the film has numerous scenes with Lureen in it, the short story tells us very little about her........
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:
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.
*raises hand*
If Lureen was already pregnant, the story changes, and Lureen becomes a manipulating bitch who traps Jack in marriage.
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).
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".
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.
I am not a stranger to controversy. ... to just name a few.
Whoa cowboy! Let the horses munch on some clover for a while and rest.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.
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?
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!!
: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.
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!!
I wish that I could convince more conservative gay men to post here, so far not much luck, but I'll keep on trying.
I think that we need the diverse opinions of everyone, it helps us learn about others and more importantly OURSELVES.