Talk:Brokeback Mountain

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Brokeback Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070705193352/http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18712 to http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18712
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060614025900/http://www.drudgereport.com:80/flash3bm.htm to http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3bm.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060616103237/http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com:80/news/reuters/20060306/765.html to http://oscars.movies.yahoo.com/news/reuters/20060306/765.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Blockquote removed
I've removed a blockquote from sex educator Amy Andre as non-RS. The quote purportedly is from American Sexuality Magazine, which no longer exists and does not appear to have left an archive online, and there's nothing about her or this article at CREGS, which absorbed the National Sexuality Research Center, which published the magazine. The cached link did not mention the magazine, and said solely that it was published by the NSRC, the successor organization of which has no record of it or her. She's just a blogger with no WIkipedia article about her, and by definition, that is non-RS. Surely, with all that's been written about the movie, some notable author / educator has written something thoughtful about it. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brokeback Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061024021948/http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/partisan_dems/feminization_has_taken_democratic_party_backward.guest.html to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/partisan_dems/feminization_has_taken_democratic_party_backward.guest.html
 * Added tag to http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=11644132

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan opines that I added unnecessary detail
And while I understand that Ennis taking his time to smell two shirts deserves a whole sentence in a plot summary for this particular film, I don't think it is appropriate to impose a synopsis policy wherein extremely detailed plot descriptions such as the aforementioned one have to coexist with extremely vague and superficial ones that offer next to no explanation on I wrote what I thought was an approximation to the above points without engaging in speculation or original research (btw Ennis does visualize a homophobic murder because he'd already seen the aftermath of one as a kid, I'm surprised this has to be explained further). So I'd like to know why a word count slightly larger than 700 has warranted a wholesale reversion. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * why Jack and Ennis end up sharing a tent in the first place,
 * why Jack found it so easy to distance himself from his wife and her family,
 * and why Lureen's explanation of Jack's death was mechanical and nonchalant enough to justify the possibility of what Ennis imagines instead.
 * Another user reverted homophobic murder, so I was not alone in that. We hear Ennis tell a story about his childhood memory and later see an unrelated montage in which he envisions Jack being murdered violently without context. While I share your view that the two points are related, the possible homophobic aspect of Ennis's imagination of Jack's death remains a subjective interpretation. Jack and Ennis share a tent because they work on the mountain together. Whoever does whatever makes no difference in how they end up in the tent. The plot does not highlight Jack distancing himself. Lureen's parents almost have nothing to do with Jack's arc with Ennis. Lureen's manner of relaying Jack's death being a factor in whether our interpretation of Ennis's suspicion could be true is once again more POV than plot-related. KyleJoan talk 12:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that another user reverted homophobic murder does not make it right. If Ennis envisioned Jack's death as an output of anything other than homophobia then it would have not made sense to materialize his thoughts onscreen because they're not relevant to the plot -- as opposed to the fight Ennis himself picks with a stranger which does make sense, because Ennis does have a history, shown onscreen, of venting his frustrations violently. The rules of economy dictate that if Ennis does not believe Lureen's story and imagines a violent death, it will connect directly to his own childhood memory. This should be obvious to anyone who understood the film and has an inkling of visual syntax. Like I said, I'm surprised this needs an explanation.
 * Jack and Ennis share a tent because they have to that particular night, but Aguirre's arrangement made it theoretically possible for them not to spend one single night in the same tent during the entire summer, and the fact they do share said tent is thus exceptional (and could have even been subconsciously orchestrated by one or both men, although that is speculative). Hence the explanation which made the plot synopsis more complete.
 * The plot not only highlights Jack distancing himself due to her parents, but even shows the only instance where he loses his temper at someone (other than Ennis) face to face. It also fuels his wish to move in with Ennis even further.
 * Calling Lureen's delivery "perfunctory" is short, precise, faithful and aseptic enough to warrant an inclusion in the text without going further into why it is perfunctory. I find it more speculative to assume Jack is "implied to" have an affair with Randall Malone (an affair I agree does happen, but is not shown in camera) than to define Lureen's tone for what it is.
 * All in all your arguments seem to be weak and mostly formed by opinions passing as logical conclusions. I'd like to see a bit more substance and structure to your argumentative strategy before taking this to the WikiProject Film forum which I guess I'll eventually do. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Too long; didn't read. Feel free to take this to WikiProject Film now if you'd like. KyleJoan talk 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you didn't. Will do. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

When I look at the differences between what I believe to be the two most recent versions that you both preferred, I'm left feeling that the shorter version is generally better than the longer one. I don't think it's necessary to spell things out to the reader to the degree the longer summary does. For instance, readers don't need to know what the designated sleeping arrangements are (especially that they switch who's going up to the mountain), nor is Jack's relationship with Lureen's father especially pertinent (BTW 'stepfather' should be 'father-in-law' in any case).

It's not explicitly clear that Ennis imagines Jack being murdered due to homophobia (though it's likely); I also wonder whether we really need to spell that out in any case given the context. I don't really mind if Lureen's description of events is described as perfunctory, though I wonder whether that's making implications that we shouldn't be making (i.e. there could be various reasons why Lureen's delivery is perfunctory...among them, that she's traumatized by his passing).

Hope this is helpful. DonIago (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DonIago, the sleeping arrangements are relevant because they end up sleeping in the same tent, and they had no need to. This is more important than might seem at first. Aguirre had made it very clear that one of them was supposed to sleep in the mountain and the other one in the camp grounds. Whether this was a result of Aguirre's pragmatism in optimizing the efforts of the two herders to ward off predators, or rather pragmatism mixed with the empirical knowledge that two men sleeping together for months are likely to end up in situations such as the one shown in the film, is something that can only be speculated on. But the truth is that sleeping together in the tent was an anomaly, per the instructions given to them, and had two unexpected consequences: the sexual relationship between the two men, and the death of a sheep.
 * Indeed I meant father-in-law (a consequence of hasty writing and English being my third language).
 * That his father-in-law treated him practically like a farm hand and disapproved of the marriage is important because it feeds that grey zone prevalent in the film where secondary characters seem to glean the two men's repressed sexuality and react adversely towards them. In the case of his father-in-law, it also gives Twist an additional reason to want to end his sham marriage.
 * Nothing is explicitly clear, but if Ennis had imagined something so specific (Twist being ambushed in a field and beaten to death with something resembling a tire iron, exactly like the murder whose aftermath he was shown as a child) the only logical explanation is that he imagines it to be homophobic just like the one in his childhood memory. There is nothing in Jack's onscreen life to suggest he might find himself at the receiving end of such treatment, other than his repressed sexuality, and that is the only reason there can be for the inclusion of that scene. I need to insist this shouldn't even be controversial. I'm actually quite surprised that anyone argues against this.
 * Also User:KyleJoan has not successfully addressed the lack of weight balance in this text. Scenes near the end that are emotional but very short seem to deserve several sentences, whereas the entire first 1/4 of the film (which is equally important, albeit in a more understated way) is dispatched in a sentence or two. I consider this to be shoddy writing. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't write plot summaries based on our interpretation of what the only reason ... for the inclusion of that scene is. We simply write what transpires. You never mentioned lack of weight balance, so it's news to me that this is suddenly an issue. Regarding shoddy writing, you can take that up with the GA nominator and reviewer that ensured this article met the GA criteria. I'm sure they'll appreciate the compliment. KyleJoan talk 18:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For the time being I've taken it to where I had originally intended to take it, so more eyes are going to read this and that's all I ask. Glad to know my arguments are no longer Too long; didn't read but I don't really think there is a sound reason why I should address you directly any further, I said everything I had to say to you. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking the time to elucidate your concerns, but for myself, I don't find them a persuasive argument for expanding the summary to the degree that your previous edits did. Other editors may disagree, and you're welcome to ask for additional opinions at WT:FILM or by following other dispute resolution options if you'd like. My opinion isn't the end of the story. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody's opinion is the end of the story. I've taken it to WT:FILM and the more users are attracted to this discussion, the easier it will be to know where the center of gravity lies. Thanks for your input anyway! AnyDosMilVint (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)