Does Jack know that is or is not his child?

[brokeplex]

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.

[RossInIllinois]

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.

[brokeplex]

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.

[Artiste]

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!!

[Shakesthecoffecan]

Folks, you need to cut off your computors, and go outside and get some fresh air.

[RossInIllinois]

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".

[brokeplex]

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.

[RossInIllinois]

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?

[brokeplex]

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?   

[serious crayons]

I am not a stranger to controversy. ...  to just name a few.

   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.