BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum
Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond => Brokeback Mountain Open Forum => All Things Brokeback: Books, Interviews and More => Topic started by: twistedude on May 03, 2006, 05:41:20 pm
-
You MUST get a fullscreen version. And I found good ones at Target, after failing at 6 other trys...the fullscreen at Target has a CD in it of someone or other reading the original story..I haven't had time to listen yet...BUT:
Right away, you will see: in the motel scene, Ennis's left hand WITH WEDDING RING, is visable throughout the scene--hey,. that's important! Also, Ennis rubs Jack's arm, every time he moves his hand, because his left hand is resting lightly on Jack's right armn, wbich is around Ennis.--any crumb from Ennis is great...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This will take 5-6 viewings, unless you have a slower-downer, which I don't. But an ocasional "pause" helps:
Oh, Jack says "Ennis" right before Ennis turns him down, so her faces the canvas floor..
While they are (pretending to have sex):
Jack grabs Ennis's wrist with his hand--you can clearly see the blue cuff on the grabbing hand. And then., right before Jacks' head collapses on the canvas, he reaches across with his left hand and grabs Ennis's right hand fingers and palm (he's already holding his wrist with his right hand). It's not loving, or affectionate; it's as if he was holding on for dear life...I think THAT's important too. Look at the lower left part of your screen, but not way in the corner--right where you'd expect Jack's hand to be. I NEVER saw this in the theater, or on widescreen...I watched it a lot before I was sure.
In fact, this fullscreen one I have is going to get worn out before i even open the widsescreen...
-
Right away, you will see: in the motel scene, Ennis's left hand WITH WEDDING RING, is visable throughout the scene--hey,. that's important! Also, Ennis jiggles-rubs Jack's arm briefly--any crumb from Ennis is great...
How did you miss the "jiggle-rub" (I prefer "caress" myself) in the theatre Julie? I missed it on the first viewing but got it on the second, and that's when I saw Ennis completely differently. It's up there with the little smile he gives Jack in the "you'll frighten the sheep off if you don't pipe down" scene. It's easy to miss them, but when you do catch them you realise that you had Ennis all wrong in thinking he didn't show his love for Jack.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This will take 5-6 viewings, unless you have a slower-downer, which I don't. But an ocasional "pause" helps:
Ennis grabs Jack's right hand with his--it's grabby, not real affectionste, but he grabs his hand. And then., right before Jacks' head collapses on the canvas, he reaches across with his left hand and grabs Ennis's right hand (which is already holding his). It's not loving; it's as if they were holding on for dear life...I think THAT's important too. Look at the lower left part of your screen, but not way in the corner--right where you'd expect Jack's hand to be. I NEVER saw this in the theater, or on widescreen...I watched it a lot before I was sure.
He he, this is fun isn't it? I can just see topics springing up that refer to "frame 234 of TS2" where you see... Maybe that might be going a bit far, but after your post here I'm remotivated to slow-mo TS1 (again)! ;)
-
..and on my second viewing of the motel scene (on my glorious new DVD), I realized that Ennis's arm is around Jack's arm throughout the scene, while Jack has his right arm all the way around Ennis, from beneath him. In the theater, I never saw this--I couldn't exactly figure out HOW they were lying; Ennis seemed to be almost on top of Jack, but a little to (our) left of Jack. All I was sure of was that they were both mighty comfortable...
The ' hands' thing was brought to my attention by sfericsf, who has seen the movie 38 times in the theater, and Melinda (let me see if I can get this right: sascha+some more things--she's on BetterMost). Melinda saw it first, ands Eric and I lookedf for it in the theater, but said she was imagining things--but she wasn't. AFter Eric got his DVD, he saw it right away, and said the fullscxreen was better than the widescreen foer such details. It doesn't "make me melt," because it's not a melting thing--like i said, it's as if he was holding on for dear life. Which is certainly in keeping with a rough and passionate sex scene. Between two people who've never had sex with eachother before, and one who's never had sex PERIOD.
-
Actually I just realised you said FULL screen. Do you really mean regular 4:3 TV, and not 16:9 widescreen? I have a widescreen TV myself and normally I would never dream of a 4:3 version because the sides would be cut off. How is it possible that you can see the scenes better, particularly in the motel, is it because it's a larger, fills the TV, and is non-letterboxed? This would only work for people with 4:3 TVs right?
-
Aussie: That's the cruddy truth of it! Widescreen is ALWAY S recommended for new movies--especially American ones---because that's the way they're shot. To see some details, though, you need fullscreen, because--you know how they're always talking about the sides being cut off in fuillscreen? Well, the bottom is cut off in widesacreen! And THAT'S where the wedding ring is. to clarify that---Jack has an arm around Ennis, but Ennis has his arm and hand over Jack's arm, throughout the scene, his hand resting lightly on Jack's arm, and his wedding ring is clearly visable. His left hand is resting on Jack's arm, and every tinme he moves it, he caresses Jack's arm.
Back to the hands. watched it several more times (I have no slow-mo on my good screen--maybe I'll switch to the other screen), and--it's the blue-cuffed hand that grabs Ennis' right wrist, AND Jack's--obviously--left hand that comes across and grabs the other end of Ennis's hand at the end. So, not quite what I hoped for, but nice anyway.
Hey: read my story, "Good Old Boy." No sex at all...sorry about that.
-
...so you can see Ennis's wedding ring throughout the motel scene, and see that, while Jack has an arm around Ennis, Ennis's left arm is resting on Jack's arm throughout, and every time he moves his left hand he caresses Jack's arm.
In tent scene one--slo-mo would help, but I don't have it on my good (Toshiba): Jack grabs Ennis's wrist (it's the blue-cuffed hand that grabs..sorry about that, too) half way through the simulated sex, and just before his head collapses on the canvas, he brings his other (left) hand across and grabs the fingers and palm of Ennis's hand as well...
And anyone who can't hear Jack say "Ennis" when Ennis first turns him over, rather roughly, is deaf...that's on the soundtrack, so you don't need fullscreen!
That's FULLSCREEN, not widescreen..I haven't even looked at my widesacreen yet!
-
Aussie: That's the cruddy truth of it! Widescreen is ALWAY S recommended for new movies--especially American ones---because that's the way they're shot. To see some details, though, you need fullscreen, because--you know how they're always talking about the sides being cut off in fuillscreen? Well, the bottom is cut off in widesacreen! And THAT'S where the wedding ring is. to clarify that---Jack has an arm around Ennis, but Ennis has an arm over Jack's arm, throughout the scene, and his wedding ring is clearly visable. His left hand is resting on Jack's arm, and every tinme he moves it, he caresses Jack's arm.
Just noticed a thread on IMDB talking about this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/board/nest/42557541 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/board/nest/42557541), which contains a description of the major differences and some picture examples:
Wide version fireworks: http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/527/bbmwidefireworks0mm.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/527/bbmwidefireworks0mm.jpg)
Full version fireworks: http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4840/bbmfullfireworks8ec.jpg (http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4840/bbmfullfireworks8ec.jpg)
I thought this from CaseyCornelius was interesting, referring to the above shots:
by - CaseyCornelius 4 hours ago (Thu May 4 2006 16:17:13 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu May 4 2006 16:39:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stygomez and others:
Actually, the wide-screen version exactly duplicates the 1.85 ratio format which was shown in the theaters and was Ang Lee's and Rodrigo Prieto's 'vision' for the film. As in most film photography today they chose to matte a full screen image, choosing which portions of the image to keep in order to make artistic sense. The Full screen version of Brokeback 'opens up' this masking or matte-ing in order to avoid the pan-and-scan cropping of a normal wide-screen image for most of our televisions which show full screen in 1.33 ratio format. It also includes some significant cropping of the sides of the frame. So it is a total distortion of the film-makers' intents. The Full screen edition IN NO WAY corresponds to the original artistic vision of the film-makers, but is a commercially-motivated attempt to provide a 'palatable' image for normal TV screen viewers uninterested in artistic niceties .
That being said, however, the Full Screen image reveals more content [albeit not intended or even desired by Ang Lee] which IS interesting to those fascinated by the film, including 'fuller views' of certain scenes, but making nonsense of the artistry of the frame composition. The Full Frame shot of the Fireworks scene in this thread is a case in point - the long line of on-lookers at the bottom is distracting, intrusive, and takes away from the magnificence of the 'pose' by Ennis towering over Alma as the shot is seen in the wide-screen 'original'. Some have suggested that rabid Broke-a-holics might want to own both versions, as they are, in very real, obvious ways, completely different visual experiences. But, I will always take the Wide-screen version as sacrosanct.
There is an extensive number of pages detailing the comparisons of the Full Screen and Wide-screen versions and the artistic inadequacy of the former on the Dave Cullen Forum site: http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=4716.msg154880#msg154880 (http://davecullen.com/forum/index.php?topic=4716.msg154880#msg154880)
-
:o OMG julie01 I knew about Jack grabbing Ennis' wrist but I didnt know about the left hand thing!!!! And I didnt know about the "Ennis"!! OMG!! Now I have to watch the movie again to see!!!
THANKS!!
-
Only sfericsf describes the sceres which interest me--I couldn't care less about a scene which imitates a cigarette add (I smoked for 52 years!). However the first tent scene and the motel scene--I cannot IMAGINE why Ang Lee would cut the hands from the tent scene, or Ennis's hand with his wedding ring from the motel scene...they are so important.
WHY am I always arguing with CaseyCarnelius--who, in the firstr place,. is brialliant, and in the second--you can't win, because everyone believes him? The activity of Jack's hands in the first tend scene mades such a great side comment on the main action of the sex--I can't imagine why a man from the part of the world that believes in the "travelling focus" of a painting, instead of the single, steady focus, as in the west--would remove them from the viewer's eyes.
Likewise, in the motel scene, Ennis's ringed hand anchors the whole action. It both holds ands caresses Jack's arm, and at the same time stands as a reminder of Ennis's resposnsibilities--whether he chooses to accept them, whether he should or not.
-
He says Ennis? I've never heard it and this is the first time I've ever seen it mentioned. Anyone else notice it?
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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?
-
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.
-
Question not worth answering, huh?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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!
-
Hi guys,
I'll weigh in here. I have a widescreen set-up as well and own both the FULL and WIDESCREEN versions, and have compared. It's true, you can see a bit more detail on the top and bottom of the frame in the FULL version, however, the compositions are disturbing to me in an odd way, as often they characters seem to be "floating" too far in the center of the frame, with too much footroom on the bottom. It is disorienting in a strange way, at least to me. I noticed this right off when Jack and Ennis are walking to the saloon.
A WIDESCREEN doesn't really "cut off" this information per se, though it is not visible--it was just never intended to be visible when the film was shot, and always intended to be masked to create the delicate compositions we see in the theatrical and WIDESCREEN versions. So to me it's a little bit of a bonus to see the fim "open matte" as it were, but it feels a bit off actually and I can't adjust to it.
rt
-
I can do accept the original story and the final version of the film as seen on the screen (and the DVD) that I have as two different works of art.
I liked Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet," as literature - a play and as a movie.
By the same token, I liked the musical "West Side Story," which was a retelling of Romeo and Juliet, but set in New York City.
I would even take a movie adaptation of Brokeback Mountain where the names and the places were changed completely, while at the same time, the theme or purpose of the original story would remain intact.
-
You people who speak against the fullscxreen version always talk in generaliies: "wasn't meant to be seen" I have been very specidfic, I don't know how many timers, about the "unseen" things that are seen in the fullscreen version.
They do not create "floating" images; they do not detract from the main action of the scene. I ain't gonna go into this again, because I've been into it too many times already. The discussion on Dave Cullen, which went on for dozens of pages, included one guy with wide and fullscreen vesrions of about 20 scenes, and he came down on both sides--in one, he preferred the wide, in another the full.
Is that a crime?
I wish someone would explain to this poor, ignorant female how the additions to the scenes I have described SO OFTEN--detract from...anything...
-
I wish someone would explain to this poor, ignorant female how the additions to the scenes I have described SO OFTEN--detract from...anything...
It doesn't julie. In most cases, a film is shot in 1.79, 1.85, or 2.35 : 1 and then pan-and-scanned or just plain cropped to fit 4:3. Historically, because of it being a physical medium, whatever is filmed is also what appears in the theatre, and the TV version is then just hacked to fit. When this happens, information at the sides are lost making widescreen the superior choice. One thing to remember though, the director and cinematographer know this so when they are designing their shots, most bare in mind that the critical information needs to be in the centre/side of the screen, but there are some that only hold the theatre version as the only one of importance. Blade Runner was a good example of this because there were some scenes that just don't work unless you are watching it in 2.35:1 (the narrowest widescreen).
In the digital age however, a film can be shot with a large amount of "additional" information both horizontally and vertically, and the director can make minor changes to the framing at the time of editing by zooming in and out as needed. With the widescreen release, they look at the motel scene (for example) and want to create an intimate feel so they zoom in to fill the sides of the widescreen, but losing some of the information at the top and bottom (Ennis's arm and ring). The reverse is true when the desired effect is "expanse" and the result is that 4:3 images often seem claustrophobic.
All the talk about the director's vision and such, well these are all true but I think too much emphasis is being used to justify one version over the other for this reason alone. The truth is the entire shot was the director's vision, including all of the things like Ennis' wedding ring, the fireworks crowd, the money at the bar, etc. These are then framed to give the best result possible (or at least the most information visible) for the format in question.
I think it interesting that we have reasons to see both versions. As much as I would like to see a 4:3 version (it's kind of like reading the short-story to get another impression), I'd get more pissed off by the closed-in outdoor shots if I didn't get widescreen. This is especially true because I don't have a 4:3 television (even my PC is widescreen).
Anyway, the bottom line here is to buy the version that's right for your TV and your enjoyment.
-
What Aussie Chris wrote above reminded me of having seen a TV program recently where some scenes were full-screen and even wide-screen, which has been called "letterbox," with black strips at the top and bottom of the screen. The wide shots were used when it was important to the context of the program and the full-screen shots were used when what was to the sides was not that important.
I watch the "Smallville" version of the superboy story on a regular TV broadcast station each week and it is in the "letterbox" format. Since I have a hearing problem which prevents me from hearing voices in the upper ranges, I use closed caption when watching the show. The captions do not interfere with the picture. They are either above or below in the "black" areas.
-
You people who speak against the fullscxreen version always talk in generaliies: "wasn't meant to be seen" I have been very specidfic, I don't know how many timers, about the "unseen" things that are seen in the fullscreen version.
They do not create "floating" images; they do not detract from the main action of the scene. I ain't gonna go into this again, because I've been into it too many times already. The discussion on Dave Cullen, which went on for dozens of pages, included one guy with wide and fullscreen vesrions of about 20 scenes, and he came down on both sides--in one, he preferred the wide, in another the full.
Is that a crime?
I wish someone would explain to this poor, ignorant female how the additions to the scenes I have described SO OFTEN--detract from...anything...
Julie, it is a personal preference. I prefer to see the compositions the way that Rodrigo Prieto shot and masked them, and yes, open matte transfers do create "floating" or oddly off-kilter images directly in the center of the frame in some cases. Balancing a frame is very delicate and that is why there are areas masked to create different aspect ratios, and why those particular areas often contain boom microphones and other items that are not supposed to be seen, as I mentioned.
rt
-
That is all true, but I would not give up Jack's hand grabbing Ennis's for a whole lot of broad vistas...
-
That is all true, but I would not give up Jack's hand grabbing Ennis's for a whole lot of broad vistas...
That's ok Julie, this is one time that I would agree with you. With indifference to my stance that I must see as much as the original vision as possible of all films on DVD, I would happily sacrifice it all to get just one millimetre more of J&E goodness on to the screen (btw that's 1/25th of an inch for all you imperial dawgs out there).
-
For the record and what it's worth,
I like BOTH versions, and alternate between watching BOTH versions equally. BOTH are a different experience, and it's good to mix them up by alternating them. One is not better than the other, they're just both a different experience and it's good to experiece BOTH.
:)
-
Eric, completely agree. I was just defending the poor maligned fullscreen edition, which was getting a lot of flak.
-
Now I am intrigued and will have to get a 3rd copy ;)
I loaned my widescreen copy to a friend, but by day 3 or 4, it was really bugging me - just not having the boys home where they belonged, so I bought another widescreen. (I know this isn't entirely sane behavior, but so it goes...)
I guess fullscreen is next!
-Lynne
-
I loaned my widescreen copy to a friend, but by day 3 or 4, it was really bugging me - just not having the boys home where they belonged, so I bought another widescreen. (I know this isn't entirely sane behavior, but so it goes...)
ROTFL - I love you Lynne! :D
-
I would happily sacrifice it all to get just one millimetre more of J&E goodness on to the screen (btw that's 1/25th of an inch for all you imperial dawgs out there).
I'm going to do it - get the full-screen version. The format isn't so preccious to me that I'll lose all appreciation for the film by seeing it that way. I have only watched my DVD once, but don't want to let it out of my sight. Same with the book. I just like knowing where it is, and that it's here with me where my boys belong.
-
I loaned my widescreen copy to a friend, but by day 3 or 4, it was really bugging me - just not having the boys home where they belonged, so I bought another widescreen. (I know this isn't entirely sane behavior, but so it goes...)
I have only watched my DVD once, but don't want to let it out of my sight. Same with the book. I just like knowing where it is, and that it's here with me where my boys belong.
Hmmm...there are more than one of us suffering from this affliction, Chris :D
-
Hmmm...there are more than one of us suffering from this affliction, Chris :D
Yeah, Lynne -
It's precious to me. I don't need to keep watching it, since I know the movie so well. I just need to have it nearby...
-
Wait till youi start scribbling a few lines, and it turns into a short story. MOst of our stories are "what if?" ones, which tear the tragedy happily to pieces, but some of us, like me, circumnavigate the action of the short story and play, and explain, prequel and sequel...it's a kind of 'when we say the name of those we deeply reverence, we never speak them whole." --"Orlando" (talking about Shakespeare, 3 centurties after she saw him, sitting at a table, thinking)
.
It is SUCH fun! Right now, I'm about to start reading about the Battle of Borodino, so I can canibalize my son's high school hstiory paper, that I typed for him...
.