Short Story to Film Analysis: Brokeback Mountain
Released in 2005, Brokeback Mountain have no huge change as an adaptation work of a short story published in 1997 with the same title. Generally, the movie and short story have similar setting, character, characterization, plot, and theme. Most of the words used in movie’s dialogue are even written as exactly the same as the texts found in the short story. The adaptation of 28 pages short story into 130 minutes film is done well through some extensions and additional characters without changing the story itself.
The setting of mountain, country, and many beautiful types of scenery helps the creation of romantic atmosphere between Ennes and Jack. The cliché genre of gay cowboy sends image of manhood in some senses; for instance through manly physical appearances and activities showing the masculinity of Ennes and Jack. The blend of men’s adventure in wilderness as the background of same sex relationship between two cowboys also employs certain contrast of setting in an uncommon harmony. This way of framing seems to counter the idea of queer as ‘manless’, besides showing the nature of ‘love’ as human.
Generally, the grand timeline of both artworks are similar. The different parts are actually the minor ones, though it gives certain sense of the story. Those are the inexistence of the opening of the short story (the first paragraph) which sum up the story in the film and the end of the story (how Ennes lives his life after the dead of Jack). However, these dissimilarity do not hamper the gist of the story but adding new ‘tastes’ and ‘perspectives’.
The different length of these artworks becomes another reason of the emergence of more additional conflicts in the film. I think the problems depicted in the film are richer since they are not only focusing on Ennes and Jack’s romance but also exploring their ‘real’ domestic life out of their same sex relationship.
Since both of them are married with their heterosexual partners, the story of their relationship with their wives happens to be another interesting point; such as the different acceptance of Alma and Lureen to their husband, their ‘professional’ concept marriage or less-lovable husband (Ennes’ reproduction function, Jack’s business-partner relationship), and the love story of their wives (the disappointment of Alma knowing her husband is queer, the sad expression of Lureen losing his husband while Jack’s dead).
Besides, Ennes and Jack’s relationship with their children are also more explored in the film. The deep relation between them is seen from the visits and stories of Alma Jr, Ennes’ payment of his child support, the choice of Ennes for taking care of his children than having date with Jack in a time, and the way Jack teach his son to drive and behave in a dinner.
Essentially, there is no distinct characterization of the character. However, in some way, I feel Ennes character is more explored in the film (through his emotions as a lover, husband, and father). Physically, the choice of Heath Ledger is excellent since he represents Ennes very similarly with the way Proulx describes him. Jake Gyllenhaal characterizes Jack less emotionally than the short story Jack did. This is due to the different physical appearance of them and the focus point of view of Ennes makes less space for him to expose.
The use of third-person omniscient point of view in both artworks leads to free interpretation of the spectator since the narrator only functions as the story teller of what happened, including the emotional emotion of the stakeholders. Regarding to the controversial issue of the artwork, it will be depend on spectator’s stance; whether they will support or against the ideology after watching or reading the works. The using of this point of view, somewhat is quite fair for this sensitive issue.
However, on the other hand, this narrative style gives less space of emotional release of the character. It will be different, for example, using first person point of view of Ennes in delivering the story. The human side of queer probably can be felt deeper and more on the idea of why same sex relationship is justifiable. Nevertheless, I personally agree with the using of this omniscient point of view for its more ‘fair-narrow-knowledge’ on what happens with other characters.
Generally, the artworks tell about same sex relationship, particularly the faithfulness of homosexuals in maintaining their relationship for 20 years under certain fear of being revealed as the unwanted part of society. The problems occurred during their dilemmatic choices between normal family, children, work, social paradigm, and love. The loyalty to partner is one of the key points of the story. At the end of the works, this faithful is depicted in different ways. Ennes’ faithfulness to Jack is seen through his longing for Jack by having emotional dreams with him.
The movie, however, has different way of defining faithfulness by letting Ennes move on from his past (indicated with his agreement to attend his daughter’s marriage) without forgetting his deep affection and story with Jack (reflected when he is crying, saying ‘I swear’ in front of their united shirts).
Published in different time, these works still bring the same issue of homosexual’s human side. One of the social issues brought in these works is the killing of revealed homosexual. This kind of problem remained in the time between the short story published and the film released. Moreover, this case is still unfixed in today’s American life by only 10 out of 50 states in America legalizing same sex marriage. The dilemmatic condition of these queer is always portrayed without clear solution for their civic right’s fulfillment.
In the short story, this condition is represented through Ennes’ way of keeping his feeling muted, as it is stated in the last sentence of the story, “if you can’t fix it you’ve got to stand it”.
Showing posts with label film and literature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film and literature. Show all posts
April 9, 2013
European Colonialism to American Military Invasion
Novella to Film Analysis: Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now is known as the most famous adaptation of the novel Heart of Darkness. As an adaptation art work, the movie changed the novel in some way. However, the soul of ‘darkness’ remains both in the novel and movie.
The strongest similarity between the novel and the movie is the plot structure. In a straight and open plot, both works are started with a mission to accomplish through a hairy journey of the main character to find the so-called ‘evil’ character. The journey physically ended when the main character (as well as the narrator) met the so-called ‘evil’ character, but at the same time continued in a more psychological way –in which the character had to deal more with his inner thought and standard of morality. Both of the works got the climax when the so-called ‘evil’ character died, and the story ended with the way go home of the narrator. The novel and the movie gives a free space for the reader and viewer to interpret whether there is finally a ideological change inside the main character; thus I conclude them both as an open plot.
As an adaptation, Apocalypse Now has a quite big difference in the way the director change the setting from Congo, Africa (in the Heart of Darkness) to Vietnam and Cambodia. In term of time setting, both of the movies got the tense of ‘conflict area’ in the era of European explorer’s colonialism (Heart of Darkness) and American military invasion during the height of Vietnam War (Apocalypse Now).
Depicting the gloomy atmosphere, the novel uses words of the narrator (Marlow) while the movie employs the setting of atmosphere through cinematographic technology such as lighting, camera angel, sound effect, and framing. Using this high technology, I feel the ‘darkness’ in the movie more easily. The harsh of European colonialism –portraying by the savage to native African– is adapted in a different sense of seeing how cruel war is during the suffering of civil Vietnamese.
Basically, both the novel and the movie have the same character composition: Marlow and Willard against Kurtz. However, these characters are developed in a different characterization. As an assigned worker to find Kurtz, Marlow and Willard employed the same psychological denial to fulfill their mission during the journey. Facing the fact that materialism leads the company to treat native America as non-human workers trigger Marlow to jump to Kurtz’s side. This inner conflict also happened as Willard witnessing how war fails to get the righteous people. However, Willard seems to have more stable (or in any case, unclear) stance of this, since he was able to assassinate Kurtz himself after his lecturing of the psychology of war and the idea of morality.
The character of Kurtz –both in the novel and movie– is described as a brilliant (even genius) designed to get high position before his unsound way is considered as a threat to the ‘institution’ he comes from. His power to establish own ‘government’ with native tribe worshiping him as a high spiritual figure is seen as mental illness to curry or even, terminate. The ‘Novel’ Kurtz seems did nothing but sharing his ideas to Marlow before his dead, while the ‘Movie’ Kurtz got the chance to show his ‘power’ by imprisoning Willard and killing one of Willard’s crews. Following the different behavior, this character is also physically built in different way. The genius ivory agent is described as a lifeless thin of illness man; while the genius colonel appears as a huge man with military-well built body.
Using the first person point of view, both of the works tell the story through the eyes of Marlow and Willard. However, the different development of these characters of the narrator for me, somehow, impact to the atmosphere of the story. As the narrator, Marlow tends to be more active than Willard. He is actively share his thoughts and perspectives of what he sees and feels of every moment during the journey. On the other hand, Willard performs as a more passive character who functions as the ‘silent camera’ during the movie. The major actions done by him are only the killing of woman survivor in the civil small ship and the killing of Kurtz.
As the reader, I felt –as if I am– led by the author to judge ‘the others’ (concerning racism issue) the same way as it is narrated by Marlow. The journey he experienced is told in a story of his thoughts, leaving less space for the reader to have their own judgment. However, through the eyes of Willard as a ‘silent camera’, I got more space to take my own perspective toward certain issues and the existence and the ‘civilization degree’ of ‘the others’.
The major similarity of the works is the theme, even though they both are served in a different taste. Shifting European Colonialism into American Military Invasion, Apocalypse Now does not diminish the issues of White superiority. Critiques of the idea of civilization (native African and Vietnamese are less civilized than European or American), ‘foreign’ superiority (to enslave African is justifiable as well as to take military invasion during Vietnam War), prejudice mentality and standard of morality (Marlow and Willard are forced to take Kurtz based on the owner of authority’s prejudice), and notion of insanity (they who refuse any cooperation with the ‘righteous’ people and extend their life with ‘uncivilized’ society will turn to be insane) are expressed in this two art works.
Carrying these values, there is no way to deny these two works as the critique of so-called White supremacy.
Apocalypse Now is known as the most famous adaptation of the novel Heart of Darkness. As an adaptation art work, the movie changed the novel in some way. However, the soul of ‘darkness’ remains both in the novel and movie.
The strongest similarity between the novel and the movie is the plot structure. In a straight and open plot, both works are started with a mission to accomplish through a hairy journey of the main character to find the so-called ‘evil’ character. The journey physically ended when the main character (as well as the narrator) met the so-called ‘evil’ character, but at the same time continued in a more psychological way –in which the character had to deal more with his inner thought and standard of morality. Both of the works got the climax when the so-called ‘evil’ character died, and the story ended with the way go home of the narrator. The novel and the movie gives a free space for the reader and viewer to interpret whether there is finally a ideological change inside the main character; thus I conclude them both as an open plot.
As an adaptation, Apocalypse Now has a quite big difference in the way the director change the setting from Congo, Africa (in the Heart of Darkness) to Vietnam and Cambodia. In term of time setting, both of the movies got the tense of ‘conflict area’ in the era of European explorer’s colonialism (Heart of Darkness) and American military invasion during the height of Vietnam War (Apocalypse Now).
Depicting the gloomy atmosphere, the novel uses words of the narrator (Marlow) while the movie employs the setting of atmosphere through cinematographic technology such as lighting, camera angel, sound effect, and framing. Using this high technology, I feel the ‘darkness’ in the movie more easily. The harsh of European colonialism –portraying by the savage to native African– is adapted in a different sense of seeing how cruel war is during the suffering of civil Vietnamese.
Basically, both the novel and the movie have the same character composition: Marlow and Willard against Kurtz. However, these characters are developed in a different characterization. As an assigned worker to find Kurtz, Marlow and Willard employed the same psychological denial to fulfill their mission during the journey. Facing the fact that materialism leads the company to treat native America as non-human workers trigger Marlow to jump to Kurtz’s side. This inner conflict also happened as Willard witnessing how war fails to get the righteous people. However, Willard seems to have more stable (or in any case, unclear) stance of this, since he was able to assassinate Kurtz himself after his lecturing of the psychology of war and the idea of morality.
The character of Kurtz –both in the novel and movie– is described as a brilliant (even genius) designed to get high position before his unsound way is considered as a threat to the ‘institution’ he comes from. His power to establish own ‘government’ with native tribe worshiping him as a high spiritual figure is seen as mental illness to curry or even, terminate. The ‘Novel’ Kurtz seems did nothing but sharing his ideas to Marlow before his dead, while the ‘Movie’ Kurtz got the chance to show his ‘power’ by imprisoning Willard and killing one of Willard’s crews. Following the different behavior, this character is also physically built in different way. The genius ivory agent is described as a lifeless thin of illness man; while the genius colonel appears as a huge man with military-well built body.
Using the first person point of view, both of the works tell the story through the eyes of Marlow and Willard. However, the different development of these characters of the narrator for me, somehow, impact to the atmosphere of the story. As the narrator, Marlow tends to be more active than Willard. He is actively share his thoughts and perspectives of what he sees and feels of every moment during the journey. On the other hand, Willard performs as a more passive character who functions as the ‘silent camera’ during the movie. The major actions done by him are only the killing of woman survivor in the civil small ship and the killing of Kurtz.
As the reader, I felt –as if I am– led by the author to judge ‘the others’ (concerning racism issue) the same way as it is narrated by Marlow. The journey he experienced is told in a story of his thoughts, leaving less space for the reader to have their own judgment. However, through the eyes of Willard as a ‘silent camera’, I got more space to take my own perspective toward certain issues and the existence and the ‘civilization degree’ of ‘the others’.
The major similarity of the works is the theme, even though they both are served in a different taste. Shifting European Colonialism into American Military Invasion, Apocalypse Now does not diminish the issues of White superiority. Critiques of the idea of civilization (native African and Vietnamese are less civilized than European or American), ‘foreign’ superiority (to enslave African is justifiable as well as to take military invasion during Vietnam War), prejudice mentality and standard of morality (Marlow and Willard are forced to take Kurtz based on the owner of authority’s prejudice), and notion of insanity (they who refuse any cooperation with the ‘righteous’ people and extend their life with ‘uncivilized’ society will turn to be insane) are expressed in this two art works.
Carrying these values, there is no way to deny these two works as the critique of so-called White supremacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)