turns out to be a touching story without forcing it; good direction, perfectly subdued performances

Rating: 9/10 (6 January 2006)

Ang Lee is brilliant, for the most part, at controlling the mood of scenes. Some might think its detached, but it really isn't. By building up the story, and then letting the conflict build under the seams, when it comes time for the conflict to come to a head, it really does become touching. That's because Brokeback Mountain, putting aside all of the media's hoopla about it, works best because of Lee's trust in the great screenplay by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, and a few very good performances. To say that the film might be a tad overlong in a couple of spots (maybe it might drag to some, maybe not, the pace picks up where need be) is not a harsh criticism, just an observation. Because aside from that, I couldn't really find much fault in the film. Aside from the 'issue' that's been created that it's a 'gay cowboy movie' (more like a modern gay western, ala out of the Sundance channel gone Hollywood), it's best at being a naturalistic drama.
Lee's eye for vistas and the environments around these characters is fascinating, but that for me wasn't what drew me into the film. What drew me in, and what does draw me into good movies, is the script. McMurtry (a seasoned veteran of dozens of novels set in the west involving sometimes awkward states of reality) and Ossana make the story be all the more real by its structure, and how the dialog goes for the characters. There is barely a false note within the wording of the scenes, even trickier ones to handle like the few, forceful arguments between the characters. And when the climax comes, which will be an emotional one for many (I was even moved, mostly by the subtlety and lack of hope), it doesn't feel compromised like something out of a TV movie. That it's taken from a 50 page short story and turned into a 2+ hour film is quite an achievement. Come Oscar time, it should be them to get a sure-fire nomination, among the other obvious ones (and like the film or not, it's getting its noms).
Heath Ledger, in fact, is more of the central character of this film, as his Ennis meets Jack Twist (Jake Ghylenhaal) while sheep herding in 1963 out on the mountain of the title. One thing leads to another, and then over the course of almost twenty years they see each other on and off to go 'fishing' even as they get married elsewhere and have kids. Each actor, be it the two main males or their wives (Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway, both very good in un-characteristic performances), play it just as it is in the script. Ledger, despite not always being the most clear-spoken actor (if you might not understand a few sentences it's just the way he speaks), gives one of the best performances of his career thus far. The subtlety he displays at times, the innate tendency of his character to hold back, is sometimes staggering. And Ghyllenhaal deserves some equal praise, even as his character isn't nearly as fleshed out or dimensional as the counterpart.
Did I think Brokeback Mountain was a groundbreaking masterpiece. No, probably not. The same issues dealt with in this film have also been dealt with in at least a dozen other films, however more in the independent film world, sometimes even better. And Lee, while talented, isn't my favorite sort of director for these kinds of love stories. But it is a film that grabs your attention, that doesn't hit you over the head with out-right 'messages', and just shows these characters fates as so, over a lifespan that goes on as secret love goes on in the shadows of the mountain. It's well-done, even if it isn't one of my favorite films of the year. A-