One of the film’s problems stems from the spareness of the story, and the way this has been faithfully carried over to the screenplay and direction. It’s difficult to portray the inner lives of people who don’t talk — or think — very much, especially when you’re trying to “skirt melodramatic pitfalls”. As Ms. Proulx said, Ennis would have problems with this film. But so would Joseph L. Mankiewicz, though for dramatic reasons — his characters fully reveal every inner feeling in dialog, which is far more “unnatural” than Ennis’s laconicness.

But when you complain that we don’t “undestand” why Ennis and Jack are so attracted to each other, you are demanding something of same-sex relationships you don’t demand of opposite-sex relationships. Do we question why Scarlett & Rhett, or Rick & Elsa, find each other interesting? Of course not. Homoerotic attraction is common among nominally heterosexual males, and the probability of two young men who are near the edge “falling over” is not implausible. (The film suggests that Jack is from the start (possibly unconsciously) attracted to Ennis; the short story does not.)

Creating a plausible back story to “explain” this attraction (other than to portray Ennis and Jack as lonely and “damaged”, a common-enough human condition) would only submerge the drama in cheap psychology and make it pretentiously implausible. The short story does this for Jack, in a scene that was (fortunately) removed from the film.

Contrast Psycho with Peeping Tom. The former gives a simple explanation for Norman’s behavior and leaves it until the last moments of the film (where its cold rationality makes Norman’s last scene all the more creepy), while the latter develops a horribly complex — and wholly unbelievable — scenario for the development of Mark’s pathology that renders the film ludicrous. As many Powell/Pressberger films, it’s remarkably bad, and I wonder why it has received so much praise.

But the film of Brokeback Mountain is missing a scene that’s begun in the short story, but not completed. This scene would correct (or at least bandage over) most of the problems you’ve elucidated. To wit…

The film tends to show Ennis and Jack’s relationship in a state of slow decline after their four-year reunion. McMurtry, Osanna, and Lee seem to feel that, as we’ve already seen them huggin’ an’ kissin’ an’ humpin, there’s no need to show it again (the humpin’, in particular). But if, before the Big Confrontation, we’d seen them spending that last weekend together, being affectionate with each other, horsing around, and — yes — having sex — there would be no question about how they really feel about each other. What follows would then be all the more pathetic (as in truly sad).

In exploring subject matter funadamentally alien to most people, Brokeback Mountain necessarily runs the risk of looking artifice-ial, “manufactured”, or hyperbolic. The average viewer has to transpose the material into experiences he’s familiar with — and it doesn’t quite fit. But, of course, it doesn’t have to.

I don’t much care for the DVD (original or “collector’s” edition). It’s too bright and clean. The dark, dingy look of many interior scenes has been lost.

Thanks for your time.

PS: Mercedes McCambridge playing Lureen is rich. When will we have a DVD of Johnny Guitar? (By the way, if you’ve never seen Calamity Jane, do so. The crypto-lesbian subtext is startling.)