Re: I saw Ang Lee and James Schamus in NYC
by jaaguir 22 hours ago (Mon Nov 19 2007 10:51:35) This reminds me of a review I read that says the women in Brokeback are the point of view of the story.
It's a different kind of review because this reviewer is not so interested in content, but in the structure of films and what he calls "folding". I'm pasting the review here and also provide the link (there are hundreds of his particular reviews in his site):
"Larry McMurtry is a good writer, but a lazy one. So he sticks to one of the most common formulas, the rule of twos. When used well, this compounds. So we start with two people in love, natch. That will split so that we have two pairs, two husbands and wives. The husbands will be where the story happens and the wives where it is watched from.
Then on the other side, you'll need a pair of external watchers. If the two wives are internal watchers, you'll need two almost-wives as external ones: here, the newly betrothed daughter and the almost fianceed girl friend. The center of the thing is the pair of watchers, the wives. Even though all the attention is on the guys, the thing revolves around the two wives.
(At the end, we encounter a third wife who simply echos the deal: what wives see and know, what they allow and what they govern.)
Lee's projects all exploit the rule of twos. It was obvious in the first one I saw, his love/food movie, and every one since. He seeks out scripts structured this way because he knows how to exploit them. Quite apart from the human dynamics, look at how he handles the scenery. A hack will give is full-blown, high octane beauty against which you'll contrast mere humans fighting or flowing.
Hacks like Robert Redford in "River Runs Through It" where we are assaulted by the beauty of the place. Or if you want a western, "Open Range" which not only grinds the scenery into our eyes, but gives us an encyclopedic tour of all the impedimenta of ranching. The worst example I know is "Proof of Life" where the agenda was most obvious: vast openness, claustrophobic confinement.
Look what Ang has done. The mountains are glorious but photographed dully as if seen by someone who grew up there. In fact, when you see the postcards, the difference is obvious: the cards are romantically unreal. He's included all sorts of genuine gear and methods but in no case has he veered off to show: hey look at this article of truth. No, his truth and scope are amplified because they are assumed rather than tutored.
(There's only one place where the power of cinema is fully unleashed. A juxtaposition of fireworks and Ennis when he 'explodes.")
Now, knowing this, and that the thing rests in the two women, look to see the two moments which form the fulcrum of this thing. Most good filmmakers have one scene in mind when they conceive the movie and everything grows from that center. A rule of twos man will have two. One is the moment when Alma first lets her husband go off knowing why.
The more powerful sun around which everything revolves is a scene where Ann Hathaway as Jack's widow recounts his fate. The makeup is extraordinary, worth a dedicated comment. (Teeth.) But watch how many emotions go through her face as she tells the story. We discover what she knew, even what her culpability may be. We discover the existence of her own closet of secrets and rivers we'll never see.
Sure, Ledger is good. But you have to understand how carefully this internal/external no- speaking notion was set up and sustained in every element that surrounds him. Every single element is congruent with this one philosophy. That's what makes this great film-making regardless of what you think of the movie."
http://www.filmsfolded.com/movie.php?movieid=388795&highlight=brokebackRe: I saw Ang Lee and James Schamus in NYC
by enoughtime 22 hours ago (Mon Nov 19 2007 11:04:23) Interesting piece. Thanks for posting it, jaaguir. I'm not sure I agree with everything he says, but it's all interesting and I haven't seen anyone else say it.
The part about how the 4th of July scene is the exception to Lee's usual offhand style may help explain why so many people have trouble with that scene.
Re: I saw Ang Lee and James Schamus in NYC
by jaaguir 13 minutes ago (Tue Nov 20 2007 09:34:08) Thanks for answering enoughtime.
I thought the piece was interesting, at least for its originality. The guy has some "funny" (I say this in a good way) opinions on many other movies too.
I agree with you that it's funny he points out the 4th of July scene as different from the rest of the movie, as many fans do, only maybe not with his point of view.
I think he's probably right about Ang Lee and his other movies, that you can see the "rule of two" thing in all of them.
I agree with the thing he says about how Ang Lee shows the scenery and the equipment, that he does so in an unassuming way. I know one of the widest-spread common-places about the movie, that probably even haters of the movie say, is that it has wonderful scenery. That is true, the scenery itself is wonderful, but I always thought the way Ang Lee shot it was not wonderful, at least not in the classic way of showing postcard-shot-scenery images that many movies do. I even used to think it was a slightly missed opportunity in that regard. I never said it before because everybody else seems to think the contrary, and besides I really didn't care that much about it. So I like his explanation for that.
I guess I understand his "rule of twos" logic but I have doubts when that leads him to identify those two scenes as the central ones of the movie. I guess it makes sense in that logic but it sounds weird.
And I really would have liked that he had explained better what he means in the last paragraph, about every element in the movie being congruent with a "internal/external no- speaking notion".
