Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum
19 or 20?
Marina:
IDK, I think maybe the dates etc. weren't concentrated on. It never entered my mind that Jack wasn't the biological father of Bobby. Lureen struck me as the kind of woman who could have just about any man she set her sights on, and she set them on the beautiful young Jack. Can't say as I blame her. You can see her in the country and western bar, brushing off the attentions of some other man, and zeroing in on Jack, just before her predatory "mating call" line. She was in a hurry because she wanted him. JMO :)
Beautiful, rich and her father doted on her. Everything a guy could want, right? I don't think she was used to hearing the word "No" very often. So between Lureen's "assertiveness" and Jack's maybe feeling some sexual confusion and societal pressure, I think what happened happened. But as we can see whatever relationship there was deteriorated over the years, to the point where we see at the dinner with Randall and LaShawn were Lureen slyly says "Husbands never seem ta wanna dance with their wives . . . why is that, Jack?" (and we all know what "dancin'" is a metaphor for) Jack answers her almost annoyed, disrespectully perhaps embarrassed that she would say it in public (sounds like the subject may have been brought up before in private) "Never give it any thought." the thought not appealing to him, looking right at Randall. I think Jack was more self-aware than Ennis was, but his world was rocked as much.
southendmd:
I'm inclined to believe that most film-goers don't do a lot of math.
Sure there are internal inconsistencies with dates an' all.
As for Bobby's paternity, it seems pretty clear which direction Jack and Lureen are goin' that night. To me, that's a stronger suggestion than counting back from "8 months old".
I wonder what Diana would say about all this? Could she ever guess that people would be so interested in all the details?
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: southendmd on August 26, 2010, 01:45:15 pm ---I'm inclined to believe that most film-goers don't do a lot of math.
Sure there are internal inconsistencies with dates an' all.
As for Bobby's paternity, it seems pretty clear which direction Jack and Lureen are goin' that night. To me, that's a stronger suggestion than counting back from "8 months old".
I wonder what Diana would say about all this? Could she ever guess that people would be so interested in all the details?
--- End quote ---
ah, but do the film goers do the math subliminally, and unconsciously is their opinion of Jack changed?
southendmd:
--- Quote from: chowhound on August 25, 2010, 10:53:53 pm ---
2. The next scene is when Jack meets Lureen for the first time. A banner below the judges' box reads "CHILDRESS COUNTY FAIR AND RODEO" "4th ANNUAL" "AUG 7 RODEO AUG 14". Although the year isn't given, it also has to be 1966 as the reunion scene, when Jack is married to Lureen, will take place just a year after this scene.
--- End quote ---
Just a little aside here. I'll bet the rodeo scenes were filmed pretty close to those dates in August (2004, of course).
When the gang were in Alberta in '09, we went to the Rockyford Rodeo. As we were taking photos in front of the Childress Dance Hall (actually, a bank), some locals asked us if we banked there! After saying we were fans of the film, one young woman told us that she was an extra in the film! She said there were flyers at the annual rodeo (which takes place the last weekend of July), asking for extras, and that they would be filming the next week.
southendmd:
--- Quote from: brokeplex on August 26, 2010, 01:48:33 pm ---ah, but do the film goers do the math subliminally, and unconsciously is their opinion of Jack changed?
--- End quote ---
Hmm, that would take a trickcyclist to answer!
Sometimes a math error is just a math error. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version