This a classic REPOST of one of the most frequently bumped threads on TOB.
After I reposted it, trolls kept getting it deleted until I reposted it with the title backwards: "trA fo eceipretsaM a si niatnuoM kcabekorB yhW"
=======================================================================================================
Why Brokeback Mountain is a Masterpiece of Art
by ClancyPantsNasty (Fri Dec 29 2006 01:38:11 )
UPDATED Tue Feb 6 2007 22:42:46
Why Brokeback Mountain is a Masterpiece of Art
A number of criteria are used by film critics, festivals, boards, historians, artists, academics, and the general public to judge a film’s merit as a masterpiece of art. These include, but are not limited to, the story (e.g., the theme, the plot, the characterizations, and the motivations), the actors and their performances, the production values (e.g., the direction), the scene or film editing, the construction or structure of the film as a whole, and the effects of the film on the viewers. Brokeback Mountain not only met the standards of these criteria, it far surpassed them and has rightfully taken its place in the pantheon of great films. Here’s why:
[Note: This is not meant to be a comprehensive academic treatise. I give specific examples to support my argument; however, there are hundreds more that I do not include. Other posters may feel free to expound further as we have all been doing for a year now. I have culled from many sources, all readily and widely available in simple internet searches, from the IMDb and official Brokeback Mountain sites, and from the many extremely thoughtful members of the community that has developed on this board.
Just as the film does not actively seek to promote any kind of message, neither do I. The purpose behind this “essay” is an examination of the film’s qualities as art.
Also, please forgive me, but I wrote this in the middle of the night after a long and eventful day. If there are spelling or grammar errors, please point them out and I will edit later. Thanks.]
THE STORY
The story for the film comes directly from Annie Proulx’s (AP) short story Brokeback Mountain as originally published in the October 13, 1997 edition of The New Yorker and subsequently published in her collection of short stories Close Range: Wyoming Stories, the book Broke Mountain: Story to Screenplay, and in its own edition. The screenplay writers remained very faithful to the original story, as did the director in bringing the characters to life and with regard to the imagery and forces of the Wyoming environment. Therefore, when I speak of the author or the screenwriters or the director, I am almost always speaking of all of them together as each remained faithful to the story (e.g., comments that I make about the author’s development of a character can also be taken as true for the others).
Brokeback Mountain is a character-driven story. This is one criterion for judging a short story’s quality. A constant focus is maintained on the characters, their motivations, their subsequent actions, and on the forces that affect them. Here is where AP excels in surpassing “good writing.” Brokeback Mountain, the place, and its illusory power, along with the very landscape of the environment and the weather that works symbiotically with it, become actual characters in the story, having both an effect upon and being affected by the human characters. Both the animate and inanimate coexist. And this is a crucial aspect of the short story as it helps to drive the theme.
The very land in which the story takes place has been forged by geologic and weather forces producing a unique environment in which the story is set. There are flat plains and meadows, and there are mountains. Each contribute to the story in placing the characters into conditions that shape people, how they live, and what they believe. The mountains are rugged and there is difficulty in their accessibility. Their height and mass directly affect the weather conditions bringing storms and winds in a much different frequency, duration, and severity than what occurs in the plains and fields. These conditions have a direct impact on the characterization of the characters and our understanding of them. For example, above the tree line, where the characters spend most of their time on the mountain, the weather conditions have created a different line of trees that are stunted in their growth, developing their forms because of and despite the forces acting against them. This is called the krummholz line and AP seemingly redundantly describes it as “damaged krummholz.” In so describing, she sets up an imagery for the development of the human characters as damaged and stunted in their growth by forces acting against them, yet they, as the krummholz, do survive. This is immediately contrasted against the wind-combed grasses, which tie the meadows of the mountain to the plains below. Again, the forces of nature have their effects on the growth of the non-human characters, an imagery of the growth of the human characters. Thus, the setting is inextricably linked to the characters’ development, at times in the high mountains “suspended above ordinary affairs and distant from tame ranch dogs,” with a resultant “They believed themselves invisible.” This is contrasted against the characters’ development on the plains below, in the populated areas, where other forces act upon them.
Throughout the story, subsidiary characters are introduced for the sole purpose of expounding on the influences on and motivations of the characters, resulting in their actions. The story does not take the reader/viewer down an irrelevant path of the development of either Alma or Lureen. It is sufficient to know that each had her effect on Ennis and Jack. We see that Alma comes from poverty but is willing to work her way out of it, a contrast to Ennis. We see that Jack, similar to Alma, is willing to work his way into a better life, from a monetary standpoint, in his relationship with Lureen. In the case of Jack, the relationship works for his reality-based goal (“Money’s a good point”), and yet, in so attaining, he, himself, is diverted from his vision-goal (a ranch of his own). For Ennis, none of his goals come to pass because he clings to a relationship that he will not allow to mature, thus sidetracking all of his other relationships. This contrast between Ennis and Jack, their realities, their beliefs, and their actions, adds greater depth to their characterizations. Yet, none of this is hardly ever spoken of. It is left for us, the reader/viewer, to understand from the exposition; this being another criterion of a superior story.
Ennis is loved by so many, and yet he cannot allow himself to fully love anyone to an ultimate end. He is whipped and swayed by the forces acting on him and so he tries to please those he loves, some more than others. But he is stunted in his ability to achieve a mutually-satisfying relationship with anyone by the very same forces and by his own psyche and emotional makeup. Through the use of a flashback to a traumatic incident in his past, we learn, by means of a kind of shorthand, what has caused his inner self to develop as it has. We can see the turmoil it causes him and how it affects his actions and interactions. This is placed directly in the middle of the story providing a contrast between mountain-Ennis and rural-Ennis. And thus, the theme of the story is developed: the destructive effects of rural homophobia.
Yet another criterion of superior writing is the choice of a unique theme. The theme of this story has never been expounded upon before in the short story form, nor in a film. It is central to an understanding of Brokeback Mountain that the theme is very specifically placed both spatially and temporally because of the development of theme through the geography, shaped by weather as a force, producing an effect that is mirrored in the characterizations of the human characters of the story. The destructive effects are directly linked to both the time and the place. This has never been done before. It is unique because the effects are unique and require an exposition as the author provided, another criterion of superior short story writing.
Another criterion for a superior story (in either film or in writing) is its ability to withstand repeated readings/viewings, with each new repetition revealing more details than before. It is hardly necessary to discuss this as the tens of thousands of posts to this board bear witness to the fact that no-one saw everything on a single viewing, and that even with multiple viewings over an entire year, new details and nuances are discovered, discussed, and digested by those who take the time to wade though this very complex and intricately woven story. It is quite common to see a new thread started by someone who complains that the first tent scene came out of nowhere. These people missed a lot of details on a first viewing – and this is not a negative judgment on these people. It seems that the majority of people missed any number of clues as to the developing attraction between Ennis and Jack. However, when one is willing to go back and re-watch, one begins to see things one missed the first time. There are discreet glances, there are longing looks outside the presence of the other, there are attempts to please the other, there is a growing sense of security in the relationship, there is a growing openness between the two, there are discussions that hint at sexuality and attraction. And, almost most importantly, is, again, what we are NOT shown: typical male sexual bravado. There are no tales of prior manly conquests or of the near death-provoking hunger for female sexual involvement that nearly every heterosexual male has experienced at this time in his life. Instead we see two young men “at their sexual peak” who spend a lot of time talking to each other and only once does the subject of girls come up for each of them, given as a passing comment that is quickly dismissed.
There are literally thousands of details, nuances, symbolic imageries, subtext-laden dialogue, etc., that are missed on a first viewing. This is but one of the ways of “getting” or understanding the film. Anyone who says s/he “got” it or understood it on one viewing either missed an awful lot or is lying. How many people who “got” the film on a first viewing understand why it is important that we saw Jack driving the tractor in circles with his son in his lap? How many people who “got” the film on a first viewing understand why it is important that Old Ma Twist is dressed the way she is? How many people who “got” the film on a first viewing understand why it is important that we see Ennis wash his hands, look out a window, or tuck in his shirt when we see him do these things? Again, this is only one of the meanings of “getting” the film/story.
Another important criterion of superior writing is that we get a comprehensible depiction of a slice of life. We get this in Brokeback Mountain. Again, the author stayed focused on the two main characters, revealing specific details at crucial moments that require a second reading/viewing to tie together. The dozy embrace would not have the impact on the viewer’s understanding of the emotional import of the scene had it been placed in its chronologically-appropriate spot. Additionally, had Jack’s theft and retention of the shirts been revealed as they came down from the mountain, a melodrama would have ensued teasing the viewer along to a viewer’s climax of understanding rather than Ennis’ climactic understanding; thus, the story achieves a subtly profound moment of awareness for both the character and the reader/viewer.
We are not shown all kinds of extraneous information about their pasts, just enough to get a clear picture of where they have come from and enough to aid our understanding of how they arrived at each point that they came to. Seemingly simple visuals such as Ennis saving a half-smoked cigarette, asking to borrow Jack’s lighter, and the disparity in the number of beers consumed in the bar scene, along with the fact that for an entire summer of work, Ennis only brought a semi-full paper bag, all depict for us the poverty from which he came, and thus is established a contrast against Jack.
Contrasting characters who share basic similarities is also necessary for superior writing. Jack and Ennis came from opposite ends of the state, had different family lives, had different senses of “home,” and yet were brought together on paper to discover that they similarly had a desire for a stable home, a place to call his own, for each one, an escape from his past. One loved the rodeo, the other did not; yet, they shared a love of the horse and of riding. One complained about every little thing, the other did not; yet, they worked together to build a home in which both could live.
Change and development of character in opposition to a directed, planned, or expected path is another aspect of superior writing. We see two young men with a similar ambition in life (“a place of my own”) who develop across twenty years, not quite attaining the goal as each had planned. Jack attained a home and a family, yet they were not at all what he had dreamed of as a place of his own. Ennis spent twenty years avoiding a permanent place of his own and yet he is the one who ended up with a permanence of “home” in the end. Ennis, regardless where he may live, will always have the shirts (Jack in spirit) and the imagined power of Brokeback, which create for him his “home.” Jack didn’t even get to have his ashes spread where he wanted. He lies beneath “the grieving plain.”
In superior writing, the characters are real. What they do, say and think, and how they do, say and think must be recognizable as believable to a large cross-section of the readers/viewers. The story/film delivers this in spades. The characters act within their means at their times. We are not shown a spacious bedroom in Ennis’ apartment. It is appropriate to his means. (Contrast, for example, the television show Roseanne. The Connor family is supposed to be middle-class (or even lower middle-class) in a modest home, yet there are at least four bedrooms in the house, each with enough room to hold a barn dance.) Ennis’ conception of what he may have in life is not only true to his emotional characterization, it is true to his circumstance. It is wholly believable that a man with Jack’s job, married into a family that has some money, would have new clothes and a new truck every few years. Contrast this with seeing Ennis wearing the same clothes years apart and with only two trucks in twenty years. Neither voices an exceptional dream for the future. Each has realistic hopes and goals – but for, of course, the interference of Ennis’ homophobia. There are no clichés or stereotypes used in the story to exhibit some characteristic. In fact, the story goes out of its way to avoid these tricks by instead building the characterizations in terms that are realistic to each character. Neither man lisps, prances, or has a flair for decorating – all stereotypes of gay men that are quite often not at all true. They are masculine men to whom women are attracted, and this is one of the prime motivators for the attraction that develops between the two of them – a development that occurs because they are gay men, unencumbered by clichés.
Also, the characters must have a depth to them. Again, in spades. Each is shown to run through a gamut of emotions, each appropriate and appropriately displayed to its timing in the film and in their respective characterizations. Ennis could not have had his emotional collapse (of the final lake scene) any earlier because the forces necessary for it, while present, had not yet been positioned for immediate collision. They were always kept apart by Ennis, and this was his inner struggle, well-developed and displayed through his frustrations (Alma leaving to work), insecurities (the Fourth of July scene), paranoia (the post-divorce scene and the move-to-Texas scene), and love for Jack. It is also notable that Alma and Lureen were each developed with only one or two emotional levels. This is consistent with keeping the focus on the main characters and useful for explaining the main characters rather than Alma and Lureen, themselves. The characterizations in the story explore many emotions, and on many levels. There is loneliness (each without a friend, each without each other, each with each other), abandonment (done to Ennis by his parents and siblings (unintentionally, of course), done to Jack by Ennis, done by Ennis to himself, done by Ennis to others in his life, done by Jack to himself, and ultimately, done by Jack to Ennis (both intentionally and not)), love (parental (both good and bad, controlling and freeing)), filial, romantic (Jack with Ennis, Ennis with Jack, Ennis with Alma, Jack with Lureen), sexual (again, many layers), fatherly (each Jack and Ennis to his own children), substituted (Alma with Monroe, Lureen with the business, Jack with Randall), happiness, sadness, despair, hurt, anger, sorrow – all on many levels and with differing layers of complexities all going on at once. And yet, the focus remains consistently on the main two characters. This kind of focus on characterization grabs the reader/viewer and holds on. (I am going to speak more to this later.)
Another aspect of superior writing is avoiding the gratuitous. And again, the film and its story avoid gratuity, most explicitly in the homosexual sex scenes. In the two tent scenes, we see a side-view of a bare bottom and a bare chest. Other than that, they remain fully clothed. The focus is not on the bodies of the men, it is on the actions and emotions of the men. In the first, an eruption of passion; in the second, a display of tender love. Another shot of the two of them shirtless is filmed from a great distance and focuses on a playfulness rather than on “sex.” In the reunion scene, we see them kiss passionately, an eruption of their emotions of longing and desire. Here, again, the focus is on the underlying emotions that each has been building for four years, rather than on the physicality itself. Again, both men remained fully clothed. The scene in the motel has both men shirtless, but done in such close-up that one hardly sees anything below the collarbone. The focus, again, remains on the words they speak to each other. Not on “sex.” In fact, the times that we see more of their skin, it is entirely sexless. Ennis is seen naked, from the side, while bathing, and the camera is focused on Jack’s face – the focus is not on Heath Ledger’s ass, it’s on what is going on in the mind of a character – the struggle he is feeling. Later we see Jack washing clothes naked, from the side. Again, the focus is not on Jake’s tushie; it’s on his vulnerability and emotional exposure. And the focus is on the boys-will-be-boys playfulness of the two when we see them jump naked into a river, again from a great distance. By not focusing on their bodies (skin), and keeping the focus on their actions and emotions, the gratuitous is avoided – as it should be in a superior story that maintains its focus on its theme.
(cont.)
