Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
RossInIllinois:
--- Quote from: brokeplex on February 02, 2008, 08:17:29 pm ---And I'd say you are in very good company as it appears to be the nearly universal opinion among Brokies that Jack is the biological father.
Except there are a pesky few like me who have noticed that:
1) In the film on the day/night of Jack and Lureen's nookies the sign over the announcer's booth at the Childress Co Rodeo read: "Aug 7 - Aug 14" (as in August 1966 - see "BM : Story to Screenplay" p. 39 in screenplay - "INT: CHILDRESS, TEXAS: RODEO ARENA: NIGHT (LATER): 1966" ),
2) In the film later the postmark on Jack's first post card to Ennis read "Sept 1967",
3) And put those hints together with Jack's dialog in the film when he tells Ennis, "I got a boy. Eight months old."
Given the normal human gestation period, the math just doesn't add up to some "Twist" semen.
--- End quote ---
Please Note, Unless the post mark or year is mentioned in the original short story its artistic license in the movie. The post mark/year means nothing, the SHORT STORY is the real story not the movie. If you will read the short story you will see the post card arrived in "June".
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: RossInIllinois on February 03, 2008, 02:34:00 pm ---Please Note, Unless the post mark or year is mentioned in the original short story its artistic license in the movie. The post mark/year means nothing, the SHORT STORY is the real story not the movie. If you will read the short story you will see the post card arrived in "June".
--- End quote ---
The screen play and the film make significant departures from the short story, that is why I deliberately choose not to mix the short story with the film. I am only using the screen play and the film as canon for the Lureen pregnancy question. Using the ss only, I agree with you.
RossInIllinois:
--- Quote from: brokeplex on February 03, 2008, 03:37:18 pm ---The screen play and the film make significant departures from the short story, that is why I deliberately choose not to mix the short story with the film. I am only using the screen play and the film as canon for the Lureen pregnancy question. Using the ss only, I agree with you.
--- End quote ---
The short story is the REAL story NOT the movie. You should base nothing off of the film in regards to BBM. Many mistakes are made in films, so why would you want to base anything off of mistakes?
brokeplex:
Whoa cowboy! Let the horses munch on some clover for a while and rest.
Lets both agree that the short story and the film are two separate but equally valid creations. Lets both agree that anyone can critique both or either as long as you are careful not to mix the two.
For the purposes of a discussion about Lureen's pregnancy on this thread and also on other threads, I chose information from the film that led me to the conclusion that Jack is not the biological father of Bobby. Many here on Bettermost disagree with my conclusions. I am not a stranger to controversy. On other threads most everyone disagrees with my conclusion that Jack Twist was adopted, or my conclusion that Aguirre is an OK boss, or my conclusion that the heteronorming elements in the film were added by the screenwriters in order to boost marketability - to just name a few.
You can ignore that information which I saw on the film, or believe that it was just a mistake on the part of the director and screenwriters to include that information, or a misinterpretation on my part. All AOK with me.
But to say that there is not valid basis upon which to critique the film if it disagrees with the ss seems rather odd to me. If I am misinterpreting your conclusion, then mea culpa. If not, please tell me why we can not for the purposes of analysis treat the ss and film as separate and distinct works?
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: brokeplex on February 03, 2008, 04:40:05 pm ---I am not a stranger to controversy. ... to just name a few.
--- End quote ---
:laugh: And that's not even getting into the political discussion threads!
I agree that Aguirre is an OK boss (a jerk, but not a bad boss). And I agree that the film is every bit as "real" as the story, and as legitimate a work for analysis. When the film and story diverge, they should be considered separately. But one does not automatically trump the other, possible timeline mistakes and other bloopers notwithstanding.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version