 |
literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org
Literature, Poetry, Essays, Dialogues, Philosophy, Theology
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: My Initial Thoughts |
 |
|
Here are a few interesting links I have found so far. I am interested in
the author of the short story as well as the movie version.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/pr/ProulxEA.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Annie_Proulx
| Quote: |
Proulx has twice won the O. Henry Prize for the year's best short story. In
1998, she won for Brokeback Mountain, which had appeared in The New
Yorker on October 13, 1997. (The story has since become an
award-winning 2005 movie, directed by Ang Lee.) Proulx won again the
following year for The Mud Below, which appeared in The New Yorker June
22 and 29, 1999. Both appear in her 1999 collection of short stories, Close
Range: Wyoming Stories. Proulx was one of six authors B.R. Myers
attacked in his "A Reader's Manifesto".
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokeback_Mountain
If anyone is interested in some attempt at an in depth discussion of the
movie and the short story, let me know.
I just finished viewing the original story in the New Yorker, and printing it
to 10 pdf pages/file.
I am about to read it carefully, but just now, glancing quickly through it, I
am impressed by how true the move is to various descriptive passages
and dialogue from the short story, quoted verbatim.
I am reminded of the first time I looked through the book version of
"Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh, after having seen the 12 hour
PBS production, and noticing how true the movie was to the novel.
http://www.annieproulx.com/forum/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=13
In an interview in a Wyoming newspaper, Annie Proulx, who wrote the
original story on which the Ang Lee film is based, corrected the common
misconception about her two characters.
| Quote: |
Excuse me but it is not a story about 'two cowboys.' It is a story about two
inarticulate, confused Wyoming ranch kids in 1963 who have left home
and who find themselves in a personal sexual situation they did not
expect, understand nor can manage.
|
P.S. As I previewed this post, just now, before submitting, the following
thought passed through my mind:
"An experience should become a part of life; not rip life apart."
The use of distance
Both the story and the movie make good use of sight at a distance.
| Quote: | During the day, Ennis looked across the great gulf and sometimes
saw Jack, a small dot moving across a high meadow, as an insect moves
across a tablecloth; Jack, in his dark camp, saw Ennis as night fire, a red
spark on a huge black mass of mountain. |
This one sentence combines distant vision with a motif of darkness and
light.
Jack is a black speck sometimes seen against a background of light.
Ennis is a small but constant light seen in total darkness.
How do we see ourselves? How does the world see us? Do we see
ourselves as others see us? If and when we finally succeed in seeing
ourselves, shall we like what we see?
Is it possible to understand the entire story from this one sentence?
I do not think Ennis even begins to see himself or Jack clearly until after
Jack’s death.
At face value, our microcosmic sentence is saying that Ennis sees Jack as
a bug. Buggery is certainly a slang word which comes to mind. And why a
tablecloth. A tablecloth is most dependably white and the beginning of a
meal, before the first bite has been taken. So, what does the bug seek on
the white table cloth before even a crumb has been spilled?
Jack sees Ennis as a light in the darkness.
Ennis initially states that he has not yet had the opportunity to sin, and
would go to heaven. At our story’s commencement, Ennis possesses the
purity of virginity.
With our every action and inaction, we risk much. The chips at stake in
our gamble are always regret.
Better to die trying than try dieing.
At least our words are immortal.
The Inspired Title
With our every action and inaction, we risk much. The chips at stake in
our gamble are always regret.
Better to die trying than try dieing.
At least our words can become immortal.
The title of the story and movie, “Brokeback Mountain” is brilliantly
inspired. It is a title pregnant with possible meanings in a drama where
conception is not a concern.
A story is like a ship at sea, and the title is a skilled helmsman steering it
though violent storms to calm harbors.
What is this back which gets broken? Broke is past tense, pluperfect, a
fête accomplish.
A camel’s back is broken by the final straw. "Broke" implies the need to
fix.
"If you can't fix it, you gotta stand it."
Time is a passing succession, not of moments, but of windows of
opportunity. Sometimes a window stays open for years, and a refreshing
breeze of possibilities constantly troubles the curtains. But any window
eventually shuts with the sinister vengeance of an atheist’s sepulcher, and
no angels ever come to roll away the stone.
Is there an actual Brokeback Mountain? My research so far
suggests there is not.
It is worth mentioning that there is a passing mention in the movie of the
Grand Tetons, mountains named for their resemblance to enormous tits.
As I continue to read the short story, I shall be on the look-out for this
allusion.
The Jungian Shadow
Today is laundry day for me. While doing the wash, I struck up a
conversation with an African American man in his 30s whom I sometimes
see in the laundry room but whom I barely know. We have had one or
two discussions in the past. I started the conversation by saying, simply,
“I saw Brokeback Mountain yesterday". His face changed into an
expression of someone who suddenly smells a bad stench. He looked at
me as if I had said, “do you enjoy anal intercourse?” He said, “You
watched it and you liked it? What, are you gay? You must be gay to
watch a movie like that!”
Now, if I were to say that I am a fan of Hannibal Lechter, no one would
suddenly become suspicious that I am perhaps a serial killer who feasts
upon the human flesh of my victims".
My first response was, “Carl Jung speaks of something called the
'shadow'. When we greatly fear or hate something which is outside
of us, Jung suggests that it may be simply a shadow projecting from
something that is actually within us and part of us, which we fear or hate.”
A long and interesting conversation ensued. You have to bear in mind
that I am White and he is Black to appreciate the argument. I suppose it
also helps to picture me as elderly and him as a youth. I said, “Imagine
that you know a man who is a Don Juan, and has seduced literally
thousands of women. Perhaps he is a famous sports figure. Suddenly,
you learn that he had one homosexual experience in his teenage years.
In your mind, now, he is gay. But, if you knew a flaming homosexual,
who had affairs with literally thousands of men, but you suddenly
discovered that he had experienced one heterosexual relationship in his
teenage years, you would not consider him heterosexual simply because
of his one time with a woman. Now, let’s consider the following. If it is
discovered that I, a Caucasian, have one Black ancestor, however
distant, then in the eyes of many that Black ancestry makes me Black or
Colored. But if you, a Negro, have one distant White ancestor, that does
not make you White in the eyes of those same people.”
He protested that my two examples have nothing to do with each other;
that sexual orientation is not the same as ethnicity or race. I explained,
“They have everything to do with each other, because the issue is not
sexuality or ethnicity, but prejudice and stereotyping.”
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sitaram
Site Admin
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1079
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
A Jungian interpretation is certainly one springboard. But with all these being quite interrelated, I suspect that one has to go about such an interpretation with an eye for breadth, as well as depth, shall we say. ;)
[/quote]
Thanks for your kind, prompt feedback and the tip about the PDF to the original story. I have access to pdf that comes from printing out the New Yorker article, but Adobe does not allow you to select and cut and paste the text. The PDF that you pointed me to does, so now I have it in MS Word, which is more helpful for me.
If you re-read my original post you will noted that the business about Jung's "shadow" has nothing to do with the Brokeback Mountain movie or story, or Annie Proulx, but rather with the gentleman in the laundry room who acted so offensively and narrowmindedly towards me at the merest mention of the idea of going to see Brokeback Mountain.
This homophobic phenomenon is certainly a behavioral phenomenon which one must deal with in discussing the popularity of the movie, and public reaction to it.
There are people who would have a similar phobic reaction at the mere suggestion of reading Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita", since the topic of pedophilia is so taboo. My laundry room acquaintance would probably not hesitate to read and enjoy Lolita, and he would have no thoughts about anyone who is a fan of Lolita being some secret pedophile.
And the whole world loves murder mysteries, and stories such as "Silence of the Lambs" and characters such as Hannibal Lechter, yet no one jumps to the conclusion that such fans are potential murderers or cannibals.
Perhaps there is some Jungian analysis which would be pertinent to Annie Proulx' story, and the movie, but my intent in my post was to analyze the homophobe, rather than the movie and story.
P.S. This morning I mentioned this site to a lovely gay gentleman, salibian@yahoo.com
who is in Montreal Canada. I know he will enjoy this site, and pass the word along to his friends.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
