BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum

Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond => Brokeback Mountain Open Forum => Topic started by: Artiste on January 21, 2008, 03:29:28 pm

Title: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on January 21, 2008, 03:29:28 pm
Does Jack know that is or is not his child?

That, to me, is important. For many reasons.

Do you feel or know that that child is his??

Does Jack become to know, when and how??

Such questions and others are important, surely.

Pray you all will comment,

hugs!
Blessed is a child to all!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on January 21, 2008, 03:59:01 pm
Don't be shy to comment now.

This is very important in the BM movie... surely!

Hugs!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on January 31, 2008, 12:23:21 am
Jack knows that Bobby is not his child.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: injest on January 31, 2008, 12:28:26 am
he sure didn't seem overly interested in him...at least in the story..
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on January 31, 2008, 12:35:42 am
Good point!

That is one of the departures the film makes from the short story. Jack showed more interest in his heterosexual life in the film. Arellano in her essay in "Reading Brokeback Mountain"  points that out that this is a part of the heteronormativity the screenwriters added, which became a part of the Ang Lee's fillm.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: injest on January 31, 2008, 12:57:58 am
yes, Ennis's scenes with his family seemed more real and in keeping with the story...all of Jack's seemed jarring to me...not the way I pictured Jack at all.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on January 31, 2008, 01:08:22 am
agreed, many critics have also noticed that.

Daniel Mendelsohn in his article in New York Review of Books "An Affair to Remember", points out how jarring the additions of the heterosexual life of Jack is to the story. Several critics have opined that the screenwriters turned what was essentially a gay short story into more of a heterosexual story with elements of the gay closet as a companion text. Examples, the film has numerous scenes with Lureen in it, the short story tells us very little about her.
 
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on January 31, 2008, 11:17:32 am
Thanks brokeplex, thanks injest!!

I am happy that I am not the only one talking about the thread's question, I posed: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?

I think that much, much more can be said about that question.

You two's comments are revealing. greatly so. Thanks, thanks!!

Concerning your sentence Brokeplex if I may quote you:
Quote
the film has numerous scenes with Lureen in it, the short story tells us very little about her.
 
 
 
.......

Brokeplex, injest and to all others, to that, to me the film does tell us much more that we think about Lureen.

There is a twist in the film. Like you say, different from Annie's story in a way, since scenes in which Lureen is in are numerous. That what I call a twist is to me like a circle.

The film seems to let us think very little about Lureen, but Lureen has many scenes in which she is in as somewhat secondary as our viewer perception... BUT we seem to view just like that ONLY on FIRST viewing.

But since Lureen is a female, I think she takes the first role!!

Lureen even surpasses and overtakes Jack's role as the prime one!!

Lureen is concerned always with time!!T

That time is like a circle; those times are like circles.

 And the screen writers and/or the director does that because Annie writes with circles and that kind of writing is her genious (her invention) as a tour-de-force).

All that I tried above to display, colours this differently: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?

That is my idea. What you think you all?

Hugs!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: moremojo on January 31, 2008, 12:40:47 pm
The extended scenes of Jack's married life were added to the film to flesh out what was originally a short story into a two-hour feature length movie. I think the heteronorming that arguably resulted was primarily a by-product of this, rather than an objective in and of itself.

In the short story, I see no strong reason to disbelieve that Jack is the biological father of Lureen's son. The film complicates this, surely, because of the discrepancies in the timeline. I prefer to think those discrepancies were an oversight on the filmmakers' part, and that Jack was supposed to be understood to be Bobby's biological father. Thus, I would argue that Jack did know that the child was his, because there was no reason (on his part) to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on January 31, 2008, 12:48:55 pm
Thanks moremojo!

May I ask you to look at that child, in the BM movie?

And tell me what you see, please.

Hugs!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: moremojo on January 31, 2008, 01:01:54 pm
I realize that many have commented on their perception that the child cast as Bobby in the Thanksgiving scene does not resemble Jake Gyllenhaal very much; a friend of mine stated that she had a hard time imagining the film's Jack and Lureen producing that child.

I wouldn't necessarily read too much into this alleged physical discrepancy, though. The casting agent and director may have felt perfectly fine with their choice of young actor for Bobby, fully intending Bobby to be seen and understood by the film's audience as Jack's biological son. That many others note a physical discrepancy may simply reveal a difference in opinion as to the wisdom behind the casting.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: nakymaton on January 31, 2008, 02:44:51 pm
The casting people made a number of mistakes in family resemblances. (Lureen has brown eyes, while her parents both have blue eyes. Because blue eyes are a recessive trait, that means that either Lureen is adopted, or her mom was involved with the milkman, or the casting people weren't thinking about genetics.)

And watch Alma Jr's changing eye color.

(And then there's Bobby's accent...)
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on January 31, 2008, 03:57:27 pm
Thanks nakymaton, thanks moremojo!!

Boy, you two sure bring interesting and great information! Thanks, thanks!!

May I ask:

1- How do we know that casting people were not thinking about genetics?
All the ones I know, sure do, since that is their job, may I say!

I would even think that Ennis' wife as well Jack and the dancing girl were choosen well, for certain reasons that maybe we do not ordinary think about. Males reasons!!  Females reasons!!

2- Concerning eye colours, eyes do change while one lives. Even at birth, eyes colours do not say at times sameness as to its parents!!

So, yes and no, if that is his mother??

3- Regarding that child, he sure does not look like Jack?? !!
What does that say?

4- Plus Lureen's child, is that her's? That might be too far-fetched?? Yes and no (as just had an idea about that as that could be.)

Of course the original question, is re-asked too,

hugs!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: moremojo on January 31, 2008, 06:47:25 pm
The casting people made a number of mistakes in family resemblances. (Lureen has brown eyes, while her parents both have blue eyes. Because blue eyes are a recessive trait, that means that either Lureen is adopted, or her mom was involved with the milkman, or the casting people weren't thinking about genetics.)
Wow...on the subject of blue eyes, here is the link to a new story on MSN stating that scientists now believe that all blue-eyed people derive that trait from a single ancestor common to them all:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22934464/wid/11915773?GT1=10815 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22934464/wid/11915773?GT1=10815)
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on February 01, 2008, 12:03:34 am
Thanks moremojo!

That is interesting!

So, does that mean that Lureen is NOT the daughter of those parents she has now?

Hugs!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 01, 2008, 01:15:15 am
The extended scenes of Jack's married life were added to the film to flesh out what was originally a short story into a two-hour feature length movie. I think the heteronorming that arguably resulted was primarily a by-product of this, rather than an objective in and of itself.

In the short story, I see no strong reason to disbelieve that Jack is the biological father of Lureen's son. The film complicates this, surely, because of the discrepancies in the timeline. I prefer to think those discrepancies were an oversight on the filmmakers' part, and that Jack was supposed to be understood to be Bobby's biological father. Thus, I would argue that Jack did know that the child was his, because there was no reason (on his part) to believe otherwise.

I think that all of us have commented at one time of the other about the meanings of even the smallest details added by the screenwriters and Ang Lee. Many of us have come to the conclusion that with the exception of a few continuity issues and a few lapses in verisimilitude, there are no accidents in the film. You are certainly correct that the SS leads us to no other conclusion other than Bobby is the bio son of Jack. But, I think that Ang Lee was making a departure statement from that SS when he briefly showed us that Jack meet Lureen in Aug 1966, and later kept the screen writers dialog that Bobby was 8 months old in Sept 1967.

No doubt that the transition from a short story to a feature length screenplay requires additional material. The question raised by many commentators is why did the screenwriters chose that particular set of additional materials? Sure, the "fleshing out" (McMurtry's words) of the boys heterosexual life made sense from many standpoints, especially when it came to the marketing of the movie to a largely straight audience. There is nothing non-valid about their choices. Hey, I loved the film!

 But, those still were choices made by McMurtry / Ossana and later by Ang Lee. They didn't have to heteronorm the movie, they could have shown more material more in line with what AP used in the SS, why didn't they? 
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: nakymaton on February 01, 2008, 01:42:12 am
*raises hand*

I think that the time line is a mistake. (There are other indications of messed-up time lines in the earlier versions of the screenplay, too.)

And I think that the entire Jack & Lureen relationship in the screenplay comes out of a very reasonable question raised by the short story. In the story, there are a million reasons why Ennis would end up married, despite being in love with Jack. (Internalized homophobia, fear, memory of the murdered man, an engagement that was easier to follow through than to break off...) But Jack? Jack getting married is harder to explain.

So McMurtry and Ossana came up with a story of rejection, loneliness, and an aggressive young woman, all leading to what looks like an accidental pregnancy, and Jack feeling responsible.

If Lureen was already pregnant, the story changes, and Lureen becomes a manipulating bitch who traps Jack in marriage. And, well, that may very well happen in real life. But the movie's story, to me, seems more about people becoming trapped by choices that didn't seem wrong at the time, or being trapped by some kind of fate. And Jack ending up in a marriage because of one out-of-character moment fits that story to me.

Yes, I know it doesn't fit the timeline. But it fits the story that I see in the movie.

I don't think that one interpretation or another can be proven. The movie and the story are both open enough to interpretations through each person's experiences. But this is the story that resonates with me.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 01, 2008, 01:54:06 am

*raises hand*

If Lureen was already pregnant, the story changes, and Lureen becomes a manipulating bitch who traps Jack in marriage.


glad to see you raised your hand!

I doubt that Jack was manipulated, he understood Lureen's reasons for marrying an outsider drifter rodeo cowboy with no education or prospects, and probably Lureen understood Jack's own duplicitous reasons for marrying her, that were not exactly rooted in the love bug.

I don't see Lureen as a "bitch", just someone trying to make the best out of a difficult situation in her life. I actually kind of prefer a Lureen who can manipulate and get her way. Go Lureen! 
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: nakymaton on February 01, 2008, 09:57:16 am
I doubt that Jack was manipulated, he understood Lureen's reasons for marrying an outsider drifter rodeo cowboy with no education or prospects, and probably Lureen understood Jack's own duplicitous reasons for marrying her, that were not exactly rooted in the love bug.

Oh! So Jack married Lureen because 1) rodeoing was leaving him broke (financially and physically), and 2) Lureen had money, which is actually what the story implies - and Lureen had other reasons for wanting to marry him, like being pregnant already and wanting... well, it could be a lot of things, but marrying "an outsider drifter cowboy" might be a way to simultaneously tell Daddy to shove it while doing what Daddy demanded (i.e., marry somebody).

Well, that's a story that fits with the book more than my interpretation of the movie does.

(There's also the possibility of a complete marriage of convenience, a cover for two people, but Jack and Lureen don't seem honest enough with each other for that to be the case.)

I still like the sense of people trapped by circumstances, although I see where other interpretations make sense. (I don't see Jack and Lureen having anything like a "love bug." It seems that people will do a lot of things when they're lonely... talk to inanimate objects, anthropomorphize animals, have sex with people they aren't in love with at all...)
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on February 01, 2008, 12:31:36 pm
Thanks nakymaton, thanks brokeplex!!

Both of you bring up very interesting points.

I can bring up much, much more about the question of this thread I am posing, and will try to think of some. For now, limiting myself ( a bit) with you two by your current comments. I could write a small or big book about your recent comments!!

May I say that my thinking changes, and maybe progesses, since I add daily on this subject: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?

If Lureen and Jack were in love, that colours: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
It still colours it if they were but not in love, since they helped each other... somehow!!


There are so many, many possibilities. May I think of some:

1- As one way to think about it: they were in love maybe or likely.

You just made me realized something that Jack had said and with him saying that (Lureen and him were or had been in love but...), it makes me realize that Lureen and Jack were in love or at least, HAD BEEN!! (And I'm not talking of the sex scene, as proof!)

2- But WHEN were they in love?
That is very complexe or can be so... may I figure.
We do not know so far if Lureen and Jack were married; it seems to me, that we are made in the BM movie to think that they are!! At least, they live together... and have a child - like they are married!!

At least, they have a child. It does not seem that is their child to me. It may be adopted??
To me, it is not Jack's child!

How many times do we see that child?? Twice??

At first, I did think that it was their child, since Lureen and Jack had sex, since we saw that; but in that, that action shows much, much: sex is too, too, too quick; Lureen is so very too much agressive, surely maybe too much for any manly man; Lureen, to me, had figured out Jack having heard about him as being gay or bi (yes) - so she makes sure to drop her hat at the right time and at the right place, and at the right man to catch Jack; in that bar, she eyes again Jack (refusing another male who asked her... to dance and the other males there since she could have went after them too) and this time walks towards just Jack and what-you-waiting-for-cowboy-a-mating-game, whcih tells much more than that; with all that and more... she mounts Jack and sex is part of love; to me, she starts to love Jack, and her love is subconscious as well as concious: then!!

I know that some or all of you did not think that Lureen could be then (during that sex eposide: a lesbian or bisexual!! I think that she was and continues as bisexual... with the baby in  her arms and her parents arriving with Jack simling happily, but with her father not-so-much accepting Jack, her husband - remember the keys and that Thanksgiving??

As you say, is the marriage arranged?? To me, that tells also much, much more that we think so far; at least, that I think to date.

Maybe Lureen did say to Jack (or husband-to-be) that she was or is lesbian or bisexual?? I am putting that card in - but when did she mention possibly that to Jack?? Maybe she never had a conversation with him about that, but she surely showed it possibly, I dare say, either unconsciously or consciously. I might have a possible like-proof of that in a real case that I know about (since he told me in person, plus they did a long hour movie on TV): a homosexual man who married a lady, and when they were married, his wife would mention look how beautiful that woman or another women is; and, he never picked up on that, he told me; until the time many years after, his wife mentioned that she is a lesbian and was now going to live with a female she found as her lesbian lover!!

I do not colour Lureen as as a slut nor bitch, nor call her that!! I accept her thoughts and actions - her emotions!!

The dynamics of sex... love, etc., are so numerous that the whole world still discovers combinations.
One or two weeks ago, there was a combiantion of 4 persons, two homosexual men living together with two lesbians, one homosexual  had a child which mentioned that he was happy to be in such a loving relationship-combination (two males...his father being one of the two homosexual men); yes, the four are living happily together to-day in 2008!!

I'll stop for now, re-read your marvelous comments and that from others too, and add more later. Awaiting further comments from you and from all too.
Again thanks,

hugs!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 02, 2008, 07:49:56 pm

Oh! So Jack married Lureen because

1) rodeoing was leaving him broke (financially and physically),

and 2) Lureen had money, which is actually what the story implies -

and Lureen had other reasons for wanting to marry him, like being pregnant already and wanting...

well, it could be a lot of things, but marrying "an outsider drifter cowboy" might be a way to simultaneously tell Daddy to shove it while doing what Daddy demanded (i.e., marry somebody).
 

I agree with reasons one and two for Jacks motivations, I would add a third reason.

3) Jack felt compelled by a strongly heteronorming society to get married to a woman.

As to Lureen's motivations, I don't see her a telling Daddy to "shove it". If Lureen wished to rebel from her Daddy, she could have stayed in Austin or Dallas after completing her college experience. By the mid 1960's single women were making their way into the workplace, and with a college education, she could have done just fine. No, Lureen's plan was to go back to Childress and take over the tractor business. Jack came along at just the right time to play the role of a submissive husband who was not capable of interfering with her plans. Did Jack annoy L.D?  You bet he did ! But, that was only a fringe benefit for the independent minded Lureen.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: RossInIllinois on February 02, 2008, 07:59:50 pm
Yes, without taking a DNA test I do think the writer intended for the child the Laureen character gave birth to in the story was to have been from the character Jack Twist's semen.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on February 02, 2008, 08:27:24 pm
Wow, Jack Twist semen!! Where the cup?

I would be willing to pay a million bucks to get his (Jack's) DNA and see if it matches their suposedly Lureen's boy and/or Jack boy, biologically that is!!

What are your result, all of you?? ...................

Hugs!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Shakesthecoffecan on February 03, 2008, 02:25:12 pm
Folks, you need to cut off your computors, and go outside and get some fresh air.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: RossInIllinois on February 03, 2008, 02:34:00 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.

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".
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 03, 2008, 03:37:18 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".

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.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: RossInIllinois on February 03, 2008, 04:15:24 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.

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?
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 03, 2008, 04:40:05 pm
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?   
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: serious crayons on February 03, 2008, 04:52:26 pm
I am not a stranger to controversy. ...  to just name a few.

 :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.


Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: RossInIllinois on February 03, 2008, 04:54:01 pm
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?   
Besides the mistakes the screen writers or maybe even the prop department that had the cards printed made,  NO reference was made in either the movie or the short that the child borne to Laureen Twist was not that of Jack Twist. So why try to make something out of a printing or writing error? Unless you have other evidence you have to rule out the before mentioned first IMO. If a writer was trying to send a message such as you suggest I think a little red headed or blond Bobby would have been a better choice to convey that message don't you think? The Boy they used in the screen play was cast to look like Jack IMO.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on February 03, 2008, 05:13:12 pm
Thanks all of you... interesting!!

May I dare ask if Jack and Lureen's Twist child, was maybe adopted??

As some or one of you thought that Jack twist had been adopted maybe or so, then he would have more easily adopted a child?

Hugs!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: RossInIllinois on February 03, 2008, 05:43:24 pm
Thanks all of you... interesting!!

May I dare ask if Jack and Lureen's Twist child, was maybe adopted??

As some or one of you thought that Jack twist had been adopted maybe or so, then he would have more easily adopted a child?

Hugs!!

Now what in the movie or original short would cultivate such a question?
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: Artiste on February 03, 2008, 06:06:24 pm
Ross, to me in the movie that child does not look like Jack nor like Lureen!!

I have other(s) reasons, which maybe I will mention later;

I aks you what makes you think that that child is theirs DNA wise, etc. ??

Hugs!!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 03, 2008, 11:49:57 pm
: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.




Hi ineedcrayons!

Yep, I forgot that I'm kind of an iconoclast on the "current events" forum too! Its great to be on a web site where almost no one totally agrees with me, but we strive to keep the tone friendly and the discourse informative. I wish that I could convince more conservative gay men to post here, so far not much luck, but I'll keep on trying.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 03, 2008, 11:54:09 pm
Ross, to me in the movie that child does not look like Jack nor like Lureen!!

I have other(s) reasons, which maybe I will mention later;

I aks you what makes you think that that child is theirs DNA wise, etc. ??

Hugs!!

No Artiste, I don't think that Bobby is adopted.

But remember the thread I started a few months back called, "Was Jack Twist Adopted?" I do think that Jack Twist is the adopted son of OMT and Mrs Twist, and I like the symmetry that Bobby is not Jack's biological son.

hugs!
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: serious crayons on February 04, 2008, 01:19:32 am
I wish that I could convince more conservative gay men to post here, so far not much luck, but I'll keep on trying.

You mean, neither of them wants to come here?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Sorry. That was totally uncalled for.  ::)

You're right, diversity is great -- especially when, as you say, the conversation is friendly and informative. And brokeplex, I have to tell you that despite being vastly outnumbered you really have done your part toward maintaining that civilized tone. Kudos. I hope your friends and fellow conservatives do stop by.

Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: brokeplex on February 04, 2008, 01:29:27 am
You are still funny!

It would surprise you to know how many gay men are out there who are very conservative, because so many are still closeted. These are the Jack Twists and Ennis Delmars of the world. Most of my friends are recently out of the closet and believe me, I am the LIBERAL of the group!

Thanks for your kind words, I think that we all have learned from each other here on Bettermost.  I said to a friend who ribbed me about the time I spend here on line, Where the hell else I am going to have candid conversations with large groups of straight, liberal women?

I think that we need the diverse opinions of everyone, it helps us learn about others and more importantly OURSELVES.
Title: Re: Does Jack know that is or is not his child?
Post by: serious crayons on February 04, 2008, 02:06:59 am
I think that we need the diverse opinions of everyone, it helps us learn about others and more importantly OURSELVES.

YOU BET.