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…
… 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.
… 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 ) 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.”
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. 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!
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.”
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?*
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.