Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
stevenedel:
I'll add my two cents to this nuanced and interesting discussion because I seem to disagree with what appears to be the majority opinion in the above.
The embrace is for me the high point of the short story. It tells us exactly what binds Jack to Ennis, and how he feels about their relationship and its (lack of) future. It explains why he doesn't know how to quit Ennis. I always read his "Let be, let be" as the equivalent to Ennis"s "If you can't fix it...". The flashback is, as somebody else remarked above, the one place where even Proulx succumbs to something approaching sentimentality. A warm, dreamlike little oasis in a brutally pragmatic little story.
Now, I would hate to have the film without the dozy embrace, don't get me wrong. But plotwise, I do think the film could do perfectly well without it. The scene lacks the function it has in the story, because it tells us nothing about Jack's thoughts; it becomes a purely sentimental episode, devised to remind us of all the possibilities that were never realized. It is also a brief moment of repose that hightens the contrast with the high drama that went before it, and the tragedy that will follow. Furthermore it also compensates, to some degree, for the lack of intimate J&E scenes in the second half of the movie - though in doing so it reinforces the impression that they were intimate and affectionate in 1963, but not so much later on.
I also feel that when, at the end of the flashback, Jack watches Ennis ride off, the look on his face is troubled and wistful rather than suffused with happiness. Unlike in the story, in the film the flashback seems to foreshadow the trouble to come.
--- Quote from: nakymaton on July 25, 2006, 05:27:02 pm ---Can I just give a standing ovation to Diane for mentioning the other possible symbolism of sheep? ;D When I hear "sheep," I think "conformity" rather than "innocent sacrifice."
--- End quote ---
I second that! "Get along little doggies"= don't stray from the herd.
Katie77:
Having said my opinion of this wonderful scene, I now also want to tell you, what a bloody idiot i was after seeing the movie for the first time.
I had not read the book, and had no one at the time to talk about the movie with, and when I saw that scene I didnt realize it was a flashback.....I actually thought it was a mistake, and that there had been some mix up with the scenes...
I joined a message board, but had not read anything about this scene, but the message board had a thread about mistakes that were in the movie....and I, in my naevity, sent in that "they got it wrong, one minute Jack has a moustache and the next scene he doesnt have it".......and would you believe, no one even corrected me on this, or asked what the hell I was talking about.
After being in the message board community now for over six months, where we have dissected nearly every minute of the film, I feel quite embarrassed now, for even thinking that they would make such a blunder as I had thought they did, and even more embarrassed that I had the stupidity to write it in a message board post.
But it does go to show, that one viewing of the movie, (especially if the book hasnt been read), may not let the viewer appreciate or understand all the things going on in the movie....I remember I didnt see the words "deceased" on the postcard in my first viewing....it wasnt till I joined a message board, that I understood those last two words that Ennis said, "I Swear".....I was so shocked at the first tent scene the first time i saw it, that I hardly looked at it, brushed it from my mind, thought it was unnecessary.....
There are so many more things that I just didnt get, the first time I saw it, cant remember them now, because everything is now etched in my mind so clearly, yet with all that I missed or didnt understand, it still left a huge impact on me...I remember walking out from the theatre, and thinking, "what am I thinking, what am I feeling, something is different, something has happened to me here, what the hell is it?"......
I wonder how many others, who only see the movie the one time, and dont read the book, have a completely different take on some of the things that happened, what if they miss out on what was actually happening, the in depth of what was happening....I have found myself telling people who may be renting out the movie for a first time viewing, to watch it a couple of times...really watch it and think about it....I dont want them to miss out, or judge the movie, maybe incorrectly, because they didnt understand what was going on.
I lent the movie to my mother in law a couple of days ago, she is 80, and she rang me tonight to tell me she watched it and enjoyed it, (although, she said "there were a couple of scenes I didnt like).....I knew she would like it, I dont think I would have given it to her if I thought it would offend her, but on the other hand, I know, that she probably didnt get close to understanding it all.....her main comment about it was that it was "sad"......and "isnt that Jake Gyllenghaal a nice looking young man"........Now I would love to sit with her and watch it again, so I can explain things to her, hopefully I will do that after she has had a little break from it.
I know it cant happen, but I just want everyone to understand this story and what it is all about, without missing out on any details.......just like I would have done, if it hadnt got into my soul the first time I saw it and made me want to see more of it, and read more about it......
Mikaela:
--- Quote ---From Amanda
And, I also think the characters in the movie are very different (in the case of Ennis... extremely different) than the characters as written in Proulx. By the time two screenwriters a director and two actors start adding their two cents the characters grow beyond just belonging to Proulx.
--- End quote ---
I am immensely grateful to Annie Proulx - for creating Ennis and Jack in the first place, of course - but almost equally grateful for her whole-hearted acceptance and enthusiasm for the film and the creative process of writers, director, cast and crew. The "getting movied" essay, where she among other matters says that Heath Ledger understood Ennis better than she herself did, is very liberating to me. Her statement that "My story was not mangled but enlarged into huge and gripping imagery that rattled minds and squeezed hearts" confirms it's entirely OK to love both film and story, differences and inconsistencies and all - without having to figure out which is the "truer" or "better" representation of any one event - without having to reconsile or explain anything if we don't want to. The short story is there, informing the our understanding of the film, - but not limiting it in *any* way.
Having previously seen what negativity and limitations disagreements between book and film "purists" is capable of bringing to a fandom, Annie Proulx's attitude is a wonderful gift to us from the author. (Never mind that if any film did deserve such an attitude, surely it has to be this one.......)
--- Quote ---From Stevenedel
But plotwise, I do think the film could do perfectly well without it. The scene lacks the function it has in the story, because it tells us nothing about Jack's thoughts; it becomes a purely sentimental episode, devised to remind us of all the possibilities that were never realized. It is also a brief moment of repose that hightens the contrast with the high drama that went before it, and the tragedy that will follow.
--- End quote ---
I don't think I disagree with any of that - nevertheless I can't but think that the tension and tragedy of the developing plot almost necessitates that loving, romantic, dream-like flashback - fulfilling what I'd call a craving in the audience *and* in Jack. I do know that every time I've seen the film to the end, I've always had this huge urge to start back at the beginning, - to get to be reminded of Jack and Ennis in happier days once more. I think that was part of the reason why I saw the film a double digit times in the cinema. So the inclusion of the flashback is directly plot-driven to me in this sense, a very emotional sense, responding to longings in both audience and film characters at that point to be allowed for the tiniest minute to revisit and rewarm the old, cold time on the mountain...... when nothing seemed wrong. :'(
ednbarby:
Amanda, to answer your question, I think Jack bows his head down mostly because he feels a sleepy, trance-like sort of peace at Ennis' warmth and affection, and maybe possibly to nuzzle his chin into Ennis' wrist/hand. Then he leans back into him to nuzzle his neck and head into his shoulder. Sigh.
And Sam, I love this:
--- Quote ---I thought Annie Proulx was emphasizing, with Ennis's refusal to admit that he was holding a man, that he loved Jack, a man, despite himself!
--- End quote ---
I like the more positive spin that has on it - makes me feel much better than the thought of Ennis not fully accepting Jack as a human being, which is in conflict with my feeling that Ennis and Jack's mother were the only two people Jack ever knew who did that. Thank you for that.
dly64:
I continue to be amazed at the depth and insight of everyone discussing this topic. As usual, I find myself viewing things in a different and/or expanded way.
--- Quote from: Mikaela on July 26, 2006, 08:48:42 am ---I am immensely grateful to Annie Proulx - for creating Ennis and Jack in the first place, of course - but almost equally grateful for her whole-hearted acceptance and enthusiasm for the film and the creative process of writers, director, cast and crew. The "getting movied" essay, where she among other matters says that Heath Ledger understood Ennis better than she herself did, is very liberating to me. Her statement that "My story was not mangled but enlarged into huge and gripping imagery that rattled minds and squeezed hearts" confirms it's entirely OK to love both film and story, differences and inconsistencies and all - without having to figure out which is the "truer" or "better" representation of any one event - without having to reconsile or explain anything if we don't want to. The short story is there, informing the our understanding of the film, - but not limiting it in *any* way.
Having previously seen what negativity and limitations disagreements between book and film "purists" is capable of bringing to a fandom, Annie Proulx's attitude is a wonderful gift to us from the author. (Never mind that if any film did deserve such an attitude, surely it has to be this one.......)
--- End quote ---
I agree with you completely about this. I do like using source materials such as the story, the screenplay and interviews as a way to understand the motivation of the characters or as a method for clarification. Ultimately, the interpretation lies within me. My life experiences play a part into how I view the film as it does for everyone else.
--- Quote from: stevenedel on July 26, 2006, 07:47:18 am ---The embrace is for me the high point of the short story. It tells us exactly what binds Jack to Ennis, and how he feels about their relationship and its (lack of) future. It explains why he doesn't know how to quit Ennis. I always read his "Let be, let be" as the equivalent to Ennis"s "If you can't fix it...". The flashback is, as somebody else remarked above, the one place where even Proulx succumbs to something approaching sentimentality. A warm, dreamlike little oasis in a brutally pragmatic little story.
Now, I would hate to have the film without the dozy embrace, don't get me wrong. But plotwise, I do think the film could do perfectly well without it. The scene lacks the function it has in the story, because it tells us nothing about Jack's thoughts; it becomes a purely sentimental episode, devised to remind us of all the possibilities that were never realized. It is also a brief moment of repose that hightens the contrast with the high drama that went before it, and the tragedy that will follow. Furthermore it also compensates, to some degree, for the lack of intimate J&E scenes in the second half of the movie - though in doing so it reinforces the impression that they were intimate and affectionate in 1963, but not so much later on.
I also feel that when, at the end of the flashback, Jack watches Ennis ride off, the look on his face is troubled and wistful rather than suffused with happiness. Unlike in the story, in the film the flashback seems to foreshadow the trouble to come.
--- End quote ---
This is certainly an interesting POV and I can’t disagree with your logic. I fall on the side, however, that this scene serves as one of the “bookends” in the film. We see the beginning of their relationship on BBM and we see the last memory of their relationship on BBM. It is also important to see Jack and Ennis loving each other without the sexual context.
It is interesting to note that in the short story, Ennis has dreams about Jack and they are always as Ennis had first seen him …. young. I think the film also tries to relay that sentiment. When they were on BBM, it was just the two of them. They were young and free from all of the expectations and responsibilities that followed. The “dozy embrace” serves as a contrast to what their relationship has become. Yes, they love each other deeply. But in their faces you can see the pain and the toll that rural phobia has caused. I also think the flashback reminds us, the viewers, of what could have been. As Jack says, “We could have had a good life together. A f--king real good life ...” Even as I write this, I get chills because I know they could have had a wonderful and loving life together. Instead, because of fear and societal constraints, they have been forced to live separately.
--- Quote from: opinionista on July 26, 2006, 07:02:10 am ---This movie does not belong just to Ang Lee. Brokeback Moutain, as the entire production team, -including Ang- has said, is a product of a collaboration between a group of people which includes the director, the actors, the screenwriters, the director of photography and so on. The director has a lot of creative power, no doubt about it but he does not make the movie alone. For example, when Ennis finds the shirts, Jack's is outside and Ennis's is inside. Then, when we see the shirts on Ennis's closet, his shirt is outside, and Jack's is inside. That was Heath Ledger's idea, not Ang Lee's or anybody else's. Movies are a product of collaboration and creative work, all movies. I believe Jake Gyllenhaal himself has said it.
--- End quote ---
Ditto. I believe Diana Ossana and Larry McMurty explain this very well … (the story) “…. ceases to be yours. It becomes the world’s.”
--- Quote from: Samrim on July 26, 2006, 03:14:30 am --- << I think the dozy embrace is supposed to show they were in love as opposed to just having sex, and having them embrace from the front would have confused the issue.>>
Nice point latjoreme, I like it a lot, and wish to agree with it. But I think it maybe misses the point a bit. I thought Annie Proulx was emphasizing, with Ennis's refusal to admit that he was holding a man, that he loved Jack, a man, despite himself! :)
--- End quote ---
As others have said … I love that, Sam! I think that hits the nail on the head.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version