|
| Brokeback Mountain | | Date Created: Jan 29, 2006, 08:08 PM |
 OK, this is a review about a movie I haven't seen. So it's not really a review, it's a comment on the underlying issues of the movie. Here's some of the listserve comment from a friend who did see it that prompted the "review".
It soon became apparent that the only really outstanding aspect of the film was the beautiful scenery...
I never could get comfortable with the accent of the Aussie actor who spoke like a Tex-homan...
Plainly, the awards were for political correctness. There was just nothing "believable" about the film. [My male friend that accompanied me] nailed it: "There was sure a lot of moping."
My thoughts:
I haven't seen the movie but as is typical, I've read enough about it to put it in perspective (and I usually get 4 or 5 out of 6 of the major awards at the Oscars correct without seeing the movies). My wife saw it -- she'd heard a lot about it from friends and felt she had to see it because it will be up for Academy Awards. Her response when asked how she liked it was a noncommital, "It was okay -- good."
The son of our close friends looks just like Jake Gyllenhaal. This is apropos of nothing but it added to the interest here to see the movie.
Having read Michael Medved's wonderful book, Right Turns (though not his earlier, Hollywood vs. America) I have a fairly good perspective on how PC works in Hollywood. Interestingly, I ran across a similar take on another big movie up for Academy Awards, Walk The Line.
Why Hollywood Loves Johnny Cash—and not Merle Haggard
It’s the Man in Black’s politics
My opinion from reading about the movie but not the short story (Proulx) or the screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diane Ossana) and not seeing the movie, is that Hollywood is experiencing problems at the box office just like the record companies are having problems with CD sales. There are a number of reasons for this but Michael Medved feels it's mainly because of its heavy liberal bias that Hollywood thinks it knows what people want to see, but since the majority of the country is more conservative than liberal and only a minority are heavily leftist, pandering to the latter doesn't make movies blockbusters while PG or PG-13 movies can do very well even if they're about penguins. It's the same reason Bush gets elected over a John Kerry liberal in spite of all the media and Hollywood efforts to the contrary.
The other issue is that again like the music business, there's a distinct lack of good movies as well as good music. Most Hollywood movies are sequels, prequels, remakes of earlier movies (equivalent to a cover version of a song), formula action movies, or movies made from buzzworthy books or characters such as comic book heroes. There's just nothing new or exciting out there. Therefore, a concept like a gay relationship between cowboys should be something new and exciting as well as being PC. The idea is that it's like Bonnie and Clyde was to movies back in the 60's -- a new take on an old story. People will flock to it just because of the novelty.
To some extent, I think this is correct and some people are going to see it just because it's different and to see what the fuss is all about. The movie has done well but its awards will far outpace its true value as a potentially great movie.
Like the I Rigobertu Menchu scandal surrounding the book, A Million Little Pieces, and kind of like the "based on a true story" baloney of movies like Erin Brockovitch, I suspect that Brokeback Mountain doesn't seem realistic or ring true to many. Is this a surprise for a PC Hollywood movie? That's the essence of PC -- it's the way some would like to think the world is or what they'd like it to be, not what the real world actually is. Of course movies don't have to be about the way the world actually is, but that's not the impression given of PC movies like Brokeback Mountain.
I've also heard the scenery is great too... |
|
|
|
|
|
