances by the leads, Hathaway and Williams seem more like two teenyboppers playing dress up).
These are all things that they should remember because, in the end, these are going to be the reasons that "Brokeback Mountain" will lose Best Picture to "Crash" next Sunday, thus costing the movie a place in history. It will still be remembered as an important film, of course, but won't be remembered as a best picture winner, which will be a serious knock against it for years to come. Whenever anybody talks about it, the first thing anybody will ever talk about is how the movie couldn't get over that final hump and bring home the gold.
Make no mistake about it — in the coming weeks and years, people aren't going to be talking about how "Crash" scored the most stunning comeback victory in the history of the Academy Awards, but, rather, how "Brokeback Mountain" melted down at the finish line.
How, you may ask, could the movie about cowboys NOT win Best Picture in what may go down in history as the year of the gay cowboy movie? Very simply, Jack and Ennis aren't the same gay cowboys they were two months ago. Their mystique and legend has been swept away by the winds of over promotion and public ambivalence.
In December, nobody had really seen "Brokeback Mountain," and those who had spoke about it in hushed, reverential tones. By God, it was art! This was the first mainstream Hollywood movie to take a gay love story and tell it straight (no pun intended).
Back then, the big question, whether critics actually wanted to articulate it (most didn't because of the tricky political ramifications), was how much of an uproar the film would cause in the red states. The assumption, from people I talked to, at least, was that the movie would play well on the coasts, bringing in the target audience of liberal bourgeois. The great fear was that there would be some sort of Middle American uprising against Jack and Ennis — apparently because of the assumption that nobody outside New York or L.A. has ever met a gay person.
In the weeks before Christmas, critics, advocacy groups and publicists were rushing to defend the movie from what they saw as an impending onslaught from outraged family groups. Focus sent the four leads out to aggressively hustle the movie to try and stem what looked like the inevitable revolt against Hollywood. The cultural vultures at Fox News were there, of course, to fan the flames, and Bill O'Reilly confidently predicted that the movie wouldn't play in the Heartland. We were at the brink of cinematic armageddon. All of this before anybody outside of New York or Los Angeles had even seen the film.
And then a funny thing happened. People saw the movie and — gasp! — the world kept right on spinning. It didn't change the public discourse, for better or worse. There were no riots in cities where the film played. We didn't enter into a heartfelt national dialogue about gay rights. It was just another movie. A lovely, well-made movie but, in the end, still just another movie. This is the reason the public has gone to see it in droves and, coincidentally, is also the reason it is not going to win Best Picture.
You see, when the movie was generating controversy, it was trendy and bold to come out in defense of "Brokeback Mountain." By supporting it, you were doing your part for Art, valiantly doing battle against the cultural philistines who wanted to squash the movie. In the end, though, the American public cut through the debate by actually going out and seeing the movie. Supposedly, the White House even got a copy. The response was generally positive, but also curiously muted: People liked the movie but then dismissed it. The only way the movie stayed in the public consciousness was through the jokes, which have gotten to the point of being a cultural phenomenon, far beyond the reach of the movie itself. Commercial success has marginalized the film's artistic merits.
Academy voters are now reexamining the candidates for Best Picture and, by and large, are finding that "Crash" may indeed be the best of all the nominees. Here is a movie with life. It is a living, breathing, gloriously flawed movie that captures America in action. Director Paul Haggis paints in broad, decisive, strokes. This is all in sharp contrast to the small, focused nature of "Brokeback Mountain," a movie with themes as big as life itself, yet one that tells a story on a frustratingly small scale. "Brokeback" is all precision and control, whereas "Crash" is all about passion. Passion usually wins out.
When "Brokeback" loses, the inevitable discussion will be about why it didn't win Best Picture, which will probably start the controversy all over again. In doing so, people will probably raise some of the points I have already made. Allow me to add just one more: maybe "Crash" really is a better movie than "Brokeback Mountain." Maybe this wasn't really the year of gay cowboys at all but, rather, was a year for everybody in America to take stock of themselves and their country. In comparison with "Crash" (and, to a lesser degree, "Munich" and "Good Night, and Good Luck"), "Brokeback Mountain" doesn't even register. It's a lovely little romp through the countryside of good intentions, but in the end, it is a shockingly irrelevant contribution to a year full of risky filmmaking. We are living in a dangerous time that calls for dangerous movies, and frankly speaking, "Brokeback Mountain's" 15 minutes are just about up. It's time to get serious.
Ray Gustini is a freshman majoring in political science and history. He can be reached for question or comment at gustini@wisc.edu.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 8:06am):
What a load of balderdash!
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 9:54am):
I suggest you see Brokeback mountain again...its all about Passion...for life, love, and the human spirit. It is so popular because it does tackle huge universal themes of lose and love and and the complexity of life and puts them on a very small and personal level. Shockingly irrelevant? I dont think so. Crash may be a film with life, but Brokeback is about life. The regrets, the heartbreak, and a life half lived...we all, even you Mr. Gustini, can surely relate. You have managed to join the rest of the media hounds. Brokeback bashing is in now. So your article is a lovely well made article, but in the end, just another article.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 1:58pm):
Wrong, Mr. Gustini. Brokeback Mountain ranks as epic. A true masterpiece, not just a good movie. You say Crash (highly overrated) depicted real, "living and breathing America"...Brokeback Mountain I guess didn't? Crash was based on a story told in America over and over and over and over again and (asn't even told that well).
Brokeback needed a viewing (FINALLY)
up on the big screen and it let few who saw it down. It was certainly the best picture of the year even if it is difficult for other(s)to concede to it. Period.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 2:11pm):
A freshman majoring in political science and history?! Typical of most young people hovering around the age of 20, you have all the theory yet none of the experience, yet still attempt to express opinions dressed in the vestments of a more "weathered" individual. A word to the wise, my son: --Best picture awards rarely have anything to do with merit, but everything to do with who has campaigned the most successfully. There will be more graft than craft making the lions share of influence in the deciscion of Academy upper echelons. Remember! --you're living in America. You may very well be correct in your supposition, but not for the rather naive argument you've stated.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 2:53pm):
I think the movie's greatness might also explain why reaction was muted. This is a complex, ambiguous film. The film's heroes are not immediately likable men (unlike, say, the heroes of Titanic).
I felt a tremendously conflicted set of emotions after seeing the movie, sympathizing both for the men and for the wives they to some degree treated so poorly. There's no one to clearly root for in the movie, and there's no easy solution.
The movie underscores the complex moral bind we are all thrown into by homophobia and by the lies and deceit that so many gay men and lesbians feel necessary. What's worse: lying? or being forced to lie? The film forces these questions; mutedness or ponderousness are a sign of the film's power, not its weakness.
This is no gay rights film. But it is an anti-homophobia film. The film's brilliance comes in knowing the difference between the two.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 4:03pm):
Crash is like, about racism, right? Oh my god, I can like, totally relate to that! And like, there were so many hot famous people in it, like oh my god! Gosh, we're all such terrible people. We should learn not to be racist. My gay friend told me so.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 5:13pm):
He's not saying brokeback" is a bad movie, just that "Crash" is a better one. He also is saying that the overexposure is really what's killing the movie. Everybody here is just rallying against his opinions, even though they pretty much all get backed up.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 8:22pm):
Very interesting comments. I agree that Crash is a phenomenal movie and deserves the Oscar as much as Brokeback. But I think your assesement that Brokeback has overstayed its welcome in the public consciousness is incorrect. And to say that it is shockingly irrelevant in this years crop of movies is a bit much. I would argue that Brokeback has generated and held more discussions throughout the country, indeed the world as far as cinema goes, than any other movie this year. And if people are indeed starting to focus on other things after 3 months that's absolutely fine; it doesn't diminish the impact the movie had. Last I heard, a three month monopoly on the movie going public is an all out success. As good as Crash is, I don't think itgrabbed a hold of our society and made you pay attention the way Brokeback has.
Though I do think Brokeback deserves the win for these reasons, I'm not going to say it's better than Crash because the truth is i believe they were together the best movie experiences of the year. But Brokeback deserves better than you're giving it.
Anonymous (February 27, 2006 @ 8:26pm):
I actually think the argument in this column is that Brokeback Mountain will not receive Best Picture because, after seeing it, "[w]e didn't enter into a heartfelt national dialogue about gay rights."
This is a poor measure of a film's worth or greatness (both of which are indeed somewhat irrelevant to the Academy -- at least, the Hollywood one). If the film's supporters made such outlandish claims beforehand, then they were mistaken.
What the film did do -- and this is much more subtle, much more an indication of its success -- is force private conversations about the complexities homosexuality introduces into contemporary American life. I, for one, had several fascinating and exacting conversations with my mother about the movie. She, in turn, talked about the film with her girlfriends for weeks (they all went together).
These dialogues seem slowly to be helping us to see homophobia as deeply immoral and as injurious not only to gay men and lesbians, but to all of us. This kind of moral grappling won't happen in advocacy groups, or on the Bill O'Reilly show, or because it has become trendy. And it won't come as a "national conversation." It will come as hundreds of thousands of people grapple, with friends and family or alone, with a disturbing, contemplative, ethical work of art.
Whether or not this is the fodder of a Best Picture award, who cares? Win or lose, to my mind Brokeback Mountain has already lived up to its promise.
Anonymous (March 7, 2006 @ 11:25am):
Can we all just agree that, in retrospect, this guy should be given some kind of prognosticators award of his own
