There’s also The Last Temptation of Christ. Well, the protagonist does die. But he gets better, I hear.
Very much TLDR: I maintain (and restate) what I have said all along - complete with relevant text and expository comment on it.
Paragraph 1) Thank-you, that is exactly what I am saying.
Paragraph 2) This is the major point of contention. Peyton’s neck has NOT been broken when the fantasy occurs. Please bear with me.
[/]Occurrence…* is written in the 3rd person with a narrator that we are given no reason to consider unreliable and the, story itself, is broken into three parts.
The first deals with the immediate setting (the bridge, the condemned, the soldiers etc.) At the end of the first part we are told the following,
“He unclosed his eyes and saw again the water below him. “If I could free my hands,” he thought, "I might throw off the noose and spring into the stream. By diving I could evade the bullets and, swimming vigorously, reach the bank, take to the woods and get away home. My home, thank God, is as yet outside their lines; my wife and little ones are still beyond the invader’s farthest advance.”
So here we have him clearly imagining an escape scenario. One which mirrors the coming “events” exactly. He is standing on the plank awaiting the drop. This is foreshadowing.
“As these thoughts, which have here to be set down in words, were flashed into the doomed man’s brain rather than evolved from it the captain nodded to the sergeant. The sergeant stepped aside.”
He is now actively falling. End of part 1.
Part two deals with the background - what led up to Peyton being in such a situation.
Part three is the conclusion wherein he “visualizes” his fantasy’s fulfillment as he falls.
He feels the rope STRANGLING him. He brings his hands up, feels his throat and the rope snaps. He hits the water and sinks and ruminates on the absurdity of being hanged at the bottom of a river.
What follows is a lengthier and more detailed description of exactly (save for "[diving] into the stream) what he fantasised while standing on the plank.
At the end of part three (and thus the story) we read,
"Ah, how beautiful she is! He springs forwards with extended arms.** As he is **about to clasp her he feels a stunning blow upon the back of the neck; a blinding white light blazes all about him with a sound like the shock of a cannon—then all is darkness and silence!
Peyton Farquhar was dead; his body, with a broken neck, swung gently from side to side beneath the timbers of the Owl Creek bridge."
Just as his fantasy reached its happy ending he feels a “blow to the back of his neck…with a sound like cannon shot.” I don’t see how this can be taken as anything but him reaching the end of the rope.
The blow to the back of his neck is the force of his body’s inertia acting against the now taut rope, the principle behind a long drop hanging. The “sound like cannon shot” is either the sound of the rope running out of slack or, more likely, the sound of his neck breaking.
Notice that the fantasy is ended by the blow and the sound. His imaginings are interrupted by his neck being broken. The story ends immediately AFTER the blow and the cannon shot.
“Peyton Farquhar was dead; his body, with a broken neck, swung gently from side to side beneath the timbers of the Owl Creek bridge.”
Given the text I don’t see how one can believe that the fantasy occurs AFTER his neck is broken. If it did, then the breaking of his neck would not and could not interrupt the fantasy - in fact it would mark the beginning of it.
Point 1) Then please read what I’ve written. I think I’ve been fairly clear in laying out my reasoning and have done so again in this post.
Point 2) Please do not tell me what I clearly think and or feel. I believe that An Occurrence… is a masterwork of short fiction and I have not said a single word that can be shown in contradiction to that.
Further, I don’t think that Jacob’s Ladder is either inferior nor superior to Owl Creek… I do believe that they are fundamentally different in tone, purpose, narrative, plot and medium.
Point 3) That is not my reasoning at all - as I have been at pains to point out. Do you read any posts other than your own?
Point 4) Comparing works is a very rewarding and valuable exercise that in no way implies the inferiority or superiority of either work. Nor does saying that a comparison doesn’t hold imply up a value judgement on the quality of one or the other.
The cite you gave from the screenwriter clearly says that what he was influenced by was the FRENCH SHORT FILM (Bierce was neither French, nor did he work in film) from 1960 (Bierce was AWOL long before then.) He does NOT say that the story itself was an inspiration - like he did with The Book of the Dead and the Biblical Story.
Is it possible that the influence he mentions is in terms of film making technique and story-telling within film?
And for the last time I do NOT deny that there is any influence - I merely assert that to refer to Jacob’s Ladder as a direct retelling does not hold up. I’ve given examples in another post of comparisons that DO hold up.
I’m sure that Appetite For Destruction was influenced by Kill 'Em All but that does not mean that the two are not completely different animals - save for the fact that they are both “metal.”
Zeke
Zeke, you seem very rageful and confused. I don’t say this to be snarky, but as a sincere piece of advice: you might find the BBQ Pit subsection of the SDMB to be to your liking. That said, I’m always happy to reply to any substantive points on the topic of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and/or Jacob’s Ladder, as I find those works to be of great interest.
Who, in this thread, has referred to Jacob’s Ladder as a direct retelling?
I’m genuinely curious. (Please quote where the person says that, or anything equivalent.)
Sounds like quite a reach (your theory that the story itself wasn’t the influence, but instead, only the–what, cinematography techniques??)
And why the all-caps of “French short film” and the denial that Bierce was French? Who has been asserting that Bierce was French?
Anyway, I’m still scratching my head as to why you’re bothered that the screenwriter said he was influenced by Owl Creek Bridge.
You can save the psychoanalysis and the advice hoss.
I did, in the 3rd sentence of the OP - try reading it.
As to it being a reach - read your own cite. He outright says it was the short film.
As to the caps it is because you seem unable to understand that there is a difference between a French film from the 1960’s and an American story from the 1890’s. I was trying to emphasize that they are not the same. Again, check your site and read for comprehension - not bias.
Not bothered that he said he was influenced. Read the OP a little more closely.
I’ve made my assertions, I’ve laid out my case, I have rebutted what you have said with, if not grace, then at least, near saintly patience and provided evidence based on text with an explanation of why I think the way I do.
Now, if you have anything substantive to add other than your - demonstrably wrong - interpretation of what I think and feel then please feel free to offer it up.
As far as the pit goes - if you feel like going there, go nuts. I’ll be happy to join you. That was not, and is not, my intent - but it would be churlish to decline such a gracious offer 
Zeke
All this vitriol, and you are arguing only against yourself?
It wasn’t my cite.
What are you talking about?
Okay, I take back that last question (curious about it as I am), because this has devolved into poking a broken bird with a stick, and I’m not going to continue—much as I dislike ignoring posts that address me directly. (And much as I dislike giving up a chance to talk about works that fascinate me.) The discourtesy of ignoring such posts has to be outweighed by considerations of human decency.
Whatever it takes brother 