[dissention]

Originally Posted by sparky

Ultimately, I think the function of the character was solely to show what Jack's marriage was about - a mostly lifeless, stifling, and castrating marriage of convenience.

I think that could have been achieved without displaying her as nothing but a cartoon character. She didn't even seem human; she was a caricature, a cliched parody of loudmouthed women.

Originally Posted by sparky

Well, he was subtle with the sex anyway. I have to agree with Romy about the use of the landscapes. I knew you would find it tiresome, but let's face it, most people are stupid and need a 2x4 in the head with the symbolism. A good part of the movie going audience doesn't know the definition of the word symbolism, so some artists go way overboard with it to make sure it sinks in under the radar.

Lee certainly falls into that category. It was so predictable and lacking such imagination that at times I wondered why he bothered. He doesn't strike me as a dummy filmmaker, so I don't understand the need to hit you over the head with symbolism that is as obvious as the sun above our heads.

Originally Posted by sparky

I thought the tent scene and the reunion scene were pretty sexy. I knew that Lee was going to be subtle - he is not the kind of film maker who shows a lot of sex. Like so much of the tone of the film, that is completely in line with the story. I could have done with more physical intimacy between them. Not that they needed it to sell their passion. They did that in spades.

That is a funny image. I know what that tent smelled like. Add the musty moldy tinges of being stored in the shed for months to that little melange you described and you about have it. Mmm. Happy Sparky.

Maybe Proulx's story spoiled me a bit and I shouldn't have expected the movie version to faithfully recreate their sexual encounters, but they just lacked realism. She writes it as reeking of cum, sweat, and smoke, he films it in a way that completely ignores anything of that nature. It was too prettied up. Lee was too concerned with staying within the boundaries of what he considers to be tasteful and that took away from certain aspects of the story for me.

Originally Posted by sparky

I ? am thrilled you enjoyed it.

I really did. What we're discussing are really only minor quibbles that I have with it and Ang Lee, I honestly thought it was a fantastic movie. You certainly nailed it when you expressed how great it was. I can't tell you how good I thought Heath Ledger was.

Originally Posted by sparky

Tried to see it again last night. I bought tix Thurs night. By the time we got done with dinner it was 10 minutes before showtime. It was sold out, the only two seats together were in the front row. After two hours, I would have been Brokeneck Sparky, so we bailed. Came home, built a huge fire, had a shot of tequila. If Mr. Lee would have had a spy cam, he would have showed been shown what for.

If only Lee had you to consult, it would have been an even more amazing movie.

I ordered our tix online because I knew the Cambridge queers were going to storm the theater for every seat available. And they did.