Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > Brokeback Mountain Open Forum

One Man Men

<< < (3/28) > >>

Jack_ME:

--- Quote from: Aussie Chris on March 22, 2006, 09:33:54 am --- So in my opinion, there is little point in trying to convince anyone of a particular point of view, because I don't think there's a single right answer.
--- End quote ---

Yes but Aussie Chris, it's NOT about trying to convince anyone of anything, it's about HAVING the discussion.

And hopefully in the process provoking an examination and reevaluation of how one often simply labels someone else, without really having done the analytical thinking oneself to see whether the label is truly appropriate for that other person.


--- Quote --- In my mind, it is the fact that they were in love and slept together far outweighs the fact that they were also married and had children.
--- End quote ---

We don't have a whole lot to go one, but what about the love that Ennis had for Alma? Their early time together depicted by the sledding scene, and the friendly wrestling, and then later at the Drive In movie seems to speak of being in love. As I say it's not a lot to go on, but there is no reason to assume that Ennis DIDN'T love Alma, and they certainly slept together.

As for Jack and Lureen, we have even less to go on, but we do have two scenes that might indicate that. At the birth of their son, Jack is naturally excited about that in and of itself, but his doorway look could certainly indicate a love for Lureen, and their son.

Later in the Thanksgiving scene, of course that scene in the end has most to do with Jack standing up to LD, but even as he is bringing in the dinner, and later jousting for control of the TV, his actions are a concern for Lureen and her wishes. She is the one who initially wants/or threatens the TV off, and Jack reacts to that in support. That inital action was no intended confrontaion with LD. It was he who butted in. And Lureen's expression throughout that scene reflects that she is proud and pleased with Jack's actions. That certainlly indicated to me that she loved him and I think we could use it to say he loved her.

But to be fair, I will also acknowledge that in what Jack expressed to Ennis, he made clear he could quite easily, and likely would, choose Ennis over Lureen, if he had that option.



--- Quote ---The thing that most makes me see Ennis as gay is the fact that he becomes less and less capable of maintaining his straight life as the film progresses. 
--- End quote ---

To be fair I think you have to say that Ennis becomes less and less capable of maintaining his life PERIOD....not his "straight" life.

The stress of loving someone, having only brief shared times, and then being alone and lonely most of the other time is very painful and hard on his emotional well being. It isn't about his "straight" (sexual) life. In the last physical encounter we see between Ennis and Alma, we see tha Alma has become bitter and even mean. She has insulted him, if not by untruths, then by the manner she presented that. When we move to the very next scene, the divorce scene, we see a very upset, and crying Ennis at being divorced. We do not see someone relieved to be out of the marriage. I have no doubt that it was Alma's bitterness that had at least equal weight with Ennis's sadness at being separated from Jack which entered into the ultimate decision to divorce. We don't know if Alma and Monroe were an item prior to her divorce, and have no reason to assume that, but also it can't be denied that working together, she probably knew of his feelings and considered how he could support her and her children. Only to say that Alma's attitude is likely what drove that couple to divorce, NOT Ennis's love of Jack, or his "repressed" homosexuality.


 
--- Quote --- He fulfils his conjugal duties, although we see that his desires are not entirely "missionary" in nature.  But after the reunion and the affair begins, Ennis' physical relationship with Alma deteriorates to the point that he would rather leave her alone if she didn't want more kids. 
--- End quote ---

We see two sexual encounters between Alma and Ennis. And we know of two others, as they have two children. It is obvious that Ennis and Alma engaged in "missionary" copulation....since they have two children. Also, in the second sexual encounter we see, Alma puts a halt to it as she is concerned about their ability to support more children, ie, Ennis was either in or about to be in a child producing possible situation.

In the first encounter we see, he does flip Alma over and there is an associative implication made but it doesn't have to say anything about Ennis's orientation, only about his previous experience.


(still regarding Jack)
--- Quote ---The only time that I think bisexual is a relevant title is when an individual chooses to have both male and female lovers as a conscious and informed choice, interchanging the genders also by choice. 

--- End quote ---

This was my point in referencing the female experiences we know of from the film. Certainly, in real life, a person can go to a benefit dance and ask someone to dance for no other reason than to be socialble. But this is a movie, and in a movie everything we see has been chosen by the director so as to tell the story. There was no reason to have Jack ask LaShawn to dance. Unless it was to show that Jack DID have an interest in women. If that whole scene was siimply to present the Randall/Jack bench encounter, that could have been done without the dancing. LaShawn had already been a non-stop chatterer, and it was clear where they were located.

And then Jack's own admission to Ennis of having the affair with the rancher's wife.



--- Quote ---In my mind, two men who are in love means that they're gay. 
--- End quote ---


That seems pretty broad, and seems to discount or re-classify, all the real life-life bonded relationships we know exist betwen men, as between war buddies, or between college chums, or between childhood friends maintained into adulthood, to name three. These relationships have real love, though they may not have sexual activity. And to make the distinction of love vs. in love, surely in many of these relationships there was a period when it was "in love"although never expressed in those words, and the relationship never moved into the realm of physical intimacy.


As you said in the beginning of your reply post, I DO enjoy thinking about and discussing the subject of sexual orientation in general, and our pre-conceived notions of that, and of the film BBM characters' orientation.

And it is so true that part of what makes BBM such a masterpiece of film, is that the film can stand up to this extensive scrutiny and analysis. I find that quite amazing, but I think it is why this film has had such an impact on so many folks. As we know it is not only "gay" men who admire and are fascinated by this film. It's people of all walks and thoughts. And that's great.


Thanks again for having taken the time to respond, Aussie Chris. I appreciate the discussion.

Jack in Maine

Aussie Chris:
Hi Jack, I don't think I was trying to suggest that you were trying to push your point of view.  This was an acknowledgement not an accusation.  It's quite a delicate proposition really, discussing a subject with people who feel very strongly about it.  But it's also quite interesting, and I'm always game! ;)

One thing that has puzzled me about your posts is the fact that on one hand you seem to be saying that Jack and Ennis are really heterosexual and you use specific scenes in the film to justify this (eg sledding and babies).  You also seem to want to reduce their homosexual relationship to something akin to the strong bond that childhood friends might experience (and if so I strongly disagree with this).  But in your earlier post you also close by challenging the use of labels in any form in the paragraph that starts: "We humans, here in the United States especially, want to force everyone under one label or another".  I'm confused about whether you do or do not want to apply a label to Jack & Ennis, and if so which one.  Or if you don't want to use a label, then how is one supposed to describe their nature?  This is actually a leading question because I also think that labels over-simplify things.

When I think about the characters of Jack and Ennis I do not think about scene specific situations one way or the other.  I don't use the "heterosexual scenes" to justify that they are straight any more than the "homosexual scenes" to justify that they are gay or bisexual.  Basically I imagine that they were gay but so determined to be "straight" that they successfully manage to have sexual relationships with their wives and father children.  I may be wrong, this just works for me.  If for a moment we consider that they were gay and in denial, in my opinion this could explain how and why their heterosexual relationships started and continued for as long as they did.  They were simply determined to present that side of themselves, only a facade, to the world.  At the opposite end of the scale, the idea that they were really heterosexual and any homosexual tendencies were simply because of camaraderie seems a little weak to me.  Nevertheless, I have no problem with agreeing with you that Ennis sincerely loved Alma and Jack loved Lureen.

Ok, so do I think that what I have written here makes me more right?  Definitely not.  It is simply the perception I have of the characters based on my own life experience.  I for one have a number of straight-male friends for whom I enjoy a wonderfully close relationship with, which even includes hugs and the occasional kiss hello/goodbye.  But at no time have I ever thought that these relationships were anything more than platonic, and they are nothing less than straight.  My friends are a rare breed of heterosexuals that are completely unafraid of gays, and are mature enough to be able to show affection to other men without worrying if that makes them a little bit gay, or even if it did it doesn't mean they are going to have sex with them.  But Jack and Ennis are not of this rare breed.  They shared a romantic attraction with each other that consumes their lives from that moment on.  Whether you want to say this makes them more bisexual is more about your definition of "bisexual", which is true if you only consider the fact that they slept with men and women.  But I don't think that's how they should be defined as bisexual because of how they felt emotionally.  It occurs to me that they would have been happier being gay if it weren't for the time, society, and their own prejudices.  Everything else is circumstance.

Just my humble opinion of course...  :)

Suffused:
IMHO

It's called The Closet

Jack and Ennis were married as a survival technique.  Partly out of ignorance of the possibility that they could be gay and partly out of just doing what they were taught to do...no such thing as gay role models.

I like how Aussie Chris calls them emotionally gay.  Implying they were Intelectually straight...to survive, I assume.

JCinNYC2006:
I haven't posted much lately because I don't have enough time, but I'm loving the exchange going on here.  I find sexual orientation to be so complex because it involves a physical/sexual reaction and an emotional reaction.  All these social and cultural messages influence how comfortable we feel acting on these impulses, which aren't necessarily fixed, as well as even having the feelings themselves. 

Then on top of that comes sexual identity, that 'label' we take on (or don't), like gay, straight, bisexual, and whatever other variations have come down the pike.  Sexual identity doesn't always reflect either orientation or behavior, hence married heterosexual men who get involved with other men, or that cool British show "Bob and Rose" about a gay man who falls in love with a straight woman.  But sexual identity is often used interchangeably with sexual orientation. 

Like I would say that my orientation is homosexual, because my physical and emotional attraction is towards men.  But I would also say that I identify as gay, because I've chosen to take on that identity as a way to organize my sexuality for myself and that's how I want to present to the world.  (I shudder at the thought of actually being introduced as "my homosexual uncle" or something.)

It's not always so simple that identity and orientation reflect each other so well, either for us currently (Jim McGreevey anyone?) or for guys from Jack and Ennis' time.  So I often find questions of whether Jack and Ennis are really gay to be moot because, as has been mentioned in plenty of threads here and on other boards, to conceive of themselves that way, as "queer", wasn't an option.  They were aware of the fact that men could be with men, but their, or at least Ennis', view of that was extremely narrow - "I don’t want a be like them guys you see around sometimes. And I don’t want a be dead."

I get why there's debate on whether they're gay or not.  But "gay" is a relatively modern construct that doesn't apply very well.  I find it too simplistic when there's speculation about whether Lincoln was gay, for example.  But I understand how gay is used as shorthand for trying to describe who Jack and Ennis are.  It just comes up short (no pun intended), because their backgrounds, the homophobia they experienced, and their relationships with other men and women make it too simplistic. 

There is a lot of evidence to point to, in both the movie and the story, to make the argument that either one of them could take on the label of bisexual or gay or even heterosexual.  But the interpretation of different behaviors - Jack's romp with Lureen, Ennis flipping Alma over for sex, Jack picking up the hustler, Ennis "putting the blocks" to Cassie, Jack telling Ennis about an affair with a ranchand's wife - is pretty much subjective and influenced by the interpreter's own point of view.  How we want to label either of them reflects our own experiences and perspectives, as is how we label, or identify if you will, ourselves.  I've had friends who call themselves bisexual, and my inclination is to roll my eyes because I've mostly seen them involved with men.  But in the end, it's how they identify and I try to respect that.

Not to say I don't want to simplify things and put them into nice, neat packages myself.  My second time seeing the movie, I went with a friend and she asked me if Jack was "the gay one", and did I think if he hadn't "seduced" Ennis maybe Ennis wouldn't be gay.  I didn't really know how to answer her, except to say that I didn't think either one of them saw themselves as gay because they couldn't (or wouldn't).  Are they married gay men?  Hetero men with a one-shot thing that lasted a lifetime?  I don't really know, and in a way, it's not that important to me anymore. 

In different circumstances, they might have gone through a "coming out" process and defined themselves as gay men, even had more of a chance to have a more open and fulfilling relationship. The beauty of the movie is watching them struggle to hold onto something between them when they didn't have the resources to "move to Denver" to be together.  And it messes with my head because I have gone through a very different process than they did, yet I still struggle with how content I am. 

And to think, I initially thought the subject "One Man Men" was gonna be about Ennis' emotional monogamy to Jack.

Jack_ME:

--- Quote from: Aussie Chris on March 23, 2006, 01:09:16 am ---Hi Jack, I don't think I was trying to suggest that you were trying to push your point of view. 
--- End quote ---

Aussie Chris, I didn't interpret it that way at all. I was just restating that it is the discussion, of all points of view, which I feel is important, not trying to change anyone's ideas, but hopefully in the process of discussing, folks will change or enlarge upon their own ideas of sexual orientation themselves as they think about, clarify, and express their point.


--- Quote ---One thing that has puzzled me about your posts is the fact that on one hand you seem to be saying that Jack and Ennis are really heterosexual and you use specific scenes in the film to justify this (snip)You also seem to want to reduce their homosexual relationship to something akin to the strong bond that childhood friends might experience (snip)  But in your earlier post you also close by challenging the use of labels in any form  (snip) I'm confused about whether you do or do not want to apply a label to Jack & Ennis, and if so which one.  Or if you don't want to use a label, then how is one supposed to describe their nature? 
--- End quote ---

Chris, you slightly miss my point, or I did not clearly express it. I DO feel that people tend to apply labels unthinkingly, only motivated by a shorthand simplistic means of distinguishing "others" from themselves. For a person to SELF-identify as anything s/he wants is fine. And for another to THINK about and consider some whole individual and then come to some conclusion (and label if appropriate) is also fine.
It's the automatic labeling based soley on some  single element that I object to and which is so common.

I enjoy the discussion because I enjoy having to think about what I mean when I say Jack is BI-sexual and Ennis is innately heterosexually oriented. But these two persons came together, and due to the circumstances of that meeting of souls, each coming from his own past, they bonded, they fell in love, and from that Person to Person love there also grew a physical relationship which was about expressing love, one for the other. Being both males, then of course the RELATIONSHIP was a homosexual relationship, but it does not have to follow then that the two people WERE homosexuals in denial. They were two people in a relationship.

So many people say: man has sex with man then HE IS homosexual, and if he doesn't embrace that identity then he is in denial.
But even in the face of that, to reverse it: man has sex with woman, then he is heterosexual and if he doesn't embrace that then he must be in denial of his heterosexuality. So "gay" man has sex with women? Discounted as cause for any explanation of his identity, still "gay".....and all the stories of REPRESSED individuals come out in support of that.

Woman has sex with woman, that by definiition is homosexual activity, but rarely will people AUTOMATICALLY say that one or the other woman is homosexual and unless she embrace that identity she is living in denial. No! Woman having sex with woman is somehow acceptable heterosexual activity. She just wanted to explore...just wanted a little variety...just wanted some kicks...whatever.

But no man can ever have sex with another man, without incuring either the label of outright Homosexual, or Repressed Homosexual, or Closeted Homosexual.

And in general too, if a Woman self-identifies as BI-sexual....she is cool, is bohemian, is intriguing.....etc.
If a man self-identifies as BI-sexual....he is deluding himself...can't accept his homosexuality...is in denial...etc.

I am simplifying in stating the cases, but perhaps you get my point in wanting to have a discussion on sexual orientation in general, and Jack and Ennis's in particular.

Also, it is good to point out that the word "gay" has quite a lot of implied baggage. Likewise the word "homosexual" has implied baggage. Do they mean the same thing? NO! Do most people use them AS IF THEY MEANT THE SAME? YES!

Jack and Ennis were definitely NOT gay. Gayness as we think of it, did not really exist in 1963. Were Jack and Ennis homosexual? I say no, but others say yes.

Gay implies a whole structured society, and social identity. Homosexual implies a sexual orientation, and or a sexual behaviour.

Can a person be a homosexual and NOT be gay? Yes.
Can a person be "gay" and not be a homosexual? Theoretically yes, practically no. (There is a slang term to describe a heterosexually oriented woman, ie, a woman sexually attracted to a man's body, but who rarely or never dates heterosexual men, and who instead surrounds herself with male homosexuals, and who sometimes falls in love with male homosexuals......that woman is "gay" in the sense I mean and stated above. Her "gayness" is NOT about her sexuality so much as it is about her cultural and societal constructs.)

When folks self-identify as "gay" they are identifying with a whole lot of NON-sexual things. A community, a cause, a life-style (in the truest sense of that word).

There are homosexuals who are neither repressed/closeted, nor "out/gay", but simply keep that part of their being, their sexuality to themselves and do not see it as lense through which everything else in their life must be viewed. They may have a special friend, a lover in the true sense of that word, for whom they care deeply, or they may choose to not be sexual, or they may choose to only have casual encounters ("go to Mexico"). The rest of their life is as ordinary as their neighbors, their siblings, their coworkers.

This too is part of why I feel it is good to have these discussions. We short change this last group. We condemn them as repressed if they don't shout out their sexual orientation and become "gay" culturally.

To clarify, I am not giving any value judgements, I am simply trying to make the point that the label "gay" has lots of implications which do not fit all homosexuals, and just because that label does not fit some homosexual individuals does not mean THE INDIVIDUALS are in denial or wrong, it means the LABEL is wrong and limititing.

For now....
Jack in Maine

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page