BetterMost, Wyoming & Brokeback Mountain Forum

Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond => Brokeback Mountain Open Forum => Topic started by: chowhound on August 23, 2010, 04:25:05 pm

Title: 19 or 20?
Post by: chowhound on August 23, 2010, 04:25:05 pm
Up until now, I've assumed that Ennis and Jack were both nineteen when they first meet on Brokeback in the summer of '63. Indeed, the timeline I created for Brokeback partly depends on this assumption. The assumption was based on the short story:

""It would be Jack Twist's second summer on the mountain, Ennis's first. Neither of them was twenty."

Earlier today I was revisiting an interview that Ang Lee had with Charlie Rose a few days before the movie's initial release. At one point, Charlie Rose asks Ang Lee to outline the story for him and in so doing Ang says that it's a story about "two ranch hands - one age of 20, one 19" - who first meet on Brokeback Mountain. Ang Lee's specificity puzzled me until I went back, not to the short story but to the screen play. There, in introducing Ennis, it's stated that he is "about twenty". Jack, on the other hand is quite definitely described as "twenty". So it looks as though Ang and presumably his actors had decided to make Jack slightly older than Ennis with Jack at twenty and Ennis nineteen.

Does it matter if Jack is that bit older than Ennis? As Ang Lee is so specific about the difference in their ages when he's introducing them, it seems that it mattered to him. Maybe he perceived Jack as slightly more "experienced" than Ennis not only in having been on Brokeback the year before but in other matters as well. Any thoughts on this?

Clearly, when I have the time, I should revisit that timeline. Some alterations will probably have to be made, if it's to be, as I intended, a timeline for the movie rather than the short story.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Brown Eyes on August 23, 2010, 04:40:50 pm

Interesting!  I never thought of either of them being anything but 19 in the beginning.  However, it would fit the theme of Jack being slightly ahead in almost all things (experience on the mountain, seeming acceptance of his sexuality, possibly sexual experience, being at the front of the flock, being in front on the way to the bar early on, leading the sheep and Ennis across the stream when they go up the mountain, etc. ).


Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Monika on August 23, 2010, 04:46:24 pm
Doesn´t Jack die in 1983 when he is 39?
That would make him 19 in 1963.


Maybe he was older than Ennis still. Maybe Ennis was 18?
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 23, 2010, 04:55:07 pm
Doesn´t Jack die in 1983 when he is 39?
That would make him 19 in 1963.


Maybe he was older than Ennis still. Maybe Ennis was 18?
correct, Lureen told Ennis when he called about Jack's death, that "he wasn't yet 40". so, Jack had to be 19 in 1963, but Ennis could have been younger.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Monika on August 23, 2010, 05:41:40 pm

 Maybe he perceived Jack as slightly more "experienced" than Ennis not only in having been on Brokeback the year before but in other matters as well. Any thoughts on this?


sorry for going OT but often when I read the passage where Pa Twist pees on Jack, the thought that he might have abused Jack sexually crosses my mind. It just seems as sucha perverted thing to do.
I'm just curious whether anyone else ever has made this association?
To me this might explain Jack's apparent "know-how".
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Front-Ranger on August 23, 2010, 06:24:07 pm
In the story, Annie Proulx emphasizes Jack and Ennis's similarities and sets up a "two against the world" scenario. But in the movie, Ang Lee approaches the story of Ennis and Jack as a kind of yin/yang complementary relationship, where their differences are emphasized. Thus, Jack is the "experienced" one and Ennis is the "unexperienced" one (in sexual terms). Buffy, I think Jack's experience comes more from hanging around rodeos, rather than abuse by his father (although what his father does IS sexual abuse IMO). It hadn't happened before because the peeing scene is where Jack finds out that his father is uncircumsized.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: chowhound on August 24, 2010, 12:33:26 pm
correct, Lureen told Ennis when he called about Jack's death, that "he wasn't yet 40". so, Jack had to be 19 in 1963, but Ennis could have been younger.

Not necessarily, Buffymon and brokeplex. If Jack is 19 that summer on Brokeback, as the short story suggests, then he must have been born in the later months of 1943 and dies sometime in the summer of 1983 before he turns forty. However, if he is 20 when he first meets Ennis, as the screenplay states, then everything moves back a year to 1942-1982. When I get around to correcting that timeline, these are the dates I'll use in the modified version.  I want it to be a timeline for the movie rather than the short and with this variant about how old Jack is when he first meets Ennis, you can't make the same timeline fit both movie and short story.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Marina on August 24, 2010, 01:10:48 pm
Quote
But in the movie, Ang Lee approaches the story of Ennis and Jack as a kind of yin/yang complementary relationship.

This was so beautifully apparent, wasn't it?  :)

Whether 19 or 20 - never give it any thought.  ;)   

I guess I just assumed they were both around the same age due to the short story.   I never thought Jack was much more experienced than Ennis, just that he was more willing to go with his feelings and take the risk on love, and Ennis was more hesitant.  :)
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Penthesilea on August 24, 2010, 01:17:05 pm
Not necessarily, Buffymon and brokeplex. If Jack is 19 that summer on Brokeback, as the short story suggests, then he must have been born in the later months of 1943 and dies sometime in the summer of 1943 before he turns forty. However, if he is 20 when he first meets Ennis, as the screenplay states, then everything moves back a year to 1942-1982. When I get around to correcting that timeline, these are the dates I'll use in the modified version.  I want it to be a timeline for the movie rather than the short and with this variant about how old Jack is when he first meets Ennis, you can't make the same timeline fit both movie and short story.


I wouldn't hold on religiously to the timeline as it is stated in the script. It's screwed up in several places. You'll get in trouble with calculating towards the end.

The script (according to STS book) says their last meeting takes place in 1981 (whereas the SS says May 1983).
It must have been before August, because Ennis cancels the August meeting, and tells Jack it'll be November till they can see each other again.

Then comes the scene with Cassie in the Greyhound station (also 1981 according to the script).

But low and behold, when Ennis recieves the postcard stamped deceased, the script says 1982. Same for Ennis's phone call with Lureen: 1982.
This is wrong, because on the postcard we see Ennis had been asking to meet at Pine Creek on November, 7th. November, as he had told Jack at their last meeting.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 25, 2010, 04:11:59 pm
 I want it to be a timeline for the movie rather than the short and with this variant about how old Jack is when he first meets Ennis, you can't make the same timeline fit both movie and short story.
yes, I agree,  you can't make a timeline that fits both the film and the short story. the film makes some departures in the timeline of the short story. for example, I am convinced that because of the date shown in the film when Jack competes in the rodeo in Childress, and the date shown on the post card sent to Ennis later, that Bobby can't be Jack's child. But, the short story has no such implications.  :)
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: chowhound on August 25, 2010, 10:53:53 pm
yes, I agree,  you can't make a timeline that fits both the film and the short story. the film makes some departures in the timeline of the short story. for example, I am convinced that because of the date shown in the film when Jack competes in the rodeo in Childress, and the date shown on the post card sent to Ennis later, that Bobby can't be Jack's child. But, the short story has no such implications.  :)

I agree, Brokeplex, that it is only in the movie and not the short story that the possibility that Jack is not Bobby's biological father is raised. But I was wondering if those who have been members of this board for much longer than I could tell me if the "Bobby the bastard" theory has been discussed here before? If not, maybe it deserves a thread of its own. However, for the time being, here are the theory's essentials. It's all  to do with dates:

1. The fireworks scene takes place on July 4, 1966. We know this because the announcer tells us that it is July 4, 1966.

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.

3. The reunion scene takes place on Sept. 24, 1967. This is clearly established both by the content of the postcard and the postcard's datestamp.

5. During this scene, Jack tells Alma and Ennis that he is the father of a kid who is eight months old.

6. That means that Bobby must have been born in the January of that year.

7. But Jack had only met Lureen in the August of the previous year, so, even if he had impregnated Lureen that night, Lureen wouldn't be giving birth to a perfectly normal and healthy boy - as from all appearances Bobby is - some five months later.

8. Therefore Lureen must have been pregnant when Jack first meets her and Jack is not Bobby's biological father.

Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Penthesilea on August 26, 2010, 12:47:21 am
I agree, Brokeplex, that it is only in the movie and not the short story that the possibility that Jack is not Bobby's biological father is raised. But I was wondering if those who have been members of this board for much longer than I could tell me if the "Bobby the bastard" theory has been discussed here before?


Only a million times ;) :laugh:
Don't let this keep you from bringing it up again though. This discussion is embedded into maybe two dozen threads; you'll have to try the search function to find some of it. There's also a thread of its own about it:

TOTW 02/08: Was Lureen pregnant when she met Jack? (http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,16269.0.html)

There's a lengthy post by GuyMadison at page 15 of the thread, with the exact title "Bobby the Bastard". It's copied from IMDB, so I guess you might have seen it. It's here: http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,16269.msg405048.html#msg405048 (http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,16269.msg405048.html#msg405048)


Feel free to revive the thread above, or another one with this particular discussion in it, or create a new one! :)


Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Monika on August 26, 2010, 02:24:03 am
I didn´t even know there was theory about Bobby not being Jack´s son.  :o
You learn as long as you live, I suppose ::)
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Brown Eyes on August 26, 2010, 02:42:05 am
I didn´t even know there was theory about Bobby not being Jack´s son.  :o
You learn as long as you live, I suppose ::)

Yes, as far as I recall, there's a theory that Lureen was already pregnant when she met Jack.  And, I think the further suggestion has been that she was looking for someone to marry quickly who could be the father of the child.

I don't believe that at all... but, it's an idea that's out there.

Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 26, 2010, 01:09:16 pm
I agree, Brokeplex, that it is only in the movie and not the short story that the possibility that Jack is not Bobby's biological father is raised. But I was wondering if those who have been members of this board for much longer than I could tell me if the "Bobby the bastard" theory has been discussed here before? If not, maybe it deserves a thread of its own. However, for the time being, here are the theory's essentials.
oh, yes. there have been some discussion threads about Jack not being the biological father of Bobby. I think that Ang Lee added this suggestion to the film in order to better explain Jack's life in TX. I think this addition to the storyline improves the overall tale because it makes Jack a more believable character.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Marina on August 26, 2010, 01:34:24 pm
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.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: 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? 
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 26, 2010, 01:48:33 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? 
ah, but do the film goers do the math subliminally, and unconsciously is their opinion of Jack changed?
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: southendmd on August 26, 2010, 01:53:23 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.


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.  
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: southendmd on August 26, 2010, 01:56:56 pm
ah, but do the film goers do the math subliminally, and unconsciously is their opinion of Jack changed?

Hmm, that would take a trickcyclist to answer!

Sometimes a math error is just a math error.  :)
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Monika on August 26, 2010, 03:39:07 pm
I'm inclined to believe that most film-goers don't do a lot of math.
 
That´s my guess too.
Screwing up the timeline is a pretty common thing in movies.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Lynne on August 26, 2010, 04:21:48 pm
sorry for going OT but often when I read the passage where Pa Twist pees on Jack, the thought that he might have abused Jack sexually crosses my mind. It just seems as sucha perverted thing to do.
I'm just curious whether anyone else ever has made this association?
To me this might explain Jack's apparent "know-how".

Hey Monika - I'm coming late to this thread and I just saw your post here.

It is certainly something to think about.

That scene in the short story distresses me a great deal and although I don't know if sexual intercourse (experience) is intended, the abuse IMO is definite.  Here is the whole paragraph:

So now he knew it had been the tire iron. He stood up, said, you bet he'd like to see Jack's room, recalled one of Jack's stories about this old man. Jack was dick-clipped and the old man was not; it bothered the son who had discovered the anatomical disconformity during a hard scene. He had been about three or four, he said, always late getting to the toilet, struggling with buttons, the seat, the height of the thing and often as not left the surroundings sprinkled down. The old man blew up about it and this one time worked into a crazy rage. "Christ, he licked the stuffin out a me, knocked me down on the bathroom floor, whipped me with his belt. I thought he was killin me. Then he says, 'You want a know what it's like with piss all over the place? I'll learn you,' and he pulls it out and lets go all over me, soaked me, then he throws a towel at me and makes me mop up the floor, take my clothes off and warsh them in the bathtub, warsh out the towel, I'm bawlin and blubberin. But while he was hosin me down I seen he had some extra material that I was missin. I seen they'd cut me different like you'd crop a ear or scorch a brand. No way to get it right with him after that."

I always wondered if there was more because it seems an abrupt transition from the 'hard scene' to the noticing his father was not circumcised.  And perhaps men understand it better than women - to me, "no way to get it right with him" should refer to the 'hard scene' instead of the anatomical difference.

And now I'm wondering if this is really a metaphor on another level - Jack's anatomical difference representing his difference in orientation as well?
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: SuperDistortion on August 26, 2010, 04:43:05 pm
Hey Monika - I'm coming late to this thread and I just saw your post here.

It is certainly something to think about.

That scene in the short story distresses me a great deal and although I don't know if sexual intercourse (experience) is intended, the abuse IMO is definite.  Here is the whole paragraph:

So now he knew it had been the tire iron. He stood up, said, you bet he'd like to see Jack's room, recalled one of Jack's stories about this old man. Jack was dick-clipped and the old man was not; it bothered the son who had discovered the anatomical disconformity during a hard scene. He had been about three or four, he said, always late getting to the toilet, struggling with buttons, the seat, the height of the thing and often as not left the surroundings sprinkled down. The old man blew up about it and this one time worked into a crazy rage. "Christ, he licked the stuffin out a me, knocked me down on the bathroom floor, whipped me with his belt. I thought he was killin me. Then he says, 'You want a know what it's like with piss all over the place? I'll learn you,' and he pulls it out and lets go all over me, soaked me, then he throws a towel at me and makes me mop up the floor, take my clothes off and warsh them in the bathtub, warsh out the towel, I'm bawlin and blubberin. But while he was hosin me down I seen he had some extra material that I was missin. I seen they'd cut me different like you'd crop a ear or scorch a brand. No way to get it right with him after that."

I always wondered if there was more because it seems an abrupt transition from the 'hard scene' to the noticing his father was not circumcised.  And perhaps men understand it better than women - to me, "no way to get it right with him" should refer to the 'hard scene' instead of the anatomical difference.

And now I'm wondering if this is really a metaphor on another level - Jack's anatomical difference representing his difference in orientation as well?

Fascinating perspective.  Definitely food for thought...
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Monika on August 26, 2010, 04:59:51 pm


And now I'm wondering if this is really a metaphor on another level - Jack's anatomical difference representing his difference in orientation as well?
Hi Lynne! This is what I´ve always thought- that his anatomical difference somehow represented his difference in orientation, but I have never fully understood exactly why.
Why would Pa Twist mind Jack being circumcised, and besides, it couldn´t have been news to him that he was.
Perhaps Jack was starring a bit too long at his dad´s penis?

Or maybe the "no way to get it right with him after that" does refer to "the hard scene" after all and has nothing to do with Jack being circumcised.

Where is AP when you need her? :P


Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: chowhound on August 27, 2010, 05:58:28 pm
oh, yes. there have been some discussion threads about Jack not being the biological father of Bobby. I think that Ang Lee added this suggestion to the film in order to better explain Jack's life in TX. I think this addition to the storyline improves the overall tale because it makes Jack a more believable character.

If Jack is not Bobby's biological father, then that fact alone provides a persuasive reason for Old Man Newsome's aggressive and dismissive attiitude towards Jack. We first see this when he and his wife visit the newborn Bobby. He flings his car keys at Jack, ordering him to go out to the car and find the formula they have brought and when admiring Bobby his remarks cur Jack out entirely - "he's the spittin image of his grandpa...(glances at Jack)...isn't he the spittin' image of his grandpa?"

From what Jack tells Ennis on their first reunion, it looks as though his attempts to get rid of Jack, once Jack has provided the necessary cover by marrying Lureen, have been going on for some while:

"Hell, Lureen's old man, you bet he'd give me a downpayment if I'd get lost. Already more or less said it..."

Also, if Jack is not Bobby's biological father, it makes more understandable Jack's willingness  to leave his wife and newborn son to start a new life with Ennis.

This is not the only possible explanation for Old Man Newsome's attitude towards Jack but, in my opinion, it is certainly a plausible one.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Front-Ranger on August 27, 2010, 06:50:51 pm
We should not leave Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana out of this equation. Any Texan that appears in the movie is quite likely to be mostly a product of their imaginations. And LM/DO are known for creating some of the most memorable Texas characters in existence.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Penthesilea on August 28, 2010, 02:56:47 am
We should not leave Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana out of this equation. Any Texan that appears in the movie is quite likely to be mostly a product of their imaginations. And LM/DO are known for creating some of the most memorable Texas characters in existence.


And .... ?
I'm sorry, FRiend, I have no idea what you want to tell us. Do you mean this comment in regard to Jack's fatherhood of Bobby? Or in regard to the original question of this thread? Or something entirely else?
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Monika on August 28, 2010, 05:10:55 am


Also, if Jack is not Bobby's biological father, it makes more understandable Jack's willingness  to leave his wife and newborn son to start a new life with Ennis.

I think that would be very untypcial AP because it would give Jack a somewhat valid reason to leave.
That´d be too easy, I think.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Front-Ranger on August 28, 2010, 09:03:17 am
Just to clarify, when we think about the Texan characters in the movie, we have to consider the screenwriters, Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, who are longtime commenters on what it means to be Texan. Think of Last Picture Show, Lonesome Dove, and Terms of Endearment, all stories about Texans. And in all those stories appeared enigmatic women, women shaped by their environment and sometimes driven half-mad by the experiences they endured. Why on earth did Emma marry Flap Horton in Terms of Endearment, and why was Aurora Greenaway so overbearing? It's never spelled out in the story, but the implication is that Texas is not the kind of place to have sensitive feelings or "tender mercies." Thus, Lureen emerges as the same kind of enigmatic woman. McMurtry never spelled out her motives and we could go round and round trying to figure them out. It's clear that she pursued Jack, maybe for straightforward reasons and maybe for devious reasons.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Marina on August 28, 2010, 09:08:52 am
That is certainly plausible, that Lureen would have been pregnant.   I never thought of it that way.   As I mentioned in my previous comment, I noticed a subplot of commentary of the masculinity and culture of the day - to me, LD was the "stud duck" of the family, just as Jack's father was, and Ennis' father appeared to be - and as long as LD was able-bodied, he'd be the "top dog" in that family, and I doubt any other man would be liable to unseat him, the old buffalo!   He didn't like Jack, and I doubt any man, would be good enough for his daughter in his eyes.  Lureen wanted Jack, so I think LD tolerated him.    I love how Lureen rolls her eyes at Jack when her father, whom she obviously loves dearly, says "Isn't he [little Bobby] the spittin' image of his Grampaw?"   :)   I think that Jack had thought about Ennis all the time he was married to Lureen, but didn't realize the depth of his feelings until after the reunion, and then wanted to leave the life he had to be with Ennis then.

But eventually, the "young upstart" Jack did put LD in his place ("you sit down, you ol' sonofabitch.  This is my house.), and I loved it.   And you could see Lureen was quietly pleased.    I wanted to shout "Yeah!".    Not too much different from the animal kingdom!  lol   :)
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Front-Ranger on August 28, 2010, 09:42:32 am
   Not too much different from the animal kingdom!  lol   :)

You've hit the nail on the head there, friend!!
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Front-Ranger on August 30, 2010, 09:51:33 am
I thought for a moment that maybe McMurtry/Ossana named Lureen, since it's so close to Lorena, the heroine of Lonesome Dove. But it's in Proulx's story. Maybe they were thinking along the same lines...the alluring young woman who waylays men on their manly pursuits. Both characters are seemingly unaware of their allure and more intent on their own goals. Lorena wanted to go to San Francisco and Lureen wanted to settle down away from her daddy's restrictions. It's "be careful what you wish for" time, though. Each woman escaped what she thought was an intolerable situation but entered a new situation that wasn't exactly what she expected. At least Lureen didn't get kidnapped by wild Indians though!
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 30, 2010, 12:09:58 pm

From what Jack tells Ennis on their first reunion, it looks as though his attempts to get rid of Jack, once Jack has provided the necessary cover by marrying Lureen, have been going on for some while:

"Hell, Lureen's old man, you bet he'd give me a downpayment if I'd get lost. Already more or less said it..."

Also, if Jack is not Bobby's biological father, it makes more understandable Jack's willingness  to leave his wife and newborn son to start a new life with Ennis.

This is not the only possible explanation for Old Man Newsome's attitude towards Jack but, in my opinion, it is certainly a plausible one.

what you stated above has been my theory about Lureen's (the heiress to one of the largest businesses in the county) reasons for the marriage to a poorly educated itinerant rodeo bull rider with no assets or social connections. and Jack's reasons would be simple as well, he needed some economic security, Lureen provided that. But after Jack made his "pact with the devil" - he regretted it, but couldn't find an easy way out.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 30, 2010, 12:14:33 pm
I think that would be very untypcial AP because it would give Jack a somewhat valid reason to leave.
That´d be too easy, I think.
Buffy, separate the short story from the film. I agree, that the "bastard" theory regarding Bobby is not particularly congruent with AP's storyline. It was Ang Lee who added the image of the signage at the Childress rodeo indicating that it took place in mid Aug (1966?) I believe that Ang Lee was looking for a more plausible explanation as to the marriage for Jack and Lureen than was provided by AP.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Monika on August 30, 2010, 04:22:15 pm
Buffy, separate the short story from the film. I agree, that the "bastard" theory regarding Bobby is not particularly congruent with AP's storyline. It was Ang Lee who added the image of the signage at the Childress rodeo indicating that it took place in mid Aug (1966?) I believe that Ang Lee was looking for a more plausible explanation as to the marriage for Jack and Lureen than was provided by AP.


 Lureen might have wanted to rebell against her father - and why not then pick a dirt poor rodeo cowboy to marry?

I think they slipped up regarding the year. But then who knows?

Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 30, 2010, 05:03:52 pm


 Lureen might have wanted to rebell against her father - and why not then pick a dirt poor rodeo cowboy to marry?

I think they slipped up regarding the year. But then who knows?


you may be right, it could just be something that went past the continuity people in editiing. until we get more information from Ang Lee and others who worked on the film, we really can't say for sure. I hope that soon Focus Features will release a new version of the DVD that has a commentary track and deleted scenes. it is odd that one has not been released to date.

 does anyone have any inside info as to why a commentary track has never been released? certainly Ang Lee has participated in commentary tracks before - I esp enjoy his commentaries in "Sense and Sensibility". If a Brokeback Mtn DVD is released and Ang is as forthcoming in his commentary about the filmaking process as he was in S&S, then we shall be in a for a real treat!  :)
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: Penthesilea on August 31, 2010, 11:35:32 am
does anyone have any inside info as to why a commentary track has never been released?


I reread a number of interviews recently. In one of them I read a statement that he simply doesn't want to make a commentary track. "All I have to say is IN the movie" - paraphrasing Ang Lee. I don't remember the exact quote or where exactly I read it. If I find it, I'll post it here.


But then - maybe he'll change his mind one day. I'm not even sure if I want to have a commentary. One one had, it would be great, and I love to see/read all material I can find about BBM. On the other hand, I really understand what he means. It's good not to have have everything spelled out letter by letter. Some things will never be resolved. It's part of the deal, and it's part of the fascination.

There is some open space between what we know and what we try to believe, and all that .....
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 31, 2010, 01:09:21 pm

I reread a number of interviews recently. In one of them I read a statement that he simply doesn't want to make a commentary track. "All I have to say is IN the movie" - paraphrasing Ang Lee. I don't remember the exact quote or where exactly I read it. If I find it, I'll post it here.


But then - maybe he'll change his mind one day. I'm not even sure if I want to have a commentary. One one had, it would be great, and I love to see/read all material I can find about BBM. On the other hand, I really understand what he means. It's good not to have have everything spelled out letter by letter. Some things will never be resolved. It's part of the deal, and it's part of the fascination.

There is some open space between what we know and what we try to believe, and all that .....

I understand your feelings about the value in NOT having all the technical directorial details spelled out. yes, not having a commentary track does leave some "open space" for our imaginings. I would appreciate a track from Ang Lee, and possible interviews with the DP, the screenwriters, and a actor or two. After all, to preserve the "mystery" we don't have to listen to the commentary track.

maybe over time, Focus and Universal will see a market for a re-release of the DVD and Ang Lee can be "prevailed" upon to offer his commentary.
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: chowhound on August 31, 2010, 01:42:46 pm
I understand your feelings about the value in NOT having all the technical directorial details spelled out. yes, not having a commentary track does leave some "open space" for our imaginings. I would appreciate a track from Ang Lee, and possible interviews with the DP, the screenwriters, and a actor or two. After all, to preserve the "mystery" we don't have to listen to the commentary track.

maybe over time, Focus and Universal will see a market for a re-release of the DVD and Ang Lee can be "prevailed" upon to offer his commentary.

I may have mentioned here before that I once wrote to Criterion to ask them if they had any plans to release an edition on Brokeback Mountain but iI never got a reply. I think their edition of Ang Lee's The Ice Storm is splendid.  However, that didn't appear until some years after the cinema release of the movie, so maybe the same will be true of Brokeback. However, it would be reassuring to know if or not they are considering the idea.

I understand the feeling amongst some here that Brokeback should be taken as it is without the extras of deleted scenes or commentary tracks. However, shots from deleted scenes like the hiippy scene, the gun scene, the mechanics, Ennis  the vet etc. are readily available on the internet and elsewhere, so it's not as though we don't already know something about these deleted scenes even if we don't now all. So, in some ways, it wouldn't be supplying us with new knowledge but completing our knowledge.

As far as Lureen's pregnancy goes,, I once wrote to Larry McMurtry  about this but again got no reply. In retrospect, I think I should have written to Diana Ossana who was on the set during most of the filmimg. If there's anybody here who knows how to get in touch with her, maybe he or she might like to try
Title: Re: 19 or 20?
Post by: brokeplex on August 31, 2010, 02:14:59 pm
I may have mentioned here before that I once wrote to Criterion to ask them if they had any plans to release an edition on Brokeback Mountain but iI never got a reply. I think their edition of Ang Lee's The Ice Storm is splendid.  However, that didn't appear until some years after the cinema release of the movie, so maybe the same will be true of Brokeback. However, it would be reassuring to know if or not they are considering the idea.

I understand the feeling amongst some here that Brokeback should be taken as it is without the extras of deleted scenes or commentary tracks. However, shots from deleted scenes like the hiippy scene, the gun scene, the mechanics, Ennis  the vet etc. are readily available on the internet and elsewhere, so it's not as though we don't already know something about these deleted scenes even if we don't now all. So, in some ways, it wouldn't be supplying us with new knowledge but completing our knowledge.

As far as Lureen's pregnancy goes,, I once wrote to Larry McMurtry  about this but again got no reply. In retrospect, I think I should have written to Diana Ossana who was on the set during most of the filmimg. If there's anybody here who knows how to get in touch with her, maybe he or she might like to try
oh, yes a Criterion Collection version of Brokeback Mtn with all those Xtas would be wonderful. But I would be happy with just a commentary track of the quality that we hear in the latest DVD re-release of Ang Lee's "Sense and Sensibility".