BBM General Discussion 2

[Sason]

You haven't lost your mind, there are thousands of us.  The weird thing is, almost none of us knows a personal friend or acquaintance who is also a Brokie.  Without this on-line community, we wouldn't have had the chance to work it out.

So in case you're wondering, the fever lasts about 3 years.  After that, it's never really gone (kind of like malaria), but every cell in your body has absorbed some aspect of BBM and you occasionally quote the movie during the day, without really realizing it.
 

Very well put, I totally agree Ellen!

And I'd like to add, that when the fever slowly wears off, most of us have found that it's been replaced by new and wonderful friendships. Some of them only online, but a lot of them in real life too.

Meaning, we take every chance we can to get together, in smaller or bigger groups of Brokies. In different places, different countries, different continents. And we have SO MUCH FUN together!!

There is a special bond between Brokies, hard to explain, but we all feel it when we're together.

So far, there has been three major piligrimages to the various filming sites, in Alberta. And a number of smaller ones, too.

You can see pictures, thousands of'em, from various Brokie gatherings in the Gathering and events forum, here:

http://www.davecullen.com/forum/index.php?board=79.0

[Sason]

Thanks for the info Ellen. When I first found this forum I was shocked that it is still so active after all these years. That's great! I don't think any other movie has this big of a following. Except the classics of course. This is a classic. I was reading that the shirts were auctioned off on ebay for $101K. Personally I think the shirts need to be donated to the Smithsonian.

The shirts are in the Autry museum in Los Angeles.



ETA: I see Fritz already provided that info.

[Sason]

Not quite! There's Chuck! (CellarDweller)

Well, I've been to America (from Sweden) 4 times in the last three years, entirely because of Brokeback. Never been there before.

[Sason]

You guys are amazing! 15 states! I don't have a lot of time to travel right now but someday I would love to go to Canada to see where the movie was actually filmed. Has anyone been there?

Yep. Plenty of Brokies have been there!

And we left reminders of our presence in many places.

I've done that tour twice, in 2009 and 2011.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

The weird thing is, almost none of us knows a personal friend or acquaintance who is also a Brokie.

That is weird, Ellen, I don't think that ever occurred to me before, but it is definitely the case!

[AustinGirl]

Thanks for all the cordial welcomes. I'm so glad to be here.

Something has really been bothering me about Jack's death. I don't know if this is the right thread to discuss this so I apologize if it has been discussed before. Is it just me or does anyone else think the father-in-law and his cronies had something to do with Jack's death? Remember the man who came into the combine office to ask Jack's father-in-law if that was the bull rider? If Jack had a reputation of being gay maybe that man knew and told the father-in-law. In rural Texas in the 1980s (even today) homosexuality is not only frowned upon but not tolerated. The body was cremated. Cremation was/is not a tradition of the Pentecostal belief system. Was his body cremated to destroy evidence?

[janjo]

I think the thing to do here is to go back to the source material which is the short story by Annie Proulx. In the original text Lureen's father had died, and she had inherited the business long before Jack died.
As that was the original intention of the creator of the story, it seems unlikely that the screenwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana would want to change that intention.

For what it's worth, it was doubt about Jack's death that first brought me to this forum, all those years ago.

[AustinGirl]

Even though though father-in-law died before Jack I think he was behind it somehow --- OR --- Maybe his cronies waited until the father-in-law died to kill Jack so he wouldn't be around to be blamed.

Just thinking out loud. I need a glass of wine.

[kathy]

That is weird, Ellen, I don't think that ever occurred to me before, but it is definitely the case!

Yes, that is definitely true.

[BayCityJohn]

Students at York Univ. in Toronto are discussing Brokeback Mountain:

http://imaginedlandscapes.wordpress.com/

[Sason]

Students at York Univ. in Toronto are discussing Brokeback Mountain:

http://imaginedlandscapes.wordpress.com/

Very interesting!

And I'm pretty sure the picture on the site is of the artwork Nimis, which in itself is highly interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimis_(artwork)#Nimis

[BayCityJohn]

Check it out! Out West is now on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/OutWestattheAutry/

[garyd]

The following is in response to a discussion over in the "were they gay " thread.  I feel my comments are probably more appropriate here since they are not specific to the topic of the sexual identification of Jack and Ennis.

 I suppose I should begin by stating that I am not a literary critic though it is certainly a passion.  If anything, I am a theater critic, at least as an avocation, in that I have amassed a certain amount of experience and knowledge as a dramaturge and some understanding of the various elements,(acting, direction, scenic design, lighting, choreography) necessary to mount a decent interpretation of theatre literature.  
The problem, of course , is that theatre is a collaborative effort.  A poor production due to direction, acting, or a combination of these and other factors of O’Neill’s “Long Days Journey Into Night”, Miller’s  “The Death of a Salesman” , Williams’ “The Glass Menagerie”, or Sondheim’s “Follies”, can obliterate the genius of the underlying work.  
Literature, on the other hand, represents an objective and direct communication between the author and the reader.  It is, of-course, not purely objective, (what is?), since the reader naturally brings to the table personal knowledge, experience, prejudice, and all manner of psychological baggage.  
However, with the exception of painting and the visual arts, literature is the only artistic form that intimately and directly bonds the creator with the consumer and it is incumbent upon the consumer to suppress the subjective in order to arrive at an objective analysis.  It is the human ability to do so, or at least to make the attempt,  that separates us from the balance of the our natural environment.

Since the time of Plato various “theories’ of literary criticism have been formulated.  The most prevalent are:
Historical/Biographical
Moral/Philosophical
Mimetic
Formalistic/New Critical
Psychological
Mythological/Archetypal/Symbolic
Feminist
Reader-Response



What, then, is the purpose of literary criticism?  I believe it is threefold:

(1)   To help us resolve a question, problem, or difficulty in the reading.
Why is Ennis so tentative, while Jack so much more open to his sexuality?  What does Ennis really “know”?  What does Jack really remember?  Why are we told of Jack’s “hard scene” with his father?  To whom are we to place blame for the plight of Ennis and Jack: society? Jack and Ennis themselves?, A combination of the two?
(2)   To help us decide which is the better of two conflicting
readings
A formalist approach might enable us to choose between a reading which sees the dissolution of society in Lord of the Flies as being caused by too strict a suppression of the "bestial" side of man and one which sees it as resulting from too little suppression. We can look to the text and ask: What textual evidence is there for the suppression or indulgence of the "bestial" side of man? Does Ralph suppress Jack when he tries to indulge his bestial side in hunting? Does it appear from the text that an imposition of stricter law and order would have prevented the breakdown? Did it work in the "grownup" world of the novel?


(3)    To enable us to form judgments about literature.
One of the purposes of criticism is to judge if a work is any good or not. For instance, we might use a formalist approach to argue that a John Donne poem is of high quality because it contains numerous intricate conceits that are well sustained. Or, we might use the mimetic approach to argue that The Goat: Or Who is Sylvia is a poor play because it fails to paint a realistic picture of the world.
 
In my experience, I have found that the Formalist/New Criticism theory of criticism to be the most productive starting point in evaluating a piece of literature because it emphasizes the actual text and employs, to the extent that this is even possible, a high degree of objectivity in favor of personal or extraneous subjectivity.
The advantage to this critical approach is that it can be performed without much research, and it emphasizes the value of literature apart from its context. This type of literary criticism in effect makes literature timeless. Unfortunately, there are also disadvantages to this approach. For one, the text is viewed in isolation. Formalism ignores the context of the work. This means that, among other things, it cannot account for allusions. Some have argued that the formalist approach reduces literature to nothing more than a collection of rhetorical devices.

And this is the problem with aligning oneself with only one theory of literary critique.  Annie Proulx, in BBM, employs at least one, if not more, explicit literary allusions in her telling of the tale.  However, is it really necessary for the reader to recognize these allusions in order to understand the story?  No it is not.  However, by employing other theories , subsequent to first adhering to Formalism, such as Historical/Biographical, one can glean even further insights into the surface texture of the story.  
As an example, is it really necessary to have an in-depth knowledge of O’Neill’s personal biography or his affinity to early Freudian theory to grasp the universal truths of “Long Days’ Journey Into Night”?  I contend that it is not.
Neither is it incumbent upon the reader to have an acquaintance with “The Aenied” to appreciate the subtle nuances of BBM.

On the other hand, Paul, (and I am not picking on him), invokes the idea of “decoding” a story.  Authors, in my experience, strive, sweat, and agonize over clarity of intent and theme.  If a story has to be “decoded” then the author has failed and THIS is the value of the Formalist theory of critique. BBM is not included in the study of great American literature due to the subject matter or its purported illusive subtext.  It is included for the author’s ability to employ textural structure,metaphor, and character exposition clearly and succinctly within the confines of the short story genre.  

Subsequent to an initial analysis of the work, analysis based solely upon the structure of the text, it is always instructive to further one’s understanding by examining the so called “intent” of the author or to further explore the “context” of the work itself.  

As an example, BBM, is presented to the reader, (with the obvious exception of the “New Yorker” publication) as the last and penultimate story of “Close Range”, a collection of stories concerning Annie Proulx’s interpretation of a specific time, place, and culture and the effect of all three upon the people who both nurture and perpetuate that culture and the people who are victims of its destructive mythology.  (and not just a homophobic mythology).
Placing BBM within this “context” further underscores the validity of the “formalistic” critique as valid. However, that validity must be first supported by the critique and close reading, not by the context, for the work to stand on its own as a worthy addition to the canon of American literature.

Furthermore AP, in the text,  exhibits no interest in sexual identification or the Kinsey scale of sexuality but only an intense interest in the destructive effect of intolerance and ignorance upon those who do not conform to a specific code of behavior. There is nothing in the text that supports the idea that BBM is the study or examination of the travails of a self identifying “straight” male “accidently” falling in love or finding pleasure or comfort in sexual congress with a member of the same sex.

[Paul029]

^^^^^^^^^
Food for thought, Gary. Many thanks. 

~ On the other hand, Paul, (and I am not picking on him), invokes the idea of “decoding” a story.  Authors, in my experience, strive, sweat, and agonize over clarity of intent and theme.  If a story has to be “decoded” then the author has failed and THIS is the value of the Formalist theory of critique. BBM is not included in the study of great American literature due to the subject matter or its purported illusive subtext.  It is included for the author’s ability to employ textural structure,metaphor, and character exposition clearly and succinctly within the confines of the short story genre.  

Incidentally, my parenthetical reference to “decoding” was a tentative alternative suggestion for “interpreting” the story.

But I accept your point.

[AZ.bbm]

Incidentally, my parenthetical reference to “decoding” was a tentative alternative suggestion for “interpreting” the story...

Greetings,  Paul,
A couple of quick questions for you: 

__Would you be so kind as to contrast the idea of 'decoding' a story as opposed to 'interpreting' one?


__Also, why might the casual (non-academic) reader have a need to 'objectively' analyze a work of fiction, such as BBM?

(+Maybe I should address the latter question elsewhere, but IMO your responses to technical questions seem to be a bit more comprehensible. -No offense intended to anyone.)