Jack's adolescence is a blank page...

[Penthesilea]

The visual clues from his bedroom seem a litte odd to me in regards to the question of his adolescence, because his Lightning Flat bedroom really looks like a small child's room more than a teenage room.

Mrs Twist even describes it as such: "I kept his room like it was when he was a boy and I think he appreciated that."

Now it's agruable that a woman of her age could just as easily describe a teenager still as a boy, especially if it was her (only) son. I think in this case it was meant both, literally and figuratively.

But what would the difference have been? What would have been different in a room inhabited by a teenager in that specific time and place?
One thing that comes to my mind are posters. We know from the story that there was a poster of a dark-haired movie star, the skin tone had gone magenta.

When I think back to my own childhood room, posters were pretty much the most remarkable difference between me being a child and being a teenager. And the room got more and more crammed full of stuff. All the childhood things stayed, and the teenager stuff was added.
Now what chance did Jack have to hoard teenager stuff? He lived very isolated, he was a highschool dropout (and I bet this was OMT's doing "He's old enough to earn his keep") and money was sparse.

I wonder where he did have his car from? Did he buy it with the money he had earned on Brokeback the summer before? How did he get to Aguirre's office then? Did OMT drive him? Somehow I think Jack's truck was an old farm truck his father didn't need anymore and it was in a too bad condition to be worth any money.

On the question of being run off: I think there are several levels of being run off. You can throw out your child with it's meager belongings for once and all (and threaten it to never come back). You can treat your child in a way that it runs as soon as it's halfways old enough. And there are many nuances in between.
For Jack and OMT I figure it was something in between. OMT didn't throw Jack out for once and all. Jack returned to LF after Brokeback 63, and also probably in 62. And he continued to return his whole life.
But I guess OMT made it clear to Jack that he wasn't able to earn his keep with helping on the ranch (he could never do anything that pleased OMT) and OMT didn't want to feed him forever.
I guess they were both happy when Jack went to Brokeback respectively went to the rodeo circus.

[Brown Eyes]

Thanks Chrissi!  In terms of his boyhood room... everything in the room just feels way too small for a teenage boy.  And, the prominence of the toy cowboy and toy gun all just make the room feel like it's really set up for quite a young child.  Maybe the Twists were so poor that they couldn't update Jack's room when he got older/bigger.  But, still, to me the room just visually appears too young.

And, when Jack asks if Ennis's folks ran him off... it sounds to me like Jack is implying the idea of parents actively kicking kids out.  I agree that there could be different "degrees" of running off... and both the child and the parent could be involved somewhat.  I think this particular issue with Jack goes to how severe we believe the abuse was from OMT (and how long it lasted) and how rebellious we believe Jack was as a teenager.

[Penthesilea]

I think this particular issue with Jack goes to how severe we believe the abuse was from OMT (and how long it lasted) and how rebellious we believe Jack was as a teenager.

And how common it was to run kids off. Thinking back on my teenager years, I knew several people who were run off respectively were abandoned by their parents. One classmate came home from a school trip and found two plastic bags with his clothes in front of the door. His mother told him that her lover had moved in while he was away and there was no more room for him. And this was in so-called modern times, in urban settings and with plenty of laws to protect children/teenagers.
I think it would not have been more rare in a tough, unforgiving sourrounding like rural Wyoming in 1963. Maybe Jack had heard a similar story many times before.

[Artiste]

Wow!

I knew several people who were run off respectively were abandoned by their parents. One classmate came home from a school trip and found two plastic bags with his clothes in front of the door. His mother told him that her lover had moved in while he was away and there was no more room for him. And this was in so-called modern times, in urban settings and with plenty of laws to protect children/teenagers.
 

......

Is this why that I felt that Jack was maybe an orphan or something like that??

I think that Jack is from his mother's sister!! ?? Is that making sense?

Hugs!

[Mandy21]

I'm not sure "run off" would be the right term.  He was 18 in '62, and we don't know how many years of high school he completed.  Maybe his dad made him drop out at 15, expecting / needing him to be a help on the farm, continued to give him food and shelter, etc., and Jack turns out to not have his heart in it at all.  I would think he would just want to get the heck out of that place the minute he could.  We don't know if Jack had any other jobs prior to Brokeback '62 to earn some cash to buy that truck, but I'm leaning towards the idea above that it was just an old clunker of a truck, and his dad let him have it, on the hope that he'd get out of town in it, and maybe stay gone since he wasn't any help to him on the farm.  We also don't know if Jack came back home for the winter '62 / spring '63 period before heading back to Brokeback.  I'm guessing he must have cause he probably couldn't have made it to warmer climes to work the Rodeo circuit in that thing.

On the earlier topic of his "initiation" (what a nice word for it:)), I agree that he surely seems like a young man who has had some experience in the arena of sex with a man.  Let's face it, he was the one reaching for Ennis's right hand in the tent, and he didn't seem too confused by the act itself, in terms of who goes where and what goes where (hope I'm not offending anybody).  I think by the way Aguirre gives the instructions to Jack and Ennis on day one, that those were the standard set of instructions, followed year after year -- that there was always one man staying at the camp and one man staying with the sheep.  Remember, he says don't leave no signs that you were there to Jack, that the Forest Service can't know that you were there.  One person couldn't survive in just what he could carry on the back of one horse through those conditions.  So I think there had to always be two up there.  Having said that, I'm not sold on the idea that Jack had his initiation at Brokeback in '62 for this reason (bear with me, it's kind of scattered):  Jack seems to me as a very romantic, sensual man -- the kind that could fall in love and get his heart broken easily.  If he'd had sex with his Brokeback partner in '62, I suppose it could have just been casual sex, but how casual can sex be when it goes on for 6 months (April - Sept).  And if it went on for that long, Jack seems to me the type who would have fallen in love with that guy.  If that was the case, and Jack never saw that guy again, he'd have had a broken heart, he'd have been gun-shy about jumping in again.  The Jack that pulls up in front of that trailer in April '63 and gets out, kicks his truck, turns and lays his eyes on Ennis one time and then oh-so-seductively poses against his truck with those come-and-get-me-cowboy eyes (sorry, I'm getting hot and bothered now) -- to me, that is NOT a man who's ever had a broken heart or been the least bit hesitant to jump in with both feet when he sees something he wants.   So, IMHO, I don't think Jack was a virgin, but I also don't think he lost it on Brokeback.

Any of that make any sense to anybody?

[Brown Eyes]

Heya Mandy!

Great post Bud!   

And, I agree with you that it seems highly likely that Jack could have lost his virginity prior to meeting Ennis.  I think there are arguments to be made that it could have been either during the summer of '62 or before.  I think maybe a big reason that the summer of '62 and Jack's prior experience with Aguirre and the sheep are even part of the story is to suggest the possibility of Jack's earlier sexual experience.  There's not really enough evidence in any case to say definitively if or when Jack lost his virginity prior to '63.  So, a lot of this ambiguous question will always remain up for interpretation.

I think in all things in BBM, Jack is meant to be seen as "ahead" of Ennis... in literal terms (Jack leads Ennis to the bar in the beginning, Jack leads the flock of sheep up the mountain) and in terms of personality/ life experience (he seems to accept himself way ahead of Ennis and the idea that he's sexually experienced before Ennis seems to fit right in to this whole pattern).  The one big exception here, is I think the issue of marriage/children since Ennis gets married first.

On the subject of "running off"... I think this phrase is particularly important because it's one of the only concrete things Jack says that directly seems possibly to refer to his younger teenage years.  I mean, to me, by immediately jumping to this concept it seems likely that Jack may have experienced this himself.  I find it so curious that this is the very first suggestion/question he has about Ennis's past when they're chatting at the bar.  Of all the possibilities that Jack could suggest... why this concept?

Here's the exchange from the screenplay:

JACK
... You from ranch people?

ENNIS
I was.

JACK
Your folks run you off?

ENNIS
(sniff)
No.  They run themselves off....



Anyway, it suggests to me some serious discord in ideas about family or an almost automatically dysfunctional assumption about family from poor Jack's perspective.


And, on the subject of Jack's previous jobs.  Yes, it's true that we don't know if Jack had any kind of regular employment prior to the '62 Brokeback summer.  But, he seems to have had at least some rodeo experience already since he already has a buckle.  It seems conceivable that his earnings from the earlier Brokeback summer combined with some kind of earlier rodeo prize money could have helped him buy that beat up old truck. 

[optom3]

It has always bothered me that there is something vaguely psycho/sexual in the father urinting over his son.Proulx never writes anything just for the ake of it.I therefore can't help feel e are meant to read something into it.All boys miss the toilet at that age and even older.I dare say some gey scolded and made to clean up the mess.
In the harsh environment Jack was brought up in I can even see his father taking a belt to him,but why urinate over him.That is disturbing to me.
when my kids were younger,nudity was no big deal,in fact we deliberately were as natural as possible about it,to try and avoid any of them growin up with body hang ups,So what I am trying to say is if the kids caught me or my husband in the bathrom no big deal,its a human body,its natural and you should not be ahamed about it.
However Jacks father was not caught accidentally,he deliberately unzipped his trousers to urinate on his son.Freud would have a field day with that!!!!
I hate to be so graphic but in some circles,urinating on your partner is part of the sexual act.How disturbing(even as punishnent) for a father to do it to his young son.
It even makes me consider that the father had problems with his own sexuality.The worst homophobes always seem to be the ones who have deep rooted fears of their own sexuality.
Apologies if this post has crossed the boundaries of decency,but the whole episode does really disturb me.Another thought that croses my mindis that,maybe Jack thinks if thats what being a straight man is all about then sorry its not for me.He hardly had a good male role model to emulate by all accounts.

[Brown Eyes]

It has always bothered me that there is something vaguely psycho/sexual in the father urinting over his son.Proulx never writes anything just for the ake of it.I therefore can't help feel e are meant to read something into it.All boys miss the toilet at that age and even older.I dare say some gey scolded and made to clean up the mess.
In the harsh environment Jack was brought up in I can even see his father taking a belt to him,but why urinate over him.That is disturbing to me.
when my kids were younger,nudity was no big deal,in fact we deliberately were as natural as possible about it,to try and avoid any of them growin up with body hang ups,So what I am trying to say is if the kids caught me or my husband in the bathrom no big deal,its a human body,its natural and you should not be ahamed about it.
However Jacks father was not caught accidentally,he deliberately unzipped his trousers to urinate on his son.Freud would have a field day with that!!!!
I hate to be so graphic but in some circles,urinating on your partner is part of the sexual act.How disturbing(even as punishnent) for a father to do it to his young son.
It even makes me consider that the father had problems with his own sexuality.The worst homophobes always seem to be the ones who have deep rooted fears of their own sexuality.
Apologies if this post has crossed the boundaries of decency,but the whole episode does really disturb me.Another thought that croses my mindis that,maybe Jack thinks if thats what being a straight man is all about then sorry its not for me.He hardly had a good male role model to emulate by all accounts.

I completely agree with you that the scene is tremendously disturbing and is so graphic and Proulx describes it so carefully (as difficult as it is to read) that it must be super significant.  As others have suggested, I think this is an indicator that Old Man Twist's abuse was so cruel to be both mental/emotional, physical and sexual.  I firmly believe that the use of his genitals to "punish" Jack is a form of molestation.

It's all so horrible.  Poor Jack.  It's also such a massive bit of information to leave out of the movie.  We've discussed reasons why this was left out on other threads (here and there), but it really seems to me to be one of the most significant content changes.  Without the knowledge of this scene the film viewer (who hasn't read the story) would not have nearly as negative an impression of OMT as a story-reader does.

[optom3]

I completely agree with you that the scene is tremendously disturbing and is so graphic and Proulx describes it so carefully (as difficult as it is to read) that it must be super significant.  As others have suggested, I think this is an indicator that Old Man Twist's abuse was so cruel to be both mental/emotional, physical and sexual.  I firmly believe that the use of his genitals to "punish" Jack is a form of molestation.

It's all so horrible.  Poor Jack.  It's also such a massive bit of information to leave out of the movie.  We've discussed reasons why this was left out on other threads (here and there), but it really seems to me to be one of the most significant content changes.  Without the knowledge of this scene the film viewer (who hasn't read the story) would not have nearly as negative an impression of OMT as a story-reader does.

I am so glad it is not just me,I was beginning to think I was a bit odd.It always struck me as odd that the graphic childhood scene that Ennis witnesses is left in the film,giving us large clues to his retiscence,to commit,yet the graphic scene from Jacks childhood is so obviously missing.Yet here we can gain much greater insight into Jack.

It also woiuld have given yet another contradiction between the two of them.Ennis experience has had  such a negative impact,yet for Jack it seems to have made him think ,what the hell.Ennis thinks no hope and only bad can come from his experience,in direct contradiction Jack seems to have adopted the attitude,nothing can be worse than what he experienced.

Therein within their childhood experiences (just as with us all) lies the clues to Ennis permanent pessimism and Jacks optomism.Did not a famous psychologist say ,give me the child and I will show you the man,or or words to that effect.

I certainly know that to a large extent I have been shaped by my parents.

I know it could have been a graphic scene,but hell there were other graphic scenes handle beautifully in the film.
Oh well I guess I will just have to carry on wondering.

[Mandy21]

Dangit -- I was having so much fun talking about Jake's come-and-get-me eyes above, and you ladies had to go and change the subject.  Oh well....

Anyway, to get back onto the latest topic -- I agree that parents -- or the lack thereof, or the incompetence thereof, or the negligence thereof, or the abusiveness thereof -- has a huge effect on the type of people we turn out to be.  NO question.

And based on all the clues and signs, it seems that Jack was abused in some way by his father, even above and beyond the urinating debacle.  I think OMT is a sick, bitter, twisted, horrifying excuse for a father.  But, just the same, who twisted HIM into that person???  Probably his own father, as abuse runs down through generation after generation, until someone stops it.  I believe Jack, mostly because of his mother's kindness and strength, became the one in this long line of potentially abusive men in the Twist family, who finally said NO.  The damage was done to him, no doubt.  But that didn't mean he had to continue in the same way.  And that didn't mean he had to let it scar him for life and make him sick and bitter as well.  I'm not a psychiatrist or anything, but I think part of the reason that childhood/adolescent/teenage room of his had no decoration and nothing to do or amuse him in it, was because he spent all of his time lying in his bed or staring out that window, thinking and thinking and thinking, about how his life was going to be better than his old man's.

Regarding the screenwriter's/director's/whomever's rationale for leaving what was, I agree, a monumental piece of information out of the movie -- perhaps they could see into the future and know that America, at least, was going to label this the "gay cowboy" movie, and a huge percentage of (homophobic) Americans wouldn't come within a mile of a theater showing it.  Now let's say those that did go to see it come out of the theater and are standing around the water cooler the next day, discussing it with their coworkers.  Here's how I imagine the conversation would go:

Moviegoer:  Hey, I went to see that movie "Brokeback Mountain" last night.
Coworker:  Oh, yeah, that one about the gay cowboys?  You went to see that?  WHY?
Moviegoer:  Well, cause I figured it was going to be about something more than gay cowboys.
Coworker:  Well, was it?
Moviegoer:  Yeah, actually, it was pretty good.  It was really more of a love story, it was kind of sweet.
Coworker:  Eeuuyyyhhhhh, how can you watch a gay cowboy love story.  Weren't there some gross parts?  Did they show them, like, kissing and stuff?
Moviegoer:  Well, yeah, but it was tastefully done.
Coworker:  What was the grossest thing they showed?  Out of all the gross things, what was the grossest?
Moviegoer:  Um, well, there was this one scene when the dad of one of the cowboys urinates on him when he's about 4 years' old.
Coworker: 

The reason I didn't put any words behind Coworker at the end?  You can figure it out.  I can honestly tell you that if that scene had occurred before my eyes when I saw it at the theater the first time, me and just about everybody in the theater would have run for the door and never looked back.  And I don't even have children.  If you were a parent, could you watch that being done to a child, even knowing that they're actors and it's a movie and it's probably just lemonade being squirted onto him?  And how would they have shown a grown man's uncircumcised penis, and shown a 4-year-old looking at it, and try to possibly convey to an audience who hasn't read the book, and keep in mind, there was no narration in this film, exactly what in the world was going on there.  Seriously, if reading about the act in a book disturbs the two of you (and many others on this thread, I'm sure) as much as it has, how in God's green earth, would you be able to watch it on a screen?

To me, including that scene would have taken away just about everything I was feeling optimistically about the love story itself.  And maybe the powers-that-be felt somewhat the same.  I believe the movie was done the right way and went far enough by showing us the horror that Ennis had to see, which by the way, was shot from very far away and you couldn't barely even see there was a man lying there, let alone the real fact that that man no longer had a penis.

I think it was the right choice.  Sorry for ranting.