Author Topic: TOTW 14/07: Is a cigar just a cigar?  (Read 16017 times)

Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Re: TOTW 14/07: Is a cigar just a cigar?
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2008, 12:15:59 pm »
Four books have helped me in this regard. First, The Encyclopedia of Symbols, a reference book which I consult in the library but is not available for checkout. Secondly, Man and His Symbols, by Carl Jung. This is the definitive book on the subject. Also, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Portrait of a Film discusses the symbolism of that movie (some of which was used in BBM as well) and also has an introduction by Ang Lee discussing his spiritual beliefs. Finally, Chinese Mythology by Anthony Christie is also illuminating. I also have a small handbook on Chinese Symbolism which I carried in my purse on trips to the theater to see BBM!

Hey Sister Mod,
These are great suggestions.  And, I definitely think there's something Jungian about Brokeback (particularly with so many cross-links between cowboy/western symbols and Asian symbols... and given the diversity of all the people who made Brokeback... including Proulx, Ang Lee, Ossana, McMurtry... an Australian actor even... the numbers of cultures and perspectives influencing the production of BBM is pretty amazing).

I'm sitting at my desk at the museum right now and am looking at a book on my self here called the Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art, by James Hall.  It's another classic reference book on symbols.  I find that book a little old-fashioned though. I have to say I often disagree with books that try to control the definition of symbols too tightly.  In more contemporary (cutting-edge maybe?) studies of symbols (semiotics) there's a great emphasis on the idea that symbols change and shift, usually depending on the viewer and the viewer's perspective.  I firmly believe that all symbols are at least somewhat unstable and can be questioned or re-interpreted. 

I think this is why something like BBM is so endlessly fascinating and can generate 2-years worth of deep discussion by so many people... everyone brings their own perspective to this film which is just filled with ambiguity when it comes to meaning and symbols.

Obviously, I personally, love to talk about Jack-and-the-wind and Ennis-and-the-Earth, etc. but I'm fully aware that other viewers might view all of these nature symbols, etc. completely differently.  I think the symbols themselves are there as hooks for viewers, but that all viewers will come up with their own versions of the meanings of those symbols.
the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,211
Re: TOTW 14/07: Is a cigar just a cigar?
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2008, 12:38:16 pm »
I find that book a little old-fashioned though. I have to say I often disagree with books that try to control the definition of symbols too tightly.  In more contemporary (cutting-edge maybe?) studies of symbols (semiotics) there's a great emphasis on the idea that symbols change and shift, usually depending on the viewer and the viewer's perspective.  I firmly believe that all symbols are at least somewhat unstable and can be questioned or re-interpreted.

Hey Bud! I agree, and that makes symbols especially interesting and useful in art and literature. A rigid system of symbol=meaning would get boring fast. But because they're mutable depending on context and perspective and other factors, they are -- like Brokeback Mountain -- open to varied interpretations as well as multiple interpretations. That is, we can have conflicting interpretations of the meaning of a symbol, but we can also think the symbol means more than one thing simultaneously.

One simple but interesting example is the dead sheep. Sheep, or lambs, are often associated with innocence. In the story/movie, sheep also represent the "rules" -- killing the sheep, rather than guarding them, means breaking the rules, and by spending the night together Ennis and Jack broke their work rules as well as society's "rules." And in this scene, the sheep's corpse also suggests Earl's body -- the eerie music is similar, the shots of Ennis' face juxtaposed with those of the wounded body are similar. And suddenly the scene shifts to a vulnerable looking Jack, still accompanied by eerie music.

So does the sheep symbolize the loss of innocence? Ennis' guilt for having broken the rules? The consequences of transgression? Foreshadowing of Jack's death?

I think it means all of those, and probably more.


Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Re: TOTW 14/07: Is a cigar just a cigar?
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2008, 01:01:54 pm »
I think it means all of those, and probably more.

Oh, yes, definitely.  I think the important thing is to recognize that a symbol is there or has been positioned intentionally.  The ultimate meaning of the symbol can be debated endlessly.  The culture in semiotics of scholars who really firmly believe in symbol=x and scholars who take a more nuanced approach is pretty interesting and fraught.  I should qualify my position here a tad... I definitely think symbols can (and actually should) be questioned and left unstable... but their meaning is also probably not infinite.  For instance it would be hard to present an argument that the dead sheep is a symbolic indication that Ennis's favorite color is blue... or that Ennis's favorite food is cherry cake (or something).  But, the dead sheep is there... and is meant to spur the viewer to think about its meaning in a significant way.

When talking about film and symbols, one of the famous concepts is montage... this is an editing term meaning two shots are juxtaposed (one right after the other) and this juxtaposition is meant to suggest a third meaning to the viewer beyond the original two images presented. The idea is that the two images will combine to form a third image or idea in the mind of the viewer. Sergei Eisenstein (1898-1948), the Russian filmmaker, is the most famous writer about montage and he used it all the time in his films. Hitchcock used it a lot too.  It's a conscious recognition on the part of filmmakers that visual imagery holds symbolic content that content can be manipulated (by both the filmmaker and the viewer).

Quote
we can also think the symbol means more than one thing simultaneously.

Katherine, what you said here about a symbol taking on two meanings at once I think is very important to the concept of montage.

Anyway, in this particular example of the dead sheep in BBM, I think Lee actually deploys the concept of montage pretty blatantly.  Right after we see the dead sheep we see Jack's naked body by the stream.  The idea of a dead, mutilated sheep juxtaposed with a naked and vulnerable Jack simply must mean something.

the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie