Film vs. Book -- Which was better?

[andy]

After seeing the movie first and the fantastic job done by all, I find it almost impossible to imagine Heath and Jake in Annie's characters as I read but wouldn't dare say which is better. The movie is usually my yardstick.

[Flyboy]

I'm always taken in by the book. But then I prefer the written word to a film. I'm one of the 'few' who is simply not as moved by the film as I am by the book. And I have seen the film 5 or 6 times now, great production and acting, yes, but it never moves me the way the book does...........

[kathy]

**It will always - always - be the film for me.**

kathy     

[Rubyblue]

I assume most people saw the film first as i did, and because of this, I think the film will always be my favourite. Unusual, as prior to Brokeback i could never imagine me saying the film was better than the book. It was my second viewing of the film that really got under my skin and prompted me to seek out all things Brokeback which of course led me to the SS. I confess, I was initially disappointed, I knew it was a short story, but I didn't think it was that short!! I just wanted more! I think i raced through it that first time, like a kid on Christmas morning, but then later readings, I really began to savour it. The short story is of course THE original, this is the characters as they were meant to be, it is completely pure. I often wonder what a film with a scruffy cave chested Ennis, and a buck toothed, slightly tubby, less romanticized Jack would have been like, and whether it would have had the same impact.
So in summary, the film edges slightly in front of the book for me, probably because if there was no film, I wouldn't have found the book!

[andy]

....... The short story is of course THE original, this is the characters as they were meant to be, it is completely pure. I often wonder what a film with a scruffy cave chested Ennis, and a buck toothed, slightly tubby, less romanticized Jack would have been like, and whether it would have had the same impact.....

I think I would rather like to see a film version with the characters as originally described by AP, Ruby. As much as we all love Jake and Heath for what they did, love between two not so lovely characters a la hollywood would be very interesting.

[morrobay]

Andy, I feel the same way...it was that older cowboy that AP originally noticed that made her write this, and I'd like to see it.

I wrote a series of drabbles     I couldn't even remember what I wrote - not drabbles, it's Staying In Signal, an au - and at the beginning of every one I put their descriptions from the ss, I wanted the stories to be read with that in mind...they loved each other, they weren't beautiful...didn't matter.


At first glance Jack seemed fair enough with his curly hair and quick laugh, but for a small man he carried some weight in the haunch and his smile disclosed buckteeth...

Ennis, high-arched nose and narrow face, was scruffy and a little cave-chested...

[chapeaugris]

The sad truth is, two guys in their early twenties who physically resembled J&E as they are described by Annie Proulx (cave chested, buck teeth, small, heavy of haunch) would not be experienced actors. The question is, would you prefer to see the film characters exactly resemble Jack and Ennis as they were written, or just not pretty? I thought all involved did a fairly good job of downplaying the actors'  looks (well, there's only so much you can do to make Jake look ordinary). But to make them look like poor Wyoming ranch stiffs, they would have had to starve them for a while and set them to hard labor out in the elements for at least a year before filming.

[andy]

I have no doubt that doing it AP's way would have been extremely difficult as you say Kim but it's a bit like when you buy a triple play dvd nowadays with the same film in 3 formats, I'd like to see how close an alternative to the one we know they could have got. It's never gonna happen but doesn't make me any the less interested - the media love to perpetuate the myth that only lovely looking people fall in love.

But it now that Jake and Heath have committed their performances to posterity, this whole idea becomes just an exercise, right?

[stonash7]

Okay i probably dont have privileges to create new threads yet as i am fairly new to this forum..i dont even know if this is the correct section  regardless i just watched the movie and read the book not too long ago ..and a bit confused..i hope someone can help  get it  somethings better

In no particular order..when i read the book during the scene where ..Jake and heath hadnt seen each other since they herded the sheep on the mountain..they kissed vigorously   and heaths wife  came out and saw it..in the book heath sorta justfied it when he came up with jake saying he hadnt seen his buddy in so long .. does it mean that he knows the wife saw them kissing but didnt care and hence why he tried to explain it??

In the movie the scene was similar but this time when they both came in...from what i observed it seemed like they didnt know that heath's wife had spotted them kissing ...

Another thing wish left me very conflicted is how Jake died at the end... in the movie it showed heath imagining  the worst scenario..that he was caught and beaten to death..and didnt believe how jake's wife said he died ..in the movie jake's death was left unknown ...

But in the book when heath went to Jake's parents he concluded that jake had indeed been killed because he was gay/bisexual?! so is this why he was killed

So did jake die from an accident  or was he killed or was just  heaths paranoia play games with his head ? ..

These are the questions i have at the moment ..will ask more as they came...thank you in advance for your answers

[Ellen (tellyouwhat)]

Okay i probably dont have privileges to create new threads yet as i am fairly new to this forum..i dont even know if this is the correct section  regardless i just watched the movie and read the book not too long ago ..and a bit confused..i hope someone can help  get it  somethings better

In no particular order..when i read the book during the scene where ..Jake and heath hadnt seen each other since they herded the sheep on the mountain..they kissed vigorously   and heaths wife  came out and saw it..in the book heath sorta justfied it when he came up with jake saying he hadnt seen his buddy in so long .. does it mean that he knows the wife saw them kissing but didnt care and hence why he tried to explain it??

In the movie the scene was similar but this time when they both came in...from what i observed it seemed like they didnt know that heath's wife had spotted them kissing ...

Welcome Stonash!  

Good catch, that is a difference between the film and book -- I read the story first and this scene in the story was very vivid to me before I had the idea of Heath and Jake in my head.

Yes, you're right, Ennis believes Alma saw but he brushes it aside at that moment -- it's really glorious isn't it?  Later, and most of the rest of the time, his whole life, in fact, he is much more cautious -- doesn't want to take a chance this "thing" will ever come over him so strongly again.

Another thing wish left me very conflicted is how Jake died at the end... in the movie it showed heath imagining  the worst scenario..that he was caught and beaten to death..and didnt believe how jake's wife said he died ..in the movie jake's death was left unknown ...

But in the book when heath went to Jake's parents he concluded that jake had indeed been killed because he was gay/bisexual?! so is this why he was killed

So did jake die from an accident  or was he killed or was just  heaths paranoia play games with his head ? ..

These are the questions i have at the moment ..will ask more as they came...thank you in advance for your answers

There are threads and threads of discussion about both your questions.  In a nutshell -- just because Ennis thinks he knows what happened to Jack doesn't mean it really was the tire iron.  It might have been, but even if it wasn't, it is the tire iron in Ennis's head, you know?  Nearly as destructive as the real thing.

Here are links to the threads in Scene-byScene where these topics are discussed in detail.

Here's the link to The Reunion -- wow the discussion goes back to 2006 -- if you read the old thread you will see quite a few opinions, in recent years we have whittled down to many of the same voices.   Back then it was an amazingly lively discussion.


Link to At Jack's Parents


And the link to The Phone Call (with Lureen).

[stonash7]

Welcome Stonash! 

Good catch, that is a difference between the film and book -- I read the story first and this scene in the story was very vivid to me before I had the idea of Heath and Jake in my head.

Yes, you're right, Ennis believes Alma saw but he brushes it aside at that moment -- it's really glorious isn't it?  Later, and most of the rest of the time, his whole life, in fact, he is much more cautious -- doesn't want to take a chance this "thing" will ever come over him so strongly again.

There are threads and threads of discussion about both your questions.  In a nutshell -- just because Ennis thinks he knows what happened to Jack doesn't mean it really was the tire iron.  It might have been, but even if it wasn't, it is the tire iron in Ennis's head, you know?  Nearly as destructive as the real thing.

Here are links to the threads in Scene-byScene where these topics are discussed in detail.

Here's the link to The Reunion -- wow the discussion goes back to 2006 -- if you read the old thread you will see quite a few opinions, in recent years we have whittled down to many of the same voices.   Back then it was an amazingly lively discussion.


Link to At Jack's Parents


And the link to The Phone Call (with Lureen).

thank you so much for this

[fofol]

Okay i probably dont have privileges to create new threads yet as i am fairly new to this forum..i dont even know if this is the correct section  regardless i just watched the movie and read the book not too long ago ..and a bit confused..i hope someone can help  get it  somethings better

In no particular order..when i read the book during the scene where ..Jake and heath hadnt seen each other since they herded the sheep on the mountain..they kissed vigorously   and heaths wife  came out and saw it..in the book heath sorta justfied it when he came up with jake saying he hadnt seen his buddy in so long .. does it mean that he knows the wife saw them kissing but didnt care and hence why he tried to explain it??

In the movie the scene was similar but this time when they both came in...from what i observed it seemed like they didnt know that heath's wife had spotted them kissing ...

Another thing wish left me very conflicted is how Jake died at the end... in the movie it showed heath imagining  the worst scenario..that he was caught and beaten to death..and didnt believe how jake's wife said he died ..in the movie jake's death was left unknown ...

But in the book when heath went to Jake's parents he concluded that jake had indeed been killed because he was gay/bisexual?! so is this why he was killed

So did jake die from an accident  or was he killed or was just  heaths paranoia play games with his head ? ..

These are the questions i have at the moment ..will ask more as they came...thank you in advance for your answers

Hi Stonash7!  I have found it helpful to keep in mind that the author's original and stated intent was to write about homophobia, not a love story.

[kathy]

**Yup.  Destructive rural homophobia.  AP always stressed this.**

kathy

[Marge_Innavera]

 I have found it helpful to keep in mind that the author's original and stated intent was to write about homophobia, not a love story.

And it's fortunate that readers (and viewers) followed the usual course -- once you produce a creative work, others' reactions aren't under your control; and the higher the quality of the work the more consistent that is.  In this case, if everyone had dutifully regarded BBM as exclusively or even mainly a polemic it wouldn't have had a fraction of the impact it did.  Didactic works don't tend to age well.

[fofol]

And it's fortunate that readers (and viewers) followed the usual course -- once you produce a creative work, others' reactions aren't under your control; and the higher the quality of the work the more consistent that is.  In this case, if everyone had dutifully regarded BBM as exclusively or even mainly a polemic it wouldn't have had a fraction of the impact it did.  Didactic works don't tend to age well.

  Exactly!  And being told what's going on in a storyline holds up nowhere near as well as being shown those things that frustrate a relationship.  When a writer actually strikes it rich with plot, characters, and the impression of a real 'presence' for her characters, more readers are enabled to bring their own real life intelligence and baggage to the piece, so a larger population is able to identify with the characters, situations, or plots in it, and spend, oh, I don't know, maybe nearly six years discussing it...