Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
The story flashback about Jack's dad peeing on him
Penthesilea:
--- Quote from: ineedcrayons on October 27, 2007, 01:06:53 am ---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 ---
Answering only to this part (for now).
Apparently, the decision to not include the abuse scene has been made pretty early by Ossana/McMurtry. It's not in the earlier scripts. In the 2003 one, another flashback of the Earl scene was planned directly before Ennis goes upstairs (same moment when in the book Ennis recalls the abuse). Same flashback as at the reunion, but this time, the camera moves closer to the body and it's not Earl's face - it's Jack's. God, luckily they did not include this :'(
This second flashback was to convent the sentence "So he knew it had been the tire iron" on film. The abuse scene was not planned to be filmed from early on.
Maybe they thought it would be too much and/or would deflect from the grief for Jack at this moment of the film: the deceased postcard, the phone call, OMT talking about the ranch neighbour, and then The Shirts. I tend to agree that it simply would have been too much at this point, but they still could have included it at another point of the movie.
Amanda and Delmardeb are right: it shows OMT and Jack's childhood in a whole different, horrid light. I remember my reaction when I read the story after seeing the movie. My very first reaction was OMG, poor Jack (and 'what an §#&%$§' about OMT), and thank God they didn't include this into the movie. I felt like they had spared us from witnessing this scene.
Brown Eyes:
I agree that it's nice, in a certain way, that we weren't subjected to experiencing that scene in the movie... of course it would be a dreadful scene to visualize or represent. But, I still don't think that's a great reason for leaving it out. Just because it's difficult and unpleasant doesn't mean it should have been omitted. There are lots of difficult and harsh things in the film as it is. The Earl scene is, of course, one thing that stands out as particularly harsh... and the filmmakers didn't even shy away from unpleasant things like Alma's reaction to being flipped over in bed... or the vision of Jack's possible-murder.
It does seem that this peeing scene would have the potential to really stand out and leave a big impression on the audience and I'm sure the film would seem much different if it was included. But, I think it would have stood out in an equivalent way to how it stands out for the reader of the story. I think anyone who reads the story will always vividly recall the descriptions of that memory for Jack.
Penthesilea:
--- Quote from: atz75 on October 27, 2007, 03:27:41 pm ---I agree that it's nice, in a certain way, that we weren't subjected to experiencing that scene in the movie... of course it would be a dreadful scene to visualize or represent. But, I still don't think that's a great reason for leaving it out. Just because it's difficult and unpleasant doesn't mean it should have been omitted. There are lots of difficult and harsh things in the film as it is. The Earl scene is, of course, one thing that stands out as particularly harsh... and the filmmakers didn't even shy away from unpleasant things like Alma's reaction to being flipped over in bed... or the vision of Jack's possible-murder.
--- End quote ---
Completely agreed. I've not made up my mind yet whether I think the scene should have been included in the movie or not. The above said was only my very first reaction.
But I think the filmmakers were right to not include it at this specific point of the movie. Which leaves me to contemplate where they could (should?) have included it....
Hell, they just should have shown all those trips in twenty years; plenty of possibilities ... ;)
Brown Eyes:
A lot of things we learn in the story during the motel scene were displaced and dispersed int the film for sure. But, you're right it's hard to think of exactly where the scene could have been included in the movie. Maybe one simple solution to the difficulty of actually filmming a visual representation of the peeing scene would be to have Jack simply re-tell the story verbally... actually as happens in the book.
Back to the function of the peeing scene... why do you think Proulx created such awful fathers for both of these characters? They're not just bad fathers in the story... they're pretty horrific fathers. I think the idea that it's something Jack and Ennis can bond over (to a certain extent) is one function... but is she trying to say something else with the way she represents fathers?
And how does this impact our understanding of the kinds of fathers that Jack and Ennis are themselves? Often in abusive families you hear about the pattern of abusiveness repeating itself across generations... and this definitely is not the case here with Jack and Ennis. Even if Jack didn't want kids (and I do think that's directly related to his awful relationship with his father), we get the sense that he's a pretty good father (especially movie-Jack). And, of course, Ennis is a devoted Dad too... and maybe to a greater extent than Jack.
Brown Eyes:
I had another random thought/ question about the whole "peeing" topic related to the film of BBM just now. This is a very long stretch and maybe grasping at straws... but, the filmmakers seemed to go out of their way to depict Jack himself peeing during the '63 summer. Do you think this was a very, very veiled/ distant reference to the peeing topic in the story?
??? :-\
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version