Short Review: Sometimes there are moments when the fast-forward button ain't fast enough.


I just sat there muttering, “Well, I don’t do that.”

It is easy to mock this film. It’s about gay cowboys (for you hypersensitive clods, yes I know they are sheepherders and there is a difference - settle down), the jokes are inherent. Furthermore, it is difficult to speak about this film without falling into juvenile double entendres (not that I’m above being juvenile.) Much of this has to do with the average person's reaction to homosexuality in particular when it is hung over a mismatched environment. Even more of this has to do with the unbelievably stupid marketing that surrounded the release of this film.

Much has been said about the agenda framing this production and I have nothing new to add there. The main thrust of the piece is to deconstruct the American image of the cowboy. The point is to muddy the image. This is the well-worn path of post modernists. Impulsively reject a social construct, then remake it in your image by lowering its standards. Once the image has been dismantled, you can shove in a new icon or idea that is more to your liking. By now this kind of redefining of American culture, language and attitudes has become tedious in most respects. We have seen it constantly throughout the past decades. Superheroes like Superman and Batman are no longer heroic, they're conflicted and dark (Superman Returns, The Dark Knight). Cowboys don't wear white and black hats, they're either wolves or sheep being led to the same slaughterhouse (3:10 to Yuma).

This deconstruction is nearly mocked in this case. It is so over overwhelmingly obvious that the icon image of the rugged American man, in full cowboyesque dress is being tampered with and on purpose.

Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) are sheep herders who fall in lust while monitoring a herd on Brokeback Mountain. These two characters could have been in any line of work, surrounded by nearly any environment, and this story would have still worked. The choice to make them rugged, outdoorsmen who are easily mistaken for cowboys is an intentional move - a move done to challenge our iconic thoughts and sully them publicly.

The social marketing aspect of this film is a shame because this is a fully realized and forceful film. Particularly impress is Heath Ledger who proved himself to be one of the best actors of his generation in his role as Ennis, a mealy mouthed loner who apparently likes to ride the range. Ledger coupled with Ang Lee’s masterful direction and Rodrigo Prieto’s heart stopping cinematography makes this one of the better made films of 2005.

But then there is all of that gay sex stuff.


Listen, I’ll be honest, I’m not reflectively against exploring all aspects of human behavior in art. The human experience is rich and interesting and should be discussed in film, but let’s be real about it. It’s one thing to speak to homosexual behavior, it's another to shove it down the audience’s throat.

This is by its nature a controversial film, but the way it was marketed was disgusting. At first it the whole gay cowboy thing was ignored and the original commercials simply played up the images of men herding their sheep. Once poor grandma and grandpa were lured in thinking they were getting a western to find two guys locking stirrups, the ads changed. The Oscars were coming* around and there ads splashed around claiming this to be the “date movie” of the year. No guy in his right mind is ever taking his lady out to see two confused sheepherders play slap and tickle. The first set of ads lied by omission and the second set just lied outright.

Something that irritates me about this film is people’s reaction. Liberals and gays tend to tried to use this as a social barometer of how “accepting” America was towards homosexuality. If you have issues with this film you’re a homophobe. If you mock the stupidity at the heart of the film, you’re hateful. This is unfair. The concept of two apparently straight (or at least one of them is) cowboys falling in love while on the job and doing whatever it is they do when they get together was laughable. Which explains why every one was laughing. This film was not a reflection on American values it was a reflection on how out of touch the elite class was with the world.

While there are many honest and believable moments, the relationship at the middle of the story is flimsy. The initial homosexual encounter between the two main characters Ennis and Jack Twist in the infamous “pup tent scene” is inorganic to say the least. I think we can assume that two men who supposedly are tough cowboys don’t rush into a homosexual adventure without due diligence. Even if they did, the way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The two guys are just hanging out and then decide to go for a test drive? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been that drunk. Furthermore, the two leads don’t have a deep enough emotional connection to support the notion these two men being obsessed with one another of twenty years. If we’re to understand their love for one another, the roots of that love are not explained or shown. If it were simply lust and lust wouldn’t sustain the hell these two guys are forced to inhabit.

Speaking of hell, I watched the whole film. I do have to admit I found a surprisingly moral message if taken a certain way. The two men have an “encounter” otherwise known as “rough gay sex” up on Brokeback Mountain and spend the rest of their lives drowning in their obsession for one another. Their “love” destroys their lives and the lives of their families. I found this film to be less about homosexuality (actually these guys are bisexual but who’s keeping count) and more about sin.

The two guys commit a sin on Brokeback Mountain and ruin their lives trying to retain that moment. In fairness to the production, this is hardly an advertisement for homosexual behavior, as many believe it to be. While the film makes some lame attempts to blame the horror of these men’s lives on society not allowing their love to speak its name - it ends showing what happens to those who are unable to turn from their selfish desires.

Do I recommend this film? No.

That no in place, I do have to admit this is a very well-done film and it has a humanity to it that is undeniable. The problem is that the bloated agenda at the core is undeniable. This is a social marketing movie. If one is able to get over the homosexual scenes (see my short review) and look at this film from the standpoint of sin more than gayness, one may get something from this production. Then again, dropping the homosexual aspects of this film is like trying to drop all of that icky “holocaust stuff” from Schindler’s List.


Related Reviews:
Heath Ledger movies
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
Casanova (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
Roger Ebert



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Anne Hathaway, film, Heath Ledger, Jake Glyyenhaal, movie reviews, Randy Quaid, social marketing