Second Night in the Tent

[janjo]

What I was trying to suggest Paul, was that Jack and Ennis and been "conditioned" to the way they felt they were supposed to act. That was why they behaved in the way they did. Some men have also been conditioned in the same way, and are therefore better able to understand why the SNIT scene is out of context than us ladies are.
That does not mean I think that either all men, or all women think or behave in a certain way, because they don't.
Speaking for myself, and myself only, I found the SNIT the most honest expression of what is truly beautiful about a sexual relationship I have ever seen depicted on screen.
It is in defending this, and the emotions it aroused in me, that I failed to understand that Annie Proulx really did intend that Jack and Ennis never came "face to face."

[andy/Claude]

...It is in defending this, and the emotions it aroused in me, that I failed to understand that Annie Proulx really did intend that Jack and Ennis never came "face to face."

I guess that's something that many on this forum will never fully understand, Jess. Her perspective has never sat well with me - I find it practically impossible to see how she never saw them face to face after what they experienced. Writer's licence, maybe?

[Desecra]

I completely agree about them being "conditioned": I don't think I'd have thought to use that word, but it fits so well.   What we see on the mountain initially looks like "natural" behaviour, but isn't ... they've been conditioned to behave and even think in certain ways.   The more limited expression they have on the mountain in the book is nothing to do with their feelings for each other, and all about their conditioning. 

I have a different feeling about them not being face to face on the mountain.   It seems so powerful to me, and so fitting for the theme of homophobia and love set up against each other.   It's such a basic requirement (almost) to be able to look into your lover's eyes, to kiss them, etc., that for them to be able to fall in love without that shows both the strength of the "conditioning" and the strength of the love. 

I find it very poignant and emotional that when Ennis is pining for Jack FOUR YEARS after that brief summer, knowing he should never have let him go, they have never kissed.  And when Jack's driving all those miles to see Ennis again, maybe thinking about them ranching together, they haven't yet kissed. 

[Sara B]

It's so good to be talking in these threads again. Looking forward to the Reunion soon.

[garyd]

I completely agree about them being "conditioned": I don't think I'd have thought to use that word, but it fits so well. 

I have always regarded the story in this manner. (conditioned).   AP is writing about a time, place, geography, a certain morality of that time, place, and geography, and homophobia, both internal and external, and self -loathing.  She perceives all of these elements in the culture she is writing about to be so strong and pervasive as to actually be able to deny two human beings the ability to express themselves or to acknowledge,(or even recognize), their own individual identity. 
However, ultimately, she concedes that it is possible, though not without tragedy, for human nature to overcome human intolerance.

On the mountain, Ennis and Jack are unable to address these issues.  We are told this explicitly…”they never talk about it”.  If they don’t talk about the sex, they sure as hell are not going to talk about, or physically express, something deeper….love.  As they descend the mountain,(short story), Ennis realizes something is wrong, he is in a “free fall”, but he can not ascertain “why”.  The strong and pervasive intolerance of his world completely masks his ability to recognize, much less accept, the reality of what has really transpired on the mountain. 

THIS is why I consider the SNIT, to be out of place (out of context), in the film.  (It has nothing to do with my own "conditioning", gender, or sexual orientation.  It has everything to do with dramaturgy and literary, and yes screenplay, structure.)
It takes both men years to even acknowledge, much less express,deeper feelings for one another.  Even Jack realizes that the “dozy embrace” is perhaps as close as they ever came to such acknowledgement and expression.   And Ennis, after all the trauma and loss in his life can not even complete the sentence, “Jack, I swear…”

[lislis]

Although probably in the realm of fan fiction, how could SNIT be changed
(kept in the same place in the movie) to be (IMHO) more realistic?

[Paul029]

What I was trying to suggest Paul, was that Jack and Ennis and been "conditioned" to the way they felt they were supposed to act. That was why they behaved in the way they did. Some men have also been conditioned in the same way, and are therefore better able to understand why the SNIT scene is out of context than us ladies are.
That does not mean I think that either all men, or all women think or behave in a certain way, because they don't.

Thank you, Jess. I agree with you that cultural conditioning was influential in Jack and Ennis’s understanding of what was acceptable male behaviour, but thought that to imply male posters here were similarly affected by such conditioning (simply because they might have said that SNIT was “out of context”) was somewhat unwarranted.

In an earlier post here I mentioned that DCF members were a self-selected group, and that those who posted on the SNIT thread were a sub-group within that group.
That men on the forum might not choose to discuss SNIT needs to be considered—as does the issue of the small number of male posters who actually participate on this thread—before such a claim could be justified.

Your reference to “us ladies,” above, suggests to me that you believe female posters are more likely to accept SNIT as being “in context,” and I suspect, as contributors appear to be predominantly female, that it’s the main reason male posters choose not to participate here.

Putting it another way, it could be said that men are reluctant to participate simply because their opinions will run counter to the prevailing (i.e. female) opinion about the inclusion of SNIT in the film, especially when discussion of the scene has not only polarised along gender lines, but that men's opinions are dismissed due to their “cultural conditioning.”

In other words, males who agree that the scene is contextually relevant to the narrative are not “culturally conditioned.”
Their opinion is accepted as valid simply because it coincides with that of “the ladies.”

It would be interesting to know whether any females on DCF similarly felt that SNIT was “out of context,” but I doubt that that will ever be known.

Speaking for myself, and myself only, I found the SNIT the most honest expression of what is truly beautiful about a sexual relationship I have ever seen depicted on screen.
It is in defending this, and the emotions it aroused in me, that I failed to understand that Annie Proulx really did intend that Jack and Ennis never came "face to face."

This is an issue which could be discussed in detail, Jess.

Although the film is "based" on the story, the inclusion of SNIT (a sentimental addition unwarranted by Proulx's throughly unsentimental narrative) took the story into another realm altogether.

That the film might be seen to be “better” than the story because of that inclusion is, in my opinion, a point worthy of debate.

[Paul029]

My apology was totally insincere, dear Paul.  

I was disappointed to hear that, Sara. When someone apologises I always think it’s meant to be taken literally.

Oh yes, sure!
(I heard it was liquid soap)

You appear to have missed the point of my comment.
Considering the amount of discussion about actors swapping saliva, and the number of “takes” which might have been required to, as you said, “make the spit string perfect,” it seemed fair comment on my part to raise the issue of other actors similarly professionally engaged in their work to self-provide their own ejaculate.

But perhaps you’re actually saying that Gyllenhaall’s and Ledger’s saliva was a sugar syrup courtesy of the film’s Special FX crew....

I'm not sure we should contemplate too closely the olfactory consequences of a good many instances of sexual intercourse in past times, in RL or in literature or drama. Many of our ancestors were averse to bathing, and dentistry consisted only of extractions, so probably most of history's great lovers might not been too good to get close up and personal with, though of course if they were all in the same state they might not have noticed....

I wasn’t referring to “sexual intercourse in past times,” whether “in RL or in literature or drama,” nor to the personal hygiene routines of “our ancestors,” but to depictions in film of intimate activities which acknowledge the consistency of the participants’ behaviour as demonstrated in the narrative.

I doubt very much that in times to come the Jack and Ennis you describe below as being “all handsome and hygienic” will be seen as such by future viewers, unlike Charlotte Vale and Jerry Durrance, whose behaviour and appearance are narratively consistent with who they’re meant to be in the world of Now, Voyager as presented in the film.

But I take you point about dentistry; it’s quite ludicrous that American mainstream films persist in showing characters supposedly with no knowledge of dental hygiene flashing mouths full of blindingly white, perfect teeth.

It’s no wonder that it's taken for granted that, for instance, even Noah and his mates (let alone characters in non-Biblical times) had access to fully paid-up dental health schemes.

And back to J and E, I don't suppose they warshed themselves all that often in the cold cold river or that tiny bowl of warm water . But I'm quite happy to suspend my disbelief while I'm watching the film and just accept them as they are presented to us there, all handsome and hygienic.*

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be saying that it’s acceptable to you that you’re able to “suspend disbelief” about SNIT because you think of what the actors are doing, rather than the two characters, despite
the fact that in this particular scene what’s “being presented” has no bearing whatsoever on what we’ve been previously shown about Jack and Ennis.

If so, how does that enable you to appreciate the film as a whole? Wouldn’t that create some discontinuity in your viewing?

As for this kiss, I confess that there is a little frisson from the thought of two presumably straight actors believing so strongly in the importance and validity of the film and their roles that the spit string actually occurred, whether intentionally or not.

Which relates back to my question about the ejaculate in Weekend, to which you appeared to respond—if the rolling eyes were anything to go by—rather dismissively.

And I am also able to be touched by it when I'm immersed in the scene and only thinking of Jack and Ennis kissing. It depends on my mood while viewing or intentions in viewing it.

In other words, your response to the film depends on your varying moods? Nothing wrong with that, of course.
But do you find that at times it’s not possible for you to separate the actors from the characters?

*Though I do admit that, particularly in the early scenes, added realism in their appearances, especially towards the end of the summer - less clean-shaven, rougher hair, clothes more worn - would have been even more effective.

That’s probably not an issue of any importance for many people.
No matter how realistically the actors were depicted as “rough sheep herders” in the early scenes it wouldn’t have worked.
The casting of Gyllenhaall and Ledger would have been compromised.

Less photogenic and/or less well-known actors would have been better as Jack and Ennis.

That, IMO, was one of the many things Weekend got right.

[Paul029]

[BlueJeanJeannie]

While I'm starting to lose track of what the discussion is about by now... 

That the film might be seen to be “better” than the story because of that inclusion is, in my opinion, a point worthy of debate.

It's not "better", just different. It just so happens many of us saw the film before ever having read the story. And, in my case - I'm much more familiar with the film: the characters, the dialogue... No matter how many times I'll read the story, it's the film that "got" me. And, as a part of that, it was SNIT that "got" me.

In other words, your response to the film depends on your varying moods?

I'm with Sara on this one. Yes, my responses to the film, even to some scenes, depend on my mood. I better not watch the film when I'm having a really bad day, cos I'll end up all depressed. Instead, I tend to focus on the first 40 - 45 minutes of the film (up until the boys come down from the mountain), and then 'rewind' to the beginning, where Ennis and Jack meet at Aguirre's parking lot - and then I'm all happy again   

Less photogenic and/or less well-known actors would have been better as Jack and Ennis.

Less photogenic? Yes, I agree - in a way. Jake and Heath look (too) good. But if they had been, let's say, more average looking, or even ugly, would "the public" have cared as much for the film? This had been discussed before on some other thread, can't remember which one, and I seem to recall most posters agreed on the cinematic side of it. Yes, they look good, and what a joy it is to watch them! 

Don't know if Heath and Jake were that well-known at the time. Seems to me they were both still in the early stages of their career back then. Jake was only 23 when they were filming BBM in 2004.

[Sara B]

I'm starting to lose track of what the discussion is about by now... 

Me too.

But I like

dear Paul .

[Paul029]

... I'm starting to lose track of what the discussion is about by now... 

Jess proposed that males who believed SNIT was “out of context” did so because of their cultural conditioning.
I was simply addressing that interesting point, Sonja.

It's not "better", just different.

It’s certainly “different”—in that it has nothing to do with the film’s source material—but whether it’s “better” than AP’s narrative is (as I said) open to debate.

The issue here is that the SNIT undermines the singular importance of the film’s “reunion kiss” by the implication that it wasn’t the first time they’d kissed.
Proulx’s description made it clear that that kiss was exceptional, not merely “one among the many.”

SNIT not only waters down that kiss’s impact, but also the following Motel Siesta sequence.
In the film it’s simply something that they’ve done before, but in the book it’s far more significant; a unique event.

It just so happens many of us saw the film before ever having read the story. And, in my case - I'm much more familiar with the film: the characters, the dialogue... No matter how many times I'll read the story, it's the film that "got" me. And, as a part of that, it was SNIT that "got" me.

Then it must have been a bit of surprise when they realised that Annie got it wrong. 
No SNIT, just summer-long “quick, rough, laughing and snorting” noisy sex.

In other words, your response to the film depends on your varying moods?

I'm with Sara on this one. Yes, my responses to the film, even to some scenes, depend on my mood. I better not watch the film when I'm having a really bad day, cos I'll end up all depressed. Instead, I tend to focus on the first 40 - 45 minutes of the film (up until the boys come down from the mountain), and then 'rewind' to the beginning, where Ennis and Jack meet at Aguirre's parking lot - and then I'm all happy again   

You left out the bit where I said that there was “Nothing wrong with that, of course.”

Less photogenic? Yes, I agree - in a way. Jake and Heath look (too) good. But if they had been, let's say, more average looking, or even ugly, would "the public" have cared as much for the film? This had been discussed before on some other thread, can't remember which one, and I seem to recall most posters agreed on the cinematic side of it.

I’m not denigrating their performances, just saying that they’re nothing like Proulx’s very specific descriptions.
What “the public” cares about is up to them. I’m not interested in what “they” think.   

Yes, they look good, and what a joy it is to watch them! 

“Cultural conditioning” works both ways, Sonja. 

[BlueJeanJeannie]

The issue here is that the SNIT undermines the singular importance of the film’s “reunion kiss” by the implication that it wasn’t the first time they’d kissed.
Proulx’s description made it clear that that kiss was exceptional, not merely “one among the many.”

I don't look at the (movie) Reunion kiss as being "one among the many" at all - just look at the way they kiss! It's a kiss that has four years of longing and love in it. Yes, in the movie, they had kissed before, and maybe many times - we're not sure. But the Reunion kiss is by far the most passionate kiss we get to see and therefor it's totally convincing. It doesn't lose it's importance because of the SNIT kiss. Quite the opposite, I would say.

I don't know if this is off topic, but since we're talking about the differences between the written word and the movie here...
Jake Gyllenhaal was in a conversation with Columbia University students quite recently, along with writer and director Colm Toibin. They were discussing the work of gay writer James Baldwin. There's a video of it on YouTube.

Totally unexpected, Mr. Toibin brought up Annie Proulx and what it would have been like for her to see Jake and Heath in the film. He said: "Any time you work with actors, you're handing something over to them and it's up to you [the writer] to walk away, not see it. Because of the way you work [as a writer] with silence - they [the actors] interpret." He turned to Jake and said: "I don't know what Annie Proulx felt, when she saw you guys, doing... but I can imagine".

A student in the audience said: "She was really happy".  (Well, I don't know how true that is, having seen the opera and having read AP's recent comments on the film, but anyway...  )

So Mr. Toibin was admitting how hard it is for a writer to turn away from their 'silence', their work, and to hand it over to actors, a director. Seeing things they didn't imagine. As he said: "A new level being added that is not in the original."


That's how I see SNIT, Paul. A new level. And a beautiful one as well.

[Sara B]

Thanks, Sonja. That's interesting, and I'll look for the interview. Yes, for me the book, the film, and now the opera, are all different - though intimately connected -  'things'.  In the film, I don't think the Reunion kiss is in any way diminished by the kiss in the tent, and in some ways, it's even enhanced by the contrasting context and build-up in the two scenes - no shyness or hesitation this time round.

I think I can totally understand your feelings and reasoning on this topic, Paul. But I myself don't find it hard to accept Ang Lee's introduction of this scene, not just because it's "romantic and lovely", but because I can see it as a logical and understandable development of the characters of Ennis and Jack, as they are in the film.

The film is not quite as stark as the book, but I think that is deliberate.

[BlueJeanJeannie]

Thanks, Sonja. That's interesting, and I'll look for the interview.

I chose not to include a link to the video in my post, as the conversation's really long (nearly 90 minutes) and Mr. Toibin mentions Annie Proulx rather casually - not surprising he brought it up since Jake was there, though 

I had watched, or rather listened  to the conversation yesterday and, as always whenever BBM is mentioned, I remembered it    It's not too hard to find the video on YouTube, the quote's around 1:11:50. 

As for the rest of your post - I agree. Completely