Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > IMDb Remarkable Writings Rewound
it's not all about Earl -- by latjoreme
TOoP/Bruce:
It's not all about Earl
by latjoreme (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:38:10 )
I often see posts that refer to Ennis' issues -- his internalized homophobia, his fears, his rejection of Jack's sweet-life propoal -- as if they were generated by a single traumatic childhood experience: seeing the ruined body of Earl. The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.
No doubt seeing Earl was an awful experience that haunted Ennis for life. But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.
To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood. That's all it is, a glimpse.
The most significant part of the Earl anecdote, in my view, is the line, "for all I know, he done the job." In other words, Ennis was a gay kid raised by a man who hated homosexuality so much that his own son casually accepts that he'd have been capable of torturing a gay man to death. And Ennis must have based that opinion on things that extend beyond the Earl episode.
So we can assume that Ennis wasn't just terrified that one day. He was terrified all day, every day, for years -- from the time he started noticing he was attracted to boys/men (which most likely predated Earl), until his father died, and of course well beyond. If at 30-something Ennis worries that strangers on the pavement will "know," imagine how scary it must have been for Ennis as a child to live in the same house with a violent, evil man who might at any moment be tipped off by the smallest glance or facial expression or verbal slip or, well, whatever. And what if his dad found out? At the very least, Ennis risked his father's condemnation. At worst ... well, homophobic fathers have been known to be violent to their own gay kids, too. And then, because as far as Ennis can tell his father's opinion is in step with everybody else's, even his father's death doesn't end the threat.
That, to me, explains not only Ennis' homophobia but his closedness, shyness, social awkwardness. It explains why when he first looks up at Jack outside Aguirre's trailer he immediately glances away without changing expression. Or why, when he leans to the side to check out Jack as he's riding away, he catches himself half a second later and turns back to his chores. He has spent his life training himself to suppress any behavior that might be revealing.
And of course Ennis believes that his dad was right. I don't think he goes so far as to find Earl's murder acceptable ("they was pretty tough old birds" indicates a certain respect, in fact). But he agrees that Earl's behavior was UNacceptable. In deciding not to live with Jack, Ennis is not just weighing the risks and pragmatically concluding that it's too dangerous. From Ennis' perspective, it's just outside the realm of possibility.
Shouldn't Ennis have rejected his father's teachings, once he grew up? Well, some people raised by harsh or rigid parents do eventually do that, but it's usually because they meet other people or read books with different points of view. But Ennis has never met anyone who's contradicted what his father taught -- except Jack, who's not impartial. Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.
People who are understandably frustrated by Ennis might also keep in mind the depth of the emotional obstacles were that Ennis had to overcome to be with Jack at all. It's a glass half full, in my view. Not to mention one big sign of just how deep and powerful his love for Jack is.
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl
by BannerHill (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:49:50 )
Yes, yes, and yes.
Finally we are getting right down to it.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by Mrs_Billy_Costigan (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:52:37 )
UPDATED Thu Oct 12 2006 15:58:13
GREAT post, very true. I used to get frustrated with Ennis, but the more I watch the movie, the more homophobic crap I'm dealt with daily at my school, and the more I think about it the more I admire and care abotu Ennis and feel sorry for BOTH Ennis and Jack-Jack (my pet name for him....the name Ennis doesn't really have room for pet names....). HOmophobia is not something to be underestimated, and fear is a terrible thing to live by.....
BTW, Jack-Jack had a HORRIBLE childhood too.....from the movie I thought his father was just distant and bitter....but I bought and read the short story just today and WHOA. Lordy LORD!! HE was an intolerant abusive jerk too! poor Jack-Jack!! I can't imagine how HORRIBLE it must have been to LIVE with that man! I'm certain he beat Jack on a daily basis, I'm sure he made Jack's life a living hell, just like Ennis's father did to him. I find it interesting that Ennis and Jack BOTH had horrible childhoods but dealt with it so differently. Ennis became all withdrawn, awkward, high-strung, all that, and by looking at him, the way he walked and talked, it was obvious that he'd been hurt in some way. And Jack, on the other hand, by looking at him you'd never have thought he had an abusive childhood, he was such a full of life, live-in-the-moment guy. similar lives, different people......and I adore them both, and I REALLY hate both their fathers. If I had a father like that I'd move to Siberia to get away from him....
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Thu Oct 12 2006 16:40:04 )
Hi latjoreme –
Great post! A couple small things, though, as always –
“To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood.”
I sure do agree with all of this.
“That's all it is, a glimpse.”
But not this. The fact remains, this is the one incident that Ennis refers to and this is the one incident that was shown to us. All of the other issues about his childhood certainly could have been implied, but to infer them is another thing. We were shown this one incident, and it’s the one incident that Ennis refers back to, simply because it is the most significant, single incident.
“The most significant part of the Earl anecdote, in my view, is the line, "for all I know, he done the job."”
I can agree with this.
“In other words, Ennis was a gay kid raised by a man who hated homosexuality so much that his own son casually accepts that he'd have been capable of torturing a gay man to death. And Ennis must have based that opinion on things that extend beyond the Earl episode.”
And this I can accept as speculation. But, this:
“So we can assume that Ennis wasn't just terrified that one day. He was terrified all day, every day, for years -- from the time he started noticing he was attracted to boys/men (which most likely predated Earl), until his father died, and of course well beyond.”
And this…
“…imagine how scary it must have been for Ennis as a child to live in the same house with a violent, evil man who might at any moment be tipped off by the smallest glance or facial expression or verbal slip or, well, whatever.”
These take the speculation a bit beyond what we saw in the film. All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms. This is why the line about Ennis thinking maybe his dad could have done the job is so startling. It’s startling to think any man, any father, could have murdered a man for being gay. And it’s startling to think of a man, a father, showing this to his child. But what is most startling is that Ennis now says this about his father, after the way Ennis had spoken of him earlier. (This is akin to (and converse to) the way Jack talks of his father early on. We get the feeling he’s terribly homophobic. However, in the Lightning Flat scene, he does not appear at all homophobic.) I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father – as a doler-outer of spankings, for example. Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seems as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.
“And what if his dad found out? At the very least, Ennis risked his father's condemnation. At worst ... well, homophobic fathers have been known to be violent to their own gay kids, too.”
I agree. And it seems that from film, Ennis’ father either never found out or didn’t react in either of these ways if he did find out. Or, if he did find out and reacted in one of these ways, then Ennis must have taken it as “natural consequences to such behavior.”
“That, to me, explains not only Ennis' homophobia but his closedness, shyness, social awkwardness. It explains why when he first looks up at Jack outside Aguirre's trailer he immediately glances away without changing expression. Or why, when he leans to the side to check out Jack as he's riding away, he catches himself half a second later and turns back to his chores. He has spent his life training himself to suppress any behavior that might be revealing.”
No doubt about this. However, these are also the actions of a young man who had not yet come to terms with his sexuality, nor had he explored his sexuality, nor had he had anyone to talk to or role model himself toward or against in terms of his sexuality. All of this could have still taken place within a happy family union bubble.
“And of course Ennis believes that his dad was right. I don't think he goes so far as to find Earl's murder acceptable ("they was pretty tough old birds" indicates a certain respect, in fact). But he agrees that Earl's behavior was UNacceptable. In deciding not to live with Jack, Ennis is not just weighing the risks and pragmatically concluding that it's too dangerous. From Ennis' perspective, it's just outside the realm of possibility.”
Yep.
“Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.”
How so?
Because it is the one incident that Ennis refers to and because it’s the one incident that was shown to us and because the rest is (possibly useful and logical) speculation, but also because of the way Ennis spoke of his father, and because of the “turn out opposite” example we’re given with OMT, I still believe that the Earl incident is the defining moment for Ennis that etched his fears and homophobia into him so deeply. If all of the other things were present (and it’s not a really big “if” here), then the Earl incident was the final nail in the coffin of Ennis’ soul.
“The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.”
This still remains a good assumption supported by what we see and hear in the film.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by dly64 (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:17:44 )
Are you saying that the trauma (for Ennis) was not just seeing Earl, but (more importantly) thinking that his own father could have committed this brutal murder? If that is what you are saying, than I am in complete agreement. The visual of Earl only reinforced (to Ennis) what can happen to an openly gay individual. Ennis was taught to hate himself, his thoughts, his feelings and his attraction towards other males. Jack and Ennis’ relationship on BBM was possible because it was so private and (as others have stated) a “Garden of Eden.” Post-mountain, Ennis and Jack’s relationship was doomed to failure because all of the teachings of Ennis’ father came crashing back. IMO, Ennis spent most of his life trying to convince himself that he wasn’t “queer”. He got married (to a woman he thought he loved) and had children. He wasn’t particularly good at either one (i.e. being a husband and father). Then after the divorce, he starts seeing Cassie. Not because Ennis finds Cassie so particularly appealing, but because she’s there (and of course she made it easy, because she threw herself at him). Ultimately, when he finally had his epiphany, he knew he could no longer pretend to be something he wasn’t, but it was too late. Jack had died. But it is Jack’s death that only reinforces Ennis’ homophobia.
Diane
"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em" - Ennis, BBM
Re: It's not all about Earl
by Mrs_Billy_Costigan (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:59:01 )
UPDATED Thu Oct 12 2006 18:25:28
<<He wasn’t particularly good at either one (i.e. being a husband and father).>>
Ehhhh, WTF? He wasn't a good husband, but he was a good father.It's obvious he loved his girls and they got to see a side of him he hardly showed to anyone but Jack.
Jack's death didn't reinforce Ennis's homophobia. I got the impression at the end that he came to terms with who he was. The way he walked into the Twist kitchen holding the shirts, not explaining why he was taking them, because obviously Jack's parents knew Jack's reasons for keeping the shirts in his room and never washing the bloodstains. and the last scene with Alma Jnr. he's obviously changed and is going to live his life more open and honest with people, obvious he's learned so much and knows that Alma Jr. who's going to be married, won't make his mistake. why else would they have ALma Jr. come to Ennis at 19 telling him she's going to married, 19 is when ENnis met Jack. It's obvious Ennis has learned a lot from his mistakes and is changed. at the Twist house when he finds the shirts it's obvious he's shocked and guilty at his neglecting Jack and he even tells Lureen about Brokeback, the first person besides Jack he's ever mentioned Brokeback to. Right away when he finds out Jack's dead he changes obviously, because he tells Lureen he knows about Brokeback. so yeah. Ennis changed for the better, and that's what matters. he doesn't know for sure how Jack died, and WE don't know how Jack died, becuase it DOESN'T MATTER, because no matter HOW he died, what matters is he's gone, and Ennis regrets.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Thu Oct 12 2006 23:06:16 )
Hi dly64 –
I pretty much agree with your entire post.
I’d like to say something about this:
“Not because Ennis finds Cassie so particularly appealing,”
I agree that wasn't his main motivator. However, Cassie was physically appealing. And she was all, you know, perky. Plus, don’t underestimate the boost to a man’s ego (even a closeted homosexual man who believes himself to be straight) when a perky, sexy, young lady comes a-courtin’.
“Ultimately, when he finally had his epiphany, he knew he could no longer pretend to be something he wasn’t, but it was too late.”
I like this sentence. It’s a great sentence. I especially like the (intentional?) omission of any temporal adjectival phrase after “epiphany.”
Hi sugarsweet666 –
I have to disagree with this:
“…and the last scene with Alma Jnr. he's obviously changed and is going to live his life more open and honest with people, obvious he's learned so much…”
All he did was agree to go to his own daughter’s wedding. A one-time trip to a church (that he has shunned) for a couple of hours, months in the future. And, he only agreed to this when he saw the pained look on her face. He initially rejected her suggestion. His “change” could not have been too big obviously. Your crediting Ennis with a change such as you describe is to take the character of Ennis as he was presented to us and unrealistically transform him into something he’s never been capable of and, quite frankly, has no use of becoming.
Because Ennis doesn’t know how Jack died, described even better in the short story than in the film, Jack’s death does serve to reinforce Ennis’ homophobia. Truer to the story and the theme of the story is that Ennis will become more homophobic and more withdrawn.
“why else would they have ALma Jr. come to Ennis at 19 telling him she's going to married, 19 is when ENnis met Jack.”
To reinforce in Ennis’ psyche the differences.
“because no matter HOW he died, what matters is he's gone, and Ennis regrets.”
And for a character such as Ennis was created and presented to us, guilt and regret more often manifest a more closed personality rather than an open one.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by malina-5 (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:55:30 )
<<To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood. That's all it is, a glimpse. >>
I TOTALLY agree with this. Thank you for pointing it out. "Shorthand" - that's a brilliant way of putting it. It's what I'd been thinking, but never in an articulate way like this.
We have to give Ennis credit. What he did in allowing himself to fall for Jack at all was HUGE. For me the 'shorthand' for that is when he enters the tent on the second night. It was surrender to a force of nature. Surrender to love and life despite fear. What greater thiing can anyone do?
Of course, for most of the 20 f*ing years it was only a partial surrender, the mountain and the 'middle of nowhere' (hmm, again with the 'nowhere') making it possible. The miracle of the place allows Ennis to transcend what he would normally have been capable of. (Big thank you to the mountain and Aguirre's creation)
Katherine, you said: <<But Ennis has never met anyone who's contradicted what his father taught -- except Jack, who's not impartial. >>
I agree to a large extent. It would have been enormously helpful, maybe, for Ennis to have known someone who contradicted his father's views. But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant.
I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.
And, if a big part of what made Ennis feel that he was unacceptable was his attraction to men, I would argue that, impartial or not, Jack's acceptance of that would have been immensely important to Ennis too. Because sex with Jack was not some random desparate sleazy f* in an alley. Jack was someone Ennis truly liked and respected, maybe even looked up to. Jack was really a great guy. And HE'S okay with it - even with the way things transpired in the first tent scene. There were probably many contradictory voices battling within Ennis that day as he watched the sheep, but that would've been one of them: maybe it IS okay. More than he'd ever dared hope for.
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl
by Ellemeno (Fri Oct 13 2006 00:01:30 )
Hi Gang, my little addition re Ennis's father's violence - I don't thnk anyone mentioned this yet. In the story, Ennis says it in the motel room, "Dad made sure I seen it. Took me to see it. Me and K.E. Dad laughed about it. Hell, for all I know he done the job. If he was alive and was to put his head in that door right now you bet he'd go get his tire iron."
He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him. Thank God for that one curve in the road.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Fri Oct 13 2006 00:47:16 )
Hi Ellemeno --
"He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him."
Yes. However, he is certain of it at the time of the motel scene. And this is probably from the age of 9 on -- from the time of the Earl death scene forward. This says nothing about Ennis' time with his father before age 9. It also speaks to Ennis' belief directly caused by the Earl death scene.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by True_Oracle_of_Phoenix (Fri Oct 13 2006 04:09:20 )
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 11:33:15
I will argue differently. (People can either agree or disagree, because my opinion is neither worth more nor less than anyone else's.)
This movie works to invite repeat viewings because our understanding of the characters (as opposed to the plot) is not revealed in a linear fashion.
We see the dead sheep, and it has meaning to Ennis, but we don't understand it yet. Likewise, we see the separation of Jack and Ennis on the mountain, and we don't understand what has happened between between.
In the later light of Ennis's story, we can now look at the separation on the mountain differently.
Ennis and Jack are striking camp. Summer is over. Jack places no real importance on it, because he does not expect his friendship and sexual relationship with Ennis to end. Ennis however is seeing things entirely differently.
His relationship with Jack is suddenly over, and he can't admit to himself what his feelings mean. He is reliving his flashback to the scene of Earl with his father and brother. They are going downhill to see a dead gay man, brutally beaten and sexually mutilated, probably roped and dragged before being murdered...
Roped and dragged? uh oh...
Jack playfully lassos Ennis as a friendly gesture, but it is a gesture charged with an entirely different meaning to Ennis. He reacts violently, catching Jack by surprise and blood is shed between them. They continue down the mountain to the fenced area. Ennis is in a post-traumatic stress induced crisis, and Jack has no idea what is going on. The sheep are mixed, Ennis can't sort his feelings.
After Ennis's father died, he went to live with his brother and his wife. Something happened between them and they had a falling out - Ennis then struck out on his own. Now add to the mix of Earl's death, Ennis's sense of loss at losing his brother, and now he is losing Jack. The man is a powderkeg: ROPE, BLOOD, FENCES, DEATH, SEXUAL MUTILATION, LOSS OF FAMILY and ALIENATION. His separation with Jack now bears stunning resemblances to his witnessing Earl's dead body. It isn't shorthand, it is an integral part of his character. Top that off with Ennis's suspicion that his father may have helped to commit Earl's murder, and it is a recipe for madness.
When they get to Jack's truck, Ennis is trying to "fix" things as best he can, and he is literally "fixing" Jack's truck. But the separation is awkward, and Ennis is left alone again with only his guilt and remorse.
Jack watches Ennis recede in the rearview mirror with a sense of loss and confusion. He really doesn't understand what just happened...
Ennis proceeds to the alley where he will metaphorically disembowel himself, just as his father might have literally done. He has just lost a "brother", friend, and a lover, and he feels guilt and shame for having allowed to happen in the first place. He will tear himself apart to deny his feelings and choke on his own rage, regret, and horrific sense of loss.
"Forgive us our trespasses..."
The correct answer to the wrong question is meant to lead astray.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by malina-5 (Fri Oct 13 2006 07:55:07 )
<<They are going downhill to see a dead gay man, brutally beaten and sexually mutilated, probably roped and dragged before being murdered...
Roped and dragged? uh oh...
Jack playfully lassos Ennis as a friendly gesture, but it is a gesture charged with an entirely different meaning to Ennis. He reacts violently, catching Jack by surprise and blood is shed between them.>>
V. interesting. I never thought of that. But does it give new meaning to Ennis's statement "my dad was a fine roper" - or not? Sorry, I know that sounds a bit facetious. But it isn't meant to be - it's what was running through my head when I read this..
Re: It's not all about Earl
by True_Oracle_of_Phoenix (Fri Oct 13 2006 09:22:34 )
Sorry, I know that sounds a bit facetious. But it isn't meant to be - it's what was running through my head when I read this..
I don't think Ennis has too many "extra" words to share about himself.
I certainly could mean something...
The correct answer to the wrong question is meant to lead astray.
Shee-it! This is interesting as hell...
by toycoon (Fri Oct 13 2006 10:01:05 )
True Oracle of Phoenix, you have really dissected the scenes and reassembled them quite exquisitely.
I have more to say but I'll have to come back later as I am at work!
(I wish I knew how to quit Brokeback Mountain...)
Re: Shee-it! This is interesting as hell...
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Fri Oct 13 2006 11:07:12 )
Hi True_Oracle_of_Phoenix --
I liked your entire post. I especially like it when people find symbolic meaning within the film. So I especially liked these two bits:
"When they get to Jack's truck, Ennis is trying to "fix" things as best he can, and he is literally "fixing" Jack's truck."
and
"Ennis proceeds to the alley where he will metaphorically disembowel himself, just as his father might have literally done."
My take on the Earl death scene is that it is fundamental to an understanding of Ennis. So I also liked:
"The man is a powderkeg: ROPE, BLOOD, FENCES, DEATH, SEXUAL MUTILATION, LOSS OF FAMILY and ALIENATION. His separation with Jack now bears stunning resemblances to his witnessing Earl's dead body. It isn't shorthand, it is an integral part of his character. Top that off with Ennis's suspicion that his father may have helped to commit Earl's murder, and it is a recipe for madness."
It's not all about Earl
by latjoreme (Fri Oct 13 2006 14:01:41 )
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 14:03:04
Hi CPDM,
All of the other issues about his childhood certainly could have been implied, but to infer them is another thing. We were shown this one incident, and it’s the one incident that Ennis refers back to, simply because it is the most significant, single incident.
But I think inference from fiction is perfectly legal, maybe even required -- particularly in short stories, which have to pack a lot of info into a small space. Isn't the last part of your last sentence a bit of an inference itself? Yes, it's the most significant incident we hear about -- the only significant incident, in fact. But we don't know for sure there weren't others. Still, I think it's a safe inference.
All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms.
Well, kind of. We hear Ennis say that his dad 1) is dead (and implicitly a bad driver) 2) left the kids $24 in a coffee can 3) was a fine roper 4) was right, in Ennis' view. (Am I forgetting any?) Positive terms is a bit of a stretch. 1 is neutral, 2 is pretty neutral but not particularly flattering 3 is flattering but has nothing to do with fatherhood and 4 contains layers of meaning, none of which necessarily indicate that the guy was a world's greatest father or man.
But what is most startling is that Ennis now says this about his father, after the way Ennis had spoken of him earlier. (This is akin to (and converse to) the way Jack talks of his father early on.
Yes. I think even the lukewarm semi-positive things Ennis says about his father -- coupled with our automatic sympathy for a man who died -- are enough to make the revelation startling.
I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father
But what gives you this feeling? The feeling is an inference itself. And as far as I can tell, it's based only on the apparent lack of evidence to the contrary (except maybe Ennis' "fine roper/he was right" remarks, which don't really prove anything either way). Yet if I think the opposite, that he was a scary guy who created an atmosphere of terror for Ennis, I can gather some pretty strong support:
1) Ennis' personality and behavior: what I mentioned before about his shyness and closed-offness, and the couple of times we see him take care not to gaze too long at Jack. You could argue (and in "real life," I would argue) that genes are a stronger influence than family environment on personality and behavior. But the idea that childhood experiences shape personality is a staple of fiction, partly because people tend to believe it and partly because it frees the author from having to spell everything out. So I don't think it's insignificant that Ennis is like that; I think his personality is deliberately designed to suggest something.
1a) Even fiction writers rarely try to convince readers that a character's whole personality was shaped by a single incident, so I think we can eliminate the possibility that Ennis is shy and withdrawn, etc., because of Earl.
2) Ennis' casual acceptance of the possibility that his father done the job. Unless Ennis noticed a blood-stained tire iron in the back of the pickup, this idea must have been based on something his father said or did. And if he said or did it once, I think it's safe to assume he said or did it more than once, because it seems unlikely that the dad kept his homophobia to himself until the day he rushed out and tortured a guy to death, and then put it back under wraps ever afterward. Even if his father actually didn't do it, by taking the boys out there he showed tacit or explicit approval of the murder -- suggesting that he might have done the same, or something close to it, if given the chance.
3) Ennis most likely by age nine knew or suspected he was gay. I'm infering this because I think by age nine most people know or suspect at least something about their sexuality.
So we know that Ennis knew that his father hated gays so much that, at some point, Ennis concluded (rightly or wrongly) that his father was at least capable of torturing a gay man to death. We know that Ennis probably knew he was gay. We know how the average kid would feel living with a potentially violent dad who hates gays that much and knows that he (the kid himself) is gay. And we know that Ennis grew up to be a repressed, uptight, paranoid, taciturn man. I think by connecting those dots we can figure that Ennis' actions as an adult don't spring entirely, maybe not even primarily, from the Earl incident.
Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seem as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.
I agree, and to me that further supports the idea that Ennis' attitude is based on long-term teaching. How could Ennis develop such a deep-seated belief based on one shocking incident that he doesn't even really approve of?
And it seems that from film, Ennis’ father either never found out or didn’t react in either of these ways if he did find out.
Right. As far as we know, Ennis' father didn't find out about Ennis. But the threat was always there.
these are also the actions of a young man who had not yet come to terms with his sexuality, nor had he explored his sexuality, nor had he had anyone to talk to or role model himself toward or against in terms of his sexuality. All of this could have still taken place within a happy family union bubble.
I don't think confusion about sexuality shapes one's personality, though I do think it often goes the other way around. Take Jack. He's a guy who has, to some extent anyway, come to terms with and/or explored his sexuality. He's also got a different personality than Ennis. Is this because Jack, maybe as a teenager, figured the sex thing out and then, with that out of the way, heaved a sigh of relief and became outgoing and confident, a person willing to take risks and break rules in order to improve his life? No, I think the reverse -- his bolder personality helped him accept his sexuality. Same with Ennis: his personality hindered his acceptance.
“Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.”
How so?
In the ways we've discussed elsewhere. First by taking Jack up on his offer in TS1. Next by carrying on a long-term relationship with him after the reunion. And after Jack's death, by moving to a better understanding of love.
I still believe that the Earl incident is the defining moment for Ennis that etched his fears and homophobia into him so deeply. If all of the other things were present (and it’s not a really big “if” here), then the Earl incident was the final nail in the coffin of Ennis’ soul.
I think the Earl incident was the most shocking and horrifying moment of Ennis' childhood. I just don't think it's what turned Ennis into Ennis.
Hi Malina,
But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant. I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.
Good point. I did kind of understate Jack's importance in my OP. It would have been nice if Ennis had also gone to college and joined a gay students' group on campus or something like that. But in the absence of any other positive influences, Jack's was huge. As a role model, too.
Hi True Oracle of Phoenix,
Interesting post! Your idea about the lasso, particularly.
Hi Elle,
If he was alive and was to put his head in that door right now you bet he'd go get his tire iron."
He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him. Thank God for that one curve in the road.
That's how I read that sentence, too. Ennis assumes his father would readily extend his murderous hatred of a fellow citizen to his own son.
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Fri Oct 13 2006 15:30:42 )
Hi latjoreme –
“But I think inference from fiction is perfectly legal, maybe even required -- particularly in short stories, which have to pack a lot of info into a small space. Isn't the last part of your last sentence a bit of an inference itself? Yes, it's the most significant incident we hear about -- the only significant incident, in fact. But we don't know for sure there weren't others. Still, I think it's a safe inference.”
I agree that it’s OK to infer from fiction. But, to infer so much that it reduces what was presented to us as “the only significant” incident to “shorthand”… that may go a bit too far. The last part of my last sentence is more of a conclusion, I think.
All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms.
“Well, kind of. We hear Ennis say that his dad 1) is dead (and implicitly a bad driver)”
(Sorry… that last parenthetical really made me laugh. That’s cute. )
He didn’t die because he was a homophobic dad.
“2) left the kids $24 in a coffee can”
He wasn't poor because he was a homophobic dad.
“3) was a fine roper 4) was right, in Ennis' view.”
I think these last two are positive.
And, when it comes right down to it, a young man who lost his parents when he was a young’un saying his dad is dead and they were poor, is kind of heart-wrenching. Puts one on his side. Doesn’t give one bad vibes about the old, misunderstood fella.
“Yes. I think even the lukewarm semi-positive things Ennis says about his father -- coupled with our automatic sympathy for a man who died -- are enough to make the revelation startling.”
Yep.
I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father
“But what gives you this feeling? The feeling is an inference itself. And as far as I can tell, it's based only on the apparent lack of evidence to the contrary (except maybe Ennis' "fine roper/he was right" remarks, which don't really prove anything either way).”
Not an inference at all. I base it on the evidence presented. Even if we go with your assertion that Ennis spoke of his dad in neutral terms, then what do we have? A character describing another character in neutral terms. (But, I must add, the way he described his father as a fine roper was said with a bit of admiration or respect.) So what can we say of Ennis’ relationship with his father? Well, Ennis described it in neutral terms. That is from the direct evidence given.
“Yet if I think the opposite, that he was a scary guy who created an atmosphere of terror for Ennis, I can gather some pretty strong support:”
But the support you gather is not direct evidence, it’s inference. For example, you talk about what you see in terms of Ennis’ personality and behaviors. This is fine. Describe them. But, now to try and decide from whence they’ve come, that’s pure speculation. Even if you connect it to the fact that his father showed him dead Earl. Because I could connect it to the fact that Ennis only mentioned his mother twice. He said “they run themselves off” (mother and father) and that his mother used to like to compare a pure, sweet little boy like Ennis to a sleeping horse. Boy, she sounds like a winner. I’ll bet she compared Ennis to all kinds of barnyard animals. Thus, his displayed personality and behaviors.
Not great arguments, if you ask me. That’s why the Earl death scene is singularly important to us, the viewers, to understand Ennis’ personality and behaviors. It’s all we need. Why? Because by having the filmmaker (author) give only that one event as a defining moment in Ennis’ character, and by having all other issues relate back to it, that one event is given a legendary impact status. In other words, by making it the only event and by having his fears constantly referred back to it, the author has characterized that event in such a way as to show us the depth of the destructive nature of that event. The author has said “Here’s an event. Want to know more about it? OK. I’ll describe it for you.” Then the author describes it by making it the only event shown to us and by referring back to it (the dead sheep and the vision of Jack’s death) AND by not adding in all kinds of other events.
“But the idea that childhood experiences shape personality is a staple of fiction, partly because people tend to believe it and partly because it frees the author from having to spell everything out. So I don't think it's insignificant that Ennis is like that; I think his personality is deliberately designed to suggest something.”
Yes. Agreed. That that one event had such a destructive effect on Ennis.
“Even fiction writers rarely try to convince readers that a character's whole personality was shaped by a single incident, so I think we can eliminate the possibility that Ennis is shy and withdrawn, etc., because of Earl.”
No and no. I’m sorry, but I see the exact opposite of your first clause to be correct. Fiction writers almost always choose a single event as being the most significant and defining. They then have other smaller events and they are usually linked to the larger one. Also, even if your first clause is correct, there isn’t an a priori connection to the conclusion you’ve made.
“2) Ennis' casual acceptance of the possibility that his father done the job.”
Again, what you’ve given are inferences that make for interesting discussion. I have no problem with that. But, it appears to me that you’re seeking to make them more important than what the author gave us: the Earl death scene. If these are more important, and the Earl death scene is “only shorthand,” then why did the author present it the way she did? To make us all run around looking for more important possible factors? This isn’t the same kind of “leave ‘em guessing” that is done with “How did Jack die?” or what is meant by “Jack, I swear”?
If we want to infer from what was said, I’d say a more direct inference would be based as closely to the words as possible. Ennis’ dad was used to killing men. But, just how big was the gay population of Sage, WY in the early fifties? Not much – but I could be wrong. It’s more likely that Ennis’ father got his practice in killing men by being the state executioner. So, Ennis was really idolizing his father in this scene because he’s proud of how well his dad was able to translate his job as state executioner to his personal life. Hack, cough, gag…
“3) Ennis most likely by age nine knew or suspected he was gay. I'm infering this because I think by age nine most people know or suspect at least something about their sexuality.”
And I have no problem with this. Not because I might agree with your inference; rather, I have no problem with this because you’re not trying to use it to negate what the author gave us as a significant event in Ennis’ life.
“So we know that Ennis knew that his father hated gays so much that, at some point, Ennis concluded (rightly or wrongly) that his father was at least capable of torturing a gay man to death.”
We only know that Ennis said this once to Jack. He could have come to this conclusion at that very moment as he spoke. His words were, “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” The way he says it sounds to me as if he just came up with this. I don’t know. Maybe he’s always believed it? Since age nine? Maybe.
“We know how the average kid would feel living with a potentially violent dad who hates gays that much and knows that he (the kid himself) is gay. And we know that Ennis grew up to be a repressed, uptight, paranoid, taciturn man. I think by connecting those dots we can figure that Ennis' actions as an adult don't spring entirely, maybe not even primarily, from the Earl incident.”
Agree with the first part, not the second. You only listed a few dots to connect to come up with a conclusion that negates what we were presented by the film. I could say that we all know what it’s like to grow up with a distant mother who only ever refers to her children as unconscious barnyard animals… wouldn’t that make a kid repressed or uptight?
Additionally, you only list a few of the behaviors that you see in Ennis to make your point. How about if I add these behaviors: He’s a loving husband who puts his arm around his wife in parked cars. He’s a loving husband who playfully jostles with his wife in the snow. He’s a loving husband who will work a job on the pavement to make money for his family even though he’s an “earthy” kind of fella. He smiles when women come on to him. He has no problem showing his sensory pleasure concerning beans. He cares deeply for animals. He’s a hands-on kind of dad for his infants. Even when he’s got other things on his mind (like leaving to go see Jack or having an argument with Alma), he’ll always stop and be kind to his girls. He’s the kind of man who can learn loving behaviors (an ear rub) from one person and transfer it to another (Jenny). He’s fastidious (tents and buttons). He’s in touch enough with his playful side that even in a solemn event like a wedding he can crack a smile when a Jolly Minister makes a joke. He’s discreet about his extra-marital affairs. He became a good speller – better than Jack, at least. He showed an interest in an edjamacation. He had a playful side (examples of teasing Jack). He wasn’t afraid to shed a tear or two. Put all these behind the part about living with a gay-hating dad and it doesn’t connect too well.
Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seem as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.
“I agree, and to me that further supports the idea that Ennis' attitude is based on long-term teaching. How could Ennis develop such a deep-seated belief based on one shocking incident that he doesn't even really approve of?”
Back to the incident itself. Ennis never said he approved or disapproved of it. He simply stated what he saw and applied it to himself. This is what he was shown by his father. He has now “learned” that this is the natural consequence for such behavior. He accepts that. He thinks his daddy was right. He learned from a man he respected. Oops, there goes the whole Ennis/father tension…
“As far as we know, Ennis' father didn't find out about Ennis. But the threat was always there.”
Was there always a threat there from Jack’s mother to Jack? No. Why not? Because we weren’t given any indication that a threat could have been there. But then how do we infer that there was a threat always present for Ennis? By seeing the Earl death scene… oops, here it suddenly seems significant again… direct evidence given to us from which we may rightly or wrongly infer something else.
“I don't think confusion about sexuality shapes one's personality,”
Gulp. I’ll let this one go…
Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.
How so?
“In the ways we've discussed elsewhere. First by taking Jack up on his offer in TS1. Next by carrying on a long-term relationship with him after the reunion. And after Jack's death, by moving to a better understanding of love.”
Sorry. I thought you were talking about something different. Yes. Agreed.
“I think the Earl incident was the most shocking and horrifying moment of Ennis' childhood. I just don't think it's what turned Ennis into Ennis.
I can go with this. I just can’t go with this: “That's all it is, a glimpse.”
If I might add… I think what you said to another poster is very true:
“But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant. I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.”
(Except, I might delete the last four words as assumption.)
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl
by latjoreme (Fri Oct 13 2006 17:12:50 )
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 17:22:41
Hi CPDM,
Re that last quote, maybe I'm reading your meaning wrong, but Malina wrote it, not me. But I agree that it is true.
So before we go on debating this for a week and writing 40,000 more words on the subject, let me clarify one huge thing. You said, in agreeing with one of my points, that it was OK because you’re not trying to use it to negate what the author gave us as a significant event in Ennis’ life.
Here's the clarification: I'm not using any of this to negate the Earl episode as a significant event in Ennis' life! Of course it was significant. I said outright that it was undoubtedly the most shocking and horrifying event of his childhood.
All I'm saying is it's not the sole reason that Ennis is homophobic and paranoid and all them other things. When I say shorthand, I don't mean it's inconsequential. I mean it's a concise way for both Ennis and Annie Proulx to encapsulate an abstract and extendd and largely invisible experience -- Ennis' youthful fears -- into one dramatic and haunting anecdote. A peak moment, of course. Just not the only moment.
And I don't totally disagree when you say that the Earl death scene is singularly important to us, the viewers, to understand Ennis’ personality and behaviors. It’s all we need. Yes, it's a way for us viewers to understand Ennis. Humans constantly understand each other based on single incidents, in real life and especially in fiction, but that doesn't mean those incidents are the single influence on the person's development. In other words, as a narrative strategy it's fine. As psychological analysis, not so much.
I would disagree, though, with "it's all we need." Because when people understand Ennis as someone whose personality and behavior were shaped by a single incident -- without factoring in the implications of the incident -- they tend to underestimate the challenge Ennis faces. They say things like, "C'mon, so you saw a dead guy 20 years ago. Get over it, already."
Let me clarify a couple of other points while I'm at it:
-- I agree that Ennis respected his father. I don't think that's incompatible with fearing his violence, anger and/or disapproval -- absolutely the contrary, in fact.
-- Though I agree with your enumeration of Ennis' many virtues -- loving father, wanly affectionate husband, discrete adulterer, etc. -- I don't see how those necessarily contradict "guy whose sexual and romantic life is warped because he grew up with a brutal dad who would have hated his son if he knew the truth about him."
Now, if you want to argue that Ennis' dad was a great guy and wonderful father and fine roper at every other point in Ennis' childhood except during that one lone hour in which he forcefully escorted his two young sons to view the mutilated body of a man he himself might have slaughtered, let's get to it.
Or if you contend that Ennis must have considered his dad a great guy because he speaks of him in neutral or mildly positive terms -- that is, he doesn't spill all his deep filial fears and shames -- to Jack in the month after they met, I think I can come up with some other explanations.
Or if you can present evidence that a gay kid will sustain no serious psychological scars from knowing his respected father would, at the very least, give the thumbs up to a vicious gay-bashing murder, then by all means bring it on!
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Sat Oct 14 2006 01:58:14 )
Hi latjoreme –
“Here's the clarification: I'm not using any of this to negate the Earl episode as a significant event in Ennis' life! … All I'm saying is it's not the sole reason that Ennis is homophobic and paranoid and all them other things. When I say shorthand, I don't mean it's inconsequential. I mean it's a concise way for both Ennis and Annie Proulx to encapsulate an abstract and extendd and largely invisible experience -- Ennis' youthful fears -- into one dramatic and haunting anecdote. A peak moment, of course. Just not the only moment.”
Yes. I understand this. But, you did say:
“I often see posts that refer to Ennis' issues -- his internalized homophobia, his fears, his rejection of Jack's sweet-life propoal -- as if they were generated by a single traumatic childhood experience: seeing the ruined body of Earl. The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.
No doubt seeing Earl was an awful experience that haunted Ennis for life. But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”
The point I'm making is, I always refer back to it because it’s what we were given. If I post something about Ennis’ homophobia rearing its ugly head in the post-divorce white truck drive-by shot, and someone asks “Where’d you come up with “homophobia?”” I would refer back to the Earl death scene. I would not refer back to the “fine roper” comment nor would I say anything about his unknown childhood.
“Humans constantly understand each other based on single incidents, in real life and especially in fiction, but that doesn't mean those incidents are the single influence on the person's development. In other words, as a narrative strategy it's fine. As psychological analysis, not so much.”
Agreed. But, isn’t any psychological analysis done of fictional characters really a literary analysis of a narrative strategy?
“I would disagree, though, with "it's all we need." Because when people understand Ennis as someone whose personality and behavior were shaped by a single incident -- without factoring in the implications of the incident -- they tend to underestimate the challenge Ennis faces. They say things like, "C'mon, so you saw a dead guy 20 years ago. Get over it, already."”
This is often true!
“Let me clarify a couple of other points while I'm at it:”
I personally love it when you clarify. I find myself doing it a lot of late.
“I agree that Ennis respected his father. I don't think that's incompatible with fearing his violence, anger and/or disapproval -- absolutely the contrary, in fact.”
But, the violence, anger and/or disapproval are assumptions about the character. Ennis said maybe his dad did the job. Ennis was not sure. Ennis did not say his father was violent or angry or whether he approved or disapproved. I personally infer from Ennis’ words in the Earl death scene (in the film only now) that there is a possibility that Ennis’ father did the job. However, if someone were to say that Ennis’ father took his boys to see dead Earl to teach them how homophobic and murderous some other guys were, then I couldn’t disagree. After all, Ennis may have misread his father that day. Ennis describes what happened and gives one possible maybe. He never said specifically why his father took them to see the body. Maybe Ennis was so scared and scarred by the whole incident that the fact that his nice father took him to see how bad those murderers were (as opposed to how bad Earl was) got twisted in his mind and he got the wrong message from his dad? Maybe his dad was a great guy?
Ennis: “The bottom line is, we're around each other and, and this thing grabs hold of us again in the wrong place, in the wrong time, then we’re dead. I’ll tell you, there was these two old guys ranched together down home… Earl and Rich. They was a joke of town, even though they was pretty tough old birds. Anyway, they, they found Earl dead in an irrigation ditch. They'd took a tire iron to him, spurred him up, drug him around by his dick till it pulled off…”
Jack: “You seen this?”
Ennis: “Yeah. I was what, nine years old? My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it. Hell, for all I know, he done the job. Two guys livin' together? No way.”
Ennis does not say why his father took them to see dead Earl. Wouldn’t it just be so ironic if his dad took them to see dead Earl to show how cruel some people can be to each other? And then a nine-year-old Ennis misinterpreted it. And wondered about his own father. It does rather fit the character, doesn’t it? Irony is a literary device used by the author.
Now, you may say that Ennis surmised from this that his dad may have been capable of doing this. And that gives evidence for an inference that his dad was a bad dude. However, Ennis did not say it as a fact. He said it as an interpretation and he qualified it. Flip-side -- Ennis knew they were the joke of town, yet he called them “tough old birds.” Where did this respect come from? His nice father who wanted to show his boys that something evil had been done? Evidence for an inference.
“I don't see how those necessarily contradict "guy whose sexual and romantic life is warped because he grew up with a brutal dad who would have hated his son if he knew the truth about him."”
But, technically, we do not know if this is true.
“Or if you can present evidence that a gay kid will sustain no serious psychological scars from knowing his respected father would, at the very least, give the thumbs up to a vicious gay-bashing murder, then by all means bring it on!”
(italics are mine)
Again, technically speaking…
All of the words that Ennis spoke of his father and the way he spoke those words (pre-Earl death scene) are either 1) a startling apparent contradiction to what we later learn, or 2) further evidence of an interpretation of the Earl death scene in a whole new light.
Finally, I earlier said that I was only speaking from the film perspective. The short story gives two lines that add to (or even prove) the notion of Ennis' father as a bad dude. But, if we just stick with the film...
Re: It's not all about Earl
by latjoreme (Sat Oct 14 2006 12:54:27 )
UPDATED Sat Oct 14 2006 14:21:54
Hi CPDM,
Wouldn’t it just be so ironic if his dad took them to see dead Earl to show how cruel some people can be to each other? And then a nine-year-old Ennis misinterpreted it. And wondered about his own father. It does rather fit the character, doesn’t it? Irony is a literary device used by the author.
OK, well now you're just making fun of me.
But s'alright, I can take it. And I really like your interpretation of the story: it's all about Ennis' stubborn refusal to conquer his homophobia, despite the efforts of everyone around him to help him accept his sexuality and find true love. Mr. Del Mar, the rainbow-bumpersticker-sporting liberal, sensing that his son might be gay and trying his best to warn the boy of the dangers that might lie ahead. Matchmaking Aguirre and discrete Alma, tactfully giving Ennis and Jack plenty of time alone together in hopes they will work things out. Even kindly Timmy, intuiting that his brooding coworker is working through some issues and trying delicately to broach the subject in hopes of drawing him out ...
Wow, this movie has even more subtle meanings than I thought!
I realize we could spend another two weeks going back and forth on this, presenting endless evidence and pithy retortes on either side. But we'll always wind up at the same brick wall: I think it's perfectly acceptable -- in fact, in many cases, is exactly what the author intends -- to extrapolate. You apparently don't. Both are legitimate approaches to reading fiction, I guess. And we both wind up in more or less the same place. So to each his/her own.
Only, your side had better take responsibility for all those people who think Ennis is being silly for making such a big f'in deal about something he saw for five minutes 20 years ago. And frankly, if I thought that was absolutely all there was to it, I might just about agree with them.
The short story gives two lines that add to (or even prove) the notion of Ennis' father as a bad dude.
OK, I'll bite. Does it have to do with fighting K.E.? Or maybe the line Ellemeno mentioned earlier about "you bet he'd go get his tire iron"? (Or do you see that one as simply suggesting that his dad, finding the two forced to spend the night in a motel, would assume they are stranded with a flat tire and no tools to fix it, so he hurries out to lend a hand?)
Re: It's not all about Earl
by HeathandMichelle (Sat Oct 14 2006 14:34:02 )
Earl dying is small, compared to thinking his Dad might have done it. I'm in absolute awe that Ennis had it in him to have that 20 year gay relationship. He was ultimately the stongest character in the movie, overcoming his past and having his love affair with Jack.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version