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

A Ninth Viewing Observation

<< < (3/75) > >>

ednbarby:
Well, shoot.  I'll just have to watch it again, I guess.  ;)

serious crayons:
I guess I had thought of it the way Barb did -- Jack looks at Randall first -- but the other way probably makes more sense. Either way, their gazes hold long enough for both of them to get the message, and emboldens Randall to suggest the trip to the cabin.

The talk of parallel scenes (beans/ashes, flirting) reminds me of something I read on imdb and found fascinating, though I'm still not sure what to think about it. A poster who is often pretty astute claims the entire movie is structured like a mirror or an inkblot: the opening scene parallels the last scene (Ennis at Aguirre's trailer, Ennis at his own trailer), the second parallels the second-to-last, and so on. The turning point, he says, is the scene with the girls on the swingset -- there's a red star-shaped decoration on the swingset that echoes a red star-shaped symbol on LD Newsome's dealership in the scene immediately following.

Another example he offered is the 4th of July scene immediately followed by (or following?) the Jimbo scene, which he says echo the two Thanksgiving scenes. In all four scenes, Ennis and Jack's manhood is challenged. In the earlier ones, Ennis "wins" the challenge (beats up the bikers) and Jack "loses" (humiliated by Jimbo and possibly the bartender). In the later ones it's the other way around: Ennis loses (gets beat up) and Jack wins (tells off L.D.). Jack has changed and matured; Ennis hasn't. (In both, Ennis' reaction involves physical fighting, whereas Jack uses the more mature approach: words.) And still another example: the final lakeside argument echoes the stretch between Jack and Ennis' fight when they're leaving the mountain and Ennis' collapse in the alley, both also involving Jack getting into his truck and saying he's going to visit his parents.

This poster says he went through the whole movie comparing scenes on either end and that this structure holds throughout.

I haven't done that, but I'm not sure I see the parallels as being quite that neatly symmetrical. To me, they are a bit messier -- for example, there's ALSO a trailer scene in the drive-in movie that Ennis and Alma are watching, which seems to remind Ennis of Jack. And the timing isn't always perfect: the truck crossing the screen with Ennis inside holding a paper bag containing shirts in the FIRST scene and then in the SECOND TO LAST scene. But close!

Anyway, I thought it was a really interesting idea. What do you guys think? Do you see any other examples of this mirror-like structure?

ednbarby:
Wow.  All I can say is what I wouldn't give for an Ang Lee commentary track.  Wouldn't it be beyond lovely to hear him reveal his intentions?  Or is it more fun to just surmise them...?

TJ:
Stressing the fact that I read the original story several weeks BEFORE I saw the movie, I have some comments about what is in the following quote by another forum member. Don't get upset because I am posting MY opinion here.


--- Quote ---Another example he offered is the 4th of July scene immediately followed by (or following?) the Jimbo scene, which he says echo the two Thanksgiving scenes. In all four scenes, Ennis and Jack's manhood is challenged. In the earlier ones, Ennis "wins" the challenge (beats up the bikers) and Jack "loses" (humiliated by Jimbo and possibly the bartender). In the later ones it's the other way around: Ennis loses (gets beat up) and Jack wins (tells off L.D.). Jack has changed and matured; Ennis hasn't. (In both, Ennis' reaction involves physical fighting, whereas Jack uses the more mature approach: words.) And still another example: the final lakeside argument echoes the stretch between Jack and Ennis' fight when they're leaving the mountain and Ennis' collapse in the alley, both also involving Jack getting into his truck and saying he's going to visit his parents.
--- End quote ---

There is no 4th of July scene in Annie Proulx's original story.

There is no Childress, Texas Thankgiving scene either. I seriously doubt that Jack's father-in-law (no name given) would have even eaten one meal at Jack's and Lureen's.

Her old man hated Jack's guts and Jack and Lureen got no financial help form the man at all when he was alive. In 1967, Jack even went so far to say that her old man would probably be willing to pay off Jack to get lost.

In 1967, Annie Proulx's Jack was still driving that old green pickup truck and Jack complained about how it acted on the trip up from Childress to Riverton.

The only person in the story who was known to be Jack's boss in Childress, Texas, was his wife, Lureen, and that was after she inherited the company. She gave Jack a vague managerial title and made him a buyer for HER company.

There are no rodeo scenes in her story. Therefore, the rodeo clown/bull-fighter does not exist. In 1967, we only know that Jack met Lureen where he won another bull-riding award belt buckle in Texas. Other than how he speaks nicely to Alma about Lureen, Jack really has nothing good to say about her at all in the Annie Proulx story.

In the story, Ennis is very sad and uncomfortable while sitting between his daughters at the Thanksgiving meal in the home of Alma and her husband, Bill, the Riverton grocer. When he leaves Alma's and goes to the Black and Blue Eagle Bar, he gets drunk first and THEN gets into a fight.

Jack's complaints about their son's learning problems and the fact that Lureen did not care was after the boy was 15 years old.

serious crayons:
TJ, here's a suggestion: How about we establish for now and for all time that there are many differences between the story and the movie? That will save you the trouble of writing all those posts outlining the precise differences. Just about everybody here is familiar with both, so it's not really necessary anyway. Many people, myself included, read the story YEARS before seeing the movie. However, many posts apply only to the movie, so the story's differences aren't particularly relevant.

I'm not upset, but I don't see how the post above is an expression of your opinion -- to me, it seems like a simple list of facts. That is, unless you are implying that my comment on the movie is invalid because the movie's content isn't an exact replica of the story's. In which case, you are welcome to your opinion, TJ, but I would disagree. And I would expect you to get increasingly frustrated, because many people here like to discuss the movie as well as the story, differences and all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page