Got What They Deserved?

[moviegoer]

I was talking with a friend of mine today, who also saw & loved BBM, and we were talking about someone’s blog that he’d read online.  In doing so, the blog topic & our conversation stuck in my mind and I’m curious to what others here think about it.

Basically, the gist of the blog stated that BBM was not a positive movie.  Not, 'not good'.  Simply, 'not positive'.  Not quite seeing the distinction, my friend continued to illustrate his (or rather the blogger’s) point.  It wasn’t just because of the incredibly sad ending that made the movie “unpositive”, but rather why the movie had a sad ending. 

The blog went on to say that being gay, Jack & Ennis got exactly what they deserved.  Gays should be killed, if not ostracized and filled with a lifetime of loneliness & despair.  The bloggers orientation wasn't mentioned (or known, for all I know), but I have a suspicion which camp the blogger lives in.

After I pushed the bile back down my throat and my dander was lowered, I thought about the blogger's point objectively.  After all, he (or she) is entitled to their opinion.  And far be it for me to pass judgment without being fair...  Yes, the movie could be viewed as a clear reason why homosexuality is wrong, if one was to be so inclined to think this way.  However, it wasn’t how I came away from the movie thinking.  At first...

When I started to think about it, I could begin to see how BBM could shed a negative, disparaging light on gays.  True, I can’t control how people think; close-minded people will think how they want.  But if I, a gay man, can come away thinking BBM might be harmful to the gay community, how are many (not all) straight people going to feel?  I've read posts from straight men & women who loved this movie; others who venomously detested it.  So, does BBM project gays (and to a point, gay love) in a good light or a bad one?  If someone were anti-gay, they might cheer, “Awesome!  The faggots got what they deserved!", epitomized in Jack's death & and Ennis' despair.  And even if they were pro-gay, they might say, “Once again, a movie that makes gays look “bad”.” emphasized in all the shattered lives and the gut-wrenching, unhappy ending.  So, I wonder if there is a presiding opinion and/or stance on this, or is it (just like the movie’s intentional, ambiguous scenes) left up to the one’s own viewpoint?  Or is it simply, people will think what they want?

Admittedly, I haven’t watched BBM a second time yet.  I still have an all too-fresh of an ow-ie on my heart & soul from my first viewing.  Oh, I will watch it again, and again, and then again for good measure.  And I will ride the emotional rollercoaster afterwards, just like I am now.  But I am one of countless who loved what I believe this movie meant to convey; Love.  I sincerely believe there are so many lessons people can learn from the characters here (especially from Ennis).  And while I disagree 100% with the blogger's comments, the impact of what my friend shared has hit a nerve of sorts with me.  So, it's making me think (be warned! )

Thoughts?

[Front-Ranger]

People who have preconceived notions will see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear. THey will twist around everything to match their own point of view. I don't know why you would let a blog that you didn't even see--you say your friend saw it--and where you don't even know the author or whether he/she even saw the movie before commenting, to have any sort of influence on what you decide the movie stands for in your own mind.

If people are entitled to their own opinion, then you are certainly entitled to yours. If you don't think you should pass judgement, then why is it okay for the blogger to pass judgement and publish/disseminate hate language??

No the movie does not show that homosexuality is wrong. It shows why homophobia is wrong. If there was no homophobia, Ennis and Jack could have had a sweet life together and no one's life would be "shattered" (I beg to differ anyway about how Alma and Lureen's lives were shattered. Were they any worse off than Mrs. Twist, who was married to a heterosexual stud duck for many eons??).

I can not think of any way that this movie could be harmful to the gay community. It has been quite the opposite. When you see this movie, you don't wonder how this gay person is being portrayed. You just think about similar experiences you've had and what it's like to fall in love with someone, the experience of love. That is, as long as you don't have a preconceived agenda that you want the movie to advance. There is no definitive position or statement that can be drawn from this movie. Each person has to make up their own mind. I look forward to your comments after you have seen the movie several more times or have read the story.

[SFEnnisSF]

The first time I saw BBM, I felt it was a little negative.     I'll admit it.  I of course had a wide range of emotions stirred up though too.  But one of them was that I felt that this move said 'If you are gay, you will end up alone and sad."  I remember running around to everybody telling them this and how 'disappointed' I was.  

But that was just it.  I was 'disappointed' because I wanted them to ride off into the sunset.  I wanted them to be happy, and have a happy ending.  I had built it up in aticipation of the movie being released, and I let myself down.  This was not what the movie was about.  It's a tragedy.  And it tells ONE story about a time when many gay men 'did' end up alone and lonely.  To this day, many still do.  But so do some straight people....  Ahh-hah!  Here's the first 'cross-over' theme to come up that also breaks the stereotypes...

After going back the next day (and watching it twice), and then finding IMDB and such and discussing the movie, I came to terms with what the movie is and what it's messages are.  I am hopelessly in love with BBM, and I do think it does have to do with the wide range of emotions I experienced with it.

I read once that 'What you take to BBM, is what you get out of it".  So unfortunately, Yeah I can see someone coming away from the movie with negative thoughts like the blog mentions, if that's what they went in looking for.  However, I truly feel that those are first-reaction feelings.  Perhaps in a week, a few years, etc, the person who wrote those comments I think might change their mind about what they said.  Once they think about the movie a little bit more.  Or maybe after they experience some of the emotions and themes presented in BBM themselves.  (love, loss, regret, etc.)  

I actually have a feeling that A LOT of people who were quick to put the movie down and such, in a few years will end up feeling very bad for saying the things that they did.  Once they come out of the closet, or they themselves experience some of the themes in BBM, such as a love they cannot describe and/or cannot have, lose someone they love, or experience any of the other emotional themes in the movie....I think they'll remember this movie, and suddenly 'get it'.  And yes they'll feel ashamed.  But life is always a learning experience....

So, IMO, let 'em post all the negative things they want.  #1 it makes people see the real ugly side of homophobia, and respect this movie more.  #2 the folks who post all this negative stuff will eventually be ashamed of posting it in the end.  And the guilt will be on themselves...

Imagine the day when it'll be ok for a man to say 'my partner..' or 'my husband...', and no one will even bat an eye or have a second thought.  Gays will be accepted and respected and it won't even be an issue.  When that day comes, it's films like BBM that will be remembered for the story and themes it told, in a time when unfortunately it still is an issue.  And hopefully it will be remembered as one of the 'groudbreaking' films/events/things that helped stamp all that homophobia out.  Stupid Bush trying to pass that Marriage ban.  Boy are historians and future generations going to look back on all this and just laugh at them.  Or even more seriously, realize they were no different from Hitler.

  

[Jeff Wrangler]

Tell you what, this thread seems like a "safe" place to admit that at some level I've always been troubled that the story of Ennis and Jack can be seen as "not positive." This applies to both the original Annie Proulx story and the film. There is a long, unfortunate "literary tradition" that equates being gay with having a tragic life or dying a tragic death. Considering that Jack ends up dead, and Ennis ends up alone and isolated on the verge of middle age, their story falls squarely within that tradition. In this sense, the story is "not positive."

To its great credit at least, at least Brokeback Mountain does not make the tragedy intrinsic to being gay. It shows that the tragedy comes from without, because of how difficult it is to be the person you truly are in a homophobic social environment.

Yup, I'd like them to ride off into the sunset together, too. Maybe that's why I ended up writing Alternative Universe fanfiction, transporting Ennis and Jack to a place where they can have that sweet life together.

[fontaine]

Personally, I think Brokeback transcends sexuality. I even think it transcends love. To me, it's a morality tale about what life becomes if one doesn't follow the "whispers of one's heart." (That's the title of an excellent book by a friend of mine, BTW.) It doesn't matter WHAT one's heart is whispering, it's a matter of behaving authentically in terms of your own unique personhood.

In the case of Brokeback, the content through which this universal theme was conveyed was two cowboys in the 60s who fell in love and were unable--mostly for internal reasons--to act on it. If handled as deftly as this particular story was, it could have been any other situation where people have to confront their personal demons.

The only question in my mind is whether tragedies, as Plato described, have more "power" to affect people than happy endings do. Is there as much to learn if everything works out? In that case, the movie isn't likely to move inside you so that you can finish the lesson it begins to tell.

[ednbarby]

Imagine the day when it'll be ok for a man to say 'my partner..' or 'my husband...', and no one will even bat an eye or have a second thought.  Gays will be accepted and respected and it won't even be an issue.  When that day comes, it's films like BBM that will be remembered for the story and themes it told, in a time when unfortunately it still is an issue.  And hopefully it will be remembered as one of the 'groudbreaking' films/events/things that helped stamp all that homophobia out.  Stupid Bush trying to pass that Marriage ban.  Boy are historians and future generations going to look back on all this and just laugh at them.  Or even more seriously, realize they were no different from Hitler.

I agree.

And I don't look at BBM as saying it's inherently negative to be gay any more than I look at Romeo & Juliet as saying it's inherently negative to be young and straight and passionately in love.  Like Jeff says, the movie shows that the judgment, and ultimately the tragedy, came down from society much moreso than the protagonists themselves, just as in R&J.  Ennis' (and Romeo's and Juliet's) fears were created, and then fostered, by that society.

I know I'm a straight woman coming at this from a different perspective, so I certainly understand it when gay men see it as being negative towards gay men, though.

[David]

Jack ends up dead, and Ennis ends up alone and isolated on the verge of middle age, their story falls squarely within that tradition. In this sense, the story is "not positive."

Jeff,  so many gay guys I have asked if they saw BBM have winced at the question.  They say:"Ooo  that was not the great happy film I thought it would be."  And they quickly change the subject.   

[David]

The blog went on to say that being gay, Jack & Ennis got exactly what they deserved.  Gays should be killed, if not ostracized and filled with a lifetime of loneliness & despair.  The bloggers orientation wasn't mentioned (or known, for all I know), but I have a suspicion which camp the blogger lives in.

Sounds like this person had a bad experience with a gay man or woman.    As Ennis said:"Once burned?"   

I can see how a husband or wife who looses their spouse to a gay lover could be angry enough to make such statements.   Or perhaps a person brought up in a household full of bigotry and hatred.  The kind of trash the so-called Reverend Fred Phelps spews.

I have always said, the straight world needs to be exposed to positive gay role models to see that we are all not husband stealing child molesters.   

[Jeff Wrangler]

Jeff,  so many gay guys I have asked if they saw BBM have winced at the question.  They say:"Ooo  that was not the great happy film I thought it would be."  And they quickly change the subject.   

Tell you what, that response is almost an argument for reading the story before you see the movie. At least, then, you're prepared for what happens in terms of the plot. I knew how the story was going to end, yet the power of the film still knocked me onto the seat of my pants.

Sorry, didn't mean to go OT.

[SFEnnisSF]

Tell you what, that response is almost an argument for reading the story before you see the movie. At least, then, you're prepared for what happens in terms of the plot. I knew how the story was going to end, yet the power of the film still knocked me onto the seat of my pants.

Sorry, didn't mean to go OT.

It's not OT.  I saw the movie first, and I'm thinking my first initial reaction would have been way different if I had read the short story first.   

[David]

It's not OT.  I saw the movie first, and I'm thinking my first initial reaction would have been way different if I had read the short story first.   

Not me.   I saw the movie first.   It blew me away!   I'm glad I didn't know what any of the story line was going to be.

And I when I read the book,  I was thrilled that the movie stayed so close to it.    I could see our boys in my head as i read the the story.

[dly64]

And I look don't look at BBM as saying it's intrinsically negative to be gay any more than I look at Romeo & Juliet as saying it's intrinsically negative to be very young and straight and passionately in love.  Like Jeff says, the movie shows that the judgment, and ultimately the tragedy, came down from society much more so than the protagonists themselves, just as in R&J.  Ennis' (and Romeo's and Juliet's) fears were created, and then fostered, by that society.

I know I'm a straight woman coming at this from a different perspective, so I certainly understand it when gay men see it as being negative towards gay men, though.

It's interesting you used the Romeo and Juliet analogy. I have used it as well. I think there are many parallels. If anything, I see BBM as a way of humanizing gays, void of stereotypes and preconceived notions. The intensity of feeling, the passion, love and pain are all universal. The only negativity stems from an acrimonious homophobic society that doesn't make room for the love of two men. That is the tragedy.

[silkncense]

The intensity of feeling, the passion, love and pain are all universal.

Exactly.  I also believe it's true that a movie or story that has a tragic ending stays with the audience & elicits more review & thought...how could it have ended better/different?  What could they have done?  Was it society/parents/non-communication/etc that caused the tragedy.

Brokeback didn't need to have a happy ending; it showed the intense love between these two people for all to see.  Viewers with negative preconceived ideas would have not been swayed by a happy ending.  And I believe a happy ending would have been enjoyed and then it & this movie would have been forgotten in short order.  As fontaine stated:

The only question in my mind is whether tragedies, as Plato described, have more "power" to affect people than happy endings do. Is there as much to learn if everything works out? In that case, the movie isn't likely to move inside you so that you can finish the lesson it begins to tell.

The true beauty of this film is how thought provoking it has been and as Eric said, will continue to be... 

[welliwont]

Like Jeff says, the movie shows that the judgment, and ultimately the tragedy, came down from society much moreso than the protagonists themselves, just as in R&J.

I think the tragedy came from Ennis refusing to make a life with Jack.  I know that Ennis was affected by how brutally Earl was killed, but he let a tragedy of twenty or thirty years ago ruin his life and ruin Jack’s life too. Just because Earl was brutally killed, DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN that Ennis and/or Jack would meet the same fate.  Over the years, since re-uniting with Jack, and especially by the time he and Alma were divorced, common sense and reason should have kicked in, IMO.  Life's a gamble, you only go around once, 94% of stuff we worry about never comes to pass……

Ennis was a jerk and a coward. There I said it.  Now I'm probably gonna be killed fur that!!  "Can't see you again until November, gotta toil like a skivvy."  How dumb is that?  Why was Ennis denying himself the happiness of being with Jack?  Was he really so stupid that he could not arrange his life to have a bit of enjoyment?  Or did he do it purposely because subconciously he did not think he deserved to be happy or to be loved?  I just don't get you Ennis Del Mar!

The whole way through the movie I was on the edge of my seat, waiting, waiting, waiting (like Jack) for Ennis to come to his senses, to finally be with Jack like they were meant to be.  I did not know the story, thankfully nobody told me what was going to happen, so the postcard was just as much a surprise to me as it was to Ennis.

"There y'see!  Ya blew it!  Now yer NEVER gonna be together! Ya wasted all that time bein' afraid of somethin' that you couldn't even see, and now it's TOO LATE!!  God damn you Ennis!"

((running into the woods of Brokeback as fast as my legs can carry me!))

J

[serious crayons]

The movie works on two levels, one small and individual and the other large and society-wide.

In the small, individual sense, it's a story about two people in a tragic romance. As Barb so astutely put it, if it's a negative portrait of gay men, then Romeo and Juliet is a negative portrait of straight teenagers.

In the larger, society-wide sense, it's a story about how intolerance -- in this case, homophobia -- warps people's lives. If it's a negative portrait of gay men, then Schindler's List is a negative portrait of Jews.

Yes, it's nice when movies show gay people leading happy, normal, relatively untragic lives, as many gay people we know do. There are a few movies like that, and no doubt there should be more, until the day comes when a movie about a gay couple is as unremarkable as that one with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn. Or whoever. Just like movies about happy Jewish people are not unusual these days, obviously (although they once were).

But to deny the pain and tragedy and violence caused by homophobia throughout human history, which obviously continues today, in this country and in even more homophobic cultures elsewhere, seems a little like denying the Holocaust.

Jane, I won't try to debate all those points. But I'd like to respectfully point out that "he let a tragedy of twenty or thirty years ago ruin his life and ruin Jack's life too" seems oversimplified and unfair. Growing up gay with a father who you presume capable of torturing a man to death for being gay is hardly some isolated forgettable incident. Ennis' view of his own sexuality was warped, not just by that one experience -- the tip of the iceberg -- but by years and years of experiences, not only with his abusive father, but with almost everybody he came in contact with. It's a lot easier for us, from our comfortable educated 21st-century enlightened liberal post-Stonewall perspectives, to see what "common sense and reason" entails than it would be for Ennis, in that environment, with that background. From his perspective, common sense and reason meant staying with Alma, attempting a relationship with Cassie, devoting himself to work. For Ennis, it was seeing Jack that was the breech of common sense, a huge risk and emotional struggle that he was willing to undertake to the extent he did only because of his incredible love.

[Penthesilea]

The movie works on two levels, one small and individual and the other large and society-wide.

In the small, individual sense, it's a story about two people in a tragic romance. As Barb so astutely put it, if it's a negative portrait of gay men, then Romeo and Juliet is a negative portrait of straight teenagers.

In the larger, society-wide sense, it's a story about how intolerance -- in this case, homophobia -- warps people's lives. If it's a negative portrait of gay men, then Schindler's List is a negative portrait of Jews.

Yes, it's nice when movies show gay people leading happy, normal, relatively untragic lives, as many gay people we know do. There are a few movies like that, and no doubt there should be more, until the day comes when a movie about a gay couple is as unremarkable as that one with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn. Or whoever. Just like movies about happy Jewish people are not unusual these days, obviously (although they once were).

But to deny the pain and tragedy and violence caused by homophobia throughout human history, which obviously continues today, in this country and in even more homophobic cultures elsewhere, seems a little like denying the Holocaust.

Jane, I won't try to debate all those points. But I'd like to respectfully point out that "he let a tragedy of twenty or thirty years ago ruin his life and ruin Jack's life too" seems oversimplified and unfair. Growing up gay with a father who you presume capable of torturing a man to death for being gay is hardly some isolated forgettable incident. Ennis' view of his own sexuality was warped, not just by that one experience -- the tip of the iceberg -- but by years and years of experiences, not only with his abusive father, but with almost everybody he came in contact with. It's a lot easier for us, from our comfortable educated 21st-century enlightened liberal post-Stonewall perspectives, to see what "common sense and reason" entails than it would be for Ennis, in that environment, with that background. From his perspective, common sense and reason meant staying with Alma, attempting a relationship with Cassie, devoting himself to work. For Ennis, it was seeing Jack that was the breech of common sense, a huge risk and emotional struggle that he was willing to undertake to the extent he did only because of his incredible love.

I quoted your whole post, because it's worth repeating. Again, you put all things running through my mind into such eloquent words I never would be able to find. So for me there's not much left to say, except to totally agree with you.

I share your thoughts about the way gay men are portrayed in BBM. And, as you already know, I completely share your POV on Ennis.  Thanks for elaborating it again and for your "defence" of Ennis. For me as a fellow Ennis-phil it was a pleasure to read 

[Mikaela]

To its great credit at least, at least Brokeback Mountain does not make the tragedy intrinsic to being gay. It shows that the tragedy comes from without, because of how difficult it is to be the person you truly are in a homophobic social environment.

and

To me, it's a morality tale about what life becomes if one doesn't follow the "whispers of one's heart."

I think that one sign we've come quite far, after all - one positive sign despite the bleak outcome for Jack and Ennis in the film - is that few would not agree with the above quoted statements, ie few reasonably enlightened people would not agree that this is the message of the film. At least, in my optimistic view that is so. In my country the film was actually accused in one review for being rather irrelevant in that it was "kicking in open doors" ie. purporting common knowledge messages and fighting battles that have been won already. Not that I want the film to have poor reviews, but if they have to be then I guess that kind of "poor" is the best one can hope for.

And it needen't have been that way - because the film itself makes no big proclamations, no statements about the horrors of homophobia - no scenes or dialogue that signals "Here's the message! Listen up, people!" It just moves in intimately and symphatetically on the lives of a few people who live a Greek tragedy in living their ordinary, everyday lives - men *and* women - who never are concerned about the big picture or the big policies.   And the message gets across all the more for the lack of "message". It's not a happy tale, no - but few wouldn't be moved to share the sentimens that the strictures that kept Ennis away from Jack all those years are plain *wrong*.

What would have been worse, would have been if people came out of the cinema actually and honestly debating whether it's a morality tale showing that "when men don't fight their homosexual urges and stay on the straight and narrow, they are doomed". Not too long ago, that would easily have been the interpretation made - I know it still is in some circles. So we've at least gotten this far. The next step now should be the "happy ending" message versions. I hope.

he let a tragedy of twenty or thirty years ago ruin his life and ruin Jack’s life too.

The Earl incident is a vicious symbol of the homophobia that permeats all of Ennis's time and place and upbringing and psyche. Ennis is not letting one incident per se ruin his life - he's unable to overcome the strong homophobia instilled in him, his shame and self-loathing over loving another man.  Latjoreme, you said it very well.

Comparisons have been drawn to Romeo and Julliet already. If Romeo had been taught from infancy, and truly belived to the very core of his being, that the Capulets were immoral, sinful, perverted, and disgusting - and that any association with them, not to mention love for any one of them would certainly lose him his soul and make the angels weep - if he truly and unquestioningly knew that to be so, and YET loved his Juliet - then *that* would be a Brokeback parallell.

Seen in a certain light, Romeo and Juliet had it easy compared to Ennis. Once in love, they were battling outward forces, society and family -  not their own psyche and selves.

[ednbarby]

I think the tragedy came from Ennis refusing to make a life with Jack.  I know that Ennis was affected by how brutally Earl was killed, but he let a tragedy of twenty or thirty years ago ruin his life and ruin Jack’s life too. Just because Earl was brutally killed, DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN that Ennis and/or Jack would meet the same fate.  Over the years, since re-uniting with Jack, and especially by the time he and Alma were divorced, common sense and reason should have kicked in, IMO.  Life's a gamble, you only go around once, 94% of stuff we worry about never comes to pass……

Ennis was a jerk and a coward. There I said it.  Now I'm probably gonna be killed fur that!!  "Can't see you again until November, gotta toil like a skivvy."  How dumb is that?  Why was Ennis denying himself the happiness of being with Jack?  Was he really so stupid that he could not arrange his life to have a bit of enjoyment?  Or did he do it purposely because subconciously he did not think he deserved to be happy or to be loved?  I just don't get you Ennis Del Mar!

The whole way through the movie I was on the edge of my seat, waiting, waiting, waiting (like Jack) for Ennis to come to his senses, to finally be with Jack like they were meant to be.  I did not know the story, thankfully nobody told me what was going to happen, so the postcard was just as much a surprise to me as it was to Ennis.

"There y'see!  Ya blew it!  Now yer NEVER gonna be together! Ya wasted all that time bein' afraid of somethin' that you couldn't even see, and now it's TOO LATE!!  God damn you Ennis!"

((running into the woods of Brokeback as fast as my legs can carry me!))

J

I disagree.  I believe that Ennis would have been open to having a life with Jack if he, like Jack, had been raised in a household in which at least one parent loved him unconditionally.  We don't know about Ennis' mother, but we don't have to.  It's clear that his father's influence shaped the adult he would become.  It's not that he let Earl's brutal death and his father's forcing him and his brother to see the aftermath of it shape him - it's that he couldn't help but have that shape his perception of himself all the rest of his life.  Ennis was gay.  His father sensed that in him (and maybe in his brother, too, for all we know) and so probably "done the job" himself and then showed his handiwork to his boys.  And if his father was capable of that kind of monstrosity, then his father was a hateful, bigoted monster in general.  So even before the murder, he was influencing the way his boys thought about gay men or anyone else he perceived as different.  His Dad was the jerk and the coward.  Not him.

And isn't it the case that the very thing he most feared would happen if he and Jack got openly together happened anyway?  That, to me, is the crux of the tragedy - Jack was killed by the same bigotry and hatred and monstrosity that killed Earl, and not because they got together, but perhaps because they didn't.

I respectfully submit that I think you're being way too hard on Ennis.  Yes, I was angry with him, too, the first few times I saw the movie.  But after lo my many further viewings, I just feel infathomably sad for him.  It was inevitable that he become fearful - his father and society in general made sure of it.  And then that he hated himself to boot.  Jack knew all this all along - knew Ennis through and through - and yet he loved him anyway.  He kept waiting and risking his heart because that love was undeniable.  He was fearless.  And as such, the exact counterpart Ennis needed to complete himself.  Sorry I'm waxing (or trying to wax) so lyrical, here.  But I can't have either of my boys disrespected.  Together, they make the perfect human being.  That's what true love does. 

[serious crayons]

Penth, thank you!    I'm always happy to see you post because, as you say, we are so often in accord!

What would have been worse, would have been if people came out of the cinema actually and honestly debating whether it's a morality tale showing that "when men don't fight their homosexual urges and stay on the straight and narrow, they are doomed". Not too long ago, that would easily have been the interpretation made - I know it still is in some circles.

Mikaela, I agree with everything you said, too. On the one hand, I have heard well-meaning people -- people who aren't homophobes but didn't love BBM -- make the same point you heard made in your country, ie, what's the big deal? That's 1960s Wyoming, not 2000s America, we're past all that now. It's nice they think so, but they're regrettably under-informed. The very fact that there ARE people who come out of the movie thinking the message is that Ennis and Jack should have renounced homosexuality and devoted themselves to their wives is one sign of that (among many others).

If Romeo had been taught from infancy, and truly belived to the very core of his being, that the Capulets were immoral, sinful, perverted, and disgusting - and that any association with them, not to mention love for any one of them would certainly lose him his soul and make the angels weep - if he truly and unquestioningly knew that to be so, and YET loved his Juliet - then *that* would be a Brokeback parallell.

Seen in a certain light, Romeo and Juliet had it easy compared to Ennis. Once in love, they were battling outward forces, society and family -  not their own psyche and selves.

Very good point, Mikaela. The Montagues probably DID try to raise Romeo to believe that the Capulets were bad people: wicked, untrustworthy, possibly even immoral. But they would have stopped short of calling them "sinful, perverted, and disgusting" -- terms that would trigger a far deeper sense of shame and self-loathing. (In fact, the Montagues probably regarded the Capulets with a certain degree of respect, as strong and worthy adversaries, as opposed to the contempt and repugnance Ennis' father felt for gay people.) And even if they did use those terms, Romeo could have looked around his environment and easily found contradictory viewpoints. Ennis heard that message everywhere he went, every time the subject of homosexuality came up -- even, as Ellemeno just pointed out on another thread, from the announcer on the radio that's playing as he's packing for a trip with Jack.

Barb, your post came in as I was writing this, but I agree with everything you say, too. And you expressed it beautifully!

[fontaine]

It's interesting you used the Romeo and Juliet analogy. I have used it as well. I think there are many parallels. If anything, I see BBM as a way of humanizing gays, void of stereotypes and preconceived notions. The intensity of feeling, the passion, love and pain are all universal. The only negativity stems from an acrimonious homophobic society that doesn't make room for the love of two men. That is the tragedy.

I think this is very true. It's also one of the things that made this a good movie in that by portraying them as regular people--regular human beings--it avoided cliche (which is always good in fiction) and also helped make a political statement. But the movie, IMO, transcended political statements. The way it was written and filmed allowed it to take on more universal, human qualities. While it may have been society that discriminated against these two lovers, it was ultimately their inability and unwillingness to counter that society that was the deeper tragedy IMO.

Although we might wish that society made whoever we are more accepted and embraced, what other people do and don't do (individually and in a group) is outside our control. What is far harder to do is to change ourselves to deal with outer realities. Jack and Ennis, in particular, did not do that. To me, that was the greater tragedy and Ennis paid the price for it.

[dly64]

It's also one of the things that made this a good movie in that by portraying them as regular people--regular human beings--it avoided cliche (which is always good in fiction) and also helped make a political statement. But the movie, IMO, transcended political statements. The way it was written and filmed allowed it to take on more universal, human qualities. While it may have been society that discriminated against these two lovers, it was ultimately their inability and unwillingness to counter that society that was the deeper tragedy IMO.

Although we might wish that society made whoever we are more accepted and embraced, what other people do and don't do (individually and in a group) is outside our control. What is far harder to do is to change ourselves to deal with outer realities. Jack and Ennis, in particular, did not do that. To me, that was the greater tragedy and Ennis paid the price for it.

I think what you say has a lot of merit. I am going to quote some of Robert Ebert's review because I think it pertains to this issue (for those who are critic haters, don't kill me):

Ennis tells Jack about something he saw as a boy. "There were two old guys shacked up together. They were the joke of the town, even though they were pretty tough old birds." One day they were found beaten to death. Ennis says: "My dad, he made sure me and my brother saw it. For all I know, he did it."

This childhood memory is always there, the ghost in the room, in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain." When he was taught by his father to hate homosexuals, Ennis was taught to hate his own feelings. Years after he first makes love with Jack on a Wyoming mountainside, after his marriage has failed, after his world has compressed to a mobile home, the laundromat, the TV, he still feels the same pain: "Why don't you let me be? It's because of you, Jack, that I'm like this -- I'm nothing, I'm nobody."

But it's not because of Jack. It's because Ennis and Jack love each other and can find no way to deal with that.

..... The movie wisely never steps back to look at the larger picture, or deliver the "message." It is specifically the story of these men, this love. It stays in closeup. That's how Jack and Ennis see it. "You know I ain't queer," Ennis tells Jack after their first night together. "Me, neither," says Jack.

Therein lies the tragedy. Ennis could not even allow himself to acknowledge he was in love with a man. To say Ennis was a "jerk" is simplistic. IMO, a person is shaped from what s/he knows ... that is his/ her "normal". Anything outside of that realm is overwelming, frightening. For Ennis, he was so fearful of his own feelings, he could hardly open his mouth to speak. And yet, ironically, he loved Jack so much that he could not share his love with anyone else (Alma, Cassie).

[serious crayons]

Well, I think Ennis does acknowledge that he loves Jack, but otherwise I agree with you. And it's interesting, now that you mention it, that he blames Jack for his being nothin and nobody, when obviously it's society's fault, not Jack's. I always took that as just a sort of lashing-out behavior that he doesn't really mean -- like the punch when they leave the mountain. But at a certain level, he does mean it. Not that he really resents Jack for this, but he does accept society's dictates so deeply that he doesn't realize society should be held to blame.

[dly64]

Well, I think Ennis does acknowledge that he loves Jack, but otherwise I agree with you. And it's interesting, now that you mention it, that he blames Jack for his being nothin and nobody, when obviously it's society's fault, not Jack's. I always took that as just a sort of lashing-out behavior that he doesn't really mean -- like the punch when they leave the mountain. But at a certain level, he does mean it. Not that he really resents Jack for this, but he does accept society's dictates so deeply that he doesn't realize society should be held to blame.

IMO, when Ennis says, "It's because of you that I'm like this ...," I see Ennis as "blaming" Jack that he is in love with a man. Even at the end of their relationship, Ennis still does not see himself as gay. He is so homophobic ... he can't begin to understand what he really feels. In other words, he cannot own his feelings. I agree that he acknowledges he loves Jack. However, I don't think he understands the depth of his love until Jack has died. By then, it is too late.

[serious crayons]

IMO, when Ennis says, "It's because of you that I'm like this ...," I see Ennis as "blaming" Jack that he is in love with a man. Even at the end of their relationship, Ennis still does not see himself as gay. He is so homophobic ... he can't begin to understand what he really feels. In other words, he cannot own his feelings. I agree that he acknowledges he loves Jack. However, I don't think he understands the depth of his love until Jack has died. By then, it is too late.

I'm sorry, dly, but I have to respectfully disagree with every sentence in your post. But I realize this is probably THE big divide among Brokies (bigger even than the sorry/s'alright!) -- when, if ever, does Ennis realize he's gay; when, if ever, does Ennis realize how much he loves Jack; what exactly is it that he comes to understand at the end? Sounds like I am on the opposite side from you on all of these issues. But from what I gather, there are plenty of people on both sides.

[dly64]

I'm sorry, dly, but I have to respectfully disagree with every sentence in your post. But I realize this is probably THE big divide among Brokies (bigger even than the sorry/s'alright!) -- when, if ever, does Ennis realize he's gay; when, if ever, does Ennis realize how much he loves Jack; what exactly is it that he comes to understand at the end? Sounds like I am on the opposite side from you on all of these issues. But from what I gather, there are plenty of people on both sides.

I can understand where you are coming from. But you are right ... we are on opposite sides. I see Ennis as being completely cut off from his emotions. He was taught to hate homosexuals ... in essense to hate himself. When Ennis comes up behind Jack in the flashback, the book and screenplay say:

"Later that dozy embrace solidified in his memory as the single moment of artless, charmed happiness in their separate and difficult lives. Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see or feel that it was Jack he held."

IMO, Ennis could not face the reality that his one-in-a-lifetime love was a man until it was too late. When Ennis is at the Twist's and Jacks dick father (excuse my editorializing) talked about Jack saying "Ennis DelMar  ... I'm goin' bring him up here one of these days ....." Ennis' expression is one of what might have been.

.... thus, begins the debate.

[Jeff Wrangler]

It's always bothered me that Ennis, in lashing out, blames Jack for life choices that he himself has made. Just as a kind of an aside-FYI, in the 2004 screenplay Ennis seems to be really blaming Jack:

Jack: I wish I knew how to quit you.

Ennis: Why don't you?! Why, why do you keep after me? I could lick this. I know I could. But you--it's you, don't you see? It's because of you I'm like this. You scratch two words on a postcard, I come runnin' like a dog. And I don't understand it, and I never wanted it, I don't want it. i just don't want it.

I'm glad somebody had the sense to change that. The scene as we know it in the film is much better.

[ednbarby]

Good call, Jeff.

I see Ennis' saying "It's 'cause o' you I'm like this" as saying, really, "It's because of you that I have to face (and accept and love) what I really am.  And I can't do that."

[serious crayons]

Ennis: Why don't you?! Why, why do you keep after me? I could lick this. I know I could. But you--it's you, don't you see? It's because of you I'm like this. You scratch two words on a postcard, I come runnin' like a dog. And I don't understand it, and I never wanted it, I don't want it. i just don't want it.

I'm glad somebody had the sense to change that. The scene as we know it in the film is much better.

Well that's for sure! That bit of dialogue doesn't sound anything like the Ennis in the movie -- or even like Story Ennis, for that matter. To me, this really supports the idea that previous versions of the screenplay, though perhaps interesting for historical/archival purposes, really aren't relevant in analyzing the final product.

I can understand where you are coming from. But you are right ... we are on opposite sides. I see Ennis as being completely cut off from his emotions. He was taught to hate homosexuals ... in essense to hate himself. When Ennis comes up behind Jack in the flashback, the book and screenplay say:

"Later that dozy embrace solidified in his memory as the single moment of artless, charmed happiness in their separate and difficult lives. Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see or feel that it was Jack he held."

IMO, Ennis could not face the reality that his one-in-a-lifetime love was a man until it was too late.

I do agree that Ennis was taught, in essence, to hate himself. But I long ago rejected the flashback as applying to the movie (or even, IMO, the story). Watch the reunion scene and then tell me that "Ennis couldn't embrace a man face to face becaue he did not want to see or feel that it was Jack he held." Um ... really?

The common denominator in both my points above is that, for the most part, we are analyzing a movie, a finished product. To me, a previous screenplay is no more relevant in that discussion than any earlier one of Annie Proulx's 60-some drafts is relevant -- interesting, perhaps, but not determinant. And though the story can sometimes be helpful in clarifying aspects of the movie -- such as lines of dialogue that make it into the movie intact but can't be heard clearly, or whatever -- the story is not the boss of the movie. They are two different works of art. If they differ, the story is not the ultimate authority over the movie. The story applies only to itself.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Well that's for sure! That bit of dialogue doesn't sound anything like the Ennis in the movie -- or even like Story Ennis, for that matter. To me, this really supports the idea that previous versions of the screenplay, though perhaps interesting for historical/archival purposes, really aren't relevant in analyzing the final product.

Not surprisingly I'm sure, I have to disagree with you there, Katherine, because "the final product" did not spring, Athena-like, from Ang Lee's head. It was the result of an organic process that began with Annie Proulx's story. To me, Brokeback Mountain is a single and unique phenomenon comprising both story and film, and while they have their differences, for me nothing is irrelevant as data for analysis. I recognize and respect that others don't see it this way, but this is my story and I'm stickin' to it. 

I do agree that Ennis was taught, in essence, to hate himself. But I long ago rejected the flashback as applying to the movie (or even, IMO, the story). Watch the reunion scene and then tell me that "Ennis couldn't embrace a man face to face becaue he did not want to see or feel that it was Jack he held." Um ... really?

Here I both agree and disagree. Clearly, the story text, "that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face," makes no sense in light of a film that has TS2 (by the way, when did "TS2" become "SNIT" [eeew]?). But as regards the story, don't miss the importance of that little four-letter word "then." At the time that "dozy embrace" took place, Ennis couldn't face up to embracing Jack face to face. OK. But don't forget that by the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis had been wringing it out for three or four years while thinking of Jack, and had figured out that the cause of his gut cramps was that he shouldn't have let Jack out of his sights. The flashback is relevant to the story, just not to the story version of the reunion, I believe. By the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis was perfectly capable and willing to embrace Jack face to face--and I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant by the flashback not applying to the story.

[Giancarlo]

Basically, the gist of the blog stated that BBM was not a positive movie.  Not, 'not good'.  Simply, 'not positive'.  Not quite seeing the distinction, my friend continued to illustrate his (or rather the blogger’s) point.  It wasn’t just because of the incredibly sad ending that made the movie “unpositive”, but rather why the movie had a sad ending.

In the end, Brokeback Mountain was simply telling the story of two struggles. The friend really did not understand that fact. It was not supposed to be fluffy. There are plenty of fluffy gay films out there, as there are straight love films in that regard.

The blog went on to say that being gay, Jack & Ennis got exactly what they deserved.  Gays should be killed, if not ostracized and filled with a lifetime of loneliness & despair.  The bloggers orientation wasn't mentioned (or known, for all I know), but I have a suspicion which camp the blogger lives in.

This is almost a hitler like thought in my mind. This rhetoric is very dangerous in my eyes, and I can't believe that people believe such things. But Hitler also believed that the Jews should be ostracized, subjected to misery and ultimately killed.  That's how low I think of these people who believe such things. I think they are on the level of Hitler.

After all, he (or she) is entitled to their opinion.  And far be it for me to pass judgment without being fair...  Yes, the movie could be viewed as a clear reason why homosexuality is wrong, if one was to be so inclined to think this way.  However, it wasn’t how I came away from the movie thinking.  At first...

I think based on how this person is sounding it is perfectly rational to pass judgement onto them, as they are bigots. I do not feel this person even saw the movie, and rather relied on what other people were saying. I feel they had a strongly anti-gay opinion before this movie. I really don't think their opinions can be taken with any merit.

When I started to think about it, I could begin to see how BBM could shed a negative, disparaging light on gays.  True, I can’t control how people think; close-minded people will think how they want.  But if I, a gay man, can come away thinking BBM might be harmful to the gay community, how are many (not all) straight people going to feel?  I've read posts from straight men & women who loved this movie; others who venomously detested it.  So, does BBM project gays (and to a point, gay love) in a good light or a bad one?  If someone were anti-gay, they might cheer, “Awesome!  The faggots got what they deserved!", epitomized in Jack's death & and Ennis' despair.  And even if they were pro-gay, they might say, “Once again, a movie that makes gays look “bad”.” emphasized in all the shattered lives and the gut-wrenching, unhappy ending.  So, I wonder if there is a presiding opinion and/or stance on this, or is it (just like the movie’s intentional, ambiguous scenes) left up to the one’s own viewpoint?  Or is it simply, people will think what they want?

Not even. BBM does have a negative , disparaging message line. It was not about homosexuality, but rather it told the negatives about homophobia. It was not about the supposed "negatives" of homosexuality. It shows how gay people are treated. It was not meant to be a happy film. However, this film exposes the bigots in the world for what they are. This movie basically told a story about two men who truly loved each other and could not be with each other because of society. I don't know how I could make that anymore clear. BBM projects homophobia in a bad light, it does not present homosexuality in that way.

All in all, I think some people have to be careful how they interpret this film. They are entitled to their opinions but I feel some have predipositions before even watching it. Unfortunately such a telling story won't open their minds.

[serious crayons]

Not surprisingly I'm sure, I have to disagree with you there, Katherine, because "the final product" did not spring, Athena-like, from Ang Lee's head. It was the result of an organic process that began with Annie Proulx's story. To me, Brokeback Mountain is a single and unique phenomenon comprising both story and film, and while they have their differences, for me nothing is irrelevant as data for analysis.

My post above refers to a line you quoted from a previous draft of the screenplay. As I'm sure you as a writer can understand, I as a writer would not want someone, in disputing some point in a published piece of mine, say, "But look -- regardless of what she said in her 16th draft, she said blah blah blah in her third draft, so that's what she must really mean." The whole reason for having more than one draft is that the writer's intention changes as the work develops. It must be disconcerting, to say the least, to be held to a vision that has long since been discarded.

To further complicate matters, in this case we're talking not about a single artist but three "groups" of artists: 1) Annie, 2) Larry and Diana, 3) Ang and everyone else involved in the movie. There's at least three different visions, more if people within groups held their own views (as they no doubt did). My point is, the screenplay is not the ultimate guide to the movie's intentions. It's only a guide to the screenwriters' intentions. Another layer of artists subsequently added their own. Their objectives may have been in accord -- or not. So you can't always determine what the movie meant by reading the screenplay (let alone a previous draft!).

My preferred approach is to judge the story by the final version of the story (not by any one of Annie's 60-some earlier drafts), the screenplay by the final screenplay, the movie by the edited movie. Yes, other versions can be interesting, even enlightening, but are not ultimately authoritative.

At the time that "dozy embrace" took place, Ennis couldn't face up to embracing Jack face to face. OK. But don't forget that by the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis had been wringing it out for three or four years while thinking of Jack, and had figured out that the cause of his gut cramps was that he shouldn't have let Jack out of his sights. The flashback is relevant to the story, just not to the story version of the reunion, I believe. By the time of the Story Reunion, Ennis was perfectly capable and willing to embrace Jack face to face--and I apologize if I misunderstood what you meant by the flashback not applying to the story.

We debated this once before, Jeff, when you presented your idea about Ennis maturing and learning to embrace Jack face to face. I can buy that, I guess. The trouble is, people keep insisting on applying it to Ennis throughout his life -- reunion, schmeunion. Worse, they constantly apply it to Movie Ennis, to whom it demonstrably does not apply by the time of their second night together. As I said then, and have become even more convinced since, it was a mistake in the story. Even if Annie meant to suggest that Ennis had matured -- and, ahem, Occam's Razor might apply here -- she did not make it clear enough (as you yourself suggested in the previous discussion!). Sorry, folks, brilliant though she may be, Annie is fallable.

by the way, when did "TS2" become "SNIT" [eeew]?).

Finally, something we can agree on!  I'll confess I think I was the originator of TS1 and TS2 (or at least, when I first used the terms I hadn't seen them used before). But SNIT and FNIT developed simultaneously on, I think, imdb, and since they spread here I have sensed a tipping point of people succumbing to those terms, and finally today I began to cave myself. But if you're willing to stick with TS1 and TS2, Jeff, I'm with you. 

[fontaine]

I think it contained both messages: "If you cross society--even if society has its head where the sun don't shine--there are going to be consequences in terms of how you'll be treated and how you'll feel about yourself because of those influences you've internalized." The other message is "if you don't follow your own heart and soul regardless of what society pressures you to do, you're going to pay a price."

I watched a DVD of Caroline Myss last night. For those who haven't heard of her, she's a PhD in theology who's a medical intuitive. She talked about people's sources of power as being threefold: tribal, personal, and spiritual. All the narrow-minded bigots who spew what they've been taught, including homophobes, think at the tribal level. (This was ultimately Ennis's problem.) Those who defy the tribal dictates and chart their own course (Jack did this a bit more than Ennis) are at a different level of consciousness. Those few who transcend the personal are able to step out of their own skin and look at situations from an objective, non-reactive level. Niether character did this. It's a fascinating way to not only look at the movie (as well as the way others look at it), but to apply to our own lives. (I got the DVD at Netflix.)

[Jeff Wrangler]

My post above refers to a line you quoted from a previous draft of the screenplay. As I'm sure you as a writer can understand, I as a writer would not want someone, in disputing some point in a published piece of mine, say, "But look -- regardless of what she said in her 16th draft, she said blah blah blah in her third draft, so that's what she must really mean." The whole reason for having more than one draft is that the writer's intention changes as the work develops. It must be disconcerting, to say the least, to be held to a vision that has long since been discarded.

I never said--or never intended to say--that earlier drafts of either story or screenplay indicate the meaning of the final version. If I wasn't clear on that point, I apologize. My intent was that I feel it can be useful in understanding the finished product to look at what came earlier, because the end product came about as a result of growth and change. We might as well just agree to disagree on this point because nobody is going to convince me that this isn't a valid approach or part of formulating one's understanding. It must, indeed, be disconcerting to be held to a vision long past, but that's not what I'm doing.

I don't mean to be offensive but I really don't see what the problem is with, say, looking at one of Ennis's lines in the 2004 screenplay and comparing it to the final version. That's really all I'm talking about.

To further complicate matters, in this case we're talking not about a single artist but three "groups" of artists: 1) Annie, 2) Larry and Diana, 3) Ang and everyone else involved in the movie. There's at least three different visions, more if people within groups held their own views (as they no doubt did). My point is, the screenplay is not the ultimate guide to the movie's intentions. It's only a guide to the screenwriters' intentions. Another layer of artists subsequently added their own. Their objectives may have been in accord -- or not. So you can't always determine what the movie meant by reading the screenplay (let alone a previous draft!).

I don't believe I said you could, but, again, if I wasn't clear, I apologize. Since we don't unfortunately, have a shooting script--wouldn't I love to get my hands on one of those!--the screenplay is the only written text we have to use in conjunction with what we see on the screen. And the screenplay is certainly useful for referring to dialogue rather than trusting to one's memory only--even recognizing the differences from the dialogue we hear.

My preferred approach is to judge the story by the final version of the story (not by any one of Annie's 60-some earlier drafts), the screenplay by the final screenplay, the movie by the edited movie. Yes, other versions can be interesting, even enlightening, but are not ultimately authoritative.

We debated this once before, Jeff, when you presented your idea about Ennis maturing and learning to embrace Jack face to face. I can buy that, I guess. The trouble is, people keep insisting on applying it to Ennis throughout his life -- reunion, schmeunion. Worse, they constantly apply it to Movie Ennis, to whom it demonstrably does not apply by the time of their second night together. As I said then, and have become even more convinced since, it was a mistake in the story. Even if Annie meant to suggest that Ennis had matured -- and, ahem, Occam's Razor might apply here -- she did not make it clear enough (as you yourself suggested in the previous discussion!). Sorry, folks, brilliant though she may be, Annie is fallable.

She certainly is fallible. During the last fishing trip she has Ennis give an age for Alma, Jr., that doesn't jive with her stated birthdate of September 1964. I've said elsewhere I can't understand why that wasn't "caught" at The New Yorker and changed--surely Annie wouldn't have objected to such a minor detail--although why she didn't change it for later editions is a mystery, but I'm digressing.

True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake. And there is no need to apply Occam's Razor because we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.

SNIT, at least, is good for a laugh. 

[dly64]

True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake. And there is no need to apply Occam's Razor because we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.

I agree that it was not an accident that the "dozy embrace" was included in the film and story. The flashback is relevant because it signifies the relationship between Jack and Ennis, doesn't it? Ennis could never face the reality that it was a man he loved (until Jack was dead). IMO, this scene should be taken figuratively versus literally.

I am guessing this will provoke more debate???

[Jeff Wrangler]

I agree that it was not an accident that the "dozy embrace" was included in the film and story. The flashback is relevant because it signifies the relationship between Jack and Ennis, doesn't it? Ennis could never face the reality that it was a man he loved (until Jack was dead). IMO, this scene should be taken figuratively versus literally.

I am guessing this will provoke more debate???

Now, there's an interesting thought! I think I have in the past discussed that the meaning of the dozy embrace memory has to be different in the movie than in the story with regard to the development of Ennis's character, because of TS2 (aka SNIT  ), but "figuratively versus literally" is an angle I hadn't thought of.

[dly64]

Now, there's an interesting thought! I think I have in the past discussed that the meaning of the dozy embrace memory has to be different in the movie than in the story with regard to the development of Ennis's character, because of TS2 (aka SNIT  ), but "figuratively versus literally" is an angle I hadn't thought of.

I am sure not everyone will agree with my analogy. IMO, however, that "dozy embrace" is symbolic of their relationship together. It was loving, but it was also plagued with Ennis' denial of his feelings .... his internal love for Jack.

[ednbarby]

I am sure not everyone will agree with my analogy. IMO, however, that "dozy embrace" is symbolic of their relationship together. It was loving, but it was also plagued with Ennis' denial of his feelings .... his internal love for Jack.

I think you're right on the money, Diane.  Even though, as we've discussed here, Movie Ennis takes great pains to at least look at Movie Jack's profile, he is still in keeping with Story Ennis in that at that point in their relationship, he would not (or could not) embrace Jack from the front and look him in the face as he did that.  And in both cases, Jack's last thought about their relationship that we know about is that maybe they'd never come any further than that.  I think he's right.  Doesn't make me angry with Ennis.  Just heartbroken for him.

[serious crayons]

True, perhaps it could have been stated a little more clearly, but no, the inclusion of the detail that Ennis would not at that time embrace Jack face to face is not a mistake.

Good times, Jeff! As I've told you before, you're one of my favorite people to argue with,  and it's been a while. (Until the past couple of days, that is!)

Annie's comment regarding the dozy embrace is not a mistake in the objective, factual sense that misstating Alma Jr.'s age is. It's a mistake in a literary sense. You say,

we've seen that he changed between the night of the dozy embrace and the reunion.

Yet the dozy embrace is mentioned much later in the story than the reunion. So it simply isn't effective story-telling to mention something near the end of the story that expressly contradicts something mentioned earlier, without further explanation, therefore making us go back and say, "What th'? But she said herself that in the reunion scene ..." and then requires us to try to invent our own theories how that might work: well, maybe Ennis matured as he went along and got over this aversion, although she gives no other sign of it, PLUS, wait a second, there's Jack saying at the end that things hadn't changed, so maybe he actually hadn't matured, but ... um ... what the hell?

Disagree with me all you want. Tell me that Annie is a subtle writer and that she expects us to figure things out for ourselves. I'm stickin to my guns. Writers can -- and should! -- leave some things unmentioned or ambiguous, giving readers leeway to think for themselves. But to out-and-out contradict their own story violates the rules. Annie is not only fallible in chronology, she is fallible in story-telling. (Yet still a brilliant story-teller!)

But even if she's not wrong, even if the image is meant to be taken figuratively, as Diane says, it still doesn't apply to Movie Ennis. Movie Ennis is just a different guy than Story Ennis, that's all. More internally homophobic, sure, but less so, apparently -- if you accept the dozy embrace reference -- in some of his actual behavior. Those two statements are not contradictory.

The big difference between Movie Ennis and Story Ennis is TS2 (the preferred terminology,at least at the moment, in the poll). The story doesn't have a TS2. Yet people conflate the story and movie, saying things regarding the movie to the effect of, Ennis was so unable to accept his love for Jack, he couldn't even embrace him face to face!

And yet, obviously, he could do just that. (I just finished posting elsewhere about the lovely moment in the reunion scene when Ennis strokes Jack's face and looks at him in that heavy-breathing besotted way, his face really close -- if that's not face-to-face embracing, what is?)

So the second part of that statement can't be used as proof of the first. It's an important distinction for those of us who think that Ennis was fully aware of his love for Jack from the get-go, and that the revelations at the end are about something else entirely. Unlike Diane, I think he could "face the reality" that it was a man he loved. He may not have been thrilled that it worked out that way, but he knew it to be true, and he faced it, all right -- literally and figuratively.

[dly64]

But even if she's not wrong, even if the image is meant to be taken figuratively, as Diane says, it still doesn't apply to Movie Ennis. Movie Ennis is just a different guy than Story Ennis, that's all. More internally homophobic, sure, but less so, apparently -- if you accept the dozy embrace reference -- in some of his actual behavior. Those two statements are not contradictory.

The big difference between Movie Ennis and Story Ennis is TS2 (the preferred terminology,at least at the moment, in the poll). The story doesn't have a TS2. Yet people conflate the story and movie, saying things regarding the movie to the effect of, Ennis was so unable to accept his love for Jack, he couldn't even embrace him face to face!

And yet, obviously, he could do just that. (I just finished posting elsewhere about the lovely moment in the reunion scene when Ennis strokes Jack's face and looks at him in that heavy-breathing besotted way, his face really close -- if that's not face-to-face embracing, what is?)

So the second part of that statement can't be used as proof of the first. It's an important distinction for those of us who think that Ennis was fully aware of his love for Jack from the get-go, and that the revelations at the end are about something else entirely. Unlike Diane, I think he could "face the reality" that it was a man he loved. He may not have been thrilled that it worked out that way, but he knew it to be true, and he faced it, all right -- literally and figuratively.

Guess what? I disagree. Not that we will come to any concensus on this issue, but it is fun to debate it anyway.

I still think that Ennis could not admit to himself that he loved Jack. He did love Jack, but there is a difference between embracing that love and being in denial. Ennis did not see himself as homosexual. He blames Jack for that. He cannot admit that he is truly gay. I think the short story, the screenplay and the film are all in agreement with that. Ennis was homophobic, period. Even after their four year reunion, he describes his intensity of his feelings for Jack as "this thing".  He still cannot face his authentic self, IMO.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Disagree with me all you want. Tell me that Annie is a subtle writer and that she expects us to figure things out for ourselves. I'm stickin to my guns. Writers can -- and should! -- leave some things unmentioned or ambiguous, giving readers leeway to think for themselves. But to out-and-out contradict their own story violates the rules. Annie is not only fallible in chronology, she is fallible in story-telling. (Yet still a brilliant story-teller!)

This is not a contradiction, it's just her way of telling the story. I'll even allow that you may be right that it wasn't wise for her to put this passage in the narrative where she put it, in the context of Jack's reminisence, though that was her decision to make. She has told us already, in the motel scene, that Ennis has figured out that he shouldn't have let Jack out of his sights (which I have always interpreted as meaning that Story Ennis, in contradistinction to Movie Ennis, is perfectly aware by 1967 that Jack Twist is the love of his life), and prior to that Ennis and Jack have mutually come together in that desparate kiss on the apartment landing. It is not a contradiction to show that at some point early in their relationship Ennis wasn't able to embrace Jack face-to-face. It just shows that Ennis has changed--remarkbly, I'd say, considering his homophobic background.

"You shut up about Annie. This ain't her fault"--if people conflate her story and the movie and can't see the differences. 

And just out of curiosity, do you also consider it a mistake that she doesn't mention Jack's drive to Wyoming following Ennis's divorce except in the context of Ennis's phone call to Lureen--and never elaborates on why that drive was for nothing?

[ednbarby]

I still think that Ennis could not admit to himself that he loved Jack. He did love Jack, but there is a difference between embracing that love and being in denial. Ennis did not see himself as homosexual. He blames Jack for that. He cannot admit that he is truly gay. I think the short story, the screenplay and the film are all in agreement with that. Ennis was homophobic, period. Even after their four year reunion, he describes his intensity of his feelings for Jack as "this thing".  He still cannot face his authentic self, IMO.

Can't add (or debate) anything here.  I agree with all you've said.

[dly64]

This is not a contradiction, it's just her way of telling the story. I'll even allow that you may be right that it wasn't wise for her to put this passage in the narrative where she put it, in the context of Jack's reminisence, though that was her decision to make. She has told us already, in the motel scene, that Ennis has figured out that he shouldn't have let Jack out of his sights (which I have always interpreted as meaning that Story Ennis, in contradistinction to Movie Ennis, is perfectly aware by 1967 that Jack Twist is the love of his life), and prior to that Ennis and Jack have mutually come together in that desparate kiss on the apartment landing. It is not a contradiction to show that at some point early in their relationship Ennis wasn't able to embrace Jack face-to-face. It just shows that Ennis has changed--remarkbly, I'd say, considering his homophobic background.

I think the flashback was appropriately placed. Jack was Ennis' love of his life, that is a fact. What I still think this passage  symbolizes ....  even though Ennis could not admit to himself that Jack was his one-in-a-lifetime love ...  is the  love and intimacy between Jack and Ennis which was embraced at that moment. Not in a physical way, but in a loving, caring way. Now, that may seem like I am contradicting myself, but I'm not. There is a difference between feeling or knowing something versus acknowledging it.

Here is a quote from Ang Lee ...

You've been quoted as saying the movie is about the impossibility of love?

Ang Lee: I think the gay factors, after a while, maybe half the movie, the circumstances are set. They can live together. Ennis has a choice to make it work. That's why Jack complains later in the movie. All they got is Brokeback? That's bullshit. They're both gays, but one chooses to be more adventurous. The other has to go through self denial and only accepts it when it's too late, when he missed him. That is true. Eventually we surpass the obstacles and it's really a search for that obscure object of love.

The whole interview can be read at:


http://www.movieweb.com/news/28/10128.php

I think that this quote fits in with what I am saying. Prove me wrong! I am really quite open to other points of view.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Diane,

Thanks for sharing that quote from Ang Lee. That was new to me.

I don't keep the story with me here at work (I'd never get any work done if I did  ), but I agree with you that the importance of the "dozy embrace" is really the intimacy--for goodness sake, Ennis is actually humming a lullaby!--and that also that there is a difference between knowing something and acknowledging it--or facing up to it.

Heck, I "knew" I was gay for years before I acknowledged it to myself. ...

[dly64]

Diane,

Thanks for sharing that quote from Ang Lee. That was new to me.

I don't keep the story with me here at work (I'd never get any work done if I did  ), but I agree with you that the importance of the "dozy embrace" is really the intimacy--for goodness sake, Ennis is actually humming a lullaby!--and that also that there is a difference between knowing something and acknowledging it--or facing up to it.

Heck, I "knew" I was gay for years before I acknowledged it to myself. ...

I am naughty, too .... I am here at work and am not getting as much work done as I should (I don't carry my book with me, either.)

Anyway, Ang's quote definitely fits in with what I am saying. That, although Ennis loved Jack, he could not face it until Jack was gone. He didn't want to be gay and certainly did not see himself in that way. How completely tragic!! 

[silkncense]

I agree w/ dly64.  I believe that Ennis denies his feelings are love in his own mind until it is too late.  Although the viewer sees the love & tenderness he occasionaly allows himself, Ennis continued to define his intense feelings as the result of sexual passion.  And I believe Jack knew that & expressed it in his eyes at the end of the lake scene.  

EDIT - Both Jeff & Diane were typing at the same time as I was. Hope it's not too repetitive!

A second edit/point - It is also why the dozy embrace is so important in Jack's mind...it was a moment "wrapped in a closeness that satisfie(d) some shared and sexless hunger..."

[Jeff Wrangler]

Tell you what, it was the "shared and sexless" hunger phrase that was in the back of my mind when I wrote earlier. Thanks, silkncense--I wouldn't have trusted myself to quote the sentence without the text in front of me.

It seems to me that this is absolutely key to what Jack wants from Ennis, and it always makes me sad when I read it. Apparently, according to Miss Annie, the sex remained really, really good all the years of Ennis and Jack's relationship, but this phrase really shows that what Jack (the little boy who never felt love and acceptance from his father) really wants is Ennis's love.

It makes me sad to read that phrase because it calls to my mind the many, many gay men I have known who try to use sex as a substitute for love (I presume straight people do this, too, but I write from my own cultural perspective). I'm not saying this is what is going on between Ennis and Jack, only that the "shared and sexless hunger" phrase reminds me of what I have seen in my own life.

[Edit: Just fixed one of my own embarrassing typos. ]

[welliwont]

Guess what? I disagree. Not that we will come to any concensus on this issue, but it is fun to debate it anyway.

I still think that Ennis could not admit to himself that he loved Jack. He did love Jack, but there is a difference between embracing that love and being in denial. Ennis did not see himself as homosexual. He blames Jack for that. He cannot admit that he is truly gay. I think the short story, the screenplay and the film are all in agreement with that. Ennis was homophobic, period. Even after their four year reunion, he describes his intensity of his feelings for Jack as "this thing".  He still cannot face his authentic self, IMO.

Ok I am at work too, and I have about three mins to post this, and I find this is the deepest, most thought-provoking interesting facinating etc etc thread I have ever partooken (I am still working on my vitriolic response to Katherine's rebuttal to me of three days ago! )....

Anyway, in spite of not having properly processed all the brilliant observations here, I would like to interjet one objection:

When Ennis says to Jack "Do you ever get the feeling that people *know*?"  Is that not an admission of sorts that Ennis knows that he is gay??  hunh???

gotta go,

J

[dly64]

Tell you what, it was the "shared and sexless" hunger phrase that was in the back of my mind when I wrote earlier. Thanks, silkncense--I wouldn't have trusted myself to quote the sentence without the text in front of me.

It seems to me that this is absolutely key to what Jack wants from Ennis, and it always makes me sad when I read it. Apparently, according to Miss Annie, the sex remained really, really good all the years of Ennis and Jack's relationship, but this phrase really shows that what Jack (the little boy who never felt love and acceptance from his father) really wants is Ennis's love.

It makes me said to read that phrase because it calls to my mind the many, many gay men I have known who try to use sex as a substitute for love (I presume straight people do this, too, but I write from my own cultural perspective). I'm not saying this is what is going on between Ennis and Jack, only that the "shared and sexless hunger" phrase reminds me of what I have seen in my own life.

I agree with both of you, silkncense and Jack_Wrangler. That's why that "dozy embrace" scene is so necessary. Too many Brokies are taking the "Ennis can't face Jack..." thing too literally. I know I am being repetitive here .... but I think it is worth stressing. The sex was always great between Jack and Ennis ... but Jack's need for love. comfort and warmth was experienced in that moment (even with the knowledge that Ennis could not admit his love for Jack).

By the way, Jack_Wrangler ... you are right that straights can look for love in all the wrong places. I know when I was younger, I used sex as a substitute for love. That way, I didn't have to face my own insecurities. The sad thing was that I really did crave deep and meaningful love, but I would not allow any man to get too close. I am still single ... still have the same issue with not letting a man "get into my psyche". Too scared of rejection, I guess. Hmmmm ... what does this say about me? 

[serious crayons]

I'll even allow that you may be right that it wasn't wise for her to put this passage in the narrative where she put it, in the context of Jack's reminisence, though that was her decision to make.

Of course it was. Just like everything written by every writer -- from the brilliant to the schlocky -- is his or her decision to make. Doesn't make it a good decision, necessarily.

"You shut up about Annie. This ain't her fault"--if people conflate her story and the movie and can't see the differences. 

You are absolutely right. That aint her fault. My complaint in this case is about people who analyze the movie on the basis of the book, when they are two different works. Annie cannot be blamed for this, but it makes the situation all the more frustrating for me. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people invoke that sentence to explain Movie Ennis' attitude, even though it is obviously inapplicable.

And just out of curiosity, do you also consider it a mistake that she doesn't mention Jack's drive to Wyoming following Ennis's divorce except in the context of Ennis's phone call to Lureen--and never elaborates on why that drive was for nothing?

I don't think so. I didn't remember that part of the story -- maybe even failed to notice it, in fact, so it didn't have a chance to stump me -- until after seeing the movie, by which time the explanation seemed clear.. But as a rule I don't consider it a mistake if an author just omits information, deliberately leaving something ambiguous or mysterious. Making readers think is part of literature's job.

What bothers me about the embrace thing -- and it bothered me when I first read the story, before seeing the movie -- is that it seems not to enhance anything but rather contradicts Annie's own purposes. After all, by her own words Ennis also prefers to "embrace" ALMA from behind, as if not wanting to remember it's a woman he's with! And she portrays Story Ennis as otherwise not particularly homophobic, except for that one anomalous detail. I felt as if she threw that in because it was a catchy way to describe a man ambivalently involved in a gay relationship, without regard to the contradiction and larger implications for her character.

Anyway, this is a minor issue, but it illuminates a major one that, as I have said before, divides Brokies. What did Ennis know and when did he know it? What did he realize at the end? I disagree with most of the past several posters about this, and as it seems an unresolvable controversy I'm sure you will all disagree with me. But here's my opinion:

Ennis loves Jack throughout the movie. And he knows he does -- he may not use the word "love" to describe "this thing," but he knows his feelings for Jack are so intense he barely trusts himself to be around Jack in public because they might grab hold of him at any time. That's why he mopes while Jack breaks camp on Brokeback, why he cries in the alley, why he pines for Jack for four years, why he gets all excited about the postcard, why he dresses in his best shirt and sits with his nose pressed against the window for the reunion, why he is overjoyed when he sees Jack, why he sends up a prayer of thanks, why he continues to see him for 16 more years despite all the risks and fears and shame entailed, why he always looks thrilled whenever he sets eyes on Jack, why he breaks up with Cassie, why he looks miserable in the bus station ... and on and on and on. People who don't know or want to deny that they are in love feign disinterest in the object of their love, they don't behave like that.

I also think he knows from the beginning that he is gay, though he is doing his damnedest to repress it. He believes what he's been taught -- that it's immoral and disgusting and so on. Yet he gradually comes to some recognition of it, as evidenced by the "people know" scene (Update: Jane, I just saw your post, and that is exactly what I think!). The stress of coping with these contradictory emotions is part of what prompts his breakdown at the lake. But it's also because he knows that he can't stand it no more -- loving Jack but not being able to live with him -- yet has no idea how to fix it.

And what he finally, finally realizes at the end is that he should have made his love for Jack his first priority, that it should have outweighed all other considerations -- fear, shame, following rules -- that he should have fixed the situation rather than stood it. Hence his question to Alma, "this Kurt, he loves you?" He has realized that love is what's most important.
 

[ednbarby]

By the way, Jack_Wrangler ... you are right that straights can look for love in all the wrong places. I know when I was younger, I used sex as a substitute for love. That way, I didn't have to face my own insecurities. The sad thing was that I really did crave deep and meaningful love, but I would not allow any man to get too close. I am still single ... still have the same issue with not letting a man "get into my psyche". Too scared of rejection, I guess. Hmmmm ... what does this say about me? 

Been there, used that too.  And as much as my husband is the only one I've let into my psyche as much as he is, there is still stuff I don't give him access to, either.  It's actually a constant underlying issue with us that this movie has helped bring, rather painfully at times, to the surface.

"Oh, please.  You are *such* an 'Ennis.'"  ~ Ed Y., 4/07/06

[Jeff Wrangler]

What bothers me about the embrace thing -- and it bothered me when I first read the story, before seeing the movie -- is that it seems not to enhance anything but rather contradicts Annie's own purposes. After all, by her own words Ennis also prefers to "embrace" ALMA from behind, as if not wanting to remember it's a woman he's with! And she portrays Story Ennis as otherwise not particularly homophobic, except for that one anomalous detail. I felt as if she threw that in because it was a catchy way to describe a man ambivalently involved in a gay relationship, without regard to the contradiction and larger implications for her character.

Interesting point, though I wonder--haven't resolved for myself, but do wonder--whether this comparison of embraces is a comparison of apples to oranges. When we see him embracing Alma from behind, they're having sex. When we see him, in Jack's memory, embracing Jack from behind in the "dozy embrace," he's being affectionate.

Yes, we see him embracing Jack sexually from behind, but that's not what the "dozy embrace" is about.

[serious crayons]

Interesting point, though I wonder--haven't resolved for myself, but do wonder--whether this comparison of embraces is a comparison of apples to oranges. When we see him embracing Alma from behind, they're having sex. When we see him, in Jack's memory, embracing Jack from behind in the "dozy embrace," he's being affectionate.

Yes, we see him embracing Jack sexually from behind, but that's not what the "dozy embrace" is about.

True. The moods and purposes and situations are very different. It just seems an ironic and additionally confusing detail. His embrace of Alma clearly does have something to do with wishing she were someone else. And his embrace of Jack supposedly has similar reasons. So what kind of partner DOES he want?

[Mikaela]

He wants Jack. Not trying to be flippant, here, - au contraire, I agree with everything you've written concerning Ennis in your recent posts in this thread, Katherine. You've spoken my mind.

The "not want to know nor feel that it was Jack he held" is a description of the short story situation as it was or may have been, fairly soon after the two of them had initiated their sexual relationship. It doesn't hold true for the later events. Nor is it an objective description, but subjectively seen by Jack through the lense of 20 years of disappointments and twarted hopes and dreams, in the narrative following on the heels of a devastatingly hurtful quarrel between the two. Hardly the best circumstances in which Jack might give a level-headed evaluation of Ennis's state of mind back in the day. And moreover, it is a stepping stone leading up to the conclusion he's working towards: That they haven't gotten very much further, despite all that time. Clearly they have gotten *some* tiny little way, even in Jack's disappointed mind. And the way they've gotten, is (for instance) that Ennis was later willing to embrace him face to face (the reunion) and was willing to admit out loud that he longed for Jack, specifically for Jack, sexually and romantically. ("Wrang it out a hunderd times thinking about you/I shouldn't a let you out a my sights").

So in my view, even in the short story, Ennis is able to face Jack and face what Jack means to him - though it happens about 1 year into the relationship instead of 1 day into it. Though I admit that when I first read the short story (months before I saw the film), this was not immediately clear to me and I went wailing onto the internet in utter disbelief, completely incredulous and devastated that "the fact that Ennis didn't want to know nor feel that it was Jack he held"  didn't "mar the memory for Jack".

How *could* that not mar it?  And if they'd really gotten no further, if Ennis still couldn't face up to and admit who he really loved, how could Jack bear to still be there, 20 years later?

The film then came as an immense comfort and reassurance to me, because TS2 IMO completely removed the above questions from the equation. And the movie flashback, the way it's filmed with Ennis looking at Jack's profile, did the same. There was no doubt in my mind any more. In the film, Ennis faces up both to Jack *and* his love for Jack - and Jack knows it too.

The way film Ennis acts around Jack and in relation to Jack through the long years - as detailed in one of Katherine's posts above, - Ennis would have to be completely sleepwalking through life, entirely oblivious to absolutely every emotion and desire, if he wasn't in fact aware of and admitting to his feelings for Jack (whether he uses the word "love" or just calls it "this thing" to himself is not important IMO).

The tragedy just becomes *more* poignant in that Ennis *is* aware of and acknowledges to himself that he loves another man - but considers this beautiful emotion within himself repulsive, in accordance with his childhood conditioning and the shared opinion of the society he lives in - and is never able to move beyond that to actually live the life that he truly wants (and is ashamed for wanting). It also, to me, makes it more understandable why Jack would manage to wait nearly 20 years before making half-hearted attempts to move on. Knowing Ennis loves him but is unable to move past society's judgement IMO is something else, - emotionally more nurturing, providing more hope for the future, - than being with a man who won't even admit to himself (much less to Jack) that he loves him.

Whether Ennis thinks of himself as not just loving Jack, but as being homosexual, I'm somewhat  less certain about. But IMO, at least by the time he asks Jack about "being stared at in the street", he has come to this conclusion concerning himself - he doesn't any more think of himself as a straight guy who inexplicably has happened to fall in love with a man.

[dly64]

What bothers me about the embrace thing -- and it bothered me when I first read the story, before seeing the movie -- is that it seems not to enhance anything but rather contradicts Annie's own purposes. After all, by her own words Ennis also prefers to "embrace" ALMA from behind, as if not wanting to remember it's a woman he's with! And she portrays Story Ennis as otherwise not particularly homophobic, except for that one anomalous detail. I felt as if she threw that in because it was a catchy way to describe a man ambivalently involved in a gay relationship, without regard to the contradiction and larger implications for her character.

Anyway, this is a minor issue, but it illuminates a major one that, as I have said before, divides Brokies. What did Ennis know and when did he know it? What did he realize at the end? I disagree with most of the past several posters about this, and as it seems an unresolvable controversy I'm sure you will all disagree with me. But here's my opinion:

Ennis loves Jack throughout the movie. And he knows he does -- he may not use the word "love" to describe "this thing," but he knows his feelings for Jack are so intense he barely trusts himself to be around Jack in public because they might grab hold of him at any time. That's why he mopes while Jack breaks camp on Brokeback, why he cries in the alley, why he pines for Jack for four years, why he gets all excited about the postcard, why he dresses in his best shirt and sits with his nose pressed against the window for the reunion, why he is overjoyed when he sees Jack, why he sends up a prayer of thanks, why he continues to see him for 16 more years despite all the risks and fears and shame entailed, why he always looks thrilled whenever he sets eyes on Jack, why he breaks up with Cassie, why he looks miserable in the bus station ... and on and on and on. People who don't know or want to deny that they are in love feign disinterest in the object of their love, they don't behave like that.

I also think he knows from the beginning that he is gay, though he is doing his damnedest to repress it. He believes what he's been taught -- that it's immoral and disgusting and so on. Yet he gradually comes to some recognition of it, as evidenced by the "people know" scene (Update: Jane, I just saw your post, and that is exactly what I think!). The stress of coping with these contradictory emotions is part of what prompts his breakdown at the lake. But it's also because he knows that he can't stand it no more -- loving Jack but not being able to live with him -- yet has no idea how to fix it.

And what he finally, finally realizes at the end is that he should have made his love for Jack his first priority, that it should have outweighed all other considerations -- fear, shame, following rules -- that he should have fixed the situation rather than stood it. Hence his question to Alma, "this Kurt, he loves you?" He has realized that love is what's most important.

Guess what? I disagree.

Let me make sure I am not misunderstanding you ... you think Ennis knew he loved Jack and could admit it to himself even though he never used the word "love"? You also think the Alma, Jr. scene is when Ennis realizes that he should have made Jack a priority? And that Ennis knows from the get-go that he is gay, but tries to repress it?

Ennis could not admit to himself that he loved Jack until it was too late. Previously, I quoted Ang Lee ... I will do it again (excuse the repetitiveness ... but it proves my point):

You've been quoted as saying the movie is about the impossibility of love?

Ang Lee: I think the gay factors, after a while, maybe half the movie, the circumstances are set. They can live together. Ennis has a choice to make it work. That's why Jack complains later in the movie. All they got is Brokeback? That's bullshit. They're both gays, but one chooses to be more adventurous. The other has to go through self denial and only accepts it when it's too late, when he missed him. That is true. Eventually we surpass the obstacles and it's really a search for that obscure object of love.

The whole interview can be read at:

http://www.movieweb.com/news/28/10128.php

There is another interview with Diana Ossana and Larry McMurty that also indicates when Ennis realized he loved Jack:

MW: For what purpose did you expand the role of Cassie (Linda Cardellini), and what part did she play in Ennis’ relationship to the women in his life?
DO: Cassie somewhat exemplifies Ennis’s continual denial of his emotional makeup, and his attempts to have what he believed was a “normal” relationship with a woman. After his and Jack’s final confrontation about Mexico, Ennis realizes that it is Jack he truly loves, and he simply cannot continue in his attempts at a relationship with Cassie, thus her confronting him in the diner about his whereabouts and her frustrations and painful realization that she’s not “the one.”

http://www.cinemalogue.com/2006/02/14/brokeback-interview/

A second interview talks about Ennis' homophobia at what point he gets to by the end of the film:

McMurtry: I don’t think Ennis would kill himself.
Ossana: He’s too tough. That would be a sign of weakness, and it would leave a memory of him as being weak, and I don’t think he would want that. But I do think that Ennis knows that people probably know that he’s homosexual, and emotionally [at the end of the film] I think he makes a tiny bit of progress, because he agrees to attend Alma Jr.’s wedding. Finally he compromises—
McMurtry: And doesn’t disappoint a woman.
Ossana: It’s the first time in the film that he doesn’t disappoint someone, male or female. It’s a tiny baby step, but he does it. I just don’t know how much [more] he’s capable of changing. I think if anything, he might become even more homophobic and bitter because of what he did, what he gave up, what he lost, what he’ll never have.

http://www.advocate.com/currentstory1_w.asp?id=25277&page=2

I think all of these quotes support what I am saying. Let me know your thoughts!

Mikaela - your note came through before I posted this. Some of what you say, I have rebuttled above.

The "not want to know nor feel that it was Jack he held" is a description of the short story situation as it was or may have been, fairly soon after the two of them had initiated their sexual relationship. It doesn't hold true for the later events. Nor is it an objective description, but subjectively seen by Jack through the lense of 20 years of disappointments and twarted hopes and dreams, in the narrative following on the heels of a devastatingly hurtful quarrel between the two. Hardly the best circumstances in which Jack might give a level-headed evaluation of Ennis's state of mind back in the day. And moreover, it is a stepping stone leading up to the conclusion he's working towards: That they haven't gotten very much further, despite all that time. Clearly they have gotten *some* tiny little way, even in Jack's disappointed mind. And the way they've gotten, is (for instance) that Ennis was later willing to embrace him face to face (the reunion) and was willing to admit out loud that he longed for Jack, specifically for Jack, sexually and romantically. ("Wrang it out a hunderd times thinking about you/I shouldn't a let you out a my sights").

So in my view, even in the short story, Ennis is able to face Jack and face what Jack means to him - though it happens about 1 year into the relationship instead of 1 day into it. Though I admit that when I first read the short story (months before I saw the film), this was not immediately clear to me and I went wailing onto the internet in utter disbelief, completely incredulous and devastated that "the fact that Ennis didn't want to know nor feel that it was Jack he held"  didn't "mar the memory for Jack".

How *could* that not mar it?  And if they'd really gotten no further, if Ennis still couldn't face up to and admit who he really loved, how could Jack bear to still be there, 20 years later?

The film then came as an immense comfort and reassurance to me, because TS2 IMO completely removed the above questions from the equation. And the movie flashback, the way it's filmed with Ennis looking at Jack's profile, did the same. There was no doubt in my mind any more. In the film, Ennis faces up both to Jack *and* his love for Jack - and Jack knows it too.

The way film Ennis acts around Jack and in relation to Jack through the long years - as detailed in one of Katherine's posts above, - Ennis would have to be completely sleepwalking through life, entirely oblivious to absolutely every emotion and desire, if he wasn't in fact aware of and admitting to his feelings for Jack (whether he uses the word "love" or just calls it "this thing" to himself is not important IMO).

The tragedy just becomes *more* poignant in that Ennis *is* aware of and acknowledges to himself that he loves another man - but considers this beautiful emotion within himself repulsive, in accordance with his childhood conditioning and the shared opinion of the society he lives in - and is never able to move beyond that to actually live the life that he truly wants (and is ashamed for wanting). It also, to me, makes it more understandable why Jack would manage to wait nearly 20 years before making half-hearted attempts to move on. Knowing Ennis loves him but is unable to move past society's judgement IMO is something else, - emotionally more nurturing, providing more hope for the future, - than being with a man who won't even admit to himself (much less to Jack) that he loves him.

Whether Ennis thinks of himself as not just loving Jack, but as being homosexual, I'm somewhat  less certain about. But IMO, at least by the time he asks Jack about "being stared at in the street", he has come to this conclusion concerning himself - he doesn't any more think of himself as a straight guy who inexplicably has happened to fall in love with a man.

I have said before that the "dozy embrace" flashback in regards to Ennis' inability to acknowledge it was Jack he was holding, needs to be seen as symbolic, not literal. Ennis cannot face the fact he is in love with Jack until it is too late. Everything I have seen and read supports this theory.

That is my story and I'm stickin' to it! (just kidding)

[silkncense]

I agree that the two "embraces" are not the same.  Ennis is not embracing Alma, he is having sex (and more pointedly, not with her). There is no embrace involved.

Also, comparing the book to the movie adds to the problems.  I also agree that Annies description of the dozy embrace is confusing & contradictory to both the book and the movie.  I think the embrace should not have been described as not wanting to acknowledge that Ennis was holding a man.  It was simply a loving, non-sexual embrace - one that is similary shared by heterosexual couples, parents and children, etc.  However, and this will sound contradictory on my part, I do agree that was a sgn that Ennis was in love as was his gut reaction to leaving Brokeback both while Jack was packing up & in the alley.

I think the problem of "when" Ennis knew is a matter of definition.  I believe Ennis loved Jack from their days on Brokeback forward.  Jack made him happier than any person had or could.  Jack allowed Ennis to open up, express himself more than he'd done in the "last year" (ever), despite being engaged to the assumed love of his life, Alma.  Jack was his BEST & possibly ONLY true friend.  It was also great sex, obviuosly better than he had with his wife.

But, to me, Ennis did not equate this to being IN LOVE.  I'm sure that it doesn't make sense to most people, but my interpretation is that that is what allowed Ennis to accept "this thing." 

When did Ennis realize that what he had w/ Jack was "being in love?"  Good question.  I think it started when Jack told him he'd been to Mexico.  Ennis began down the path of acceptance & understanding after the lake scene; he "couldn't stand it anymore"  He could accept Jack discussing having sex with women, here they were just two buddies talking like buddies do.  But when he was confronted with Jack & other men, with the possiblity that Jack could fall in love with another man - his body overpowered all his reason & he collapsed.  This has happened to me.  No control.  Perhaps you think the alley scene was the same.  I think it was not - it was powerful, but it was not a total uncontolled collapse of desperation. 

EDIT -OK, I was busy writing my thoughts & before I can post it, you throw up those quotes from Diana Ossana - I had not read/heard it previously but am glad to read it now.

AND I hate dial-up!!!

[Mikaela]

I think all of these quotes support what I am saying. Let me know your thoughts!

I know this was not written in response to me, but I am of a mind with Latjoreme so in a way I felt it applies to my post as well.

I would think that Ang Lee, Ossana/McMurtry, Ledger, Gyllenhaal and everyone else involved in making the movie would first and foremost want me to interpret the film for myself, form my own views and consider my own emotions when experiencing this unique work of art they've collectively presented to me. They've gone out of their way to make many scenes and lines in the film as ambiguous as possible - they've avoided including any "Messages"; - they did not want to hit people over the head with their "one correct interpretation". I'm sure they'd be thrilled if I didn't read exactly the same into it that they outline in any interviews they give.

I have my firm interpretation now that I feel the film very clearly conveys to me - and I don't mind sharing that. I enjoy going on the internet to read others' differing opinions and interpretations .I've had many an illuminating read that way in terms of examining the character development, the film symbolism etc.  But interpretation of the main issues of the film and the main character development and motivation in the film is so intimately connected with each viewer's personal viewpoints and life experiences that I don't think we'll ever reach a concensus. Nor do I want us to. Nor do I think the filmmakers want us to. 

[dly64]

I know this was not written in response to me, but I am of a mind with Latjoreme so in a way I felt it applies to my post as well.

I would think that Ang Lee, Ossana/McMurtry, Ledger, Gyllenhaal and everyone else involved in making the movie would first and foremost want me to interpret the film for myself, form my own views and consider my own emotions when experiencing this unique work of art they've collectively presented to me. They've gone out of their way to make many scenes and lines in the film as ambiguous as possible - they've avoided including any "Messages"; - they did not want to hit people over the head with their "one correct interpretation". I'm sure they'd be thrilled if I didn't read exactly the same into it that they outline in any interviews they give.

I have my firm interpretation now that I feel the film very clearly conveys to me - and I don't mind sharing that. I enjoy going on the internet to read others' differing opinions and interpretations .I've had many an illuminating read that way in terms of examining the character development, the film symbolism etc.  But interpretation of the main issues of the film and the main character development and motivation in the film is so intimately connected with each viewer's personal viewpoints and life experiences that I don't think we'll ever reach a concensus. Nor do I want us to. Nor do I think the filmmakers want us to. 

Mikaela - I had added an edit while you were writing your response, because I did feel that what I write also applies to you.

I do enjoy discussing the film because I think there is a lot of ambiguity. And you are right that each individual is going to have his/her own point of view. Personally, I don't want to reach a concensus .... it is too much fun to debate. (I was on the debate team in college, so I could go on and on. That is why, however, I like to find quotes or "proof" to back up my theories. It's a habit .... don't hate me for it!  )

[Jeff Wrangler]

So what kind of partner DOES he want?

Thinking of Ennis's actions with Alma suggests a very vulgar response to this question, but I will not say it! 

(Sorry, folks. Tell you what, sometimes I just can't resist an opportunity like that!)

Edit: OK, now that I've had my little joke, let me thank Diane for sharing those quotes from Ang Lee, Diana Ossana, and Larry McMurtry. They've already been added to my Brokeback file!

[serious crayons]

I would think that Ang Lee, Ossana/McMurtry, Ledger, Gyllenhaal and everyone else involved in making the movie would first and foremost want me to interpret the film for myself, form my own views and consider my own emotions when experiencing this unique work of art they've collectively presented to me. They've gone out of their way to make many scenes and lines in the film as ambiguous as possible - they've avoided including any "Messages"; - they did not want to hit people over the head with their "one correct interpretation". I'm sure they'd be thrilled if I didn't read exactly the same into it that they outline in any interviews they give.

I have my firm interpretation now that I feel the film very clearly conveys to me - and I don't mind sharing that. I enjoy going on the internet to read others' differing opinions and interpretations .I've had many an illuminating read that way in terms of examining the character development, the film symbolism etc.  But interpretation of the main issues of the film and the main character development and motivation in the film is so intimately connected with each viewer's personal viewpoints and life experiences that I don't think we'll ever reach a concensus. Nor do I want us to. Nor do I think the filmmakers want us to.

Once again, Mikaela, you and I agree. A work of art is a collaboration between the imaginations of artist and audience -- one can't exist without the other. The fillmmakers (screenwriters, director, actors, etc.) have their own views, and because they created the work of art that we love, their views are important. But their authority is not absolute.

We have all spent many hours and many words developing our interpretations of Brokeback Mountain. I would hate to feel forced to scrap all those efforts if I came across some magazine interview in which someone's offhand, hasty, impromptu, possibly ambiguous remark seemed in less than perfect synch with my own cherished dreams and visions. As a journalist who has conducted hundreds of interviews, I believe they are useful and even enlightening but I'm afraid I don't have a very idealistic opinion of them as a source of immutable truths. Far too many factors -- haste, superficiality, misquoting, extemporanity, etc. -- can compromise their reliability.

As it happens, Diane, I don't find the statements you quote to be all that incongruous with my own views. For example, I don't see how Ang's "The other has to go through self denial and only accepts it when it's too late, when he missed him" or even "After his and Jack’s final confrontation about Mexico, Ennis realizes that it is Jack he truly loves, and he simply cannot continue in his attempts at a relationship with Cassie," drastically contradict what I've said. They don't send me back to the drawing board; on the contrary, I think they basically describe -- in a rough, entertainment-press interviewese sense -- what I said.

But even if they didn't, so what? It's the finished product I care about, not the opinion of any one person involved in its creation (who, for that matter, might disagree with any number of OTHER people involved in its creation). If we're going to pretend that Jack and Ennis exist on some other plane of reality -- which we do, in a way, when we speculate about their motivations and inner lives -- then each viewer ought to be allowed to interpret their behavior for himself or herself.

However, this is not to say that my mind can never be changed, that my opinions are beyond influence. I still fairly often come upon posts that enhance, deepen or even alter my interpretations of BBM. One of them, posted yesterday, is very germane to our discussion here, and some of you might be interested in checking it out:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=2858.0;topicseen#bot

[dly64]

Once again, Mikaela, you and I agree. A work of art is a collaboration between the imaginations of artist and audience -- one can't exist without the other. The fillmmakers (screenwriters, director, actors, etc.) have their own views, and because they created the work of art that we love, their views are important. But their authority is not absolute.

We have all spent many hours and many words developing our interpretations of Brokeback Mountain. I would hate to feel forced to scrap all those efforts if I came across some magazine interview in which someone's offhand, hasty, impromptu, possibly ambiguous remark seemed in less than perfect synch with my own cherished dreams and visions. As a journalist who has conducted hundreds of interviews, I believe they are useful and even enlightening but I'm afraid I don't have a very idealistic opinion of them as a source of immutable truths. Far too many factors -- haste, superficiality, misquoting, extemporanity, etc. -- can compromise their reliability.

As it happens, Diane, I don't find the statements you quote to be all that incongruous with my own views. For example, I don't see how Ang's "The other has to go through self denial and only accepts it when it's too late, when he missed him" or even "After his and Jack’s final confrontation about Mexico, Ennis realizes that it is Jack he truly loves, and he simply cannot continue in his attempts at a relationship with Cassie," drastically contradict what I've said. They don't send me back to the drawing board; on the contrary, I think they basically describe -- in a rough, entertainment-press interviewese sense -- what I said.

But even if they didn't, so what? It's the finished product I care about, not the opinion of any one person involved in its creation (who, for that matter, might disagree with any number of OTHER people involved in its creation). If we're going to pretend that Jack and Ennis exist on some other plane of reality -- which we do, in a way, when we speculate about their motivations and inner lives -- then each viewer ought to be allowed to interpret their behavior for himself or herself.

However, this is not to say that my mind can never be changed, that my opinions are beyond influence. I still fairly often come upon posts that enhance, deepen or even alter my interpretations of BBM. One of them, posted yesterday, is very germane to our discussion here, and some of you might be interested in checking it out:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=2858.0;topicseen#bot

You and Mikeala are both right ... it doesn't matter what I or anyone else think. Everyone's  interpretation of BBM is going to be different since each human has his/her own frame of reference.  But, like I said, since I was on the debate team in college, I like to find information to support my theories. Habit .... I got it from my dad and drove my mom nuts. We could go on for hours and hours. Amazingly, that does not make me inflexible. I like the link you have posted, latjoreme. I read the whole thing and found it quite insightful. There were a few things that I had not previously considered. The long and short of it is this .... I love hearing all ponts of view. Sometimes I like to be the protagonist. (You should have heard the heated debate I had with my brother when I argued Mary wasn't a virgin when she had Jesus! Whoa!!! Then, at the end I laughed .... I loved seeing his face turn purple.) 

Keep bringing your viewpoints! I love it! Sometimes we'll agree, sometimes we won't. Others may agree with me, others will agree with you, and still others will think we are all nuts. Isn't that the best!? 

[serious crayons]

Others may agree with me, others will agree with you, and still others will think we are all nuts.

The vast majority of humanity would fit into the third category.

 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Once again, Mikaela, you and I agree. A work of art is a collaboration between the imaginations of artist and audience -- one can't exist without the other. The fillmmakers (screenwriters, director, actors, etc.) have their own views, and because they created the work of art that we love, their views are important. But their authority is not absolute.

This, I guess, is where you and I definitively part company, although "absolute authority" is, perhaps, a bit strongly worded. Of course everyone brings his or her own background to any work of art, but when it comes to meaning or interpretation, I am willing to defer to the artist who created the art. Who better to know the artist's intention than the artist?

With specific regard to Brokeback Mountain, I don't intend to say, for example, that Ang Lee has absolute authority over everyone who had a hand in creating the film, in particular the characters. However, to make an example, if Ang Lee says clearly that Film Ennis is gay, and no one else, from Annie Proulx to Heath Ledger, who had a hand in creating Film Ennis as we know him, contradicts him, then as far as I'm concerned, Film Ennis is gay, my own opinion notwithstanding, and any debate over whether Film Ennis is gay, or merely "Jacksexual," or whatever, is pretty much beside the point.

I'm a former journalist myself, and at one time in my checkered past I've also spent twelve years writing history for a living, so I've had a lot of experience evaluating sources, and I'm pretty confident of my own ability to assess their reliability.

[serious crayons]

I'm a former journalist myself, and at one time in my checkered past I've also spent twelve years writing history for a living, so I've had a lot of experience evaluating sources, and I'm pretty confident of my own ability to assess their reliability.

Well, then you know that sources are fallible. For example, if you were covering the Bush administration as a journalist, or writing about it as a historian, would you base your conclusions on a quote from Dick Cheney, figuring that as the ultimate insider he must know what he's talking about?

OK, I know that's not a fair comparison, and I really don't want to compare Ang and Larry and Diana to Dick Cheney or imply that they harbor some sort of insidious agenda or are deliberately hiding or bending the truth.

On the contrary, they're honest and well-meaning and sincere and brilliant. And I guess if Ang or Diana or someone made some public statement that dramatically contradicted something I've believed all along -- if they said, "No, the story does not take place in Wyoming, it's actually set in New Jersey" -- it would give me pause. (By the same token, if they found out that a significant portion of the audience assumed the story WAS set in New Jersey -- that is, if lots of people interpreted something far differently from how it was intended -- it should give them pause. Perhaps they didn't send the message they meant to send. And if some people wind up thinking it is New Jersey and others think it's Wyoming, maybe it's the result of a deliberate decision by the filmmakers to leave certain issues unresolved and allow viewers to draw their own conclusions.)

But my point is that I also know how interviews go, even under the best of circumstances. People are talking off the top of their head, they're spending a minute or two, a sentence or two, under pressure of an interview, describing something they themselves may have given months and months of thought to in making the movie. And those of us here have given months and months of thought to these things. Hell, I spend way more time on a single post -- shaping my thoughts, making sure my words are clear -- than they do in those interview responses. So if I see a quote in movieweb.com or cinemalogue.com, unless it really throws me for a loop and dramatically calls into question everything I thought I once believed, I take it with a grain of salt. Those quotes can be interesting, but I don't regard them as sacred texts.

But in fact, the statements quoted in Diane's links DON'T drastically contradict anything I already thought. Ang says one of the men is less adventurous and goes through self-denial? Well, duh! Diana says Ennis breaks up with Cassie because he realizes it's Jack he truly loves? Um, I guess I always thought that was pretty much the whole point of that pie scene. I might not describe it in exactly those words, but close enough -- whatever minor differences do exist between our descriptions can be chalked up to the factors I was talking about: either the limitations of celebrity interviews, the space that exists between the imaginations of artist and audience, or both.

[dly64]

On the contrary, they're honest and well-meaning and sincere and brilliant. And I guess if Ang or Diana or someone made some public statement that dramatically contradicted something I've believed all along -- if they said, "No, the story does not take place in Wyoming, it's actually set in New Jersey" -- it would give me pause. (By the same token, if they found out that a significant portion of the audience assumed the story WAS set in New Jersey -- that is, if lots of people interpreted something far differently from how it was intended -- it should give them pause. Perhaps they didn't send the message they meant to send. And if some people wind up thinking it is New Jersey and others think it's Wyoming, maybe it's the result of a deliberate decision by the filmmakers to leave certain issues unresolved and allow viewers to draw their own conclusions.)

But my point is that I also know how interviews go, even under the best of circumstances. People are talking off the top of their head, they're spending a minute or two, a sentence or two, under pressure of an interview, describing something they themselves may have given months and months of thought to in making the movie. And those of us here have given months and months of thought to these things. Hell, I spend way more time on a single post -- shaping my thoughts, making sure my words are clear -- than they do in those interview responses. So if I see a quote in movieweb.com or cinemalogue.com, unless it really throws me for a loop and dramatically calls into question everything I thought I once believed, I take it with a grain of salt. Those quotes can be interesting, but I don't regard them as sacred texts.

But in fact, the statements quoted in Diane's links DON'T drastically contradict anything I already thought. Ang says one of the men is less adventurous and goes through self-denial? Well, duh! Diana says Ennis breaks up with Cassie because he realizes it's Jack he truly loves? Um, I guess I always thought that was pretty much the whole point of that pie scene. I might not describe it in exactly those words, but close enough -- whatever minor differences do exist between our descriptions can be chalked up to the factors I was talking about: either the limitations of celebrity interviews, the space that exists between the imaginations of artist and audience, or both.

I understand your point of view, albeit I don't completely agree with it. Granted, I am not a journalist. I did, however, get my undergraduate degree in psychology and the arts. So, I think I have a grasp of human behavior. My point being that, in this film, (put aside the quotes) it is incongruous to think that Ennis was consciously aware that he even loved Jack until it was too late. It has nothing to do with what he didn't say (i.e. "I love you" ... because that would be completely out of his character) or whether or not the "dozy embrace" should be taken literally or figuratively. It has everything to do with Ennis' ability to acknowledge that he was in love with a man and his inability to love a woman in that same way.

Where I do agree with your statement is that there is a space between the imaginations of the artist and/or audience. That is why there will never be a concensus on this or any film.

[serious crayons]

Jeff, Diane and everybody -- I hope I didn't come off sounding like I thought that because I am a journalist I am the ultimate authority on human behavior, or even on the way humans behave in interviews.

I think there is a certain sausage-factory quality to journalism, which probably gives me a somewhat jaded, or at least skeptical, view of its products. But I'm sure all of you are perfectly capable of evaluating press quotes, and human behavior, whatever your professional backgrounds. 

The thread I linked to a few posts back -- it's on the Chez Tremblay forum, titled "Hello I'm new here" -- deals with the subject of Ennis' love for Jack in such a fascinating and eye-opening way that I have to repeat my recommendation for anyone who hasn't already seen it. The discussion there is unfolding in really interesting directions.

[dly64]

Jeff, Diane and everybody -- I hope I didn't come off sounding like I thought that because I am a journalist I am the ultimate authority on human behavior, or even on the way humans behave in interviews.

I think there is a certain sausage-factory quality to journalism, which probably gives me a somewhat jaded, or at least skeptical, view of its products. But I'm sure all of you are perfectly capable of evaluating press quotes, and human behavior, whatever your professional backgrounds. 

The thread I linked to a few posts back -- it's on the Chez Tremblay forum, titled "Hello I'm new here" -- deals with the subject of Ennis' love for Jack in such a fascinating and eye-opening way that I have to repeat my recommendation for anyone who hasn't already seen it. The discussion there is unfolding in really interesting directions.

I don't see you as a know-it-all. Jaded is fine. I am sarcastic. What an interesting combination!  Anyway, I appreciated the link that you had provided and had read it thoroughly. I thought it was very thought provoking and I liked a lot of the ideas that she/he raised. I also enjoy hearing your points of view. Nope, we don't always agree. However, I think you have interesting ideas and insights. I hope we continue to "chat".

[Jeff Wrangler]

I don't think you came off as a know-it-all either, Katherine. And you're right to be skeptical about a lot of what passes for journalism these days, especially when it applies to Hollywood.

On the other hand, just to beat my own semi-hypothetical example into the ground, if Ang Lee were quoted across a number of interviews by journalists with good reputations as saying that Film Ennis is gay, then it wouldn't matter to me how much time I spent analyzing the film and coming up with the a different conclusion. I would see myself as wrong, because I'm not one of Film Ennis's creators and Ang Lee is.

And thanks for calling attention/posting the link to the post at Chez Tremblay. Otherwise I would not have thought it worth spending precious time on a post/thread entitled "Hello, I'm new here," when, in fact, it was a very thoughtful and thought-provoking little essay. I'm glad I took the trouble to read it at lunch today.

[dly64]

The thread I linked to a few posts back -- it's on the Chez Tremblay forum, titled "Hello I'm new here" -- deals with the subject of Ennis' love for Jack in such a fascinating and eye-opening way that I have to repeat my recommendation for anyone who hasn't already seen it. The discussion there is unfolding in really interesting directions.

BTW - I took your advice and went to the thread. Of course I couldn't keep my mouth shut. It has provoked a lot of thought on my part and I ended up writing a very long response. So, if you have the time ... read it. I doubt we'll agree, but that's okay ... right? 

[serious crayons]

It has provoked a lot of thought on my part and I ended up writing a very long response. So, if you have the time ... read it. I doubt we'll agree, but that's okay ... right? 

Oh, I'll read it, all right. I can't wait! 

[Phillip Dampier]

bump

[mlewisusc]

Bump to post later.

[mlewisusc]

Maybe this thread has lain dormant for too long, so no one will much care about this post, but I'm gonna do it anyway.

I have had (and still have) a different take on marriage than many people.  It's a little old fashioned, but it's just how I feel.

I fault internal and external cultural, perhaps even rural homophobia for the fact that Ennis and Jack couldn't get together and be together for life immediately after BBM.

I fault Jack and Ennis, both in story and film, for not sticking to their marriage vows four years later.

There.  I said it.  Bring on the flack.  But before you do, let me do some 'splaining.

If gay marriage were allowed in this country, I would put it in the same category as I put straight marriage right now, and expect the same thing out of the participants.  In my ideal world, you speak your vows, and you STAY WITH THE PERSON YOU VOW TO.

I understand that doesn't always work.  OK, but I have a second position.  If you and your spouse/partner have kids together, YOU STAY WITH YOUR PARTNER/SPOUSE UNTIL THE KIDS LEAVE THE HOUSE (or at least are old enough to leave the house).

I had this up on IMDB last winter and got a LOT of flack over it, basically with folks saying that it would have been so bad if their parents had stayed together, etc.  So, I acknowledge this is my personal preference.  But I don't believe all the social research shoots me down completely.

So if the characters had acted the way I would want them to act, the way I would want to act myself, they would have waited until (was Bobby the youngest of the three children total?) the youngest was 18, then divorced their wives, then ranched up together - or had their time in the woods.

Just lived through keeping a good friend from killing himself when his wife left with his best friend.  Part of the problem was the way she did it - got together sexually with the guy and then told her husband.  I think I understand that she did it that way so she could piss my friend off enough to make him give her up, but I still think it was very, very wrong. 

I just met with a client who has three kids.  Her husband left for another man AFTER their youngest turned 18.  They had decided this was best and followed through.  They are pretty good friends still (enough so he's to be in charge of her financial decision-making if something happens to her).

I understand this was 21st century California, not 1967 Wyoming.  But like Ennis says, he was "Stuck in his own loop."  So I don't really fault him for trying to stick with the family once he was committed.  Of course, he did a bad job of it.

Did they get what they deserved?  Not as humans in love, no.  But they both should either have NOT married, or stuck it out at least until the kids were gone.

I saw above in this thread many comparisons to Romeo & Juliet; problem - they didn't have a home together they were raising kids in.  Never got the chance, you say?  Well, exactly - neither did Jack and Ennis.  Marriage, and it's commitments, exists for good reasons outside of mere homophobia.  In other words, marriage does not exist just to diss gays.  Thus, we need gay marriage or it's equivalent sanctioned by the state.  Not that such a sanction would have helped in Ennis's situation in any event.    To me, that's a big message of this film.

[Bucky]

Ennis and Jack did not get what they deserved.  They deserved a little happiness living together working a "little cow and calf operation" or something else.  Ennis fell in love with Jack in the summer of 1963 on Brokeback Mountain.  He was already engaged to Alma at the time but it should have had no impact on Ennis' right to be happy with Jack.  Jack may have married Lureen because she was pregnant and the movie was never clear about that but the time frame seem to hint that was the case.  In any event Ennis and Jack did what they thought society wanted them to do and Ennis even more than Jack.  The two of them trying to satisfy the values of society wrecked their love and their right to be happy.

I know I had a love in college and trying to live in what we thought society expected of us wrecked our relationship as neither of us were willing to come out.  I don't love the guy anymore but I just feel sorry for him but if we had stayed together and had been allowed to make a living and share a life together I know we could have made it but neither of us dared to stand up to society's expectations or our friends and families' expectations thus we gave up a real love affair in order to live for others and not ourselves.  That is not much fun when I think of what might have been and compare it to what actually happened.  Neither of us were killed or died but we didn't deserve having our love taken away from us just to please others.