TJ, I think you would agree with me that we are dealing here with 3 distinct entities.
The first is of course the short story, as published in the New Yorker or 'Close Range'
The second is the screenplay, which is based from the short story, but is a distinct work of art.
The third is the movie itself, which is different in ways from both story and screenplay.
The most catholic approach is to take all three entities under the title of "Brokeback Mountain". It is not a question of exegesis. It is a question of appreciating 3 related works of art.
One can make a comparative analysis of all three, but I think it is best to take the stance that there is no one single authority that governs plot or characterization. All three have something to offer.
In this light, one can proceed with greater richness.
I do agree, "tpe." And, we could have 3 different forums relating to Brokeback Mountain. I "own" two "Brokeback Mountain" Yahoo Groups, one for the movie and one for the stand-alone book. I created the one for the published book before I as given ownership of the one for the movie. I don't have a copy of the published screenplay.
Oh, "catholic?" Getting religious here? LOL It is difficult to have a "catholic," aka universal, discussion of only one version of the story because we all did not have the same English Language teachers and we all do not have American English as our first language. But, I did study Standard American English in Public School beginning in first grade and even as a refresher course when I was a graduate student.
And, we all have not had one or more college courses related to the interpretation and/or criticism of literature. (I'm not a know-it-all; but, I had one which was an English class and the other was a theology class. The same basic hermeneutical principles were to be applied in each discipline.)
With some folks in this forum, it is not exegesis, but, eisegesis. When one uses exegesis, one tries to understand the world view of the author and attempt to put oneself in the author's place. Using exegesis, one does not place one's interpretation over the authority of the original writer.
Eisegesis is the substitution of the authority of the interpreter for the authority of the original writer. Some people have interpreted some of Annie Proulx's Wyoming, country/rural, and/or Western expressions according to their lack of knowledge of those 3 areas of expression. And, Annie Proulx showed us that sometimes Jack Twist did not always interpret what Ennis said by the way he meant it. Ennis did not really threaten to kill Jack; but, Jack thought he did. When Ennis wanted a blanket before that first night in the tent, in the book he said "Got you and extra blanket?"; he did not say "Do you have an extra blanket?" Although the latter is what he meant.
IMO, the screenplay writers, at times, used eisegesis to over-ride what Annie Proulx had originally written. According to "Morgan," the moderator of the now defunct "annieproulx.com forum," what is in the books was originally what was in the manuscript she had submitted to the New Yorker Magazine.
Larry McMurtry even admitted to adding women to the original story in a Time Magazine interview. I get the magazine and I even cited that in my BbM groups.
As a "stand-alone" movie . . . meaning if there had no Annie Proulx story in the first place, I consider it to be a great movie as long as I leave out what I know about Pentecostals, Methodists, herding sheep, camping in the (Ozark) mountains, farming, and living in the country (among other things).
As a "stand-alone" short story published in books, I consider what Annie Proulx wrote from a heterosexual woman's POV in regard to homophobia and internalized-homophobia experienced by a guy like Ennis Del Mar to be a classic. That's why I like her story better.
