Author Topic: Got What They Deserved?  (Read 26279 times)

Online serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,211
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2006, 03:48:13 am »
Not surprisingly I'm sure, I have to disagree with you there, Katherine, because "the final product" did not spring, Athena-like, from Ang Lee's head. It was the result of an organic process that began with Annie Proulx's story. To me, Brokeback Mountain is a single and unique phenomenon comprising both story and film, and while they have their differences, for me nothing is irrelevant as data for analysis.

My post above refers to a line you quoted from a previous draft of the screenplay. As I'm sure you as a writer can understand, I as a writer would not want someone, in disputing some point in a published piece of mine, say, "But look -- regardless of what she said in her 16th draft, she said blah blah blah in her third draft, so that's what she must really mean." The whole reason for having more than one draft is that the writer's intention changes as the work develops. It must be disconcerting, to say the least, to be held to a vision that has long since been discarded.

To further complicate matters, in this case we're talking not about a single artist but three "groups" of artists: 1) Annie, 2) Larry and Diana, 3) Ang and everyone else involved in the movie. There's at least three different visions, more if people within groups held their own views (as they no doubt did). My point is, the screenplay is not the ultimate guide to the movie's intentions. It's only a guide to the screenwriters' intentions. Another layer of artists subsequently added their own. Their objectives may have been in accord -- or not. So you can't always determine what the movie meant by reading the screenplay (let alone a previous draft!).

My preferred approach is to judge the story by the final version of the story (not by any one of Annie's 60-some earlier drafts), the screenplay by the final screenplay, the movie by the edited movie. Yes, other versions can be interesting, even enlightening, but are not ultimately authoritative.

Quote
At the time that "dozy embrace" took place, Ennis couldn't face up to embracing Jack face to face. OK. But don't forget that by the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis had been wringing it out for three or four years while thinking of Jack, and had figured out that the cause of his gut cramps was that he shouldn't have let Jack out of his sights. The flashback is relevant to the story, just not to the story version of the reunion, I believe. By the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis was perfectly capable and willing to embrace Jack face to face--and I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant by the flashback not applying to the story.

We debated this once before, Jeff, when you presented your idea about Ennis maturing and learning to embrace Jack face to face. I can buy that, I guess. The trouble is, people keep insisting on applying it to Ennis throughout his life -- reunion, schmeunion. Worse, they constantly apply it to Movie Ennis, to whom it demonstrably does not apply by the time of their second night together. As I said then, and have become even more convinced since, it was a mistake in the story. Even if Annie meant to suggest that Ennis had matured -- and, ahem, Occam's Razor might apply here -- she did not make it clear enough (as you yourself suggested in the previous discussion!). Sorry, folks, brilliant though she may be, Annie is fallable.

Quote
by the way, when did "TS2" become "SNIT" [eeew]?).

Finally, something we can agree on!  :D I'll confess I think I was the originator of TS1 and TS2 (or at least, when I first used the terms I hadn't seen them used before). But SNIT and FNIT developed simultaneously on, I think, imdb, and since they spread here I have sensed a tipping point of people succumbing to those terms, and finally today I began to cave myself. But if you're willing to stick with TS1 and TS2, Jeff, I'm with you.  :D

Offline fontaine

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2006, 08:48:12 am »
I think it contained both messages: "If you cross society--even if society has its head where the sun don't shine--there are going to be consequences in terms of how you'll be treated and how you'll feel about yourself because of those influences you've internalized." The other message is "if you don't follow your own heart and soul regardless of what society pressures you to do, you're going to pay a price."

I watched a DVD of Caroline Myss last night. For those who haven't heard of her, she's a PhD in theology who's a medical intuitive. She talked about people's sources of power as being threefold: tribal, personal, and spiritual. All the narrow-minded bigots who spew what they've been taught, including homophobes, think at the tribal level. (This was ultimately Ennis's problem.) Those who defy the tribal dictates and chart their own course (Jack did this a bit more than Ennis) are at a different level of consciousness. Those few who transcend the personal are able to step out of their own skin and look at situations from an objective, non-reactive level. Niether character did this. It's a fascinating way to not only look at the movie (as well as the way others look at it), but to apply to our own lives. (I got the DVD at Netflix.)

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,618
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2006, 04:53:20 pm »
My post above refers to a line you quoted from a previous draft of the screenplay. As I'm sure you as a writer can understand, I as a writer would not want someone, in disputing some point in a published piece of mine, say, "But look -- regardless of what she said in her 16th draft, she said blah blah blah in her third draft, so that's what she must really mean." The whole reason for having more than one draft is that the writer's intention changes as the work develops. It must be disconcerting, to say the least, to be held to a vision that has long since been discarded.

I never said--or never intended to say--that earlier drafts of either story or screenplay indicate the meaning of the final version. If I wasn't clear on that point, I apologize. My intent was that I feel it can be useful in understanding the finished product to look at what came earlier, because the end product came about as a result of growth and change. We might as well just agree to disagree on this point because nobody is going to convince me that this isn't a valid approach or part of formulating one's understanding. It must, indeed, be disconcerting to be held to a vision long past, but that's not what I'm doing.

I don't mean to be offensive but I really don't see what the problem is with, say, looking at one of Ennis's lines in the 2004 screenplay and comparing it to the final version. That's really all I'm talking about.

Quote
To further complicate matters, in this case we're talking not about a single artist but three "groups" of artists: 1) Annie, 2) Larry and Diana, 3) Ang and everyone else involved in the movie. There's at least three different visions, more if people within groups held their own views (as they no doubt did). My point is, the screenplay is not the ultimate guide to the movie's intentions. It's only a guide to the screenwriters' intentions. Another layer of artists subsequently added their own. Their objectives may have been in accord -- or not. So you can't always determine what the movie meant by reading the screenplay (let alone a previous draft!).

I don't believe I said you could, but, again, if I wasn't clear, I apologize. Since we don't unfortunately, have a shooting script--wouldn't I love to get my hands on one of those!--the screenplay is the only written text we have to use in conjunction with what we see on the screen. And the screenplay is certainly useful for referring to dialogue rather than trusting to one's memory only--even recognizing the differences from the dialogue we hear.

Quote
My preferred approach is to judge the story by the final version of the story (not by any one of Annie's 60-some earlier drafts), the screenplay by the final screenplay, the movie by the edited movie. Yes, other versions can be interesting, even enlightening, but are not ultimately authoritative.

We debated this once before, Jeff, when you presented your idea about Ennis maturing and learning to embrace Jack face to face. I can buy that, I guess. The trouble is, people keep insisting on applying it to Ennis throughout his life -- reunion, schmeunion. Worse, they constantly apply it to Movie Ennis, to whom it demonstrably does not apply by the time of their second night together. As I said then, and have become even more convinced since, it was a mistake in the story. Even if Annie meant to suggest that Ennis had matured -- and, ahem, Occam's Razor might apply here -- she did not make it clear enough (as you yourself suggested in the previous discussion!). Sorry, folks, brilliant though she may be, Annie is fallable.

She certainly is fallible. During the last fishing trip she has Ennis give an age for Alma, Jr., that doesn't jive with her stated birthdate of September 1964. I've said elsewhere I can't understand why that wasn't "caught" at The New Yorker and changed--surely Annie wouldn't have objected to such a minor detail--although why she didn't change it for later editions is a mystery, but I'm digressing.

True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake. And there is no need to apply Occam's Razor because we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.

SNIT, at least, is good for a laugh.  :laugh:
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2006, 05:42:38 pm »
True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake. And there is no need to apply Occam's Razor because we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.

I agree that it was not an accident that the "dozy embrace" was included in the film and story. The flashback is relevant because it signifies the relationship between Jack and Ennis, doesn't it? Ennis could never face the reality that it was a man he loved (until Jack was dead). IMO, this scene should be taken figuratively versus literally.

I am guessing this will provoke more debate???
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,618
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2006, 07:45:37 pm »
I agree that it was not an accident that the "dozy embrace" was included in the film and story. The flashback is relevant because it signifies the relationship between Jack and Ennis, doesn't it? Ennis could never face the reality that it was a man he loved (until Jack was dead). IMO, this scene should be taken figuratively versus literally.

I am guessing this will provoke more debate???

Now, there's an interesting thought! I think I have in the past discussed that the meaning of the dozy embrace memory has to be different in the movie than in the story with regard to the development of Ennis's character, because of TS2 (aka SNIT  ;D), but "figuratively versus literally" is an angle I hadn't thought of.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2006, 08:23:35 pm »
Now, there's an interesting thought! I think I have in the past discussed that the meaning of the dozy embrace memory has to be different in the movie than in the story with regard to the development of Ennis's character, because of TS2 (aka SNIT  ;D), but "figuratively versus literally" is an angle I hadn't thought of.

I am sure not everyone will agree with my analogy. IMO, however, that "dozy embrace" is symbolic of their relationship together. It was loving, but it was also plagued with Ennis' denial of his feelings .... his internal love for Jack.
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #36 on: June 25, 2006, 09:02:27 pm »
I am sure not everyone will agree with my analogy. IMO, however, that "dozy embrace" is symbolic of their relationship together. It was loving, but it was also plagued with Ennis' denial of his feelings .... his internal love for Jack.

I think you're right on the money, Diane.  Even though, as we've discussed here, Movie Ennis takes great pains to at least look at Movie Jack's profile, he is still in keeping with Story Ennis in that at that point in their relationship, he would not (or could not) embrace Jack from the front and look him in the face as he did that.  And in both cases, Jack's last thought about their relationship that we know about is that maybe they'd never come any further than that.  I think he's right.  Doesn't make me angry with Ennis.  Just heartbroken for him.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2006, 09:04:16 pm by ednbarby »
No more beans!

Online serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,211
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2006, 05:08:40 am »
True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake.

Good times, Jeff! As I've told you before, you're one of my favorite people to argue with,  :) and it's been a while. (Until the past couple of days, that is!)

Annie's comment regarding the dozy embrace is not a mistake in the objective, factual sense that misstating Alma Jr.'s age is. It's a mistake in a literary sense. You say,

Quote
we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.

Yet the dozy embrace is mentioned much later in the story than the reunion. So it simply isn't effective story-telling to mention something near the end of the story that expressly contradicts something mentioned earlier, without further explanation, therefore making us go back and say, "What th'? But she said herself that in the reunion scene ..." and then requires us to try to invent our own theories how that might work: well, maybe Ennis matured as he went along and got over this aversion, although she gives no other sign of it, PLUS, wait a second, there's Jack saying at the end that things hadn't changed, so maybe he actually hadn't matured, but ... um ... what the hell?

Disagree with me all you want. Tell me that Annie is a subtle writer and that she expects us to figure things out for ourselves. I'm stickin to my guns. Writers can -- and should! -- leave some things unmentioned or ambiguous, giving readers leeway to think for themselves. But to out-and-out contradict their own story violates the rules. Annie is not only fallible in chronology, she is fallible in story-telling. (Yet still a brilliant story-teller!)

But even if she's not wrong, even if the image is meant to be taken figuratively, as Diane says, it still doesn't apply to Movie Ennis. Movie Ennis is just a different guy than Story Ennis, that's all. More internally homophobic, sure, but less so, apparently -- if you accept the dozy embrace reference -- in some of his actual behavior. Those two statements are not contradictory.

The big difference between Movie Ennis and Story Ennis is TS2 (the preferred terminology,at least at the moment, in the poll). The story doesn't have a TS2. Yet people conflate the story and movie, saying things regarding the movie to the effect of, Ennis was so unable to accept his love for Jack, he couldn't even embrace him face to face!

And yet, obviously, he could do just that. (I just finished posting elsewhere about the lovely moment in the reunion scene when Ennis strokes Jack's face and looks at him in that heavy-breathing besotted way, his face really close -- if that's not face-to-face embracing, what is?)

So the second part of that statement can't be used as proof of the first. It's an important distinction for those of us who think that Ennis was fully aware of his love for Jack from the get-go, and that the revelations at the end are about something else entirely. Unlike Diane, I think he could "face the reality" that it was a man he loved. He may not have been thrilled that it worked out that way, but he knew it to be true, and he faced it, all right -- literally and figuratively.

Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2006, 08:45:27 am »
But even if she's not wrong, even if the image is meant to be taken figuratively, as Diane says, it still doesn't apply to Movie Ennis. Movie Ennis is just a different guy than Story Ennis, that's all. More internally homophobic, sure, but less so, apparently -- if you accept the dozy embrace reference -- in some of his actual behavior. Those two statements are not contradictory.

The big difference between Movie Ennis and Story Ennis is TS2 (the preferred terminology,at least at the moment, in the poll). The story doesn't have a TS2. Yet people conflate the story and movie, saying things regarding the movie to the effect of, Ennis was so unable to accept his love for Jack, he couldn't even embrace him face to face!

And yet, obviously, he could do just that. (I just finished posting elsewhere about the lovely moment in the reunion scene when Ennis strokes Jack's face and looks at him in that heavy-breathing besotted way, his face really close -- if that's not face-to-face embracing, what is?)

So the second part of that statement can't be used as proof of the first. It's an important distinction for those of us who think that Ennis was fully aware of his love for Jack from the get-go, and that the revelations at the end are about something else entirely. Unlike Diane, I think he could "face the reality" that it was a man he loved. He may not have been thrilled that it worked out that way, but he knew it to be true, and he faced it, all right -- literally and figuratively.

Guess what? I disagree. Not that we will come to any concensus on this issue, but it is fun to debate it anyway.

I still think that Ennis could not admit to himself that he loved Jack. He did love Jack, but there is a difference between embracing that love and being in denial. Ennis did not see himself as homosexual. He blames Jack for that. He cannot admit that he is truly gay. I think the short story, the screenplay and the film are all in agreement with that. Ennis was homophobic, period. Even after their four year reunion, he describes his intensity of his feelings for Jack as "this thing".  He still cannot face his authentic self, IMO.
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,618
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Got What They Deserved?
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2006, 09:27:24 am »
Disagree with me all you want. Tell me that Annie is a subtle writer and that she expects us to figure things out for ourselves. I'm stickin to my guns. Writers can -- and should! -- leave some things unmentioned or ambiguous, giving readers leeway to think for themselves. But to out-and-out contradict their own story violates the rules. Annie is not only fallible in chronology, she is fallible in story-telling. (Yet still a brilliant story-teller!)

This is not a contradiction, it's just her way of telling the story. I'll even allow that you may be right that it wasn't wise for her to put this passage in the narrative where she put it, in the context of Jack's reminisence, though that was her decision to make. She has told us already, in the motel scene, that Ennis has figured out that he shouldn't have let Jack out of his sights (which I have always interpreted as meaning that Story Ennis, in contradistinction to Movie Ennis, is perfectly aware by 1967 that Jack Twist is the love of his life), and prior to that Ennis and Jack have mutually come together in that desparate kiss on the apartment landing. It is not a contradiction to show that at some point early in their relationship Ennis wasn't able to embrace Jack face-to-face. It just shows that Ennis has changed--remarkbly, I'd say, considering his homophobic background.

"You shut up about Annie. This ain't her fault"--if people conflate her story and the movie and can't see the differences.  ;)

And just out of curiosity, do you also consider it a mistake that she doesn't mention Jack's drive to Wyoming following Ennis's divorce except in the context of Ennis's phone call to Lureen--and never elaborates on why that drive was for nothing?
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.