The Ultimate Brokeback Forum

Author Topic: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II  (Read 616110 times)

Offline janjo

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 11113
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #585 on: October 24, 2008, 06:42:51 AM »


Janjo, the people you mention who discuss idylls in other books are utilising the book anyway. I'm not sure you could strongly argue the idyll idea from the film alone. Ennis is far too obviously wrestling with his devils for it to be a simple idyll.


Yes, of course, Mini, but so am I. The book does not in my opinion tell a different story to the film. There are differences, of course there are, the timeline of Ennis realisation is different because the motel conversation in different, something Annie Proulx had grave doubts about, but I have never heard her express any unhappiness about changes made in any other parts of the film, because on the whole they are quite subtle and do not threaten the integrity of her story.
The story on it's own can be misread as saying things that are not shown in the film. But it does have to be misread in order for this difference to be found.
No one could fully understand the impact of the idyll or the biblical symbolism without reading the book, most of those references would be missed if watching the film as a single entity.
Paul has both seen the film and read the book, and come to certain conclusions, as have I, and the writers I mentioned in my previous posting. It is truly not necessary to know about the "face to face" disagreement to have intelligent and thoughtful things to say about idylls and biblical imagery in the story.
Brokeback short stories at storybyjanjo.livejournal.com

"Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"
Ballad in plain D: Bob Dylan

Offline Paul029

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #586 on: October 24, 2008, 07:18:15 AM »
Paul, it's perfectly fine to only talk about the film and not the book [but] it's impossible to talk about the book and film as one... I think that's at the heart of some of the more contentious issues here.   Some people tend to use the film as their template, and some use the book.   But really, they can't be reconciled, and you can't 'apply' one to the other...Your point about the 'dozy embrace' is a case in point.   I would say that it only happened once even when talking about the film.    You could say that we are not told that it happened only once and that I am applying my interpretation of the book to the film - and you would be absolutely right.   (You haven't been guilty of this at all, because you've stuck with the film rather than applying it to the book).
Thanks, Desecra.
[I hope you don't mind me selectively editing the above quotation.] Your points clarify what has been, for me, a rather contentious issue - should I discuss the film, or the book, or both? My initial decision on joining the forum was to focus on the film, rather than the short story, and while the latter certainly casts different lights upon what occurs in the film, I found that my first intention was better for me. I admit I found it rather difficult to "ignore" things that I knew from the SS, and as the film was really a stand-alone entity, worthy of discussion on its own merits, I had to perform some serious mental juggling acts to keep my perceptions of the two from intermingling. I think I've managed to do that, so far...
Quote
...So please do carry on with the discussion.   You have been bringing up some really interesting points.
Its nice to know that's still possible... and thanks for the encouragement. I wouldn't like to be known as a "sourpuss."  [I really wouldn't have minded watching all the antics from afar...]
Quote
I can't speak for Ministering Angel, but I think she was giving you a heads up that this subject is one of the many seemingly innocent ones which are touched by that disagreement between interpretations of book and film (and in particular, one major difference between book and film, which she linked to the discussion of).
I thought as much but wanted to politely ask for confirmation.
Quote
Of course late comers shouldn't be expected to read the discussion before commenting.   In fact, there's probably a lot to be said for giving your opinion before you wade through all that stuff - it's great to get a fresh perspective.
"Wade through" is a nice way of putting it - I felt as if I was sinking into quicksand... what a tangled web it was...
Quote
(The only problem is when new people inadvertently bring up a banned subject).
So now face to face kissing between men is banned?  What has the world come to? 
Quote
Some of us will still be referring to the book and some to the film, so you might have to pick and choose a bit :).
What fun I will have :D
Thanks, Des.
...there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain...

Offline Paul029

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #587 on: October 24, 2008, 07:36:32 AM »
I am very concerned here that Paul has been made to feel he is not able to, at least temporarily, join in this discussion, because he hasn't been a party to our long and acrimonious discussion of "no face to face."
Paul has been sensitive and interested enough to try and read and understand the argument, but has come to the conclusion, as so many of us do, that although the book and the film have many differences, the general thrust and intention are the same in both pieces of art.
The discussion of idylls and of biblical symbolism was very interesting, and has been chosen and discussed by both Eric Patterson in "On Brokeback Mountain, and other writers in "Reading Brokeback Mountain," who also had no knowledge or had not discerned the possibility of, the "no face to face" as a physical possibility.
Paul has shaken us out of our rut and has made us think anew, he has posed interesting questions and possibilities.
I think to suggest to him that unless he climbs into our rut with us and joins in with our tired old argument that his views are not valuable is very disrespectful and presumptuous.
Thank you, Janjo. I had no idea my humble remarks had made anyone "think anew," so I'm grateful for your support [there's no smiley for a blush].

All I've been attempting to do was to contribute to a discussion in which, apparently, so much had already been analysed to bits, that I felt my ideas wouldn't stand a chance in Hell.  So it's comforting to know that a late-comer can still contribute...
...there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain...

Offline Paul029

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #588 on: October 24, 2008, 07:46:18 AM »
Des, I thought you spoke very well for me. As you point out, what appears to be a simple enough discussion of, say, idylls, has throwbacks to previous discussions. I really don't know how else to point this out to a newcomer.
We love newcomers, no doubt about it, but it feels a little bit uncomfortable to me to be deep in some subject that has a whole background of discussion while sort of pretending it's all being argued afresh. There's so much subtext going on that I suspect a newbie would wonder what the hell is going on at times.
Paul, you'll note in my troubling first sentence that I suggested some knowledge would be helpful. I would never expect anyone to read everything which has gone before on any thread. It was meant as a helpful suggestion rather than a reading prerequisite.
Thanks Mini - That's good to know... and I appreciate the quandary in which newcomers/late-comers place you and other posters.
As I said:
Quote
Being a late-comer myself I already feel a little out-of-touch when trying to add my own humble thoughts about BBM. [No hard feelings, Mini, by the way  ]
  I just wanted reassurance about my input.
...there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain...

Offline Tammy

  • Banned
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15913
  • Go ahead, make my day...
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #589 on: October 24, 2008, 08:40:54 AM »
Ennis's departure after FNIT is indeed speechless, as it is Jack who says "See you for supper."
Just thought I'd mention that.   :)
Hello Tammy,
We've not "met" before, and thank you for alerting me [inadvertently, I realise] to an error on my part.

I wasn't talking about what happened after FNIT, but what was said during the flashback scene, which I actually misquoted.

I should have checked what was actually said, and I've now done so.
After the flash-back embrace in the movie Ennis says: "I gotta go. See you in the mornin'..." then rides off.
So they've had their supper and he's off to look after the sheep, and sleep in the pup-tent.




Oh my goodness, no problem!  Glad to have you here.   ;D

Offline Paul029

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #590 on: October 24, 2008, 08:42:03 AM »
No one could fully understand the impact of the idyll or the biblical symbolism without reading the book, most of those references would be missed if watching the film as a single entity.
Paul has both seen the film and read the book, and come to certain conclusions, as have I, and the writers I mentioned in my previous posting. It is truly not necessary to know about the "face to face" disagreement to have intelligent and thoughtful things to say about idylls and biblical imagery in the story.
I'm very sorry, Janjo, that I don't agree with you 100% here.
The conclusions to which I came were based solely on my viewings of the film, and were not derived from anything, to my knowledge, in AP's story [which doesn't discount anything subliminal; and as far as that's concerned, it's out of my control anyway, so, hopefully, I'm exonerated].

I think I can say, however, that the references in the film were clear to me only when certain mental links had been made [it's not often that such links are immediately apparent when watching a film].

Some clues were certainly provided by your references to Ynnis [and what I've read on other posts about "island in the sea"] and 'idyll,' which prompted my mind to start "ticking over" about possible connections between the [first part of the] film and Edenic symbolism.

Whether they're connections back to the SS or not, I feel that the film does contain pertinent, in-built and subtle analogies to the Christian Eden and the pagan Golden Age [and off I go again...]
It is truly not necessary to know about the "face to face" disagreement to have intelligent and thoughtful things to say about idylls and biblical imagery in the story.
I think I know to what this issue relates, and so will accordingly discount it [ ;)] but it's clear to me that Biblical and Edenic imagery is "rife" in the film.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 09:56:12 AM by Paul029 »
...there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain...

Offline Sandy

  • Moderator
  • Obsessed
  • ******
  • Posts: 3133
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #591 on: October 24, 2008, 08:48:02 AM »
~snip~
However, and please pardon me for saying so, I thought the implication in your first sentence was rather unsettling. I trust you didn't mean that late-comers to the forum must always read the [hundreds of?] thousands of previously-made posts to get up to speed, and that your reference applied only to the "idyll" issue. If the former, perhaps the moderators should advise late-comers of such a requirement, or even ban late-comers altogether because they wouldn't have a clue about what's been thoroughly thrashed out during the past two years. Being a late-comer myself I already feel a little out-of-touch when trying to add my own humble thoughts about BBM. [No hard feelings, Mini, by the way  :)]

What the moderators have to say:

The forum does not require that newcomers read all the previous material written on a thread before they post (it may preserve your sanity not to have read all that). We welcome new posters and their viewpoints.

Nor are the contents of old debates necessarily helpful in current discussions, as opinions and judgments do change over time. Neither are the results of old debates as conclusive as they are sometimes made out to be; in fact, current references to old "conclusions" are almost a guarantee that no consensus was ever reached.

So whenever you read "but, we can all agree," "it is generally accepted," "we have collectively shown," and their ilk, put your hand on your wallet, and make your argument.

As for the veterans, please allow our newcomers some room to breathe and develop their ideas. Strange as it sounds, inundating new posters with lots of links to bygone theories, cross references to well-trod arguments and innuendoes to mysteries long-ago plumbed may not be helpful.

Penultimately, please refrain from commenting on these suggestions on open thread.

Finally, as you were and enjoy the discussion.



Offline Paul029

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #592 on: October 24, 2008, 09:33:17 AM »
Ennis's departure after FNIT is indeed speechless, as it is Jack who says "See you for supper."
Just thought I'd mention that.   :)
Hello Tammy,
We've not "met" before, and thank you for alerting me [inadvertently, I realise] to an error on my part.

I wasn't talking about what happened after FNIT, but what was said during the flashback scene, which I actually misquoted.

I should have checked what was actually said, and I've now done so.
After the flash-back embrace in the movie Ennis says: "I gotta go. See you in the mornin'..." then rides off.
So they've had their supper and he's off to look after the sheep, and sleep in the pup-tent.
Oh my goodness, no problem!  Glad to have you here.   ;D
Thanks,Tammy,
You sound delightful. I'm glad you're glad I'm here, too  :)  ;D ;D ;D
Paul
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 11:15:23 AM by Paul029 »
...there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain...

Offline janjo

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 11113
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #593 on: October 24, 2008, 10:35:33 AM »
No one could fully understand the impact of the idyll or the biblical symbolism without reading the book, most of those references would be missed if watching the film as a single entity.
Paul has both seen the film and read the book, and come to certain conclusions, as have I, and the writers I mentioned in my previous posting. It is truly not necessary to know about the "face to face" disagreement to have intelligent and thoughtful things to say about idylls and biblical imagery in the story.
I'm very sorry, Janjo, that I don't agree with you 100% here.
The conclusions to which I came were based solely on my viewings of the film, and were not derived from anything, to my knowledge, in AP's story [which doesn't discount anything subliminal; and as far as that's concerned, it's out of my control anyway, so, hopefully, I'm exonerated].

I think I can say, however, that the references in the film were clear to me only when certain mental links had been made [it's not often that such links are immediately apparent when watching a film].

Some clues were certainly provided by your references to Ynnis [and what I've read on other posts about "island in the sea"] and 'idyll,' which prompted my mind to start "ticking over" about possible connections between the [first part of the] film and Edenic symbolism.

Whether they're connections back to the SS or not, I feel that the film does contain pertinent, in-built and subtle analogies to the Christian Eden and the pagan Golden Age [and off I go again...]
It is truly not necessary to know about the "face to face" disagreement to have intelligent and thoughtful things to say about idylls and biblical imagery in the story.
I think I know to what this issue relates, and so will accordingly discount it [ ;)] but it's clear to me that Biblical and Edenic imagery is "rife" in the film.

Oh I agree Paul, I see it now, but when I first saw the film I didn't. It may be that I am not smart enough, or that I was too upset and in shock to see anything but the emotional side of the film. It was only after reading the SS and then cogitating and discussing that I was truly hit by all the symbolism, and then having done further research even started to begin to truly understand it.
It absolutely is all there.
That Ang Lee is a master.
Brokeback short stories at storybyjanjo.livejournal.com

"Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"
Ballad in plain D: Bob Dylan

Offline Ministering angel

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15927
  • ...that distant summer...
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #594 on: October 24, 2008, 04:20:14 PM »


Janjo, the people you mention who discuss idylls in other books are utilising the book anyway. I'm not sure you could strongly argue the idyll idea from the film alone. Ennis is far too obviously wrestling with his devils for it to be a simple idyll.


Yes, of course, Mini, but so am I. The book does not in my opinion tell a different story to the film. There are differences, of course there are, the timeline of Ennis realisation is different because the motel conversation in different, something Annie Proulx had grave doubts about, but I have never heard her express any unhappiness about changes made in any other parts of the film, because on the whole they are quite subtle and do not threaten the integrity of her story.
The story on it's own can be misread as saying things that are not shown in the film. But it does have to be misread in order for this difference to be found.

No one could fully understand the impact of the idyll or the biblical symbolism without reading the book, most of those references would be missed if watching the film as a single entity.
Paul has both seen the film and read the book, and come to certain conclusions, as have I, and the writers I mentioned in my previous posting. It is truly not necessary to know about the "face to face" disagreement to have intelligent and thoughtful things to say about idylls and biblical imagery in the story.

Could we just agree that people have different interpretations? To say that someone misreads the story is not helpful. We all know what AP has said about her work, that a story is not finished until it's been read, etc. and if I or anyone else reads BBM and draws different conclusions to you, that is not the same as misreading it.

To get back to the subject in hand, if you read the time on the mountain as a pure idyll and I think that AP is setting up a false impression, who is to say who is "right" and who is "wrong"?  Only AP could do that, assuming there IS a right and wrong. She doesn't say anything much so we'll just have to assume that no-one can be categorically labelled as wrong, as misreading the story.

Desecra

  • Guest
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #595 on: October 25, 2008, 12:13:32 AM »
I'm not familiar with the idylls, but I'm happy to accept that Annie Proulx intended to bring them to mind for more well-read readers than me.  I'm sure there are loads of allusions that I miss - another reason why I'm rarely seen on S&I.    But I don't think these allusions are really meant to make us discount the rest of the story.    The story tells us that things weren't perfect on Brokeback.   I don't think the allusion stands up against that (i.e. we're not meant to think that it really was perfect because we also think of an idyll).    Allusion or not, we're given a false impression of what happens on Brokeback when we first read about it.   It's only as the story goes on that we're given dribs and drabs of very important stuff which tells us what was REALLY going on.    And the idyll allusion could be part of that same thing - we're shown that it appears like an idyll, and later we find out what really happened.   I don't see why the allusion has to discount the later information. 

Offline janjo

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 11113
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #596 on: October 25, 2008, 05:46:57 AM »


Janjo, the people you mention who discuss idylls in other books are utilising the book anyway. I'm not sure you could strongly argue the idyll idea from the film alone. Ennis is far too obviously wrestling with his devils for it to be a simple idyll.


Yes, of course, Mini, but so am I. The book does not in my opinion tell a different story to the film. There are differences, of course there are, the timeline of Ennis realisation is different because the motel conversation in different, something Annie Proulx had grave doubts about, but I have never heard her express any unhappiness about changes made in any other parts of the film, because on the whole they are quite subtle and do not threaten the integrity of her story.
The story on it's own can be misread as saying things that are not shown in the film. But it does have to be misread in order for this difference to be found.

No one could fully understand the impact of the idyll or the biblical symbolism without reading the book, most of those references would be missed if watching the film as a single entity.
Paul has both seen the film and read the book, and come to certain conclusions, as have I, and the writers I mentioned in my previous posting. It is truly not necessary to know about the "face to face" disagreement to have intelligent and thoughtful things to say about idylls and biblical imagery in the story.

Could we just agree that people have different interpretations? To say that someone misreads the story is not helpful. We all know what AP has said about her work, that a story is not finished until it's been read, etc. and if I or anyone else reads BBM and draws different conclusions to you, that is not the same as misreading it.

To get back to the subject in hand, if you read the time on the mountain as a pure idyll and I think that AP is setting up a false impression, who is to say who is "right" and who is "wrong"?  Only AP could do that, assuming there IS a right and wrong. She doesn't say anything much so we'll just have to assume that no-one can be categorically labelled as wrong, as misreading the story.

There are many things we have to work out for ourselves in all of Annie Proulx's writing, and she demands it should be so. There is much in this story that we must decide for ourselves, such as did Jack quit Ennis, how did Jack die, etc. etc. Obviously we must all make up our own minds on our interpretations, however we do need a clear basis from which to start and so I stand by my previous remarks.
Brokeback short stories at storybyjanjo.livejournal.com

"Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"
Ballad in plain D: Bob Dylan

Desecra

  • Guest
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #597 on: October 25, 2008, 09:39:15 AM »
I'm not as well read as most of you, I think, but I have read the bible so I do see the Eden allusion.     But although I can see it there, I don't have to then take the story as a retelling of the Eden story, or to dismiss parts of the story that don't fit with that.    The Eden story has a moral slant which seems rather odd in the context of BBM.     It's about the start of sin, if I remember correctly - there's a powerful, watchful, vengeful God/father figure who is clearly in the right (he's God), and Adam and Eve (and therefore the rest of humanity) are clearly in the wrong.    Obviously, this doesn't translate to BBM, unless we were to believe that Jack and Ennis really WERE wrong (or that homosexuality is wrong, or giving in to that temptation is wrong).

So it always seems to me that the Eden stuff is to do with Ennis.    He's the one who believes they are 'innocent' and that nothing is wrong (not Jack, who has a different take on the events of the summer), until he gets the 'knowledge' that it's wrong and feels shame.   He's the one who feel like he's falling, not Jack.   And it's pretty easy to fit that father figure in there too, especially if applying it to Ennis. 

So to me, the Eden reference isn't telling us that this it the Eden story - it's maybe just giving us an extra insight into what's going on with Ennis (almost the whole story is from his point of view, really).   And it could very well be the same with the idyll thing - it tells us a little about what's going on for Ennis - that pastoral innocence, but isn't meant to make us discount parts of the story (such as Jack's view). 

(No offence intended to Judeo-Christian believers  - this is just my non-religious take on the Eden story).

Offline Paul029

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #598 on: October 25, 2008, 10:57:14 AM »
I'm not as well read as most of you, I think, but I have read the bible so I do see the Eden allusion.     But although I can see it there, I don't have to then take the story as a retelling of the Eden story, or to dismiss parts of the story that don't fit with that.    The Eden story has a moral slant which seems rather odd in the context of BBM.     It's about the start of sin, if I remember correctly - there's a powerful, watchful, vengeful God/father figure who is clearly in the right (he's God), and Adam and Eve (and therefore the rest of humanity) are clearly in the wrong.    Obviously, this doesn't translate to BBM, unless we were to believe that Jack and Ennis really WERE wrong (or that homosexuality is wrong, or giving in to that temptation is wrong).

So it always seems to me that the Eden stuff is to do with Ennis.    He's the one who believes they are 'innocent' and that nothing is wrong (not Jack, who has a different take on the events of the summer), until he gets the 'knowledge' that it's wrong and feels shame.   He's the one who feel like he's falling, not Jack.   And it's pretty easy to fit that father figure in there too, especially if applying it to Ennis. 

So to me, the Eden reference isn't telling us that this it the Eden story - it's maybe just giving us an extra insight into what's going on with Ennis (almost the whole story is from his point of view, really).   And it could very well be the same with the idyll thing - it tells us a little about what's going on for Ennis - that pastoral innocence, but isn't meant to make us discount parts of the story (such as Jack's view). 

(No offence intended to Judeo-Christian believers  - this is just my non-religious take on the Eden story).
Hi there, Des. I was just browsing through some of the threads and read the most recent posts in this discussion.

I'm know I'm "butting in," and I'm sorry if I may seem out of line, but I don't see why you have to apologise. We all have differing abilities and areas of knowledge, and I've felt similarly "less-well-read" myself when discussing things with others. And I recall I've complimented you on some of the points you've made in your posts. Actually, I don't think it's how well-read we are that's the issue, it's probably what we've read, or not read, and no-one can read everything, can they?  :) And I've learnt a thing or two myself since joining the forum.

There's some recent posts on the Imagery and Symbolism thread which may be of interest to you. It's turning out to be very interesting, though I say it myself...
...there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain...

Offline Ministering angel

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15927
  • ...that distant summer...
Re: Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II
« Reply #599 on: October 25, 2008, 06:32:43 PM »
There are many things we have to work out for ourselves in all of Annie Proulx's writing, and she demands it should be so. There is much in this story that we must decide for ourselves, such as did Jack quit Ennis, how did Jack die, etc. etc. Obviously we must all make up our own minds on our interpretations, however we do need a clear basis from which to start and so I stand by my previous remarks.
An interesting point there, Janjo. Where does the clear basis end and the personal interpretation begin?

Two young men meet on a mountain, have sex, part, meet up again, carry on a relationship for 16 years, argue, one dies, the other finds some old shirts and then dreams of the first one.

You see, I know one or two people who believe that Ennis couldn't really have loved Jack if he treated him the way he did, so the clear basis becomes very basic indeed.