Each year, Entertainment Weekly includes a retrospective article in its Academy Awards preview issue. For me, it's kind of a hit-or-miss component of the preview. I was definitely excited to read an account of Rocky's underdog performance at the 1977 Oscars, but for the most part, I don't really care that much about award shows that took place before I was born.
To me, the recent history of the Oscars is much more compelling. For example, I'm sure you remember the controversy surrounding Brokeback Mountain, which ultimately earned 7 noms and 3 Oscars in February 2006. But how is the movie perceived today, two years removed from that triumphant night? Has anyone who didn't see the movie at the time even watched it?
For the benefit of our loyal readers, I sacrificed one of my Blockbuster queue spots and finally sat down to watch Brokeback this week. My initial post-viewing thoughts:
To me, the recent history of the Oscars is much more compelling. For example, I'm sure you remember the controversy surrounding Brokeback Mountain, which ultimately earned 7 noms and 3 Oscars in February 2006. But how is the movie perceived today, two years removed from that triumphant night? Has anyone who didn't see the movie at the time even watched it?
For the benefit of our loyal readers, I sacrificed one of my Blockbuster queue spots and finally sat down to watch Brokeback this week. My initial post-viewing thoughts:
- It's a well-crafted film - definitely worthy of the Best Director award (Ang Lee).
- Not as graphic as bible-thumping critics had suggested, but I'll admit the Heath Ledger-Jake Gyllenhaal sex scene was a bit...weird. If it had been two no-name actors, it probably would have been less so...
- The screenplay was decent but the story was a bit slow. It was clearly the acting that elevated this movie near to Best Picture level. Emphasis on "near", because to me this just didn't feel like a Best Picture. It had the "epic" cinematography and score that Academy voters love, but honestly, if I had seen this movie before reading or hearing any reviews, I would have said, "Good movie - well-acted, well-directed, but ultimately not that entertaining."
- It's not nearly as iconoclastic as fans and critics made it out to be. First off, it takes place in the 1960s and 70s, so it makes it easy to write off the type of homophobia (and homophobia-related violence) depicted in the film as signposts of a bygone era. Second, it's way too tragic and depressing to be a touchstone for gay rights advocates (in my humble opinion). Maybe the fact that a movie about "gay cowboys" entered the mainstream consciousness at all was seen as victory enough for the gay rights movement at the time. However, so many people trivialized this movie as "the gay cowboy movie" that I don't really see it having a long-term impact on American culture - or even on Hollywood, for that matter. It'll probably be the first film mentioned in the review for any future movie featuring gay protagonists that flirts with mainstream acceptance. Is that really a victory after all?
Brokeback Mountain: 2 PB Jars
No comments:
Post a Comment