Does Jack know that is or is not his child?

[moremojo]

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.

[nakymaton]

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...)

[Artiste]

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!!

[moremojo]

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

[Artiste]

Thanks moremojo!

That is interesting!

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

Hugs!

[brokeplex]

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? 

[nakymaton]

*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.

[brokeplex]

*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! 

[nakymaton]

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...)

[Artiste]

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!!