Now again, there's so much I'd like to comment on and Waaaaaaah! Never enough time, never enough!
I'll reply to this one first:
OK – please indulge my little rant… I hate going to extraneous things that just aren’t “Brokeback Mountain.” To me, BBM is the film as we see it with our eyes and hear it with our ears. The short story, the screenplay, the script, comments from Proulx, Lee, the actors… it’s all just speculation and interpretation. The film does not follow the short story, the screenplay, or the script in every way, and in many instances, not in key ways. Facts were changed and cannot be translated from any one to any one of the others. Same with motivations – except for “well, possibly what’s going on here…” But that’s no different than any other interpretation any one else would come up with. The people involved have all said many things about BBM. Too often, they contradict each other and they contradict themselves. Too often, they change their story over time. And one of the biggest offenders in this regard is Proulx. Yes, she’s the author of the short story, but she’s not the author of the film. Even Lee’s intentions for what he wanted to do with the film and get across through the film did not all come to pass. The film is as we see and hear it. It’s not fair to try and change what we see and hear by going to extraneous sources.
I have to heartily and respectfully disagree. I think the short story, the script versions and the final published script, as well as interviews given by the producers, script writers, director and actors, are all relevant and very interesting to consider for me when I ponder the film and the characters and message – what it means to me and how it impacts me.
Producers, writers, director and actors have all talked about how the original short story made an impact on *them*, and/or how the script that was “floating around Hollywood” made a similar impact. The original story and the script(s) informed and inspired their understanding of the film they ended up making, everything we see when we see the film. It informed and inspired the way they presented the characters, the messages and symbolism that they wanted to get across. The short story and script(s) represented the foundation on which the marvelous structure that we now can pop into the DVD player was firmly built. Therefore, it’s not in any way extraneous to me to consider these sources and that foundation when grappling with understanding and interpreting the film, the scenes, the characters, the symbolism etc. etc.
I’ve joined this discussion board in order to discuss the film. I want to be able to air my opinions, to get fresh perspectives from others, to ask questions and to obtain illuminating information pertaining to the film and the filming process; – to examine every angle of thoughts and emotions that I have concerning this film and concerning Jack and Ennis -
in communication with others. Hopefully I’ll get new ideas and better understanding than if I just watched the film in a black box all to myself, didn’t read anything about it, and never discussed it.
If I didn’t include the short story, interviews and scripts in this broadly defined communication about the film, it would mean cutting out some of the most relevant opinions, and muting some of the most knowledgable voices. It would mean not wanting to listen to the people who’ve thought about Jack and Ennis the most. That seems very strange to me.
Going from the short story via the script to the film is to be given insight into the process that created the film, the process that takes the next step when I see the film and interpret it, and the next step again when I start discussing it with others to share views and opinions. I think every step of the process has something to tell us about Jack and Ennis……. Including the changes that were made along the way. *Why* was so-and-so added? Why was so-and-so removed? In what way does that impact the final characterization, and the story? Can it shed any light on the characters, or – as is just as relevant a question – not?
For instance, in forming my own opinions about Ennis, I don’t want to disregard what Heath Ledger has to tell me concerning h is creation and understanding of the character. That doesn’t mean that his acting of the character as seen in the film won’t remain the main source of understanding. It always will. But if there seems to be a conflict between the two, I still think it will pay to go re-examine that…. Is there really a conflict? Or is there some nuance or aspect or connection I’ve not seen or misread? If the former, if there is a conflict, so be it. The film wins hands down. There are many examples of this. The very main one, I suppose, is when the short story *and* (more mysteriously) the published script tells us that Ennis does not embrace Jack face to face in the dozy because he does not want to see nor feel that he is holding Jack – a man. It doesn’t make sense in the *film* since we’ve seen him embracing Jack face to face in a scene that in the linear timeline came before the dozy. And it doesn’t make sense because Heath isn’t acting Ennis in the dozy that way – he’s clearly looking at Jake's profile. So the film wins, and I remain baffled at the published script’s inclusion of that particular description. Still, if anything, it gave me food for discussion and reexamination of the film – and what’s wrong about that? Nothing.
I don’t mean to say that I think every possible source initiated by the author, actors, director, writer or producers and pertaining to the film are equally relevant. The relevance has to be considered in each case, by each of us, and I’m sure our opinions will differ very much on that too. I suppose to me it’s a continuum, with the final script and the short story at one end, in-depth interviews such as the Charlie Rose interview with Heath Ledger and Ang Lee in the middle, and one-minute talk-show interviews designed mainly to create laughs and attention at the very far non-interesting) end. Silly kissing questions that obtained equally silly replies doesn’t do much for anyone’s understanding, though they may have helped talk show ratings for all I know.
For when all is said and done, the main source of course is and will always remain the film.
One of the things Annie Proulx has said that has increased my respect for her another notch, is her praise of Heath Ledger in saying that when seeing the film she realized he “knew better than her how Ennis felt and thought”. Not only is that a sign of a person who keeps her feet firmly grounded and hasn’t bought into any hype concerning herself, but it’s a liberating carte blanche to us readers and viewers to go ahead and create our personal version and understanding. Not that I’d have expected anything else from artists who places their work of art before us, but there it is. Heath built on her story and the script and his own interpretation – and built a "better" understanding of Ennis than the original creator had. If we build on all that, *and* his portrayal *and* our own experiences and emotions and interpretations – will our understanding be diminished, more confused, less clear and ambiguous than if we held strictly to the film and nothing else? I think not. All input including scripts, short story and interviews can only enhance and broaden our understanding and perspectives on Brokeback.
In my personal view. Which I do by no means mean to say others need to share!
