Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?

[Brown Eyes]

I agree with Katherine that the biggest and really the only flaw with the flashback is the idea in the story that Ennis wouldn't look at Jack in the face.  The actors/ Lee vastly improved this scene, I think, by having Ennis seem to almost strain to see Jack's face.

I still disagree with some of the quotes from other/older threads, etc. that Jack broke up with Ennis during the argument.  I think Ennis's confident (and very casual/ normal) postcard about November is evidence of this as well as Jack's self-admission that he really couldn't "quit" Ennis anyway.  I don't think either one of them could truly stand the thought trying to leave the other behind.  And I don't think that Jack would be doing Ennis any favors by "setting Ennis free" or any such thing.  Jack was not forcing Ennis to continue the relationship at any junture.  Ennis was perfectly happy to continue the relationship... but yes according to his terms, rules and round-up schedule.  What a dismal life they would both lead without one another... and Jack knew this.  Ennis often didn't know what was best for himself (I don't mean this in a condescending way... his true fears led him to make lots of life choices that were probably not the best ones... and left him feeling like "nothing and nowhere"- this was not Jack's fault... he's just deflecting blame like he does when he argue). And, through many moments in the relationship relied on Jack to lead the way.  So, even here at the end of the argument he's relying on Jack to do the torquing... back to where things were before by initiating the tight hug.

But, yes, the flashback is certainly a "bookend" about the beginning and end of the relationship.  The end because of Jack's death... not because of a break-up.  The foreboding is much more serious than a break-up (although that would be awfully serious).  "See you in the morning" alway sounds a bit to me like he's saying something like "see you in the next life" as if this last sentence we hear Ennis utter to Jack actually is displaced in time and is the last exchange between the two of them.  It's a bookend too because the flashback and the hug at the end of the argument... are at their most basic level all about hugs that are excruciatingly important and emotion-filled.  I can't imagine how depressing the end of BBM would be if we didn't see both of these hugs.  The flashback definitely shows their hopeful romanticism in the beginning and shows how sweet their romance probably was through the years (all those tent scenes, etc. that we don't get to witness).  And the hug at the end of the argument helps us feel a little bit better about the way the argument ended.  It also shows Ennis's continuing need to lean on Jack.  Others have noted that this collapse is a "bookend" for his dry heaves moment at the end of the '63 summer.  Only this time he doesn't need to cling to an empty wall... Jack is still their to support him. 

The timing of the flashback is so wonderful because it both reassures us about their romance, it makes our heart break because of the state of the relationship 20 years down the road and it helps create ambiguity since we don't see what happened between Jack and Ennis in the "real time" moment of the argument scene between the hug and Ennis driving away.  It's funny, during my first few viewings of the movie I don't recall thinking the flashback was so sad.  But now after all the discussions here and on the old board... the flashback truly is among the saddest or most heartwrenching scenes in the whole film.
 


Whew!  I feel like I'm talking a blue streak.



But, I have one simple question to add.  When Jack bows his head dow a little during the flashback embrace... Does he kiss Ennis's hand or is his head just bowing a little?

[dly64]

Yet even that beautiful happy moment is laced with subtle foreshadowing of tragedy.

Ennis' confident "see you in the morning" suggests that, at some level, he feels as if there will always be a next morning. Of course, he doesn't REALLY believe that -- if he stops to think about it he knows their idyll can't last. But he's not allowing himself to think about that. Which is why he's so devastated when he comes back to find Jack breaking camp. Ruthlessly theorized that this scene occurs, chronologically, on the night before the Ennis wakes up to snow. I see no evidence of that, but I believe it anyway, because it makes such structural sense. Jack watches Ennis ride off on his horse, and then their relationship ends, this time temporarily. In the parallel later scene, Jack watches Ennis drives off in his truck, and then their relationship ends, this time permanently. Jack's "gonna snow tonight, for sure," underscores that parallel. It didn't actually snow, but it snows metaphorically. (It's cold, in any case. Why couldn't they go someplace warm? Then they'd never have to part).

I like this train of thought. I have to agree with both you and Ruthlessly that this scene most likely takes place the night before the big snow. It also represents the arch of their relationship on the mountain. They start out as strangers and soon become friends, then lovers. It is important to show that their love for each other is not based solely on their mutual physical/ sexual attraction … but also on their emotional connection to each other.

I can't imagine why anyone would think the scene is unnecessary or expendable, but I am one of those who considers it flawed in the story -- and, I guess, the screenplay -- because of that "Ennis does not embrace him face to face because he does not want to see or feel that it is Jack he holds" line.

Certainly, IMO, it makes no sense in the movie. Movie Ennis shows no reluctance to embrace a man from the front (just the opposite, if anything, judging from his scenes with Alma). In fact, this scene shows the one time in Ennis' life when he COULD embrace a man, and show his affection and love, without hesitation. The other part of the equation -- the shared and sexless hunger -- seems very well conveyed without that unpleasant qualification.

It is this issue that is the sticking point for many people. Movie Ennis, IMO, is more homophobic than story Ennis. In all three … the story, screenplay and movie … Ennis does embrace Jack face to face. They hug each other. They kiss each other. However, it is in the moments of emotional intimacy where Ennis is unable to face the reality that it is a man (Jack) he loves. This ties into the fact that Ennis is in denial about his sexuality. There is a difference between holding and embracing. Think about marital vows … “to have and to hold, from this day forward ..”

When I look at the word “hold” there are many things that come to mind … to maintain a grasp on something; remain fastened to something; to support in a particular position or keep from falling or moving. “Embrace” means to clasp in the arms : hug, cherish, love.

Holding is longer lasting. It is private. It is intimate. It is more than the physical act of embracing. Therein lies the difference. Ennis can embrace Jack face to face. He just cannot hold him face to face.

I think the reason for the line is suggested in the quote of Annie's that Diane posted: "I was trying to write the inchoate feelings of Jack and Ennis, the sad impossibility of their liaison …." I think Annie decided that reluctant embracing was a succinct and concrete way to illustrate those inchoate feelings, with the bonus of undercutting the sentimentality in an otherwise sweet scene. But IMO it doesn't really work. It's distracting and confusing and out of character, it contradicts other parts of the story. It is TOO unsentimental (I once described Annie as zealously unsentimental, a quality that makes some of her other stories hard to read). It mars an otherwise beautiful scene. Sometimes even wonderful writers make less than perfect choices, and I just think this was one of those times.

Could it have some larger symbolic meaning (about homophobia, romantic frustration, etc.), as others have suggested? Sure. But I think an effective metaphor also has to fit neatly into the text of the story. If it doesn't, it's flawed.

As I have previously stated … I don’t think it is out of character at all. It doesn’t contradict anything. Jack understands Ennis in a way that even we, the audience, cannot understand. It is  a beautiful scene. As it states … “nothing mars this moment for Jack ….” This is an intimate moment between the two of them. We are just the observers.

[dly64]

WOW! First of all, I have to say that I am enjoying hearing all of your POV. I wish I could respond to every single one … but I think you’d all get sick of just me gabbing … so let’s just keep up the dialogue.

But, yes, the flashback is certainly a "bookend" about the beginning and end of the relationship.  The end because of Jack's death... not because of a break-up.  The foreboding is much more serious than a break-up (although that would be awfully serious).  "See you in the morning" always sounds a bit to me like he's saying something like "see you in the next life" as if this last sentence we here Ennis utter to Jack actually is displaced in time and is the last exchange between the two of them.  It's a bookend too because the flashback and the hug at the end of the argument... are at their most basic level all about hugs that are excruciatingly important and emotion-filled.  I can't imagine how depressing the end of BBM would be if we didn't see both of these hugs.  The flashback definitely shows their hopeful romanticism in the beginning and shows how sweet their romance probably was through the years (all those tent scenes, etc. that we don't get to witness).  And the hug at the end of the argument helps us feel a little bit better about the way the argument ended.  It also shows Ennis's continuing need to lean on Jack.  Others have noted that this collapse is a "bookend" for his dry heaves moment at the end of the '63 summer.  Only this time he doesn't need to cling to an empty wall... Jack is still there to support him. 

I agree with you completely!

The timing of the flashback is so wonderful because it both reassures us about their romance, it makes our heart break because of the state of the relationship 20 years down the road and it helps create ambiguity since we don't see what happened between Jack and Ennis in the "real time" moment of the argument scene between the hug and Ennis driving away.  It's funny, during my first few viewings of the movie I don't recall thinking the flashback was so sad.  But now after all the discussions here and on the old board... the flashback truly is among the saddest or most heart wrenching scenes in the whole film.

I agree with you about this, too. I still think the post divorce scene is the hardest to watch. However, the lake and “dozy embrace” scenes are heart breaking. Each scene shows the vulnerability of both Jack and Ennis and the depth of their love for each other. We all know the outcome. We see what could have been. We are left to ask “why?”

But, I have one simple question to add.  When Jack bows his head down a little during the flashback embrace... Does he kiss Ennis's hand or is his head just bowing a little?

I’ll have to check this out. I have only seen him bowing his head. But I have missed things before that all of you guys have pointed out!

[Daphne7661]

I don't think I can imagine the book or the film without the dozy embrace!!!

By the time this scene comes into play in both the book and the movie, I am about as low as I can go.  I feel like I've been through 15 rounds of the biggest, knockdown, dragout fight of my life.  My head hurts, my shoulders are tense and my heart just aches from all that has happened up to and culminating in that final lake scene...  All of Jack's and Ennis' fear and anger and love just EXPLODES from each of them.  We watch, helpless, and hold our collective breath because we've been on pins and needles throughout the entire story.  We know how fragile this relationship is - not in its depth of love, but in its roots of fear.  As much as Jack and Ennis don't want to lose each other, we, the viewers, can barely breathe at the thought of them losing each other.

The dozy embrace flashback saves me!!!  My sad tears stop even if my happy heart tears start!  I adore Ennis in this scene.  He is calm, warm, passionate, caring, nurturing, loving, at ease, protective and in love...  I am SOOOO HAPPY for Jack in this scene.  When he feels Ennis holding him like that, I believe it is at this moment that he, too, realizes that he is most surely in love with Ennis.

Take this scene out, and we forget the magic and gift that Brokeback Mountain was for Jack and Ennis...

[serious crayons]

The actors/ Lee vastly improved this scene, I think, by having Ennis seem to almost strain to see Jack's face.

Exactly! Whatever one may think about the appropriateness of the book line about Ennis not wanting to embrace Jack face to face, I think the scene almost directly contradicts it.

And I don't think that Jack would be doing Ennis any favors by "setting Ennis free" or any such thing.  Jack was not forcing Ennis to continue the relationship at any junture.  Ennis was perfectly happy to continue the relationship... but yes according to his terms, rules and round-up schedule.  What a dismal life they would both lead without one another... and Jack knew this.

I agree absolutely. Although there is a certain tidy narrative logic -- even, in some ways, a wistfully romantic appeal -- in thinking Jack opted to break up with Ennis for his own good, it doesn't make sense to me based on my understanding of the characters or my grasp of the movie's emotional underpinnings. We, the casual observers, know Ennis would be destroyed by a breakup. So why wouldn't Jack, who knows him much better than we do, not realize the same? So many times, Jack is able to ignore Ennis' words and actions and reach out for him anyway; why would this be the exception, the one time when he takes Ennis' lashing out literally?

It's a bookend too because the flashback and the hug at the end of the argument... are at their most basic level all about hugs that are excruciatingly important and emotion-filled.  I can't imagine how depressing the end of BBM would be if we didn't see both of these hugs.

Plus the one in TS3!

[welliwont]

I agree with Katherine that the biggest and really the only flaw with the flashback is the idea in the story that Ennis wouldn't look at Jack in the face.  The actors/ Lee vastly improved this scene, I think, by having Ennis seem to almost strain to see Jack's face.

but I am one of those who considers it flawed in the story -- and, I guess, the screenplay -- because of that "Ennis does not embrace him face to face because he does not want to see or feel that it is Jack he holds" line.

Exactly! Whatever one may think about the appropriateness of the book line about Ennis not wanting to embrace Jack face to face, I think the scene almost directly contradicts it.

I would just like to re-iterate the fact that Annie Proulx owns the characters of Jack and Ennis, and if Annie P chose to characterize Ennis as unwilling to embrace Jack face to face, and that Jack is thinking to himself maybe Ennis hasn’t advanced much at all in 20 years, then she has the right.  Jack and Ennis were her creations.  I would rather accept and understand Jack and Ennis as the author intended then to change the essence of their character.

Jane

[Brown Eyes]

Jane, I'm respectful of your opinion.    Of course.  And I know a lot of people feel that way. 

But, I think it's OK to critique Proulx a little bit.  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.  Lee's decision to include TS2 and the happy tussle already contradicts the idea that Ennis didn't want to kiss Jack or embrace face to face.  I guess, it's the romantic in me that prefers the way the scene is handled in the film.  I really like that Ennis seems to be gazing at Jack's profile.  I think many aspects of the movie are more romantic than the book and this is one good example (at least from my point of view).

cheers
Amanda

[Katie77]

Well said Amanda.....

But, I think it's OK to critique Proulx a little bit.  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. 

If Proulx wanted to describe things in more detail, she should have written a bigger book....something I have always had a grudge against her for not doing.....

The movie belonged to Ang, and thank goodness he made it go for two hours....

[Samrim]

 << 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!

[opinionista]

The movie belonged to Ang, and thank goodness he made it go for two hours....

I disagree. 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 colaboration 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 colaboration and creative work, all movies. I believe Jake Gyllenhaal himself has said it.

If Proulx wanted to describe things in more detail, she should have written a bigger book....something I have always had a grudge against her for not doing.....

IMO, the short story is fine, and has the necessary information it needs to convey the message. It's a short story and not a novel. I don't think the author wanted to make it a novel. She does give a lot of information, and important details. I don't think it needs further descriptions. For example, I know a lot of people disagree with this, but I for one think its pretty clear in the short story that Jack quits Ennis. Proulx actually says it, and so does the movie. But some people has interpreted this information in a different way, which is valid as well.

Something I've learned is that no writer ever writes an idea, word, sentence or phrase on a text just for the sake of writing it. Everything has a purpose, whether it's technical, symbolical, informational or whatever. If you erase the line where Jack's dad tells Ennis that he had another fellah coming to help him lick the ranch back into shape, the plot stays unchanged. You don't even need it to know that Jack's dad was a jerk. I think it is pretty much stated when Ennis notices his angry expression upon laying his eyes on him for the first time. Ennis realizes that Jack's dad was like other patriarchs, a common "type with the hard need to be the stud duck in the pond." So, IMO the comment about Jack bringing another man to live with him would be really out of context if it didn't mean that Jack had indeed quit Ennis. 
 
It also seems to me like a natural outcome, considering the difficulties in their relationship and the fact that they were seeing less and less of each other, as time went by. If you recall, Jack tells Ennis "you used to come easy, now's like seeing the Pope." I think that means that Ennis was not comming to see him as much as he used to when they first got together after 4 years apart. Jack was having a hard time with this. He was unhappy, cranky, and IMO he felt forced to look for sexual comfort some place else. I think he wanted to settle down with somebody, a man, and since Ennis kept refusing him, he decided to find someone else.  This doesn't mean he stopped loving Ennis. After the argument Jack finally realizes that Ennis wasn't going to change his mind (the dozy embrace), and there was nothing he could do about it. (PS. I know there's another thread about Jack quitting Ennis but IMO the dozy embrace has a lot to do with it.)

But, I think it's OK to critique Proulx a little bit.  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.  Lee's decision to include TS2 and the happy tussle already contradicts the idea that Ennis didn't want to kiss Jack or embrace face to face.

I agree with this. The process of turning the short story into the movie has made it somewhat different from the original one. One thing I have notice is that Ennis movie is more taciturn than short story Ennis. For example, on the short story when they're at the motel, Ennis does tell Jack he's in love with him, which is what prompts Jack to come up with the idea of the cow and calf operation. He doesn't actually say I love you but he tells him:

"When we split up after we got paid out I had gut cramps so bad I pulled over and tried to puke, thought I ate somethin bad at that place in Dubois. Took me about a year to figure out it was that I shouldn't let you out a my sights. Too late then by long, long while"

I think Ennis is letting Jack know what are his feelings for him. This doesn't happen in the movie.

Despite of this, I think the screenwriters as well as the director tried to keep it as intact as possible. In fact, Diana Ossana, in the interveiw included in the DVD extras explains why there are some differences. She said that she and Larry McMurtry had the intention to adapt the story to screen just as Proulx wrote it. But when the first draft was finished, it wasn't long enough to be a movie so they had to expand situations, and make up new ones so it could be long enough. For a 2 hour long movie, you need a 120+ pages long screenplay. One page equals one minute in the movie, more or less.