A groundbreaking and important film

Rating: 10/10 (12 December 2009)

Homosexuality has been depicted in films for ages, but typically it is used as a subplot or a buried secret. This is especially true of mainstream films (before "Brokeback Mountain," no film in wide release dealt openly about homosexuality). Ang Lee's courageous film finally brings homosexuality out into the open. With it, it brings to light the fears and feelings that many people face, but most don't know or understand.
Ennis del Mar (the late great Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) meet in the summer of 1963 working as sheep herders for Joe Aguirre (Randy Quaid). But the more time they spend together, the more they realize that a mutual attraction is growing between them. Both recognize the love that they feel for each other, but this is 1963, and such a relationship can have consequences. They agree that this was a one time thing, but staying away from each other is harder than they think.
For a film that is intended to break new ground and open a lot of doors for discussion, it has to be good. And "Brokeback Mountain" is excellent.
The performances are superb. Without a doubt, the beating heart of the film is the romance between Ennis and Jack, and Ledger and Gyllenhaal are more than up to the task. Ennis is the central character. He knows what he feels, but his fears and need to keep a level of normalcy keeps him from acting on it. Ledger is nothing short of incredible in his performance. I haven't seen "Capote," but quite honestly, Philip Seymour Hoffman must have been REALLY good to steal the Best Actor Oscar from Ledger (interesting note: some claimed that Ledger had more work to do, as he created a lot of Ennis's qualities from nothing, while Hoffman merely mimicked Capote). Ledger creates a truly memorable character that everyone (straight, gay, bi, in the closet) can identify with. Jake Gyllenhaal matches Ledger beat for beat. Like Ennis, Jack is a little confused by his feelings, but unlike Ennis, he is not tortured by fear and insecurity. He knows what he wants, and is content to get it; his only obstacle is to convince Ennis to join him.
The female actresses are just as good, although their roles are strictly supporting. Michelle Williams is solid, although her Oscar nod was a little surprising; her part is pretty small and her development is stunted to make room for the Jack/Ennis romance. Williams plays Alma, Ennis' wife. She loves her husband, but she wonders why Ennis never comes back from his fishing trips with any fish, even though she asked him. In my opinion, Anne Hathaway should have gotten her first Oscar nod here. She instantly sheds off her Disney past as Lureen, Jack's self-absorbed wife. Lureen is so caught up in her own life that she doesn't even begin to notice anything strange going on about her husband's frequent trips up north. Linda Cardellini is excellent as Cassie, the waitress who falls for Ennis. But he's so conflicted by his own feelings that he alienates not only her, but everyone else. Anna Faris is unrecognizable as Lureen's chatterbox friend.
Ang Lee is hailed as one of the greatest modern filmmakers around, and rightly so. He has created two masterpieces, and his other works are not far behind. If you look at his resume, you'll notice that none of his films are in any way related to each other. Lee has tremendous versatility, and he refuses to be confined to one type of genre, which I highly value. Although Lee got his long overdue Oscar for "Brokeback Mountain," this is neither his best film nor his best directing. Lee has been known for his subtlety, and while that often works in his films, it doesn't quite make the mark here. We understand the emotions that the characters are feeling, but the film is so subtle that we can barely feel them, if at all. Part of the reason is that he brings every scene out equally. The main story is the Jack/Ennis relationship. But Lee brings the other scenes out to the same level, and while they work on their own, one scene's effectiveness comes at the cost of the other.
Four years after the release of the film, it is obvious that "Brokeback Mountain's" goals have been achieved. It opened a lot of doors for discussion, and it was widely seen. But did it get to the people that really needed to see it? One of the problems in our society today in terms of LGBT rights is the stigma attached to homosexuality. The stereotype of gay men as being effeminate or "emo" is everywhere, and I think that really hampers the acceptance of it by some men. "Brokeback Mountain" addresses this social stigma in a way that should be enlightening. So if you think that being gay is not "manly," see it. It will change your perception of gay men. As for those who are turned off by it being a romance, I'd like to quote Richard Roeper (though in a different context): Get over it. Yes, it's a romance, but sappy, it is not. This is not "The Notebook," nor "Titanic," despite the associations with it. Besides, it's 2.5 hours. What have you got to lose? There is no doubt that this was the most talked about film of 2005. After viewing the film, I think this is based not so much on quality, but because of what it means to society. Don't get me wrong, this is a wonderful film. But it's not perfect. Being socially liberal, I was disappointed at its loss to "Crash." After viewing the film twice, I have to admit that "Crash" is an overall better film. But in all honesty, no one is really going to remember "Crash" in a few years. However, they will remember "Brokeback Mountain" because of its importance. And really, that's all that matters.