Ang Lee

[Capo]

Ang Lee (1954- )



1. Lust, Caution 2007
2. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2000
3. Brokeback Mountain 2005
4. Ride with the Devil 1999

[Pherdy]

Wo Hu Can Long
Hulk

[jrod]

Wo Hu Can Long
Hulk
Brokeback Mountain

[RNL]

1. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) 7/10
2. Sense and Sensibility (1995) 6/10
3. Hulk (2003) 5/10
4. Brokeback Mountain (2005) 5/10
5. The Ice Storm (1997) 4/10

[svsg]

Brokeback Mountain

[Omar]

1. The Ice Storm (1997)
2. Brokeback Mountain (2005)

[Capo]

wetdog said:

2005: Brokeback Mountain

Well, you obviously got more out of it than I did...

[Omar]

I don't want to seem pushy, but since it's been given eight Academy Award nominations, I would really like to hear your thoughts on "Brokeback Mountain" Wetdog.

[RNL]

About a quarter of the way in I thought to myself, "Wow. This is like Million Dollar Baby all over again."

I think it was mainly how seemingly formulaic it is, stylistically. That's always a stumbling block for me, but I'm trying very hard to overcome that. I began to understand its approach as it unfolded; there is no other way it could have been filmed. It has to be shot like any and all other 'forbidden love' Hollywood movies were shot before it, otherwise its accentuating the abnormaility of this particular relationship and thereby undermining its own theme and subtext - being a surprisingly restrained and observant examination of the ambiguity of sexuality. We're not talking Cronenberg, Crash/M. Butterfly depths here, but it's really quite complicated and interesting, and for an Oscar-bait 'prestige' picture, incredibly so. Notice that all the sex scenes, both 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual', and all the scenes of violence are shot in the same way: extreme close-ups but without the quick cuts that convention dictates should accompany them. That's subversion of the norm right there, like a fascinated but impartial observer moving in for a closer look, instead of the unavoidably cynical 'display' that results with the alternative. Lee exhibits a very mature attitude toward gender, and never is either man's masculinity challenged by their sexuality (this is not a non-event, either, it requires quite a forceful resistance of the comfy mainstream stereotypes), he fights every pop gender cliché.

I entered without excitment, and left surprised and impressed.

[Capo]

Don't you think it would have been a whole lot better, even a masterpiece, had it ended on Ledger crouching down, vomiting, after the two part ways after their first summer together? After that, it was a nosedive for me into, as you say, formulaic storytelling. That opening third, though, is impressive, but not enough to merit a "worth-watching" star.

Same goes for Munich, for me.

[RNL]

I don't think so. It needs all of those moments of explosive violence, and the methodical clouding of the notion of concrete sexualities. At that point that you mention, the film was just about two men who have a homosexual encounter - with no quotation marks required at all.

I'm seeing Munich on Friday.

[Capo]

wetdog said:

I don't think so. It needs all of those moments of explosive violence, and the methodical clouding of the notion of concrete sexualities. At that point that you mention, the film was just about two men who have a homosexual encounter - with no quotation marks required at all.

Exactly. And their homosexuality wouldn't have been made into an issue picture; it would have just "been", without further exploration. I'd like to see, in the future, a film in which a homosexual character's sexuality isn't explored, it just is, and is taken for granted. The closest I've seen so far is Takeshi Kitano playing a (I assume) gay gangster in Boiling Point. It's handled so matter-of-factly.

Lee is too heavy-handed, at times, so as to make the film dubious in its believability: the two cowboys meeting for the first time in years, allowing their desires to get the better of them, and kissing in a rage, only for one of the wives to catch them at it. Apparently, the novella takes less time to read than the film does watch, and their first sex scene is handled in a mere sentence. Why, then, must Lee agonise over the timeline so much? It makes for a bogged-down, repetitive narrative (perhaps necessary for such a destructive relationship) and an embarrassingly bad makeup department; not to mention the usual markers for the ageing process: sideboards and mustaches (I thought you grew them during puberty, not middle-age).

But I'm bordering on critical overkill here; in short, it's a bland treatment of a promising concept. Oscar galore.

[RNL]

That's something I noticed too, the timeline tags. I thought, after '1963' appears onscreen in the opening shot, that our only indicator would be the age of Ennis' children, but that didn't pan out. He uses text again (though in-film).

I'd like to see more irrelevently homosexual characters in film, too. But I think the greater point of Brokeback is to challenge every cliché and stereotype surrounding gender and sexuality in mainstream cinema. Not just by telling a heartfelt love story between members of the same sex, but by denying the audience the comfortable labels. They're not 'homosexual', the whole concept of a bipolar sexual spectrum is muddied and subverted, with any investment in or conservation of those old concepts illustrated as moments of violent combustion.

Cronenberg certainly offers greater insights on this issue, but I saw a lot of value in Brokeback.

[jrod]

Updated, still no stars

[Vercetti]

Brokeback Mountain
Hulk

[Capo]

I'm actually mildly interested in seeing Hulk. As well as the rest of Lee's work, in fact; I will consider it an achievement if I see all of his work, and indeed confirm my worst suspicions about him as a director.

I have Sense and Sensibility ready to go.

[Boz]

Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Hulk (2003)

[Anasazie]

1. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) 2/10

[theundergroundman]

1. Brokeback Mountain (2005) - [blue]6/10[/blue]