We watched two films this weekend, Half Nelson and Brokeback Mountain. Some of the themes and conventions were similar--two main characters in an unorthodox relationship that exists outside of established communities, a sense of isolation, questions of choices and addiction, family influences on patterns of thought and behavior, etc. However, Half Nelson was a much better film than Brokeback Mountain, I thought. Most notably, character development was stronger.
I was disappointed because I really wanted Brokeback Mountain to be a better film. I wanted to see a nuanced film about the category-defying relationships that can develop between people, but the relationship between Jack and Ennis was never believable to me and therefore I didn't follow them in their longing to be together. Maybe it was a result of trying to turn a short story into a two-hour film. In addition, there seemed to be a lack of attention to detail and costuming/makeup/casting choices that would have been more appropriate on stage than on screen.
When talking with friends after watching Half Nelson, the question of the title's meaning came up. The sense I make of the title has to do with controlling and being controlled. When I think about the wrestling move (to which I assume the title is referring), one can either submit to it and be overcome or fight against it and transform it into an advantage, which relates to the dialectics model Dan Dunne was using to teach history, but also to the contradictory lesson his student was teaching him about making the decision to take control of and responsibility for your choices. I think those themes also relate very much to the theme of race that emerged very subtly--and Dan's inability to figure out where to go with the "tension of opposites" as well as accept the lesson of personal responsibility is what made him unable to teach the civil rights unit.
