Author Topic: Green with Envy  (Read 11278 times)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2006, 12:38:12 am »
Right.  And I don’t mean to discount this.  But I think there are several things all going on at once.  The pavement theory is more on the metaphoric level while I think you’ve got the sub-text level.

But aren't you kind of co-opting the metaphoric level by saying that any interpretation not connected to Ennis' fear doesn't reach it? Also, this seems like another example of what I was talking about in my previous post, of making one theory dependent on another theory. IF (your theory that) Timmy's reference to a broken back raise Ennis' suspicions that people know about his activities on Brokeback (which, even by Ennis' standards, is a pretty ridiculous overreaction), THEN (your theory that) pavement in this scene is connected with pavement in two other scenes involving fear. Or is it vise versa? In other words, does A prove B only because B proves A?

I'm not as convinced that the underlying web of metaphors and symbols are all connected to Ennis' fear, and that anything not connected to that fear is merely subtext. Partly because I think the metaphors and symbols are more scattered and complex and ambiguous and abstract than that -- not all neatly tied together into one grand linear theme. And partly because for me to put that much weight on Ennis' fear would require me to overhaul my opinion of Ennis' character, and I'm not ready to do that, as you probably surmise from my comments on other threads. I see his fear balanced more evenly with his love, which is what makes the struggle between the two emotions so titanic and lets the plot drag out for two decades, rather than ending pretty abruptly after two months, or at most four years.

So maybe someday I'll be slapping my forehead in belated recognition (god knows it wouldn't be the first time!). But for now, I'm happy with: Ennis is paving over (symbol of civilization, society) their natural green life together (symbol), wearing a bright-Jack-colored shirt (symbol), working with an overly chatty guy (excessive chattiness -- think of LaShawn! -- always symbolizes a poor substitute  :laugh: ) who is neither cute nor fun, gazing off into the distance (more symbolic outdoor green) and missing Jack. And wearing something other than a cowboy hat (symbol)!

Quote
Quote
the filmmakers weren't being particularly concrete, either.
That’s the beauty of metaphor and symbolism.  We can rake it over the tar for hours.

Exactly! Because metaphors and symbols allow artists to express things in non-concrete terms, I think they take advantage of that opportunity to be abstract and complicated. Which is why I resist tying them to interpretations that seem tidy and specific.

Quote
But, they did make sure we saw it.  It didn’t have to be a gutted sheep.  It could have been lightning again this year.

No, it couldn't. Because the sheep evokes Earl and danger, not Jack's experiences the previous summer. Also, while a field full of charred sheep would certainly have been an unsettling image, it wouldn't have the archetypical power of a gutted (sacrificial) one.

Quote
Ennis could have sprained his ankle and Jack could have offered a foot rub

 :laugh: That would have been a great way to foreshadow Cassie! Ennis could fling his feet into Jack's lap and say, "Tryin to get a footrub, dumbass!"

Quote
But they chose blood -- five times.  They didn’t show us Ennis’ blood when he was attacked on the pavement, nor did they show us biker blood.  But they did show us Ennis’ blood after the bear, sheep blood, Ennis’ blood at the fight scene, Earl’s blood, and Jack’s blood in the tire iron scene.  We never saw Jack bleed when he was thrown from two different bulls.  Blood makes its bloody appearance at very specific moments.

I'm not sayin blood isn't a significant symbol. Only that its color might not be the important characteristic.

Quote
It looks really red to me, especially in the close-up after she’s packed the shirts.

OK, maybe "deep auburn."  :)

ruthlesslyunsentimental

  • Guest
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2006, 04:20:59 am »
I'm not as convinced that the underlying web of metaphors and symbols are all connected to Ennis' fear, …

Let me start with this part first.

Yikes! Yowsers! Heavens to Betsy! Holy cow! And, of course, Gad-zoinks!

My goodness gracious, I never meant to imply that all of the metaphors and symbols are connected to Ennis’ fears.  Not at all.  I hope I didn’t actually say that, because if I did, I’m an even bigger dork than I’ve always thought.  If I implied it, whoops!

No.  Certain metaphors go back to that as does certain symbolism, but not all.  For example, the metaphor of green=relationship is not about Ennis’ fears.  It’s about the relationship.  For all of their time on Brokeback, green was the color that linked the two of them together, Jack of the blue sky and Ennis of the brown earth.  Now, there may be some instances where a discussion of Ennis’ fears is relevant to how the green=relationship metaphor is stitched into a particular scene in its thread throughout the film; but, not always.

That having been said, it’s probably a good idea to talk for a minute about the huge significance of Ennis’ fears and why they appear so regularly.  As you know, I am very much against going back to the short story to explain the film.  Here, I go back not to the short story, but to the author.  Proulx has corrected many an interviewer who has asked her about her “gay love story.”  She always responds that it’s not a gay love story, it’s a tragedy.  The theme of Brokeback Mountain is the destructive effects of rural homophobia on society and its people.  The plotline that was used by Proulx to achieve her objective of illustrating her theme is a love story between two young, gay men in a rural setting.  She saw the old man in the bar watching the younger dudes playing pool and she envisioned his possible life as a gay man in a rural setting.  She envisioned the things he must have had to have gone through being a gay man in a rural setting.  This is how she arrived at the theme and the plotline.  The strongest message she chose to illustrate in expressing her theme was the destructive effects of rural homophobia on the main character, himself – Ennis.  (She also chose to illustrate the message of its destructive effects on others with whom the main character would come in contact.  And finally, its destructive effects on society as a whole.)  The principal way she chose to illustrate the destructive effects on her main character was to create a complex, internally-conflicted, homophobic, man controlled by his fears.  Then she showed where the fears came from and the effects they had on him.  This is why going back to Ennis’ fears is so relevant so often.  It’s the driving force of the theme of the story.

But, back to symbolism, metaphor, etc…

Quote
… and that anything not connected to that fear is merely subtext.

Again, I’m sorry if I implied this.  There is text, subtext, and metaphor -- three separate entities in the film that we can analyze separately or in tandem.  For example, Text: “Too early in the summer to be sick of beans.”  Subtext: “You’re falling in love, ain’t ya?”  Methaphor:  Ennis isn’t sufficiently developed to be considering love in light of his fears.  We can’t do too much arguing about the text.  It’s right there in front of us.  (I know, sometimes people hear some things a little differently, due to extra noises or a head turned from the viewer, etc.)  On the subtext level we can have a lot of disagreement, back and forth, throwing out of ideas.  And as long as they’re tied to the character development, or the scene, or a previous scene – as long as the subtext interpretation doesn’t violate the film itself – they’re all valid and there may be many subtexts all going at once. 

As to the metaphor level, many ideas can come forth.  But here, there has to be a strong reason for a one-time symbolism to stand on its own.  For example, the binoculars can be taken as a symbol of society’s peering eyes.  Only once are they seen in use, peering (for the sake of simplicity of argument, I’m putting Aguirre’s actual two uses of them (watching the boys and later watching Ennis) in one event because the two uses come one right after the other, to do the same basic thing).  But, they’re prominently seen three times and appear differently each time.  One can argue that the binoculars on the wall, in their case, represent a society that has nothing to look at.  Then they’re used.  And it turns out there is something to see.  Then they’re seen on the wall, out of their case, implying once seen, the eyes will always be ready to peer.  Now, some people might like this, some people might not like this.  But, in terms of analysis, it’s a valid analysis.  Someone may come up with another that is equally valid, but could be more far-fetched or more widely seen as more believable.

Other metaphors and symbolism run throughout the film.  If these can be tied together in a thread that doesn’t break down from multiple anomalies that cannot neatly be stitched into the thread, then there is validity from an analysis perspective.  But if they can't, then in an analytical sense, the metaphor is invalid.  This is not to say that another metaphor cannot work.  Just because there are two metaphor possibilities running at once, they are not mutually exclusive.  Each must be judged on its own merits of completeness, accuracy, filmic integrity, and purpose.  For example, one could say that the binoculars symbolize Aguirre’s lack of health insurance because he needs an aide to his vision and they’re always close by him.  Well, this one fails because of lack of purpose to the advancement of the theme of the story.  It also lacks completeness because it fails to take into account how and when they’re used or not used.  It also lacks filmic integrity and accuracy.  When one can find just a couple of significant examples of a prop or a word or an action (etc.) not being able to be neatly stitched into the thread of the metaphor, then the metaphor fails.


Quote
… Partly because I think the metaphors and symbols are more scattered and complex and ambiguous and abstract than that -- not all neatly tied together into one grand linear theme.

I agree if what you mean is that there are different metaphors running along in the film that have no relation to each other but always have relation to the film.  But if you’re talking about individual constituents that bear similarity to each other – by time, place, color, use, etc. – then, a metaphor that does tie them all together is better than a metaphor that lets some lie unclaimed.


Quote
And partly because for me to put that much weight on Ennis' fear would require me to overhaul my opinion of Ennis' character, and I'm not ready to do that, as you probably surmise from my comments on other threads. I see his fear balanced more evenly with his love, which is what makes the struggle between the two emotions so titanic and lets the plot drag out for two decades, rather than ending pretty abruptly after two months, or at most four years

I cannot disagree with this at all.  This is certainly a valid way of viewing the character.  However, it does mix the theme with the plotline.  And this can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing.  In this story, however, I would probably not say his fears and love are balanced, as much as they are pitted against each other with the fears winning out almost all of the time.


Quote
But aren't you kind of co-opting the metaphoric level by saying that any interpretation not connected to Ennis' fear doesn't reach it?

Again, I truly hope I didn’t actually say this because I certainly don’t believe it.


Quote
Also, this seems like another example of what I was talking about in my previous post, of making one theory dependent on another theory. IF (your theory that) Timmy's reference to a broken back raise Ennis' suspicions that people know about his activities on Brokeback (which, even by Ennis' standards, is a pretty ridiculous overreaction), THEN (your theory that) pavement in this scene is connected with pavement in two other scenes involving fear. Or is it vise versa? In other words, does A prove B only because B proves A?

Here I think you’re talking about two different levels of interpretation – the subtext and metaphor – in one.  They can’t be discussed that way.  And they are not dependent on each other.  Subtext and metaphor are dependent on consistency across the film and more often than not are each concerned with very different ideas.  Subtext generally relates to plot while metaphor generally relates to theme.  I think this is where there may be some confusion between us – you may be talking about one level and I may think it’s the other or vice versa, or, either or both of us mixed the two.


Quote
So maybe someday I'll be slapping my forehead in belated recognition (god knows it wouldn't be the first time!).

We are on the same page after all!  I do this everyday!   :laugh:


Quote
But for now, I'm happy with: Ennis is paving over (symbol of civilization, society) their natural green life together (symbol), wearing a bright-Jack-colored shirt (symbol), working with an overly chatty guy (excessive chattiness -- think of LaShawn! -- always symbolizes a poor substitute  :laugh: ) who is neither cute nor fun, gazing off into the distance (more symbolic outdoor green) and missing Jack. And wearing something other than a cowboy hat (symbol)!

Absolutely.  I have no problem with this either.  What you have done here is found symbolism in a number of things and strung them together – not into a metaphor, but into a subtext (…and missing Jack.)  Nothing wrong with this at all.  I took the three occurrences of “pavement,” assigned symbolism, and strung the symbols together into a metaphor and not into a subtext.  Neither of us has done anything wrong.  Or as Ennis might say, “Ya both done good.”


Quote
Exactly! Because metaphors and symbols allow artists to express things in non-concrete terms, I think they take advantage of that opportunity to be abstract and complicated. Which is why I resist tying them to interpretations that seem tidy and specific.

Again, this is o.k., but it’s only o.k. for the subtext level.  For the metaphor level, “tidy and specific” are, generally, de rigeur.   


Quote
No, it couldn't. Because the sheep evokes Earl and danger, not Jack's experiences the previous summer. Also, while a field full of charred sheep would certainly have been an unsettling image, it wouldn't have the archetypical power of a gutted (sacrificial) one.

Exactly!  That is exactly why it should not have been lightning again.  Because the filmmakers intended symbolism and metaphor.  If it was a bunch of sheep killed by lightning, we’d have a single symbol (nature is mad at you for what you’ve done).  Fine.  But by making it a gutted sheep that can be tied to Alma in her sweater, to Earl’s crotch, to danger, AND NOT to Jack’s previous summer job, a metaphor is created.

Spot on!


Quote
That would have been a great way to foreshadow Cassie! Ennis could fling his feet into Jack's lap and say, "Tryin to get a footrub, dumbass!"

I never thought of this!  This is great.  Now I almost wish it would have been this way.  But I suppose they gave us a chuckle when he named himself to Cassie as “Ennis … del Mar.”


Quote
I'm not sayin blood isn't a significant symbol. Only that its color might not be the important characteristic.

Excellent point that I can certainly go with.  Still, it does fit… and if it fits … you must … *admit?*   :laugh:


Wow.  This has been quite a ride.  As always, it’s been a distinct pleasure.  I hope I wasn’t too brutally assertive.  But that would probably be better than being ruthlessly unsentimental.   ;)




« Last Edit: July 07, 2006, 04:27:39 am by ruthlesslyunsentimental »

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2006, 03:24:47 pm »
OK, I'm getting confused enough that I can't always tell if the problem is that I disagree with you or simply that I don't get you, ruthlesslyunsentimental. I only have a few more years of education in literary theory (formal and/or autodidactic) than Ennis does, and though I like to think my grammar is better than his I'm sure he's better at castratin calves than I am at flinging around all these terms and concepts.

But when did I ever let ignorance get in the way of stubbornly arguing a point? Maybe if I just try to keep it specific rather than issuing sweeping statements ...

My goodness gracious, I never meant to imply that all of the metaphors and symbols are connected to Ennis’ fears.

OK, sorry. My misunderstanding.

Quote
No.  Certain metaphors go back to that as does certain symbolism, but not all.  For example, the metaphor of green=relationship is not about Ennis’ fears.  It’s about the relationship.  For all of their time on Brokeback, green was the color that linked the two of them together, Jack of the blue sky and Ennis of the brown earth.  Now, there may be some instances where a discussion of Ennis’ fears is relevant to how the green=relationship metaphor is stitched into a particular scene in its thread throughout the film; but, not always.

Quote
I took the three occurrences of “pavement,” assigned symbolism, and strung the symbols together into a metaphor and not into a subtext.

OK, got it. So I guess the problem I would have is if metaphor is allowed to dictate the subtext to the point where the subtext doesn't make sense. And now I'm wondering if I misunderstood, but this is how I've read some of the things you've said. For example, the tar-spreading scene. Given your explanation of the metaphors -- green=relationship, pavement=fear, and those do make sense -- it logically follows that paving over land that once was green represents fear that's covering up, taming or destroying their relationship. And I have no problem with seeing that metaphor at work and available for us to notice, consciously or un.

But I balk at taking the next step and saying -- and again, maybe I misunderstood you, but this is what I thought you were saying -- that because a fear-over-relationship metaphor is present in the scene, it follows that what happens in that scene is that Timmy's comments cause Ennis to feel fear. To me, that interpretation defies Ennis' behavior, the symbolic evidence in his clothing and my understanding of human nature.

Now if a metaphor can exist as a whole 'nother entity, connected to the larger story but not necessarily intended to shape or inform how we're supposed to interpret the action in the scene itself, I'm fine with that.

Quote
  She always responds that it’s not a gay love story, it’s a tragedy.  The theme of Brokeback Mountain is the destructive effects of rural homophobia on society and its people.  The plotline that was used by Proulx to achieve her objective of illustrating her theme is a love story between two young, gay men in a rural setting.

First sentence: But why must the terms mutually exclusive? Third sentence: OK, they're not.

I mean, if they weren't in love it wouldn't be tragic. And if it is tragic, I don't see why it can't be a love story.  My interpretation of Annie's objection to the "gay love story" label is that she feels it misrepresents or oversimplifies it. But I can't see her stepping into this discussion and saying we're oversimplifying (if so, god help me).

Quote
The principal way she chose to illustrate the destructive effects on her main character was to create a complex, internally-conflicted, homophobic, man controlled by his fears.

You know, I'm sure I'll regret saying this because you'll probably produce some metaphoric evidence to the contrary. I haven't read the story as often as I've seen the movie, nor as recently. It's quite possible I didn't fully "get it" because I wasn't as affected by the story as the movie. But my impression has always been that Story Ennis isn't nearly as homophobic or internally conflicted as Movie Ennis. He makes a regrettable decision, but on a basis that's more rational and objective and practical -- he saw a man get killed, concluded that living with another man could be dangerous, and wanted to avoid that fate. So to the extent that Story Ennis has fears, they seem far less deep than those held by Movie Ennis.

Quote
For example, the binoculars can be taken as a symbol of society’s peering eyes. ... they’re prominently seen three times and appear differently each time.  One can argue that the binoculars on the wall, in their case, represent a society that has nothing to look at.  Then they’re used.  And it turns out there is something to see.  Then they’re seen on the wall, out of their case, implying once seen, the eyes will always be ready to peer.

I like this.

Quote
Other metaphors and symbolism run throughout the film.  If these can be tied together in a thread that doesn’t break down from multiple anomalies that cannot neatly be stitched into the thread, then there is validity from an analysis perspective.  But if they can't, then in an analytical sense, the metaphor is invalid.  This is not to say that another metaphor cannot work.  Just because there are two metaphor possibilities running at once, they are not mutually exclusive.  Each must be judged on its own merits of completeness, accuracy, filmic integrity, and purpose.  ...  When one can find just a couple of significant examples of a prop or a word or an action (etc.) not being able to be neatly stitched into the thread of the metaphor, then the metaphor fails.

OK, I think I've always agreed with all this, and hope I didn't sound like I didn't. No wait -- maybe I don't. Come to think of it, I guess I'm not totally convinced that if, for example, blood appears in one scene and means one thing it must always mean the exact same thing, something that can be boiled into a single word or phrase, in every other scene. It also can simply suggest the other thing, remind us of the other thing, create an ambiguous and abstract but amorphous connection between the two things. For instance, I don't think I would say that if the sheep's blood is X, then the blood on Ennis' face must be X and the blood on the shirts must be X and so on. I'm more open to an AX (one interpretation) and a BX (deliberate reminder of previous interpretation but with a different sense, or different twist, that gives it a new meaning) and a CX (ditto). Or even -- in some cases, especially if the objects are different enough -- an X and a Y and a Z (three things that may or may not have symbolic meaning but if so aren't the same ones).

Quote
In this story, however, I would probably not say his fears and love are balanced, as much as they are pitted against each other with the fears winning out almost all of the time.

Well, you and I have already pretty well established elsewhere that we have different opinions about this, even at the textual level.

Quote
As always, it’s been a distinct pleasure.

Me too.

Quote
I hope I wasn’t too brutally assertive.

Not at all. My brain could use some exercise now and then. Besides, what else do I have to do all day except run errands, clean the house, unpack my suitcase from the trip I returned from four f'in days ago, attend to my actual paid employment ...

Quote
But that would probably be better than being ruthlessly unsentimental.   ;)

Well (thinking of your take on the love story/tragedy dichotomy) maybe both.  ;)




ruthlesslyunsentimental

  • Guest
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2006, 05:31:01 pm »
So I guess the problem I would have is if metaphor is allowed to dictate the subtext to the point where the subtext doesn't make sense. And now I'm wondering if I misunderstood, but this is how I've read some of the things you've said.

Sorry.  Again, I may not have been clear.  Text and subtext and metaphor don’t have to have anything at all to do with each other.  They each add their own layer of meaning to given a situation(s).  They don’t have to support each other and they don’t override each other.  They all exist together, sometime mingled, sometimes not.


Quote
For example, the tar-spreading scene. Given your explanation of the metaphors -- green=relationship, pavement=fear, and those do make sense -- it logically follows that paving over land that once was green represents fear that's covering up, taming or destroying their relationship. And I have no problem with seeing that metaphor at work and available for us to notice, consciously or un.

Yes, there is misunderstanding here.  Timmy is just blathering on about God knows what … similar to LaShawn … and (here I get myself into trouble) similar to Jack.  So people can see connections there.  Then, a person would be within right to say “Because I see a connection between Timmy’s talking and Jack’s talking, I believe that I am seeing Ennis reminisce about Jack.  No problem.  One can like it or not, agree or not, but it doesn’t make it less true for the one who made the connection.  Then that same person who just described a subtext can decide to see a metaphor at work also.  And the metaphor can be on a completely different line of thought.  And the symbolism that that person sees in Timmy’s talking can have no connection at all to Jack’s talking (the way it DID in the subtext that that same person found).  As long as the metaphor created follows the rules and tools of metaphor construction and analysis, it’s valid.  Even if it says entirely different things from what was said by that same person in the subtext comments.  AND, other people can find other subtexts that are diametrically opposed to the first subtext, and yet the new subtext can be just as valid as all the others.  It’s like the “I swear” discussions.  Everyone sees some different meaning in those two words.  And if they base their own interpretation on elements from the film such as Ennis’ character development or a previous scene (etc.), then the interpretation is valid even if I don’t like it or agree with it.  This would all be different people finding different subtexts in the same text.  All valid, but to each individual, each one has more or less meaning, credibility, etc.


Quote
But I balk at taking the next step and saying -- and again, maybe I misunderstood you, but this is what I thought you were saying -- that because a fear-over-relationship metaphor is present in the scene, it follows that what happens in that scene is that Timmy's comments cause Ennis to feel fear. To me, that interpretation defies Ennis' behavior, the symbolic evidence in his clothing and my understanding of human nature.

I think I see the confusion here.  I’ll try if I can to fix it.

I see “pavement” being used symbolically to represent Ennis being out in the world, away from the seeming privacy of Brokeback Mountain.  Because of the privacy of BBM, Ennis was able to overcome his fear, there, at that time.  But, out in the world, on the pavement, Ennis cannot overcome his fear.  I think we agree on the previous two sentences.  Now, because there are three overt uses of “pavement” in the film, I look to see if they are connected in some way.  What happened in each scene?  The most obvious one is Ennis’ question to Jack about being out on the pavement and people knowing.  I see his fear -- people knowing and that leading to something bad – just as something bad happened to Earl.  Ennis fears that if people know, someone may do something untoward.  This scene was immediately preceded by Ennis falling to the pavement and getting beat up.  Now, he was NOT getting beat up because the man found out about Ennis.  But, in the very preceding scene to that, Alma outed Ennis.  She found out.  His fear is of people finding out and the consequences thereof.  When Alma found out he was afraid, he reacted as always, with violence.  In the beat up scene, he is still feeling these two emotions.  He’s still processing what happened with him and Alma and the fear and anger that go with it.  So when the driver yelled “asshole,” Ennis was sent over the top and started the fight.  But Ennis, the good fighter (biker scene) was beaten to the pavement.  In both the suspicious mind and the beat up scene, I, the viewer, see the link between his fear of being found out and the consequences thereof.  So, when Ennis says “pavement” in the suspicious mind scene, it links, for the viewer, to the previous scene where he was beaten to the pavement, and to the previous scene where he was found out.  Now, there is one more scene with apparent overt pavement.  The tarring scene.  In this scene, we ask whether the same elements are present to use Ennis’ fear to link to the other two scenes.  Here, Ennis is on the pavement and Timmy evokes an image of Brokeback, the place where his fears were overcome for that time and place.  It reinforces the idea that out on the pavement is NOT the same as up on the mountain, it’s not safe and secure from Ennis’ fears.  Here’s what Timmy says: “My old lady’s tryin’ to get me to quit this job.  She says I’m getting’ too old to be breakin’ my back shovelin’ asphalt.  I told her strong backs and weak minds runs in the family.  She didn’t think that was too funny.”  That’s the text.  Subtext: I may have a weak mind, but on the pavement I am strong and can avoid breaking my back.  (And there can rightly be 100 more subtexts in what he says.)  Symbolically: I have fear, but on the pavement I am strong and can avoid the consequences of my fear just as I did on Brokeback.  These provide the necessary link to the larger metaphor.  And at the same time, another symbolism could be at work and could (but wouldn’t necessarily have to) link to the larger metaphor I stated, or to another metaphor entirely.

The point behind metaphor is to cause a recurring symbolism to evoke an experience in the viewer (for film; reader for books).  The experience could be a feeling or a foreshadowing or any of a number of other experiential reactions.  Because the first part of the metaphor (the tarring scene) sets up an Ennis that can overcome his fears out on the pavement, and because the second (the beat up) shows an Ennis who cannot, and because the third (the suspicious mind scene) shows an Ennis who is questioning his first assumption based on its fallacy as shown in the second, the metaphor of the pavement becomes “Ennis cannot escape his fear of being found out and his fear of the consequences simply by going out on the pavement and ignoring them.  He must overcome his fears as he did on Brokeback Mountain in order to attain the same kind of harmonic balance in his life.”  And then this symbolic metaphor translates into a moral for the viewer to carry away from the film: “One cannot escape one’s fears, one must overcome them, in order to find harmony in one’s life.”


Quote
Now if a metaphor can exist as a whole 'nother entity, connected to the larger story but not necessarily intended to shape or inform how we're supposed to interpret the action in the scene itself, I'm fine with that.

Yes!  Exactly.  Metaphor is not supposed to interpret a scene or a line of dialogue.  That’s what subtext is for.  Metaphor is to lead to a larger, grander concept … sometimes to a moral.  This is what Aesop did in all of his fables -- symbolism used to create metaphor used to create a moral.

Another example is the beans and soup metaphor.  Metaphors for the life that Jack wants versus the life he’s allowed.  Add in the comment by the Basque and the metaphor gives us a moral: “Don’t act until you’re ready to act and to accept the consequences of your actions.”  (As an aside, this is why I think that in the cast of minor characters the Basque is second only to Cassie.  Well, Uncle Harold’s societal implication is also huge, but I just like the Basque and Cassie more, and that’s OK.)


Quote
I mean, if they weren't in love it wouldn't be tragic. And if it is tragic, I don't see why it can't be a love story.  My interpretation of Annie's objection to the "gay love story" label is that she feels it misrepresents or oversimplifies it. But I can't see her stepping into this discussion and saying we're oversimplifying (if so, god help me).

Yes about all the Annie stuff.  As to the “I don’t see why…”  Because a story is stuck into a particular genre based on its theme, not on its plotline.  Certainly, one can mix them to give a larger picture of what to expect to see in the product as a whole.  To simply call it a love story or a gay love story ignores the theme.  The theme is a tragic one so to call it a tragedy or a tragic love story or a tragic gay love story would all work.


Quote
I haven't read the story as often as I've seen the movie, nor as recently. It's quite possible I didn't fully "get it" because I wasn't as affected by the story as the movie. But my impression has always been that Story Ennis isn't nearly as homophobic or internally conflicted as Movie Ennis. He makes a regrettable decision, but on a basis that's more rational and objective and practical -- he saw a man get killed, concluded that living with another man could be dangerous, and wanted to avoid that fate. So to the extent that Story Ennis has fears, they seem far less deep than those held by Movie Ennis.

Absolutely no argument from me here at all.  I agree totally with every word.  This is why I don’t like it when people try to use the story to explain the film.  Completely different characters.  The part I agree most strongly with is “…because I wasn't as affected by the story as the movie.”  The story on its own, without the film, is hardly what I would call “moving.”  For me, it only becomes moving when I add the film to the story.


Quote
I like this.

About the binoculars – me too.  And this is one of the few metaphors that I feel the author did a really good job with in the story.  Lee carried it over to the film and I believe he did it effectively.


Quote
…blood appears in one scene and means one thing it must always mean the exact same thing, something that can be boiled into a single word or phrase, in every other scene.

No.  He’s an example.  Jack peeled a potato.  THERE it can be taken symbolically as Jack peeling away a layer of himself in preparation for what is to come.  Now, let’s say we saw Lureen peeling a potato before Thanksgiving dinner and Jack walked in the room and she ran to him, threw her arms around him, and said “Honey, I’ve been acting like a rabbit what with paying too much attention to business, now I’m going to concentrate on you.”  This obviously doesn’t have the same symbolism of peeling a potato=Jack peeling a layer away.  Taken together, these could symbolically mean that when one peels a potato, one is peeling back a layer from him- or herself.  Now, let’s say Ennis and Cassie meet up in Mel’s diner and Mel is in the kitchen peeling a potato and the film makes a point of showing this to us, and Ennis and Cassie are discussing what they can do to make themselves more available to each other.  Here, the symbolism of peeling a potato=peeling away a layer from oneself doesn’t apply.  But putting all three together, one can construct a metaphor that when a potato is peeled it’s evocative of a layer being peeled away to allow change.  So if we then see Mrs. Twist peeling a potato just before she puts her hand of compassion on Ennis’ shoulder and nudges him up to Jack’s room, we can expect to see a layer of Ennis being peeled away to allow for a change.


Quote
It also can simply suggest the other thing, remind us of the other thing, create an ambiguous and abstract but amorphous connection between the two things. For instance, I don't think I would say that if the sheep's blood is X, then the blood on Ennis' face must be X and the blood on the shirts must be X and so on. I'm more open to an AX (one interpretation) and a BX (deliberate reminder of previous interpretation but with a different sense, or different twist, that gives it a new meaning) and a CX (ditto). Or even -- in some cases, especially if the objects are different enough -- an X and a Y and a Z (three things that may or may not have symbolic meaning but if so aren't the same ones).

Yes.  Absolutely.  And then by stringing them together, one can find a grander metaphor that they all fit into and that doesn’t necessarily define in concrete terms any one or all of the examples, but gives us, instead, a larger scheme of things.  (Which can usually be translated into a moral.)


Quote
Well, you and I have already pretty well established elsewhere that we have different opinions about this, even at the textual level.

Tell ya what… I’ll still stick with “In this story, however, I would probably not say his fears and love are balanced, as much as they are pitted against each other …” and I’ll change the ending to “with the fears winning out MOST of the time.”  (Instead of “almost all of the time.”)  Better?



I know I’ve written a lot (again) yet I am suffused with a sense of pleasure because, after all, Jack is still a potato.







Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2006, 08:19:37 pm »
Again, I may not have been clear.  Text and subtext and metaphor don’t have to have anything at all to do with each other ...  Metaphor is not supposed to interpret a scene or a line of dialogue.

This is from a June 28 post of yours, discussing the importance of Ennis' fear:

Quote
(This is also the tie-in to the scene where he's raking tar -- pavement -- and the older man says "break" and "back."  Ennis looks off into the distance.  Not wistfully remembering Jack (that may be a small part of it), but having a slight paranoia attack about someone mentioning that place where things seemed so normal, but wouldn't be to the guy raking next to him.)

Can you see why I understood you to be using a metaphor involving fear to interpret the subtext of this scene? But I can't agree with this metaphor-based analysis. I think Ennis IS wistfully remembering Jack. I don't think he's having a paranoia attack. I'm perfectly willing to agree that the pavement metaphor suggests an overarching theme, and that certainly Ennis does in general feel paranoia, but not that it's a key to interpreting this scene.

Tell you what. Aside from that issue, I think I understand and agree with most of what you're saying about how metaphors and symbols and subtexts work.

I don't agree with all of your specific examples, for a variety of reasons. In some case, we have different opinions about the story and characters. In some cases, I have a different idea of what I think something -- red, for example -- symbolizes. In some cases, it seems to me you're stretching too far to get something to fit, and though I can't say for sure that I might not feel the same way you do after I've seen the movie 135 more times, it doesn't ring true to me now. In some cases -- much as I hate to admit it -- it's remotely, distantly, faintly possible you're right and I'm wrong.  ::) About some particular individual things, I mean.

I never like to stop arguing until I've run the subject totally into the ground and everybody is completely sick of it. But I to do that now, I have to get back to arguing about concrete examples rather than with this intense literary theory. I just don't have the background for it. I was a journalism major. So when you say, "X means Y," and I say, "Really? Oh, I think X means Z" and you say, "No, Z is subtext, Y is metaphor," well, I don't really have the tools to dispute that. Do I not get it because I can't tell the difference between metaphor and subtext? Or might I actually be right but just not be able to support my argument authoritatively? When the discussion becomes that abstract, I can't tell. Let's just say I can only debate stuff like this at an undergraduate level.

Which, of course, is not the same as saying I'm wrong.

Quote
Well, Uncle Harold’s societal implication is also huge ...

*Sigh.* OK, I'll bite.  :)

Quote
The theme is a tragic one so to call it a tragedy or a tragic love story or a tragic gay love story would all work.

OK, I can do that.

Quote
Jack peeled a potato.  THERE it can be taken symbolically as Jack peeling away a layer of himself in preparation for what is to come.

But since this is the only potato, what if I don't agree with this interpretation? What if I have a whole different one, or none at all?

Quote
I’ll change the ending to “with the fears winning out MOST of the time.”  (Instead of “almost all of the time.”)  Better?

Well ... um ...  :-\








« Last Edit: July 08, 2006, 01:34:40 am by latjoreme »

ruthlesslyunsentimental

  • Guest
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2006, 03:35:14 am »
This is from a June 28 post of yours, discussing the importance of Ennis' fear … Can you see why I understood you to be using a metaphor involving fear to interpret the subtext of this scene?

Um, yes… but, I’m sorry if this sounds rather direct… I can understand it if you’re mixing metaphor and subtext.  I went back and read the entire post to get the context straight in my mind.  You didn’t take or twist it out of context or anything, so I’m not saying that, it’s just that I needed the full context.  In that post, I was responding to a question from someone else about how I see Ennis’ paranoia increasing over time in the film – that while in the beginning he may have just had a fear in him, by the “move to Texas” scene, Ennis’ fear has magnified into paranoia.  In that post, I was looking at the tar raking scene on a subtext level, not on a metaphor level.


Quote
But I can't agree with this metaphor-based analysis. I think Ennis IS wistfully remembering Jack. I don't think he's having a paranoia attack. I'm perfectly willing to agree that the pavement metaphor suggests an overarching theme, and that certainly Ennis does in general feel paranoia, but not that it's a key to interpreting this scene.

The analysis in the other post was not a metaphorical one, it dealt with subtext.  So when you say that Ennis is wistfully remembering Jack, I have no problem with that.  I think that is a very valid subtext to what we are seeing and I agree, I see that too.  But another subtext that I see is a very slight paranoia evoked in Ennis (probably on a subconscious level) by the man’s evoking an image of Brokeback.  We both seem to agree that Timmy’s comments evoked an image of Brokeback for Ennis.  And you think that this causes wistful remembrance – and I agree – but I also see the very start of paranoia.  So when I responded to the other questioner’s question about magnifying fear and paranoia, I brought up the tar raking scene as an example of a seed of paranoia being started in Ennis that grows with his various interactions with “society” – as opposed to with his immediate family or Jack.


When you say:

Quote
I'm perfectly willing to agree that the pavement metaphor suggests an overarching theme, and that certainly Ennis does in general feel paranoia, but not that it's a key to interpreting this scene.

I am glad to see your initial comment about the pavement metaphor and the general feeling of paranoia, then, I am glad to also see your final phrase about key to interpretation – because you are right.  What’s happening in the tar scene fits into the pavement metaphor AND into the subtext analysis, but even though the metaphor and the subtext stem from the same thing (what happens in the tar scene), the metaphor and the subtext have nothing to do with each other.  Neither is trying to nor is either supposed to explain the other.  They’re separate beasts.

So, the metaphor concerning pavement is not intended to interpret a scene, or to be key to a scene, but the subtexts are.  The two subtexts that we came up with in the tar scene (wistful and paranoia) are supposed to help us interpret the scene.  That’s what’s great about subtext.  You can see one, I can see another, or we can both see one and not the other, or we can both see both, and someone else may come along with another one that I like and you don’t or… the cycle keeps going on.  The subtexts that we come up with help to interpret a scene and for each scene each of us probably considers a particular subtext to be key.  This is highly subjective stuff. 

But as far as a metaphor goes, its overarching quality is not supposed to interpret a scene.  Metaphors help us to focus our thinking by associations of similar objects or lines or visuals (etc.) and help us to explain a larger, overarching concept in the film, rather than just a particular scene (or object, or line, or visual).  For example, the wind=Jack metaphor (I picked that one because it seems highly agreeable to many people) helps us to understand the more lofty, wind-swept, if you will, free-spirited, more outgoing nature of Jack.  It helps us to see the dissimilarity in Ennis.  But it doesn’t explain a scene.  For example, when Jack walked into Aguirre’s trailer the second time, the fan blew (wind) and Aguirre said “Look what the wind blew in” instead of the customary “Look what the cat dragged in.”  Here, Jack=wind is not key to interpreting the scene itself.  The scene is about Aguirre not hiring Jack back again and to let Jack know that their activities were not so private and to show that Jack is looking for Ennis.  This is the textual level.  But we all know there’s more to it than that.  On the subtext level, Aguirre won’t hire Jack again because… one subtext says poor job performance … another subtext says because Aguirre’s homophobia is showing.  Each is just fine, and both can be just fine too.  And if we'd put this into one of those “fun questionnaires,” we’d probably get a lot more subtexts that people come up with.

On a metaphor level, one can see symbolism in Aguirre’s binoculars, out of the case, coupled with his remarks, and take it as symbolism for society seeing what they did and judging them for it.  This can then be reinforced by the Aguirre ride up scene.  Suddenly an overarching metaphor takes shape.  And a moral may (but doesn’t have to) appear.  One could find the following moral: Don’t put faith in your actions being secret.  Now, the wind=Jack metaphor is not key to understanding the scene, but the scene helps give weight to the wind=Jack metaphor in that the fan blew, Aguirre said “wind” and Jack (who, according to the metaphor is lofty and free-spirited) gives a look that may register umbrage at Aguirre’s judgment of Jack and Ennis (I also see some embarrassment and some shame in being found out by Aguirre).  But how does this affect the lofty, free-spirited Jack?  I dunno.  He doesn’t get violent (as Ennis would).  He doesn’t argue (as Ennis would).  He doesn’t run away (as Ennis would).  He just leaves and after an amount of time probably shrugs it off… Fuck Aguirre!  This reinforces the wind=Jack metaphor because someone free-spirited could shrug it off; and, it reinforces the Ennis=ground metaphor by showing the dissimilarities that exist between Jack and Ennis when we consider how Ennis might have reacted in that trailer.


Quote
In some cases, I have a different idea of what I think something -- red, for example -- symbolizes. In some cases, it seems to me you're stretching too far to get something to fit, and though I can't say for sure that I might not feel the same way you do after I've seen the movie 135 more times, it doesn't ring true to me now. In some cases -- much as I hate to admit it -- it's remotely, distantly, faintly possible you're right and I'm wrong.  ::) About some particular individual things, I mean.

And all of this is OK.  As long as when we find the subtext that works for each of us we pull it out of our own subjective selves.  And, as long as when we each find the metaphors and symbolism that work for us, we follow the rules and tools of metaphor construction and analysis to assure validity.


Quote
I never like to stop arguing until I've run the subject totally into the ground and everybody is completely sick of it.

Me too.  Honestly, wouldn’t it be a lot more fun to do this sitting around a campfire eating beans and drinking whiskey?  Ah, takes me back to my childhood…


Quote
So when you say, "X means Y," and I say, "Really? Oh, I think X means Z" and you say, "No, Z is subtext, Y is metaphor," well, I don't really have the tools to dispute that. Do I not get it because I can't tell the difference between metaphor and subtext? Or might I actually be right but just not be able to support my argument authoritatively? When the discussion becomes that abstract, I can't tell. Let's just say I can only debate stuff like this at an undergraduate level.

Yes.  I’m right and you’re wrong.  NO!  I’m just kidding!   :laugh:

If I say X means Y and you say X means Z, they very probably each and both could be true.  Or, one could be false if the levels of analysis are getting mixed up – which I do think has happened occasionally.  I know that I get confused when I think it appears someone is talking on one level and then later it seems like the other level.

You debate these things as well as Lureen rounds those posts on her faithful steed.  And she won top prize that day!  (I love that picture of Jack and Lureen with their certificates.  Lureen looks like “Oh, well, I won again,” and Jack looks like “What the hell am I doin’ here?”)


Quote
*Sigh.* OK, I'll bite.  :)

(Uncle Harold)  Tell you what… I’ll write a bit about this later.  It’s just a little something I thought of once and it seems to work.  I don’t know about you, but it sure jumped out at me that old, sick Uncle Harold made such an interesting appearance.  Why couldn’t Aguirre just have rode up there to do a routine check?  Why did the filmmakers choose to include Uncle Harold?


Quote
But since this is the only potato, what if I don't agree with this interpretation? What if I have a whole different one, or none at all?

Well, remember that it’s not the potato that’s important to the metaphor.  It’s the knives.  And what’s done with them, and by whom, and when, and what is going on in that scene, and before, and after, etc.  Again, in that particular scene we see text: Ennis is bathing, Jack is peeling a potato and not looking at Ennis.  And there’s subtext: Ennis is giving a show, Jack couldn’t care less about the damn potato… he wants to look!  (And all kinds of other subtexts that people can come up with.)  And on the symbolic level, it matters what Jack is peeling because of Ennis’ question to the Basque and the Basque’s response.  To fill out the metaphor, does it fit with the other instances of knives?  If so, objective validity.  If you have a different symbolic representation, no problem.  But if you try to string it into an entire metaphor of other – similar – objects or lines (etc.), then it has to fit due to its presence, its use, its common meaning, the scene, the previous scene, etc.


Finally, although I may have appeared to diminish the significance of the potato, I’ll stand out on the pavement and shout until my dying day… Jack is still a potato!



« Last Edit: July 08, 2006, 03:45:23 am by ruthlesslyunsentimental »

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2006, 07:47:46 pm »
In that post, I was looking at the tar raking scene on a subtext level, not on a metaphor level. ... So, the metaphor concerning pavement is not intended to interpret a scene

OK. I must have misunderstood again. Maybe because I can't think of anything but the pavement metaphor that would signal paranoia in that scene. But it's true, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, even if it's wrong different from mine.  ;)

Quote
You debate these things as well as Lureen rounds those posts on her faithful steed.  And she won top prize that day!

Yee f'n haw. I'll get me one of them red-and-white shirts to wear at my computer. No, wait -- would that seal my doom?

Quote
(Uncle Harold) I don’t know about you, but it sure jumped out at me that old, sick Uncle Harold made such an interesting appearance.  Why couldn’t Aguirre just have rode up there to do a routine check?  Why did the filmmakers choose to include Uncle Harold?

Right. I have an idea or two of my own about Uncle Harold. I don't know that I would describe mine as having huge societal implications, though, so I eagerly look forward to seeing what you write.

  :)




« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 10:59:44 am by latjoreme »

ruthlesslyunsentimental

  • Guest
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2006, 04:13:58 am »
Yee f'n haw. I'll get me one of them red-and-white shirts to wear at my computer. No, wait -- would that seal my doom?

Yes!  Don't wear red and white together for gosh sakes.  Wear a blue shirt instead.  Red and white together would surely spell trouble, but you can ward it off by peeling potatoes whilst wearing it.  Trouble with this is you can't look left or right, you just gotta keep peeling them potatoes. 


Quote
Right. I have an idea or two of my own about Uncle Harold. I don't know that I would describe mine as having huge societal implications, though, ...

Oops.  Maybe I should have said something more like, my view of him is a societal view... or sumpin' like that.  I dunno, maybe not.  Anyway, try if I can to get around to it soon.







Offline Ellemeno

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,367
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2006, 05:43:54 pm »
? Jack is still a potato!

Is that why Ennis sometimes calls him Spud, as in "Somethin' I've been meaning to tell ya, Spud?"

I like the green theory, not convinced by the red & white theory, or the orange and yellow.  I will watch with an eye for those colors.  LOVE the pavement theory.   Love new ideas.  Thanks!

ruthlesslyunsentimental

  • Guest
Re: Green with Envy
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2006, 06:43:34 pm »
Is that why Ennis sometimes calls him Spud, as in "Somethin' I've been meaning to tell ya, Spud?"

Best one I've heard yet!  I'm LingMAO!  Thanks!   :laugh:       :laugh:       :laugh:


Quote
I like the green theory, not convinced by the red & white theory, or the orange and yellow.  I will watch with an eye for those colors.  LOVE the pavement theory.   Love new ideas.  Thanks!

I'm here to please...