bbm, qaf
Just got back from seeing Brokeback Mountain.
Frankly I thought it would have been a lot better. The screenplay didn't have the same kind of kick that the short story had; I didn't think it translated all that well onscreen. That kind of slow-paced directing is easy to make pretty but hard to make meaningful, and I haven't really seen it done well since the days of the old-school European directors (Jon Glazer notwithstanding - I think he's the next fookin' Tarkovsky). There is onscreen chemistry, but too much lounging around in a kind of perpetual dazed reminiscence, and I thought it really dragged the pace down. Even from a non-fangirl perspective, I thought they could have done well with less of the broody shots and more with the physicality of the relationship; if you're gonna push the envelope, you may as well go that extra mile to actually bring the gay bit to life. I dunno. It just felt half-arsed to me.
What struck me most, though, was how this really didn't come across as a story about an enduring love. To me it just seemed like a testament to how love doesn't bear surviving the trivialities of day to day life, and the wear and tear of time. A couple of high-altitude fucks every year was probably what kept this relationship going as long as it did; I may be too much of a cynic but I just can't help thinking that if they'd moved away and opened up their own ranch somewhere they'd be sick of each other in five years, just like with their wives. Now I never got that feeling from the short story, yet somehow the movie just managed to put the focus there, which was... odd, and most likely unintended. Two reasons as far as I could tell: needed more screentime to build up more intensity of apparent feeling between Jack/Ennis; and also need to have a more marked contrast between Ennis' time spent with Jack or his wife. At times the two felt equally dreary (except one had a better backdrop), I'm sure that wasn't the director's intention.
I dislike people who seem to think that if something is gay/controversial/politically correct, then it must automatically be good. I'm a big fangirly mess about gay cowboys, but that ain't artistic merit. I think the film is well-made and extremely well-acted by a strong cast; I just didn't like it much myself, mostly because I didn't like how the paper-to-screen adaptation panned out. And just recently I realised that, out of Ang Lee's movies, I only really liked The Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman; in other words, the stuff that he made before the move to western screens. I haven't liked his direction in the past 10 or so years, it feels like he tries to hit hard but it just never really lands in the ballpark for me. More likely to be a personal taste issue rather than aesthetic value, though.
Anecdotal stuff:
- Who else thought it was ironic that Michelle Williams' most famous role remains that of a fag-hag to someone named Jack?
- I have a thing about sheep and farm animals in general, in that they make me go into fits of hysterics because I think they're damn funny, so the first 20 minutes or so of the movie consisted of me chortling incessantly (and rather insanely) for no apparent reason. I'm sure the people around me were v. disgruntled.
QAF
Why is it that one of the rare times that I actually ship a het couple, I end up shipping the most inappropriate het couple in the world? I'm really liking the look of Lindsay/Brian.
Although now I'm at the end of 1x07, and I'm a little bit in love with Brian/Justin also. Hee.
Random connection of the day. I'd known that Russell T Davies was the creator of UK Queer as Folk, and also wrote many (if not all?) the episodes of the new Dr. Who. But it wasn't until today when it suddenly clicked: he was a huge fan of Dr. Who, hence Vince's obsession in QAF, and how cool is it that Davies then went on to actually write for Dr. Who? Just thought that was v. sweet and neat.
Off to make more of my own project with gay cowboys. Well, not really. More like... space cowboy and doctor. Close enough. :D
Frankly I thought it would have been a lot better. The screenplay didn't have the same kind of kick that the short story had; I didn't think it translated all that well onscreen. That kind of slow-paced directing is easy to make pretty but hard to make meaningful, and I haven't really seen it done well since the days of the old-school European directors (Jon Glazer notwithstanding - I think he's the next fookin' Tarkovsky). There is onscreen chemistry, but too much lounging around in a kind of perpetual dazed reminiscence, and I thought it really dragged the pace down. Even from a non-fangirl perspective, I thought they could have done well with less of the broody shots and more with the physicality of the relationship; if you're gonna push the envelope, you may as well go that extra mile to actually bring the gay bit to life. I dunno. It just felt half-arsed to me.
What struck me most, though, was how this really didn't come across as a story about an enduring love. To me it just seemed like a testament to how love doesn't bear surviving the trivialities of day to day life, and the wear and tear of time. A couple of high-altitude fucks every year was probably what kept this relationship going as long as it did; I may be too much of a cynic but I just can't help thinking that if they'd moved away and opened up their own ranch somewhere they'd be sick of each other in five years, just like with their wives. Now I never got that feeling from the short story, yet somehow the movie just managed to put the focus there, which was... odd, and most likely unintended. Two reasons as far as I could tell: needed more screentime to build up more intensity of apparent feeling between Jack/Ennis; and also need to have a more marked contrast between Ennis' time spent with Jack or his wife. At times the two felt equally dreary (except one had a better backdrop), I'm sure that wasn't the director's intention.
I dislike people who seem to think that if something is gay/controversial/politically correct, then it must automatically be good. I'm a big fangirly mess about gay cowboys, but that ain't artistic merit. I think the film is well-made and extremely well-acted by a strong cast; I just didn't like it much myself, mostly because I didn't like how the paper-to-screen adaptation panned out. And just recently I realised that, out of Ang Lee's movies, I only really liked The Wedding Banquet and Eat Drink Man Woman; in other words, the stuff that he made before the move to western screens. I haven't liked his direction in the past 10 or so years, it feels like he tries to hit hard but it just never really lands in the ballpark for me. More likely to be a personal taste issue rather than aesthetic value, though.
Anecdotal stuff:
- Who else thought it was ironic that Michelle Williams' most famous role remains that of a fag-hag to someone named Jack?
- I have a thing about sheep and farm animals in general, in that they make me go into fits of hysterics because I think they're damn funny, so the first 20 minutes or so of the movie consisted of me chortling incessantly (and rather insanely) for no apparent reason. I'm sure the people around me were v. disgruntled.
QAF
Why is it that one of the rare times that I actually ship a het couple, I end up shipping the most inappropriate het couple in the world? I'm really liking the look of Lindsay/Brian.
Although now I'm at the end of 1x07, and I'm a little bit in love with Brian/Justin also. Hee.
Random connection of the day. I'd known that Russell T Davies was the creator of UK Queer as Folk, and also wrote many (if not all?) the episodes of the new Dr. Who. But it wasn't until today when it suddenly clicked: he was a huge fan of Dr. Who, hence Vince's obsession in QAF, and how cool is it that Davies then went on to actually write for Dr. Who? Just thought that was v. sweet and neat.
Off to make more of my own project with gay cowboys. Well, not really. More like... space cowboy and doctor. Close enough. :D