Hi David Thank you for this great piece - well written, well thought-out and ... well, just a pleasure to read.
I still haven't seen this damn film. I am probably the LAST person in the Western World who hasn't seen it. It's a lonely place to be .. I SHALL see it though. Yes, indeed. Shelly ----Original Message Follows---- From: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: [MOPO] REVISED: Brokeback Mountain's winning strategy II Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:46:19 -0800 Added a few more words. ** There are always exceptions to trends, e.g., unrolling a release campaign so that word-of-mouth turns a film into a "must-see-event." So while Kirby says, what's in the "grooves" of a record ultimately decides long-term success, that's not true most of the time. There are many fine films that never make more than a few million; they get great word of mouth but savvy marketing is still required for the greater body of success stories. The worst example of a low-budget indie film with GREAT MARKETING and great word-of-mouth (esp. among the 20-somethings) -- that became a box office smash DESPITE BEING A STINKER -- was "The Blair Witch Project." ----------- ** I believe Brokeback's success has everything to do with curiosity from straight people intrigued about a film that's being spun as a straight-ahead romance; and they're being influenced NOT because of its critical raves --- but because of the awards and nominations it has deservedly snared. I know this cuz critical raves in ads are a staple and don't guarantee success. Award nominations however are published as "news" on the front page. So you're more likely to be aware of 'em. And many great films drop off the map if they're not honored or ignored around awards time. (So "Match Point" drops off, "King Kong" drops off, "In Her Shoes" drops off, "Pride and Prejudice" drops off, "The Constant Gardener" drops off and "Walk the Line" plays second fiddle despite both acting leads snaring key nominations.) ** Brokeback has the most Oscar nominations of any film. This is too compelling to ignore. One has to think about it and make a decision -- and the tenderness and sensitivity of the ad campaign -- which doesn't allow the film, as reported by the WSJ, to be pulled into a "political circus act," in my view, is its greatest strength. How do I know? Because the religious right is dead silent about this film -- and you know they'd be out w/pickets regardless if the hard left decided (and they didn't) to make this a lightning rod to champion gay rights. The lack of controversy is what's wonderful. It now boils down to a matter of whether this is the kind of film -- which is being marketed as a sensitive, ground-breaking romance -- that you wanna spend $10 to see. And because the film is more character- than politically-driven -- because there are no "speeches" in its script -- it is triumphant -- even though, in my view, it's NOT AS GOOD as I expected. ----------- ** As noted in an earlier post, the fact the crowd around our office water cooler is talking about "Brokeback" is revealing. As a viewing experience, Ang Lee brings sensitivity to the subject matter without causing prejudicial discomfort in audience members who have made the decision to spend money for tickets, gasoline and a few hours out of the house to see a film about a universal feeling, which is love. The result is "Brokeback" -- which in a hack director's hands could've been explosive and controversial -- has instead "crossed over," demanding your attention. And like it or not, there are, on a percentage basis, more straight people than gay and you have to blow up the walls between 'em to make a film like this a success. More simplistically, some people just want what's being advertised, and that's a love story that results in a tugging of hearts. One gets the feeling around the office that the film deserves to be seen, esp. now that it's the centerpiece in the run-up to March 5, the night of the awards. But whether you're straight or gay, the reaction from "my crowd" who has thus far seen the film -- has been mixed. And I am NOT surprised. There has been a "let-down." ----------- ** Again, tho the film was a disappointment to me, it is historical and ranks about a "7.5" on my 1-10 scale -- and it's only because as I wrote to a friend last night, I'm old school and corny and I like to be emotionally involved as soon as possible. I must connect and care. Anything that's good never feels too long, whether it's 3 hrs. or in this case, 2 hrs. & 15 min. But I didn't gain emotional traction until 1 hr. 50 min. in -- and this is not right for a guy like me who averages 50 paid admissions a year who is constantly searching for something to break through (not bragging, but our multi-plex is less than a mile away, so it's not too difficult, esp. weeknights). But I'm easily frustrated. ** Heath Ledger is mesmerizing throughout the pic and I'm perturbed cuz when the camera shifts toward Gyllenhaal, well, by the 1 hour mark, I've figured him out and I look at him as the lesser half of what's supposed to be a great couple. And a great romance has you rooting for BOTH halves to get together in some way -- even in a tragedy. You're sad they aren't or can't be together. ** What's bad is that in "Brokeback," I'm more sad for Heath Ledger's frustrations than Gyllenhaal's. Gyllenhaal's "Jack" comes off selfish, self-centered and destructive. And it's NOT just because, as some might say, "hey, it's the way his character was written; people like him really exist." No, I think Gyllenhaal is mis-cast. When I see him, I see the love-struck dumb kid in "The Good Girl" w/Jennifer Aniston or the wide-eyed nerdy guy in "October Sky" w/Laura Dern. ** But when the camera is on Heath Ledger's "Ennis," not ONCE did I ask, "isn't he that kid in "A Knight's Tale" or "The Patriot?" No I thought, "geez, I don't recognize him as the same actor." (Sorta like how I couldn't believe Billy Bob Thornton was the same guy in Sling Blade as he was in Primary Colors or Bad Santa). My disappointment is I don't feel the chemistry. Heath Ledger's character is the type that perhaps even an uptight straight man would feel OK to have a few beers with. He's drawn superbly. ----------- ** Hence the "romance" I was looking for falls flat. I'm sad for Ledger's Ennis and feel this is more HIS story than Gyllenhaal's Jack. Gyllenhaal's character is all sexual and has no problems picking up guys or even desiring to leave his wife and kid. Hence it becomes clear half-way through that all of our emotional investment is going to be with Ennis. We root for Ennis's happiness, not Jack's. Theirs may reflect a true dysfunctional romance, just like between straight couples where one half is responsible and sensitive while the other has sex on the mind to the extent he or she is willing to risk throwing everything away. ** Even if this was a movie involving straight characters, audiences rarely identify or get behind a promiscuous or seemingly irresponsible lead. It's one-dimensional and you feel there must be a "better partner" for the character you've come to love more in this film. And it's Heath Ledger's "Ennis." When critics say the film is a "landmark" -- akin to a masterpiece -- they're wrong. It's historically important, that's all. The only thing that may become "landmark" -- is Heath Ledger's character, that is, if "landmark" is Jon Voight or Dustin Hoffman in "Midnight Cowboy," Anne Bancroft in "The Graduate," Al Pacino in "Dog Day Afternoon" or Brando in "On the Waterfront." Truly, we've never seen a character like "Ennis" ANYWHERE. I get emotional just thinking and writing this. ----------- ** Come on now, if you're forced to choose which character you'd wanna be friends with, whether you're straight or gay, you're not gonna pick Gyllenhaal's "Jack." You're gonna pick Ledger's "Ennis." Show of hands? (Ooops, no I did that before). ** My wife and I would pick Ledger in a landslide, and we think "most" others, if forced to think about it more, would say the same. His character is 3-dimensional tremendous. This causes an imbalance in the so-called "romance," which feels near non-existent. Why? Because we're in Ledger's corner. Again, even if this accurately reflects a dysfunctional couple, I don't need a mirror to recognize what's familiar. I'd rather have something that turns stereotypes upside down and forces us to look at things with greater empathy. So if "Ennis" must face heartbreak, he deserves, for this type of film, much better. Or at least he deserves a much better "type" of heartbreak so that the differences between gay and straight romances disappear for straight audiences. Because truly, a straight audience is necessary to make this film not just a success, but a roaring success, warmly embraced w/o qualifiers. You don't want people walking out when it's over feeling bitter about being sold a bill of goods not delivered. A couple of my gay friends feel the same. This is not as advertised, not what they themselves expected either. ** In sum, forgive the pretentiousness, but a river still separates many gay and straight people. And the invisible bridge to connect gay and straight is never quite finished in "Brokeback" -- or at least it's not finished in ways I want uptight straights we know -- to see -- so they can better understand my view that being gay or straight is not an intellectual or physical preference. It doesn't work that way. It just is. -koose, who's not gay, but probably should be. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
