Well, I'm afraid that's what it sounded like to me--like you were trying to convince a jury.
Well, I suppose I do have a way of debating forcefully. But I hardly think I'm the only one here who debates forcefully, Jeff,
. Ahem.
If I sound like I'm making a closing argument to a jury, it may be because a) I have a lot of reasons for believing what I believe, and I want to give them all their day in the sun and b) I realize my contention goes against a lot of people's assumptions. Hell, it goes against what were MY assumptions for months and months after first seeing the movie. One night, writing a post here, I was discussing how homophobic OMT is, when suddenly I realized -- wait a minute, he's not all that homophobic. Then I thought about it some more and realized -- wait, he doesn't exhibit any overt unequivocal homophobia AT ALL. Isn't that interesting!
And how is this different from advocating that John Twist isn't homophobic?
It's not, when you put it that way. But when you put it as "you ... feel such a need ... to exonerate him" it somehow sounds somehow more, um ... personal or sump'n. Remember, I DON'T LIKE Mr. Twist. I have a need to exonerate him like I have a need for an opinion on "s'alright" vs. "sorry" -- I'm interested, but fairly neutral.
Well, sure--except that he is.
OK, Jeff ...
So you believe he is! That's fine. You go right ahead. I guess I could turn it around and say, "Why do you feel such a need to prove that he's homophobic"?
That a 60-something backwater Wyoming rancher nearly 30 years ago could be OK with two men having a long-term romantic relationship? I'm sorry, friend, but I grew up with relatives in my own family who were very like John Twist, and the very idea just beggars belief.
Hey, don't be sorry, Bud! I realize this interpretation doesn't fit what we think we already know about the culture. That's why it's interesting. Sounds like you're interpreting the movie based on assumptions you had walking into the theater. That's what the movie is trying to get viewers NOT to do. It wants us to toss away whatever stereotypes we might have. Macho cowboys can be gay, not all SOBs are homophobes.
Friend, my favorite aunt and her lesbian partner will be celebrating their mutual 80th birthdays this August with a big cocktail party in their small Iowa farm town (population 3,900). They they moved there after retiring, after having lived together for 30+ years. In addition to my relatives (mostly from Iowa, many from small towns), I'm expecting to see lots of locals there -- my aunt, a stranger in the town when she arrived, shortly thereafter ran for mayor (against the incumbent, I always have to add!
) and served several terms. She is brilliant and irreverent and funny as hell and not at all what you might picture when you hear the phrase, "my 80-year-old aunt." And the behavior of the townsfolk beggars MY belief about the way elderly backwater Midwesterners behave.
People surprise you sometimes, thank God.
And that, unfortunately, is what I will never understand--how you can come away from that scene nd not see the homophobia that is so blatant and obvious to others as to not even need discussing.
Tell you what, not all "others" interpret the scene that way. I've talked to at least a handful of Brokies who agree with me. But yes, I realize the majority of viewers are predisposed to find homophobia in the scene, so to many people, it's "blatant and obvious."
How about this: What exactly does John Twist say or do that couldn't just as easily have been said or done by a mean old son-of-a-bitch father to a resented
heterosexual son?
Instead, he's talking about it with OMT. And it's not like OMT is telling Jack, "Yeah, you'll bring this Ennis del Mar here over my dead body, no way in hell"; rather, OMT is hearing Jack. And when Jack finally accepts the fact that Ennis probably won't ever agree to the "sweet life," he starts thinking about Randall, and Randall's the person he's talking about to OMT. It's another discussion. The dialogue was ongoing, and although OMT probably didn't like what he was hearing, he had to accept it.
Fran, you make a good point. OMT ran Jack off. Yet Jack kept returning. And when he returned, did Jack try to hide his homosexuality to get along with Daddy? Hell no, he talked to his dad about his plans to ditch his wife and live with a man. Was his dad's reaction so awful that Jack never went back to the ranch, let alone mention his plan again? No! Jack kept going back, kept mentioning the plan. When it became clear that Ennis wasn't going to go for the sweet life, THEN did Jack shut up about it? No!!!! He simply told his dad he had another fella in mind. Now why would he do any of those things if his dad was virulently homophobic? Why would OMT listen?!
For that matter, if his OMT were a raging homophobe, why on earth would Jack even think for a second of bringing Ennis or Randall or anyone up to the ranch in the first place, subjecting them to what would surely be a hellish existence of conflict and disapproval? Doesn't sound like a very sweet life. Yet somehow, Jack thought it would work ...