As promised, an informal review from the only person I know of who has actually seen Brokeback Mountain--and luckily, she's a great writer, whose opinion I respect a great deal. (Her earlier, briefer take here.)

I asked her specifically about how explicit the contact between Jake and Heath was.

Her report. Warning. Massive spoilers:

Okay the setup is that these 2 characters meet on a blustery Montana street in front of their would-be Employer’s office. They get hired to spend the summer as shepherds on Brokeback Mountain. One is told to stay below and keep camp, cook the meals, do the grocery list and meet the guy who brings the supplies each week) and the other is way up on the ridge tending the sheep (keeping a lookout for the menace of wolves, etc., sporting a rifle, making the long trip up and back each day, etc. And sleeping up there, as well.)

Initially Heath Ledger ("Ennis del Mar" - loner, orphan type) is below, cooking the meals .. And Jake Gyllenhaal ("Jack Twist" rowdier, rodeo type) is up with the sheep. He comes down each morning for breakfast and each evening for dinner. This sets up a "husband – wife" or boyfriend away at work all day, girlfriend home tending the hearth scenario (for lack of a better description.) It should be said that Ledger’s character (Ennis) is ultra quiet, shy almost to the point of silent whereas Gyllenhaal’s Jack is more of a dandy outwardly expressive.

Without blowing the entire film, a set of circumstances contrive to have them switch roles, and then to eventually have Ledger’s character not be able to make the passage back UP the mountain for the night shift. And yes, they do end up in a PUP tent together, but not right away. The first and only true sex scene takes place in that tent on a freezing Montana night ... Just fyi Ledger is the top and Gyllenhaal is the bottom. And this seems to somewhat typify them throughout the film, the top being less at ease with his sexuality then the other, less able to get past that self loathing which torments him for much of the film, more stuck in attempting to play the role of the straight man ...

So, yes, the scene is fairly explicit in that you know immediately that they are fucking — and that Ledger is on top, Gyllenhaal on bottom, but you don’t really see the equipment, if you will, just that cowboy belt buckle being wrenched undone, and the jeans dropping and, oh, yea, I guess you get to see Ledger’s bum ... AND, by the way, their fucking "sort of" comes out of nowhere -- a sleepy, middle of the night grope that quickly leads to more, and is without sentiment or kissing or any tenderness, during their first encounter ...
But clearly there was the almost agonizing build up of the long, slow, quiet first act of the film ... (all of it framed in the desolate, rugged, heartbreaking Montana landscape, mind you... The setting alone does an amazing job of "throwing them together" in a way, and this — me thinks — is intentional, also a great backdrop utilizing the usual straight male cowboy cliché, but then working against it, against type ... These guys are rough around the edges, they are hard-working ranchers -- comfortable with rifles, essentially comfortable with hardship, with few expectations that their lives are going to be anything but difficult ... and the landscape doles out hardship over and over again, especially Brokeback, itself, even in summer it snows and is impossible. And there are several shots that show the distance between these two characters, the one below glancing up to the campfire far, far above on a lonely mountain in the distance ...
And, of course, the name of the mountain lets you know that this relationship will, in some way, break them, no? But here again, I digress ...

Anyway, yeah, I’d say it was explicit in what it alluded to more than what it showed. But it was more explicit than any other gay sex scene in a mainstream feature, as far as I know ... The rest of the scenes between them move between a sort of need to almost bloody one another, rough-house like bear cubs or young boys -- an eventual kind of initial glee about or warm glow from being together, while off and alone in the wilderness ... alternating with rather tender scenes of them kissing or holding one another, as they come back together over the next 14 (?) years ... But Ang Lee doesn’t belabor it. He doesn’t bother to show you much after their relationship has been established. But their joy during their first reunion after that summer (several years have passed) is truly touching. Their embrace and their need to be close to one another, but all of it needing to be hidden as they are no longer isolated on the side of a mountain.

I’m not sure that I answered the question. You know I only saw it once and it has now been several weeks since then and I didn’t write a word about it after seeing it, except whatever I emailed to you ... And that night I dashed off to a double feature with the Clooney film "Good Night & Good Luck" ... So the fact that the film isn’t more vague should, I guess, be a testament to the strength of the movie, to Lee’s handling of this tale... Some of my friends found it overly sentimental. But I didn’t, not really. I didn’t think it was nearly as sentimental and over the top as something like "Cold Mountain" (UGH!!) (I pick that one because it is also a period film, it also deals with love and longing from a distance ...etc.)

Some part of me is trying not to RUIN the entire film by telling you too much, mind you ...

The understated quality made it more powerful, if you ask me ...

Oh, and this from the same friend in Rome, same email from mid September, during the Venice film fest (see previous post on Brokeback):

I also saw the Edward R Murrow Flic directed by George Clooney
Good Night & Good Luck

Maybe 2 dimensional to some degree, but a pretty perfect 90 minute film

Love robert downey jr no matter what

So nice to see a black and white film

Kudos to clooney

I knew I had something to post about Brokeback. (That I could do without using up writing time during the week).

A writer friend lives in Rome, and Brokeback Mountain played one night there, one showing, as part of the Venice Film Festival, during the fest last month. She went.

And I forgot to post the mini-review she emailed me. (Because I emailed back to ask permission to post it and she forgot, I forgot, blah blah blah). Here now:

I thought the film was gorgeous. Maybe a wee bit sentimental toward the end, but not any more than any most films. Think Ang Lee took a great risk. He’s not gay, himself, I don’t think. BTW I saw it with 2 straight guys (open minded, cinema prof + screenwriting prof, but straight nonetheless) and they really liked it too. We were maybe the only straight people in the cinema. Best looking crowd ever at the movies. Ha.

Anyway it was ... A classic heartbreaking love story ... told in a very straight(no pun intended, but yeah)forward manner.

A bit of a downer, though. The despair of the American West, the desolation of Wyoming, the hardship of that lifestyle, that era (1963 – and on thru 70’s), the self loathing, the denial, all of it, the separation, that they never forget one another, etc etc

I think she means downer in a good way. I think it needs to be. Annie Proulx's short story was sure a downer in the end, but a glorious tragedy. Romeo and Juliet was a big downer.

Hennyway, she neglected to mention the level of intimacy on the screen, which seems to be a huge question around the blogs over here (and which Variety and Hollywood Reporter oddly ignored. Strange. They're both reviewing for commercial reasons, and that's the big question about its commercial viability, right? And they fail to mention? Very strange.

So she's sending me something today, and I'll post tonight, after I'm done working on the book. (I was up way past two on a late-night writing binge last night, so I got a special dispensation to take a few minutes off this morning.)

See you then.