ORIGINAL POSTER'S NOTE: Hey everyone! WARNING! This post is long! My original post was long and I expected a long response post from latjoreme as we've discussed a number of these issues in other threads and PMs. So my response post to latjoreme's is quite long. Sorry! So if you want to read it, go get some apple pie and a cup of coffee. And take a bathroom break first. Now, if I haven't scared you off, here goes...
Ruthlessly, your scenario is thoroughly conceptualized and well written and brilliantly presented. But -- no surprise -- I disagree with a lot of it.
And this is why we’re all here. To discuss and banter and argue. It’s interesting that after reading your post in which you disagreed with me on various points I wanted to run off into the corner and cry my little eyes out. But, I pulled myself up by the bootstraps, sat down at my keyboard, used my brain – what little I have left at this point – and I composed a response to your post. Hmmm… there’s an idea… “discuss.” Novel.
But why should I overhaul them? They're my opinions, so I must have an airtight basis for them, hunh?
Regardless “airtight,” they’re yours and you have every right to express and defend them. You go girl!
…I'm not sure I can defend all of them with the steeltrap logic that you deploy, …
LOL!
They'll say they believe something just because they like to believe it, because they've grown to love Jack and Ennis a particular way and can't bear to cast them in an unfamiliar light. When I encounter that response, I often sort of roll my eyes and think that if I apply my searing logic they'll change their minds. And sometimes they actually do.
I don’t like it when someone’s entire argument is “because…” I like it, I said so, etc. But some people are comfortable with this. So, let be, let be. The thing I find more frustrating is when a few posts have gone back and forth and someone throws in “Well, we’ll just have to agree to disagree” – the classic, unilaterally imposed showstopper. Better that someone would ask “Well, since we seem to be at an impasse, how about if we just agree to disagree?” Now that’s respectful and respectable.
…I find that sometimes you just want to believe something, even if you can't present unimpeachable evidence.
There is NOTHING wrong with this as long as the person who feels this way comes out and says so. By the way, I understood that your use of the word “you” above was not directed at me; rather, the ever-available “we all.”
Anyway, feel free to reject either my views or the counterarguments or both -- or to overhaul your own views, once confronted by my searing airtight logic!
Such an “arrogant” “attitude”…
He'd have to be a zombie (as MIkaela once beautifully put it) not to notice he was in love with Jack, even if he didn't call it that.
OK. I’ll go with that. Ennis is a zombie. (As long as Jack is still a potato.)
Seriously, I know you and I have discussed this before with a number of other people. All I can really do here is to try to restate my position as concisely as possible. He’s my try at it:
We see Ennis fall in love with Jack because we see (all of the things you listed). So, Ennis is in love with Jack. Does he call it love? No. He calls it a “thing.” Does he, himself, recognize it as being “in love”? As a known condition of himself throughout the twenty years that we see him, no. He can’t. Or, I should say, he cannot, within his own understanding of his world, allow it to possibly be “in love.” Why can he not? Two reasons:
1) If he is “in love” with a man, then to him, he’s “queer” and, to his way of thinking, he must face the consequences of that (think Earl). He cannot allow this to be. Why not? Because he is not emotionally equipped to handle this. Why not? The destructive effects of the homophobia that were instilled in him by his father (think Earl).
2) If he is “in love” with Jack, then he has violated the definition of their relationship that was established between FNIT and SNIT (we’re not queer). That would then mean, to him, that he’s “queer” and, to his way of thinking, he must face the consequences of that (think Earl). He cannot allow this to be. Why not? Because he is not emotionally equipped to handle this. Why not? The destructive effects of the homophobia that were instilled in him by his father (think Earl).
Now, above I asked “Does he, himself, recognize it as being “in love”?” And I said “As a known condition … throughout … [the film]..." But, what about at various points in his life? Like, on Saturday, when he’s walking out on the pavement, going to the store to buy some beans. Does it occur to him that he is “in love” with Jack? Sure. But what does he do about it? Does he stop at the five-and-dime and buy a Hallmark card to send to perky Jack in Texas? No. He denies it and he sublimates it. Why? Same two reasons as given above. And yet, he desires and craves Jack… a “thing” has grabbed hold of him. THIS he can deal with. THIS he can compartmentalize into his world.
First, he suffered for it constantly for four years. When Jack returned he could hardly believe his luck and happiness. Ennis risked all on that reunion kiss, showed in the motel scene how much he's thought about Jack, more or less told Jack he loved him. (People don't send up prayers of thanks for "fun.") Whenever he saw Jack, even in the otherwise awkward post-divorce scene, he always looked thrilled. There's no reason to believe he didn't long for Jack between rendezvous. Just because he didn't respond to "I miss you so much ..." doesn't mean he doesn't know that feeling. I believe he expressed it in ways both he and Jack understood.
Yes. Absolutely. I agree with everything you said here. He “more or less” told Jack. But he didn’t admit “I’m in love” to himself or to Jack. Whenever he comes close to it… and you cite a number of examples of when he came close to it… he recognizes what he’s feeling and what the consequences are and he gets confused, shuts himself down, denies that it is “in love” and says or does something else that fits into his world of inner struggles and fear.
From a storytelling perspective, TS3 is not nothin. It's low-key, sure, but it's there for a reason, especially coming immediately after that unanswered last line.
Yep. One more example of coming close to letting “in love” drift too close to the surface, and instead letting it out in a way he can understand and compartmentalize.
Anticipated counterargument: You don't understand how deep some people's denial can go.
Nah, I wouldn’t go there. It’s not understanding the denial or the depth of it, it’s understanding how he deals with it. He goes a different route. Never admitting “in love” and yet showing all its behaviors.
…if he couldn't acknowledge that he "whatevered" Jack, he couldn't also put on his best shirt and sit for hours with his face up to the window, struggling with nervousness and doubt, waiting for Jack to drive up. He would go about his chores or whatever, trying to behave in a way that matched what he was trying to get himself to believe.
No. (Sorry to be so gosh darn rude and direct with that “no.” Why don’t you send me a PM and accuse me of my offense?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)
While he was sitting there in his finest duds he more than likely let a thought slip into his brain such as “Gosh, I hope he shows… I really miss Jack… I gotta see him… I love…” No doubt. But he dismisses the word and continues with something like “… oh shit, this thing is grabbin’ holda me.” He didn’t go about his chores because he didn’t need to act any differently for himself. He’s acting completely in accord with how he feels and in accord with what he believes. He **knows** that “this thing” has grabbed a hold of him. He can deal with that. And for tiny sparks of seconds he knows that he’s “in love,” but he immediately changes it to “this thing” because of his limitations, instilled in him by his father, etc., etc.
He was lashing out, no more sincere at the lake than he was in the parallel scene when he punched Jack, an act he regretted for the next four f'in years.
He was retching mostly from heartbreak. Yes, he also seemed angry, partly at himself -- that was frustration. He had let the love of his life drive away and hadn't stopped him and felt helpless to fix the situation.
I can agree with all of this. I’m assuming you’re just stating more of what’s going on rather than disagreeing with something I’ve said because it all seems to fit together at once.
Ruthlessly: But it was not in Ennis’ character to allow deep-down feelings to rise to the surface and for him to admit them
Latjoreme: I think he does admit them but hides them from others. He tries to hide them from himself, too, but never with complete success.
I can go with this. Well, except for the "admit" part. What evidence do you have of him admitting them to himself?
Ruthlessly: In his truest moment of self-realization and openness, told Jack that “I’m nothin’. I’m nowhere.”
Latjoreme: He has probably thought so for years.
Sure enough.
But he doesn't literally hold Jack responsible for his N/N status. He recognizes that he's N/N because of the situation. Which, BTW, does not mean he really wants Jack to leave him be, even though he says that, too.
I’ll agree 100% with this if you’ll change the word “literally” to “entirely.”
Jack knows Ennis isn't sincere. It's true that Ennis never has been able to reconcile those two warring feelings: I love a man; it's bad to be queer. They've been fighting each other in his mind for 20 years. Neither feeling has won (if it had, the stalemate would have ended), because Ennis believes he can't fix it and so struggles valiantly to stand it. It's not easy. It causes huge stress. So now he realizes that, in fact, he can't stand it.
100% agreement. It’s as if you’re restating what I said earlier.
One thing, though… “Jack knows Ennis isn’t sincere.” I believe that Jack and Ennis both believe that there is a root of truth in what Ennis said.
If he can't stand it, is he going to escape it ... or fix it? For those who favor interpretations offering consistency and theme-building, which of these corollaries best fits Ennis' famous motto?
When Ennis first said “If you can’t fix it, you gotta stand it, Jack,” it was his intention to make Jack understand that they have to stand it. “There ain’t no reins on this one.” We have to stand it Jack. That may have been the point that he wanted to get across. Stand it. BUT notice that Ennis never allowed any room for fixing it. He threw out all his reasons why it could not be fixed thus establishing “stand it” as the new rule for their relationship. When Jack arrived at the post-divorce looking all perky – and who wouldn’t after having just listened to “King of the Road” on the radio? – Jack thought that their situation had been fixed, i.e., Ennis got divorced. Jack was not thinking about the other reasons – job, kids, and, oh yeah, the big one – Earl! Jack learned there that there was going to have to be more standing, no fixing. From the first time Ennis said it, he established a “given” – we cannot fix it. And that’s why I don’t call it Ennis’ motto. I call it the new definition of their relationship… the new rule. It’s not a “one-shot” thing anymore. Now it’s simply “a thing.” And it’s unfixable, so it has to be stood.
So, consistency and theme-building? Cannot fix, cannot stand. Cannot stand, cannot fix. And Jack realized this; thus, Jack quit Ennis. Because all along Jack thought Ennis was standing it. But now, Ennis has exhausted that option. The only other option is “fix.” And that has long since been eliminated… by the very premise that established the new definition of their relationship that Ennis could deal with. First it was “one-shot” then it was “stand.” Always it was “not queer.” But there was no room for fixing in Ennis’ world. He never tried. He just went deeper and deeper into his fears and paranoia. Those are what he would have to overcome in order to fix it.
Ruthlessly: Jack also knows that the “quit” pain will ultimately be less disastrous to the man he loves (Ennis) than the “continue” pain is causing him.
Latjoreme: Well, I don't think so myself, and I don't know Ennis as well as Jack does.
Fair enough.
When did he seem more unhappy: riding horses with Jack, even in that glum scene, or saying "Jack, I swear"?
As to the horse riding scene, had Ennis had his breakdown at this point? Had his worlds collided yet? Was he still standing at this time? Had Jack DIED yet? After his breakdown, were his worlds still separated and in the best balance that Ennis was able to create? Was he still able to stand? Had he fixed anything? Could he? At the closet he has a lot more to be unhappy about than ever before.
If Jack does think Ennis would be better off without him, he's wrong. Even in the long term. Much of the sadness of the ending rests on our understanding of how miserable Ennis will be for the rest of his life -- because he's without Jack.
And yet, being “with” Jack is what caused his breakdown – his inability to keep his two worlds in balance.
Anticipated counterargument: But that's after he learns his lesson. Me: No, he'd be miserable if he lost Jack at any point in the story. The fact that he's learned something by then only makes it more poignant and ironic.
I don’t disagree with this. And yes, miserable. But captive? (There’s a good counterargument to what I just said, but I’m not going to be quite so magnanimous…
any thoughts? I know the answer to that one!
)
Ruthlessly: Ennis can cope with rejection and abandonment ... But he cannot deal with his inner struggles – at least not this one. It’s just not his character.
Latjoreme: How do we know this?
Because he showed us. He’s coped with rejection and abandonment for about 25 years. And he had his breakdown when his worlds collided. And their collision was premised on his inability to fix and to stand. This underscores the theme of the film, the destructive effects of homophobia on Ennis’ inner core being.
Anticipated counterargument: because if the big problem were abandonment, it wouldn't fit the theme of the movie. Me: But does every damn thing have to adhere that closely to the presumed theme? I think we get the message bout the destructive effects of rural homophobia, in any case.
I, for one, would not have made this counterargument. But, since you bring it up… not every damn thing. But this is one of the biggest moments for it. Is it the most significant time? I’ll have to think about that. My knee-jerk reaction is “yes,” but I’d still have to think about it. The theme doesn’t have relevance or meaning without its being prominent at the times when its prominence is prominently required.
It wasn't all that fun for Ennis.
No. Again, my poor wording. Or my poor construction of the argument at this point. When I say it’s all about "fun,” I mean Ennis has conceptualized their relationship in terms that he can stand, in words that don’t require his worlds to collide. I used the word “fun” because of Cassie’s significant contribution. I could also say “good time” since that’s what Ennis himself referenced. Also, I am NOT saying that Ennis' complete and total conceptualization of his relationship with Jack is summed up in one word - "fun." The important point is that it is NOT summed up with the words "in love." Ennis cannot bring himself to call it “in love” (same reasons as above) and so he uses other ways of describing their relationship. Cassie’s contribution is not to give him more euphemisms. She tells it like it is – “love.”
He took what for him were huge risks, lost jobs, lost his wife, battled his own cognitive dissonance -- even, potentially, risked a horrible death -- in order to be with Jack. It wasn't a day at the beach. But he did it because, no matter what, he wanted to be with Jack. A couple of HAFs a year wouldn't have been worth all this.
Exactly. We know this, Jack knows this, Ennis knows this… but how does he conceptualize it? How is he able to conceptualize it? By saying that he’s able to conceptualize it as “in love” and be comfortable with this and keep his worlds in harmony with this negates his greatest character flaw – instilled fear of being queer (defined by being “in love” with another man) and its consequences. In this scenario, there is no theme and there is no film. He’s overcome the destructive effects of the instilled homophobia. Good for him.
And while we're on that subject, why do we assume he can shrug off HAFs in convincing himself he ain't queer (which in my view he doesn't believe anyway)? To me, that seems like it would fit right into the definition. (Anticipated counterargument: But you don't understand how people can -- Me: Oh, well, maybe. I don't know. Never mind.)
I wouldn’t tell you what you don’t understand… at least not THAT directly
.
Kidding!
Regardless whether we understand it or like it, this is the character that has been presented to us – a man who, because of the destructive effects of homophobia instilled into him in a gruesome way, must construct a framework for his life that will allow him to cope with his life, without actually dealing with the core issues involved.
It wasn't a matter of rationalizing, but being reluctant to put the L-word to it.
Well, when someone gets that reluctant, it’s rationalizing. It’s not just a word out of the dictionary that he cannot say the way that I cannot bring myself to say the “n” word or the “c” word. It’s his whole self-awareness we’re talking about here. Reluctance doesn’t allow one to cope with a deep-seated, self-destructive fear. Rationalization does.
But that he knew that it "grabbed" him -- was uncontrollable -- shows that he recognized how deep and powerful it was.
Agreed. He knew better than anyone else how deep and powerful it was.
Fun doesn't grab you at the wrong place, wrong time. Fun does, in fact, usually have reins on it. You don't ride fun as long as you can ride it, you ride it until it's no longer fun. Looks to me like at the end, it wasn't fun at all, yet Ennis was still ridin it.
Again, it’s not our definition of the word “fun” that we should be looking at. It’s the fact that Ennis has rationalized his relationship with Jack away from “in love” and why he does this is important. He never called it “in love.” He called it “a thing” and “good time” and Cassie’s use of the word “fun” struck a spark in Ennis that caused him to realize that he’s been rationalizing his relationship away from “love.” That’s what the rest of the film shows us – Ennis coming into a new (correct) rationalization and realization of the relationship; thus, his extreme regret over the loss of Jack and the lost opportunities.
It's the "love" that triggered Ennis' epiphany, not the "fun."
No. It’s neither. It’s both. I emphasized Cassie’s use of the "fun" word (lighting Ennis’ light bulb) because it harkens back to Ennis’ words in the previous scene, “good time.” “Fun” is the important word to trigger Ennis’ connection of “Cassie, fun” with “Jack, good time.” Then Cassie’s use of the word “love” gives the epiphany completeness. What Ennis now sees (except not with all the big, fancy words) is that he conceptualized his relationship with Cassie as “fun” and he conceptualized his relationship with Jack as anything else but "love." (Wrangling with the definitions of the actual words “fun” and “good time” is NOT the important issue. It’s the concept of Ennis’ conceptualization away from the words “in love” that is important.) He now knows that his conceptualization of his relationship with Cassie was not the same as HER conceptualization of the relationship – he conceptualized it as “fun” and she conceptualized it as “love.” Armed with this new knowledge, Ennis makes the connection (because of the words Cassie used – they clicked) to realize (light bulb time) that JACK did not conceptualization Jack’s relationship with Ennis the same way that Ennis conceptualized their relationship. He now realizes that Jack conceptualized their relationship as “in love.” This is something that Ennis could NOT accept into his own personal conceptualization because it would make him queer, etc., etc. But now that he sees that Jack broke their “not queer” pact, that Jack defined their relationship differently than Ennis, that Jack was “in love,” he has something to deal with. This would have been significant in his next meeting with Jack, had it occurred. And, I believe, it would have had an impact on how Ennis approached that next meeting. To what extent, we can only speculate. (Unlike with everything else where we have definite answers.) But after he got the postcard, every scene reinforced in Ennis what Cassie taught him – all too late – but with the glimmer of hope that Alma Jr. provides in the final scene. And we see he has learned something and he has made a step forward.
I agree that he had an epiphany, but I haven't totally figured out what it was. Maybe it was that love isn't always fun -- in fact, it's often not -- but it's worth honoring anyway?
You’ve already made a good argument above that love isn’t always fun and that Ennis knew that. So, this couldn’t be his epiphany. Sure Ennis learns about honoring love later. But does everything we’ve seen in their relationship before the pie scene add up to Ennis knowing he was in love with a man, accepting it, and now learning to honor it?
True, the words on the card weren't unusual. But we know Ennis is a man of few words even orally, let alone in writing. How much of his heart is he going to pour out on a postcard sent through his small-town post office?
True enough.
Ruthlessly: Ennis says “Now this Kurt fella… he loves you?” This signals to us that Ennis has made the connection that Jack loved Ennis
Latjoreme: This signals to me that Ennis has realized that love is more important than all other considerations…
I wouldn’t go so far as to say “more important than all other considerations.” That’s a little too big of a lesson for him to have learned by this time. Give him another twenty years… he’s on the right road, at least.
The lesson Ennis has learned is that he should not have put anything ahead of his love for Jack.
Ummm, I think he’s learned that Jack was “in love” with Ennis… that Ennis was “in love” with Jack… that they maybe could have made a go of a life together… BUT, I don’t think he’s totally overcome his fears – that’s too “Brady Bunch” for me. And I do think regardless how much he has progressed, I think he’s still comfortable with whatever part of his relationship with Jack that he “sacrificed” or “held back” for his daughters. I know you didn’t intend for me to infer that Ennis has learned that he should not have put his daughters ahead of his love for Jack… maybe that he’s learned that a better balance should have been found?