Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum

Got What They Deserved?

<< < (7/15) > >>

serious crayons:

--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on June 25, 2006, 02:38:01 am ---Not surprisingly I'm sure, I have to disagree with you there, Katherine, because "the final product" did not spring, Athena-like, from Ang Lee's head. It was the result of an organic process that began with Annie Proulx's story. To me, Brokeback Mountain is a single and unique phenomenon comprising both story and film, and while they have their differences, for me nothing is irrelevant as data for analysis.
--- End quote ---

My post above refers to a line you quoted from a previous draft of the screenplay. As I'm sure you as a writer can understand, I as a writer would not want someone, in disputing some point in a published piece of mine, say, "But look -- regardless of what she said in her 16th draft, she said blah blah blah in her third draft, so that's what she must really mean." The whole reason for having more than one draft is that the writer's intention changes as the work develops. It must be disconcerting, to say the least, to be held to a vision that has long since been discarded.

To further complicate matters, in this case we're talking not about a single artist but three "groups" of artists: 1) Annie, 2) Larry and Diana, 3) Ang and everyone else involved in the movie. There's at least three different visions, more if people within groups held their own views (as they no doubt did). My point is, the screenplay is not the ultimate guide to the movie's intentions. It's only a guide to the screenwriters' intentions. Another layer of artists subsequently added their own. Their objectives may have been in accord -- or not. So you can't always determine what the movie meant by reading the screenplay (let alone a previous draft!).

My preferred approach is to judge the story by the final version of the story (not by any one of Annie's 60-some earlier drafts), the screenplay by the final screenplay, the movie by the edited movie. Yes, other versions can be interesting, even enlightening, but are not ultimately authoritative.


--- Quote ---At the time that "dozy embrace" took place, Ennis couldn't face up to embracing Jack face to face. OK. But don't forget that by the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis had been wringing it out for three or four years while thinking of Jack, and had figured out that the cause of his gut cramps was that he shouldn't have let Jack out of his sights. The flashback is relevant to the story, just not to the story version of the reunion, I believe. By the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis was perfectly capable and willing to embrace Jack face to face--and I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant by the flashback not applying to the story.

--- End quote ---

We debated this once before, Jeff, when you presented your idea about Ennis maturing and learning to embrace Jack face to face. I can buy that, I guess. The trouble is, people keep insisting on applying it to Ennis throughout his life -- reunion, schmeunion. Worse, they constantly apply it to Movie Ennis, to whom it demonstrably does not apply by the time of their second night together. As I said then, and have become even more convinced since, it was a mistake in the story. Even if Annie meant to suggest that Ennis had matured -- and, ahem, Occam's Razor might apply here -- she did not make it clear enough (as you yourself suggested in the previous discussion!). Sorry, folks, brilliant though she may be, Annie is fallable.


--- Quote ---by the way, when did "TS2" become "SNIT" [eeew]?).
--- End quote ---

Finally, something we can agree on!  :D I'll confess I think I was the originator of TS1 and TS2 (or at least, when I first used the terms I hadn't seen them used before). But SNIT and FNIT developed simultaneously on, I think, imdb, and since they spread here I have sensed a tipping point of people succumbing to those terms, and finally today I began to cave myself. But if you're willing to stick with TS1 and TS2, Jeff, I'm with you.  :D

fontaine:
I think it contained both messages: "If you cross society--even if society has its head where the sun don't shine--there are going to be consequences in terms of how you'll be treated and how you'll feel about yourself because of those influences you've internalized." The other message is "if you don't follow your own heart and soul regardless of what society pressures you to do, you're going to pay a price."

I watched a DVD of Caroline Myss last night. For those who haven't heard of her, she's a PhD in theology who's a medical intuitive. She talked about people's sources of power as being threefold: tribal, personal, and spiritual. All the narrow-minded bigots who spew what they've been taught, including homophobes, think at the tribal level. (This was ultimately Ennis's problem.) Those who defy the tribal dictates and chart their own course (Jack did this a bit more than Ennis) are at a different level of consciousness. Those few who transcend the personal are able to step out of their own skin and look at situations from an objective, non-reactive level. Niether character did this. It's a fascinating way to not only look at the movie (as well as the way others look at it), but to apply to our own lives. (I got the DVD at Netflix.)

Jeff Wrangler:

--- Quote from: latjoreme on June 25, 2006, 03:48:13 am ---My post above refers to a line you quoted from a previous draft of the screenplay. As I'm sure you as a writer can understand, I as a writer would not want someone, in disputing some point in a published piece of mine, say, "But look -- regardless of what she said in her 16th draft, she said blah blah blah in her third draft, so that's what she must really mean." The whole reason for having more than one draft is that the writer's intention changes as the work develops. It must be disconcerting, to say the least, to be held to a vision that has long since been discarded.
--- End quote ---

I never said--or never intended to say--that earlier drafts of either story or screenplay indicate the meaning of the final version. If I wasn't clear on that point, I apologize. My intent was that I feel it can be useful in understanding the finished product to look at what came earlier, because the end product came about as a result of growth and change. We might as well just agree to disagree on this point because nobody is going to convince me that this isn't a valid approach or part of formulating one's understanding. It must, indeed, be disconcerting to be held to a vision long past, but that's not what I'm doing.

I don't mean to be offensive but I really don't see what the problem is with, say, looking at one of Ennis's lines in the 2004 screenplay and comparing it to the final version. That's really all I'm talking about.


--- Quote ---To further complicate matters, in this case we're talking not about a single artist but three "groups" of artists: 1) Annie, 2) Larry and Diana, 3) Ang and everyone else involved in the movie. There's at least three different visions, more if people within groups held their own views (as they no doubt did). My point is, the screenplay is not the ultimate guide to the movie's intentions. It's only a guide to the screenwriters' intentions. Another layer of artists subsequently added their own. Their objectives may have been in accord -- or not. So you can't always determine what the movie meant by reading the screenplay (let alone a previous draft!).
--- End quote ---

I don't believe I said you could, but, again, if I wasn't clear, I apologize. Since we don't unfortunately, have a shooting script--wouldn't I love to get my hands on one of those!--the screenplay is the only written text we have to use in conjunction with what we see on the screen. And the screenplay is certainly useful for referring to dialogue rather than trusting to one's memory only--even recognizing the differences from the dialogue we hear.


--- Quote ---My preferred approach is to judge the story by the final version of the story (not by any one of Annie's 60-some earlier drafts), the screenplay by the final screenplay, the movie by the edited movie. Yes, other versions can be interesting, even enlightening, but are not ultimately authoritative.

We debated this once before, Jeff, when you presented your idea about Ennis maturing and learning to embrace Jack face to face. I can buy that, I guess. The trouble is, people keep insisting on applying it to Ennis throughout his life -- reunion, schmeunion. Worse, they constantly apply it to Movie Ennis, to whom it demonstrably does not apply by the time of their second night together. As I said then, and have become even more convinced since, it was a mistake in the story. Even if Annie meant to suggest that Ennis had matured -- and, ahem, Occam's Razor might apply here -- she did not make it clear enough (as you yourself suggested in the previous discussion!). Sorry, folks, brilliant though she may be, Annie is fallable.
--- End quote ---

She certainly is fallible. During the last fishing trip she has Ennis give an age for Alma, Jr., that doesn't jive with her stated birthdate of September 1964. I've said elsewhere I can't understand why that wasn't "caught" at The New Yorker and changed--surely Annie wouldn't have objected to such a minor detail--although why she didn't change it for later editions is a mystery, but I'm digressing.

True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake. And there is no need to apply Occam's Razor because we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.

SNIT, at least, is good for a laugh.  :laugh:

dly64:

--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on June 25, 2006, 04:53:20 pm ---True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake. And there is no need to apply Occam's Razor because we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.
--- End quote ---

I agree that it was not an accident that the "dozy embrace" was included in the film and story. The flashback is relevant because it signifies the relationship between Jack and Ennis, doesn't it? Ennis could never face the reality that it was a man he loved (until Jack was dead). IMO, this scene should be taken figuratively versus literally.

I am guessing this will provoke more debate???

Jeff Wrangler:

--- Quote from: dly64 on June 25, 2006, 05:42:38 pm ---I agree that it was not an accident that the "dozy embrace" was included in the film and story. The flashback is relevant because it signifies the relationship between Jack and Ennis, doesn't it? Ennis could never face the reality that it was a man he loved (until Jack was dead). IMO, this scene should be taken figuratively versus literally.

I am guessing this will provoke more debate???

--- End quote ---

Now, there's an interesting thought! I think I have in the past discussed that the meaning of the dozy embrace memory has to be different in the movie than in the story with regard to the development of Ennis's character, because of TS2 (aka SNIT  ;D), but "figuratively versus literally" is an angle I hadn't thought of.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page