Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
Why Jack Quit Ennis
ruthlesslyunsentimental:
--- Quote from: Mikaela on July 14, 2006, 06:23:08 am ---My God, people, how do you find the *time* for these lengthy and illuminating posts?
--- End quote ---
I know my posts can get quite lengthy… sorry … but if they’re illuminating, too, then I don’t feel so bad. I find just about every post here to be illuminating – that’s why I respond to just about every one of them. You all make for some pretty good and lively discussions Makes me feel all perky.
--- Quote ---I've stated elsewhere that when it comes to "Did Ennis know the "thing" was love" I agree completely with Katherine.
--- End quote ---
But there are some distinctions to be made here. I agree Ennis knew it was love. But what did he *do* with that knowledge? How did he react to it? To what extent did he “know” it? For how long – both chronically and acutely? Did he let it rise to the surface and remain? Did he define his relationship that way? He did everything he could to distance himself from allowing “it’s love” to be incorporated into his life. This was one of the greatest destructive effects of homophobia on the poor guy – the inability to admit to himself that he was “in love” with a man.
--- Quote ---…if losing Jack was necessary for Ennis to be able to move forward in life or to at least come to terms with his own life or manage the day-to-day "being Ennis" - why doesn't Jack's death work the same way? Or does it? But I see this has been touched upon in the most recent exchange of posts, so I'll count myself answered, if still actively mulling this over.
--- End quote ---
It’s still worth mulling over. First, we could get into an entirely new thread discussing whether Jack’s death does or doesn’t allow Ennis to move forward or come to terms. I think the important thing to remember here is that because of Jack’s death, it really becomes a moot point. We all know that Ennis learned some things about life and love – too little, too late – but, there are still too many clues that Ennis will continue to live a lonely life and never love again. Aren’t our only real clues that he might move on 1) the little bits of learning that we see he did at the very end, and 2) his agreeing to go to Jr.’s wedding? Two wouldn’t have happened but for one. And two is simply the most important day in Jr.’s life – Ennis mentions its importance. Does this really add up to Ennis “coming to terms?”
Second, the focus should not be on “…if losing Jack was necessary for Ennis…” Regardless whether it would or could cause Ennis to “move on” or “come to terms,” Jack releasing Ennis from his captivity was necessary for Jack to do because Jack loved Ennis. That’s what true love makes one do. It makes one do the right thing – sublimating oneself and one’s needs for the one one loves. If Ennis “moves on” as a result, great. “Come to terms,” even better. Regardless its outcome, it’s what Ennis needed and Jack gave him what he needed.
--- Quote ---Another thing I've been mulling over is whether Jack subconsciously - I don't ever think he'd do this consciously - realized that one way of managing the quitting (again, quitting for the sake of Ennis, for his love of Ennis) would be his own death…
--- End quote ---
A little too far for even me. :laugh:
--- Quote ---I just can't get my head around the Randall we meet in the film ever moving to Lightning Flat.
--- End quote ---
You make a lot of very good points here. (I didn’t quote them all, but they’re there in your post above for anyone who wants to re-read them.)
--- Quote ---For one thing, the shooting script included a scene where Randall lets Jack out of his car and they are observed by some grumpy guys who don't seem to appreciate two men behaving in that particular way. This must have been filmed since those guys appear in the BBM trailer and in all probability are the ones who kill Jack in the telephone conversation "flashback".
--- End quote ---
OK – please indulge my little rant… I hate going to extraneous things that just aren’t “Brokeback Mountain.” To me, BBM is the film as we see it with our eyes and hear it with our ears. The short story, the screenplay, the script, comments from Proulx, Lee, the actors… it’s all just speculation and interpretation. The film does not follow the short story, the screenplay, or the script in every way, and in many instances, not in key ways. Facts were changed and cannot be translated from any one to any one of the others. Same with motivations – except for “well, possibly what’s going on here…” But that’s no different than any other interpretation any one else would come up with. The people involved have all said many things about BBM. Too often, they contradict each other and they contradict themselves. Too often, they change their story over time. And one of the biggest offenders in this regard is Proulx. Yes, she’s the author of the short story, but she’s not the author of the film. Even Lee’s intentions for what he wanted to do with the film and get across through the film did not all come to pass. The film is as we see and hear it.
Sorry for that. Now, that having been said, I’ll get into the point of the comment I quoted above. What I read is that the scene of which you speak was not filmed. The guys we see in the trailer were filmed as a part of the scene at the beginning of the movie where Ennis walks in (from the semi that brought him to Signal) past an auto garage and the three men look at Ennis. Ennis sees them. The point behind this scene having been filmed was that when Ennis’ imagination ran wild and he envisioned Jack being murdered, the three men who Ennis saw murder Jack in his imagination were the same men Ennis had walked past on his first morning in Signal. The implication being that Ennis was so scared and homophobic as he walked into Signal that those three men stuck in his mind until his imagination pulled them out twenty years later. The scene wasn’t included in the film because Lee knew that if people realized that the three men beating up Jack were those same three men Ennis had walked past twenty years earlier, the whole “Jack was murdered” scenario would be obviously bogus to the viewer. It’s interesting that Lee thought that would be too much of a clue that Jack wasn’t really murdered, but Lee obviously didn’t think that showing an imagination coming out of Ennis’ overly fearful imagination would be too much of a clue. Go figure.
--- Quote ---I think he mentioned Randall not because he necessarily believed in it, nor because he and Randall had made any sort of final decision about it - but because he needed to officially start "quitting" Ennis as soon as possible, while his decision held firm. To make it as much of a road of no return for himself as possible. And where better to do that than the place where he had indulged in speaking his daydreams of ranching up with Ennis out loud? Once he'd said that it was over out loud too, it would be so much more real. And no better way to say it is over than to introduce the new guy at the same time. Makes it sound that much more final.
--- End quote ---
Excellent take on it. Spot on, if you ask me.
--- Quote ---…imagine what that part of the film (and the following scene of Ennis finding the shirts) would have lost if the news to Ennis that Jack was leaving him hadn't been there....
--- End quote ---
Another great one.
ruthlesslyunsentimental:
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on July 14, 2006, 08:46:57 am ---I"m still finding it difficult to wrap my mind around the notion that Randall ultimately wanted more from Jack than a couple of weekends a year at his boss's croppie house on Lake Kemp.
--- End quote ---
I don’t have any problem with going with this interpretation. I’d like to throw out though that it’s also possible that… Randall was gay and wanted gay sex. In that time and place it was hard to come by. He noticed “something” about Jack. He propositioned. Jack accepted. (All of this is over a period of time, by the way.) So they got together for gay sex needs from time to time – probably more often than Jack and Ennis. … Now, as this kind of relationship goes on, it seems to me quite likely that a friendship would develop and that could easily lead to non-sexual needing and wanting, and ultimately to love… caring and affection. Either way, there was something that made Jack bring it up to his folks.
--- Quote ---…I do think the look on Jack's face when Randall makes his proposition indicates that this is the first time Jack's felt himself the pursued instead of the pursuer …
--- End quote ---
I take this is “gay sex-wise” since Lureen pursued Jack once.
ruthlesslyunsentimental:
--- Quote from: dly64 on July 14, 2006, 01:49:44 pm ---However, I can’t see Jack being able to “quit” Ennis, either (by “quit” I mean releasing Ennis … setting Ennis free. I don’t mean, in any way shape or form, that Jack would stop loving Ennis. That would never happen).
--- End quote ---
Hmmmm. I’ve said before that Jack was faced with the choice of releasing Ennis or holding him captive. Does this fit in with your belief of “not quit?”
--- Quote ---Jack and Ennis’ psyche’s were intertwined. One was not complete without the other.
--- End quote ---
Which is why I believe Jack never stopped loving Ennis, but did release Ennis.
--- Quote ---I know I get a lot of grief for referring to the short story and screenplay since the film stands on its own … which is true. However, the screenplay offers some background and motivation that can not be explicitly expressed on the screen. The above quote, IMO, is one of those instances. As is the following …
“…they hug one another, a fierce, desperate embrace – managing to torque things almost to where they had been, for what they’ve just said is no news: as always, nothing ended, nothing begun, nothing resolved.”
--- End quote ---
The problem here is that what you have quoted contradicts what we see in the film. It is not true that nothing ended, or nothing began, or nothing was resolved. This is also internally contradicted in the short story itself when the short story talks about truths and lies. These are new beginnings and new endings. Also, in the film, there was not “no news.” There was “news.” And the finality of *nothing* (three times) is contradicted by “almost.” It's interesting writing -- to be honest, I wouldn't even call it good writing; it's too much like something one would read in a fantasy romance novel -- but it's internally conflicted.
--- Quote ---For all we know, he [Randall] could have grown up with humble roots.
--- End quote ---
Well, Jack did love a little dog. (There, now *I* did it. Shame on me!)
--- Quote ---OT: I always wondered how those guys would have fit in. (That’s why we need a special edition. There are a few scenes on the trailer that don’t show up in the film). BTW … where were you able to find the shooting script? I think it would be interesting to review.
--- End quote ---
Oh, no. Not more confusion! :laugh: This is exactly why I hope they never put out a special edition DVD.
--- Quote ---This is where I most strongly disagree. Jack was going to go to see his parents for a day or two before they had their row. My feeling has always been that Jack went to his parents’ because the shirts were there. That gave him the chance to be close to a part of Ennis, when he could not be with him physically (harkening back to when Jack tells Ennis that he misses him so much …. )
--- End quote ---
This confuses me. Jack told Ennis that he was going up to Lightning Flat. Then they argued. Then Jack went up to Lightning Flat. Right? I’m not seeing a distinction here.
I think Jack went up to Lightning Flat to see his folks and help out a bit. When he said to Ennis that he was going up to Lightning Flat, why would the reason be to see the shirts when Ennis was standing right in front Jack? Because the shirts were more special to Jack than the man himself? I’m sure you didn’t mean that. But I am confused.
--- Quote ---He was, more than likely, having an affair with Randall for awhile. IMO, Jack was seeing Randall solely out of frustration and need. I don’t see that Jack really cared that much for Randall. I know that is a controversial opinion. However, I think Jack saw Randall as a way to meet his sexual needs, not much more. (i.e. “I can’t make it on a couple of high altitude f--ks once or twice a year.”)
--- End quote ---
But is this the kind of man that Jack is portrayed to us as? Meaningless sex, on-going with one individual, for a period of years, and yet no feelings for the individual? Jack probably had meaningless sex with different individuals over a period of years in Mexico. But, Randall was Jack’s “one and only” in Childress. I think…
--- Quote ---However, I believe that Jack would have continued the “fishing trips” with Ennis. I am hearing people say (in this thread) that Jack wouldn’t do that to Randall or Ennis. But wasn’t that what he was already doing?
--- End quote ---
I have a hard time wrapping myself around this one. Would you still say the same thing in light of the fact that at the breakdown Jack became acutely aware of the destructive effects on Ennis due to his inability to keep his worlds in harmony? This is the part I have the hardest time coming to grips with: Jack loving Ennis so much that he chooses to keep Ennis in suffering. I don’t see Jack that way.
--- Quote ---However, he was unable to release Jack, as Jack was unable to release Ennis.
--- End quote ---
Why? Why were they unable? My argument has been that it’s the great love that exists between them that not only makes Jack “able,” but makes it impossible to do anything else. I very well may be missing something, but I don't understand a love that keeps your lover in agony, turmoil, chaos – in chains created by an inner conflict that goes to the very core of Ennis’ being.
ruthlesslyunsentimental:
--- Quote ---My feeling has always been that Jack went to his parents’ because the shirts were there.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Jeff Wrangler on July 14, 2006, 02:18:19 pm ---With that point have to respectfully disagree, as it seems to me a bit of an overstatement. Actually, I think Jack made all those trips to Lightning Flat over the years because, regardless of his poor relationship with his father, I think he felt an admirable sense of responsibility to his parents.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this. Maybe this is what I was confused about in the post you quoted here. Was the poster talking about each time Jack went up to Lightning Flat? I thought the poster meant that particular time, going up there right after the final lake scene. Maybe this is where I got confused?
--- Quote ---I guess it's a measure of how far I've fallen from the true faith, but I've even begun to wonder whether it's possible Jack had forgotten that those shirts were stuck in the back of that closet. ...
Just wonderin' if it's possible. ...
--- End quote ---
It’s valid to wonder. I can’t see it, though. The Twist home and ranch don’t look like they hold too many other things to think about whilst Jack would be milling about the place.
If he had forgotten them, wouldn’t there have to be a diminishment of their significance to Jack? Do you think there’s any reason to believe this? I’m not sure. Jack didn’t take them to Texas could be used as an argument… he didn’t take them to Texas because they weren’t that significant to him or he had forgotten about them. But, I’ve always felt that he didn’t take them to Texas because how would he *really* hide them? On another thought, would he *really* have to? He could have taken the shirts to Texas and had Lureen found them and asked about them, Jack could have simply said he had a friend once, they got in a fight, and parted, and this was Jack’s way of remembering a lost friend. He wouldn’t have to connect them with Ennis at all. And it seems as if Lureen probably wouldn’t have given a second thought… after telling Jack that that’s silly. I dunno. Good question. You’ve created a coffee pot handle for which I’m circling around trying to find.
ruthlesslyunsentimental:
--- Quote from: DavidinHartford on July 14, 2006, 02:38:13 pm ---Yet, if I had to listen to LaShawn cackle like that 24/7, I'd run away far and fast! LOL.
--- End quote ---
Hmmmm. I always thought she was kinda perky.
--- Quote ---But as his Dad said, Jack was all talk, no action.
--- End quote ---
Jack’s dad did not say this. He said: “He had some half-baked notion…” and “… so he says. But, like most of Jack’s ideas… never come to pass.”
I don’t see this as being the same. But even if one does want to equate the two, we can be certain that Jack’s dad was wrong if we go with the "all talk, no action" take on it. Jack talked, but he also acted. He always took steps to make what he said come to pass. He wasn’t always successful, and sometimes he got the wrong results, but sometimes he got the right result. But, after all is said and done, Jack did try.
--- Quote ---Only Anne Proulx knows and she's not talking.
--- End quote ---
How could she know? She didn’t write the film. And the film and Proulx’s story are two distinctly separate creations with different characters, different events, different plotlines, etc. But I already went off on this tangent. Sorry.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version