Author Topic: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity  (Read 11262 times)

Offline whiteoutofthemoon

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« on: June 21, 2006, 04:01:06 am »
I thought I had read everything about this movie, but here's an interesting take on Lureen and Bobby Twist from the IMDB board.   The issue of the timeline has come up many times, but I've never heard it like this....this one poster seems to have a compelling argument that if Jack and Lureen met in August 1966, and then the reunion scene takes place in September 1967, when Bobby is "8 months old", then it is impossible that Bobby is Jack's child.     Part of that poster's argument and debate is below.  I thought I'd post it here for you Brokiephiles, in case it hasn't been discussed before, to see what you make of it.    It would throw a rather confusing "twist" to the story, but at the same time, if it wasn't so, then we have to assume that Ang Lee made a major mistake in this timeline, which I find hard to believe, as it is such a glaring error when you look at the argument.  Is the poster right or wrong?  And, at the same time, it does answer some questions, like about how Jack is more disconnected to his son than Ennis is to his daughters.   

On top of that, if Lureen was indeed with child when she met Jack, she was definitely drinking in the bar, possibly before the true dangers of that were really known, and here is little Bobby Twist, with dyslexia in the book, and with a learning disability in the movie, requiring a tutor!

Here's the post (It's in response to some other posts debating the poster's argument):

__________________________________________

*****Apparently, in the short story Jack meets Lureen between late 1964 and 1965, not in 1966.*****

Doesn't matter. That's NOT what happened in the film.

*****It's humanly impossible for Lureen and Jack to have a 8 months baby by September 1967 if they met in August 1966*****

Agreed.

*****unless Bobby wasn't his, which doesn't make sense within the context of the story.*****

100% wrong. Take some time to really, REALLY think about this. (I truly mean this as a polite request.) This not only makes sense, it agrees with the character development of Jack as the film portrayed him.

There are numerous reasons why this makes complete sense -- the 'Yee-haw' scene, the 'Lureen's bedroom' scene, the 'tractor riding' scene, the 'blue parka' scene, the 'Twist family Thanksgiving' scene, the 'Real Thinker' scene, and for me, probably the most important, the development of Jack across these scenes with respect to his relationship with Bobby.

Didn't it ever kind of irk you that Jack, at the 'reunion river' scene, was sooooo willing to leave behind a wife and eight-month old son? Is that the Jack we know? What do we know about Jack and the Newsome family? He got roped in by Lureen in a car one night. She was in a hurry -- yes, she said she had to get the car home for daddy -- that's the text -- but we all know that with every line in this film, the sub-text is much more significant -- subtext: she was pregnant at the time. There's a familial disconnect between Jack and the Newsomes at the 'Lureen's bedroom' scene. Jack said LD hated Jack's guts. Jack was ready and willing to throw all that away for Ennis at the 'reunion river' scene. Why? Because it's a lot easier for him to do it at that time knowing that Bobby is not his child, that he had not bonded with Bobby, and that he was an outsider in the Newsome family circle.

Or maybe Jack's just an a$$hole.

And what happens later… AFTER Jack comes to terms (slowly) with Ennis’ intransigence? We see three scenes of Jack bonding more with Bobby. Taking an interest… teaching him, unlike Old Man Twist. Growing and building… until Thanksgiving when Jack takes strong, possessive ownership of his right as a father. He’s proved it for about 10 years at this point. Contrast all of this with Ennis’ relationships with his daughters.

*****It's a mistake made by the film-makers not by Proulx. It's a continuity error.*****

There are some mistakes in the film, no doubt. But they do not have the kind of repercussions that this one would have if it was, in fact, a mistake. The dates are clearly given in the short story. The DIFFERENT dates are clearly given in the film. And they’re there for a reason. The same kind of reason that explains the filmmakers’ other significant changes.

Lee is a stickler for details. We have hundreds of threads and thousands of posts confirming this. There is no way this is a simple continuity error. It’s way too big and way too significant.

Or maybe Jack is a true a$$hole.


"They were respectful of each other's opinions, each glad to have a companion where none had been expected.  Ennis, riding against the wind back to the sheep in the treacherous, drunken light, thought he'd never had such a good time, felt he could paw the whiteoutofthemoon."

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2006, 04:31:55 am »
Why do you and/or the other posters from IMDB think that Jack met Lureen in August 1966?
This is not apparent to me. ???


Offline Daniel

  • Counsellor
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,139
  • I lost myself to him.
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2006, 04:57:42 am »
It's because of the apparent disruption in the timeline. We assume that the film is presented in chronological order. The scene directly before Jack meets Lureen is the Fourth of July picnic in 1966.
Why do we consume what we consume?
Why do we believe what we believe?
Why do we accept what we accept?
You have a body, a mind, and a soul.... You have a responsibility.

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2006, 06:36:57 am »
Uups. Thanks, Daniel. I forgot about the Forth of July. It must have been 4th of July 1966 because of Ennis's girls.

So the OP is right. Even if Jack had met Lureen only one day after the 4th of July scene, and even if Lureen had gotten pregnant on this very same day, Bobby could not have been 8 month old before December 1967.

July 1966 + 9 months pregnancy= April 1967

April 1967 + Bobby 8 months old = December 1967

But the reunion was clearly not in Winter. They were skinny-dipping. It may have been fall, with warm days and fresh nights (both wear jackets in the evening after the jump into the lake) - but no way it could have been December.

So either there's a mistake in the movie - or Jack is not Bobby's biological father. Can't decide which is more likely.
From my first viewing on, it has always been my impression, that Lureen got instantly pregnant from their first sex in the car. And that's what I still believe. So for the moment, I tend more to "mistake in the movie" than to the other possibility.

But I'm very curious about other's opinions on this topic. Thanks for opening this thread, whiteoutofthemoon!






Offline David

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2006, 07:04:37 am »
Well..... the only thing I might add is that it is an editing decision.    Ang Lee was trying to depict the lives of the two boys after brokeback and before the reunion.     Perhaps flipping back and forth between the two guys often in the correct timeline was too choppy?    So he had us watch scenes with each guy for a while before flipping to the other.   As many times as I have seen the movie, I have always thought that the boys separated in August 1963,  Jack came back for work again the next summer 1964, then went down to Texas again and ultimately met Lureen and was married in 1965.   Plenty of time to get her pregnant before the reunion with Ennis in Sept 1967.

Damn it.  I can't type "reunion with Ennis" without tearing up! (sniff)  :'( 

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2006, 10:05:52 am »
I was about to post this in the "parents and children thread", when this topic appeared and so I'm rather posting it here, as it touches directly upon why Jack would behave towards Bobby the way he does.


Jack seems to care for Bobby, but at the same time he seems entirely willing to leave him behind if Ennis should decide to say yes to the sweet life…. The following thoughts specifically about the movie versions of Jack and Bobby are all just in my opinion and based on my impressions and speculations, of course. I do believe Jack is Bobby’s father, movie timelines be damned. I think there are other reasons, reasons more poignantly tied directly to Jack’s relationship with and love for Ennis, that might explain Jack’s behaviour towards his son and the Newsomes. They’re outlined below.

Sure enough, though - I believe Jack and Lureen “had to get married”, as the saying goes. Several things point to Lureen being pregnant when they married. (The script timeline, which only includes years, not months, - and the photo Lureen keeps at the bedside table which  isn’t a “big wedding” photo…)  And a pregnancy may have been one and perhaps the only reason why the Newsomes decided to put a good face on it and to accept Jack as their son-in-law.

Jack was of course entirely aware that he’d attached himself to the Newsome clan under false pretences. But Lureen and the marriage provided him with many things he desperately needed at that time;  a vastly improved financial position, a steady life far from Lightning Flat,  a big boost to his self-esteem (snagging the rich and pretty rodeo queen), someone to ease his desperate loneliness and longing for Ennis, a front to hide behind when too many people on the rodeo circuit may have been catching the same vibes – and behaving the same way – as Jimbo.

Bobby in a way becomes not only Jack’s entry ticket to the clan and a new life, but also his contribution in return, a “repayment” for what he may feel that he owes Lureen and her parents. Whether rationally thought out or just subconscious on Jack's part doesn't matter all that much IMO.  So there he is, that’s one reason he’s stepping aside with that polite and sad smile, - while pining for someone and somewhere else - letting LD proprietarily declare Bobby a Newsome: The “spitting’ image of his grandpa”.

After the reunion, when Bobby was not yet a year old, and up until Jack’s post-divorce meeting with Ennis, Jack clearly seems to have considered his own place in the Newsome clan a temporary matter. Not so for his son, though. Jack was waiting for Ennis to finally come around so that they could stay together, and he must have thought that when it happened, he wouldn’t be able to take Bobby with him. Bobby would remain with Lureen and her parents.

On that particular background, there were several reasons why Jack’d hold back from bonding too much with the boy and deliberately let the boy continue to grow up as his granddad’s “spittin’ image”, ie. being doted upon and very much influenced by LD, at Jack’s own expense even. It would ensure that Bobby felt the loss of his father less keenly when Jack left. Bobby’d have people around him who he loved just as much or more, right there to comfort him….. (probably through reviling Jack). And it would secure Bobby the continued support and financial backing of the Newsomes, no matter what Jack did. They wouldn’t consider Bobby just an extension of Jack and make the child suffer when the father paid them the insult of leaving, and for another *man*, no less. (LD sure seems like the person to otherwise take his anger and displeasure out on an innocent child, just like the two other fathers of his generation that we get to meet – Ennis’s and Jack’s.)

So in a way, Jack’s love for Ennis loses him the relationship and bond he *could* have had with his son, – in contrast to Ennis who didn’t ever hold back from his girls. Ennis can’t even imagine leaving his daughters, but I think Jack firmly believes and accepts he’ll have to leave his son  – and acts accordingly: He keeps a certain distance to the boy, making the loss of him easier to bear for Jack – when that day comes, as Jack believes it will. And after the reunion Jack never talks about Bobby to Ennis, that we get to see – Jack seemingly doesn’t want to give his son any place or presence in his relationship with Ennis, - maybe that would be too painful?

Even so, while he’s waiting for Ennis, Jack obviously does care very much for his son and does his best to develop him as a human being, probably also intentionally to counterbalance some of LD’s influence. He instills a feeling of self-worth and accomplishment in the boy (the tractor scene), and nags the teacher to ensure the boy gets relevant additional tuition. In this he appears a far better parent than Lureen, who in contrast complains about the boy always losing stuff (making the boy feel less self-confident, as she probably talks that way to Bobby himself) and who seemingly can’t be bothered to care much about the learning disability situation.

Then comes the post-divorce scene, the turning point for Jack’s hopes and dreams concerning Ennis. “The sweet life” is shown up as a bittersweet and painfully unrealizable dream. Jack has stepped back and let LD have first dibs on his son and the boy’s development, has kept his son at an emotional distance, pretty much all for nothing.

So right thereafter, we get Jack forcefully reclaiming the say-so over his son. Both the boy and LD recognize that. Jack also regains Bobby’s respect, after LD has gone out of his way to destroy it. As Jack starts carving the turkey, Bobby sits up straight like he’s suddenly on parade. He’s paying attention to daddy. Until then, Bobby sure seems to have been influenced a lot by LD, the way the boy talks to his mother. He comes across as a pretty unlikable boy, to me.

Yes, I know there are many reasons why Jack finally blows up over the Thanksgiving turkey. He has had enough. His hopes for a sweet life with Ennis, that sustained him over the years, have now been squashed. LD has kept on and on insulting and belittling him, and does so this time in front of the whole family *including* Bobby.  But though there is much going on there below the surface, still that final dispute importantly *is* about Bobby - literally about *who* has the final say in what Bobby should be allowed to do, what is required for him to grow up “right”, and who gets to define that “right”. Surely the wish to be the one deciding those things where his own son is invovlved must be seen as a strong motivating factor when Jack finally decides to take on LD.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 10:26:15 am by Mikaela »

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,758
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2006, 11:47:06 am »
Mikaela, fascinating and well thought out post. I don't think I disagree with anything you say, at least not strongly. (Except the part about not posting it on the parent-child thread, only because I would love to see that thread revitalized -- perhaps you have similarly detailed analyses of other parent-child relationships? Your comment about all three older fathers taking their anger out on children is intriguing.) I'm not sure I think the evidence in the movie fully supports this elaborate a backstory, but it certainly doesn't contradict it, and your theory makes perfect psychological sense.

I guess I have always blithely assumed that if Jack and Ennis had chosen the sweet life, they both would have kept in touch with their children, with frequent visits and so on, the way divorced parents usually do. I figured Jack was just a bit less involved as a parent and would have been willing to live farther away and make fewer visits. But now that I stop to think about it, that was an anachronistic view on my part. Though nowadays it's not AS big a deal for a parent to leave his/her spouse for someone of the same sex (though undoubtedly still a big deal in some families and communities), back then it was a REALLY REALLY big deal. Enough to cause estrangement and maybe even for the straying spouse to be banned from seeing his/her kids at all. (My brother had a girlfriend in high school in the mid-70s whose dad, president of the big local department store, left his wife for another man, and as I recall it was regarded as scandalous and tragic and I think the guy may have even resigned his position -- and this in a large, liberal metro area.) So you're right, Jack would have had plenty of reason to stay detached from Bobby as long as he held out hope for living with Ennis, and Ennis would have had plenty of reason to think living with Jack was out of the question while his daughters were young (and maybe even after).

Back to the paternity issue, I definitely don't think there's enough evidence to support that idea -- though, as with Mikaela's theory, there's nothing that explicitly contradicts it, either. But Mikaela's theory is -- how do I put this? -- more relevant to the main action. The idea that Lureen was already pregnant and perhaps deliberately tricked Jack into marriage and so on ... that seems farfetched enough and so unrelated to the main story that there would be no point in having that whole scenario exist. Or if there were, the filmmakers would offer a bit more hint toward that conclusion. That could mean something as simple a clue as, for instance, the bartender who told Jack about Lureen adding that she was known to be pretty wild. But there's really nothing except Jack's behavior (and the dates, which I'll get to in a moment) to point in that direction. In contrast, the idea that Jack keeps a distance from his son in order to hold out hope for Ennis is much more germane to the plot, thus requires less support and is more plausible.

As for the date discrepancy, I'm afraid I think the filmmakers made a mistake. It wouldn't be the first chronology mistake I've suspected. As I've already described on a different thread, I don't quite believe the timeline at the end of the movie -- which requires us to accept that Ennis had been dating Cassie for five years by the time he mentions her to Jack, and hints that Jack had been seeing Randall for close to that long by the time he mentions him to Ennis. That seems implausible, though Alma Jr. does visibly age between the time she joins Ennis and Cassie on their date and the time she visits Ennis in his trailer (though not necessarily five years' worth of aging).

So I think Bobby was Jack's son, though Lureen was quite possibly pregnant when they got married (there IS enough evidence -- the action in the car -- to support that).


Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2006, 02:18:28 pm »
The idea that Lureen was already pregnant and perhaps deliberately tricked Jack into marriage and so on ... that seems farfetched enough and so unrelated to the main story that there would be no point in having that whole scenario exist.

That's what I'm thinking too.

One piece of evidence that might support it though, is Anne Hathaway's repeated statement in interviews that Jack's and Lureen's marriage was a "marriage of convenience". Sure enough - where Jack is concerned, - but I've never been able to see it as such from Lureen's perspective. I see no "convenience" there, but a woman who could have married just about anyone she'd like to, and who loves the husband she chose although she doesn't understand him. Yet if she was in a big hurry to find someone to marry, it *would* fit AH's statement. I still don't believe that for a minute though.

And as for Jack, - knowing he wasn't the boys father?  I sure I can't see that fitting at all with his "Smiles a lot" comment to Alma in the reunion scene. Jack isn't able to think or scheme there - his mouth just spouts whatever his otherwise disconnected brain feeds it.... so I think the "smiles a lot" description is entirely truthful.  And just *how* does he know that? How do you make a child that age smile? You smile back at it. You play and make funny faces and noises. You're *there*. Clearly Jack has been much around little Bobby, paying him attention. That doesn't fit with the "he's not Bobby's father" theory IMO.


Quote
Jack would have had plenty of reason to stay detached from Bobby as long as he held out hope for living with Ennis, and Ennis would have had plenty of reason to think living with Jack was out of the question while his daughters were young (and maybe even after).


Yes, I don't think either man would have been able to see his children often, or at all, should they have decided to live together. Not in the late 60's/early 70's  in the small rural area towns they belong to. More than that, they'd also have had to consider the stigma they'd be forcing on their children, should any of it become public knowledge. Schoolyard children can be cruel and they take after the grown-ups, who'd hardly have much positive to say of men who left wives and children behind for another man's sake. Bobby, Junior and Jenny/Francine would likely have been in for very tough times if Ennis had consented to the "Sweet life", and not only because of missing their daddies.

The film doesn't go into that at all, it just makes sure we get to see both men as good and caring fathers. (I am grateful for that last part. It makes the film seem relevant even in countries where the "should gay marriage be allowed" is a done discussion.) Apart from that, we have to make our own assumptions and conclusions. But I can't see either of them *not* considering their children in this respect.

I do perceive a contrast between Jack and Ennis in balancing the relationships with their children and with each other. Jack *always* puts the relationship with Ennis first, no question, and acts on that. Ennis, if forced to choose - probably would have held on to the girls even if it meant never seeing Jack again. Right or wrong? It all depends on the viewpoint of each single movie-goer. The sign of a truly good and relevant film.


Quote
As for the date discrepancy, I'm afraid I think the filmmakers made a mistake. It wouldn't be the first chronology mistake I've suspected.

Another chronology change I've been suspecting, is the "tractor scene". Bobby looks too small there to already be having identified  learning difficulties and be requiring special turoring at school. I think they inserted the tractor scene later in the film than originally scripted. Not a big deal by any means, but still shows the "balancing act of scenes" going on till late in the editing game.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 02:53:31 pm by Mikaela »

Offline Daniel

  • Counsellor
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,139
  • I lost myself to him.
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2006, 02:29:31 pm »
Well I have always thought that the name Lureen Newsome was different enough to have some phonetic meaning in it. Like Ennis Del Mar, when you reverse the first and last names seperately spells out Sinner Am Led.

Lureen Newsome could be "Lure in 'n' use him." The word Lure is just too apparent in the first name.
Why do we consume what we consume?
Why do we believe what we believe?
Why do we accept what we accept?
You have a body, a mind, and a soul.... You have a responsibility.

Offline opinionista

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2006, 02:46:03 pm »
I saw that discussion at the IMDB and there was a poster there who even got insulted for suggesting that there might be a mistake with the timeline in the movie, a goof.  He said that suggesting Lureen was pregnant before meeting Jack, doesn't make sense within the context of the story, and doesn't contribute anything important to it either.

I didn't answer because I didn't want to get involved in the fight they were having but I think he might have a point. Perhaps that's the explanation as to why Jack and Lureen apparently get to know each other in August 1966, then suddenly have a 8 month baby in September 1967.

That poster explained that from the conversation Jack and Ennis have in the motel he concluded that Jack gets to know Lureen sometime during 1965. And he could be right because Jack leaves to Texas during the Spring of 1964 after he goes back to Aguirre looking for work. In fact, in the motel scene Jack tells Ennis that he went back to Brokeback the year after, went to Texas and almost starved that year. He says nothing about the rest of the years before reuniting with Ennis.

I don't know but it makes sense to me. I think Jack might have met Lureen during the spring or early summer of 1965. It didn't look like winter time in the movie, but I'm not sure if winters in Texas  are especially cold (never been there).
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. -Mark Twain.