Author Topic: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity  (Read 11188 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: 22,712
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.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2006, 03:15:47 pm »
This discussion takes me back! I remember--and participated in--a different one at IMDb before the Great Troll Uprising.

I don't remember much of that discussion, but one thing I do remember was that at some point the dates on the sign in the rodeo arena entered into it, and I'm pretty sure the concensus in the end is that we are to take it that Jack met Lureen in the same summer--1966--as Ennis took on the bikers.

I don't recall that discussion ever actually resolving anything. I do remember somebody pointing out that the baby Lureen is holding is way too big to be a newborn. It's always seemed to me to be more logical to assume that Lureen got pregnant by Jack, and that was the reason for the marriage and why L.D. Newsome hated Jack's guts. It was speculated that the screenplay moved the reunion from Annie Proulx's June to September to allow more time, but that's still not enough for the baby to be eight months old, even if Jack and Lureen's rendezvous in the back seat of the car took place on July 4, 1966, and Lureen conceived that very night.

I would think that parents would be pretty accurate about the ages of their children, but I'm not a parent. Maybe our cowboys are just a little vague about their children's ages. In the original story's account of the last fishing trip, even Annie Proulx gives an age for Alma, Jr., that doesn't jive with her given birth date of September 1964.

In earlier versions of the screenplay, Lureen's surname was Phillips.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline opinionista

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2006, 03:27:07 pm »
Let's do some math. I'm pretty bad with numbers so If someone sees a mistake, do tell please.

So Bobby was 8 months old in September 1967 and "smiled a lot"  ;D. So he must've been born on Jan 1966 considering Lureen had a normal pregnancy and gave birth on her due time, because that's another possibility, although a silly one, that Bobby was born premature or something. Lureen then had to get pregnant by April 1966 and by May she was one month along. If she got pregnant the very same night she had sex with Jack then they met on April 1966. If she didn't, she met Jack sometime between 1965 and April 1966.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. -Mark Twain.

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2006, 03:48:01 pm »
The word Lure is just too apparent in the first name.

That's a good point. Annie Proulx chose the names Ennis, Del Mar and Twist for a reason - there likely was a specific reason for her to name  "Lureen" too. But it may be no more than that Lureen held a lure for Jack - offered something he'd like to have - could be her money, could be companionship, could be any number of things, really. Jack himself clearly indicates to Ennis that it's her family money held the lure. Then again, in the short story he holds on to her for many years before she gets at that money. And in both story and film he has every reason to soothe Ennis into thinking the money is the (only) lure - it's a safe and non-emotional reason.They've already established earlier that "money is a good point" in doing anything.

When it comes to the filmmakers, they must have made the change from the early script's "Phillips" to the later "Newsome" for a reason - I've imagined they are hinting at Lureen representing "something new" for Jack, and in more ways than one.

Personally, I doubt that any of the names is intended as an anagram with hidden meanings, though some intrieguing ones can definitely be constructed. That just sounds like something that Dan Brown would do, rather than the down-to-earth Annie Proulx.

Offline bbm_stitchbuffyfan

  • Brokeback Mountain Resident
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
  • Ennis and Jack are Forever
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2006, 04:51:10 pm »
Actually, Mikaela, I heard somewhere that Ennis means "island" in (I think) Spanish. (I think I heard somewhere that Del Mar means "of the sea.") And Alma means something too (I think "water"), if I remember accurately...

How do we even know the 4-year reunion was September 1967? Maybe it wasn't exactly four years.

And they didn't skinny-dip on that reunion. We saw them in the hotel room and then we saw them sitting by the fire (this is when Ennis recalls Earl's death...).
If you'd just realize what I just realized then we'd be perfect for each other and we'd never have to wonder if we missed out on each other now
We missed out on each other now


R.I.P. Heath Ledger

Offline opinionista

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2006, 05:06:01 pm »
Actually, Mikaela, I heard somewhere that Ennis means "island" in (I think) Spanish. (I think I heard somewhere that Del Mar means "of the sea.") And Alma means something too (I think "water"), if I remember accurately...

How do we even know the 4-year reunion was September 1967? Maybe it wasn't exactly four years.

And they didn't skinny-dip on that reunion. We saw them in the hotel room and then we saw them sitting by the fire (this is when Ennis recalls Earl's death...).

Ennis means Island in gaelic, Alma means "soul" in Spanish, and Twist has something to do with rodeoin. I can't remember accurately but it has to do with leg muscles or something.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. -Mark Twain.

Offline bbm_stitchbuffyfan

  • Brokeback Mountain Resident
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
  • Ennis and Jack are Forever
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2006, 05:16:39 pm »
Gaelic, hmm... far cry from Spanish, huh? Regardless, I knew it means 'island' in some language...

I was thinking Alma was water but I guess I just thought that because of the film's "Earth - Wind - Fire - Water" symbolism.
If you'd just realize what I just realized then we'd be perfect for each other and we'd never have to wonder if we missed out on each other now
We missed out on each other now


R.I.P. Heath Ledger

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2006, 09:15:07 pm »
How do we even know the 4-year reunion was September 1967? Maybe it wasn't exactly four years.

I believe "September 1967" is visible on the postmark of Jack's postcard when Ennis reads it.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline whiteoutofthemoon

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #17 on: June 22, 2006, 06:53:46 am »
Thanks everyone for the interesting input, I knew I'd get some great info!    The reason the OP on IMDB had a compelling argument was that he noted that specific dates were mentioned, either in PA annoucements or painted signs, that basically stamped the dates on the scenes, and therefore made it biologically impossible for Jack to be Bobby's dad.   I thought I noticed the same things on prior viewings.    So, that posters argument was simple:  either this was intentional, and Jack was very subtlely implied to not be the sperm-donor, or else, it had to be a mistake.

So let's debate that last question:   first of all, was it a mistake?  I guess we all would hate to think there are mistakes in an otherwise perfect movie, but we all are well aware of disappearing logs on stumps and the magic levitating peanut jars, so, yeah, it happens.   But, why make a point of making sure these dates are announced in the first place, if it was all a mistake.   It just seems so un-Ang-like for Ang, who we all know is meticulous, to take the trouble of making sure the dates are included in these noted scenes, and have them be wrong chronologically.    Was he secretly putting in a little puzzler, to be discovered by only the true Brokie?   These dates, as I understand, were not a conflict in the short story, so it was purely an issue of the movie.


And, let's just say, for argument, that Jack was NOT the father of Bobby.   Some of you wonder why in the world this would be added to the plot line at all, when it was not developed in any way, and it could have made a bigger impact on the whole theme of the movie?    Well, again, the points are subtle: as noted by me already, Jack seems more disconnected to his son than Ennis to his daughters.    A poster above made some excellent points about why that might be, but Jack seemed just so much more available and willing to leave his family, namely his son, for Ennis, and I'd like to think that he would be just as loyal to his son as he was to Ennis.   

Another small but little-discussed detail:    did it occur to you that Jack's parents had NEVER met their only grandson?   Jack always visited Lightning Flat alone, and even in the book, Lureen specifically says she never met her in-laws.   I can imagine that the distance and their limited means might make travel to Texas impossible, but not a mention by them, not even a picture of their grandson in their house (although, no picture of Jack either).   

So, mistake, or very sly insertion by our famed Director, to add this other element of Jack's miserable life, that he was stuck in a marriage of convenience and appearances only, and his son was not even his son?   Just makes it all the more sad, that Jack then died so bitterly, sadly ......  alone.      He lost Ennis, his parents were distant, his wife didn't give a damn, his in-laws hated him, and he had no kids, no legacy to continue.     Makes it all the more profound of what Ennis meant to him.

"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 Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #18 on: June 22, 2006, 07:39:21 am »
OK, I'll bite once more!  :)

Either this was intentional, and Jack was very subtlely implied to not be the sperm-donor, or else, it had to be a mistake.

So let's debate that last question:   first of all, was it a mistake? 

In my opinion, it was. At least I don't think the film intentionally wanted to indicate that Bobby wasn't Jack's son. As much as anything because it doesn't make sense to me to insert that in relation to the main plot and story, as I've outlined at length above so won't repeat myself.

Reading script versions, I have noted how the script writers did go to great lengths to insert date/year references into many scenes of the story in order to illustrate the passage of time. Tv commentaries, calnendars, posters, banners and cards etc. show the years. I see why they did that, but I think they also may have painted themselves into a corner or two when it came to later editing of the scenes and the sequence of scenes in some cases.


Quote
And, let's just say, for argument, that Jack was NOT the father of Bobby.   [snip] ....but Jack seemed just so much more available and willing to leave his family, namely his son, for Ennis, and I'd like to think that he would be just as loyal to his son as he was to Ennis.   

In my view, there *is* a difference in Jack and Ennis here. Jack *is* more willing to leave his son, than Ennis his daughters. In my opinion as explained above, this is partly because Jack anticipates and plans on actually leaving from the boy is very small - while Ennis does not, and so they behave differently in forming bonds with their kids. Jack's not a saint, he's got his good sides and his less-than-perfect ones. His treatment of Bobby possibly falls into the latter category.

Even if the boy isn't Jack's, I can't see that his behaviour (ie. willingness to leave the boy) is thereby shown up in any better light. *He* might know that the boy is not his, and *Lureen* might know - but have they told Bobby? I think not. Whether Jack was the biological father or not, Bobby would hurt just as much when Jack left. To Bobby it would mean losing the only father he'd ever had - and Jack'd have to know and consider that impact on the boy, whether or not he knew himself to be the biological father.


Quote
Another small but little-discussed detail:    did it occur to you that Jack's parents had NEVER met their only grandson?   Jack always visited Lightning Flat alone, and even in the book, Lureen specifically says she never met her in-laws.   I can imagine that the distance and their limited means might make travel to Texas impossible, but not a mention by them, not even a picture of their grandson in their house (although, no picture of Jack either).   

This is an interesting topic; - why Jack kept these two of his 3 lives so separate. It deserves more time and thought than I have at present.  It could well have to do with the reasons I outlined in the previous post, - that Jack expected and planned to leave soon, and therefore did not work on establishing links between the Newsomes (including Bobby) and the Twists. In fact, that he discouraged it so that his parents would not feel the loss of their grandson keenly after Jack had moved in with Ennis and the boy would be a Newsome who'd likely never be allowed contact with the Twists. It could also have to do with Jack's father - if he thought Jack was too goddamn special, what wouldn't he think of the Newsomes, including Bobby and Lureen? And the more jack and Lureen prospered down in Texas, the more Jack may have felt the distance  to the humble nature of the Twist ranch - perhaps he'd rather not Lureen go up there and see it?

Anyway, there could be many reasons for the Twist/Newsome divide not related to Bobby's paternity.


All just IMO, of course. :) I can see that the opposite points can be argued.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2006, 07:41:33 am by Mikaela »

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2006, 08:54:54 am »
I'm sticking with the idea that it's an error. The screenwriters made an admirable attempt to incorporate Annie Proulx's dialogue whenever they could, and the "eight months old" comes right from AP. If someone had thought to reduce the number of months, there would have been no question and it might have even made it more plausible that Jack was willing to abandon Lureen and the baby for Ennis--he wasn't yet as bonded to his son as he later became.

It does seem a stretch that nobody in the entire cast and crew questioned this discrepancy, but I'm falling back on my favorite tool of analysis, Occam's Razor--I think it's a simpler explanation to assume that somebody goofed than it is to concoct an elaborate scenario where Jack is not Bobby's father, a scenario that is then not developed or does not play any noticeable part in the plot of the film.

Added: I've wondered, too, about Lureen never meeting her in-laws in like, what, 15 years of marriage to Jack? On the other hand, considering Jack and Lureen's place in Childress, can you see Lureen in the Twist homestead in Lightning Flat?  :laugh:
« Last Edit: June 22, 2006, 09:48:52 am by Jeff Wrangler »
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline fernly

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2006, 08:56:59 am »
OK, I'll bite once more!  :)
This is an interesting topic; - why Jack kept these two of his 3 lives so separate. It deserves more time and thought than I have at present.  It could well have to do with the reasons I outlined in the previous post, - that Jack expected and planned to leave soon, and therefore did not work on establishing links between the Newsomes (including Bobby) and the Twists. In fact, that he discouraged it so that his parents would not feel the loss of their grandson keenly after Jack had moved in with Ennis and the boy would be a Newsome who'd likely never be allowed contact with the Twists. It could also have to do with Jack's father - if he thought Jack was too goddamn special, what wouldn't he think of the Newsomes, including Bobby and Lureen? And the more jack and Lureen prospered down in Texas, the more Jack may have felt the distance  to the humble nature of the Twist ranch - perhaps he'd rather not Lureen go up there and see it?
I've wondered about Jack's separate lives, too. Maybe this is partly a case of Story/Film again. Considering the abuse Jack tells about in the story that he suffered at the hands of his father at the age of 3 or 4, it's not surprising that Jack would keep Bobby completely away from John Twist. But that doesn't explain, either in the story or the film, keeping Bobby and his grandmother apart.
From what I've read in other books, it was pretty common that ranch folk, strapped for cash and with no help on the place like the Twists, wouldn't travel.
Far as travel in the other direction though, your point about Jack not wanting Lureen and his son to see his home place makes sense. I've wondered what Jack would have told them about where and how he grew up. I wouldn't think very much.
on the mountain flying in the euphoric, bitter air

Offline opinionista

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2006, 10:49:45 am »
Thanks everyone for the interesting input, I knew I'd get some great info!    The reason the OP on IMDB had a compelling argument was that he noted that specific dates were mentioned, either in PA annoucements or painted signs, that basically stamped the dates on the scenes, and therefore made it biologically impossible for Jack to be Bobby's dad.   I thought I noticed the same things on prior viewings.    So, that posters argument was simple:  either this was intentional, and Jack was very subtlely implied to not be the sperm-donor, or else, it had to be a mistake.

So let's debate that last question:   first of all, was it a mistake?  I guess we all would hate to think there are mistakes in an otherwise perfect movie, but we all are well aware of disappearing logs on stumps and the magic levitating peanut jars, so, yeah, it happens.   But, why make a point of making sure these dates are announced in the first place, if it was all a mistake.   It just seems so un-Ang-like for Ang, who we all know is meticulous, to take the trouble of making sure the dates are included in these noted scenes, and have them be wrong chronologically.    Was he secretly putting in a little puzzler, to be discovered by only the true Brokie?   These dates, as I understand, were not a conflict in the short story, so it was purely an issue of the movie.


And, let's just say, for argument, that Jack was NOT the father of Bobby.   Some of you wonder why in the world this would be added to the plot line at all, when it was not developed in any way, and it could have made a bigger impact on the whole theme of the movie?    Well, again, the points are subtle: as noted by me already, Jack seems more disconnected to his son than Ennis to his daughters.    A poster above made some excellent points about why that might be, but Jack seemed just so much more available and willing to leave his family, namely his son, for Ennis, and I'd like to think that he would be just as loyal to his son as he was to Ennis.   

Another small but little-discussed detail:    did it occur to you that Jack's parents had NEVER met their only grandson?   Jack always visited Lightning Flat alone, and even in the book, Lureen specifically says she never met her in-laws.   I can imagine that the distance and their limited means might make travel to Texas impossible, but not a mention by them, not even a picture of their grandson in their house (although, no picture of Jack either).   

So, mistake, or very sly insertion by our famed Director, to add this other element of Jack's miserable life, that he was stuck in a marriage of convenience and appearances only, and his son was not even his son?   Just makes it all the more sad, that Jack then died so bitterly, sadly ......  alone.      He lost Ennis, his parents were distant, his wife didn't give a damn, his in-laws hated him, and he had no kids, no legacy to continue.     Makes it all the more profound of what Ennis meant to him.



It could have been a mistake made by the props department. Maybe they wrote september 1967 in the post card when they shouldn't. It's not necessarily Ang Lee's mistake.

Also, filmmaking is hectic, and sometimes there's more than one person making decisions. Mistakes are usually noticed during the film editing. If there's money and time, they fix it. If not, they leave it hoping they would pass unnoticed. In fact, there's a goof in the movie that could've been fixed with photoshop or something. It is when Ennis is telling Alma that he's going fishing with Jack for two days, and little Alma Jr. runs in asking Ennis to bring her a big fish. He lifts her and gaves her to Alma, at that moment the wire of the girl's microphone is shown. If they didn't fix that it's probably because there was no budget or time to do it. So, I'm thinking that maybe they didn't notice the error with the date line regarding Bobby's age until the editing, then had no money to fix it. Brokeback was a low budget movie, at least for Hollywood's standards.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2006, 10:53:32 am by opinionista »
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. -Mark Twain.

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2006, 11:05:09 am »
I vote that the time discrepancy was unintentional.  I think Jack was somewhat disconnected from Bobby because:

a) He never wanted kids in the first plance
b) He'd had no (decent) father figure whatsoever growing up (really, he'd had an anti-father figure, if you ask me), so he had no basis on which to build such a relationship with his own son - yes, Ennis was in the same boat and yet did better with his daughters, but Ennis was the opposite of Jack in this way, just as he was in most others - he wanted to have kids and treat them the way he never got to be treated
c) As others have said, he'd always been ready/prepared to leave his life with Lureen to be with Ennis at a moment's notice, so perhaps he purposely didn't bond with his son.
No more beans!

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2006, 11:45:04 am »
b) He'd had no (decent) father figure whatsoever growing up (really, he'd had an anti-father figure, if you ask me), so he had no basis on which to build such a relationship with his own son - yes, Ennis was in the same boat and yet did better with his daughters, but Ennis was the opposite of Jack in this way, just as he was in most others - he wanted to have kids and treat them the way he never got to be treated

Also, I think it makes a difference that Ennis has daughters. I think (or at least conventional wisdom would hold) that men who had bad relationships with their own fathers are more likely to have bad relationships with sons than with daughters. Not that Jack's relationship with Bobby was bad, mind you. Just that Ennis would be less likely to project his childhood troubles onto the next generation.

Offline opinionista

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2006, 12:40:52 pm »
I vote that the time discrepancy was unintentional.  I think Jack was somewhat disconnected from Bobby because:

a) He never wanted kids in the first plance
b) He'd had no (decent) father figure whatsoever growing up (really, he'd had an anti-father figure, if you ask me), so he had no basis on which to build such a relationship with his own son - yes, Ennis was in the same boat and yet did better with his daughters, but Ennis was the opposite of Jack in this way, just as he was in most others - he wanted to have kids and treat them the way he never got to be treated
c) As others have said, he'd always been ready/prepared to leave his life with Lureen to be with Ennis at a moment's notice, so perhaps he purposely didn't bond with his son.

I don't think Jack was disconnected from Bobby. He loved him very much, despite the fact that he felt out of place within Lureen's family. Jack was very much of a dreamer. He was the sort of person who had a solution for everything. When they were at Brokeback and there was no food, he came up with the idea of killing a sheep. Since Ennis refused, then it was an elk. When they meet four years later, and realized that Brokeback got them good, he comes up with the idea of the little cow and calf operation so they could be together and not worry about money. So, I guess he did the same thing regarding Bobby. I don't think he was willing to just leave his son and forget about him. I'm sure he would come up with a something to be with Ennis, and stay in Bobby's life.
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. -Mark Twain.

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2006, 02:53:07 pm »
I don't think Jack was disconnected from Bobby. He loved him very much, despite the fact that he felt out of place within Lureen's family. Jack was very much of a dreamer. He was the sort of person who had a solution for everything. When they were at Brokeback and there was no food, he came up with the idea of killing a sheep. Since Ennis refused, then it was an elk. When they meet four years later, and realized that Brokeback got them good, he comes up with the idea of the little cow and calf operation so they could be together and not worry about money. So, I guess he did the same thing regarding Bobby. I don't think he was willing to just leave his son and forget about him. I'm sure he would come up with a something to be with Ennis, and stay in Bobby's life.

You make a good point.  Jack's willingness to leave Lureen (and Bobby) shows his devotion to Ennis and fearlessness where making a life with him is concerned much more than it shows any kind of disconnection from Bobby.  Ennis was not any more connected to his daughters, really.  Now that I think about it, while of course he loved them dearly and was as good a dad as anyone, I think he tended to use them as excuses to keep from dealing with the reality of his longing for Jack, just as he used his jobs as excuses to keep from dealing with anyone who needed more from him than a cameo appearance once in a while.
No more beans!

Offline whiteoutofthemoon

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2006, 04:00:43 pm »
You make a good point.  Jack's willingness to leave Lureen (and Bobby) shows his devotion to Ennis and fearlessness where making a life with him is concerned much more than it shows any kind of disconnection from Bobby.  Ennis was not any more connected to his daughters, really.  Now that I think about it, while of course he loved them dearly and was as good a dad as anyone, I think he tended to use them as excuses to keep from dealing with the reality of his longing for Jack, just as he used his jobs as excuses to keep from dealing with anyone who needed more from him than a cameo appearance once in a while.

I think symbolically, though, the film seems to represent that Jack was more distant from Bobby than Ennis was to his daughters.  The only time you see Jack and Bobby (coincedental shout-out to the Kennedys) interacting is in that tractor scene.  But otherwise, in the nursing scene (two boxes of formula), you see Jack in the doorway while Lureen and her parents coo over the baby; and in the TG scene, Bobby is curiously seated next to his mom, with an empty table space between Jack and Bobby.   

I'm still torn as what to believe in regards to this thing about Bobby's paternity, but I was struck from the beginning at how Jack did not seem to display (at least as what was portrayed in the movie) any significant amount of fatherhood tendencies. 

"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 opinionista

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,939
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2006, 04:45:26 pm »
I think symbolically, though, the film seems to represent that Jack was more distant from Bobby than Ennis was to his daughters.  The only time you see Jack and Bobby (coincedental shout-out to the Kennedys) interacting is in that tractor scene.  But otherwise, in the nursing scene (two boxes of formula), you see Jack in the doorway while Lureen and her parents coo over the baby; and in the TG scene, Bobby is curiously seated next to his mom, with an empty table space between Jack and Bobby. 

I'm still torn as what to believe in regards to this thing about Bobby's paternity, but I was struck from the beginning at how Jack did not seem to display (at least as what was portrayed in the movie) any significant amount of fatherhood tendencies. 



That's true, Jack and Bobby aren't shown together that much in the movie. However, it does show that Jack was pretty much involved in Bobby's education. At the "where's my blue parka?" scene Jack gets mad at Lureen for forgetting to call Bobby's school to request a tutor. He says the teacher won't speak with him because he has been calling a lot. So my guess is that the whole scene means that Jack did care about his son, and was involved in his life to some extent, perhaps more than Lureen.

As for the paternity thing, I just don't agree with that guy from IMDB. The whole idea of Bobby not being Jack's son seems competely off topic and does not provide anything important to the plot. That guy's analysis is unconvincing, at least to me. I tried to discuss it with him but he got aggresive because I didn't agree with him. I think the date thing is just a goof.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2006, 10:20:31 am by opinionista »
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement. -Mark Twain.

Offline twistedude

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,430
  • "It's nobody's business but ours."
    • "every sort of organized noise"
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2006, 03:42:45 am »
Who's Bobby? I haven't read this thread.
"This is my house, this is my child, and you are my guest. So sit down, you old sonofabirch, befrore I kick your ignaorant ass into next week.""

It's a goof.  There are dozens in the movie.

You must leave now, take what you need, you think will last.
But whatever you wish to keep, you better grab it fast.
Yonder stands your orphan with his gun,
Crying like a fire in the sun.
Look out the saints are comin' through
And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2006, 04:47:06 am by julie01 »
"We're each of us alone, to be sure. What can you do but hold your hand out in the dark?" --"Nine Lives," by Ursula K. Le Guin, from The Wind's Twelve Quarters

Offline Bucky

  • Sr. Ranch Hand
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2006, 05:15:35 am »
It seems to me that Jack met Lureen sometime in August or September of 1964.  I know Jack went to see Joe Aguirre about a job on Brokeback Mountain in the spring of 1964 and also asked Aguirre if Ennis Del Mar had been around.  So Jack figured that Ennis hadn't been around and left on his rodeoing adventures.  Sometime he tried to pick up the rodeo clown in a saloon.  Then when we see Jack again he watches Lureen do her barrell racing contest which I am of the opinion was the same year that he tried to pick up the rodeo clown.  I remember in the motel scene he told Ennis that he made $2,000 dollars that year but before that he liked to starve to death.  Now I am still of the opinion that is in the late summer of 1964 when he met Lureen Newsome more than likely September of 1964.  However if he did that then his baby would have been in about June or July of 1965 and older than eight months in 1967.  Well the movie is unclear about it so I will just assume that he met Lureen sometime in 1965 and who knows maybe Jack didn't get Lureen pregnant after all in their first sexual encounter. 

Actually folks it is all speculation anyway because the movie is not really clear about the dates of Jack and Lureen's first sexual encounter.  All we know for sure is that he did meet Lureen Newsome and that she did get pregnant either before or after they married and his son was eight months old at the time of his first reunion with Ennis since they worked together on Brokeback Mountain. 
« Last Edit: July 09, 2006, 05:25:02 am by Bucky »

Offline nakymaton

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,045
  • aka Mel
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2006, 04:41:59 pm »
There's at least one timeline error in the screenplay published in the Story-to-Screenplay book. There are two dates given for the "didn't that piss-ant use to ride bulls?" scene: the outdoor scene, where we see the outside of the business, is supposed to be 1971; the dialogue between the farmers is supposed to be 1969. (And then the whole "blue parka" scene is supposed to be 1969 as well... and while it's easy to believe in Jack wanting to get a tutor for Bobby in the early 80's (story), it's a bit of a stretch to believe that a guy who didn't graduate from high school would be getting a tutor for a three-year-old...)

IMO, nobody did a careful date-check for continuity errors. (Remember: movies are generally shot out of sequence, and from the differences between the various script drafts that are floating around, it seems that there were a great many changes to the script to develop the characters and set up symmetry, even up until the end. And this was a low-budget movie -- Focus didn't expect it to play beyond art houses, and the budget was already high given the expectations. I imagine that going back and re-shooting scenes just to fix a few dates wasn't a realistic option.)
Watch out. That poster has a low startle point.

Offline whiteoutofthemoon

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 34
Re: Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity
« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2006, 03:49:05 am »
There have been some great replies on this thread, so thanks everyone.   However, going back to my original question....if the dates weren't intentional, then it would have to be an Ang Lee mistake, and I'm torn b/t thinking it was a strange twist to the movie, vs thinking that our master filmmaker could make such a huge error.   Then WHY go to all the trouble of making sure that the dates were clearly mentioned....why in the fireworks scene do you HAVE to announce the year, why in the rodeo scene do you HAVE to announce the month, why does he HAVE to put the date on the postcard?     Just seems those details were put in for a reason, and they wouldn't go to all that trouble if it were a mistake.   Yes, lots of storyboards.....but give these guys some credit..... timelines are one of the principal things that are followed meticulously.   

I do remember reading, though, I believe in the Time magazine article of several Oscar nom directors, that Ang said that he doesn't use storyboards.
"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."