Brokeback Mountain Forum @ ennisjack.com
The Movie & Story => Characters, Quotes & Scenes => Topic started by: Condiments on Sep 12, 2006, 10:49 PM
-
I am new here, so I tried to research if this subject had ever been discussed. I'm sure it has, but I couldn't find it, so here goes. But I've wondered about this ever since the time of the beginning (Brokeback's release :clap:).
The scene where Ennis comes into the grocery store carrying the kids to give them to Alma was put in an earlier time in the movie. Originally, it was supposed to be that Jack was waiting in the truck for Ennis---that was the reason Ennis was in such a hurry to get the kids to Alma.
But for some reason, Ang Lee decided to put that scene in before Jack shows up, so the reason Ennis does that, is unclear.
I love that scene---everything about it---the darling "Condiments." and the exquisite look on Ennis face as he stares at Alma after she asks "What about my job?"
But I really think that this is the one and only flaw in Ang Lee's vision. This scene should absolutely have been placed in its proper time---Ennis is frantic to get the kids taken care of so that he can go off with Jack.
What do you all think?
Shelley
-
Well I've thought about that too. But I decided one of the purposes could be to point out that Ennis was never completely considerate of Alma and that at that point in the relationship she was still very accomodating and affectionate (she seemed happy to see him when they first came in and there's the look on her face when she agrees to take the girls). I think maybe Ang Lee just used it to a different purpose than the one originally intended but still makes it work in a different context. Just a thought.
And welcome!! :)
-
I am new here, so I tried to research if this subject had ever been discussed. I'm sure it has, but I couldn't find it, so here goes. But I've wondered about this ever since the time of the beginning (Brokeback's release :clap:).
The scene where Ennis comes into the grocery store carrying the kids to give them to Alma was put in an earlier time in the movie. Originally, it was supposed to be that Jack was waiting in the truck for Ennis---that was the reason Ennis was in such a hurry to get the kids to Alma.
But for some reason, Ang Lee decided to put that scene in before Jack shows up, so the reason Ennis does that, is unclear.
I love that scene---everything about it---the darling "Condiments." and the exquisite look on Ennis face as he stares at Alma after she asks "What about my job?"
But I really think that this is the one and only flaw in Ang Lee's vision. This scene should absolutely have been placed in its proper time---Ennis is frantic to get the kids taken care of so that he can go off with Jack.
What do you all think?
Shelley
Hello Shelly and welcome. I hate to take a negative stand on one of your first posts but I am afraid I must.
First I never heard, read or seen anything about a rumor the scene was moved to an earlier time. This is the first time I have heard it.
Next, I don't think Ennis was going off with Jack because he told Alma to bring home some round steaks for supper. If he was going off with Jack it wouldn't have been for one night. Jack wouldn't have driven 14 hours for one night.
So, where would that scene have fit if it was meant for a later time? Without rewriting a large portion of the movie it could have fit in at the scene after the divorce when Jack drives 14 hours to see Ennis. But even then it really doesn't fit. Alma Jr. is 15 years old and Ennis wouldn't take the girls to Alma at work to be with Jack for one night. At 15 Alma Jr. was old enough to babysit her own sister for 3 hours until Alma got home.
So, in conclusion, I just don't see that scene being anywhere but where it was. Sorry.
-
Hmm, you could be right Patriot...
There was definitely talk of it being intended for later in the picture though...don't know if there's any truth to it but I had heard it as well. The questions around this film never end, do they? I can't remember another movie resulting in this many people giving this much thought to so many aspects and nuances of its story and presentation. No wonder I love it here. <^(
-
The way the scene appears in the film, it could not have been meant for later on because of the age of the girls. I think its purpose was to show a little hint about Alma's and Ennis's relationship -- maybe even a bit of a foreshadowing of trouble on its way. Ennis certainly knew how to get his way with Alma, even when it was extremely difficult for her to accommodate him.
I have always had a problem with this scene, but for different reasons. I do not think it fits into the movie. It's the ONLY scene that I really feel doesn't "work" well in the film. If it were deleted, would the film suffer? I don't think so. I don't feel that way about any other scene in the film. This leads me to believe that Ang had a purpose in mind when he filmed the scene, and, whatever that purpose was, he decided to keep it in. Does it work well? I don't think so. Just mhp. lamusica
-
Hmm, you could be right Patriot...
There was definitely talk of it being intended for later in the picture though...don't know if there's any truth to it but I had heard it as well. The questions around this film never end, do they? I can't remember another movie resulting in this many people giving this much thought to so many aspects and nuances of its story and presentation. No wonder I love it here. <^(
I doubt the questions about the movie will ever end. There is still much left undiscovered.
-
Well ok, all this talk made me go back and watch part of the movie again (twist my arm ;)). This is what I'm left with: As to whether the scene could have been meant for a later time, it's hard to tell. The actress for Alma jr is the same in both the grocery scene and the reunion, but Jenny doesn't appear in the reunion scene so we can't check from that. I think, though, that Ang Lee probably always meant for the scene to be where it is for these reasons: First we see Ennis flipping Alma, which tells us something about his thoughts and feelings right there. Then it shifts between scenes of Jack and Ennis and where their lives take them the next couple years. I've always thought Jack decided to contact Ennis again after realizing, with the birth of his son, that he will never be a true part of that family and he can't switch off his feelings for Ennis and lead that other life. The progression of Ennis scenes here is the 4th of July scene, where Alma starts to realize there is a side to Ennis she didn't know (the instinct & capacity for violence) and then the grocery scene. I think this whole montage of their lives is meant to show the progression of their instinct to find each other again and the deterioration of their other relationships. So in that respect I guess my initial impression of this scene stands. It's just fresher in my mind now. Sorry for the Lashawn attack... :-X...I'm done now...
-
If Shelley is right, then the proposed placement of this scene must have existed in some intermediary state of the screenplay. Does such a state exist?
I would assume that the screenplay was tweaked continuously during filming. I would assume the deleted scenes such as the scene with the mechanic must have existed in some version of the screenplay, no?
In any case, I do think the scene is effective as is. It shows us that Ennis treated Jack and Alma differently. He was not willing to lose the chance of work for the sake of Alma, whereas he was willing to do so in the case of Jack...
-
Of course the part of the scene where talks about food for supper could have been put in later too - this scene isn't all one take. Movies get changed as they go along, and Heath was on the set for longer than JJkae - i suppose at a later stage it would have been easy to remake a part of a scene and graft it on to something already shot.
However, it seems ot me to make sense - Ennis didn;t just use work as an excuse - he genuinely did put it first before everything except Jack. Or, to look at it in a different way, because he knew he would drop a job when Jack wanted to see him, he had to be all the more reliabaly the rest of the time if he wanted his employment to last. And he did have the two kids to support and presumably couldn't afford to miss important events like the heifers calving.
-
I loved reading all your responses to my question about the grocery store scene.
I stand by my statement that this scene was initially intended to be after Ennis and Jack had gotten together again. However, I can see from what you all say that it can also be a scene to show the deterioration of Ennis's and Alma's relationship as well as the growing attraction from whats-his-name...the grocer ???
I wish I could remember where and when I heard about the change of scene position, but my memory fails me. It was not just a rumor, it might have been a statement from Ang Lee. Sorry! :P
Anyway, very fun to discuss this!
Shelley
-
I loved reading all your responses to my question about the grocery store scene.
I stand by my statement that this scene was initially intended to be after Ennis and Jack had gotten together again. However, I can see from what you all say that it can also be a scene to show the deterioration of Ennis's and Alma's relationship as well as the growing attraction from whats-his-name...the grocer ???
I wish I could remember where and when I heard about the change of scene position, but my memory fails me. It was not just a rumor, it might have been a statement from Ang Lee. Sorry! :P
Anyway, very fun to discuss this!
Shelley
Shelley, see if you can trace the source of the information. I would be very much interested. If you can't, that's fine. It still is a very interesting topic. Thanks. :)
-
I loved reading all your responses to my question about the grocery store scene.
I stand by my statement that this scene was initially intended to be after Ennis and Jack had gotten together again. However, I can see from what you all say that it can also be a scene to show the deterioration of Ennis's and Alma's relationship as well as the growing attraction from whats-his-name...the grocer ???
I wish I could remember where and when I heard about the change of scene position, but my memory fails me. It was not just a rumor, it might have been a statement from Ang Lee. Sorry! :P
Anyway, very fun to discuss this!
Shelley
Shelley, see if you can trace the source of the information. I would be very much interested. If you can't, that's fine. It still is a very interesting topic. Thanks. :)
I have seen an interview with Lee in which he explains that the scene was originally intended to show Ennis leaving on the spur of the moment with Jack. (Thus, I suppose, as ww says, the last part about, "Bring home steak for supper" would have been added in.)
Sorry I can't point to a source... I suppose I would have seen it on YouTube somewhere.
As the film now stands, this scene is the ONLY one which shows some develping relationship between Alma and Monroe, I think. So if it were not there, some substitute scene would probably be needed.
-
Like some others have said, would like to see a source for this, given the structure that Ang Lee created for the film, it perplexes me that he would change the placement of a scene. Did not get a feeling that it would have been better in another place, nor did I get a feeling that it was a scene that was dropped in just to have it in the film.
-
This made me curious so I read the copy of the screenplay that I have, from the time Ennis and Alma married until they divorced. Surprise, this scene was not in it...there was a scene where Monroe delivered groceries to Alma and a scene where Alma and Monroe are flirting in the grocery store until Ennis comes in to buy some cigarettes. So it seems as if this scene developed during the filming or before the screenplay was finalized. Don't know what edition of the screenplay mine was - it was dated '03, screenplays do evolve...
-
Like some others have said, would like to see a source for this, given the structure that Ang Lee created for the film, it perplexes me that he would change the placement of a scene. Did not get a feeling that it would have been better in another place, nor did I get a feeling that it was a scene that was dropped in just to have it in the film.
No, jerasjr, I didn't mean that this scene was dropped in just to have it in the film. We know Ang Lee made every single moment count in this film---he is the master <^(
The scene shows many different elements of the plot---Monroe and Alma; Ennis's growing distance from Alma; the children; the grocery store itself. But the one element that was changed was Ennis's reason for coming in and handing the girls over to Alma. The initial reason was because he was going off with Jack. Then the scene placement was changed and the reason changed too.
Shelley
-
I probably misused some words, because also do believe that the film was deliberately crafted as it was...my thoughts were going along the line that if the screenplay (at least the one that I have) did not contain that scene, how could there be a conscious decision on its placement...the scene that does emerge seems to be an amalgamation of things pointing to a distancing of Ennis and Alma. When you consider that the screenplay does mention interactions among Monroe and Alma, perhaps the distancing was on the part of Alma, and not because of Ennis's feelings for Jack. That might be the flaw, that Alma's changing attitude was not explored.
-
Like some others have said, would like to see a source for this, given the structure that Ang Lee created for the film, it perplexes me that he would change the placement of a scene. Did not get a feeling that it would have been better in another place, nor did I get a feeling that it was a scene that was dropped in just to have it in the film.
No, jerasjr, I didn't mean that this scene was dropped in just to have it in the film. We know Ang Lee made every single moment count in this film---he is the master <^(
The scene shows many different elements of the plot---Monroe and Alma; Ennis's growing distance from Alma; the children; the grocery store itself. But the one element that was changed was Ennis's reason for coming in and handing the girls over to Alma. The initial reason was because he was going off with Jack. Then the scene placement was changed and the reason changed too.
Shelley
Great post Shelly ^f^
I believe that the scene at the supermarket (or grocery store) was shown exactly for those reasons.
-
I have seen an interview with Lee in which he explains that the scene was originally intended to show Ennis leaving on the spur of the moment with Jack. (Thus, I suppose, as ww says, the last part about, "Bring home steak for supper" would have been added in.)
Sorry I can't point to a source... I suppose I would have seen it on YouTube somewhere.
As the film now stands, this scene is the ONLY one which shows some develping relationship between Alma and Monroe, I think. So if it were not there, some substitute scene would probably be needed.
Well, having a second person mentioning this is a sort of confirmation. Thanks, edgar. And yes, I agree that this is the one scene where yoy see some sort of affection developing in Monroe for Alma...
-
This made me curious so I read the copy of the screenplay that I have, from the time Ennis and Alma married until they divorced. Surprise, this scene was not in it...there was a scene where Monroe delivered groceries to Alma and a scene where Alma and Monroe are flirting in the grocery store until Ennis comes in to buy some cigarettes. So it seems as if this scene developed during the filming or before the screenplay was finalized. Don't know what edition of the screenplay mine was - it was dated '03, screenplays do evolve...
This sounds like a earlier version of the screeenplay that you get to see every once in a while on Ebay, no?
I don't recall right now whether the screenplay published in book form has similar lacunae. I must check this tonight. But to be sure, I am sure the screenplay was a work in progress even during the filming. DO was the only one of the writers to be present during the filming, correct? If the screenplay changed during the filming, I am sure she must have consulted with LM and Proulx for any changes and elaborations...
-
Like some others have said, would like to see a source for this, given the structure that Ang Lee created for the film, it perplexes me that he would change the placement of a scene. Did not get a feeling that it would have been better in another place, nor did I get a feeling that it was a scene that was dropped in just to have it in the film.
No, jerasjr, I didn't mean that this scene was dropped in just to have it in the film. We know Ang Lee made every single moment count in this film---he is the master <^(
The scene shows many different elements of the plot---Monroe and Alma; Ennis's growing distance from Alma; the children; the grocery store itself. But the one element that was changed was Ennis's reason for coming in and handing the girls over to Alma. The initial reason was because he was going off with Jack. Then the scene placement was changed and the reason changed too.
Shelley
Whether or not you consider it a flaw, I do think what Shelley proposes here is plausible, and would cast some light into how Ang Lee pruned and/or rearranged the scenes to suit his vision of the story. The end product certainly must be a pruned version of a more expansive vision. I think Ang Lee was justified in cutting out scenes. As for rearranging some of them, as Shelley has proposed here, I would agree that Ang Lee was not haphazard in his choices, even if we may or may not agree with the final decisions.
-
I probably misused some words, because also do believe that the film was deliberately crafted as it was...my thoughts were going along the line that if the screenplay (at least the one that I have) did not contain that scene, how could there be a conscious decision on its placement...the scene that does emerge seems to be an amalgamation of things pointing to a distancing of Ennis and Alma. When you consider that the screenplay does mention interactions among Monroe and Alma, perhaps the distancing was on the part of Alma, and not because of Ennis's feelings for Jack. That might be the flaw, that Alma's changing attitude was not explored.
Good point. Much of what developed between Alma and Monroe were simply implied on film. I personally didn't think we lost too much not seeing their relationship blossom as Alma's marriage to Ennis withered away. But it would have developed Monroe's character a bit more. He, Jenny, and Bobby remain shadowy characters. Perhaps it is only right this was, as they are but mentioned in the ss.
-
Shelley, you started an interesting discussion here. There are so many subleties, yet meticuous planning on the part of Ang Lee - and yet what I like is that it is often left up to us to do the interpreting, and many interpretations are possible and plausible.
-
Picture it, (my Estelle Getty impersonation), you are a writer. You have this beautiful story in your head that you simply must write down on paper. You sit in front of your computer with your favorite word processor and for months you labor over this wonderful story.
You publish the story. Then you find there is a forum where people are talking about the story you wrote. You discover, to your horror, that they didn't get the point of your story because they are putting their own interpretation to it.
Oh well, what do you care if they understood your beautiful story the way you saw it or not; as long as they keep buying it and making you money.
Is that really the way it is?
-
Is that really the way it is?
I'm going to have to say no. And this is why: I think an author has a vision he/she wants to express or share. Once the work is completed and put 'out there', of course they'll hope that it will be well recieved and understood. But every story has multiple layers because every person who reads it brings his or her own personal experience and interpretation to it. There is not necessarily a 'wrong' perception of a story - it is what the reader makes of it. And I have to believe that an author would be happy that people were moved and inspired by his/her work enough to contemplate it on a deeper level. And we are obviously not just exhibiting academic curiosity when we discuss this story - it has quite clearly touched our hearts. So I have to think Annie Proulx would be very happy indeed to see the kinds of discussions her story has inspired and the way that her characters live (in various ways) in our hearts. :)
-
I think every author takes the chance of having his/her work misinterpreted. Whether or not that bothers a particular author is determined by the author only. Some, I believe, would find that offensive; others would have a much more open mind. I think Annie is open-minded enough to appreciate the fact that her words, her story, could be interpreted in many ways other than as she intended. I do not believe she would be offended by variant interpretations. Quite the contrary. I think it would be a source of pride to her that people care enough about her work, in this case BBM, to give it time and thought and to communicate with others ( the forum members) about what they found to love in the story. Were I the author, I would be flattered to the nth degree, even though I might be a bit disappointed that my original intent was missed, overlooked, or downplayed. Someone needs to ask her how she feels. Anyone know how to get in touch with her?
-
Is that really the way it is?
I'm going to have to say no. And this is why: I think an author has a vision he/she wants to express or share. Once the work is completed and put 'out there', of course they'll hope that it will be well recieved and understood. But every story has multiple layers because every person who reads it brings his or her own personal experience and interpretation to it. There is not necessarily a 'wrong' perception of a story - it is what the reader makes of it. And I have to believe that an author would be happy that people were moved and inspired by his/her work enough to contemplate it on a deeper level. And we are obviously not just exhibiting academic curiosity when we discuss this story - it has quite clearly touched our hearts. So I have to think Annie Proulx would be very happy indeed to see the kinds of discussions her story has inspired and the way that her characters live (in various ways) in our hearts. :)
FlwrChild: What a lovely and articulate comment. You are absolutely right about every reader bringing his/her own interpretation.
Also, I think all these different opinions show how utterly brilliant BBM is---both the story and especially the film. Look at what it's created...all these discussion groups and all this passion!
Anyway, I now wish I could change the original subject line..."a flaw". From what everyone has said here, the scene placement is a different interpretation. I think what I originally meant was that it would have been wonderfully perfect to have had that scene of Ennis coming into the grocery store breathless with anticipation and eagerness to get to Jack and not to just get to work.
Wouldn't that have been terrific to see? Ennis so determined and so excited to be with his man...it makes my heart melt.
Shelley
-
Wouldn't that have been terrific to see? Ennis so determined and so excited to be with his man...it makes my heart melt.
Shelley
I like the way you think!
And I loved the reunion scene and the look on Ennis's face when he saw Jack, not to mention the intensity of his need to hold him....definitely makes my heart melt. :)
-
I think every author takes the chance of having his/her work misinterpreted. Whether or not that bothers a particular author is determined by the author only. Some, I believe, would find that offensive; others would have a much more open mind. I think Annie is open-minded enough to appreciate the fact that her words, her story, could be interpreted in many ways other than as she intended. I do not believe she would be offended by variant interpretations. Quite the contrary. I think it would be a source of pride to her that people care enough about her work, in this case BBM, to give it time and thought and to communicate with others ( the forum members) about what they found to love in the story. Were I the author, I would be flattered to the nth degree, even though I might be a bit disappointed that my original intent was missed, overlooked, or downplayed. Someone needs to ask her how she feels. Anyone know how to get in touch with her?
I would even hazard that most mature authors leave some leeway for multiple interpretations of their works. I think most of them recognize the distiction between their own original interpretation and interpretations that overlay the work once it is put out to the world.
AS for Proulx, I agree that she would not be averse to variant interpretations, even if she would hold on to her original vision.
-
Thank you all for this thread; as with all great art, many windows are opened, and such discussions take me back to the original works, and I see with new sight! Yes, the uncountable insights we share just highlight the magnificence of Brokeback Mountain-- the story, screen play, and film.......Stephen.
-
I think it shows how being a father had wrinkled Ennis a tad. He wasn't used to small children being around, and though he longed to be a daddy ( i think anyways) and he loved his little 'chillens' he needed a light in the tunnel, a breath of air, working in the country is his nirvana-and he seemed very frantic, because he was desperate to get away from it all
-
This made me curious so I read the copy of the screenplay that I have, from the time Ennis and Alma married until they divorced. Surprise, this scene was not in it...there was a scene where Monroe delivered groceries to Alma and a scene where Alma and Monroe are flirting in the grocery store until Ennis comes in to buy some cigarettes. So it seems as if this scene developed during the filming or before the screenplay was finalized. Don't know what edition of the screenplay mine was - it was dated '03, screenplays do evolve...
Damn jerasjr, I'd love to see a copy of your screenplay. All I have is the "official" version in the book.
-
Is that really the way it is?
I'm going to have to say no. And this is why: I think an author has a vision he/she wants to express or share. Once the work is completed and put 'out there', of course they'll hope that it will be well recieved and understood. But every story has multiple layers because every person who reads it brings his or her own personal experience and interpretation to it. There is not necessarily a 'wrong' perception of a story - it is what the reader makes of it. And I have to believe that an author would be happy that people were moved and inspired by his/her work enough to contemplate it on a deeper level. And we are obviously not just exhibiting academic curiosity when we discuss this story - it has quite clearly touched our hearts. So I have to think Annie Proulx would be very happy indeed to see the kinds of discussions her story has inspired and the way that her characters live (in various ways) in our hearts. :)
Well said darlin'. O0 <^(
-
The advice you always give literature students is that they can discuss a text and say whatever they like about it, as long as they can justify what they say by reference to the text. It's also possible to extrapolate and theorize, but these are more speculative, need to be done with care, and always need to be labelled as speculation not fact. The one thing you can't do is read the terxt as you wish, and twist it to make it "prove" whatever you feel strongly about. Nor of course can you treat the characters as if they are real and have a life outside the text. By and large I think on here we base what we say on the text, movie or ss, and the speculation and extrapolation that occurs is rooted in those.
I don't subscribe to the idea that there are no wrong interpretations. I've read enough on exam papers to recognise that there are. I'll just instance the whole center taught by some feminist who said that Shakespeare marginalized women because he was part of a patriarchal culture ( yes, I know, yawn, yawn, dreary jargon instead of thought) but also that this explained why Shakespeare's women never spoke. The eg cited was Miranda in "The Tempest", their set play. This isn't a valid interpretation, it's just PC nonsense.
-
I think too that it should have been that 'Jack waiting for him' scene.. It would make so much more sense that way.. this way that whole scene seems kinda out of place to me.
-
I am new here, so I tried to research if this subject had ever been discussed. I'm sure it has, but I couldn't find it, so here goes. But I've wondered about this ever since the time of the beginning (Brokeback's release :clap:).
The scene where Ennis comes into the grocery store carrying the kids to give them to Alma was put in an earlier time in the movie. Originally, it was supposed to be that Jack was waiting in the truck for Ennis---that was the reason Ennis was in such a hurry to get the kids to Alma.
But for some reason, Ang Lee decided to put that scene in before Jack shows up, so the reason Ennis does that, is unclear.
I love that scene---everything about it---the darling "Condiments." and the exquisite look on Ennis face as he stares at Alma after she asks "What about my job?"
But I really think that this is the one and only flaw in Ang Lee's vision. This scene should absolutely have been placed in its proper time---Ennis is frantic to get the kids taken care of so that he can go off with Jack.
What do you all think?
Shelley
Shelley,
I remember reading that too.I also thought it the first time i watched the film.I didn't know the story or anything about it and for some reason i just thought Ennis was rushing in to get away to be with Jack although they were not even reunited at that stage.It just struck me.I don't know why.
Anyway,the story was put on Wranglers not long after BBM first came out.I did keep it in actual fact so it's in
one of my folders.If you can't find it in the archives over at Wranglers,i will dig it out for you.
If you are still around? ;D
Jennis.x
-
I am new here, so I tried to research if this subject had ever been discussed. I'm sure it has, but I couldn't find it, so here goes. But I've wondered about this ever since the time of the beginning (Brokeback's release :clap:).
The scene where Ennis comes into the grocery store carrying the kids to give them to Alma was put in an earlier time in the movie. Originally, it was supposed to be that Jack was waiting in the truck for Ennis---that was the reason Ennis was in such a hurry to get the kids to Alma.
But for some reason, Ang Lee decided to put that scene in before Jack shows up, so the reason Ennis does that, is unclear.
I love that scene---everything about it---the darling "Condiments." and the exquisite look on Ennis face as he stares at Alma after she asks "What about my job?"
But I really think that this is the one and only flaw in Ang Lee's vision. This scene should absolutely have been placed in its proper time---Ennis is frantic to get the kids taken care of so that he can go off with Jack.
What do you all think?
Shelley
Shelley,
I remember reading that too.I also thought it the first time i watched the film.I didn't know the story or anything about it and for some reason i just thought Ennis was rushing in to get away to be with Jack although they were not even reunited at that stage.It just struck me.I don't know why.
Anyway,the story was put on Wranglers not long after BBM first came out.I did keep it in actual fact so it's in
one of my folders.If you can't find it in the archives over at Wranglers,i will dig it out for you.
If you are still around? ;D
Jennis.x
Hi Jennis, this is still Shelley, but I decided to change my name to "Condiments". #)
Yes, I would love to know the actual story behind this change of scene. Very cool...I too always saw that scene as Ennis frantic to get to Jack---even before I ever heard of the scene rearrangement.
Condiments (the BBM fan formerly known as Shelley)
-
Isn't the "reason" given in the film that Ennis had to work??? It shows the time as it was - the man's work was more important than the woman's, and she was left to make the arrangements for the kids...believe it or not people that's the way it was.
-
Isn't the "reason" given in the film that Ennis had to work??? It shows the time as it was - the man's work was more important than the woman's, and she was left to make the arrangements for the kids...believe it or not people that's the way it was.
I do think the scene still works, if just to illustrate what you have said. Also (as I mentioned previously), if is a contrast to the later scene when Ennis sacrifices potential work by going with Jack on their first fishing trip. The implication is clear, IMO: Jack was more important than Alma as far as Ennis's time was concerned.
-
I am new here, so I tried to research if this subject had ever been discussed. I'm sure it has, but I couldn't find it, so here goes. But I've wondered about this ever since the time of the beginning (Brokeback's release :clap:).
The scene where Ennis comes into the grocery store carrying the kids to give them to Alma was put in an earlier time in the movie. Originally, it was supposed to be that Jack was waiting in the truck for Ennis---that was the reason Ennis was in such a hurry to get the kids to Alma.
But for some reason, Ang Lee decided to put that scene in before Jack shows up, so the reason Ennis does that, is unclear.
I love that scene---everything about it---the darling "Condiments." and the exquisite look on Ennis face as he stares at Alma after she asks "What about my job?"
But I really think that this is the one and only flaw in Ang Lee's vision. This scene should absolutely have been placed in its proper time---Ennis is frantic to get the kids taken care of so that he can go off with Jack.
What do you all think?
Shelley
Shelley,
I remember reading that too.I also thought it the first time i watched the film.I didn't know the story or anything about it and for some reason i just thought Ennis was rushing in to get away to be with Jack although they were not even reunited at that stage.It just struck me.I don't know why.
Anyway,the story was put on Wranglers not long after BBM first came out.I did keep it in actual fact so it's in
one of my folders.If you can't find it in the archives over at Wranglers,i will dig it out for you.
If you are still around? ;D
Jennis.x
Hi Jennis, this is still Shelley, but I decided to change my name to "Condiments". #)
Yes, I would love to know the actual story behind this change of scene. Very cool...I too always saw that scene as Ennis frantic to get to Jack---even before I ever heard of the scene rearrangement.
Condiments (the BBM fan formerly known as Shelley)
Hi Shelley/Condiments ;)
Yes,i found it.Here is what was posted on wranglers early February.
I don't know how much is true,but it's interesting stuff.Let me know what you think :)
Jennis.x
DVD extras?
I found this on another forum. It was an answer given in response to the question, "What happened to scenes that were in the commercial but not in the movie"(e.g. Jake shirtless standing over a stream).
I can't vouch for the truth of it, but it seems like it's the truth.:
"If you can believe it, more than 40 minutes of film did not make into the final version. The shots you are referring to are just among a few that Ang Lee felt "drew conclusions" he wanted the audience to interpret.
The shirtless shot from the bridge is neither Heath or Jake but a body double. It was shot the same day as the skinny-dipping scene. This was the two week period Gyllenhaal was missing from location and Lee shot around him.
It was meant to be from Ennis's vantage point looking at Jack. You'll notice that we never catch Ennis eyeing Jack in desire.
Some other notes:
The bar scene in which Jack meets Lureen was cut extensively.
There is also a scene where Jack encounters the "Rodeo Clown" and his buddies outside of the bar and they block his path only to let him through in laughter.
Mechanics outside of the work trailer in Signal, WY, gawk at Jack as he leaves looking for work and Ennis the second Summer in 1964.
In a strange editing maneuver, The scene in which Ennis drops off the children to Alma at the store with the explaination that he's needed immediately at work is linked to an scene where Jake and Heath are seen driving in Ennis's truck. This would be a another impromptu get together after their initial reunion. The added scenes were dropped entirely from the film but the first scene, mentioned above, would remain.
Another scene not included was an exchange between Jack and Lureen's father prior to the Thanksgiving Day blow-up. Also another of Lureen convincing her father to hire Jack.
As far as sex scenes, besides a few different angles, there was nothing else shot. "
-
Hi Shelley/Condiments ;)
Yes,i found it.Here is what was posted on wranglers early February.
I don't know how much is true,but it's interesting stuff.Let me know what you think :)
Jennis.x
DVD extras?
I found this on another forum. It was an answer given in response to the question, "What happened to scenes that were in the commercial but not in the movie"(e.g. Jake shirtless standing over a stream).
I can't vouch for the truth of it, but it seems like it's the truth.:
"If you can believe it, more than 40 minutes of film did not make into the final version. The shots you are referring to are just among a few that Ang Lee felt "drew conclusions" he wanted the audience to interpret.
The shirtless shot from the bridge is neither Heath or Jake but a body double. It was shot the same day as the skinny-dipping scene. This was the two week period Gyllenhaal was missing from location and Lee shot around him.
It was meant to be from Ennis's vantage point looking at Jack. You'll notice that we never catch Ennis eyeing Jack in desire.
Some other notes:
The bar scene in which Jack meets Lureen was cut extensively.
There is also a scene where Jack encounters the "Rodeo Clown" and his buddies outside of the bar and they block his path only to let him through in laughter.
Mechanics outside of the work trailer in Signal, WY, gawk at Jack as he leaves looking for work and Ennis the second Summer in 1964.
In a strange editing maneuver, The scene in which Ennis drops off the children to Alma at the store with the explaination that he's needed immediately at work is linked to an scene where Jake and Heath are seen driving in Ennis's truck. This would be a another impromptu get together after their initial reunion. The added scenes were dropped entirely from the film but the first scene, mentioned above, would remain.
Another scene not included was an exchange between Jack and Lureen's father prior to the Thanksgiving Day blow-up. Also another of Lureen convincing her father to hire Jack.
As far as sex scenes, besides a few different angles, there was nothing else shot. "
Jennis,
What a sweetheart!
I'm thrilled to read the information you found. How cool is all that?
I especially love the things about the change of the grocery store scene, which has bothered me from my first viewing of the movie---it just didn't feel fully-realized. Ennis's level of excitement and his empassioned determination did not fit with his just getting to work!
Thank you. thank you for finding that.
Shelley (or condiments, but not ketchup)
-
Jennis,
What a sweetheart!
I'm thrilled to read the information you found. How cool is all that?
I especially love the things about the change of the grocery store scene, which has bothered me from my first viewing of the movie---it just didn't feel fully-realized. Ennis's level of excitement and his empassioned determination did not fit with his just getting to work!
Thank you. thank you for finding that.
Shelley (or condiments, but not ketchup)
You're welcome :)
I knew i kept it.lol
I know what you mean.Ennis seemed to be chomping at the bit to get away.
Most of his scenes where he was off to meet Jack had him rushing around and
couldn't get out of the door fast enough.
Jennis.x
-
Too afraid of giving something away once he knew he was going to meet Jack? Or too full of guilt to talk to Alma once Jack was about to re-enter his life ? There's a kid of suppressed fury, almost madness, in that look he gives Alma when he's talking about his job - it seems to be less about getting up to the ranch than something much more important. After all, he's often risked losing his job, or maybe has lost some, by dropping everything to meet Jack.