Jack's adolescence is a blank page...

[Kd5000]

From the film, we know Ennis dropped out of high school and spent the rest of his adolescence being a ranchhand/cowboy depending on your perspective with his brother.

However, Jack who is the talker, never says anything except we get the impression that he and his dad weren't close while he was growing up. Do you think he says nothing of his adolescence (did he finish h.s., we know Ennis didn't) because it was uneventful and dull or because it was emotionally painful? Or maybe it wasn't in Jack's nature to talk about the past. Being a dreamer, he always had his eyes on the future.  Hence the writers avoided Jack discussing his time before Ennis.  But I wanta know.     He was isolated, given where he lived and no doubt the region was very sparsely populated. Did he hang out with other adolescence males discussing how the wanta get their own spread when they come of age...?  I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. 

[serious crayons]

Well, we can infer some things from his parents' ranch and his bedroom: that his early years were lonely and isolated and bleak, that he dreamed of being a cowboy (the little statue) and that he probably spent time looking out the window and planning how he would escape. His dad was a good rodeoer, and though he never taught Jack a thing, Jack somehow managed to learn it anyway -- he learned to rebel against authority and figure out a way to improve his situation. We are mostly left to imagine how he came to terms with his sexuality, but his ability to reject his dad's authority probably helped him feel more about comfortable breaking society's "rules." From a completely pragmatic perspective, I'd say the fact that we don't hear much more than that about Jack's adolescence means it wouldn't add to our understanding of his character or the story, so I'm assuming it was fairly uneventful.

Hearing about Ennis' earlier years -- parents' death, unfinished high school, losing the ranch, $24 in a coffee can, siblings getting married and leaving him behind -- does add to our understanding of his character. He's used to being abandoned, he's used to being poor, he's used to accepting whatever life hands him without complaining or hoping for improvement. His teen years were probably even harder than Jack's, which sets up the economic inequality that follows them all the way through the movie.

On the other hand, we don't hear much about Ennis' relationship with his father at first, beyond a couple of offhand, positive comments. This sets us up for shock when the Earl story comes along. We are forced to figure out for ourselves how Ennis felt about his father despite Earl, as well as to imagine what it must have been like on a day-to-day basis, being a gay kid with that kind of dad. But it's not surprising that, growing up with a dad scary enough to be capable of torture/murder, Ennis is less willing to rebel against authority.

[moremojo]

In Annie's original story, Jack, like Ennis, is a high school dropout. Early on in the text, we read the description "both high-school dropouts" (or something very close, I don't have the story in front of me at the moment). In the same section, both boys are described as having come from similar backgrounds, though in different corners of the state (Ennis hailed from Sage, Jack from Lightning Flat), and with the significant difference of Ennis having been orphaned while Jack's parents still live.

In the film, Jack seems to come from a slightly (but just barely) more affluent background than Ennis. He has a vehicle, for example (or access to one), while Ennis must hitch a ride to Signal. He is more worldly than Ennis, which I attribute to his having had exposure to the rodeo circuit, but seems to have roughly the same educational level--I think the implication here is that Jack, like Ennis, did not finish high school.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I've been figuring Jack got "initiated" in the summer of '62. I doubt he was up there on Brokeback by himself, even if Joe Aguirre did blame him when the lightning killed those 42 sheep. Too dangerous--to the herder and the sheep--to have one man up there by himself. (If he falls off his horse and breaks his leg, he could die before anyone finds him, and coyotes would get the sheep.)

[nakymaton]

I've been figuring Jack got "initiated" in the summer of '62.

I've always figured that, too.

In the film, Jack seems to come from a slightly (but just barely) more affluent background than Ennis.

And Jack's parents still own their ranch, whereas Ennis's parents had two mortgages on theirs already when they died. Jack's parents' ranch isn't very prosperous, but Jack's parents still own their own property, even in the 80's, and that makes a difference.

[jpwagoneer1964]

I aways felt that Jack's childhood was very lonely, no brother or sisters, no other kid would come all the way to LF to play, especially with  lots of chores to do.

In the short story Anne implies that they are both virgins. However if Jack was not I felt he had only been with women,Ennis still his first so to speak. I realize that I may be alone in that camp.

I also think Jack was alone on brokeback 1962.

[Shakesthecoffecan]

I have thought that Jack must have had some experence before, and in the movie how he was sizing up Ennis at the first meeting it is almost as if he is thinking: "This summers guy". No mention is made of anyone else up there with him, but it make sense someone would have been.

Also in the story, Ennis recalls Jack telling him about a time when he was four or so, when his father pissed all over him and beat him. This and Ennis's observation that the road to the house was the only road he would have known growning up are about all I see of his childhood.

[moremojo]

Also in the story, Ennis recalls Jack telling him about a time when he was four or so, when his father pissed all over him and beat him. This and Ennis's observation that the road to the house was the only road he would have known growning up are about all I see of his childhood.

Yes, these are some of the meager details the story affords us of Jack's childhood--the anecdote about the abuse is also pertinent in that, through Ennis's reminiscence of it, we learn that Jack was circumcised, unlike his father.

The film, through its necessary reliance on a real physical environment and accoutrements to depict the story, gives more fodder for inference of what colored his childhood world (e.g., the little wooden riding figure, Jack's boyhood shoes, etc.) and how.

[coffeecat33]

These same thoughts went through my mind and I ended up writing about it.

If you're interested, please see my LiveJournal entries at
http://coffeecat33.livejournal.com/2006/08/12/

I am still trying to figure out how to organize on LJ, but that is the link to the first page on Young Jack. let me know what you think. - Coffeecat33 (Leslie)
Young Jack

[Shakesthecoffecan]

The circumcision bit Proulx included, I think that played into an on going debate about the practice. I was circumcised at birth and while I would not want it for a son of mine, it has never really been an issue for me. But Jack, like many others, read a lot into it. In Jack's case he gets the sense he is less of a man than his father, with no way to ever get it right. It is one way she picks up on a topic that is timely to invite our feelings, prejudices, etc. into the mix.  

[serious crayons]

I've been figuring Jack got "initiated" in the summer of '62. I doubt he was up there on Brokeback by himself, even if Joe Aguirre did blame him when the lightning killed those 42 sheep. Too dangerous--to the herder and the sheep--to have one man up there by himself. (If he falls off his horse and breaks his leg, he could die before anyone finds him, and coyotes would get the sheep.)

True. And if that initiation did take place, Jack would have more than one reason, in talking to Ennis, to say "I" instead of "we." Whereas if he and the other guy were just ordinary coworkers, why not use the plural?

[Front-Ranger]

Yes, and if Aguirre got wind of what happened in '62, all the more reason for him to "snoop around" (takes one to know one) by going up to "give Jack the information" about Uncle Harold, which he would not ordinarily bother to do.

Having a big blank space in Jack's biography of his youth fits in with the Christ imagery (I hesitate to bring this up too much, but it certainly is there). Also, circumcision=little crucifixion?

[jpwagoneer1964]

Yes, and if Aguirre got wind of what happened in '62, all the more reason for him to "snoop around" (takes one to know one) by going up to "give Jack the information" about Uncle Harold, which he would not ordinarily bother to do.

Having a big blank space in Jack's biography of his youth fits in with the Christ imagery (I hesitate to bring this up too much, but it certainly is there). Also, circumcision=little crucifixion?

Most white American born males were circumsized at least until recently.

[moremojo]

Most white American born males were circumsized at least until recently.

It would be interesting to read some statistics on this matter. I was born in 1967, and was circumcised very soon after birth, and my father, born in 1941, was likewise circumcised. My mother chose to have the procedure done on me precisely to avoid any discrepancy between father and son, to preempt the kind of issue that seems to trouble Jack. Both my father and I are white American males, and I would describe my family background as upper middle-class. I suspect that class might sometimes have played an issue on whether the decision was made. Perhaps I'm digging myself into a hole here...

Some folks are probably thinking...TOO MUCH INFORMATION! But it's an interesting question that pertinently bears on Annie's story, and our possible interpretations of it.

[jpwagoneer1964]

It  I suspect that class might sometimes have played an issue on whether the decision was made. Perhaps I'm digging myself into a hole here...

Some folks are probably thinking...TOO MUCH INFORMATION! But it's an interesting question that pertinently bears on Annie's story, and our possible interpretations of it.

I would certianly agree that economic circimstances would play a role. (no pun intended).

[serious crayons]

My mother chose to have the procedure done on me precisely to avoid any discrepancy between father and son,

That's a pretty common rationale. Maybe Annie Proulx thought of that, and realized it would be a good way of introducing a distinction between father and son. (Where she got the abusive peeing from, though, I can't imagine.)

[moremojo]

That's a pretty common rationale.

And a rather silly one, to my mind (sorry, Mom).

(Where she got the abusive peeing from, though, I can't imagine.)

This incident seems tinged, to my mind, with an element of sexual sadism. This kind of behavior goes far beyond even the kind of corporal discipline that one associates with older generations ("spare the rod and spoil the child"). It might hint at an incestuous dynamic, possibly sublimated, within the Twist household, that might raise further questions as to the formation of Jack's sexual identity, not to mention his character as a whole.

[Penthesilea]

As to why Jack is circumcised, I wondered about this, too. But then shrugged this topic off with the knowledge that it is not as unsusual in the US as it is here. Here boys are only circumcised due to religious or medical reasons.

This incident seems tinged, to my mind, with an element of sexual sadism. This kind of behavior goes far beyond even the kind of corporal discipline that one associates with older generations ("spare the rod and spoil the child").

I'm with you here. This goes beyond the "usual" child abuse/maltreatment (like birching, bullying, beating) and tinges to child molestation (abuse with a sexual content).

It might hint at an incestuous dynamic, possibly sublimated, within the Twist household, that might raise further questions as to the formation of Jack's sexual identity, not to mention his character as a whole.

Sometimes I'm wondering where Jack got his spiritednes and his optimism from. And how he was able to conserve it through his childhood.
Maybe not despite, but  because of the situation at home? Daydreaming and always hoping for a better future as his only way of escape?

[moremojo]

Sometimes I'm wondering where Jack got his spiritednes and his optimism from. And how he was able to conserve it through his childhood.

This has become one of life's Great Questions for me, especially in regard to Movie Jack. Where did that bright, sensitive, and loving person come from? These kinds of beautiful exemplars of humanity are relatively rare even in more accommodating environments, but seem especially extraordinary given the harsh world delineated by this story and film.

Maybe not despite, but  because of the situation at home? Daydreaming and always hoping for a better future as his only way of escape?

Insofar as the film goes, I felt that Ma Twist probably had a lot to do with shaping her son's character. In the story, where Mrs. Twist remains an even more shadowy character than her husband, this is not so readily apparent.

But I think you raise an interesting point that Jack's loving nature could have been the product of an environment in which love was absent. He had a dream of what love was, or might be, and cultivated that within himself and his relations with others, even if he didn't have such modeled for him. It's an intriguing line of speculation. Moreover, it's illuminating to remember that Ennis and Jack came from very similar backgrounds (this is emphasized in the story), and Ennis became the pragmatic "stander", while Jack metamorphosed into the optimistic, dreamy "fixer". Two men of very different temperaments that complemented one another.

[Daniel]

Ya know, playin' Jack on the Performance Thread ( I know its not the same as the book Jack or the movie Jack, but its as close as I can make it), I kind of have a little insight into his adolescence, not much, but the main point is like Scott said. He is bright, sensitive, and loving; he's also witty and has an upbeat view on life, for the most part. I would also have to say he has an innocent heart, and I'm not certain if you will know what I mean by that. He was more worldly than Ennis but somehow Ennis lived his life as though he could never have anything he wanted, and that was something that Jack could never do. He continued to live with hope and optimism except for those few moments when Ennis stripped it away from him, driving him slowly insane.

Jack tried to offer what he could to Ennis. He gave of himself fully and completely and had practically from the beginning. Ennis seemed to be just the opposite, and the few times when Ennis brings himself to give back as fully as Jack are those moments in the film which we audience members continually fall in love with: those few moments of perfect happiness and bliss in a world which says that we're wrong, as the song goes.

In one way, that is why I find it so sad to leave the Performance Thread as Jack. Jack still has so much to give and offer of himself in the course of events yet to follow, and a few perfect moments yet to live, when the drive toward them cannot be stopped by any pain or death.  It is easy to fall in love with Jack, while channeling him, I will say that much, and I would not be surprised if there was some aspect of this falling in love in the writing of fan-fictions regarding him.

[Front-Ranger]

You truly have amazing insight into Jack, Daniel! Thanks for this...

[Sashca1007]

Daniel, do you have to leave the Performance Thread as JACK?   

And....and.... if you turn over your role as YOUNG JACK so that someone else can play OLD JACK...   does that mean I have to turn over my role as YOUNG JACK'S PANTS so someone else can play OLD JACK'S PANTS???    
 && >> W-A-A-HH!!!  snif-f.....snurrf..<<  &&

[JCinNYC2006]

Wow, so many fascinating ideas about what influenced Jack's upbringing and his becoming the person he is.  I have some thoughts about it, too.  Bear in mind, I'm a social worker but not a psychologist, so these are just my thoughts, not an assessment or anything.

A lot of what folks have said about difference and similarity rings true for me.  When I think of Jack's development, I think about how both his parents influenced him, including the dynamic between Ma and Pa Twist.  In some ways, like most of us, Jack is partly like his father and partly like his mother, in ways that are both wanted and unwanted.  And like many of us, he recreates aspects of their lives that are familiar, even if unwelcome.

In the scene in the movie with his parents, his mother is the character that's most drawn from nowhere, since Proulx doesn't write about her that I can recall.  To me, Jack's mother seems like a woman who is beaten down by life and most likely her husband.  She is dignified, kind, compassionate, despite the likelihood of having lived a tough life with a hard, probably uncaring man, but she is not what she once was.  So it makes me think that during his early life, Jack was probably exposed to a more outgoing, caring woman who he also brought low by a tyrannical father.

Jack's father we know a little bit more about, in particular how unwilling he was to share of himself with Jack.  This selfishness was for his father probably a sense of competetiveness, although it didn't deter Jack from wanting to emulate his dad, i.e. the rodeo work.  The urination scene strikes me of someone with an abusive, sadistic side, but to me, not necessarily sexual in nature.  It was influential to Jack in a number of ways:  it was a powerful memory of his father's penis, it highlighted a significant difference between them (probably one of many), and to a degree it may have been more sexual for Jack if as a child he experienced same sex attraction. 

So what I see is what I imagine to be the dynamics between Ma and Pa Twist reenacted between Jack and Ennis.  Jack is trying to live life, be happy, and love someone, despite the danger and tabboo of being with a man.  His love interest is a man who is, to a degree, emotionally unavailable, highly disapproving, and has great difficulty giving of himself to Jack.  I imagine that Jack's sense of optimism and hopefullness is an effort, probably not a conscious one, of trying not to fall into becoming like his parents.  Sadly, because Ennis is so unable or unwilling to bend, to take a chance, this makes Jack more like his parents, although not the best of them: bitter (pa), despairing, beaten down but struggling to stay hopeful (ma).

Of course, this could all be projection on my part.  When I think about my relationships, I sometimes think about how they're like my parents relationships and how they're different.  I say to myself I want to have one that's different, or at least doesn't emulate some of the worst parts.  Maybe that's why fan fiction seems to popular right now, this wish that things didn't turn out the way they did, that in some way Jack lived, Ennis changed and they lived happily after ever.  Hmmmmm.


But on another note, I really hope that you don't leave the thread Daniel, you've always been so good in that role!

Juan

[Daniel]

No one else is stepping up to the plate, so looks like y'all are stuck with me.  Have no idea where we're goin' on the performance, got no reins on this one.

[serious crayons]

Excellent analysis, Juan! 

[JCinNYC2006]

Well thanks Katherine.  And that's good news Daniel!

Juan

[Shuggy]

That's a pretty common rationale. Maybe Annie Proulx thought of that, and realized it would be a good way of introducing a distinction between father and son. (Where she got the abusive peeing from, though, I can't imagine.)

If John Twist was away at the war, they could have circumcised Jack without even asking. (A 1941 article says "Some doctors make a practice of routine circumcision unless specific objection is raised by the parents, while others first consult the parents in order to discover their wishes.") It peaked in frequency in the 1950s.
Or they could have leant on Mrs Twist, and not told her what it entailed. NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH!
Another possibility is that John Twist was so sadistic so early that he had it done IN ORDER to hurt and deprive Jack, but that's far-fetched (except when you consider the peeing).
As for looking like his father...

[jpwagoneer1964]

If John Twist was away at the war, they could have circumcised Jack without even asking. (A 1941 article says "Some doctors make a practice of routine circumcision unless specific objection is raised by the parents, while others first consult the parents in order to discover their wishes.") Or they could have leant on Mrs Twist, and not told her what it entailed. NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH!
Another possibility is that John Twist was so sadistic so early that he had it done IN ORDER to hurt and deprive Jack, but that's far-fetched (except when you consider the peeing).
As for looking like his father...

Most American born white males are circumcised especially within the time frame of the story.   I understand the pratice is less routine in todays hospitals.

[Meryl]

bump

[Brown Eyes]

I don't know how I missed this awesome thread the first time around (I happened to notice a Guest looking at this thread via the "who's online" feature... so that's how come me end up here ).

Anyway, back to the topic of Jack's teenage/adolescent years... Yes, I think the information we do have (from the story) about his childhood and the abuse he suffered is probably important to imagining how his adolescence might have gone.  How far into Jack's teenage years do we imagine the physical abuse continued?

It's certainly true that we don't have the same sense of Jack's abusive childhood through the film.  We know that Jack's bitter about his father based on how he talks about him and the lack of bull riding lessons and his early remark that there's no way to please his old man.  But, I'd say we have less to go on about Jack's youth in the film vs. the story.  The visual clues from his bedroom seem a litte odd to me in regards to the question of his adolescence, because his Lightning Flat bedroom really looks like a small child's room more than a teenage room.

However, the one major issue from the film that does not appear to have been discussed yet in this thread is his question early on to Ennis about whether or not Ennis's parents "ran him off".  He asks this as if this is a common occurance/ would not be a shocking occurance.  I mean it's very telling that he immediately jumped to that question when trying to figure out Ennis's background.  So, this seems to imply that Jack was run off.  Or is very familiar with that kind of experience.  It's interesting to speculate exactly what that means or when that might have happened to Jack.  Was the fact that Jack was up on Brokeback one summer earlier, in '62, a direct result of his being run off?  Why do we suppose Jack was run off (and was Ma Twist completely powerless in that scenario... since she doesn't seem like the type of parent to kick out her child)? 

In a certain sense the idea that Jack was kicked out seems to imply that he understands abandonment too, although of course Ennis's circumstance seems more severe.

[Penthesilea]

The visual clues from his bedroom seem a litte odd to me in regards to the question of his adolescence, because his Lightning Flat bedroom really looks like a small child's room more than a teenage room.

Mrs Twist even describes it as such: "I kept his room like it was when he was a boy and I think he appreciated that."

Now it's agruable that a woman of her age could just as easily describe a teenager still as a boy, especially if it was her (only) son. I think in this case it was meant both, literally and figuratively.

But what would the difference have been? What would have been different in a room inhabited by a teenager in that specific time and place?
One thing that comes to my mind are posters. We know from the story that there was a poster of a dark-haired movie star, the skin tone had gone magenta.

When I think back to my own childhood room, posters were pretty much the most remarkable difference between me being a child and being a teenager. And the room got more and more crammed full of stuff. All the childhood things stayed, and the teenager stuff was added.
Now what chance did Jack have to hoard teenager stuff? He lived very isolated, he was a highschool dropout (and I bet this was OMT's doing "He's old enough to earn his keep") and money was sparse.

I wonder where he did have his car from? Did he buy it with the money he had earned on Brokeback the summer before? How did he get to Aguirre's office then? Did OMT drive him? Somehow I think Jack's truck was an old farm truck his father didn't need anymore and it was in a too bad condition to be worth any money.

On the question of being run off: I think there are several levels of being run off. You can throw out your child with it's meager belongings for once and all (and threaten it to never come back). You can treat your child in a way that it runs as soon as it's halfways old enough. And there are many nuances in between.
For Jack and OMT I figure it was something in between. OMT didn't throw Jack out for once and all. Jack returned to LF after Brokeback 63, and also probably in 62. And he continued to return his whole life.
But I guess OMT made it clear to Jack that he wasn't able to earn his keep with helping on the ranch (he could never do anything that pleased OMT) and OMT didn't want to feed him forever.
I guess they were both happy when Jack went to Brokeback respectively went to the rodeo circus.

[Brown Eyes]

Thanks Chrissi!  In terms of his boyhood room... everything in the room just feels way too small for a teenage boy.  And, the prominence of the toy cowboy and toy gun all just make the room feel like it's really set up for quite a young child.  Maybe the Twists were so poor that they couldn't update Jack's room when he got older/bigger.  But, still, to me the room just visually appears too young.

And, when Jack asks if Ennis's folks ran him off... it sounds to me like Jack is implying the idea of parents actively kicking kids out.  I agree that there could be different "degrees" of running off... and both the child and the parent could be involved somewhat.  I think this particular issue with Jack goes to how severe we believe the abuse was from OMT (and how long it lasted) and how rebellious we believe Jack was as a teenager.

[Penthesilea]

I think this particular issue with Jack goes to how severe we believe the abuse was from OMT (and how long it lasted) and how rebellious we believe Jack was as a teenager.

And how common it was to run kids off. Thinking back on my teenager years, I knew several people who were run off respectively were abandoned by their parents. One classmate came home from a school trip and found two plastic bags with his clothes in front of the door. His mother told him that her lover had moved in while he was away and there was no more room for him. And this was in so-called modern times, in urban settings and with plenty of laws to protect children/teenagers.
I think it would not have been more rare in a tough, unforgiving sourrounding like rural Wyoming in 1963. Maybe Jack had heard a similar story many times before.

[Artiste]

Wow!

I knew several people who were run off respectively were abandoned by their parents. One classmate came home from a school trip and found two plastic bags with his clothes in front of the door. His mother told him that her lover had moved in while he was away and there was no more room for him. And this was in so-called modern times, in urban settings and with plenty of laws to protect children/teenagers.
 

......

Is this why that I felt that Jack was maybe an orphan or something like that??

I think that Jack is from his mother's sister!! ?? Is that making sense?

Hugs!

[Mandy21]

I'm not sure "run off" would be the right term.  He was 18 in '62, and we don't know how many years of high school he completed.  Maybe his dad made him drop out at 15, expecting / needing him to be a help on the farm, continued to give him food and shelter, etc., and Jack turns out to not have his heart in it at all.  I would think he would just want to get the heck out of that place the minute he could.  We don't know if Jack had any other jobs prior to Brokeback '62 to earn some cash to buy that truck, but I'm leaning towards the idea above that it was just an old clunker of a truck, and his dad let him have it, on the hope that he'd get out of town in it, and maybe stay gone since he wasn't any help to him on the farm.  We also don't know if Jack came back home for the winter '62 / spring '63 period before heading back to Brokeback.  I'm guessing he must have cause he probably couldn't have made it to warmer climes to work the Rodeo circuit in that thing.

On the earlier topic of his "initiation" (what a nice word for it:)), I agree that he surely seems like a young man who has had some experience in the arena of sex with a man.  Let's face it, he was the one reaching for Ennis's right hand in the tent, and he didn't seem too confused by the act itself, in terms of who goes where and what goes where (hope I'm not offending anybody).  I think by the way Aguirre gives the instructions to Jack and Ennis on day one, that those were the standard set of instructions, followed year after year -- that there was always one man staying at the camp and one man staying with the sheep.  Remember, he says don't leave no signs that you were there to Jack, that the Forest Service can't know that you were there.  One person couldn't survive in just what he could carry on the back of one horse through those conditions.  So I think there had to always be two up there.  Having said that, I'm not sold on the idea that Jack had his initiation at Brokeback in '62 for this reason (bear with me, it's kind of scattered):  Jack seems to me as a very romantic, sensual man -- the kind that could fall in love and get his heart broken easily.  If he'd had sex with his Brokeback partner in '62, I suppose it could have just been casual sex, but how casual can sex be when it goes on for 6 months (April - Sept).  And if it went on for that long, Jack seems to me the type who would have fallen in love with that guy.  If that was the case, and Jack never saw that guy again, he'd have had a broken heart, he'd have been gun-shy about jumping in again.  The Jack that pulls up in front of that trailer in April '63 and gets out, kicks his truck, turns and lays his eyes on Ennis one time and then oh-so-seductively poses against his truck with those come-and-get-me-cowboy eyes (sorry, I'm getting hot and bothered now) -- to me, that is NOT a man who's ever had a broken heart or been the least bit hesitant to jump in with both feet when he sees something he wants.   So, IMHO, I don't think Jack was a virgin, but I also don't think he lost it on Brokeback.

Any of that make any sense to anybody?

[Brown Eyes]

Heya Mandy!

Great post Bud!   

And, I agree with you that it seems highly likely that Jack could have lost his virginity prior to meeting Ennis.  I think there are arguments to be made that it could have been either during the summer of '62 or before.  I think maybe a big reason that the summer of '62 and Jack's prior experience with Aguirre and the sheep are even part of the story is to suggest the possibility of Jack's earlier sexual experience.  There's not really enough evidence in any case to say definitively if or when Jack lost his virginity prior to '63.  So, a lot of this ambiguous question will always remain up for interpretation.

I think in all things in BBM, Jack is meant to be seen as "ahead" of Ennis... in literal terms (Jack leads Ennis to the bar in the beginning, Jack leads the flock of sheep up the mountain) and in terms of personality/ life experience (he seems to accept himself way ahead of Ennis and the idea that he's sexually experienced before Ennis seems to fit right in to this whole pattern).  The one big exception here, is I think the issue of marriage/children since Ennis gets married first.

On the subject of "running off"... I think this phrase is particularly important because it's one of the only concrete things Jack says that directly seems possibly to refer to his younger teenage years.  I mean, to me, by immediately jumping to this concept it seems likely that Jack may have experienced this himself.  I find it so curious that this is the very first suggestion/question he has about Ennis's past when they're chatting at the bar.  Of all the possibilities that Jack could suggest... why this concept?

Here's the exchange from the screenplay:

JACK
... You from ranch people?

ENNIS
I was.

JACK
Your folks run you off?

ENNIS
(sniff)
No.  They run themselves off....



Anyway, it suggests to me some serious discord in ideas about family or an almost automatically dysfunctional assumption about family from poor Jack's perspective.


And, on the subject of Jack's previous jobs.  Yes, it's true that we don't know if Jack had any kind of regular employment prior to the '62 Brokeback summer.  But, he seems to have had at least some rodeo experience already since he already has a buckle.  It seems conceivable that his earnings from the earlier Brokeback summer combined with some kind of earlier rodeo prize money could have helped him buy that beat up old truck. 

[optom3]

It has always bothered me that there is something vaguely psycho/sexual in the father urinting over his son.Proulx never writes anything just for the ake of it.I therefore can't help feel e are meant to read something into it.All boys miss the toilet at that age and even older.I dare say some gey scolded and made to clean up the mess.
In the harsh environment Jack was brought up in I can even see his father taking a belt to him,but why urinate over him.That is disturbing to me.
when my kids were younger,nudity was no big deal,in fact we deliberately were as natural as possible about it,to try and avoid any of them growin up with body hang ups,So what I am trying to say is if the kids caught me or my husband in the bathrom no big deal,its a human body,its natural and you should not be ahamed about it.
However Jacks father was not caught accidentally,he deliberately unzipped his trousers to urinate on his son.Freud would have a field day with that!!!!
I hate to be so graphic but in some circles,urinating on your partner is part of the sexual act.How disturbing(even as punishnent) for a father to do it to his young son.
It even makes me consider that the father had problems with his own sexuality.The worst homophobes always seem to be the ones who have deep rooted fears of their own sexuality.
Apologies if this post has crossed the boundaries of decency,but the whole episode does really disturb me.Another thought that croses my mindis that,maybe Jack thinks if thats what being a straight man is all about then sorry its not for me.He hardly had a good male role model to emulate by all accounts.

[Brown Eyes]

It has always bothered me that there is something vaguely psycho/sexual in the father urinting over his son.Proulx never writes anything just for the ake of it.I therefore can't help feel e are meant to read something into it.All boys miss the toilet at that age and even older.I dare say some gey scolded and made to clean up the mess.
In the harsh environment Jack was brought up in I can even see his father taking a belt to him,but why urinate over him.That is disturbing to me.
when my kids were younger,nudity was no big deal,in fact we deliberately were as natural as possible about it,to try and avoid any of them growin up with body hang ups,So what I am trying to say is if the kids caught me or my husband in the bathrom no big deal,its a human body,its natural and you should not be ahamed about it.
However Jacks father was not caught accidentally,he deliberately unzipped his trousers to urinate on his son.Freud would have a field day with that!!!!
I hate to be so graphic but in some circles,urinating on your partner is part of the sexual act.How disturbing(even as punishnent) for a father to do it to his young son.
It even makes me consider that the father had problems with his own sexuality.The worst homophobes always seem to be the ones who have deep rooted fears of their own sexuality.
Apologies if this post has crossed the boundaries of decency,but the whole episode does really disturb me.Another thought that croses my mindis that,maybe Jack thinks if thats what being a straight man is all about then sorry its not for me.He hardly had a good male role model to emulate by all accounts.

I completely agree with you that the scene is tremendously disturbing and is so graphic and Proulx describes it so carefully (as difficult as it is to read) that it must be super significant.  As others have suggested, I think this is an indicator that Old Man Twist's abuse was so cruel to be both mental/emotional, physical and sexual.  I firmly believe that the use of his genitals to "punish" Jack is a form of molestation.

It's all so horrible.  Poor Jack.  It's also such a massive bit of information to leave out of the movie.  We've discussed reasons why this was left out on other threads (here and there), but it really seems to me to be one of the most significant content changes.  Without the knowledge of this scene the film viewer (who hasn't read the story) would not have nearly as negative an impression of OMT as a story-reader does.

[optom3]

I completely agree with you that the scene is tremendously disturbing and is so graphic and Proulx describes it so carefully (as difficult as it is to read) that it must be super significant.  As others have suggested, I think this is an indicator that Old Man Twist's abuse was so cruel to be both mental/emotional, physical and sexual.  I firmly believe that the use of his genitals to "punish" Jack is a form of molestation.

It's all so horrible.  Poor Jack.  It's also such a massive bit of information to leave out of the movie.  We've discussed reasons why this was left out on other threads (here and there), but it really seems to me to be one of the most significant content changes.  Without the knowledge of this scene the film viewer (who hasn't read the story) would not have nearly as negative an impression of OMT as a story-reader does.

I am so glad it is not just me,I was beginning to think I was a bit odd.It always struck me as odd that the graphic childhood scene that Ennis witnesses is left in the film,giving us large clues to his retiscence,to commit,yet the graphic scene from Jacks childhood is so obviously missing.Yet here we can gain much greater insight into Jack.

It also woiuld have given yet another contradiction between the two of them.Ennis experience has had  such a negative impact,yet for Jack it seems to have made him think ,what the hell.Ennis thinks no hope and only bad can come from his experience,in direct contradiction Jack seems to have adopted the attitude,nothing can be worse than what he experienced.

Therein within their childhood experiences (just as with us all) lies the clues to Ennis permanent pessimism and Jacks optomism.Did not a famous psychologist say ,give me the child and I will show you the man,or or words to that effect.

I certainly know that to a large extent I have been shaped by my parents.

I know it could have been a graphic scene,but hell there were other graphic scenes handle beautifully in the film.
Oh well I guess I will just have to carry on wondering.

[Mandy21]

Dangit -- I was having so much fun talking about Jake's come-and-get-me eyes above, and you ladies had to go and change the subject.  Oh well....

Anyway, to get back onto the latest topic -- I agree that parents -- or the lack thereof, or the incompetence thereof, or the negligence thereof, or the abusiveness thereof -- has a huge effect on the type of people we turn out to be.  NO question.

And based on all the clues and signs, it seems that Jack was abused in some way by his father, even above and beyond the urinating debacle.  I think OMT is a sick, bitter, twisted, horrifying excuse for a father.  But, just the same, who twisted HIM into that person???  Probably his own father, as abuse runs down through generation after generation, until someone stops it.  I believe Jack, mostly because of his mother's kindness and strength, became the one in this long line of potentially abusive men in the Twist family, who finally said NO.  The damage was done to him, no doubt.  But that didn't mean he had to continue in the same way.  And that didn't mean he had to let it scar him for life and make him sick and bitter as well.  I'm not a psychiatrist or anything, but I think part of the reason that childhood/adolescent/teenage room of his had no decoration and nothing to do or amuse him in it, was because he spent all of his time lying in his bed or staring out that window, thinking and thinking and thinking, about how his life was going to be better than his old man's.

Regarding the screenwriter's/director's/whomever's rationale for leaving what was, I agree, a monumental piece of information out of the movie -- perhaps they could see into the future and know that America, at least, was going to label this the "gay cowboy" movie, and a huge percentage of (homophobic) Americans wouldn't come within a mile of a theater showing it.  Now let's say those that did go to see it come out of the theater and are standing around the water cooler the next day, discussing it with their coworkers.  Here's how I imagine the conversation would go:

Moviegoer:  Hey, I went to see that movie "Brokeback Mountain" last night.
Coworker:  Oh, yeah, that one about the gay cowboys?  You went to see that?  WHY?
Moviegoer:  Well, cause I figured it was going to be about something more than gay cowboys.
Coworker:  Well, was it?
Moviegoer:  Yeah, actually, it was pretty good.  It was really more of a love story, it was kind of sweet.
Coworker:  Eeuuyyyhhhhh, how can you watch a gay cowboy love story.  Weren't there some gross parts?  Did they show them, like, kissing and stuff?
Moviegoer:  Well, yeah, but it was tastefully done.
Coworker:  What was the grossest thing they showed?  Out of all the gross things, what was the grossest?
Moviegoer:  Um, well, there was this one scene when the dad of one of the cowboys urinates on him when he's about 4 years' old.
Coworker: 

The reason I didn't put any words behind Coworker at the end?  You can figure it out.  I can honestly tell you that if that scene had occurred before my eyes when I saw it at the theater the first time, me and just about everybody in the theater would have run for the door and never looked back.  And I don't even have children.  If you were a parent, could you watch that being done to a child, even knowing that they're actors and it's a movie and it's probably just lemonade being squirted onto him?  And how would they have shown a grown man's uncircumcised penis, and shown a 4-year-old looking at it, and try to possibly convey to an audience who hasn't read the book, and keep in mind, there was no narration in this film, exactly what in the world was going on there.  Seriously, if reading about the act in a book disturbs the two of you (and many others on this thread, I'm sure) as much as it has, how in God's green earth, would you be able to watch it on a screen?

To me, including that scene would have taken away just about everything I was feeling optimistically about the love story itself.  And maybe the powers-that-be felt somewhat the same.  I believe the movie was done the right way and went far enough by showing us the horror that Ennis had to see, which by the way, was shot from very far away and you couldn't barely even see there was a man lying there, let alone the real fact that that man no longer had a penis.

I think it was the right choice.  Sorry for ranting.

[Penthesilea]

I think it was the right choice.  Sorry for ranting.

Rant on as long as you want. Great posts everyone! 


I think the most obvious reason to let the urinating scene out of the movie is the difficulty to film and to see it. You would have needed a small child to film it. I realize that filming a scene is very different to seeing the end product on a screen, and you could have probalby filmed it with clever cuts, but still ....
I personally am glad they didn't include it in the movie.

Additionally, there's the question where to include it? Same place as it is in the SS? No. I think it would have destroyed the perfection of the whole LF sequence. It would have distracted the viewer.
Ang Lee would have had to find a way to make it clear to the audience that it is a flashback of something Jack had told Ennis about. Alternatively, he could have shown Jack telling Ennis about it at one of their fishing trips. But somehow this could have come out like some sort of comparison with Ennis's story about his old man.

[Mandy21]

I completely agree, Pent.  To film it, you'd need some very innocent-looking 4-year-old boy, and I can't think of any other way to get the point across except to show a grown man's uncircumcised penis in close-up, and who wants to see that when they're paying $10 for a ticket???  LOL...  Anyway, I am also glad they left it out of the movie.  True fans were going to read the book anyway.  I agree with your other points as well -- where to inject it in the story so that it's not Jack competing with Ennis as to who had the most disturbing childhood -- "I did", "No, I did", etc., AND so that the movie audience (at least) is still able to listen to what OMT has to say in the LF scene.  If the audience had already seen him do that to Jack when he was a boy, they would have just cringed when seeing him as an old man, and probably not heard a word he said.  And they'd have missed out on an important speech, one that I think is equally telling in relaying the bitterness and sickness of this old man.  That actor played OMT to perfection, I thought, right down to the timing of the spit into the cup.  If I was Ennis and walked into a room and had to sit down across the table from THAT -- eeeeeekkkkkk!!!!!!  I can't believe he managed to hold it together and speak calmly and consolingly and humanely in the face of a monster like that at the other end of the table.  But we know from the story that Jack had told Ennis of this at some point, so we as story-readers, can only presume that Ennis the movie version knows all about OMT.

Maybe Amanda and optom3 will have something to say from the opposing side?   Any thoughts/suggestions as to how they would have adapted that scene to the screen?  I'd be curious on your take. 

[optom3]

Rant on as long as you want. Great posts everyone! 


I think the most obvious reason to let the urinating scene out of the movie is the difficulty to film and to see it. You would have needed a small child to film it. I realize that filming a scene is very different to seeing the end product on a screen, and you could have probalby filmed it with clever cuts, but still ....
I personally am glad they didn't include it in the movie.

Additionally, there's the question where to include it? Same place as it is in the SS? No. I think it would have destroyed the perfection of the whole LF sequence. It would have distracted the viewer.
Ang Lee would have had to find a way to make it clear to the audience that it is a flashback of something Jack had told Ennis about. Alternatively, he could have shown Jack telling Ennis about it at one of their fishing trips. But somehow this could have come out like some sort of comparison with Ennis's story about his old man.

I jusy wonder if it could have been a flashback in the same way as we had with Ennis and the scene he witnessed.I am sure it could have been filmed just with the noise of a zipper from OMT( just as in TS1.)I agree that the circumcision part would have been difficult ,but that could have been part of a conversation between Jack and Ennis when,Jack  states that from then on having seen his dad he knew the diference and there was no going back.

I would not have wanted to witnesss the scene in full graphic detail,I just think it could have bben alluded to.You dont even need to see the child unclothed which would be very wrong,but could instead see the mess made by the child,OMT zipper sound, then cut to child soaking wet and cleaning floor and clothes etc.All as flashback.
Then cut back to present with conversation between Jack and Ennis to fill in the gaps,re Jacks feelings on the matter and how it affected him.

However I am not a director and maybe it was thought a bridge too far for the public.Lee was after all taking a big risk in the first place.
Where it was placed in the film,I would have had it as another campfire scene,where they did most of their talking.Followed of course by another tender scene in the tent.
But then I just wanted to see more of Jack and Ennis together,aka motel and TS2.After all they have more meetings over the years than we get to see in the film.

Of course that does leave a problem of length of film,which leads on to what bit to cut out to include the new scene!!!!! For me to see more of Jack and Ennis I would have beeen happy to see lesss of the sheep herding part.But I am sooo biased.In any case who am I to start mucking around with a film so perfect I must have watched it at least 50 times in just 2 months!!!!!!!!!

So thats my thoughts on the matter.I am beginning to wish I had not opened my mouth as I feel a foot in gob situation here!!!!

Feel free to disagree,I love to get other peoples opinions,sometimes it even makes me change my mind,or think more laterally about things,instead of literally.

[elomelo]

I jusy wonder if it could have been a flashback in the same way as we had with Ennis and the scene he witnessed.I am sure it could have been filmed just with the noise of a zipper from OMT( just as in TS1.)I agree that the circumcision part would have been difficult ,but that could have been part of a conversation between Jack and Ennis when,Jack  states that from then on having seen his dad he knew the diference and there was no going back.

I would not have wanted to witnesss the scene in full graphic detail,I just think it could have bben alluded to.You dont even need to see the child unclothed which would be very wrong,but could instead see the mess made by the child,OMT zipper sound, then cut to child soaking wet and cleaning floor and clothes etc.All as flashback.
Then cut back to present with conversation between Jack and Ennis to fill in the gaps,re Jacks feelings on the matter and how it affected him.

However I am not a director and maybe it was thought a bridge too far for the public.Lee was after all taking a big risk in the first place.
Where it was placed in the film,I would have had it as another campfire scene,where they did most of their talking.Followed of course by another tender scene in the tent.
But then I just wanted to see more of Jack and Ennis together,aka motel and TS2.After all they have more meetings over the years than we get to see in the film.

Of course that does leave a problem of length of film,which leads on to what bit to cut out to include the new scene!!!!! For me to see more of Jack and Ennis I would have beeen happy to see lesss of the sheep herding part.But I am sooo biased.In any case who am I to start mucking around with a film so perfect I must have watched it at least 50 times in just 2 months!!!!!!!!!

So thats my thoughts on the matter.I am beginning to wish I had not opened my mouth as I feel a foot in gob situation here!!!!

Feel free to disagree,I love to get other peoples opinions,sometimes it even makes me change my mind,or think more laterally about things,instead of literally.

I agree that shedding light on Jack's childhood would've given that movie that much of an impact but then again, maybe, Ang Lee didn't want to overdo it since the overall theme of the movie was already a huge leap. But I have to say that Jack's abuse could have been less subtle and tie in with Ennis's equally traumatizing childhood.

But then again...yeah, it would be distracting and more painful than necessary to see such a scene which would require a small child. And where that scene would go? Hmm...maybe on a fishing trip? Or even on the mountain, as per the story? Hmm...

[Brown Eyes]

I agree with the practical aspects of leaving the scene out and the ideas of "over-doing it" and the idea that the scene would be traumatic to watch are all good points.  But, I think the scene with Earl, for instance, is just about as brutal as the scene with Jack and his father would be.  They would be brutal in different ways... but probably equivalently brutal.  And, they did include a child in the Earl scene.  Granted, that child actor probably didn't really have to look at the image of the mutilated body of Earl.  I think there would be creative ways to film a scene with Jack and his father that wouldn't be too traumatic to watch (or too traumatic for a child actor to be involved in).  It could be done through suggestion... or even through Jack simply explaining it at some point (as he does in Proulx's story).

It's just such a major detail to leave out of the film.  And, it seems to completely alter a viewer's potential response to Old Man Twist.  A film viewer wouldn't know that he's not only a jerk, but a horribly abusive father.  And, as others here have pointed out, it takes away an element of understanding why Jack and Ennis might have a really powerful bond (bonding over extremely traumatic childhoods and especially difficult fathers... even if they never discussed this explicitly... I think this type of bond is implied by Proulx).

Leaving Jack's side of this out a bit, makes the emphasis of the film more on Ennis as a clear protagonist.  Maybe that was one motivation in this decision.

[elomelo]

Good points - yeah, the scene with the brutal murder was shocking as was Jack being beaten in Ennis's thoughts when he hears Lureen explaining the "accident".

And yes, maybe it's to focus on Ennis who is the main character, and not ladden the plates of the audience with this additional information on Jack. But it would have definitely had that much more of an impact, tying the two together.

We just happen to know this much because we've read the story as well. (:

[Monika]

I'm not sure "run off" would be the right term.  He was 18 in '62, and we don't know how many years of high school he completed.  Maybe his dad made him drop out at 15, expecting / needing him to be a help on the farm, continued to give him food and shelter, etc., and Jack turns out to not have his heart in it at all.  I would think he would just want to get the heck out of that place the minute he could.  We don't know if Jack had any other jobs prior to Brokeback '62 to earn some cash to buy that truck, but I'm leaning towards the idea above that it was just an old clunker of a truck, and his dad let him have it, on the hope that he'd get out of town in it, and maybe stay gone since he wasn't any help to him on the farm.  We also don't know if Jack came back home for the winter '62 / spring '63 period before heading back to Brokeback.  I'm guessing he must have cause he probably couldn't have made it to warmer climes to work the Rodeo circuit in that thing.

On the earlier topic of his "initiation" (what a nice word for it:)), I agree that he surely seems like a young man who has had some experience in the arena of sex with a man.  Let's face it, he was the one reaching for Ennis's right hand in the tent, and he didn't seem too confused by the act itself, in terms of who goes where and what goes where (hope I'm not offending anybody).  I think by the way Aguirre gives the instructions to Jack and Ennis on day one, that those were the standard set of instructions, followed year after year -- that there was always one man staying at the camp and one man staying with the sheep.  Remember, he says don't leave no signs that you were there to Jack, that the Forest Service can't know that you were there.  One person couldn't survive in just what he could carry on the back of one horse through those conditions.  So I think there had to always be two up there.  Having said that, I'm not sold on the idea that Jack had his initiation at Brokeback in '62 for this reason (bear with me, it's kind of scattered):  Jack seems to me as a very romantic, sensual man -- the kind that could fall in love and get his heart broken easily.  If he'd had sex with his Brokeback partner in '62, I suppose it could have just been casual sex, but how casual can sex be when it goes on for 6 months (April - Sept).  And if it went on for that long, Jack seems to me the type who would have fallen in love with that guy.  If that was the case, and Jack never saw that guy again, he'd have had a broken heart, he'd have been gun-shy about jumping in again.  The Jack that pulls up in front of that trailer in April '63 and gets out, kicks his truck, turns and lays his eyes on Ennis one time and then oh-so-seductively poses against his truck with those come-and-get-me-cowboy eyes (sorry, I'm getting hot and bothered now) -- to me, that is NOT a man who's ever had a broken heart or been the least bit hesitant to jump in with both feet when he sees something he wants.   So, IMHO, I don't think Jack was a virgin, but I also don't think he lost it on Brokeback.

Any of that make any sense to anybody?

I agree with everything you say. I think it´s clear that Jack has had previous experience when it comes to sex with men, but I don´t believe either it was from the summer before. I find it more likely that i happened earlier. I mean, it´s pretty common that kids play sexual games with one another. Perhaps Jack met a like-minded kid in school.

[Artiste]

Jack's adolescence is a blank page...
..........

Is it?

Maybe! Likely no!

We know about him... in some ways.

But, there are buts !!