Author Topic: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?  (Read 66027 times)

Offline stevenedel

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 47
    • BBM - The Steven edition
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2006, 07:47:18 am »
I'll add my two cents to this nuanced and interesting discussion because I seem to disagree with what appears to be the majority opinion in the above.

The embrace is for me the high point of the short story. It tells us exactly what binds Jack to Ennis, and how he feels about their relationship and its (lack of) future. It explains why he doesn't know how to quit Ennis. I always read his "Let be, let be" as the equivalent to Ennis"s "If you can't fix it...". The flashback is, as somebody else remarked above, the one place where even Proulx succumbs to something approaching sentimentality. A warm, dreamlike little oasis in a brutally pragmatic little story.

Now, I would hate to have the film without the dozy embrace, don't get me wrong. But plotwise, I do think the film could do perfectly well without it. The scene lacks the function it has in the story, because it tells us nothing about Jack's thoughts; it becomes a purely sentimental episode, devised to remind us of all the possibilities that were never realized. It is also a brief moment of repose that hightens the contrast with the high drama that went before it, and the tragedy that will follow. Furthermore it also compensates, to some degree, for the lack of intimate J&E scenes in the second half of the movie - though in doing so it reinforces the impression that they were intimate and affectionate in 1963, but not so much later on.

I also feel that when, at the end of the flashback, Jack watches Ennis ride off, the look on his face is troubled and wistful rather than suffused with happiness. Unlike in the story, in the film the flashback seems to foreshadow the trouble to come.

Can I just give a standing ovation to Diane for mentioning the other possible symbolism of sheep? ;D When I hear "sheep," I think "conformity" rather than "innocent sacrifice."
I second that! "Get along little doggies"= don't stray from the herd.
If god had wanted people to be oppressed, he would have created bigger elephants. - Loesje

Offline Katie77

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,998
  • Love is a force of Nature
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2006, 08:31:05 am »
Having said my opinion of this wonderful scene, I now also want to tell you, what a bloody idiot i was after seeing the movie for the first time.

I had not read the book, and had no one at the time to talk about the movie with, and when I saw that scene I didnt realize it was a flashback.....I actually thought it was a mistake, and that there had been some mix up with the scenes...

I joined a message board, but had not read anything about this scene, but the message board had a thread about mistakes that were in the movie....and I, in my naevity, sent in that "they got it wrong, one minute Jack has a moustache and the next scene he doesnt have it".......and would you believe, no one even corrected me on this, or asked what the hell I was talking about.

After being in the message board community now for over six months, where we have dissected nearly every minute of the film, I feel quite embarrassed now, for even thinking that they would make such a blunder as I had thought they did, and even more embarrassed that I had the stupidity to write it in a message board post.

But it does go to show, that one viewing of the movie, (especially if the book hasnt been read), may not let the viewer appreciate or understand all the things going on in the movie....I remember I didnt see the words "deceased" on the postcard in my first viewing....it wasnt till I joined a message board, that I understood those last two words that Ennis said, "I Swear".....I was so shocked at the first tent scene the first time i saw it, that I hardly looked at it, brushed it from my mind, thought it was unnecessary.....

There are so many more things that I just didnt get, the first time I saw it, cant remember them now, because everything is now etched in my mind so clearly, yet with all that I missed or didnt understand, it still left a huge impact on me...I remember walking out from the theatre, and thinking, "what am I thinking, what am I feeling, something is different, something has happened to me here, what the hell is it?"......

I wonder how many others, who only see the movie the one time, and dont read the book, have a completely different take on some of the things that happened, what if they miss out on what was actually happening, the in depth of what was happening....I have found myself telling people who may be renting out the movie for a first time viewing, to watch it a couple of times...really watch it and think about it....I dont want them to miss out, or judge the movie, maybe incorrectly, because they didnt understand what was going on.

I lent the movie to my mother in law a couple of days ago, she is 80, and she rang me tonight to tell me she watched it and enjoyed it, (although, she said "there were a couple of scenes I didnt like).....I knew she would like it, I dont think I would have given it to her if I thought it would offend her, but on the other hand, I know, that she probably didnt get close to understanding it all.....her main comment about it was that it was "sad"......and "isnt that Jake Gyllenghaal a nice looking young man"........Now I would love to sit with her and watch it again, so I can explain things to her, hopefully I will do that after she has had a little break from it.

I know it cant happen, but I just want everyone to understand this story and what it is all about, without missing out on any details.......just like I would have done, if it hadnt got into my soul the first time I saw it and made me want to see more of it, and read more about it......
Being happy doesn't mean everything is perfect.

It means you've decided to see beyond the imperfection

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2006, 08:48:42 am »
Quote
From Amanda
And, I also think the characters in the movie are very different (in the case of Ennis... extremely different) than the characters as written in Proulx.  By the time two screenwriters a director and two actors start adding their two cents the characters grow beyond just belonging to Proulx.  


I am immensely grateful to Annie Proulx - for creating Ennis and Jack in the first place, of course  - but almost equally grateful for her whole-hearted acceptance and enthusiasm for the film and the creative process of writers, director, cast and crew. The "getting movied" essay, where she among other matters says that Heath Ledger understood Ennis better than she herself did, is very liberating to me. Her statement that "My story was not mangled but enlarged into huge and gripping imagery that rattled minds and squeezed hearts" confirms it's entirely OK to love both film and story, differences and inconsistencies and all - without having to figure out which is the "truer" or "better" representation of any one event - without having to reconsile or explain anything if we don't want to. The short story is there, informing the our understanding of the film, - but not limiting it in *any* way.

Having previously seen what negativity and limitations disagreements between book and film "purists" is capable of bringing to a fandom, Annie Proulx's attitude is a wonderful gift to us from the author. (Never mind that if any film did deserve such an attitude, surely it has to be this one.......)


Quote
From Stevenedel
But plotwise, I do think the film could do perfectly well without it. The scene lacks the function it has in the story, because it tells us nothing about Jack's thoughts; it becomes a purely sentimental episode, devised to remind us of all the possibilities that were never realized. It is also a brief moment of repose that hightens the contrast with the high drama that went before it, and the tragedy that will follow.

I don't think I disagree with any of that - nevertheless I can't but think that the tension and tragedy of the developing plot almost necessitates that loving, romantic, dream-like flashback - fulfilling what I'd call a craving in the audience *and* in Jack. I do know that every time I've seen the film to the end, I've always had this huge urge to start back at the beginning, - to get to be reminded of Jack and Ennis in happier days once more. I think that was part of the reason why I saw the film a double digit times in the cinema. So the inclusion of the flashback is directly plot-driven to me in this sense, a very emotional sense, responding to longings in both audience and film characters at that point to be allowed for the tiniest minute to revisit and rewarm the old, cold time on the mountain...... when nothing seemed wrong.   :'(
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 09:01:05 am by Mikaela »

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2006, 09:07:22 am »
Amanda, to answer your question, I think Jack bows his head down mostly because he feels a sleepy, trance-like sort of peace at Ennis' warmth and affection, and maybe possibly to nuzzle his chin into Ennis' wrist/hand.  Then he leans back into him to nuzzle his neck and head into his shoulder.  Sigh.

And Sam, I love this:

Quote
I thought Annie Proulx was emphasizing, with Ennis's refusal to admit that he was holding a man, that he loved Jack, a man, despite himself!

I like the more positive spin that has on it - makes me feel much better than the thought of Ennis not fully accepting Jack as a human being, which is in conflict with my feeling that Ennis and Jack's mother were the only two people Jack ever knew who did that.  Thank you for that.
No more beans!

Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2006, 10:16:44 am »
I continue to be amazed at the depth and insight of everyone discussing this topic. As usual, I find myself viewing things in a different and/or expanded way.


I am immensely grateful to Annie Proulx - for creating Ennis and Jack in the first place, of course  - but almost equally grateful for her whole-hearted acceptance and enthusiasm for the film and the creative process of writers, director, cast and crew. The "getting movied" essay, where she among other matters says that Heath Ledger understood Ennis better than she herself did, is very liberating to me. Her statement that "My story was not mangled but enlarged into huge and gripping imagery that rattled minds and squeezed hearts" confirms it's entirely OK to love both film and story, differences and inconsistencies and all - without having to figure out which is the "truer" or "better" representation of any one event - without having to reconsile or explain anything if we don't want to. The short story is there, informing the our understanding of the film, - but not limiting it in *any* way.

Having previously seen what negativity and limitations disagreements between book and film "purists" is capable of bringing to a fandom, Annie Proulx's attitude is a wonderful gift to us from the author. (Never mind that if any film did deserve such an attitude, surely it has to be this one.......)

I agree with you completely about this. I do like using source materials such as the story, the screenplay and interviews as a way to understand the motivation of the characters or as a method for clarification. Ultimately, the interpretation lies within me. My life experiences play a part into how I view the film as it does for everyone else.

 
The embrace is for me the high point of the short story. It tells us exactly what binds Jack to Ennis, and how he feels about their relationship and its (lack of) future. It explains why he doesn't know how to quit Ennis. I always read his "Let be, let be" as the equivalent to Ennis"s "If you can't fix it...". The flashback is, as somebody else remarked above, the one place where even Proulx succumbs to something approaching sentimentality. A warm, dreamlike little oasis in a brutally pragmatic little story.

Now, I would hate to have the film without the dozy embrace, don't get me wrong. But plotwise, I do think the film could do perfectly well without it. The scene lacks the function it has in the story, because it tells us nothing about Jack's thoughts; it becomes a purely sentimental episode, devised to remind us of all the possibilities that were never realized. It is also a brief moment of repose that hightens the contrast with the high drama that went before it, and the tragedy that will follow. Furthermore it also compensates, to some degree, for the lack of intimate J&E scenes in the second half of the movie - though in doing so it reinforces the impression that they were intimate and affectionate in 1963, but not so much later on.

I also feel that when, at the end of the flashback, Jack watches Ennis ride off, the look on his face is troubled and wistful rather than suffused with happiness. Unlike in the story, in the film the flashback seems to foreshadow the trouble to come.

This is certainly an interesting POV and I can’t disagree with your logic. I fall on the side, however, that this scene serves as one of the “bookends” in the film. We see the beginning of their relationship on BBM and we see the last memory of their relationship on BBM. It is also important to see Jack and Ennis loving each other without the sexual context.

It is interesting to note that in the short story, Ennis has dreams about Jack and they are always as Ennis had first seen him …. young. I think the film also tries to relay that sentiment. When they were on BBM, it was just the two of them. They were young and free from all of the expectations and responsibilities that followed. The “dozy embrace” serves as a contrast to what their relationship has become. Yes, they love each other deeply. But in their faces you can see the pain and the toll that rural phobia has caused. I also think the flashback reminds us, the viewers, of what could have been. As Jack says, “We could have had a good life together. A f--king real good life ...” Even as I write this, I get chills because I know they could have had a wonderful and loving life together. Instead, because of fear and societal constraints, they have been forced to live separately.

This movie does not belong just to Ang Lee. Brokeback Moutain, as the entire production team, -including Ang- has said, is a product of a collaboration between a group of people which includes the director, the actors, the screenwriters, the director of photography and so on. The director has a lot of creative power, no doubt about it but he does not make the movie alone. For example, when Ennis finds the shirts, Jack's is outside and Ennis's is inside. Then, when we see the shirts on Ennis's closet, his shirt is outside, and Jack's is inside. That was Heath Ledger's idea, not Ang Lee's or anybody else's. Movies are a product of collaboration and creative work, all movies. I believe Jake Gyllenhaal himself has said it.

Ditto. I believe Diana Ossana and Larry McMurty explain this very well … (the story) “…. ceases to be yours. It becomes the world’s.”


<< I think the dozy embrace is supposed to show they were in love as opposed to just having sex, and having them embrace from the front would have confused the issue.>>

Nice point latjoreme, I like it a lot, and wish to agree with it.  But I think it maybe misses the point a bit. I thought Annie Proulx was emphasizing, with Ennis's refusal to admit that he was holding a man, that he loved Jack, a man, despite himself! :)

As others have said … I love that, Sam! I think that hits the nail on the head.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2006, 11:43:33 am by dly64 »
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2006, 11:34:24 am »
I am immensely grateful to Annie Proulx - for creating Ennis and Jack in the first place, of course  - but almost equally grateful for her whole-hearted acceptance and enthusiasm for the film and the creative process of writers, director, cast and crew. The "getting movied" essay, where she among other matters says that Heath Ledger understood Ennis better than she herself did, is very liberating to me. Her statement that "My story was not mangled but enlarged into huge and gripping imagery that rattled minds and squeezed hearts" confirms it's entirely OK to love both film and story, differences and inconsistencies and all - without having to figure out which is the "truer" or "better" representation of any one event - without having to reconsile or explain anything if we don't want to. The short story is there, informing the our understanding of the film, - but not limiting it in *any* way.

I also think it's absolutely wonderful that Proulx is so excited and happy about the movie.  She seemed quite pleased to cooprerate and to communicate with the filmmakers, actors, etc.  It makes me feel better than if the movie truly upset the original author.  But the idea of "finishing the story" ourselves is very powerful to me... And the idea that the filmmakers tackled the story in their own way seems important too.  This is such a multifaceted story and it's been told in so many different ways!  Very interesting.  It's amazing that it's been told in two different forms by Proulx (the New Yorker and the fuller short story) and now we have this very powerful film (which because of it's exposure is now the primary way that most people will be familiar with the story... at least in the general public).  It's hard to pin point which version is the correct or definitive version (if there is such a thing). 
the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2006, 11:54:52 am »
This is such a multifaceted story and it's been told in so many different ways!  Very interesting.  It's amazing that it's been told in two different forms by Proulx (the New Yorker and the fuller short story) and now we have this very powerful film (which because of it's exposure is now the primary way that most people will be familiar with the story... at least in the general public).  It's hard to pin point which version is the correct or definitive version (if there is such a thing). 

I think there is no "definitive version" ... that's why I love this film and story. There is a lot of ambiguity and it allows the observer/reader to make his/her own conclusions. I find it helpful, however, to hear all POV. I have been able to see things and hear things that I had previously not considered .
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2006, 12:37:43 pm »
But, I think it's OK to critique Proulx a little bit.

It had better be! As someone who earns some (meager) pay as a book reviewer, I'd be in trouble if it weren't OK to question authors' decisions. Authors can choose to write whatever they like, but readers (and critics) get to decide how well those choices work. In the case of Proulx' story, I think most of her choices work very, very well. Obviously, since most of them wound up in a movie I have spent the past six months discussing. But there are a few choices I don't agree with, and that line happens to be one of them. Others may feel that line is perfect just as it is, which is fine, too.

I'd venture to say that the filmmakers questioned the story, too. Well, they may have loved the way all of the elements worked in the story itself. But it's obvious that they at least thought some of those elements should be changed for the movie.

But the idea of "finishing the story" ourselves is very powerful to me... And the idea that the filmmakers tackled the story in their own way seems important too.  This is such a multifaceted story and it's been told in so many different ways! ... It's hard to pin point which version is the correct or definitive version (if there is such a thing). 

I think there is no "definitive version" ... that's why I love this film and story. There is a lot of ambiguity and it allows the observer/reader to make his/her own conclusions. I find it helpful, however, to hear all POV. I have been able to see things and hear things that I had previously not considered .

I agree with all of this! There is no definitive version. Neither is beholden to the other. And so many parts of the movie (and story) are left SO ambiguous, I don't think they are meant just to be subtle, but are designed to allow for more than one interpretation.

I do know that every time I've seen the film to the end, I've always had this huge urge to start back at the beginning, - to get to be reminded of Jack and Ennis in happier days once more. I think that was part of the reason why I saw the film a double digit times in the cinema.

It's a product that creates its own demand -- like cigarettes or something. When you get to the end, it's so sad that you go back to the beginning iin search of happiness and closure, hoping in some small part of your brain that it will come out differently this time, then you get to the end and get sad all over again, so you go back to the beginning ...

Offline Samrim

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 36
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2006, 02:18:29 pm »
Although I regard the 'dozy embrace' scene as pivotal, and almost overpoweringly emotional, and it reduces me to pathetic snivels with monotonous regularity, I still feel it doesn't fit comfortably into the lake side scene. Early on it had ME confused too about what was going on, even though we now know just how powerful a metaphor it is for the bond between our boys!
Having said that, I haven't a clue where it would fit any better, possibly AFTER Ennis had driven away that last time! (Gulp)
 :-\
Sam

Offline jpwagoneer1964

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,720
  • Me and my 1951 DeSoto Suburban
Re: Why is the "dozy embrace" in the film?
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2006, 03:04:57 pm »
Although I regard the 'dozy embrace' scene as pivotal, and almost overpoweringly emotional, and it reduces me to pathetic snivels with monotonous regularity, I still feel it doesn't fit comfortably into the lake side scene. Early on it had ME confused too about what was going on, even though we now know just how powerful a metaphor it is for the bond between our boys!
Having said that, I haven't a clue where it would fit any better, possibly AFTER Ennis had driven away that last time! (Gulp)
 :-\

The only part I don't like about the 'dozey embrace" is the contrast of Jack's then to the then present. Heartbreaking. I do agree that Ennis does look into Jack's face from behind.
Thank you Heath and Jake for showing us Ennis and Jack,  teaching us how much they loved one another.