Author Topic: Which story was true? -- by sasya (Read 6532 times)

TOoP/Bruce · « **on:** July 16, 2007, 03:42:10 pm »

Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Jul 25 2006 06:24:51 )

UPDATED Fri Sep 29 2006 03:22:41
Was Jack killed for being gay, or did he die in an accident?
I find Jack's unresolved death so interesting, because how you interpret it will give you two very different over-all understandings of the film: On one hand, has Ennis more or less groundlessly destroyed their chance of happiness due to his upbringing and the homophobia it has instilled in him and that we see many examples of? Or, on the other hand, was their love doomed like Romeo and Juliet's by social and external factors and Jack was being a fool when he thought they could have had a good life?

Or phrased differently: Is this a movie about one man's damaged psyche bringing everyone around him down - i.e. is it a psychological tragedy (Ennis is paranoid and Jack died accidentally)? Or is the film a social commentary about a time and place where some people were despised and hunted, the lovers being kept apart by their society's rules - i.e. is it a classic tragedy (Jack's an overoptimistic fool, and died because of it)?

I actually think it's a little bit of each, and that's why I'm not 100% convinced either way.

Here are the clues I can find (now edited with some clues found by others - thanks to all who participated in the thread):

Pro accident
* We only get the other theory from Ennis' imagination, and we know Ennis has been severely traumatised by a childhood experience to equate (open) homosexuality with violent death.
* The short story says: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months", perhaps indicating that the accident story is true (but maybe it simply means: "Ennis didn't hear about the accident for months", since you can't really say he ever knows about the accident as he truly believes it was a crime).
* A lot of time is spend developing Ennis' homophobia. If this were a modern day Romeo and Juliet, held apart by their society, why not make the love itself less complicated?

Pro hate crime
* The way Lureen tells the pretty incredible accident story - it's like a studied and well rehearsed lie, delivered without feeling. The way she pauses right before saying anything, like recalling how the story went, then telling it completely smoothly. If it had been the real story of her husband's death, surely she would have shown some emotion no matter how estranged they'd become? Ang Lee himself says "I think we get help (to guess what Ennis thinks about Jack's death, ed.) from the wife, Anne Hathaway`s character`s performance, that - that she`s obviously lying about what happened."
* The 'accident' occurs suspiciously soon after Jack starts having relations with a local guy, Randall. That the two have a relationship is in my view clear - first hinted in the dance scene, confirmed at the riverside (though Jack for Ennis' sake makes it out to be the wife), and repeated by Jack's father.
* No doubt gay hate crimes like that did happen in that time and place.
* We don't ever hear of other gay couples and the only reactions to homosexuality we see are negative in the extreme: Alma (can't even put into words what she has seen), Aguirre (the distaste in "stemming the rose"), Ennis' father, the rodeo clown (who goes to badmouth Jack after he hits on him). These indicate that Ennis may be paranoid, but that he's also right: No way two guys can live together in this community.
* In the short story, Ennis doesn't know what to think after the accident story he hears from Lureen - but his fears are confirmed once Jack's father mentions Randall. If the author wanted us to know it was an accident, but show us Ennis blinded by his groundless fear, the mention of Jack's local love interest seems out of place.
* If the real tragedy is Ennis' phobia, then wouldn't it be more poignant to let him know univocally that he had destroyed both their lifes for no real reason?

When I first saw the movie, I was clearly leaning towards hate crime. I thought it would give a deeper poignancy to the tragedy, as Ennis was proved right in his surmise that they in fact could not have had a (long) life together on Jack's dream ranch. Now I'm more puzzled than ever. What do you guys think? Have you thought of any further evidence in support of either theory?

--------------------------------------------
Other reasons presented, and why I won't include them in the final face-down between the two theories:
* It's just too much of a coincident that Jack is killed in exactly the same way as the guy whose death has traumatised Ennis
- It may be no coincidence at all - it may indeed be the fate openly gay men met with sooner or later in that time and place.
* The introduction of Randall doesn't make dramatic sence unless we assume he's the reason for Jack's demise.
- Randall has another role as well, namely to raise the question of whether Jack found a way to quit Ennis after all just before he died.
* Why do we see the cuts of Jack being beaten to death if that's not the way it went?
- If Jack died in an accident, the tragedy is Ennis' deranged homophobia, and the cut demonstrates his fearful imagination.
* It would have been impossible to cover up a murder
- Why? If we assume that the community is so hostile to homosexuals, it doesn't seem impossible that a murder made out to look like an accident wouldn't be investigated too closely. But it's not impossible that the murder wasn't covered up as such, just kept confidential and low profile for the family's sake.
* Even if Lureen lied we have no way of knowing that Jack was beaten to death - if she told the truth, it was an accident; if she lied, we don't know.
- If Lureen lied about how Jack dies, there is no other conclusion in my eyes than that he was murdered. Lureen needs a reason to lie - if he'd been run over or drowned or whatever, she would just have said that. It needs to be something she'd want to keep secret, and the movie doesn't present any alternative to the gay hate crime (nor does the short story).
* Jack was murdered. Otherwise the story is a trifle, a bauble. Or: Jack died in an accident. The murder scenario is too unsubtle, trite and obvious.
- Please
--------------------------------------------

In the end (EDIT)
For anyone interested, I think I've reached my final position on this matter, and it's this: The story is about homophobia, both internalised and in society. It's not either-or, it's both-and, between the classical and the psychological tragedy.

The reason why Ennis' homophobia gets so much attention is exactly because this isn't Romeo and Juliet - these men have been crippled by homophobia and won't go out in an explosion of full commitment to true love. They punish themselves more than society alone could ever do.

But it's not only about inner demons. We get a full view of the society's utter disgust and disapproval from many side characters. And in the end, I'm convinced that Jack was killed. The one argument I can't seem to overlook is Hathaway's performance that screams out to me that she's lying - when she says "yeah, that", I can just hear her anger towards Jack and the rehearsed story sounds wrong (that Ang Lee has himself stated that she's lying makes this even harder to ignore).

The tragedy of Brokeback Mountain is neither just a psychological one nor a pure classical tragedy. It's a full story of the rural homophobia that's still alive and well today, and it's at work both inside and outside the story's characters.

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:42:57 pm »

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Jul 25 2006 07:08:23 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Jul 25 2006 07:19:18
Otherwise, what would be the point of the intercut scenes?

Certainly Ennis might fear the worst and thus imagine a hate crime where none existed, but why would he automatically doubt Lureen's iniformation? He would likely reason that she would have no reason to lie to him about the event.

I tend to agree with you, but I think the point of the intercut scenes could have been another - namely that Ennis, having spoiled both their lives with his paranoia, continues to let his fear dictate the way he sees the world.

I find Jack's unresolved death so interesting, because how you interpret it will give you two very different over-all understandings of the film: On one hand, has Ennis more or less groundlessly destroyed their chance of happiness due to his upbringing and the homophobia it has instilled in him and that we see many examples of? Or, on the other hand, was their love doomed like Romeo and Juliet's by social and external factors and Jack was being a fool when he thought they could have had a good life?

Or phrased differently: Is this a movie about one man's damaged psyche bringing everyone around him down (Ennis is paranoid and Jack died accidentally)? Or is the film more a social commentary about a time and place where some people were despised and hunted (Jack's an overoptimistic fool, and died because of it)?

I actually think it's a little bit of each, and that's why I'm not 100% convinced either way.

However, I guess I think the most interesting story would have Jack killed and Ennis wondering whether it still hadn't been better to live a shorter life with him than having him part time and facing the rest of his life without him.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monimm18 (Tue Jul 25 2006 11:19:50 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
sasya,

Good points. Although I can definitely see the poignancy of the accident version, I too am a believer of the hate crime version, for several reasons:

1. As you said, Lureen's explanaton of the accident sounded fake and rehearsed.

2. Ang Lee himself said her character was lying about the accident and that she was angry because she had discovered her husband's homosexuality and realized who Ennis was to Jack.

3. Annie Proulx herself said her story is first and foremost a story about rural homophobia and its destructive, violent manifestation. Also, Proulx's literary style is never direct or blunt - definitely not good reading for the "who done it?" readers, or people who like to take things literally. She states things subtly, by suggsting them, using phrases that almost require the reader to read between the lines. Which is why story is indeed ambiguous, although, from a literary perspective, so much higher quality.
Also, I think it's a mistake to use the story in order to explain the film. They are two separate works, even if one led to the other. Ossana, McMurtry and Lee's vision leaned strongly towards the hate crime version, but artistically it was impossible to make it clear in the film without turning it into a plain tearjerker of a tragic love story for the masses.

4. The introduction of Randall as a character makes no sense from a dramatical point of view, unless it has a point in the development of the story. Some people will say it was there to justify John Twist's mentioning of the "ranch neighbor" that leads Ennis to believe in the hate crime version. I find it a bit of a waste to spend so much time and resources for the scene where Jack meets Randall and is being chatted up by him, only to justify John Twist's mention of a "ranch neighbor" to Ennis. The mention of the ranch neighbor needed no material suport in the film, it would have sounded plausible even without Randall's character presented to us. Unless the reason for Randall's existence was more than just to fuel Ennis' imagination: it had to explain to the spectators how Jack came to die from a hate crime.

5. Like I said in other posts, I think the hate crime brings the story/film dramatically and so poignantly full circle: Ennis' fear from deadly retaliation from a homophobic society prevents him from finding happiness with Jack, which drives Jack to the exact horrible consequence Ennis was trying to avoid. The inescapablity, or the irony of Fate, if you want. If we look at it this way the story's structure follows the rules of a classical tragedy. Mundane death from a tire accident doesn't. The thing is, we don't know if the writer and screenwriters had the classical tragedy model in mind or not, but considering the level of their work I am inclined to believe they did.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Tue Jul 25 2006 12:51:10
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monimm18 (Tue Jul 25 2006 16:42:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Jul 25 2006 16:43:27
Not to mention the horrible guilt that Ennis will have to live with the rest of his life in knowing that if he HAD partnered with Jack (ignoring what others thought of him), the attack would lilkely never have happened at all - and he would still be alive.

I agree with Ennis' guilt and remorse, although I don't think the end was avoidable. Homophobic retaliation would have followed them anywhere; Texas, Wyoming, or elsewhere. We're talking rural America in the 60s and 70s, a world that even today is far from welcoming homosexuality with open arms, and where ignoring what others think leads to drastic consequences (Jack's death proves that, no?). Had they built their cow and calf operation, the terrible crime would have happened anyway, maybe even sooner, since they might have been discovered faster; but at least it would not have come after a life of frustrations, sorrow and longing, appart from each other. Which is where I think the bulk of Ennis' sorrow would lay: all the time wasted and all the love denied by trying to avoid the unavoidable. Two lives unlived from fear of dying. That point remains the same even if Jack's death were an accident.

Sometimes I imagine how, hundreds of years from now, future generations are going to look at the XX and XXI centuries and think how backwards we were, with our homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, mysoginism and all the other man made plagues.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:56:40 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Thanks, monimm18, for your input

ad 2. I've heard Ang Lee's comment on the lying refered to many times - but you wouldn't happen to have a link to a transcript of the interview, so I can see it in context? That would be great, haven't been able to dig it up myself. Lureen clearly figures out who Ennis is and is upset about it, but she would be whether Jack had died in an accident or not.

ad 3. No doubt Proulxs style is subtle, and I think there is this ambiguity for a reason. But of course that doesn't mean we can't weigh the evidence and find that the scales tip to one side, nor does the subtlety alone - as far as I can see - favour one interpretation over the other.

ad 4. I think the Randall character serves more than one cause - in the parents' house when hearing that Jack recently replaced Ennis in his dream ranch, we (and Ennis) can't help wondering: Did Jack finally find a way to quit Ennis after their last big fight? The twin shirts then resolves that, which is a big emotional scene in the story. I think that alone would be enough reason to present Randall in person - after all, more than half of the script is extra material to the short story.

ad 5. I agree 100% - the question is really, as I posted before: Is this a movie about one man's damaged psyche making him incapable of living a full life and bringing everyone around him down (Ennis was paranoid and Jack died accidentally)? Or is the film a classic tragedy a la Romeo and Juliet about a time and place where some relations are just impossible (Jack was an overoptimistic fool, and died because of it)?

The short story and the film are seperate works, and they won't necessarily favour the same conclusion. But you must admit that the film is extremely close to the original work (aside from the added material, of course).

What do you think of the last sentence in the short story: "there was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it." Which "open space" do you think is meant?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monimm18 (Wed Jul 26 2006 20:12:49 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 20:20:46
Sassya,

I have heard/read Lee stating the fact that the film takes the murder version twice: one was the Charlie Rose interview whose transcript I have and I have PM'd to you. I had no way of attaching it to the PM so I had to copy, break it in three parts and paste it in three PMs that you should have received by now. It's an interview with both Ang Lee and Heath Ledger and it's quite long, but interesting, so I figured you'd like to read it all. The second time I heard Lee mention the crime version was in an interview I read online, where he talks about Ennis by saying something like "Ennis doesn't realize he had a taste of true love until after Jack's murder." It was a short interview that I didn't save.

As for your question about the last phrase in the story - I saw it as a description of Ennis' worst punishment: he is denied the relief of closure, because in his heart he knows the truth, but closure comes with proof and he would never find any proof (hence the "open space"), so he'll have to work with what he has, try to believe what others told him, and go on.

One interesting thing: all the people I know who saw the film first and read the story afterwards had no doubts that Jack was murdered. Of course, it doesn't prove anything, but, hmmm...

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Thu Jul 27 2006 11:19:10 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Thanks a lot for the pm! Very interesting reading
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:09:47 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Otherwise, what would be the point of the intercut scenes?

I think they did it that way to be faithful to the short story. After Lureen finished telling Ennis what happened, the next line in the story is No, he thought, they got him with the tire iron.

And that is what they show. Lureen tells her story, then we see Ennis reacting, then we see the beating, then we see Ennis again. It is done this way to show this is what Ennis is thinking; it does not indicate what Lureen is thinking. Just like the story, we know what Ennis thinks, but we don't know what Lureen thinks as she talks to Ennis. And Anne acted that scene so brilliantly that it is totally ambiguous. Lureen could be lying to save face, or telling a truth so horrible that the only way to get through it is tell it dispassionate as if she were a reporter.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:52:51 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Certainly Ennis might fear the worst and thus imagine a hate crime where none existed, but why would he automatically doubt Lureen's iniformation?"

i think you just answered your own question.

if you have a certain scenario tattooed on your brain from childhood (especially such a vivid and hateful event orchestrated by your own father), is it so hard to believe that you might 'project' this onto an event you have NO 'factual' information about?

i dont think so.

there will never be any unequivocal 'verdict' on Jack's fate, and that's fine by me.

We live the scene as Ennis is experiencing it - and that 'experience' is totally 'coloured' by his past.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Wed Jul 26 2006 02:00:49 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Otherwise, what would be the point of the intercut scenes?"

simple answer......

to illustrate/underscore the depth of Ennis' paranoia (resulting from childhood trauma)

i have no desire to 'commit' to one interpretation 'over' the other, but i have to say that watching the scene as the product of Ennis' emotional scarring and deep-seated homophobia is, for me, far emotionally involving than watching it in the more 'obvious' way.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by marviscool (Tue Jul 25 2006 06:38:00 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I think it was an accident...for the sheer fact that it was what Ennis feared about the relationship...and its striking similarity to the story he tells of his childhood. Seems like too much of a coincidence.

Messenger of Fear in sight
Dark deception kills the light
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by LauraGigs (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:03:20 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"The way Lureen tells the ... accident story - it's like a studied and well rehearsed lie, delivered without feeling."

Many say that when they have to tell the story of a loved one's death repeatedly, their delivery becomes rote and deadpan because it's the only way they can get through it. (OTOH, I can see why others would hear it as a lie.)

A thoughtful thread on this for a change — refreshing!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:43:23 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
True. And when Ennis describes the death of his parents, it's a fairly unlikely story (one curve in the entire stretch of road and they missed it?) and he doesn't have an emotional breakdown telling the story, yet we don't have a million threads wondering if he was lying or not!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:55:38 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Fair point, but their death was 10 years ago - the acuteness of the pain would likely mellow over a decade. Remember, this is only one out of three pieces of (circumstantial, admittedly) evidence - in addition to the fact that Ennis clearly believes she's not telling the truth.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by marviscool (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:58:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Its not clear that Ennis doesnt believe her...he just imagines what he always feared.

Messenger of Fear in sight
Dark deception kills the light
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by vaporize (Tue Jul 25 2006 10:01:47 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
He imagines what he always feared as being true. Ennis most probably believes Jack was murdered because the circumstances are so real to him.

-------------
You were an island and I passed you by
You were an island to discover
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 16:57:39 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
But even if you do believe that Lureen is lying when she describes Jack's death, what evidence is there that what Ennis imagines is the truth? What Ennis imagined is just that....something he imagined. Even IF Lureen's story is false, that doesnt' automatically mean that the truth is that Jack was beaten to death with a tire iron.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monty clift (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:21:16 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
There is ample evidence in the story's (and the movie's) previous references and relentless foreshadowing. If all that becomes just some empty-headed author's idea of red herrings, then the story's a fatuous bunch of poppycock.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:28:35 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
There is ample evidence of Ennis's fears. There simply is no evidence that Jack was beaten to death. The cut-away is either Ennis flashing on his worst fears (imagination), Lureen flashing on what really happened (in which case there's no evidence that Ennis doesn't believe the story), or it's the omniscient "narrator" showing the audience what really happened (which still doesn't give any evidence that Ennis doubts the story). Since the story pretty much demands that Ennis doubts the story, the cut-away as Ennis's imagination is the only plausible interpretation. But just because he imagined it doesn't mean it happened in reality. Like Ennis, the audience either believes Lureen or not. But even if we don't believe the exploding tire story, there's no evidence as to what "really" happened.

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:44:04 pm »

The Truth
by Jesus-H (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:42:26 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
In the short story he dies by an accident. The story says: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months until his postcard to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED." So it says accident right there and that is no mistake.

Here is how it happened: In the short story he dies by an accident when he is out on a service call for pumping up a flat tire and it tire explodes and the tire rim smashes his face and knocks him unconscious. When people arrive later he had drowned in his own blood. No one there to turn him over like Ennis turned Alma over in the scene just before Jack is riding the bull at the rodeo and the announcer yells "Let 'er rip and snort!" even though the bull is a "'im" no t a "'er" and Jack likes riding "'ims" better!

In the SCREENPLAY, Ennis was confused about what happened. Lureen told him how it was but Ennis thought it might have been like Earl got it when he (Ennis) was a kid.

In the movie, the whole scene was a brilliant concept but Ang Lee had some trouble bringing the concept to the screen with the same affect as it was in the short story. It would have been even more AMAZING (and I am literally not kidding) if the transformation from the segue to the action in that scene had been more smooth. But the way it was it just snaps to your attention. Ang Lee wanted Ennis to be sure it was the guys who got Earl, but not for us (the audience) to know for sure because it could have been the way Lureen said, too, while she was telling Ennis on the telephone where Ennis was imagining when they beat up Jack again for being, well, the way G*d made him. But if you look close at the scene where Ennis is on the phone listening to Lureen, you can tell it is n't Jack getting beat up, anyway.

When he met Jack's dad that's when he realized it had been an accident in the short story but he would never find out in the movie because it was longer than a lot of people wanted already and Ang Lee did n't want to reveal the end of Jack because it is art and art has to make you think. So Ennis does n't know how it was, for sure, so we don't either, so it is ambiguous and lots of people think it is one way or the other and think everybody has to agree with them.

That is after Ennis wrote a card to Jack just like it was in the story to get together for a hunting trip in November where they would have borrowed a cabin and fired their guns all day but did not kill any elk (if you know what I mean). But the card comes back "DECEASED" like it said.

So it was never said in the short story or in the screenplay or in the movie that he was beaten to death, or that that is factually wrong. Annie Proulx, who wrote the original short story that this movie is based on said "It is my feeling that a story is not finished until it is read, and that the reader finishes it through his or her life experience, prejudices, world view and thoughts." So she didn't know either, or didn't want to tell. And now she says she doesn't know, or that is what I read, anyway.

And Ang Lee gave an interview on Charlie Rose's show and said he didn't know how Jack died either but some people think he did say because of his English is not 100% the best (but it is pretty d*rned good) and Charlie Rose interrupted him all the time cause he thinks he is so smart he knows what the guest, which was Ang Lee, is going to say and he doesn't listen too well.

So maybe I do not have faith that any one of the possible conclusions (murder, accident, unknowable (ambiguous), or other more uncommon conclusions) is right or wrong. Maybe I waiver, just like Ennis did in the book and Annie Proulx does, too, according to her interviews. Just like most of us, "there was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it."
Re: The Truth
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:49:14 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Actually, in the story, when Ennis meets Jack's father that's when he becomes more certain that Jack was murdered.

All we know (and all Ennis knows) is what Lureen told him, and what he feared. Either Lureen was telling the truth, or she wasn't. If she was telling the truth, we know how Jack died. If she wasn't telling the truth, that doesn't lead to the foregone conclusion that Jack was murdered, and we really have no way of knowing how Jack died.

Since we have no way of knowing whether or not Lureen was telling the truth, you either believe her or you don't. Like Ennis, we are left to wonder.
Re: The Truth
by Jesus-H (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:55:43 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I will get it right one of these days. That is right, Ennis was more sure it was the tire iron, but some readers were more sure it was an accident in the story than in the movie. And they are two different works of art, so you have to think twice about what happened in each one.

Re: The Truth
by freeskate (Tue Jul 25 2006 18:47:48 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Jack was murdered. It's clear in both the story and the movie.

And we've been over this on dozens of lengthy threads since November 2005. So you're not saying anything new in denying the Holocaust.
Re: The Truth
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 18:50:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Lol. If it were clear, there wouldn't be dozens of threads about it, would there?

Sorry, the ambiguity stands.
Re: The Truth
by Mister_Magoo (Wed Jul 26 2006 02:12:37 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Lol. If it were clear, there wouldn't be dozens of threads about it, would there?

Sorry, the ambiguity stands."

precisely.

why do some people feel 'compelled' to stridently argue that there is only ONE 'answer'? as ddmaul said, if it were so 'clear cut', there wouldnt BE endless threads on this very topic.

interpret/view this issue in the way that is most 'emotionally resonant' for you.

going beyond that to try to 'correct' anyone else on their interpretation reveals some 'issues'.
Re: The Truth
by ailuro (Wed Jul 26 2006 03:01:37 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Which "open space" do you think is meant?

Doubt? Uncertainty?
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 03:16:10 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Ok, but of what - what does he know that is different from what he tries to believe?
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:20:22 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 02:02:57
freeskate, if you think it clear, why not state the reasons? That will convince us all a lot better

Lots of threads may have gone by and been deleted on this topic, but I couldn't find any on the first 10 pages when I posted this just after seeing the movie for the first time. So if you have any good points from old threads or can link to them, that could be helpful!
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 02:01:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 02:09:10
ddmaul, if Lureen lied about how Jack dies, there is no other conclusion in my eyes than that he was murdered. Lureen needs a reason to lie - if he'd been run over or drowned or whatever, she would just have said that. It needs to be something she'd want to keep secret, and the movie doesn't present any alternative to the gay hate crime (nor does the short story).
Re: The Truth
by ddmaul (Fri Jul 28 2006 17:43:24 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
IF Lureen lied. But we still don't know if she lied or not. And maybe Jack committed suicide, and she wanted to keep that quiet. Or maybe her father caught him stealing from the company and killed him in a rage, and she wanted to keep that quiet.

We just don't know.
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:28:41 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 02:11:44
there was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it.
I think that last sentence in the short story gives points to the accident theory - because if the open space is not between: "We could have had a life but I was too afraid, now it's too late, and Jack died in an accident" and "We could never have been together anyway, I was right all along, Jack's death proves it", what open space can she be referring to?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Jul 25 2006 20:27:26 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Their relationship endures for 20 years, never resolved, never faced up to, always haunted by fear and confusion. How different readers take the story is a reflection of their own personal values, attitudes, hang-ups. It is my feeling that a story is not finished until it is read, and that the reader finishes it through his or her life experience, prejudices, world view and thoughts.
...Annie Proulx, quoted from the following interview: http://www.planetjh.com/testa_2005_12_07_proulx.html
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:23:30 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Thank you - for the link, too
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by slone (Wed Jul 26 2006 11:02:58 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
For what it's worth, my understanding was that it was a hate crime and Ennis' remembrance of the murder is a way to make us understand what REALLY happened behind the words that are spoken.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Wed Jul 26 2006 12:19:16 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 15:12:56
But how can Ennis "remember" something he didn't witness? Is he suddenly psychic? If so, why 3 or 4 months after the incident? Clearly this is a projection from Ennis's own psyche; it may be a plausible scenario, but nothing would indicate at all that this is the absolute truth. In the same way, while Lureen's story may seem somewhat implausible, there is nothing absolute to indicate it's a lie. Open space, indeed.

To me, the great tragedy, both for us and for Ennis, is that we never know for sure. Ennis is consumed by the guilt of what might have been.

Yes, this topic has been discussed many times here. This, fortunately, is one of the saner threads (so far) on the topic. One comment from above: Jesus-H misquotes the story. It doesn't say "Ennis didn't know about the accident," it says "Ennis didn't hear." The subtle shift in mood, IMO, allows the possibility that Lureen's story of an [the] accident is not truth.

EDIT: (see below) I was incorrect in my quotation. I guess one should never question Jesus.

Not garnished? Not finished!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by slone (Wed Jul 26 2006 13:39:52 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 13:42:53
But how can Ennis "remember" something he didn't witness? Is he suddenly psychic?

For me, there weren't enough indications, in the movie, that Ennis didn't witness it (but maybe it's made more clear in the book, I can't tell).

So my understanding was that he actually witnessed the thing. His father showed him that so that he understands how bad it is to be an homosexual which is plausible.

And when it comes to interpretation, mine is that's where lies the seed of his latent bisexuality. Instead of making him believe that it was bad to be homosexual, this had him grow pity for the victim, a kind of sympathy for the poor scapegoat, sympathy which grew into empathy ("what if I'm believed to be gay? What if I am gay?"). It stays there, under the level of conscience. Meeting Jack reveals this aspect of his sexuality that grew in him with the identification to the victim.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Jesus-H (Wed Jul 26 2006 15:01:12 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
One comment from above: Jesus-H misquotes the story. It doesn't say "Ennis didn't know about the accident," it says "Ennis didn't hear." The subtle shift in mood, IMO, allows the possibility that Lureen's story of an [the] accident is not truth.

Now just a da*ned minute here. I have it looks like made a mistake in the one post that ddmaul pointed out. But now I have the book which is called "Close Range" in front of me here and on page 277 there after about a three line break, it says

"Ennis didn't know about the accident for months until his post-card to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED."

And then it goes on to tell about how he called Lureen and all about Lureen's description of the accident.

So it says right there "Ennis didn't know..." So maybe you have a different book or maybe in the New Yorker it was different.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Wed Jul 26 2006 15:11:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I stand corrected. I apologize. Perhaps that makes the writing a little less ambiguous.

Rereading the story just now sent a shiver down my spine.

Not garnished? Not finished!

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:44:19 pm »

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by djo-17 (Wed Jul 26 2006 15:57:18 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
To sasya: I would have to say I'm pro hate crime. Lureen's rather cold, distant account of "the accident" is a key clue. Of course, the way Anne Hathaway played it, still makes you wonder.

Doug O'Connor
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Thu Jul 27 2006 10:15:53 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
> I would have to say I'm pro hate crime.

Now that's something most people won't fess up to.

Not garnished? Not finished!
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 12:11:33 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 13:14:46
Lureen told Ennis that Jack died in an accident, and Ennis immediately imagines a beating, as had happened to the murdered corpse he saw as a child.

The murder/accident question is left ambiguous, based on Lureen's credibility.

Lureen is the only person in the story who might know the truth. Even if she lied to Ennis, that doesn't necessarily prove murder. Lureen herself might not know exactly how Jack died. She, too, might have been lied to about his death.

The story gives us no answers. The ambiguity stands.

(edited for accuracy, thanks sasya, for pointing that out!)

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Thu Jul 27 2006 12:19:01 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
You may be right about the accident, but Ennis doesn't have a flashback - he imagines Jack's murder. Rewatch, if you want - the flashback is earlier and only shows the dead guy, which is what he saw as a kid, not the actual murder.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 12:31:57
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 13:24:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Annie Proulx does not say in the book that it was an accident. Annie Proulx writes "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..." She's telling us what Ennis "knew": that it was an "accident", based only on what Lureen told him.

Later in the story he "knew" it was the tire iron.

For Ennis, as well as the reader, the truth is uncertain.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 13:45:58 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Annie Proulx does not tell us it was an accident.

She tells us what Ennis "knew."

All we know for sure is that we don't know what really happened...

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 14:45:17 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I most certainly can refute "it."

This storyteller does NOT say it was an accident.

The use of the word "accident," the manner in which it is used, and the context in which it is written all contribute to the intended ambiguity. Taking one word out of context to argue a point isn't valid.

If Proulx had wanted us to know for sure it was an accident, she would have written:

"Jack died in an accident," or something similar.

She didn't.

[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 14:58:19
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 17:46:09 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I most certainly can deny "it."

The storyteller does not say: "it was an accident." What she does say is: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..."

Those two phrases have entirely different meanings.

Twisting the words, and taking one of them out of context doesn't prove anything.

I'll repeat.
Proulx does NOT say: "it was an accident."
She DOES say: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..."
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ailuro (Thu Jul 27 2006 19:43:31 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Ennis didn't know about the accident..."

By that passage, AP is letting the reader know what Lureen told Ennis.
Ap is the narrator/vessel by which that bit of info is conveyed.

I G I V E U P

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 20:15:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I'm insulting noone in my posts. Even if one doesn't agree with what I post, there is no need to be defensive and take it as a personal insult. (And, additionally, take a patronizing "tone.")

Proulx is telling us what Ennis knew. What Ennis knew was what he was told by Lureen. Lureen told him it was an accident. And that's all we know, that Lureen told Ennis it was an accident.

Any other "examples" are unnecessary, and don't prove a thing. Proulx's words, taken complete, and in context, say it all.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 22:21:55 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Proulx didn't say "murder" because Lureen told Ennis "accident." When Ennis learned of Jack's death, he was told "accident." As far as Ennis "knew," based on the source he had, Jack died in an accident. And...that is what Proulx tells us: what was told to Ennis.

How do we know Jack died? Ennis received a postcard marked DECEASED and called Lureen. What did Lureen tell Ennis? That Jack died in an accident. Was Lureen lying? We don't know.

(Both ways? That comment makes no sense whatsoever.)

Either way to view Jack's death would be appropriate, based on one's own interpretation. What is not appropriate is presenting one's own opinion as fact.

Murder or accident? Proulx leaves it to the reader to decide for himself.

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Thu Jul 27 2006 22:49:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I'll ask one more time:

why do some people feel 'compelled' to stridently argue that there is only ONE 'answer'? as ddmaul said, if it were so 'clear cut', there wouldnt BE endless threads on this very topic.

what is WITH you people who feel the need to endlessly repeat the 'there is only ONE interpretation and you're just wrong' sentiment? what 'issue' do you have that compels you try to invalidate someone else's take on this?

honestly.

the only thing that's been truly 'established' is that it's ambiguous. Live with it.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 23:05:23
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Thu Jul 27 2006 23:31:17 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Well may I say you have just been equally strident that there is no final answer ie your argument for the ambiguity."

What a horrible 'argument'.

The difference is that I'm pointing out that everyone's interpretation can be valid, while you're obsessed with stomping your foot and saying that your view is the ONLY 'right one'.

and re: Proulx's 'narration'.....it isn't in the film.
period.

All that matters when discussing this film is what ends up onscreen.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Thu Jul 27 2006 23:50:42 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Although the fact that Jack dies in an accident is just that: fact."

Only if you ignore the REAL 'fact' that Proulx's narration does not exist in the film.

And hey, I'll happily retract the 'strident' comment since it isn't 'the' point anyway....

Continue to argue your point, but the bottom line is that there is nothing 'unequivocal' in the film re: Jack's death. Unless you can point to anything in the film that leaves absolutely no question on the matter, you calling the accident version 'fact' is absolutely baseless.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 00:11:04 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Sorry but it doesn't make sense to me that anyone would think the film was any different from the book in its main themes."

Don't be misleading. We're not discussing the main themes. You've reduced your 'unequivocal proof' to ONE phrase, and a phrase that is not in the film. It's as simple as that.

"And I don't 'stomp my foot' I simply state my case persistently."

Hey, imo, continually describing your opinion as "fact" IS 'stomping your foot' - especially considering the fact that there have been multiple threads on the subject, none of which has resulted in any one agreed-upon conclusion.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 00:24:45
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 00:31:38 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"The consensus amongst scholars...."

lol

I'm sure you have links to back this up, yes?

Please, stick to stating your case as your opinion. You just look ridiculous trying to suggest that the "intellectual elite" agrees with you.

"Aside from the fact that the omniscient narrator, Proulx, says it was an accident in the text."

Sorry, but quit referring to that. Have I mentioned that it's not in the film?

If the filmmakers felt that it was VITAL that the viewers come away with one clear conclusion about Jack's fate, they would have done so. They didn't.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 00:51:31
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 01:04:12 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
so, to sum up, there is nothing 'unequivocal' in the film, is there?

(the most 'ironic' thing of all? I myself subscribe to your interpretation)
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 08:25:16 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:15:13
Although the fact that Jack dies in an accident is just that: fact.
meanderingtrevor, unless you have a direct quote of Proulx's from a reputable source, or video of an interview, you have no basis to call your opinion "fact".

Also, please supply sources or documentation to support the following comments you've made:
The consensus amongst scholars

Annie Proulx veiled the truth and confuses us with Ennis's convictions but we are to see through that.
Otherwise, you should note that what you post is your opinion only. Not doing so is misleading to other posters, and does a disservice to Annie Proulx's work. Unless you've talked to Annie Proulx, or have source material to support your comments, you cannot presume to know what she intended.

By the way, does your idea of "consensus" include all the numerous other names under which you've posted this same argument of yours as "fact"?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 13:17:08 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
BTW there is a final answer but you have to look for it. Jack dies in an accident and Proulx cleverly veils it by giving much more pagination to Ennis's imagined fears
Until you can quote Proulx verifying as much, you cannot claim there is a "final answer." All you can claim is that your comments are your own, personal, interpretations (which is something you don't seem to do: you consistently present your arguments as "fact." They aren't.)

If any one of us knew for sure what Annie Proulx meant, we'd not be having all this discussion about it.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 13:26:38
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 13:59:25 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:14:04
Sunsilk[sic]: Until you provide a quote from Ms. Proulx herself, that this is what she intended, your comments are merely opinions, not the definitive "truths" you present them to be ...... If any of us knew for sure what Annie Proulx meant we'd not be having all this discussion about it.
____________________________________________________________________
(I know for sure and that is why I am discussing it . . . )
Well, meanderingtrevor, it appears that maybe you missed the chapter in basic university philosophy concerning the difference between "knowing" and "believing." Ennis also lacked awareness and understanding of that distinction.

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:45:12 pm »

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 14:39:50 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:13:31
Sunset, you often descend from debate to slightly snarky and downright sarcastic insults.

That's only your opinion, meanderingtrevor. If you didn't take opposing arguments so personally, you wouldn't feel that way, and you wouldn't take insult where none existed.

I repeat, I've made no insults, just observations. For someone with your style of arguing, you should have thicker skin.

Round to your way of thinking? Hardly. Now, who's being insulting?

[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 14:46:33
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 15:03:45 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:12:50
I don't see it, because it's not there. What I do see is that when one turns the tables and talks to you the way you talk to others, you take it personally and start criticizing the imagined insult.

YOU need to stop presenting your opinions as fact. That is the entire jist of all my posts in response to those of yours...in every thread where this has been discussed, by you and all your alternate personas.....

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by djo-17 (Thu Jul 27 2006 14:52:41 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
To DSTgar: Of course, maybe I should clarify what I meant. I was referring to the scenario of Jack's death, which I think involves a hate-crime as opposed to the "accident" story which Lureen gives Ennis. Props to Anne Hathaway for nailing her part perfectly!

"Get in touch with his folks. I'm sure they'd appreciate it if his wishes was carried out. About the ashes, I mean."
Doug O'Connor
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Mon Aug 14 2006 01:40:39 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
bump
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 00:51:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 08:54:32
Jack was absolutely killed the way Ennis pictured it. I found an interview with Ang Lee and this is what he said...

AE: Jack's death sequence is amazing, because it's reported by Lureen to Ennis in one way, but in reality he died another way. Do you think that's a reflection of Texas, of the southwest culture telling it that way, or do you think that if they were living in San Francisco or New York the truth would have been told about the way he died, as opposed to making up a story?
AL: I don't know for a fact, but I don't think she wants to talk about it. You can tell from her performanc that she is definitely telling a lie, and she's pissed that she was never in Brokeback Mountain (laughs). The other guy was, and she is bitter that she too missed Brokeback Mountain. I think that, together with his flashback, you can put things together.

"...later."
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 01:09:34
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:04:10 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
hey basicgate...

you do make some valid points. the only thing that "bothers" me is that Ang states Lureen is lying about something. what's that something? what else would she lie about? i can't come up with anything that makes sense. also, the actress that plays Lureen said in an interview herself that "you can tell what's the truth by what Lureen says." in that case, this answered question of ang lee, makes more sense.

i kinda knew that would be your argument. and like i said... it's got valid points. i, however, come to the conclusion that he died at the hands of gay bashers.

ang said "I think that, together with his flashback, you can put things together." again, what else could he have meant. "his flashback" pertains to Ennis's flashback he had while on the phone with Lureen.

if i come up with anything else out there... i'll let you know.

:-)

"...later."
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:18:14 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 09:19:53
"the only thing that "bothers" me is that Ang states Lureen is lying about something. what's that something? what else would she lie about?"

Hmm, so I guess no one has explored the possibility that Jack may have committed suicide? (ddmaul mentioned it, but I don't think anyone commented on it)

Although I don't subscribe to any 'one' conclusion (like many others, I believe that the inherent ambiguity of the issue doesn't allow for any one 'right' conclusion), I think suicide is as plausible as anything else, and would fit with Lureen 'lying' about the accident story she relates.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:28:51 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Why would you think it's possible Jack committed suicide. I don't think it's in his character whatsoever. Tell me what you think.

"...later."
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:43:20 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 09:45:37
"Why would you think it's possible Jack committed suicide. I don't think it's in his character whatsoever."

Well, it was something that came up in some other thread that made the suicide idea seem 'plausible' to me (I think it was in one of the 'did Jack 'quit' Ennis?' threads)

some people who think that Jack DID 'quit' Ennis were expressing that they felt he did it out of love for Ennis (because their situation was causing Ennis such endless pain, etc). One could argue that as long as they're both alive, their 'situation' is going to continue as it has been; and if Jack did indeed want to 'leave Ennis alone' because their relationship was causing him such torment, then I think it's plausible that Jack might have thought of suicide.

One could argue that Jack 'left' Ennis because he loved him so much, but couldn't live without him.

I don't particularly subscribe to this theory, but I certainly think it's plausible.

[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 10:09:47
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 18 2006 10:33:59 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 11:18:04
Neither Ang Lee nor Ann Hathaway have the final say in whether Jack died in an accident or not.
On this, I agree with meanderingtrevor....

I still hold with the ambiguity. I consider Ang Lee's comments to be his own personal leaning, which, fortunately, he didn't inject into the film. For all we know, Ang Lee might be caught in his own uncertainty, and the interview took place on a day when he leaned toward the murder.

Ang Lee has often said his intent was to remain true to the original story. That being the case, Annie Proulx remains the only source that matters. On this board, we have yet to see a direct quote from Proulx on the manner of Jack's death. If anyone has found an interview where she does comment, linking to it here would be much appreciated!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Aug 18 2006 12:00:32 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
My approach to viewing any film is always the same - that it should (and does) stand alone as a piece of art.

Everything we need is in the film. There is no need to consult a 'primary source' or read interviews with the filmmakers to appreciate/understand a film. Why? because if the filmmakers wanted something to be in the film, it would be there. Besides, once a work of art is completed, it's no longer about the maker's 'intentions', it's about what's IN the work itself.

Having said all of that, imo the bottom line remains:

there is NOTHING in the film itself that gives unequivocal 'proof' of any conclusion about Jack's fate. That's it, that's all.

Ang Lee is a wonderful artist - if he'd WANTED Jack's fate to be presented in a clear, unambiguous fashion, he could have easily done that. But he didn't.

Given that, viewers are left to come to their own conclusion(s). If one theory resonates more for one viewer than another, great.

What's the motivation behind trying to discount the essential ambiguity that's in the film? I still don't understand this.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 18 2006 12:36:59 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Everything we need is in the film. There is no need to consult a 'primary source' or read interviews with the filmmakers to appreciate/understand a film.
Once again, Mister Magoo, I agree with you completely.

My invoking of Annie Proulx as the "only source that matters" comes across as confusing, I'll admit. All I'm saying is that Proulx is the only one who would know for sure. And she isn't telling. Maybe even she, herself, doesn't know exactly what happened to Jack.

My personal opinion: If Proulx were to state how Jack died, it would rob the story of much of its artistry.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 10:35:42 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
All of the principals have stated numerous times that they do not know how Jack died nor are we supposed to know.

If this is what they ALL stated... show me. I pasted the actual interview question and answer. Prove me wrong by finding ones that show your view.

As far as suicide.. I'm of the belief that Jack wouldn't commit suicide. I don't see his character doing that. But, that's for a different thread.

"...later."
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 18 2006 11:14:03 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
meanderingtrevor's letter to the editor of the SF Bay Times doesn't really "prove" anything. His ideas, while articulate and convincing for many, remain a theory.

For "proof" to exist, we need direct quotes from sources: Annie Proulx revealing how Jack died;

Or, the screenwriters telling us they chose a certain manner of death, and wrote the script accordingly;

Or the director stating he made a choice, with the film reflecting that choice.

Until someone can post a valid link to a valid quote that confirms one of the above, we still have no "proof" how Jack died, in either the story or the film.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 11:19:45 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
sunsilk... perfectly put. you're right... there was no proof in that article...however it is well written. we do need more definitive proof as you write and if i find it, i'll post it. if not, my mind is open.

thanks

"...later."

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:45:51 pm »

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by taj_e (Thu Jul 27 2006 12:36:14 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I can't believe we would be discussing about the same topic again
But I'm kinda glad actually, I'm more prepared and saner than those few months back lol

IMO the question is a bit unfair simply because it was suppose to be ambiguos. But for argument sake...

My take would be from a viewer POV and of course I can't help but to consider Ennis' POV as it was clear I'm drawn and presented only to his POV. Of course Lureen was there but after a while, what Lureen did was only touching on Jack's sexuality IMHO and not so much about how he died and all that (I won't go into details here as it was also discussed at length previously)

I'm torn in between, but to remain sane I'd go for the accident. Why?
The more I consider Ennis' POV, the more I dealt into the uncertainty. The fear and confusion and we used to say. And it has to stop. Lureen may have told us a lie, but that's the only fact we have and if we discard that we have nothing to based upon

I wonder about Ennis. I do hope that how Jack died doesn't matter to him anymore. He didn't have the answer. But what he did know is that he had been loved. So loved that it took Jack's life to prove just that
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 12:41:30
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 13:38:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I wonder about Ennis. I do hope that how Jack died doesn't matter to him anymore. He didn't have the answer. But what he did know is that he had been loved. So loved that it took Jack's life to prove just that
Excellent, taj e...

I've always felt that how Jack died is unimportant to the viewer (or reader). What is important, as you wrote, is that Ennis "didn't have the answer."
Your post gave me pause. I always thought Ennis would spend the rest of his days torn by what he didn't know. But your thought, that he'd discovered something he knew for sure, and could move away from the question of Jack's death, is much more satisfying to me.

Thank you...
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by wayne1932 (Thu Jul 27 2006 15:20:04 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Quote from the short story

quote
Ennis didn't know about the accident for months until his postcard to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED. He called Jack's number in Childress, something he had done only once before when Alma divorced him and Jack had misunderstood the reason for the call, had driven twelve hundred miles north for nothing.
unquote

So Annie in the narration calls it an accident.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ailuro (Thu Jul 27 2006 16:16:31 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
When Proulx writes; "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..." Proulx, the narrator, gives us what Ennis(from his pov) will hear(that it was an accident) in advance of the actual conversation between Ennis & Lureen. Proulx conveys to us only what Ennis believes the truth to be.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ailuro (Thu Jul 27 2006 16:42:02 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I believe you've misunderstood meandering. Wait while I try to clarify what I meant & I did not say & do not believe, the murder scenario.
The method of Jack's death is intended to be ambiguous & most agree. Nothing new there.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by George-n-Kansas (Thu Jul 27 2006 17:07:05 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
It was definitely an accident. There is nothing to indicate otherwise, except Ennis' paranoid delusions. I am going on the text of the film, not on what E. Annie Proulx said, because the short story and the film are two (2) separate and distinct works that must be judged on their own merits (or lack thereof).

I don't buy the theory that Lureen's account of the story of Jack's death is a "studied and well rehearsed lie, delivered without feeling." She probably got so sick and tired of recounting the story to people that she began to do it somewhat mechanically. Viewers do not know for certain whether Jack actually took up with Randall Malone and "had relations" with him or not . . . the scenes between Jack and Randall are ambiguous at best.

I just think that the entire debate shows how paranoid gays are about these supposed "hate crimes." Such things hardly ever happen. Even the death of Matthew Shepard has been demonstrated NOT to be a hate crime; check here for more details:

http://www.nndb.com/people/705/000052549
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by malwood2000 (Thu Jul 27 2006 17:34:50 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Why did Annie Proulx wrtie, "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..." instead of, "Ennis didn't know about Jack's death for months...", or even, "Ennis didn't know about Jack's murder for months..." as would be the case if his death had been murder? An accident isn't murder.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 17:51:06 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
She said accident, because Lureen told Ennis that's what it was. Proulx's sentence tells us what Ennis "knew" about Jack's death. He had no way of knowing otherwise.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by jean-claude_pierre (Thu Jul 27 2006 23:17:24 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Jack was murdered.

Otherwise the story is a trifle, a bauble.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 23:30:45
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 08:31:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:12:03
Many people don't actually 'get' irony though. Especially americans. It's too subtle . . . just a cultural thing.
It's "Americans." And some of us don't appreciate when non-Americans make sweeping generalizations (without support) about us.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Fri Jul 28 2006 02:33:23 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Edited the first post to include some of the good suggestions in this thread! Keep up the good discussion, and let's remain civil and intelligent in our posts
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Fri Jul 28 2006 10:32:35 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 10:34:31
So much of this post seems like déja vu all over again… I even recognize some of my own talking points in others' posts. Was it really some former incarnation of meanderingtrevor with whom we discussed (argued) this the last time?

Nice summing-up in your edited OP, sasya. A few thoughts:
If you find the timeline post, you'll see that Jack meeting Randall isn't really that close to the end of his story. Randall is there to imply that Jack sought affection elsewhere, but it's a stretch to implicate him in Jack's death, if you believe the murder/hate crime theory.

In the south, euphemistic speech is rampant. No one is an alcoholic, they have "drink a little." No one is gay, they are a "confirmed bachelor" (until they get caught, at least). In the same way, the word "accident" could be used to describe a murder, particularly if the details are better forgotten. Lureen might never have known the truth, even.

It's interesting how different people take this. I saw the movie and thought it was an accident as Lureen described. My church pastor saw it (he's a great guy) and said without a doubt that Jack had been murdered. Before I read the story, I asked some other (gay) friends whether the story would make it clear; they (thinking, I imagine, of the "then Ennis knew for sure" line) sadly indicated that murder was Jack's untimely end. In the end, I personally feel it was the accident, but I stand by my assessment that the story, as so carefully crafted, is emphatically ambiguous. The story, and the movie, are meant to hit us in the gut, and that's where our answer must come from.

Not garnished? Not finished!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Fri Jul 28 2006 11:47:41 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I agree with DSTgar. Great post.

One comment on the OP's "pro hate crime" comments:

The 'accident' occurs suspiciously soon after Jack starts having relations with a local guy, Randall.

Actually, Jack and Randall met in 1978, as indicated by a banner at the benefit dance. I've heard different versions of story/screenplay say his death was in 1981 or 1983, but either way, they could have been having a relationship for at least 3 years. That actually could play into the hate crime argument, because it is longer that people could have been becoming suspicious.

But still, I agree with DSTgar that the movie is deliberately ambiguous about what happened to Jack, meticulously crafted to be.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 12:37:52 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"But still, I agree with DSTgar that the movie is deliberately ambiguous about what happened to Jack, meticulously crafted to be."

Nicely said and I totally agree. I think arguing against and/or dismissing the ambiguity is doing a disservice to the writing and filming of the story.

I don't think this section of the film would be nearly as beautiful/haunting as it is if it had been filmed in a more clear-cut, 'obvious' way.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 13:02:22 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Annie Proulx veils the truth by accentuating Ennis's fears and making them very vivid to us....Facts: Lureen tells Ennis how Jack died.
Until you provide a quote from Ms. Proulx herself, that this is what she intended, your comments are merely opinions, not the definitive "truths" you present them to be.
This is what is confusing you
I don't think Mister Magoo sounds confused at all. Unless he tells you he is, how would you know whether or not he is?
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 13:17:16
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 13:51:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:11:05
It's absurd that you should say I need to have Ms Proulx state what her intentions are any more than a critic of a Shakespeare play should wait for Shakespeare to come back from the dead to tell us what he intended.

When doing a critique of literature it is bad form, bad style and not relevant to say 'in my opinion' all the time. It is evident that the opinion is of the writer because the writer is writing it.

It is perfectly aceptable to theorise as to what one's beliefs are re the intention of the author. It is standard at, say, university level English Lit.
Actually, meanderingtrevor, it's not absurd. We can't know for certain what Annie Proulx intended, unless she herself tells us. Same with Shakespeare. Last I knew, people were still arguing over the interpretation of his works.

At any rate, this isn't a critique of literature. It isn't a paper you are handing in. (If it were, you'd probably be required via source material to support your theories, ie footnotes.) And you aren't a recognized scholar on these topics, with centuries of research and discussion behind you. To compare the comments here with those of Shakespeare critics is irrelevant.

You are in a discussion with ordinary people about a film and a story, and you present yourself as some sort of expert who knows all the answers. You don't.

Presenting your own personal opinions as fact, consistently, time after time, and belittling those who don't accept those opinions as "truth" is totally unacceptable. For example:
Annie Proulx's clever style of highlighting Ennis's phobia, drawing us in, but leaving no doubt it was an accident (when we draw back and realise she has said it is an accident and everything else is in Ennis's head)
There are many highly intelligent people who have a LOT of doubt it was an accident.

My argument has never been with your interpretation. I think you make a lot of very valid points. I really do take issue, though, when you present all your ideas as "truth" or "fact." That is bad form.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ailuro (Fri Jul 28 2006 14:04:48 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
100 posts & still no resolution.
This thread is going the way of another thread that reached over 600 posts. Anyone remember?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 14:07:58 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:09:47
yepper, ailuro, I remember it well....

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 14:52:01 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:09:24
It is my truth
Whew. Thank you.
And even if scholars are debating Shakespeare's plays to this day, they do not need to be validated by Shakespeare himself. Nor do they have to justify their theories.
Whoa, meanderingtrevor, I beg to differ. Every theory needs justification, IF it is to be accepted. And still, those theories will remain just that. Without the validation by Shakespeare himself, that's all they will ever be.

Same with Proulx. You can argue all you want about what you think she intended, but until she comes out and agrees with you, all your thoughts remain mere theories.

[Post deleted]

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:46:34 pm »

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 15:25:34 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"It is my truth."

I'll echo sunsetsilk's 'whew' and 'thank you'

That's the only 'acknowledgement' I was looking for personally. Also like sunsetsilk, I have absolutely no problem with what you've been arguing - as I said, I've always leaned towards the 'accident' intepretation myself - it's just the inherent arrogance in your 'my interpretation is the ONLY right one' stance that's been somewhat 'offensive' (and baseless).

I would never argue against it being 'your' truth.

As I already said, there is nothing 'unequivocal' in the film that confirms or negates either interpretation, so I'm sure we can expect threads like to keep popping up quite regularly.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 12:41:30 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Was it really some former incarnation of meanderingtrevor with whom we discussed (argued) this the last time?
Yeah, DST, it was. I've have this same go-around with at least 2 of his other personas. Maybe more.

I, too, stand by "emphatically ambiguous," for both the film and the short story, although I can appreciate the arguments (not proof) for either interpretation. My personal feeling is that not even Lureen knew the "truth."

Until Annie Proulx comes right out and tells us, we won't know the "truth" of her story, either.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 12:47:22 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Wow, Sasya, your edited opening post is superb. It's a real joy to see your thought process so eloquently expressed in words...

Many thanks!
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by jean-claude_pierre (Fri Jul 28 2006 18:22:31 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
As Annie Proulx has stated over and over about story (and the same goes for any movie), she considers that the story is completed after it is read by each individual reader. Same goes for a movie.

Therefore, as each individual finishes reading a story (or walks out of a theater after viewing a movie), that story (or movie) is legitimately completed by that individual. That is the beauty of such writing (or filmaking).

So if an individual reads the story (or watches the movie) and says that clearly Jack was murdered, that is totally true and accurate.

Likewise the reverse.

[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 18:52:04
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 22:58:01 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"That is, you can't change the facts, which are that Jack dies in an accident and Ennis imagines it is a murder (initially)."

Trevor, were you being disingenuous when you said "it's my truth"? Because with that statement, you seemed to be acknowledging that your view of things is 'true' for you but not necessarily for everyone else.

Until you can point to something unequivocal in the film, you referring to Jack dying in an accident as being a "fact" has no basis.

"those who walk away from the movie believing Jack was murdered, went into the movie expecting him to be murdered whatever conflicting evidence is placed in front of them."

Your presumptuous arrogance is showing again. How do you 'know' what people who think Jack was murdered went into the film thinking/expecting? Pretty egregious.

And again, you've offered no UNEQUIVOCAL 'conflicting evidence' in the film. Simply calling it 'unlikely' doesn't cut it.

"Furthermore it is nigh on impossible for Jack to have been murdered in 1983 in EXACTLY the same way as Earl was killed in 1951. It's absurd."

First of all, it WASN'T "exactly the same way". Do we see Jack being dragged around by his dick in the 'murder depiction'? No. Again, please refer to the film. All that is relevant is what ends up onscreen. You keep veering away from this in your arguments.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ailuro (Fri Jul 28 2006 23:04:13 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Furthermore it is nigh on impossible for Jack to have been murdered in 1983 in EXACTLY the same way as Earl was killed in 1951. It's absurd."

Just how many references for murder does Ennis have?
He'll use what he has, namely the Earl murder.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 23:29:53
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 23:31:21 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Mister Magoo I have never, ever insulted you and I have said it is MY truth because I see it is fact."

And I have never, ever insulted you.

You said "it's my truth" and then went on to contradict that sentiment by making arrogant assumptions about others who view things differently than you. That was my 'issue'.

"Now please amend your post and be civil."

'Amend' my post?

I was perfectly civil. Re-read your previous post Trevor, you might notice your own 'insulting' presumptions about other posters/viewers.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 23:37:51
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 23:56:32 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"You seem to think when I said it was 'my truth' that I was back-pedalling. I wasn't."

re-read your posts.

And Im sorry, but to insult viewers (and that's exactly what you did) by saying 'they were expecting (bla blah) in spite of whatever conflicting evidence was put in front of them' is ARROGANT.

I'm sorry you're offended by me calling you on that, but I have no inclination to 'amend' anything.

Seriously, if you don't see how you're presumptuous dismissals are 'arrogant', then you're in denial.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 00:02:47
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Sat Jul 29 2006 00:09:57 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Please amend all your posts that describe me personally in an abusive manner."

I didn't describe you 'personally' in a abusive manner, I merely pointed out that your public comments about other posters was arrogant. It has nothing to do with you 'personally', it has to do with your public comments.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Sat Jul 29 2006 00:21:06 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Refer to something unequivocal in the film that supports your 'it's a FACT that Jack was killed in an accident' assertion and there will be nothing left to discuss:)

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Sat Jul 29 2006 00:29:24 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 03:17:16
'Like I said in my previous edited post I have reported you for abuse'

You must realize how lucky you are that there isn't a "becomes irrationally defensive when asked to justify his declarations" selection in the 'report abuse' menu:)
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 00:34:27
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Sat Jul 29 2006 00:43:58 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"You are on ignore."

and all I requested was some unequivocal 'proof' in the film that would support your relentless 'fact' declarations.

and you chose to 'remove' yourself from the discussion....

very telling.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Sat Jul 29 2006 08:47:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I have never used a negative adjective to describe you or any other poster.
Oh, really, meanderingtrevor?
Sunset, you often descend from debate to slightly snarky and downright sarcastic insults.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ailuro (Fri Jul 28 2006 23:32:38 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I'll stick with what I know concerning the method of Jack's death & thats nothing at all.

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #7 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:47:16 pm »

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 23:45:48 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"I'll stick with what I know concerning the method of Jack's death & thats nothing at all."

a big DITTO to that!:)

and i think that that's the main point anyway - that all we truly 'know' is what Ennis 'knows'. And that, as you said, is nothing.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Sat Jul 29 2006 00:04:40 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"and we do know how Jack dies cos we are told."

no

we're

NOT.

Please, answer this simple question: where in the film is the UNEQUIVOCAL statement "Jack was killed in an accident"? (and Lureen saying it ISNT 'unequivocal')

If you can't provide us with that, then stop patronizing people.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Sat Jul 29 2006 08:09:04 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
What a little pissant you are. (yeah, I know that's redundant)

How about this angle: Ennis is not convinced that Lureen is telling the truth, so we (who are meant to view the world through Ennis's eyes) are not convinced. There is the ambiguity, and there it rests.

Not garnished? Not finished!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Sat Jul 29 2006 09:00:01 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:26:07
I heartily agree, DSTgar. I personally believe Annie Proulx never intended that we know more than Ennis does. I think the film reflects that intent.

As far as meanderingtrevor? Why do we all bother? I've responded to him on numerous threads, to whatever name he is using, mostly to point out that what he ignorantly, arrogantly, condescendingly, claims as facts are not so at all.

And if he finds those adverbs insulting, then I suggest to him that, using his own standard of definition, those are the facts. That's how I see it, and therefore it's a fact.

Can't have it both ways, meanderingtrevor. Don't throw your "facts" in our faces, then claim insult when we throw a few of our own "facts" back at you.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Sat Jul 29 2006 11:18:17 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 11:24:26
"You, DTS and Mr Magoo resort to namecalling as evidenced by the fact I was unable to report Mr Magoo because the administrators put up a message:

'we already have enough abuse reports for this member and will be acting in due course"

Uhm, you've said that 3 times now, and isn't it interesting that none of my posts have been deleted? Can we assume that the 'enough abuse reports' all came from you?

You insult other posters by making presumptuous comments about why they came to the conclusion(s) they did, and then react like an infant when multiple other posters just call you on it. Not to be 'insulting', but I think you would really benefit from working on those self-awareness skills.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Sat Jul 29 2006 12:37:32 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Anyway this to'ing and fro'ing is going nowhere. It is boring tit for tat."

Very true. Besides, didn't you put me on 'ignore'?
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Sat Jul 29 2006 13:16:41 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:06:03
::sighs:: May as well give it up, Mister Magoo. This is SOP for meanderingtrevor in all his incarnations. As soon as he realizes that not only do others disagree with his arguments, but they find his manner in posting them to be off-putting, (if not downright misleading), and call him on it, he starts complaining about how he's being "insulted."
You, DTS[sic] and Mr Magoo resort to namecalling as evidenced by the fact I was unable to report Mr Magoo because the administrators put up a message:
Well, aside from the fact (excuse the expression) that the above statement makes no sense whatsoever, I can easily deny this accusation.I have never, ever resorted to namecalling. Ever. I'm sure you and DSTgar could do the same, as I've not seen namecalling from either of you.

It's when meanderingtrevor starts making unfounded comments like the above that I realize he's gone from the objective to the purely emotional.

Good time to stop.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 13:29:24
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Sat Jul 29 2006 13:56:06 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:05:14
Stop, meanderingtrevor. I posted that it doesn't make sense and that's exactly what I meant.

The fact that you cannot report Mr Magoo does NOT supply evidence that "You, DTS[sic] and Mr Magoo resort to namecalling"

It makes no sense: logically, one does not follow another.

Responding by saying: "I think you'll find my previous post (above) does make sense" is downright rude. The implication is that I don't know my own mind and you do. Or that I lack the intelligence to understand. Rubbish.

It's comments like that, which you consistently make, that mark your posts as arrogant, supercilious, and condescending. If you find that description insulting, so be it. If you don't like how you come across to others, perhaps you should work on the manner in which you phrase your comments.

Better that you should respond to the rest of my post and apologize for accusations of namecalling where none existed.

Or best yet, don't respond at all, and let's let this thread die already.

[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 14:02:27
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:04:21
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Sat Jul 29 2006 16:03:07 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
lol

All meanderingtrevor had to do was ask. Notice he doesn't return the courtesy.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Mon Jul 31 2006 05:25:13 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Wish I could moderate this thread - this whole: "I'm right, you're wrong" to-and-fro takes us nowhere and takes ages to load.

meanderingtrevor, if you have no further clues to convince us that your take on the proceedings is the right one, the mere repetition that you think one theory is wrong is pointless. You say: "Given that all the murder ideas are in Ennis's head (as per the novella) I see no reason why anyone would conclude there was a murder.", but have you even read the first thread's first post where the reasons are listed? Yes, we're aware that the murder theory is only something Ennis imagines, and we do count his homophobia as a reason supporting the accident conclusion. But if you want to convince us to discount the murder scenario, you need to come up with some objective observations (preferably some that are not already posted here and thus has already been brought to our attention) that undermine the reasons for supposing it to be murder.

DSTgar, thanks for pointing out the timeline issue - I'll rewatch the film with that in mind and perhaps reevaluate that argument I understand that for some of you, this discussion has been like beating the proverbial dead horse, but I hadn't seen the movie when you guys last had this discussion and I couldn't find any thread on the topic. If you have a link to the old thread that would be great!

sunsetsilk, thank you for your kind words! It's nice to know that my own attempts at getting the complete picture is interesting to others than myself

I've thought some more about the issue (funny how I can't seem to let it go, but that's how a lot of people feel about this movie), and I'll post an update with your additional comments once I've rewatched the film!
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Tue Aug 1 2006 14:40:25
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Mon Jul 31 2006 11:05:01 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Mon Jul 31 2006 11:21:08
here is an article I wrote for the San Francisco Bay Times which clearly lists all the reasons why opting for the murder scenario is a homophobic response, either consciously or unconsciously.

walking away from the story not taking the story of Jack's death as an accident at face value, is unconscious homophobia.
First of all, the "article" meanderingtrevor "wrote for" the San Francisco Bay Times was in actuality a "letter to the editor" that was published as such, along with four other letters that same day.

Second, to label as "homophobic" anyone who leans toward the murder scenario is insulting, ludicrous, and totally baseless. It's fully as ridiculous as labeling everyone who supports the accident scenario as gay, whether conscious or not.

I suggest that nowhere exists a single shred of any evidence to support such a sweeping generalization.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Mon Jul 31 2006 15:58:28 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"First of all, the "article" meanderingtrevor "wrote for" the San Francisco Bay Times was in actuality a "letter to the editor" that was published as such, along with four other letters that same day."

Ouch.

"Second, to label as "homophobic" anyone who leans toward the murder scenario is insulting, ludicrous, and totally baseless. It's fully as ridiculous as labeling everyone who supports the accident scenario as gay, whether conscious or not.

I suggest that nowhere exists a single shred of any evidence to support such a sweeping generalization."

I totally concur. And making 'sweeping (and insulting) generalizations' about viewers and why they came to whatever interpretation(s) they did seems to be meanderingtrevor's forté.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by TheBigHarv (Mon Jul 31 2006 22:36:53 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Well you guys can debate away. No one can change anyones mind. I think it is very clear that it was an accident, anyone who thinks otherwise did not get a clear understanding of Ennis and his complex character.

This story is written and the film is delivered as real. The coinsidence of Jack dying exactly the same way as the old man in the story would shatter that well crafted message.

Sorry guys its like you're searching in a pond for a shark... There is water all right but it just ain't there.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Mon Jul 31 2006 23:11:32 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
'The coinsidence of Jack dying exactly the same way as the old man"

To be (perhaps) 'nitpicky', their deaths aren't 'exactly the same'. We're given images of Jack being kicked and beaten and we're told that Earl was 'dragged around by his dick until it dropped off'.

The only thing that is the 'same' is that they were both portrayed as being hate crimes.

Personally, I think it's brilliant how the writers/filmmakers dramatized this 'issue' so ambiguously in the film - because some could walk away thinking 'that's just TOO coincidental so he MUST have imagined it' and an equal number could walk away thinking 'hate crimes against gays in the rural midwest aren't exactly rare so it definitely could have been a depiction of what really happened'
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Aug 1 2006 08:26:36 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
We could believe that Jack was murdered without accepting that he was killed in exactly the same way as Earl. Ennis flashed back to what he'd seen, and imagined that as the worst for Jack.

If we think that Lureen is lying, (and many do), we don't necessarily have to believe Ennis's vision of Jack's death as the only alternative. He could have been killed in a hate crime by other means, any of which would need to be covered up with the accident story. (Randall's wife could have caught them together and put a bullet in Jack's head. Farfetched, yes, but possible.)

It's possible that even Lureen doesn't know the truth of Jack's death. Maybe she, too, is left to wonder what actually happened, as is Ennis.

To me, that's the key point: that Ennis doesn't really know how Jack died. What the viewer believes, one way or another, isn't all that relevant.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Aug 1 2006 02:07:36 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
No one can change anyones mind.
Yes, in fact they can. But not by mindlessly repeating their point of view. Clean observations that can be easily verified and may be missed by some people can do that.

To contribute to the debate in a valuable way, please respond to the clues posted here (i.e. "Lureen is lying about the accident not because Jack was murdered but because ...*your explanation her*... That she's covering this fact rather than a murder is clear from scene a, b and c.") or add your own observations that people may have missed.

Note that I have already answered your worry about the coincidence of the two homosexuals dying in the same way ine the very first post in this thread, and I've listed six reasons to suppose it's murder. If you think those reasons are faulty, intelligent arguments are always interesting and can in fact change people's minds.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by TheBigHarv (Tue Aug 1 2006 07:57:38 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"To be (perhaps) 'nitpicky', their deaths aren't 'exactly the same'. We're given images of Jack being kicked and beaten and we're told that Earl was 'dragged around by his dick until it dropped off'. "

From what I saw, and I didn't rewind he was beaten with a tire iron and the scene never finished. Leaving us to believe either way.

While I respect everyones view. That is the wonder of art. I just happen to think you are wrong. I don't need to add anything to a debate that is clearly won in my opinion.

I realise for some reason this is a sensitive issue but really... get over it. No need for rudeness.

Sure you can change people's minds with way more effort then I am willing to put forward on this subject.

My vote is pro accident. My argument, its blazingly obvious.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Aug 1 2006 08:40:24 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
TheBigHarv writes:
I think it is very clear that it was an accident, anyone who thinks otherwise did not get a clear understanding of Ennis and his complex character.
This is the sort of comment that many of us posting find really irritating. Just because we may think otherwise (meaning other than what you think) does not mean we don't have a "clear understanding."

Arguing your point by attacking the intelligence and insight of others is extremely annoying, and doesn't add any credibilty to your argument.

You can't convince others of your point of view by insulting them.

If you think it's "very clear," give us your reasons why.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by TheBigHarv (Tue Aug 1 2006 10:46:35 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Aug 1 2006 10:51:50
Perhaps that is a touch offside and I am sorry for the bluntness but none the less. Nothing in the pro hate crime camp has even come close to convincing me and everything in the pro accident camp makes total sense to me. I starte dreading this post somewhat questioning what it was but leaning toward accident. I Read the arguments and it became crystal clear to me.

You really get annoyed and irritated by a message board?

I think you need to stand up take a breath and concider that for a momment. This is a debate of opinions on a momment in a film about gay cowboys... Not something you should get your blood up about.

I suppose next you will attack my grammar... I wouldnt blame you for that... Its pretty bad.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Aug 1 2006 12:00:50 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Methinks meanderingtrevor spends a lot of his time "projecting."
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Aug 1 2006 11:49:07 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Aug 1 2006 11:52:33
TheBigHarv: I really don't "need" to do anything. (By the way, your name calls to mind a favorite movie of mine. Are you a pooka?)

If this is indeed a "debate of opinions" then one needs to defend a point of view with more than a "I'm right, you're wrong," "it's obvious," or "if you had more intelligence or insight you'd see it" line of argument. Those sorts of arguments are annoying, yes. They belittle others. Merely asserting one's "rightness" proves nothing, adds nothing to the discussion, and are a waste of time to read.

If your opinion is right for you, fine. That doesn't mean a contrary opinion isn't also "right" for someone else.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by TheBigHarv (Tue Aug 1 2006 13:54:12 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
(The Big Harv is a Hamburger from Harvey's Restaurant in canada... it is also my nickname, as my last name is Harvey)

"If your opinion is right for you, fine. That doesn't mean a contrary opinion isn't also "right" for someone else. "

Exactly Right Sunset Silk... but I...this is all about MY thoughts as they are all I can speak to. So I only write what I think. I don't need to rehash the arguments I think the argument has already been won hands down by those who came before me. Pro Hate Crimers are grasping at straws IN MY OPINION.

Honestly... "You're wrong" and "it's obvious" is all that is left to say because

Its incredibly obvious how wrong you people are.

of course... IN MY OPINION
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Aug 1 2006 14:47:49 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Yes, in your opinion. No problem there.

I'm hoping you're not including me as "wrong" amongst "you people." I haven't really expressed what I personally believe happened. (As I've said before, it's not what's important to me.)

I don't think the argument has been "won" hands down by anyone. It's not an argument that can be won, unless the filmmakers weigh in.

I could look at both sides of this issue, and appreciate that either scenario could be "right," based on how the film is interpreted.

I'm baffled, though, why a person holding a different opinion is necessarily "wrong," simply because that opinion isn't the same as one's own.

I much prefer the concept that maybe two people just don't think alike, not that one person must be right, and all the others wrong...

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by TheBigHarv (Tue Aug 1 2006 14:57:53 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
no my you people line was meant as sarcasm sorry i shoul dhave noted that.

there is no right or wrong in art its just that simple, actualy I am workin a play right now called ART by Yazmina Reza which is about that very thing and they characters have this same argument(in essence)

I will agree to this Ang Lee did that scene on purpose to make people have this very debate

we're really all just hype suckers
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Aug 1 2006 15:21:02 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Hmmm....I suppose I'd identify most with Yvan....

I was fortunate to have seen ART presented locally by a national touring company.....
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator

TOoP/Bruce · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:48:02 pm »

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Tue Aug 1 2006 11:45:08 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Sunsetsilk writes:
to label as "homophobic" anyone who leans toward the murder scenario is insulting, ludicrous, and totally baseless.

Yep. And I recall the early days when this movie came out when it was those in the accident camp who were labeled right-wing homophobes, by those who fervently were in the murder camp.

So both sides have those who throw out baseless insults when their arguments fail. Nothing new there. meanderingtrevor is simply the latest, and not original in the least.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Tue Aug 1 2006 12:45:19
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Aug 1 2006 13:09:58 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Aug 1 2006 15:44:51
It is human nature to be frightened of, and hostile to, things that are different.
So, if one is straight, it's in their nature to be frightened of, and hostile to, gays? Homophobia, conscious or not, is "human nature?"

I have to disagree, vehemently, with yet another one of meanderingtrevor's sweeping, meaningless, generalizations.
Buying into Ennis's mistaken notion of murder IS homophobic - but not to be condemned. You are invited to come to that mistaken conclusion. It's part of Annie Proulx's artistry. And it is not insulting in any way.
I would find it extrememly insulting to be wrongly labeled as homophobic just because I might come to the conclusion that Jack was murdered. Being able to recognize the homophobia in the story, and seeing the outcome from that point of view, doesn't automatically mean a viewer is himself homophobic. Geez. There's no logic whatsoever in that train of thought.

Just because meanderingtrevor has reached a conclusion, one that is "right" for him, doesn't afford him the privilege of labeling all other differing opinions as "mistaken," let alone "homophobic."

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by robotsu (Tue Aug 1 2006 23:49:04 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
meanderingtrevor...how are you defining "homophobic"? Believe it or not, my dictionary does not define it, and I am using Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, Copywrited and newly revised 1980. Possibly because it is a new word of the 1990s era.

Back to the point, I don't believe Ennis is "homophobic" anymore than Alma is. He simply doesn't understand how he can love a man, but he does, and he also seems to understand that loving a man may get him killed. Fear is the motivation of Ennis's actions; fear of how other human beings will react to his love of Jack. He never questions that love, only the consequences of going public with it.

As far as your comment that "buying into Ennis's mistaken notion of murder IS homophobic, why that's just a crock of s.... The information is put to the viewer via the story being told by Lureen; she says one thing, we see a possibility in Ennis's mind. What the viewer has to do is process everything he knows about Ennis (his fears, his past, his loves) and decide for himself which story is most believable. I for one, lean towards murder, which eventually will catch up to those living in the same circustances. (Matthew Sheppard of Wyoming, Harvey Milk of San Francisco, Sal Menio, just to mention 3 who died violent deaths because of their sexuality, and Rock Hudson, Monty Cliff, Alan Ladd, 3 famous people who kept it quiet and are now praised for their "courage". It is not a mistaken conclusion, and it is insulting in every way, to every gay person who chooses to live his life to it fullest (being OUT, in case you don't know the word!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Wed Aug 2 2006 00:06:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"As far as your comment that "buying into Ennis's mistaken notion of murder IS homophobic, why that's just a crock of s.... The information is put to the viewer via the story being told by Lureen; she says one thing, we see a possibility in Ennis's mind. What the viewer has to do is process everything he knows about Ennis (his fears, his past, his loves) and decide for himself which story is most believable."

Nice.

It's quite refreshing for someone to refrain from adding any 'it's ridiculously clear' or 'people concluding that jack was killed came in expecting that' or any OTHER unnecessarily derogatory comment to their post.

The issue is essentially ambiguous (even meanderingtrevor conceded that) and there is nothing UNEQUIVOCAL in the film to 'prove' anything either way. There simply isn't any debate about that point (if there is, then absolutely no one has countered it so far)

So, I really don't get why anyone would feel the need to denigrate another poster's position simply because it's different than one's own. Maybe a Psych major out there could clarify whatever 'neurosis' is at the root of such behaviour:)
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Raylathotep (Wed Aug 2 2006 02:39:17 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
This thread was pretty good for the first third... then it goes down hill.(At least there are no 'thumpers trolling it. Yet.)

I just got done watching this film and came here to see what others thought of the "death", since I was not sure what to make of what was given in the film. As is said above:
The issue is essentially ambiguous (even meanderingtrevor conceded that) and there is nothing UNEQUIVOCAL in the film to 'prove' anything either way.

If the cause of death(either way) was as clear a "fact" as some claim, there would be no debate. Even after reading the excellent presentation of the prevaling arguments in the OP(TY, sasya) and the whole thread, I am still unsure.

BTW - Opinions, theories, personal perceptions, beliefs, ect are NOT facts or truths. It's funny how some people have tried to argue just that here though. Then they resort to crying insult, start babbling about contentious spite, and more when they don't get a pat on the head for "figuring it all out" for all us "dumb folk". Geez.

Oh. . . and those offended by that last paragraph are, by thier own outrage, admitting to practicing those poor forms of argument.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Wed Aug 2 2006 11:44:53
This message has been deleted by the poster
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ricmalic (Fri Aug 4 2006 10:34:13 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
This is truly a "pay your money and take your choice" situation. I hold with the hate crime scenario.

Thanks for summarizing both so well. By the way I had never really thought about the possible Randall role in bringing about Jack's death, but it makes sense.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Santinos_Bridesmade (Fri Aug 4 2006 10:34:36 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 4 2006 11:48:14
If he died in a preventable accident, how would that fit in with the plot? If it merely was an accident and not a lynch mob, that would confirm that Jack was right, that he and Ennis should have taken the plunge no matter what the rest of the world thought.

If it was a hate crime, then that would mean that Ennis was right to let his fear of repercussion and knowledge of intolerance get in the way of his love for Jack. If they'd taken the plunge, then an angry mob would have gotten to them sooner.

Of course Ennis would instantly assume that Jack's death wasn't accidental. That's the reason he kept rejecting Jack - to protect both of them from Earl's fate.

The introduction of Randall doesn't make dramatic sence unless we assume he's the reason for Jack's demise.
- Randall has another role as well, namely to raise the question of whether Jack found a way to quit Ennis after all just before he died.

My theory: If Jack had quit Ennis at all, he didn't do it for his own sake - he quit Ennis for Ennis's sake. After seeing Ennis break down, Jack finally understood the toll that their relationship took on Ennis. Ennis simply can't let go of his fear and self-hatred. Ennis hated himself for loving Jack. Thus Jack made a personal sacrifice when he quit Ennis - Jack was the root of Ennis's fear and self-hatred, and he was holding him captive in the relationship. Jack quit Ennis because he loved him.

In that case, the purpose that Randall served was a) temptation/new possibilities that Jack was offered and refused, given the endurance of his love for Ennis, or b) a role in Jack's murder, had it really been murder.

If it was an accident here's possibly how it would tie in with the plot. It would prove that Ennis was wrong to reject him and should have taken that chance.

If it was murder, here's the possibilites: Jack rejected Randall because he loved Ennis, thus Randall had him killed. Or Ennis's fears proved right and a lynch mob really ambushed him with tire irons just like he'd feared.

Can you tell I'm wishy-washy?? I think Annie Proulx left it ambiguous to leave it open for multiple interpretation. Or just to drive us crazy.

Vote to get this higher in the top 250! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 4 2006 13:18:29 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Randall being murdered is a possiblity. Our only source of information is what Lureen told Ennis.

Just because Lureen didn't mention it to Ennis doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Fri Aug 4 2006 13:57:52 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Randall being murdered is a possiblity. Our only source of information is what Lureen told Ennis.

Just because Lureen didn't mention it to Ennis doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

This is all true. To look at the other side: if Randall was not murdered, it could be that Jack's murder was a crime of opportunity and not premeditated. Certain people in the community found out that Jack and Randall were "queers" and when such homophobes found Jack in a vulnerable position (perhaps he really was changing a tire alone, out in the middle of nowhere) they attacked him.

As I've said, I personally lean toward the accident scenario, but you can't rule out that Jack may have been murdered. Randall may have been murdered or not. That whole area is wide open since we are told nothing about it. Either way, Jack being murdered remains a possibility.

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Mon Aug 7 2006 06:48:17 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
You asked: Many assume Jack was involved with Randall

If this is the case (re the randal having something to do with Jack's death) why wasn't he murdered, too?

Sunsetsilk and I answered your question, and you have no retort other than just reiterating "Jack died in an accident." Brilliant. I am in awe of your debating skills.

And to say "It's obvious" when many people disagree -- just this thread, one of many, approaches 200 posts -- shows you don't have a grasp of the obvious. Jack's death is ambiguous. Accident is what I believe, but I am honest and not in denial that I have no proof, so I acknowledge it's ambiguous. If it were obvious, you would have a real argument for it being an accident. And you don't. "It's obvious" is not an argument.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Mon Aug 7 2006 07:49:46 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Mon Aug 7 2006 07:52:38
Jack died in an accident It's obvious
The above statement implies that there's only one interpretation to be had concerning Jack's death. I don't agree. I see the possibility, and good support, for many interpretations.

Supposedly, meanderingtrevor has me on ignore. He takes offense that I consider comments like this rather insulting to those who don't agree with him. I've always taken issue with the manner in which he presents his opinions.

His post above is a perfect example. He is condescending and patronizing: in effect, meanderingtrevor is saying, "I have the answer, if you were more intelligent or insightful, it would be obvious to you, too."

(I think meanderingtrevor would be wise to learn that as soon as he dimisses someone's intelligence or insight, it's likely that person will take offense and stop listening to him.)

Most of the posters on this board, no matter how strongly they hold a personal opinion, will acknowlege the ambiguity present in both the short story and the film, and that no real proof exists for definitive answers.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Mon Aug 7 2006 08:45:48 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Supposedly, meanderingtrevor has me on ignore. He takes offense that I consider comments like this rather insulting to those who don't agree with him. I've always taken issue with the manner in which he presents his opinions.

His post above is a perfect example. He is condescending and patronizing: in effect, meanderingtrevor is saying, "I have the answer, if you were more intelligent or insightful, it would be obvious to you, too."

I don't find it insulting. Now I just find it pathetic. You and I take the time to give a thought-out response to his question, and all he can come up with is "It's obvious Jack died in an accident" is which untrue, and does not address what we wrote, just reiterates what he has already said. Acting like a broken record -- no intelligence or insight apparent in a response like that.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Mon Aug 7 2006 10:37:33 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
NewHorizons,

Yes, I will agree with you, taken by itself, that one post isn't insulting. (I guess I'm speaking from long experience with meanderingtrevor, on this thread and several others, where his attitude shows itself as the discussion progresses.)

I think you and I are on the same page when it comes to the ambiguity in the film. I can honestly say, I've never made up my mind about Jack's death, and don't yet find that I need to. Consideration of all the possibilities is a feast for thought, and one that I enjoy immensely.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Mon Aug 7 2006 12:35:44 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I can honestly say, I've never made up my mind about Jack's death, and don't yet find that I need to. Consideration of all the possibilities is a feast for thought, and one that I enjoy immensely.

Me too. I would not say my mind is "made up" either. Currently I lean more toward the accident scenario, but at the same time I find, for example, monimm18's argument for the murder scenario up above in this thread, quite compelling. Like you, I don't need to come to a final conclusion; I like the ambiguity. I enjoy all the possibilities too, and enjoy reading arguments on either side that are logical and well-written.

[Post deleted]
UPDATED Mon Aug 7 2006 10:44:29
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by robotsu (Tue Aug 8 2006 12:59:41 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Raylathotep..the fact that a death occurred is not in debate. What is being debated is the cause and circumstance of that death.

Santinos..not wishy-washy at all! Your posting is well thought out, thought provoking, comparing 2 possibilities WITH possible outcomes. Too many postings state an opinion but offer no alternative. The fact that you use "my theory", "possibilities", "purpose" shows quite clearly these are YOUR thoughts and ideas, but are not necessarily the only options. Good job!!

meanderingtrevor..I agree that many assume a relationship between Jack and Randall, and we never see any proof that it actually happened, so I cannot assume Randall had anything to do with Jack's death because, again agreeing with you, if it did, how did Randall survice? Possibility: perhaps Randall arranged a murder as revenge for Jack's rejection of him. Assumption of many ideas fuels the debate on this subject, and as stated by several posters, it is very ambiguous, and therefore, can not be debated. The only debatable fact is the method of Jack's death..death by tire on a remote dirt backroad, or death by tire iron by a group of "queer haters". I personally choose the 2nd because of all the things we've learned in the movie from the first sexual "sizing up" at the trailer, to the final emotional "Jack, I swear...", from the social climate of the day to the brutal scene of Earl, to Jack's constant wanting to be with Ennis "always", to Ennis's constant rejection (..it ain't gonna be that way".
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by zeerine (Thu Aug 10 2006 08:44:10 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I definitely think that Jack died of a hate crime. However I thought it wasnt because of his homosexuality, he tells Ennis that hes aproaching the wife of some rancher, I felt that this was discovered and that to seem more manly, as I think it was Randalls wife, he got with his 'freinds' and attacked Jack.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Don_Mega (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:29:02 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I agree that many assume a relationship between Jack and Randall, and we never see any proof that it actually happened, so I cannot assume Randall had anything to do with Jack's death because, again agreeing with you, if it did, how did Randall survice? Possibility: perhaps Randall arranged a murder as revenge for Jack's rejection of him.

When did Jack reject Randall? I never heard his say, keep your *bleeping* mouth shut, I'm no queer. No, he sat and listened until the ladies came outside. Also Jack's father told Ennis Jack was going to build a house with Ennis, then some other guy, which, of course, never came to pass. I think it was a hate crime, not just because of Lurleen's attitude, but the father's speech too.
Randall
by edd_joey (Fri Aug 18 2006 11:35:38 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
i'm definitely convinced Jack was murdered, everything points to that. But something that really surprises me is that one has mentioned the posiblity that Randall himself could have been the murderer. You know, sometimes gay-bashers act like they were gay to attract people and then when they want something like sex, attack them

You have turned me into this...
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 11:41:07
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 13:46:11
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 13:55:28
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 14:44:36
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 15:14:55
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Randall
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 18 2006 16:44:05 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 16:47:35
"Ennis didn't know about the ACCIDENT until long after[sic] . . . " is final proof that it was an accident.
As many times as this line is presented as "proof" it was an accident, I will protest. This is not final proof.

Putting emphasis on one word, as meanderingtrevor has, changes the meaning.

We are told what Ennis learned by way of Lureen. Lureen told Ennis it was an accident, and that's what this line tells us.
Just as if she said: "It was raining" and later says: "Ennis knew it was sunny" Ennis is wrong. It's raining
This comparison is meaningless. It would only be be a valid example if Proulx wrote something like: "Jack was killed in an accident." But, that's not what she wrote.

"Jack was killed in an accident," and

"Ennis didn't know about the accident," do not have the same meaning.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 15:18:02
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Ennis's internal, self-homopohobia is the essential tragedy
by Clyde-B (Fri Aug 18 2006 15:52:56 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Sometimes the power of a story lies not in what it says, but in the questions it prompts us to ask.

Each of these endings calls forth different questions.

If he was murdered: Did he deserve it? Is this how homosexuals should be treated?

If it was an accident: Should Ennis and Jack have risked a life together? Could they have found happiness that way?

By leaving the ending enigmatic like this, both sets of questions get asked.

[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Ennis's internal, self-homopohobia is the essential tragedy
by sasya (Thu Sep 7 2006 07:19:13 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
However, AP has said she herself does not know how Jack died. How is it that the omniscient author herself does not know how Jack died? Did she not read what she wrote? Is she confused? Or is there more subtext to the short story that she gets and intended?
I don't think I've seen this anywhere - she has said that the story is incomplete and the reader completes it while she reads it, but I think that's a position on the nature of literature, it doesn't say there's no truth about Jack's demise. If you have a clear quote, I'll be very interested.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Ennis's internal, self-homopohobia is the essential tragedy
by sasya (Thu Sep 7 2006 08:27:49 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Well, we've had this exchange of opinions already, but I'm happy to do so again: I think this line says nothing more than "Ennis didn't hear the accident story until six months after". The accident is here in an intensional context (something you can hear bout, like Ennis, or believe or talk about, it doesn't have to actually be real - read more here if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional) - like if I say

"The great hunter Carl was hunting for a unicorn"

I don't mean to say that there actually exists a unicorn, and Carl is hunting it - rather, I say that Carl thinks so. Or I can say:

"Everyone was discussing the death of xxx"

though I know that xxx is alive and well - I'm just refering to the object of the discussion which may have been based on a false rumour.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Ennis's internal, self-homopohobia is the essential tragedy
by djo-17 (Sat Aug 19 2006 09:50:11 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sun Aug 20 2006 12:38:54
To Casey: I certainly understand what you are saying here. The NATURE of Jack's death really isn't the issue. The sad fact is that in the end, Jack was gone. Ennis wasn't able to express what he truly felt for Jack because of the homophobia that was instilled in him from childhood. This would have had to have been the lonliest feeling in the world for Ennis, even when he was with Jack, because, he just couldn't reveal his deepest feelings, even though they were there. This is another aspect of this story that I have found that helps me to appreciate more deeply, how gay people must feel, especially those who are still closeted, and are "trapped" in situations that they don't quite know how to deal with. I have experienced, in my "younger" days, (only a couple of years ago, I wish!)my share of lonliness due to some factors in my upbringing about which I won't get into details here, but suffice to say that I do understand the gut-churning feeling of lonliness and how it can shape your own "world view", and affect your life so profoundly for many years. I find that I am becoming more and more tolerant, and have an ever-increasing understanding of what gays and others who are marginalized in our so-called "enlightened" society are facing on a day to day basis. I have to admit that I am becoming increasingly INTOLERANT of viewpoints and opinions that are based on out and out lies or deliberate misinformation as a result of this inbred homophobia. Perhaps this may sound a little strong, but I feel that although we all value freedom of speech in our society, I think that it should be balanced with a sense of responsibility for the affect our words can have on others. If it stirs up hatred and/or violence toward ANY group, no matter how much we may disagree with or just plain not like them, perhaps it should be severely curtailed, or at the least vociferously rebuttled at every opportunity until people "get the message" that this type of abuse of one of our fundemental freedoms WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.!
Doug O'Connor
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Ennis's internal, self-homopohobia is the essential tragedy
by djo-17 (Sat Aug 26 2006 09:56:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
To Casey: Here is another thought that came to me while watching again for the________th time.

When Ennis is in Jack's room, and opens the window to let in some fresh air, you can really hear the breeze rushing in. It could be said that in a sense, it was like Jack was there, "in spirit" as Ennis finds the shirts and finally utters "those three words" that he hadn't while Jack was alive. Just another thought about this deeply-moving scene.

"I know where Brokeback Mountain is."

Doug O'Connor
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Sep 5 2006 07:12:07 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Sep 5 2006 23:19:51
For anyone interested, I think I've reached my final position on this matter, and it's this: The story is about homophobia, both internalised and in society.

The reason why Ennis' homophobia gets so much attention is exactly because this isn't Romeo and Juliet - these men have been crippled by homophobia and won't go out in an explosion of full commitment to true love. They punish themselves more than society alone could ever do.

But it's not only about inner demons. We get a full view of the society's utter disgust and disapproval from many side characters. And in the end, I'm convinced that Jack was killed. The one argument I can't seem to overlook is Hathaway's performance that screams out to me that she's lying - when she says "yeah, that", I can just hear her anger towards Jack and the rehearsed story sounds completely fake (that Ang Lee has himself stated that she's lying makes this even harder to ignore).

The tragedy of Brokeback Mountain is neither just a psychological one nor a pure classical tragedy. It's a full story of the rural homophobia that's still alive and well today, and it's at work both inside and outside the story's characters.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Fri Sep 29 2006 03:25:34 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
*edit bump*
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Electric_Sheep (Fri Sep 29 2006 06:07:14 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Knowing Ang Lee, its very simple in hindsight....

Jacks's wife was a daddy's gal. Her dad who hated Jack all his life probably got Jack killed after his sexual orientation might have got discovered after he started his affair with his wifes' friends' husband.

Cheers.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Rontrigger (Fri Sep 29 2006 15:00:26 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
In the short story, Lureen's father was dead years before Jack. There's nothing in the film to indicate that Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, the screenwriters, intended to change that aspect of the story. Accordingly, we can safely assume that L.D. couldn't have had anything to do with Jack's death.

Also, we never see Jack and Randall together again after they meet at the dinner dance. It's likely that they became friends, and that when Jack was frustrated with Ennis after the lake scene, he told his father that he was going to bring someone else up to the ranch--a person whose description matches that of Randall. Beyond that, we have no proof of any kind of sexual relationship between Jack and Randall.

"You can't have Ennis without Jack."--Annie Proulx
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Oct 3 2006 01:41:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
We actually do have further proof - Jack mentions his adultery with Randall's wife to Ennis. Having seen them together I think we can agree that this is completely unlikely. But we saw how he flirted seriously with Randall. Why would Jack lie about it to Ennis? The only reason I can come up with is that Jack knew how Ennis would feel about him seeing another guy (partly due to jealousy, partly homophobia), so he changed the gender of his fling. When he's mentioned again by Jack's father, I don't think there's resonable doubt left.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Rontrigger (Tue Oct 3 2006 10:43:31 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I'm not so sure Jack was flirting seriously with Randall. It was more like the other way around. When Randall proposes the getaway to Roy Taylor's fishing cabin, Jack doesn't seem very enthusiastic.

It's also been suggested that Jack simply made up the whole story of seeing anyone on the side as a comeback to Ennis's mention of "putting the blocks" to Cassie. You're right that Ennis couldn't handle Jack seeing another guy (see what happened when Jack acknowledged going to Mexico), but cheating on each other with women didn't bother him.

Supposedly this didn't bother Jack either, but remember that Jack clearly was more in touch with his feelings for Ennis than vice versa. I think that one reason Jack was so quick to make that mistake and drive up to Wyoming after Ennis's divorce was the thrill of knowing that Alma (his competition) was out of Ennis's life. Now he learns about the "pretty little waitress" and knows that Ennis still isn't completely his. (Jack may have been hoping that his casual inquiry "All this time and you still ain't found no one to marry?" would be answered with a "no.")

And since the apparent mention of Randall by Jack's father referred to Jack's visit to Lightning Flat immediately after the lake scene, I'm still not sure that it's proof of Jack and Randall's relationship. Frustrated, Jack for some reason told his father that he would bring someone else to the ranch (clearly Randall, from the description). But even so, there are a couple of questions:

Was Jack already planning to leave Ennis before the lake scene? (I don't see any indication of that.) He would have to have been making such plans, if he seriously thought Randall would come with him to Lightning Flat--because if he said this on the spur of the moment AND thought Randall would come up, then Jack was even more of a dreamer than we all thought.

Plus, do you think Randall was the type who would come to Lightning Flat? He was the only college-educated man that we know of in the whole film (an Aggie, remember) and he simply didn't seem like the kind of guy who would enjoy the rustic setting of a lonely Wyoming ranch.

I don't think there's a safe assumption to be made about Jack and Randall beyond the likelihood that they became friends.

"You can't have Ennis without Jack."--Annie Proulx
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Fri Oct 13 2006 04:39:24 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I don't actually think Randall agreed to or even knew about Jack's plans about coming to Lightning Flats - just like Ennis hadn't known about them. Still, I think the film tells us that they were more than friends:

1) The flirt at the dance - sure Randall was the one flirting, but the look on Jack's face in the outside scene after Randall's proposition, especially when taken together with what Jack told his father at least showing that he thought of Randall in a similar way to how he'd thought of Ennis. So Randall is pretty aggressively pursuing Jack while Jack has clearly feelings for Randall - that they should be nothing but friends seems highly unlikely.

2) The adultery comment by the lakeside to Ennis - that it should be Randall's wife he had the imaginary encounters with again draws attention to the way Jack feels about Randall.

3) The Lightning Flats comment shows more than anything else that Randall was more to Jack than just a friend.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mrs_Billy_Costigan (Wed Oct 4 2006 12:22:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Oct 4 2006 12:31:11
MY HEAD HURTS. there's really no way of knowing. we'll never really know what happened to Jack-Jack. but think about this: what was the point of having Jack die? when I watched it the first time, i thought it was an accident and the murder scene was in Ennis's mind. I thought Jack's death was meant to be a wake-up call for Ennis. but then I watched it again and thought, was it actually murder? was Ennis right? was Jack wrong? or was it an accident? was Jack right? was Ennis wrong? we'll never know....
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mrs_Billy_Costigan (Thu Oct 5 2006 13:31:53 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
A thought just occurred.....what are Jack's chances of getting murdered in 1983 for the same reason that Earl was in 1953?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Sun Oct 15 2006 00:38:55 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I addressed this in the very first post:

* It's just too much of a coincident that Jack is killed in exactly the same way as the guy whose death has traumatised Ennis
- It may be no coincidence at all - it may indeed be the fate openly gay men met with sooner or later in that time and place.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mrs_Billy_Costigan (Tue Oct 24 2006 14:51:32 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
If Jack really did get killed like Earl did, then it's one goddamn bitch of a pessimistic movie. I don't thin that's the point the movie is trying to make. in fact, obviously it isn't the point. it's all about Ennis and his inability to accept himself so to have get get killed in a gay bashing murder would contradict ALL of that..
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Tue Oct 24 2006 16:14:49 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Hi sugarsweetsantinosbridesmade666 --

"If Jack really did get killed like Earl did, then it's one goddamn bitch of a pessimistic movie."

Ya think? This isn't exactly Brokeback Care Bears you know.

"I don't thin that's the point the movie is trying to make. in fact, obviously it isn't the point. it's all about Ennis and his inability to accept himself so to have get get killed in a gay bashing murder would contradict ALL of that.."

No. In fact, either way that Jack may have died reinforces the theme of the movie... the destructive effects of rural homophobia.

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Wed Oct 25 2006 09:50:29 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Oct 25 2006 10:38:50
This isn't exactly Brokeback Care Bears you know.

LOL!

You were replying to, "if Jack was murdered, it would be a goddamn bitch of a pessimistic movie." And, if Jack died the way Lureen said, it STILL would be a goddamn bitch of a pessimistic movie. Annie has said that she could not see any other way for the story to end.

The movie is about the tragedy that they could not be together while they were both alive -- due to, either way, the destructive effects of rural homophobia as Clancy pointed out.

And it should be noted that Clancy did not pull the phrase "the destructive effects of rural homophobia" out of thin air. It is what the author Annie Proulx says the point of the story is, and she's the one who gets to say.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Wed Oct 25 2006 11:14:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Hi NewHorizons37 --

I agree with what you wrote.

One thing, though...

"And it should be noted that Clancy did not pull the phrase "the destructive effects of rural homophobia" out of thin air."

Some people have accused me of pulling this out of my a$$...

Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by taj_e (Sun Oct 29 2006 07:41:07 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sun Oct 29 2006 07:43:22
Annie has said that she could not see any other way for the story to end

Yay! Annie won! hehe

I've given another thought on the interview and still I believe that the only lie she was dead on was the fact that Jack is gay and not so much about how he died but why he died. She was trying to cover up Jack's sexuality. She probably wasn't sure herself until she spoke with Ennis over the phone

The accident can fool anyone but not Ennis, not us viewers for Ennis/we know Jack is gay

The only thing that Ennis/we do not know was HOW. How much we wanted to know, how much Ennis wants to convince himself, Ennis/we will never know. But what we do know is 'Why did Jack die?' OR if I may rephrase the question, to Ennis and us viewers we wanted more, "WHY Jack needs/has to die?"

Hence we have threads... "Did Jack really quit on Ennis/ Ennis: Jack I swear...'

If we are grieving over Jack's death, I don't think we would be crying 'How' other than 'Why'

All people wanted to know How, and Lureen fed them the same. Ennis wanted to be sure WHY and he didn't buy the accident story. He got his 'answer' from OMT by the mention of Randall. He must have thought that Jack had been seen/caught with another man, it must be it

So to the HOWs, you may want to join hands with the WHYs and together to see/understand what really killed Jack, why Annie could not see any other way for the story to end

News:

Author Topic: Which story was true? -- by sasya (Read 6532 times)

TOoP/Bruce

Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya

TOoP/Bruce

Re: Which story was true? -- by sasya