Film vs. Book -- Which was better?

[vertimus]

I admit that I wasn't too impressed with the story. The screenplay and film are remarkable (and not the same entities), but the story left me cold. I know many people all over the world were deeply touched by the story itself, but for me it felt forced, flat, 'folksy in a bad way,' and artificial.

I'm simply not a fan of that kind of 'emotionally repressed on purpose' style of writing, which I think Hemingay set the standard for it. It's the high-WASP style of fiction writing, in which emotional repression is equated with good taste, the best taste, the 'only kind worth having.'  It would have been one thing for the author to allow the characters to be emotionally repressed, but I felt she was imposing that seem repression on her creation, but falsely so. Or just ineffectively.

However, I'm glad it's touched so many people and I'm glad it was created in the first place. For me, it was a case of, 'From little acorns grow...."

Peace.

[Caroline]

Good evening everyone!!
SOmeone mentioned about passing 1000 registered users in the next day or so... I am so thrilled to tell you that we passed thatmark this evening!!! We are now over one thousand in our community here in the board. It will get and busier if the "media" paying attention to us (See Impact thread) is any indication. We all need to be patient with new posters 'cause they have not had the same opportunity to "analyse" as us older posters have...

and I would like to put forward, again, a gentle reminder to all posters that when "replying" to a quote,,,, please please edit the quotes as much as possible to keep down the amount of space taken up by reposting requotes... When posting to a reply on the same page, most of us can figure out what the reply is in response to.. of course, when quoting something from a while ago, by all means quote, BUT edit, if you can, while still keeping the context of what you are responding to .. to a minimum. There is nothing so daunting as seeing 237, 238, .....300 (just exagerating here) but the space taken up can be kept to a minimum, without interfering with your post.... my thanks on behalf of all the mods, Dave, Greg and Meli.....

[Kealiikoa]

If any of you would like me to send you the digits to BBM, drop me an email to fbelen@juno.com

I have a Word doc version and PDF version.

[13ICried13]

Does anyone know where I could read the short story online? If so then please send me a message with a link! Thanks! 

[patroclus]

Does anyone know where I could read the short story online? If so then please send me a message with a link! Thanks! 

you can find it at: http://www.wesjones.com/brokeback.htm

someone reminded us on here that Annie Proulx really should be getting the royalties for creating it so if you like it's probably best to go out and buy the book of stories, Close Range, it comes from. If you can track down a copy - much in demand!

[MuscLA_1]

Back in late 1997, I was in a doctor's waiting room.  I was early and he was running behind, and I had a LONGASS wait.

Groaning, I pick up the New Yorker, which I never read in a waiting room because the articles and stories are just too damned long.

I note a story by Annie Proulx.  I'd gotten through "The Shipping News," my mom sent it to me, and we'd both had the same reaction.  "Not very good, who ARE these people?" but we'd both finished it.

So, here I am, trying to kill time by reading a longish story by an author I don't like in a magazine I don't like.

I know NOTHING about it.  I'm reading, thinking how beatiful the descriptions of the scenery are, and how lonely the two men are, and it's getting more interesting.

Then WHAM, Ennis is doing Jack in the tent and it just got a WHOLE hell of a lot more interesting.

Sayless to need, at this point it had my attention.  I finished the story in a rush, and when they called me, I'd been reduced to a puddle of tears.  The doctor came out, said "What's wrong?" saw me put down the New Yorker and says "Ah.  "Brokeback Mountain."  Third one this week."

I remained interested, and got "Close Range" when it came out.  I REALLY liked the addition of the prologue, especially the part about Jack appearing to him in a dream.  That got me crying all over again.

I'd always thought it would make a killer movie, "but that will never happen."  I remember thinking that Gus Van Sandt was WRONG for the movie, I just don't like his touch, and when I heard Ang Lee, Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger I let out a "Yee HA!"  Heath had sold me in his small, but powerful performance in "Monster's Ball," and I LOVE Ang Lee.  JG was a bit more of a dark horse.

I bit my nails until production was finished, knowing that this movie was so fragile that ANY serious delay would probably kill it.  Then about 6 more months till December 9th (thank God I live in LA).

So, after over 8 years of anticipation, I'm in a state of disbelief on 12/10/05 when the lights went down after way too many trailers.

OH MY GOD, IT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

That disbelief that it was actually happening lead to disbelief at how good this damned film actually WAS.  I had thought that Heath Ledger would be good, but what I got was a towering, career-defining performance as good as Daniel Day Lewis' in "My Left Foot."  The additions necessary in turning a 29 page story into a feature film felt nothing other than organic, and the addition of the scene with Alma Junior planning her wedding was a masterstroke, giving Ennis even one tiny chance for redemption took just enough of the bleakness off of the film.  Glorious cinematography, great dialogue, and that "I've been kicked in the guts" emotional reaction that I got from reading the story.

The one thing that UNDERWHELMED me was JG.  I thought he was solid, but not great.

Repeat viewings have changed that view.  Jake was GREAT as Jack Twist, it was just a different take completely than I'd pictured him (and apparently as Proulx had pictured him as well).  Ledger was uber-Ennis, wringing every shred of emotion out of the text, but Jake seemed to have created something nuanced and fresh and alive.

Finally, I rated the story and the film as equals.  My one conclusion is that this is, by far, the best adaptation of any source material into a film, ever, by anyone.

[chris04seattle]

Repeat viewings have changed that view.  Jake was GREAT as Jack Twist, it was just a different take completely than I'd pictured him (and apparently as Proulx had pictured him as well).  Ledger was uber-Ennis, wringing every shred of emotion out of the text, but Jake seemed to have created something nuanced and fresh and alive.

Finally, I rated the story and the film as equals.  My one conclusion is that this is, by far, the best adaptation of any source material into a film, ever, by anyone.

I quite agree with you MuscLA_1

It wasn't until I saw Jake the second time that I felt his powerful presence and acting in the film. 
I think all the other stuff kinda overwhelmed me.

I too rated the book & film equals since both moved me in much the same way and sure its great to visually see this story
but the actual short story holds up on its own.

Love um both 

[PALeben]

This is my first time posting after visiting the site many times. I read the story when it first came out and it always moves me when I read it. I looked forwrd to the movie, but with a bit of apprehension. How could they possibly carry it out and do a good job while conveying the story line and emotions of the story. Although they are different in some ways, I think they did just that. I think of the movie and story as companion pieces that complement and in some ways complete each other, while forcing you to think and question even more.

I do want to comment on one posting questioned the Cassie scene and the scene with the ranch foreman. When I first read of the scenes I wondered about how they would fit into the story. After seeing the film I think that they are important. The scenes with Cassie let us know that Ennis is still trying to appear normal to the outside world. The last scene with Cassie after he had the confrontation with Jack shows that he has learned something and he is breaking it off, perhaps in part to spare her the pain he caused Alma. Watch his face and listen to his words.

As for the scene with Randall, we see Jack being cruised and offered an opening, but again, watch his face closely and listen to his words. I believe he is showing disinterest. He may have sex away from Ennis, but he isn't about to get into anything that could turn into another relationship. Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I was intrigued and after six viewings that is the conclusion I have reached. So those scenes are, perhaps, important to the film.

[chris04seattle]

This is my first time posting after visiting the site many times.

I do want to comment on one posting questioned the Cassie scene and the scene with the ranch foreman ...

As for the scene with Randall ...

welcome PALeben 

be sure to check out the other postings that deal with specific scenes.
You should really enjoy them as much detail and ideas are expressed there and you may want to add something.

this site is exploding and I can barely keep up with all the new additions ...
explore it and enjoy   

[tmccoydc]

My name is Tim...and I'm a Brokaholic.  I'll just leave it at that.  First time logging on here; first time posting anything on this site.

Regarding the discussion of the poll, Film vs. Book, Annie Proulx's essay, "Brokeback Mountain: Story to Screenplay", is absolutely amazing, with all sorts of insight about her thinking as she wrote the short story and her subsequent reflections on it, including the making of the movie.  Highly recommened read..and one that can easily be forwarded to fellow Brokaholics.

The essay is on the website of the Australian newspaper The Age at http://www.theage.com.au/news/film/more-powerful-than-my-words/2006/02/03/1138836410496.html?page=fullpage#

[alma]

Adding my vote that I love them equally but in different ways. The movie enabled me to move past my imagination and into the realm of real humans - touching caressing, kissing... two men. I could have read this and not seen it in my mind. Seeing it with my eyes was so different. So right and confrontational and emotional and spell-casting.

The book, though, is what I call a perfect short story. Every element is there (I teach writing and my husband is a literature professor). I have listened to it now six times and each time am blown away at how deftly Proulx uses every inch of the material to engage our symapthy, our anger, our interest... how she maximizes all that can be gotten from the setting to give us the narrative and emotional temperature of each scene.

What I love most is the way AP opens the story with the whole story in one paragraph. That's what great short story writers do. She is right in line with Eudora Welty or Flannery O'Connor here...  her characters (so vidily drawn) and the plot (so carefully constructed) have become living people for me, not just well drawn characters. And actually, that leads me back to the film. The actors have done their jobs so well as to make the book and film indistinguishable from each other in how they engage me and sustain my interest.

Brilliant writing.

Genius film making.

I always feel privileged to be around such great art.

[jack]

and i  bet great art appreciates a a well reasoned appreciation right back, alma.

jack

[ImEnnisShesJack]

Repeat viewings have changed that view.  Jake was GREAT as Jack Twist, it was just a different take completely than I'd pictured him (and apparently as Proulx had pictured him as well).  Ledger was uber-Ennis, wringing every shred of emotion out of the text, but Jake seemed to have created something nuanced and fresh and alive.Finally, I rated the story and the film as equals.  My one conclusion is that this is, by far, the best adaptation of any source material into a film, ever, by anyone.

It wasn't until I saw Jake the second time that I felt his powerful presence and acting in the film. 
I think all the other stuff kinda overwhelmed me.  I too rated the book & film equals since both moved me in much the same way and sure its great to visually see this story but the actual short story holds up on its own.

took me two or three viewings of BBM to appreciate Jake's performance, and I like Jake.  At first I still saw all arms and legs and goofy eyebrows. too Bubble Boy - with better hair.  Then I watched a couple of fan movies showcasing Jake and BBM.  Many of Jake's scenes were played in slow motion so you could actually see the subtlety of his performance - a change in posture, a change in facial expression.  Jake is a very physical actor and I had not appreciated that until these fanflicks.  Now I'm behind him all the way for the Oscar.  I still think Heath's performance was outstanding, but in retrospect, I feel that Jake had the harder job of emoting.  He had to create the illusion of hope and possibility and love and willingness in Jack's character.  Amazing.

And I have put the book and film on equal level though I found the film first (trailer) and bought the book before I saw the film.  I have never been a big fan of the sparsely written short story, but I love the messages and the blunt, straightforward way AP tells this story.  It is through its spare words that the emotions are squeezed out of it.

I may go see it again today...

[helen_uk]

I wanted to go back and read the story again, but the two links on this thread have gone now...does anyone have another link that is still active?  Thanks.

[Tell you what...]

www.10percent.com has this on their site!!   April 4th!!!