Talk:Brokeback Mountain

Should we have an article on this? It's kind of unfamily friendly, but definitely notable.-MexMax 23:22, 22 January 2008 (EST)

This article is now mostly a summary and analysis from someone who refuses to see it? I guess I shouldn't complain, though - it's better than the apparently well-researched article by a different editor here about a racist hate-site that included screen captures and an invitation to visit it. --DinsdaleP 09:22, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree. It's hard to write an accurate summary/analysis without seeing a movie. Like it or not, agree with it or not, all controversy aside, this movie is a romance, and the current summary completely leaves that out. --Hsmom 09:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

And Jake Ghyllenhall was well known for his role in Donny Darko. I'd edit the page, but I feel I would be blocked for ideological differences vandalism.--IanG 11:33, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

In this case, you don't have to have seen the movie because it was so plastered around the country and overdiscussed by the MSM that you couldn't avoid finding out about it. I'm not writing a scene-by-scene analysis, but rather the broad strokes, and those were made clear by all the interviews and discussions. Bill O'Reilly himself said he refuses to see the movie, but that didn't stop him from denouncing it because he knew what it was about and -- this is the real point -- what it's goal was. To say I have to see this movie in order to describe its homosexual "romance" accurately is the same chastising by liberals that is mentioned in the article. Kind of ironic, no? Lastly, I've never heard of Donny Darko and don't remember it being released at my multiplex. -Foxtrot 12:43, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

What exactly does one have to do to become a "name" actor? Making millions for each movie and being a household name doesn't seem to do it, so what does? I'll admit Gyllenhall was not a huge name in the industry (but he was hardly a no-name the way some actors are in their first big pictures) but to call Ledger that is downright silly. And why was their decision ill-advised? Because it made Gyllenhall much more prominent? Because Ledger was nominated for an Oscar for his role? Yeah, bad decision. Or are you trying to tie Ledger's death to this movie (if so, you'd need to come up with something specific)? The final paragraph makes the author seem plain ignorant of the subject. DavidH 12:51, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I don't understand the "teen crush" comment. Ten Things I Hate About You was a very popular movie and it made him very well-known, which would be a "name" actor, right? And Donnie Darko is also a very well-known and beloved movie (though I've never seen it), which would make Gyllenhall a "name" actor, too, right? It may be ill-advised, I can't claim to know that. However, I know almost nothing about this movie - I didn't even know it was Ledger and Gyllenhall who were in it. But not knowing this movie and still knowing the actors says something about their degree of fame, doesn't it? LiamG 13:01, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Ok, let's start with what we can all agree upon: all articles must follow the Commandments. If you haven't seen a movie, then anything you say about the movie should at least be sourced, right?

As for the "no name" part: again, personal experience isn't enough here. I once told my mom that Elvis couldn't be famous, because I had never heard of him. Both of these actors were in movies before Brokeback that did pretty well and are still popular today (and before anyone says anything: they were popular before Ledger died, as well). They clearly don't have the acting experience of Tom Hanks or Roberd DeNiro, but they are far from "no name".

As I haven't seen the movie myself, I won't remove anything from the article, but it clearly needs work from someone who has reliable sources, prefereably one who has seen it themselves, so they can attest to the reliability. HelpJazz 13:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Just a quick addition - since Hollywood is liberal, and actors are a part of Hollywood Values, why wouldn't "actors touch a project like this"? Part of the goal of Hollywood Values is to promote the gay agenda, isn't it? LiamG 13:15, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Heath Ledger was also well known for A Knight's Tale, and Jake later went on to make Jarhead and other films. Once you get multiple leading roles, you stop being a no name actor.--IanG 13:45, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I never heard of Ledger nor A Knights Tale. BrokeBack wasn't even xpected to be a hit (cause of homosexuality). No-name seems like the perfect description. Just because you are in a prior movie, doesn't make you a star.--Jpatt 14:26, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Just because YOU never heard of it, doesn't mean it wasn't a hit. Heath Ledger had STARRING roles in A Knight's Tale (2001), The Four Feathers (2002), The Order (2003), Ned Kelly (2003), Casanova (2005), The Brothers Grimm (2005), and Lords of Dogtown (2005). Gyllenhaal was also the star of The Day After Tomorrow prior to Brokeback Mountain, and it was a blockbuster. I'm not sure if Jarhead was before or after Brokeback, but it also was a hit movie. Give the devil his due.--IanG 14:44, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Jpatt, I'm guessing you're the wrong gender to appreciate Ledger's, uh, talents. I loved him in Ten Things. In my house, we enjoyed comparing it to Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, which it was based on. We also enjoyed Knight's Tale, especially all of the wonderful jousting scenes. I hated Lords of Dogtown, but the documentary it was based on, Dogtown and Z-Boys, was great. Ledger, though, did a pretty good job in Lords, given a horribly-written movie. I'm not a big movie lover, but I was familiar with Ledger well before Brokeback, as were many other movie fans. While he wasn't on everyone's radar, he was far from a no-name actor. Foxtrot, the problem with writing a summary/analysis of Brokeback without seeing the movie is that you may get the basic facts right, but without seeing it you may not get the tone right, or understand the nuances that made it a quite good and complex movie, regardless of its controversial subject matter. In this movie, tone and nuance is everything. For the record, I have seen the movie. --Hsmom 15:00, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, we can agree that since I didn't hear of it doesn't make it not a hit, geez. I have watched some good movies, can't say I ever heard of any of the movies he was previously in, let alone somebody telling me to watch them because it was to die for. I would have to say that if you are in at least five movies, that does make you a sought after Star. Still refuse to watch Brokeback, call me old fashioned, call me a Phobe, Foxtrot- call me the wrong gender and I'll make you walk the plank. IANG your attitude is rubbing me and others, watch your step.--Jpatt 17:02, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

My attitude reflects that which I receive. Also, it wasn't Foxtrot saying anything about your gender, it was HSmom, and she was merely commenting that you wouldn't appreciate Ledger's aesthetic qualities.--IanG 17:10, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Before someone puts their foot in their mouth, I think Hsmom was saying that, since you are not a teenage girl, you will not fawn over him like oh-so-many teenage girls did :P HelpJazz 19:51, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

I'll expand my comments here, rather than engage in an edit war. As noted above, I have actually seen the movie. --Hsmom 15:19, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

• Brokeback Mountain is a drama movie from 2005 by Ang Lee - "Drama movie" is weird phrasing. I'm not sure how to fix it, though. "Is a romantic drama" would work, but leaves out that it is a movie. Anyone have a better idea?
• Afterwards, they come to their senses and marry beautiful, dedicated and loving women. I would not have used "come to their senses" - the movie is way more complex than that.
• However soon their past comes to haunt them and destroys not only their lives but the innocent lives of their wives and innocent children. No argument with the content, but two "innocent"s aren't needed - pick one.
• Audiences witness the families torn asunder in waves of agonizing revelations, all stemming from a secret around "fishing" trips where the men once again use their seclusion to its "ends". While the first part of this sentence is fine, the rest totally misses the complexity of the relationships in the film, and leaves out completely the romance.
• Despite the destructive message of this film What is the destructive message? Gay relationships end in sadness? Or is it something else? If we are claiming a destructive message, I think we need to spell it out. I'm guessing some readers here would have a different answer others.
• people were admonished for not having seen it and not being "open-minded" to a "different" love story. Who was admonished? Who did the admonishing? Citation, please.
• In that respect, the advertising purposefully concealed the theme of homosexuality from the unsuspecting public, merely referring to it as a modern day "love story" and concentrating on the appealing rugged cowboy element and picturesque landscapes. Purposefully concealed? I think movie-goers were pretty clear on the content of the movie. I'd like to see a citation that there was an attempt to hide the content of the film.

"Concealed" theme of homosexuality

I have removed Foxtrot's comment that "the advertising purposefully concealed the theme of homosexuality from the unsuspecting public". Apart from anything else, this directly contradicts Foxtrot's comment further up this page that "you don't have to have seen the movie because it was so plastered around the country and overdiscussed by the MSM that you couldn't avoid finding out about it".

There was no attempt to conceal or downplay the homosexual subject matter of the film. It quickly gained an international reputation as 'that gay cowboy film' & gathered both its popularity & notoriety from that. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that many people watched this film without knowing the theme beforehand. The movie poster is hardly coy about it - notice the pose of the two guys & the words "Love is a Force of Nature". You might see this as "concentrating on the appealing rugged cowboy element", but I think that would be willfully naive. Sideways 16:05, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Name recognition of the actors

Contested point: whether the actors were indeed "no-names" before Brokeback Mountain was released. Whatever they did afterwards (I'm speaking to you, IanG) is irrelevant. Of course they got starring roles and got name recognition, but this was the movie that gave them all that popularity. They were not recognized stars before this movie, hence the wording "no-name".

Heath Ledger: According to IMDb, before Brokeback Mountain, he had starring roles in the films:

• 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) - domestic box office gross of $38 million ($16 million to make)
• Two Hands (1999) - BO gross N/A, but with less than 3500 votes I'll safely guess it wasn't a big hit.
• The Patriot (2000) - BO gross $113 million (but $110 million to make)
• A Knight's Tale (2001) - BO gross $56 million ($41 million to make)
• The Four Feathers (2002) - BO gross $18 million ($80 million to make - big bust)
• Ned Kelly (2003) - BO gross $74,000 (N/A how much it cost to make, but probably at least a million, making this a bust too)
• The Order (2003) - BO gross $7 million ($38 million to make - another big bust)

Then, released in the same year (2005) as Brokeback Mountain we have:

• Lords of Dogtown - BO gross $11 million ($25 million to make - a bust)
• The Brothers Grimm - BO gross $38 million ($80 million to make - major bust)
• Casanova - BO gross $11 million (N/A how much it cost)

If anything, the box office grosses (relative to the costs of production) reveal that Ledger-helmed films were bombing at the box office in the years preceding Brokeback Mountain. It certainly would explain his eagerness (=desperation?) to take such a risky role.

Now as for the grosses as raw values, the numbers are hardly the makings of a big hit. For a contemporary comparison, Beverly Hills Chihuahua made $29 million in its opening weekend! Now I don't think anyone really would expect that movie to gain the title of "blockbuster hit", so if that's not a star-making movie then what standing to Ledger's films have for being called hits? The sole exception perhaps is The Patriot, which was his biggest hit before Brokeback. Yet it's not surprising no one mentioned it as one of his claims to fame. Everyone remembers this movie as a Mel Gibson venture (his was the main name billed on posters) and not as a movie featuring a young star named Heath Ledger. So I think I've proven my point that before Brokeback, Ledger was a no-name actor. Starring roles alone do not give you name recognition - it's whether you have starring roles in popular movies.

Jake Ghyllenhaaaalll or however you spell his name: Again, figures drawn from IMDb and these are starring roles:

• October Sky (1999) - BO gross $32 million
• Donnie Darko (2000) - BO gross $514,000 on first theatrical run, another $700,000 on an apparent re-release in 2004.
• Bubble Boy (2001) - BO gross $5 million ($13 million to make - bust)
• Highway (2002) - BO gross N/A but less than 2000 votes so not a hit ($14 million to make)
• Moonlight Mile (2002) - BO gross $7 million ($21 million to make - bust)
• The Day After Tomorrow (2004) - BO gross $187 million ($125 million to make)

His other big movie from 2005, Jarhead, came out after Brokeback, so that does not count to his popularity before Brokeback.

IanG, I don't get where you're getting that Donnie Darko is a "very well-known and beloved" film. Maybe it was overlooked by audiences on its first theatrical run, but if they had the gumption to re-release it and it only eked in a few thousand more, then it's hardly a hit. Personally, I still hadn't heard of it before today and the "Dark"-o element doesn't bode well that I'd like it.

The only hit he had was Day After Tomorrow, which I'll concede was a hit, but Dennis Quaid was the primary billing in that one and the special effects were the real draw of that one (does anyone even know who starred in Roland Emmerich's most recent venture 10,000 BC? I didn't think so). Whether you felt like Gyllenhaal's performance was memorable enough to make you learn how to spell his name is debatable, but at least it's within reason that he may have broken popular consciousness with that film. Broken, maybe, but not permeated. Even Ang Lee said he picked lesser known actors:

"With the film spanning a 20-year period, Lee says he knew from the start he wanted to age younger actors. “There is no way to recreate that innocence,” he points out. Additionally, viewers have less preconceived notions about lesser-known talent. Says Lee, “Actors in their 30s have been around 15, sometimes 20 years already.”"

So that should clarify the no-name statement and I'm going to reinstate it. -Foxtrot 04:48, 8 October 2008 (EDT)