[lbo-talk] Re: Brokeback Mountain: A review by David McReynolds

info at pulpculture.org info at pulpculture.org
Sat Feb 4 09:30:12 PST 2006


At 11:08 AM 2/4/2006, Doug Henwood wrote:
>info at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
>>By leaving the ending ambiguous, it allows people to project on to the
>>film their own interpretations.
>
>Is that the Hollywood way? Zizek has a riff somewhere on the shark in Jaws
>- people have projected all kinds of meanings onto it. But the point is
>that none of them are right. If any were "right" then it might alienate a
>potential ticket-buyers, so best to keep it free-floating.
>
>Doug

Yeah, that's why I said at the outset that it was written to gain the widest audience possible, by being open to multiple readings.

The film is also based on Ann Proulx's short story. So, it's not just Lee but also Proulx if Lee was as faithful to the story as people say.

I think I snipped this part out, but I don't think you could have had any other ending -- that fit within the range of acceptable Hollywood endings. Michael Ventura, who wrote (writes?) screenplays says that the dictum in writing meetings is to make sure people walk out of the film happy.

What other ending would have made people happier? Crying cathartically is consistent with a happy ending.

Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list