Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
The story flashback about Jack's dad peeing on him
serious crayons:
What do you all think about this? What was its purpose in the short story -- symbolically, narratively, etc.? Did it achieve that/those purpose(s)? Why, aside from the obvious problems of filming it, do you think it wasn't included in the movie? Should it have been?
Brown Eyes:
--- Quote from: ineedcrayons on October 27, 2007, 01:06:53 am ---What do you all think about this? What was its purpose in the short story -- symbolically, narratively, etc.? Did it achieve that/those purpose(s)? Why, aside from the obvious problems of filming it, do you think it wasn't included in the movie? Should it have been?
--- End quote ---
This is a good, and no-doubt, very complicated topic to bring up. It's late and I'm too sleepy to tackle this fully at the moment. But, the first thing that springs to mind about what purpose that episode serves in the story... is that it seems important to establish that both Jack and Ennis had really, really difficult relationships with their fathers. I'm not exactly sure what Proulx is trying to say with that gesture in the story. But, the abusive scene with Jack's father seems somehow related, if not exactly equivalent, to Ennis's Earl story and the inherently abusive act of forcing Ennis and KE to view Earl's body. At one basic level, perhaps the fact that they each had very difficult fathers gives Jack and Ennis something to bond over... even if it's sort of a tacit bonding.
I'm sure there are a million other meanings and ways to view this scene with Jack's father.
It also seems very significant that the filmmakers left this scene or any reference to it, out completely. Representing that scene would definitely have been hard, but I'm not sure that that's a great reason for leaving it out. I hope that's not really the reason they left it out (I would hope that the filmmakers would have some concrete reason/ explanation for leaving it out).... there at least could be ways of suggesting what was happening in the bathroom without actually showing it in a graphic way. The camera could have cut away... the incident could have been represented through sound and suggestion, etc. It would never have been a pleasant thing, but I think there are probably ways it could have been done. In a way, I do think it should have been in the film. It's a horrible scene/ detail, but it's so striking and leaves such an impression on the reader of the story, that I think it's a fairly major aspect of the story to leave out.
The major impact of leaving it out is that OMT doesn't seem quite as bad in the film compared to the story. And, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing when it comes to the audience's understanding of Jack's background. We understand by the end how impoverished Jack was growing up, and we understand that his father was grouchy and cold, but the film audience really doesn't get a clear sense that Jack was a pretty severely abused child.
I'll be very interested to see how this discussion goes.
Delmardeb:
--- Quote from: atz75 on October 27, 2007, 02:10:28 am ---This is a good, and no-doubt, very complicated topic to bring up. It's late and I'm too sleepy to tackle this fully at the moment. But, the first thing that springs to mind about what purpose that episode serves in the story... is that it seems important to establish that both Jack and Ennis had really, really difficult relationships with their fathers. I'm not exactly sure what Proulx is trying to say with that gesture in the story. But, the abusive scene with Jack's father seems somehow related, if not exactly equivalent, to Ennis's Earl story and the inherently abusive act of forcing Ennis and KE to view Earl's body. At one basic level, perhaps the fact that they each had very difficult fathers gives Jack and Ennis something to bond over... even if it's sort of a tacit bonding.
I'm sure there are a million other meanings and ways to view this scene with Jack's father.
It also seems very significant that the filmmakers left this scene or any reference to it, out completely. Representing that scene would definitely have been hard, but I'm not sure that that's a great reason for leaving it out. I hope that's not really the reason they left it out (I would hope that the filmmakers would have some concrete reason/ explanation for leaving it out).... there at least could be ways of suggesting what was happening in the bathroom without actually showing it in a graphic way. The camera could have cut away... the incident could have been represented through sound and suggestion, etc. It would never have been a pleasant thing, but I think there are probably ways it could have been done. In a way, I do think it should have been in the film. It's a horrible scene/ detail, but it's so striking and leaves such an impression on the reader of the story, that I think it's a fairly major aspect of the story to leave out.
The major impact of leaving it out is that OMT doesn't seem quite as bad in the film compared to the story. And, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing when it comes to the audience's understanding of Jack's background. We understand by the end how impoverished Jack was growing up, and we understand that his father was grouchy and cold, but the film audience really doesn't get a clear sense that Jack was a pretty severely abused child.
I'll be very interested to see how this discussion goes.
--- End quote ---
Delmardeb:
I am still confused about how you comment on parts of someone's post.
But anyway, I agree with the last part of your post where you state that people who see the movie won't really know how abusive Jack's father was towards him. (especially those who did not read the short story) I have even read that some people felt that OMT was not that bad. However, if the part about him urinating on young Jack was somehow depicted in the movie, there would have been no room to feel sorry for OMT.
We saw the extent of the abuse by Ennis' father when we saw how he and his brother were forced to look at Earl's mutilated body. But we didn't see the extent of the abuse that was suffered by Jack.
LauraGigs:
On an initial, superficial level I think it was an unnecessary and rather dumb part of the story (similar to when Proulx goes ON and ON about the Ennis/K.E. fight thing. Why does she touch on most of the crucial details and plot points so quickly and dryly, and go on forever about that?) Anyway . . .
--- Quote ---What was its purpose in the short story -- symbolically, narratively, etc.?
--- End quote ---
I think it parallels other symbols suggesting that Jack (or anyone in that environment with Jack's spirit) basically lived "under a cloud" or at constant risk.
His birthplace was Lightning Flat. (In a flat place, you are constantly vulnerable to lightning strikes — the wrath of God/Zeus/Fate).
His death involved being struck down. (Either from above by tire irons — or in a random "sudden burst" of the tire.)
In between, he lived his life dogged by uncommonly short karma and vulnerability to consequence. The low startle point horse throwing him. Comforting Ennis, only to get punched. His offering a beer to Jimbo resulting in a stinging and dangerous rejection.
His father urinating on him was a similar symbol (struck from above over issues relating to his penis/sexuality).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version