FULLSCREEN IMPARATIVE!

[twistedude]

It's right after Ennis takes charge, and flips Jack over--Jack is I think a bit surprised, but I'm not sure. Speculation: in the few seconds since Ennis has started displaying passion, Jack may have thought he would take the role Ennis winds up taking--your guess is as good as mine.  Hr doesn't stay surprised long, that's for sure.

[TJ]

It's right after Ennis takes charge, and flips Jack over--Jack is I think a bit surprised, but I'm not sure. Speculation: in the few seconds since Ennis has started displaying passion, Jack may have thought he would take the role Ennis winds up taking--your guess is as good as mine.  Hr doesn't stay surprised long, that's for sure.

While the initial "passion" in the movie is limited to a few seconds, being rather rushed, there is deepened intimacy inside the bedroll after Ennis joins Jack "under the covers," according to Annie Proulx's original story.

I just feel that Annie Proulx's Jack had felt that Ennis had an erection, too; and his taking of Ennis's left hand and putting it on his won "hard-on," let Ennis know "Buddy, I am just as horny as you are!"

But, Ennis was a "take-charge" kind a guy and he wanted to be first! And, according to the AP story, the only one who undid his belt buckle and lowered his jeans was Ennis.

I think that Jack was probably sleeping naked to begin with and that's because I have been "officially educated" about keeping warmer in a bedroll while camping out by experts on the subject. I used to be a senior leader of a boys camping group sponsored by a church denomination and the camping part of the program was based on the Boy Scouts of America program. I attended a 3 day workship which was sort of like one sees on reality TV these days. We got training while camping out. The preacher/leader who told us about the way to keep the warmest said his wife didn't like the idea of a guy sleeping naked in a sleeping bag. (Why should she care? He was not sharing with another guy, anyway.)

[twistedude]

TJ: but you are talking about the short story, and I am talking about ther movie--which is much more detailed, and somewhat different.  I know there are those who dsiasagree with me, but I feel Jack has been cruising Ennis, movie Ennis, from the moment he laid eyes on him. It doesn't make sense for you to cotradictct my "Ennis" statement by saying it's Ennis who takes down his pants , when it's clear that in the movie, Jack sheds his coat and uindoes his belt buckle before Ennis turns him down, or touches anyone's pants. The "deepened intimacy" is also from the short story. After J ands E are settled down in the bedroll or blankets, Jack gives Ennis one last evaluating look before he closes his eyes until the both sit up.

The question is--in the movie, does Jack say "Ennis" when Ennis roughly tuns him toward the canvas?

On the other two points, I assume everyone who has a good fullscreen and player agrees with me?

[TJ]

In this discussion of Full-Screen and Wide-Screen DVD versions, I would like to ask which kind of camera and camera lens was used to make this movie.

If one were to overlap, aka lay one FS photo over the very same WS photo, matching exactly what is in the center of both, I think there would be blank spots in each corner. But, apparently the way that it was originally filmed, there would be no blank corners and that should fit a regular TV screen.

Some of the full-screen version photos seem to have been made for a movie or TV screen with the dimensions of a square. I remember some old TV way back in the late 1940s and early 1950s where the TV tube's actual screen was completely round as in a full circle and a square picture was seen from the front of the TV cabinet. The original TV screen measurement was actually from the diameter measurement of the TV tube.

[twistedude]

Question not worth answering, huh?

[TJ]

Question not worth answering, huh?

Or maybe it is like Annie Proulx's Brokeback Mountain short story which has many unanswered questions, a question which has no answer.

[twistedude]

TJ: I recently wrote a short story ("Good Old Boy"--on fanfiction) which takes a very strong stand on a completely ambiguous point in both the short story and the movie. I liked the plot; I liked what it said about the main characeter (who is almost entirely fictional--as far as the short story or the movie is concerned). I'm working on another which again takes a strong stand on an endlessly debated point. I think I'm more or less roght about this one, as far as the movie is concerned, but it doesn't matter This is not the kind of thing I'm talking about.  There's a lot of ambiguity that can be interpreted in different ways for different purposes, and just because I wrote the stories, doesn't mean I believe either the authoir or screenplay auhors meant the short story or screenplay to be interpreted that way.

When I say I SAW and HEARD something in the movie, either I am right, or I am wrong. The things i saw an heard are not in some versions of the movie and not in others. I spent $350 getting my DVD player fixed, so I could see and hear everything that was there. (fullscreen as well as widfescreen)

Either it is serving me well, or it isn't. There's plenty of ambiguity in the short story, in the movie, and in the transition from screenplay to movie (making the corrections is endlessly interesting!). But whether certain phenomina are in the movie or not is a questiom which should be capable of being answered.

I just watched the tent scene again. There's no question in my mind about the hands. If you want to argue that Jack says a two-syllable word with a sybilant in in it, that isn't "Ennis," I won't argue with you. Sure sounds like "Ennis" to me, just when Ennis lays strong hands on him, and starts to turn him over.

[TJ]

Most of the BbM Fan Fiction that I have seen on the internet has been based on the film and not the book.

It would be interesting to see some BbM short story Fan Fiction which would be in the style which Annie Proulx originally wrote the story.

There have been some times in her story where the narrative action was one way or the characters said or did one thing and shortly thereafter in the text, what was read by me showed that what really happened or was meant by the character was not the same thing.

I have my own opinions from the way that the story was written that when it came to sex with guys, Ennis was not a virgin and I also believe that in the way that Lureeen talked politely cold to Ennis on the phone and how Mr. Twist talked when Ennis visited that Jack was not even dead or murdered nor was he even hurt in any kind of accident.

And, from reading the story and looking at one of the timelines in an early version of the screenplay, Ennis did not go to Lightning Flat in the same calendar year that he sent the November 7 meeting postcard to Jack in Texas.

Annie Proulx wrote that Jack's tiny upstairs bedroom was hot when Ennis went up there. While there was a steam-heat radiator in the room in the movie, I seriously doubt that the 4-room house would have had any kind of central heat.

And , IMO, when Mr. Twist uses "this spring" in his speech, he is not talking about the spring season where Ennis were last together in May (1983 in the book); he is talking about Spring 1984 which has just passed and it is now Summertime.

[twistedude]

Well, people certainly have dfifferent opinions. In Gone With the Wind, the book, is there a scene in which the reader moves so far away from the square of wounded soldiers that Scarlett becomes invisable? Would anyone deny that it is a crucial scene in the history of cinemetography, and to the movie itself?

Do you thiunk of Jack as being a bit pudgy, and having pronounced buck teeth, or do you picture him as looking like Jake G?

If Ennis isn't as virgin, why does Proulx sayt "nothing he had ever done befroe," and why are the eary shoits of him in the first tent sdcene filled with puzzlement, and why does he initially fight Jack off?

As far as writing like Annie Proulx is concerned--I don't think too many of us can do it. I tried to keep my prose sparre and non-adjectval, but it doesn't aspproach proulx'--in any way.  Besides--you would disagree with its premise.

Can't you accept both the movie and the short story as works of srt?

CLICK TO ENLARGE:

[Aussie Chris]

Can't you accept both the movie and the short story as works of srt?

Definitely julie, I think the main reason I keep coming back here is that our group is diverse and we each appreciate different things.  Some ideas a radically different than mine, but I listen to them anyway because you never know what they got but you missed.  When I think about it, the only qualification for a good discussion seems to be that people need to love everything Brokeback.  To say the book is more "correct" than the film for some reason may or may not be true, but one thing's for sure, it sure sucks the fun out of a friendly debate!