Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
A Ninth Viewing Observation
nakymaton:
Something I noticed while watching the movie tonight...
I can't tell who Jack is looking at when he says "do you want to dance?" (Looks like he's looking more to his right, though, so at LaShawn.) But then LaShawn glances at Randall before looking at Jack. (When I watched without stopping, I thought for a moment that she was following Jack's gaze. I guess it would make sense for her to look to see how her husband reacted, even before Jack asks Randall if Randall minds. Randall seems to be looking at Jack, which I guess makes sense, because Jack was talking. Though Randall doesn't ever look at LaShawn when she's talking. Heh.)
It looks like there's a glance between Randall and Jack during the sorority discussion... (Randall mostly looks down, but then he looks up, and the camera cuts to Jack, who looks at it, then looks down and to the side, like he's wondering if that look meant what Jack thought it meant. Is this the "gaydar" moment?)
Aussie Chris:
--- Quote from: atz75 on May 17, 2006, 11:28:48 pm ---Now that I think about it though, there are moments when they try to talk about their feelings. Most notably in the motel... in the book Jack says something like "we just have to talk about this..." (I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm paraphrasing). And, clearly in the film Jack is trying to prod Ennis to say more about how he feels. And, after Ennis's comment in the camping trip that he's "sending up a prayer of thanks", Jack says "for what?" He's probably hoping that Ennis will say something real about their situation, but he settles for the cute teasing.
--- End quote ---
Hmmm, this is probably the crux of the differences between the book and the film. Whether this change and other additions are viewed positively (saw-the-film-first crowd) or negatively (read-the-book-first crowd) is up to the individual. I sit comfortably in the changes/additions were positive camp myself, if for no other reason that one of my greatest pleasures is to explore the subtle aspects of the film and the book is considerable less subtle. Lately I've seen a few "gripes" about these differences though, and it got me thinking about why they were made, after all they didn't have to make them?
A contentious issue for some is that the more emotive dialogue that Ennis has in the book is stripped away leaving the ultimate stoic character, but something of a homophobic shell. We don't hear any of the "lil darlins" or admonitions of "should have never let you outa my sight". They're still there in a way, buried in Heath's performance, but we have to look closely. I missed this entirely in the first viewing making the second like watching a completely different character! But really, why do this? It's only my opinion of course, but I think this is a stroke of true genius on the part of Ang+Larry+Diana: All of Ennis' unspoken emotions are channelled into the dozy-embrace flashback. It is only then that we see the true depth of Ennis' feelings and why Jack couldn't quit him. But there's more to these dialogue changes than just having something new to see/hear in a subsequent viewing. What this also does is make Ennis' revelation and final redemption coincide with audience's understanding. In a way, we were in 'denial' as well but only because we didn't have all the information. In fact, we are given some emotional miss-direction with the Ennis punching Jack as they come down the mountain the first time. IMO, this is way more important than just being a plot device to set up the bloodied shirts.
So are the changes between the book and the film a bad thing?
Not in my mind they're not, in fact, I'm grateful for them!
nakymaton:
--- Quote from: Aussie Chris on May 18, 2006, 02:38:01 am ---What this also does is make Ennis' revelation and final redemption coincide with audience's understanding. In a way, we were in 'denial' as well but only because we didn't have all the information. In fact, we are given some emotional miss-direction with the Ennis punching Jack as they come down the mountain the first time. IMO, this is way more important than just being a plot device to set up the bloodied shirts.
--- End quote ---
Oh, wow, you're right. And what makes this interesting, to me, is that the story also makes Ennis' understanding of the relationship coincide with the readers, but using completely different details. We don't learn about Jack's drive north after the divorce until Ennis calls Lureen. And the real kicker -- we don't know about the fight on the mountain (except in brief mentions of Jack's bruise, and Ennis' mention of the punch after the reunion) until Ennis finds the shirts. All those little bits of information about the past combine to make the short story absolutely devastating. (Well, it was to me, at least; I felt like I'd been punched myself, and then had to read it again and again.)
The movie is devastating too; I can't say more or less than the story for me, because they both knock me out. Different media, different techniques, I guess, but both just incredibly effective works of art. (For me, at least; YMMV.) But Chris, I think you explained something that I hadn't understood. Before I got the chance to see the movie, I wondered if it could possibly have the same kind of impact, especially if it showed the events in real time. But I think you're right -- by burying all those feelings that book-Ennis manages to say in that reunion hotel scene, the viewer gets hit by the depth of Ennis' feelings at the end, even though the viewer saw the punch in real time, even though the viewer already knew about that long drive for nothing. And for me, at least, the balance between the emotions that we see earlier and the revelations at the end are just perfect -- the ending always leaves me wanting to go back and read all those little clues we're given earlier, to try to reconstruct the feelings that Ennis was burying.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: Aussie Chris on May 18, 2006, 02:38:01 am --- I sit comfortably in the changes/additions were positive camp myself, if for no other reason that one of my greatest pleasures is to explore the subtle aspects of the film and the book is considerable less subtle. Lately I've seen a few "gripes" about these differences though, and it got me thinking about why they were made, after all they didn't have to make them? ...
A contentious issue for some is that the more emotive dialogue that Ennis has in the book is stripped away leaving the ultimate stoic character, but something of a homophobic shell. We don't hear any of the "lil darlins" or admonitions of "should have never let you outa my sight". ...
So are the changes between the book and the film a bad thing?
Not in my mind they're not, in fact, I'm grateful for them!
--- End quote ---
Wow, lots of good ideas here, Chris and Amanda and Nakymaton (Naky, I'm still processing yours -- your post came in after I started writing this). There's probably enough here for a whole thread of its own. I know we have often discussed Story Ennis/Jack vs. Movie Ennis/Jack, and even occasionally who likes which version better (I was just discussing this with starboardlight on a different thread yesterday, in fact). But to me, the changes made in Ennis' character make the movie very different from the story. The bones of the plot structure remain (thank you, Annie!), but the central themes shift. I read the story first, but like the movie version better. I find it much more powerful and moving than I did the story, mainly because for me Ennis' internalized homophobia turns it from a drama about the logistical difficulties and very real dangers imposed by a homophobic society into a story about the damage that a homophobic society inflicts on people's souls. (Though Naky, am I understanding your post to suggest that stuff is also in the story, though revealed in a different way?)
Don't get me wrong, from a purely romantic perspective I would LOVE to hear Ennis be more verbally expressive and open about his feelings, answer Jack's "sometimes I miss you so much" and his "how bout you?", tell Jack outright why he's sending up a prayer of thanks (though I might let him off the hook on that one -- his mentioning the prayer at all gets the point across, I think), and in general be less oblique and frustrating. But the fact that he he hides those emotions, at such great cost to himself, is what draws me into the story, makes me feel the pain of Ennis' internal struggle, make the times when his emotions DO become overwhelming enough to reach the surface (the alley scene, the reunion scene, the last few scenes) that much more moving. (And Chris, your comparison of the dozy embrace is interesting; there he IS openly affectionate in the absence of trauma, suggesting that things were probably different between them up on Brokeback).
For example, if we saw Ennis give an openly affectionate and loving goodbye to Jack, then go and collapse in tears in the alley, we'd understand it perfectly but it wouldn't be nearly as heartbreaking. We'd just say, oh, isn't it sad that they're in love but have to say goodbye ... rather than Wow, his heart is really breaking; isn't it tragic that he believes there's nothing he can do about it and feels forced to hide his feelings even from Jack? The contrast between those emotions brings both into much more relief, makes me feel each much more powerfully. His love, though unexpressed to Jack, seems more intense because of the contrast. If he didn't express it to Jack, he is expressing it to US.
ednbarby:
Mmmmm. Lovely, Katherine. And Chris and Naky. I agree with Chris, too (and I was someone who longed just for that "li'l darlin'." I don't anymore.) It's perfect just the way it is, for all the reasons you all so eloquently stated. I think that's why I still feel as if my heart stops every time I see Ennis' face as he's backing away from that closet in his trailer, even after a dozen viewings, and countless more of it in Brandon's montage.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version