Then, may I say that you are re-acting maybe like the gay men you said about? I agree that everyone wants to stir away from a subject when it is painful or difficult!! It is better to really get involved, is it not?? May I ask?
I find puzzling, as I am a gay man, that the accent is not only on the gay or bi lives (especially of the main two charactors who can be considered also maybe only heterosexuals by some), that not much as far as I concerned the film helps gay men, but why about straight women in it so much about them?? So, I do ask about that concerning what might be preferred the movie or the film, concerning these two main points (the 2 main characters concentrating about the men, as well as the the women (their wives)... as I think that those questions posed are important!!
For what it's worth, I think it's worth exploring some of these issues, and I appreciate that you've put some time into explaining this Artiste. I also think you make some valid points here, but I get the impression that you are lamenting the suffering of Ennis and forgetting that that's the point of the film. The audience is
supposed to feel frustrated. We are asked to empathise with the situation each character find themselves in, and to relate to them. Morals then present themselves as we think about the lot of Ennis, or Jack, or Alma as we consider
what we think the character should have done. Without this the story would simply be: boy meet boy... and lives happily ever after. A few minutes later the audience would leave the cinema quite miffed that the film only runs for 30 minutes! Hmmm.
Ok, so here's where I hook this conversation back to the topic in question
(just for you Oregondoggie). The book is very superficial when it comes to the women of the story. Because of this, in my opinion, we don't connect to Jack & Ennis in the same way as we do in the film. To me it's all the more tragic that the boys muck up their own lives, but they also hurt the people closest to them. That's what's so tragic. I feel sorry for Alma, it wasn't her fault Ennis made a mistake. So if she resented Ennis somewhat, I completely don't blame her. Do we get any of this from the book? Maybe, a little, but the film treats this as an important theme and is richer as a result.
For me the book is equally powerful, but for different reasons. It is trailblazing, it is unique, it is paradoxically succinct and epic at the same time. It awes me that such depth and texture can be conveyed in so few pages, and to be so moved by the themes. But many of these achievements can be attributed to the film also, as if Ang Lee "upped the ante" of the film's texture and substance and combined these with a subtlety we don't always get in films.
So do I think the film or book is better? I think the film does more with the material in all the right ways. Really, does anyone think we would all be here without the film, or if the film was a dud? Would the book alone still have us analysing this story? Doubtful. The film is better, definitely.
