19 or 20?

[chowhound]

yes, I agree,  you can't make a timeline that fits both the film and the short story. the film makes some departures in the timeline of the short story. for example, I am convinced that because of the date shown in the film when Jack competes in the rodeo in Childress, and the date shown on the post card sent to Ennis later, that Bobby can't be Jack's child. But, the short story has no such implications.  

I agree, Brokeplex, that it is only in the movie and not the short story that the possibility that Jack is not Bobby's biological father is raised. But I was wondering if those who have been members of this board for much longer than I could tell me if the "Bobby the bastard" theory has been discussed here before? If not, maybe it deserves a thread of its own. However, for the time being, here are the theory's essentials. It's all  to do with dates:

1. The fireworks scene takes place on July 4, 1966. We know this because the announcer tells us that it is July 4, 1966.

2. The next scene is when Jack meets Lureen for the first time. A banner below the judges' box reads "CHILDRESS COUNTY FAIR AND RODEO" "4th ANNUAL" "AUG 7 RODEO AUG 14". Although the year isn't given, it also has to be 1966 as the reunion scene, when Jack is married to Lureen, will take place just a year after this scene.

3. The reunion scene takes place on Sept. 24, 1967. This is clearly established both by the content of the postcard and the postcard's datestamp.

5. During this scene, Jack tells Alma and Ennis that he is the father of a kid who is eight months old.

6. That means that Bobby must have been born in the January of that year.

7. But Jack had only met Lureen in the August of the previous year, so, even if he had impregnated Lureen that night, Lureen wouldn't be giving birth to a perfectly normal and healthy boy - as from all appearances Bobby is - some five months later.

8. Therefore Lureen must have been pregnant when Jack first meets her and Jack is not Bobby's biological father.

[Penthesilea]

I agree, Brokeplex, that it is only in the movie and not the short story that the possibility that Jack is not Bobby's biological father is raised. But I was wondering if those who have been members of this board for much longer than I could tell me if the "Bobby the bastard" theory has been discussed here before?

Only a million times
Don't let this keep you from bringing it up again though. This discussion is embedded into maybe two dozen threads; you'll have to try the search function to find some of it. There's also a thread of its own about it:

TOTW 02/08: Was Lureen pregnant when she met Jack?

There's a lengthy post by GuyMadison at page 15 of the thread, with the exact title "Bobby the Bastard". It's copied from IMDB, so I guess you might have seen it. It's here: http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php/topic,16269.msg405048.html#msg405048


Feel free to revive the thread above, or another one with this particular discussion in it, or create a new one!

[Monika]

I didn´t even know there was theory about Bobby not being Jack´s son. 
You learn as long as you live, I suppose

[Brown Eyes]

I didn´t even know there was theory about Bobby not being Jack´s son. 
You learn as long as you live, I suppose

Yes, as far as I recall, there's a theory that Lureen was already pregnant when she met Jack.  And, I think the further suggestion has been that she was looking for someone to marry quickly who could be the father of the child.

I don't believe that at all... but, it's an idea that's out there.

[brokeplex]

I agree, Brokeplex, that it is only in the movie and not the short story that the possibility that Jack is not Bobby's biological father is raised. But I was wondering if those who have been members of this board for much longer than I could tell me if the "Bobby the bastard" theory has been discussed here before? If not, maybe it deserves a thread of its own. However, for the time being, here are the theory's essentials.

oh, yes. there have been some discussion threads about Jack not being the biological father of Bobby. I think that Ang Lee added this suggestion to the film in order to better explain Jack's life in TX. I think this addition to the storyline improves the overall tale because it makes Jack a more believable character.

[Marina]

IDK, I think maybe the dates etc. weren't concentrated on.  It never entered my mind that Jack wasn't the biological father of Bobby.   Lureen struck me as the kind of woman who could have just about any man she set her sights on, and she set them on the beautiful young Jack.  Can't say as I blame her.   You can see her in the country and western bar, brushing off the attentions of some other man, and zeroing in on Jack, just before her predatory "mating call" line.   She was in a hurry because she wanted him.   JMO      

Beautiful, rich and her father doted on her.   Everything a guy could want, right?  I don't think she was used to hearing the word "No" very often.  So between Lureen's "assertiveness" and Jack's maybe feeling some sexual confusion and societal pressure, I think what happened happened.  But as we can see whatever relationship there was deteriorated over the years, to the point where we see at the dinner with Randall and LaShawn were Lureen slyly says "Husbands never seem ta wanna dance with their wives . . . why is that, Jack?"  (and we all know what "dancin'" is a metaphor for) Jack answers her almost annoyed, disrespectully perhaps embarrassed that she would say it in public (sounds like the subject may have been brought up before in private) "Never give it any thought."  the thought not appealing to him, looking right at Randall.    I think Jack was more self-aware than Ennis was, but his world was rocked as much.

[southendmd]

I'm inclined to believe that most film-goers don't do a lot of math.

Sure there are internal inconsistencies with dates an' all. 

As for Bobby's paternity, it seems pretty clear which direction Jack and Lureen are goin' that night.  To me, that's a stronger suggestion than counting back from "8 months old". 

I wonder what Diana would say about all this?  Could she ever guess that people would be so interested in all the details? 

[brokeplex]

I'm inclined to believe that most film-goers don't do a lot of math.

Sure there are internal inconsistencies with dates an' all. 

As for Bobby's paternity, it seems pretty clear which direction Jack and Lureen are goin' that night.  To me, that's a stronger suggestion than counting back from "8 months old". 

I wonder what Diana would say about all this?  Could she ever guess that people would be so interested in all the details? 

ah, but do the film goers do the math subliminally, and unconsciously is their opinion of Jack changed?

[southendmd]

2. The next scene is when Jack meets Lureen for the first time. A banner below the judges' box reads "CHILDRESS COUNTY FAIR AND RODEO" "4th ANNUAL" "AUG 7 RODEO AUG 14". Although the year isn't given, it also has to be 1966 as the reunion scene, when Jack is married to Lureen, will take place just a year after this scene.

Just a little aside here.  I'll bet the rodeo scenes were filmed pretty close to those dates in August (2004, of course).  

When the gang were in Alberta in '09, we went to the Rockyford Rodeo.  As we were taking photos in front of the Childress Dance Hall (actually, a bank), some locals asked us if we banked there!  After saying we were fans of the film, one young woman told us that she was an extra in the film!  She said there were flyers at the annual rodeo (which takes place the last weekend of July), asking for extras, and that they would be filming the next week.  

[southendmd]

ah, but do the film goers do the math subliminally, and unconsciously is their opinion of Jack changed?

Hmm, that would take a trickcyclist to answer!

Sometimes a math error is just a math error.