Brokeback - I know it's a movie but...

I know this is for theatre, but I think we can all take a page out of this movie if we wish to become Oscar winners.

Well.

I just saw Brokeback Mountain, to support fellow Australian Heath Ledger.

Can I just say if that was his finest performance and that is all you need to be an Oscar contender - EVERYBODY STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING! Don't act!

I mean seriously, if all you have to do is emulate Billy-Bob Thornton from Swingblade or Switchblade minus the mental handicap, ad a crook neck and you have his performance.

The moments when he got emotional, I think were very nicely done, but by no means unattainable by any other actor nor something we haven't seen in many other films this year.

Jack Gyllenhall was slightly better, giving his usual Doe-eyed performance. We all feel sorry for this lad whatever film he does. Whether its for choosing to do The Day After Tomorrow or for playing the emotionally retarded Donnie Darko. This boy has got range and skill and he displays a bit of that range in this film. I think this would be another Philadelphia if Ledger wins and Gyllenhalls not even mentioned. Denzel deserved that oscar, but Hanks walked away with it. Instead Denzel gets it for Training Day? I mean come on!!!

Onto th rest of the review:

In all, the production was very Ang Lee (Surprising since it was directed by the man). Minamalistic in Dialogue, Beautiful scenery and cinematography.

The problem is, the movie went half an hour too long, many people in the auditorium getting restless, shifting, coughing and the like (and no that was not because of the uncomfortable experience of two men having simulated sex onscreen). Too many moments of beautiful nature shots, unnecessary pauses.

I will say it had one or two poignant moments, but overall the film seems to be a visually stunning advert for the Wilderness of the USA and the hardships of the ranchers/cowboys.

Michelle Williams looked grotty and unkempt, suiting her character and she was the person I sympathised with the most, giving an honest and earthy performance.

Anne Hathaway was a surprise - nice to see her out of the usual fairytale princess role, though by the time her character was thirty, she still looked angel faced and youthful. The only person that seemed to age in the production was Jake Gyllenhall and this was through the colouring of his hair and a moustache.

We complain in amateur theatre if a person doesn't look old if they play old and the same in professional theatre as well I am sure, so how do these people get away with it? If they didn't have the date changes on the screen, I would have assumed the movie took place over a couple of weeks according to how the leads aged (of course the children would have blown that theory)

To create a 2 hour ten minute movie from a 25 page short story, great work, but I think Mr Lee pushed a little too hard, trying to weigh scenes down with symbolism, depth or something that just wasn't necessary. Especially when their defence is that it isn't a gay cowboy movie but a movie about two people falling in love. I don't think I have seen such a weighty love story since Elliot Gould in "Little Murders" in which I cried simply because it was one of the most confusing and aggrovating films I have ever seen.

Oscar Contender Heath, Ang and the film itself? Not really deserving.

A nice film, though overly long (which I recall a local production getting criticised for that late last year) but no better than Rom Com "Family Stone" or even "Chicken Little" I had more fun in both of those films, was moved to tears in the first and both times thought the movie had only been going for an hour when the credits started rolling - a sign of a good film if you ask me.

I do not endorse the writing of film reviews for this website, I just felt that the fact all you need to be an oscar contender these days is the ability to not act or act bored, then we can all learn something here.

Not act?

What is 'good acting' if not 'not acting'?

To appear like you are not acting is the greatest skill a great actor has.

A good lesson to share.

Thank heavens Heath taught a valuable lesson- people would believe theatre a whole lot more if the performers stopped trying to look like they ARE acting...and simply lived it. Like Heath did in the film, and jake gyllenhaal did even better.

Hear hear, Sandra.

I've always felt that understated acting is one of the toughest things in the world, and both Ledger and Gyllenhaal carry it off magnificently. As does Ang Lee in the way he shot the film.

I agree with JuniperBerry that it's a slow, at times painstaking study of two human beings livng lives of great inner conflict and, at times, poignant beauty. I have to say that I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. I certainly never felt bored enough to want to check my watch.

The film itself requires, I feel, an audience both patient with and appreciative of the more subtle side of the cinematic experience.

An Oscar contender? Certainly.

An Oscar surefire? No comment.

I'm afraid I cannot comment on comparisons with 'The Family Stone', since romantic comedies (even at their usual length of 90 minutes) tend to bore me rigid. Hence I rarely go to see them.

I can say that I have seen Chicken Little and at times did enjoy it. Although I WOULD like to ask- Why is it necessary, even today, for the obese character in any kids/teen film to be the butt of every burp, fart, or short-of-breath joke the writers can come up with?

The Mick

I agree, understated acting can be dificult to pull off, however, I feel the line between understated and not actually giving a performance is very fine and I believe both Ledger and Bana unfortunately stepped over the line more often than not in their respective films. It's not enough to give (as I believe I may have mentioned) a copy cat performance of Billy-Bob Thornton from Slingblade with your voice and mouth positioning and then back it up with absolutely nothing.

However to say both Jake and Heath pulled it off is contradictory as Jake, whom I feel gave a more believeable and honest performance, was playing a human being, with thoughts, feelings, emotions that were hardly understated.

Sandra - Depending on your theory of theatrical acting and the shows you choose to see and whom they are directed by will vary the style of acting you will see. The theory or realism in the theatre has been described as many to be the most unrealistic form of theatre - How often in real life does the phone get answered after the first ring, do the kids be quiet when they leave the room, does a kettle boil in one minute just in time for the visitor's monologue to begin holding the cup of tea? There is a marked difference between the realism on screen and that on stage. The people you see on screen you empathise with more, you follow their journeys from start to end, from episode to episode, you feel for them, begin to predict what the character would do based on what you have learnt. You get to know the character. Even the bad people, wanting the villain to get away with the crime in some movies. A good actor (with the help of the director) can draw an audience into their story. In a realistic theatrical performance the same could be said for the most part. There is however, only a small difference between not acting on screen and not acting on stage. If the actor isn't acting, there is no bond, there is no predicting, there is no journey from start to end. Most of the time the actor looks to be contemplating his or her next line.

I won't say Heath looked like he was contemplating his next line (as there were too few of them to contemplate) He just didn't look like anything. Even when someone eats food, they think. When they look at country side, animals, men they like dislike or love, they are thinking something, hopefully feeling it too, but this didn't come across at all in Heath's performance. Can you honestly say you were drawn into Heath's performance? And if you were, was it more than you were drawn into Jake's or perhaps any other lead actor you have seen in a film this year?

As for appreciating a subtle side to a cinemati experience - I totally agree, but there is also a line between subtlety and drawing out a film with long pauses and good cinematography.

Oscar contender? Why? What makes this so unique or special? I have had this discussion with several people and they tend to say it is because it is depicting love between two men. My answer is, what makes that different to depicting a difficult relationship between two women, one man one woman or whatever? There is nothing unique about this piece excepting it is a gay love story.

I once had a discussion with a young gay actor who said that a lot of oscar nominees get nominated for playing mentally handicapped or physically handicapped or gay people. Look at Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump and Philadelphia, or Russell Crowe for Beautiful Mind, Charlize Theron for Monster I can't remember his exact phrasing but it came across like playing a gay character is like playing a handicapped person which I just can't understand. Especially coming from him. Isn't a gay man or a lesbian a normal person, so what is so hard to play that they deserve an award for it?

I believe Christian Bale gave a better performance for his portrayal of Batman (as did Michael Keaton who gave one of the most amazing and understated performances I have ever seen in his version) than Heath and yet He wasn't nominated. Tobey Maguire in Spiderman - a huge hit with audiences, a fantastic portrayal (as he gives in most of his films) but he wasn't nominated. Onto a different Genre - Coach Carter with Samuel L Jackson. A very able performance, stirring, powerful. Nominated? No. Back to Philadelphia Why wasn't Denzel Nominated? He carried the film? He had the most turmoil as a character, most screen time. Why wasn't he nominated as Best Actor yet Tom Hanks was?

As for the film istelf, the movie Serenity - A science fiction film of all things, brilliantly pieced together, the characters, the actors, the story, the effects, the cinematography. It is a piece of art. This is only hearsay but I have had many people tell me they believed this to be one of the best, most honest pieces of work released this year. B-grade television actors completing a film and they all did a fantastic job. But not an oscar contender. Of course not, it's a sci-fi film.

So is Brokeback an oscar contender because it is a gay love story?

Family Stone - Romantic Comedy yes, but it had a lot of heart and story in it. The leads may not give the best performances, but the supports are fantastic. Rachel McAdams is brilliant (in most things she does). All I am saying is don't write them off, because you could be missing films that are or should be oscar contenders or have oscar contender actors in them but are neglected because they don't have harrowing storylines, which does not make them any worse in cinematography, acting ability, direction or anything else - yet very rarely are they considered for oscars. One of the few I can think of is Shakespeare in Love and there was sooo much hoo-haa about the winners of the oscars in that.

And finally I totally agree about the Chicken Little stereotyping. Unfortunately I believe it is because it makes children laugh (and many adults too) But the best performance is from the Mute "weirdo" aptly named Fish Out of Water, very misunderstood, yet the most knowing of the group.

the politics of Oscar awards and nominations..! Gwenyth - best actress for Shakespeare in Love?? puhlease.. she's proof that you don't have to be gay, handicapped or tortured to get an oscar..

yes, there are many performances and films that get unnoticed or unrecognised.. and many tv shows for that matter when it comes to the Emmy's.. Tobey Maguire in Spiderman and Samuel in Coach Carter - great performances - agree. They may not get the awards, but they sure do get the big bucks to star in these films..
Anyway, these awards are all great marketing and what is seen to be "credible" by a select group of industry professionals.

But Brokeback was a great film. It obviously had it's gay characters but it's themes were quite universal, appealing to a wider audience. I'm glad it was a slow movie.. Slow in the sense, that it took time to show and establish the picturesque settings, the character's expressions and the building up of tension.. I'm quite sick of the slick editing, fast paced-action packed movies you see all the time nowadays.

I believed Heath brought a real presence to his character with his performance. Totally agree with Sandra on the whole "acting like you're not acting".. His performance wasn't just "nothing".. He carried a mood around with his character, especially in those quiet moments. Just a shame that Jake didn't get nominated when his performance was fantastic also.. The film stayed with me though. I saw it a week ago and I'm still thinking about it.. These films are the type of films that should be nominated, the ones you don't forget in a hurry.

At the end of the day, its all opinion..

Sorry JuniperBerry, but I can't agree with you here either...

I thought Brokeback was extraordinary, and I don't think it was just because it was "a movie about gay people". I don't particularly think it even WAS "a movie about gay people". This film could just as easily have been about a man and a woman, as long as there was some reason their relationship could be deemed socially unacceptable in its time - a black character and a white one perhaps, but then of course it would be seen as "a movie about racism".

On one point you're right - it's slow. And thank the gods for that, I say! To have moved the film any more quickly would (in my opinion) have destroyed both the power and the gentleness of it - and certainly would not have mirrored the subject matter as beautifully as its current pace does. Here we have an intimate, in-depth portrait of two people, one of whom is clearly very difficult to get close to. As an audience, we are desperate to see what he is feeling, and in fact we do see - but the actor only allows us to draw these tiny reactions out of him gradually, and they are few and far between. With a character like this, this is as it should be. And the pace of the film reflects this, and helps us to accept it.

If you felt that Heath Ledger's character was frustrating in his lack of outwardly visible emotion, think how much more frustrating this was for Jake Gyllenhaal's character! The fact is, there are real people in the world who don't show their feelings very often, even to those they love. And in fact, there are moments in this film (which I won't go into as I don't like spoilers!) in which Ennis' emotions are vividly and painfully evident - but they are appropriate moments. This is not a man who wears his heart on his sleeve.

Personally I thought Heath's performance was astonishing, and my respect for him as an actor has risen a great deal with this film.

Was it an Oscar-winning performance? Only time will tell, I suppose. I don't pretend to be able to answer this, as I haven't seen all the other nominated performances (or, for that matter, all those who didn't get nominated). And as Lydia so aptly points out, there is always the politics angle with the Oscars as well...

But is it worthy of its nomination? Hell, yes. But then again, that - as with the rest of this post - is just my opinion...!

; )

Hi Lydia
Could not have put it better myself.
Superb critique, brilliant and powerful movie!
Well done Lydia.
Would very much like to see this level of debate on my site.
www.atalent.com.au
Could offer you the unpaid position of Movie Reviewer etc.
What about Walk the Line?
Cheers
Robert

[%sig%]

Howdy,

Although I do tend to agree with Lydia on this matter, I do feel that your reasoning behind approaching her as a movie reviewer might be a bit askew. Simply because it is a positive review should not mean she is an ideal choice as a reviewer. Can't good reviews be negative. I recall a review from Juniper Berry a while back for a piece that was fairly negative but I thought it was a decent review. Simply because He/She was negative toward Brokeback Mountain, does that mean that He/She is a bad reviewer? I say Good on Juniper for writing a review in the first place.

That is, of course, unless you want your website to only sing the praises of shows rather than possibly critiquing the negatives as well. (by this I am not saying that Lydia can't critique the negative. She certainly pointed it out on Juniper's review though He/She is certainly entitled to their opinion of Heath Ledger and the film)

Have fun everyone - And it rhymes too:)

Anthony

thanks Robert, having worked in the media for a few years.. it's nice to know that you can still be offered jobs (even unpaid ones), without having to fight tooth and nail for them!
But Aharwood does have a point re: positive & negative critiques.. As much as we'd all like to give every movie a glowing review (because there is so much heart and sweat that goes into making each one of them).. and potentially each negative critique could be the end of someone's career..in a lot of cases before it even started! Cos you're only as good as your last job - as they say in the film industry. What would piss-ant critics know bout making a film anyway??
That's not to say that negative critiques can't or shouldn't be dished out.. As far as I'm concerned if you pay money to go see a film then it is out for the slaughter, however, these days all we seem to get is a lot of trashy bagging ou rather than quality.. Although my opinnion differs, kudos to Juniper who made it clear why he felt that Heath's performance wasn't up to scratch.
Robert - I already do a bit of reviewing online, but I'll be happy to send some of them your way.

I have praised her review, that is, how she articulated herself.
The fact that I happened to agree with her is another matter.
Unbiased I hope.
Ciao

Thanks Lydia,
As mentioned, positive or negitive is fine with me.
I just happened to agree with you re your Brokeback review.
Doesnt mean I will agree with every word you write in the future.
if you care to make a contribution from time to time, that would be great.
How often, and which movies you choose will be at your descretion.
I will send you a password and some more infomation, you will be able to access the "Review" administration from the home page at any time www.atalent.com.au
Just scroll down and look for the green "Add Review" button on the right hand side.
For more information please feel free to contact me, Robert James: talent@amoureux.com.au
I look forward to hearing from you again soon.
Best Regards

Hi again Lydia,
Thank you for the offer to contribute to the Talent Register as a reviewer
Would like to send you a password to access the Talent Register Admin. section.
Please email me: talent@amoureux.com.au
I will forward you the details.
Just for your information the site www.atalent.com.au
is non profit, it is funded by myself Robert James so that in some small way I can say "I helped promote the Arts".
Unfortunately can't act, I wish i could!
To make the site successful it takes participation from all those involved in all aspects of the arts, primarily, Artists, Actors, Dancers, Models and Musicians.
I have also now included a page to register Theatres, Music Venues, Art Galleries etc.
A Business Directory is also available, as is a FREE classified section.
I will also exchange links with anyone connected with the arts.
By contributing a Review from time to time you help the Talent Register to become a successful tool for all artists.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Robert