Author Topic: SNIT  (Read 3253 times)

Offline chowhound

  • Brokeback Mountain Resident
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
SNIT
« on: April 25, 2009, 05:08:53 pm »
As most are aware, The Second Night in Tent - or SNIT - was an addition that Ang Lee made to Annie Proulx's original story. Here are the reasons he gave for making this addition:

"Not only did I want to be loyal to her writing and I needed to do additional scenes to confirm her writing because we don't have internal depiction, which she did most brilliantly. We don't have that benefit. We are photography. So that tent scene, for example. I need to add another tent scene and I don't even know if she liked it. I always had this theory that she would hate it. To confirm that they commit to the love, so it's reasonable for the next 20 years they are going back. I think in movies, in cinema language, you have to see them committed. In a book, it's in the writing and you don't see it. I explained it to her in terms of hands-off. Once you make the movie, it's your work. I explained to her, that your writing is very hard to translate into cinema and she just smiled and said, 'That's your problem' (laughing)."

Do you think SNIT achieved what Ang Lee hoped it would - "that it confirm(s) that they commit to love, so it's reasonable for the next twenty years they are going back."? Also, do the distinctions he makes between story telling in movies and fiction ring true for you?

I'm baffled as to why Ang Lee thought that Annie Proulx might have "hated" this addition. Any suggestions?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 12:05:14 pm by Ellemeno »

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,288
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: SNIT
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2009, 07:18:39 pm »

Do you think SNIT achieved what Ang Lee hoped it would - "that it confirm(s) that they commit to love, so it's reasonable for the next twenty years they are going back."? Also, do the distinctions he makes between story telling in movies and fiction ring true for you?

I'm baffled as to why Ang Lee thought that Annie Proulx might have "hated" this addition. Any suggestions?

Yes, I think SNIT is everything Ang wanted it to be, thanks to the superb acting by Heath and Jake! It justified the rest of the story that followed (my beef is that I'd have liked the camera to go inside the flap for TNIT during the hailstorm!). Ang probably thought Annie would deem SNIT sentimental, which she abhors.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 12:17:13 pm by Ellemeno »
"chewing gum and duct tape"

Offline Ellemeno

  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • ********
  • Posts: 15,367
Re: SNIT
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2009, 12:20:00 pm »
Yes, Proulx doesn't go in for much direct expression in BBM.  Although in the short story Ennis is more verbally articulate about his desire for Jack than he is in the movie.

Offline LauraGigs

  • Moderator
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,447
    • My Design Portfolio
Re: SNIT
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2009, 01:26:18 pm »
I think the SNIT is absolutely crucial for a viewer's understanding of the depth of their relationship.

Ennis woke in red dawn with his pants around his knees, a top-grade headache, and Jack butted against him; without saying anything about it both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, sheep be damned.
As it did go. They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises, but saying not a goddamn word except once Ennis said, "I'm not no queer," and Jack jumped in with "Me neither. A one-shot thing. Nobody's business but ours." There were only the two of them on the mountain flying in the euphoric, bitter air, looking down on the hawk's back and the crawling lights of vehicles on the plain below, suspended above ordinary affairs and distant from tame ranch dogs barking in the dark hours.


^ The last sentence in this snippet hints at the emotional depth of their relationship, but it would be difficult to replicate the effect in film, given the stoicism of the characters (which is much greater in film-Ennis as opposed to book-Ennis).  We especially needed a breakthrough scene like that after the "I ain't queer" conversation, in which Ennis seemed impassive and Jack almost heartbroken.

Offline southendmd

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,962
  • well, I won't
Re: SNIT
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2009, 04:29:07 pm »
SNIT is a crucial scene indeed.  We know what Jack wants, so SNIT is really about Ennis.  SNIT shows that it's Ennis's choice  to be with Jack.  That's extremely important. (Anyone remember Gene Shalit's review
of Jack as sexual predator? :-X)   Rather, Jack gently reassures Ennis. 

Heath's performance is nothing short of amazing.  His expression in that scene--of a scared kid, who has never been loved--breaks my heart every time. 

SNIT isn't exactly "quick, rough, laughing and snortin", as Annie says.  But, it shows the bond between them with almost no words. 

My only complaint about SNIT:  it's too short. 

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,288
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: SNIT
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2009, 07:52:51 pm »

My only complaint about SNIT:  it's too short. 

Isn't that the truth, friend Paul!!
"chewing gum and duct tape"