Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > IMDb Remarkable Writings Rewound
it's not all about Earl -- by latjoreme
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Mon Oct 30 2006 22:55:12 )
Hi latjoreme –
(Do you realize our public posts are getting almost as big as our PMs?)
“It's becoming a full-time job!”
Or, a way of life?
“Oops, oops, oops. You're right. I misworded it. I should have said "it stretches my tolerance for literary license to think that a man would express homophobia one isolated occasion -- and then it's so intense as to be possibly murderous."”
Well, that makes all the difference, now doesn’t it?
(BTW – I really like this part: “Look how the scene is filmed: you don't see the dad's head, he's taking two boys (not just one): it all suggests a symbolic rite of passage for boys in that society.”)
“Me too. I love that part. Wish I could take credit for it, but I stole it from M_____ at BetterMost. (I'd gladly name her, but I'm not sure whether she'd mind being named.)”
Well, you used it well! It still does seem quite true, huh? Also, this is a good example of how many, many things are explored and expressed at BetterMost – and always in a highly intelligent manner and without trolls.
Yes. But there is supporting evidence: You have described the scene as horrific and murderous. This is exactly the kind of thing that only requires one such event to shock a person’s psyche for life.
“But see, that's one big place where we disagree.”
I know…
Ennis said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.”
“Maybe. But even if it were to cross his mind at nine, as he is lying in his bed that night mulling over the shocking event, I don't think it would stay there for 14 more years without any further proof.”
Excellent point. And excellent wording. “…without any further proof.” Again, this has nothing to do with his father before that time.
“Let's assume, for the moment, that OMDM was a cipher -- that he gave no clues one way or the other about how he felt toward the murder, except that he wanted his sons to see it. And elsewhere, we've been shown that Ennis respects OMDM. If OMDM never again betrayed any sign of homophobia -- and remember, Ennis would have been hyperalert to the faintest hint of it -- I find it impossible to believe that 23-year-old Ennis had not long since abandoned that idea.”
Fine. What if all that you say is true… AND K.E. told Ennis that his father did it? OR Ennis heard some townsfolk say that his father did it. Only one guy made a passing comment such as “Oh, you’re Ennis Del Mar? I knew your daddy long ago. He was a good man. Got rid of some fag trash from our town.” OR what if Ennis saw his father butcher animals they had killed (pigs, chickens, elks) with no sign of compassion for the animal (remember, Ennis is Mr. Livestock). OR what if Ennis’ father had to put a horse or a dog down? No homophobia there, but a shocking example of how his father could kill something -- that Ennis loved -- without regard.
“What boy wants his respected father to be a murderer, especially one he might have reason to fear himself?”
Wants to? Or has reason to? Or is “feared into” believing so?
“What kid clings to that unfounded suspicion about an otherwise respectable and seemingly just father, for 14 years, even after the guy has died tragically, in the absence of any other evidence?”
We don’t know that there was no other evidence of his killing abilities. Or of other people’s suspicions brought to Ennis’ attention. Or of his father’s “murderous homophobia.”
Also, did Ennis cling to it? It’s the last thing Ennis said on the subject. And it was made as a passing comment. Listen to him say it. It’s not as if he’s relaying a deep-seated fear that his father did it. It’s an off-hand remark. Both in how he says it and with the words he actually used.
“Or even, to stretch our imaginations to the very limit for the sake of argument, even if Ennis continued to harbor in his heart of hearts some tiny little spark of suspicion that his dad would be capable of such cruelty -- even then, would taciturn, repressed Ennis just casually and gratuitously toss it off to Jack like that, leaving his friend to suspect his presumably innocent, otherwise respectable and tragically deceased dad of a terrible crime? Sorry. No way.”
Yes way. I just gave examples of how it could have been engrained in him – all from causes OTHER than his father.
“Frankly, I'm not sure that Ennis would have made a more definite statement to Jack if he'd seen a bloody crowbar in the back of the pickup. I think he had damn good reason, but was trying to be offhand and unsure out of respect for the memory of that fine old roper he thinks was right.”
Well, this certainly is one of many explanations… one of many that doesn’t even speak to Ennis’ father’s feelings, words, or behaviors.
It’s not a question of whether OMDM was a blank slate, it’s a question of what Ennis formed in his little, impressionable mind.
“But little impressionable Ennis, probably already sensing he himself was gay, would have been scouring that slate, blank or otherwise, sifting through every single second of that afternoon for meaning and clues. His own life may depend on finding answers! Why did his father want him to see that? What was his father's tone when he told the boys he was taking them somewhere? What did his father say on the drive out and the ride home? Would the entire expedition have taken place in stony silence, or might his father have indicated why he thought it was important for the boys to have the experience? And Ennis' desperate examination of his father's attitudes would take place not only on that one day, but for days and years to come. It would become essential that he figure out what his father thought. Previously, when his father had "passed a remark" about Earl and Rich, or been present when they "was the joke of the town," how did he react? In years to come, how did his father behave when they ran into Rich in town? How did his father respond when the subject of homosexuality came up on other occasions, on TV or joking around with the guys?”
Exactly! All examples of how Ennis probably did process it in his mind. And when we see how Ennis spoke of his father throughout the ENTIRE film – with only ONE exception, 9 words – it somehow starts to answer all of those questions above. Very good evidence about just what Ennis thought of his father. One off-hand remark made in 40 years balanced against everything Ennis said and viewed in the light of the scenario you just gave. I’m getting ready to call the Vatican – they got a saint in the making.
“Chances are, his father would have other opportunities to show his attitudes toward gays. It wouldn't take much to leave Ennis really scared, especially if what he saw gave him further reason to connect his father with Earl's murder.”
Absolutely. And all of this is after the Earl incident. AND, it doesn’t have to have anything at all to do with his father from the Earl incident forward. As I showed, others could have influenced Ennis’ thinking just as easily.
The focus is not on OMDM. It’s on Ennis and his mental condition at the time and thereafter.
“But Ennis' mental condition would sure as heck be focused on OMDM.”
Yes and no. I agree his attention goes there. Always? Only there? What about Earl?
“Here's a typical definition randomly plucked from the web: "Psychosis is a loss of contact with reality, typically including delusions (false ideas about what is taking place or who one is) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things which aren't there)." I don't think these describe Ennis -- unless we're talking about an Ennis who would accuse a respected parent of murder with no evidence.”
Exactly. This is why I don’t see Ennis as psychotic. I also don’t see him accuse any parent, respected or otherwise, of murder, with or without any evidence.
But you keep changing the scenario. And you’re mixing in a lot of assumptions. And you’re switching the focus.
“Huh-uh, YOU are.”
Now hold on there a minute little cowgirl. You know as well as I that them thar words can only be used after the word “moron!”
Are you talking about what is or isn’t believable in OMDM’s actions or are you talking about Ennis?
“Both. If we take the Earl incident as an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia, then neither Del Mar's behavior fits my view of human psychology.”
Argh! You left yourself wide open here. I ain’t gonna touch this with a ten-foot pole!
“I'm sorry, but don't read these stories, and I just don't believe this happens very often. I do believe people's personalities get permanently affected by long-term trauma (prolonged child abuse, extreme poverty, living in a war zone).”
How about Ennis seeing what his father showed him and then hearing several times over years what I gave above as examples? What if the man who said that to Ennis said it to him just as Ennis was viewing his dead father’s body in its casket? Again, nothing to do with Ennis’ father himself.
“I can even believe that their personalities can can be permanently affected by a single traumatic incident that intensely involved them (seeing a parent murdered, being sexually assaulted, surviving a natural disaster). And I certainly can believe that what happened to Ennis -- an isolated traumatic incident that involves him only by implication, not directly -- could leave him seriously, permanently, shaken and disturbed and scared.”
However, you describe Ennis as a gay boy who sees this. That goes much closer to “directly” than to “implication.”
“But would it profoundly alter his character and personality and worldview? Nope, sorry, I don't think this happens everyday in newspapers and magazines and psychological journals and TV talk shows and documentaries. I've never seen it in any of those places, anyway. I believe people take the character and personality and worldview they've already got into such situations and deal with them accordingly.”
Where did this character and personality and worldview come from? When was it fixed in stone? Aren’t character and personality and worldview changes often precipitated by one isolated, horrific event? They are. But even if you’re not willing to buy this, then what about the scenarios I gave above? Why is it not just as possible – from the story that we were told – that Ennis’ father was an otherwise respectable man who did not go around spewing homophobia all the time, but showed this one horrific lesson to Ennis because he had the ability to do it at that time, and then it gets further engrained and more deeply rooted into Ennis over years of hearing things and seeing things and becoming aware of all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with his father?
I’ve given you what you’ve asked for… An example that does not rely on the one, isolated, horrific experience that we were shown. You have stuck pretty darn close to the idea that for that incident to have as bad an effect on Ennis as it did, it had to have come through his father’s other homophobic behaviors or words. But why not the scenario I laid out for you? It has all of the other elements that you require of OMDM’s homophobia. It strengthens your argument about other influences and it strengthens your allusion to shorthand. Yet it has nothing to do with Ennis’ father. And, as far as inference goes, it does not present us with the apparent disconnect between Ennis’ nine words at the river and all of his other words spoken about his father.
Round 8…
[EDIT -- After reading this again, I should clarify something -- when I say it has nothing to do with his father, what I mean is, it's not his father's own words or actions... it's what OTHERS say or do... and they could be dead wrong.]
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by latjoreme (Tue Oct 31 2006 10:42:04 )
Hi CPDM,
“It's becoming a full-time job!”
Or, a way of life?
That's for sure. I've long since given up any pretense of earning a living. Next step is putting the kids up for adoption.
What if all that you say is true… AND K.E. told Ennis that his father did it? OR Ennis heard some townsfolk say that his father did it. Only one guy made a passing comment such as “Oh, you’re Ennis Del Mar? I knew your daddy long ago. He was a good man. Got rid of some fag trash from our town.”
That just extends our same argument to a larger stage. Why would K.E. or the townsfolk accuse Mr. Del Mar unjustly? Even if the idea came from the townsfolk or K.E., it would likely be based on something OMDM said or did. And if it was just one stray remark, why wouldn't Ennis, who respects his father, thinks he's right, and wants to believe he's a good man, reject this? Or, if he didn't reject it altogether, why would he spill it to Jack on the basis of such flimsy evidence?
Or, anticipating that your next argument will be that K.E. or the other guy accused Mr. Del Mar unfairly, due to mistaken identity or some such misunderstanding, even though they'd probably know Mr. Del Mar well enough to know whether or not he'd be either a) homophobic or b) violent -- but OK, sure, maybe such a mistake is remotely possible. You often see that kind of thing happening in sitcoms (except, you know, funny).
But why would this convoluted scenario be easier for you to accept that the idea that Mr. Del Mar is homophobic, and that he might express that homophobia on more than one occasion? For me, the first part is probable, and given that the second part is almost impossible not to believe.
OR what if Ennis saw his father butcher animals they had killed (pigs, chickens, elks) with no sign of compassion for the animal (remember, Ennis is Mr. Livestock). OR what if Ennis’ father had to put a horse or a dog down? No homophobia there, but a shocking example of how his father could kill something -- that Ennis loved -- without regard.
Sorry, too far fetched for me to imagine a ranch kid equating an animal butchering with a man's torture/murder. Maybe if he was a sheltered city kid, spending his first summer on the ranch ... But no. And in any case, not enough evidence for him to have told Jack.
There's someone on BetterMost who's fond of quoting Occam's Razor, the idea that one should make no more assumptions than necessary to explain something. To me, the homophobic dad theory does not violate Occam's Razor; rather, I find it the homophobic dad almost requried to explain both Ennis' and his father's behavior. But old Occam would be shaking his head at this parade of dragged-in townsfolk and K.E. and wild accusations and mistaken identities and savagely butchered farm animals.
“What kid clings to that unfounded suspicion about an otherwise respectable and seemingly just father, for 14 years, even after the guy has died tragically, in the absence of any other evidence?”
We don’t know that there was no other evidence of his killing abilities. Or of other people’s suspicions brought to Ennis’ attention. Or of his father’s “murderous homophobia.”
Exactly. That's what I'm sayin'. There must have been.
Also, did Ennis cling to it? It’s the last thing Ennis said on the subject. And it was made as a passing comment. Listen to him say it. It’s not as if he’s relaying a deep-seated fear that his father did it. It’s an off-hand remark. Both in how he says it and with the words he actually used.
Again, this reinforces my point. A rule-abiding son like Ennis doesn't casually accuse a respected father of a heinous crime. He has to really believe it.
when we see how Ennis spoke of his father throughout the ENTIRE film – with only ONE exception, 9 words ... Very good evidence about just what Ennis thought of his father. One off-hand remark made in 40 years balanced against everything Ennis said and viewed in the light of the scenario you just gave.
Let's go over again everything Ennis says of his father in the entire film. 1) He got in a car accident and died. 2) He left the kids $24 in a coffee can. 3) He was a fine roper. 4) He didn't do much rodeoin. 5) He thought rodeoers was f'ups. 6) He may have been right about that. 7) He made sure Ennis viewed the body of a man who'd been tortured to death for being gay. 8) He might have done the job himself.
I don't see how any of 1 through 7 even contradicts 8. You can be a good roper and consider rodeoers f'ups and STILL be homophobic. Even violently so. If you're going to force your sons to view the body, it becomes even MORE likely that you are (notwithstanding your other far-fetched explanations for why he might have done that).
Just as OMT shows you can be a bad dad and an SOB and yet not be homophobic, OMDM shows you can be violently homophobic and even otherwise appear to be a nice, respectable dad -- as long as you don't suspect your son is gay. Which I'm not saying OMDM did.
Furthermore, Ennis said all of those first six things within a month after meeting Jack. What is he, a shy and taciturn man who doesn't speak as much in a year as he does in five minutes ... or a guest on Oprah? Of course he's not going to start spilling all his deepest fears and suspicions and insecurities over beers after leaving Aguirre's place. Or any other time, either. Remember, this is an extremely sensitive topic for Ennis, an extremely repressed man.
Besides, if Ennis believed that his dad was right about homosexuality, what would cause him to mention his father's attitudes in some negative way? He believes he's the one who's wrong, not his dad, so there's no reason to complain about it, even if he felt threatened by OMDM. And he's not very likely to want to launch into a conversation having anything to do with homosexuality -- especially to Jack, then very guy for whom he's trying to hide or repress a homosexual attraction!
And all of this is after the Earl incident.
Since when is before/after the Earl incident an issue? I'm only saying OMDM showed his homophobia at times OUTSIDE of the Earl incident.
Now hold on there a minute little cowgirl. You know as well as I that them thar words can only be used after the word “moron!”
You said it, not me ...
If we take the Earl incident as an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia, then neither Del Mar's behavior fits my view of human psychology.”
Argh! You left yourself wide open here. I ain’t gonna touch this with a ten-foot pole!
Huh? You might as well touch it, because I don't know what you're talking about. Did I phrase it unclearly? Neither Del Mar would be behaving according to my understanding of psychology if we're to believe that the Earl incident is an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia.
“I just don't believe this happens very often. ... ”
How about Ennis seeing what his father showed him and then hearing several times over years what I gave above as examples? What if the man who said that to Ennis said it to him just as Ennis was viewing his dead father’s body in its casket? Again, nothing to do with Ennis’ father himself.
Nor is it an isolated incident at that point, either. It's a gay son growing up with a man who he's repeatedly been told is a homophobic murderer.
“ an isolated traumatic incident that involves him only by implication, not directly ”
However, you describe Ennis as a gay boy who sees this. That goes much closer to “directly” than to “implication.”
Still not close enough. Directly means he was personally involved. Not just a member of the same group that was targeted.
Where did this character and personality and worldview come from? When was it fixed in stone? Aren’t character and personality and worldview changes often precipitated by one isolated, horrific event?
No.
They are.
Huh-uh.
Why is it not just as possible – from the story that we were told – that Ennis’ father was an otherwise respectable man who did not go around spewing homophobia all the time, but showed this one horrific lesson to Ennis because he had the ability to do it at that time, and then it gets further engrained and more deeply rooted into Ennis over years of hearing things and seeing things and becoming aware of all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with his father?
First of all, it's not "just as" possible. Your scenario is remotely possible at best; mine is out-and-out probable. Your scenario is actually a stretch to find an explanation for the same phenomena while skirting the more obvious explanation, which is mine. Besides, your scenario requires one to seek a further explanation: what prompted one or more other people to accuse an innocent man of murder? And even if we accept your scenario, we're still reaching outside the Earl incident for an explanation of Ennis' remark to Jack, which was what you were supposed to be arguing against doing.
You have stuck pretty darn close to the idea that for that incident to have as bad an effect on Ennis as it did, it had to have come through his father’s other homophobic behaviors or words. But why not the scenario I laid out for you? It has all of the other elements that you require of OMDM’s homophobia. It strengthens your argument about other influences and it strengthens your allusion to shorthand. Yet it has nothing to do with Ennis’ father.
OK. But even if we swallow your moroni - I mean, cockamamie scenario, it still relies on Ennis believing that OMDM is homophobic and murderous, in this case because of things he's been told. That's only inches away from my original explanation -- that he believed his father was homophobic and murderous because of behavior by his father that he witnessed firsthand. And it's a long way from your contention, that Ennis' behavior could be fully explained simply by his seeing Earl.
And, as far as inference goes, it does not present us with the apparent disconnect between Ennis’ nine words at the river and all of his other words spoken about his father.
Which I don't see as a disconnect, as noted above.
Round 9 ...
(ding!)
{EDIT -- After reading this again, I should clarify something -- when I say it has nothing to do with his father, what I mean is, it's not his father's own words or actions... it's what OTHERS say or do... and they could be dead wrong.)
Uh-huh. The old "townsfolk fooled into thinking their fellow citizen is a homophobic murderer when actually he's a perfectly nice man and it's some other guy who done the job" plot. I think I saw that one on "The Andy Griffith Show" once.
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Tue Oct 31 2006 20:01:12 )
Hi latjoreme –
It's becoming a full-time job! Or, a way of life?
“Next step is putting the kids up for adoption.”
Well even BBM doesn’t deserve that kind of treatment!
What if all that you say is true… AND K.E. told Ennis that his father did it? OR Ennis heard some townsfolk say that his father did it. Only one guy made a passing comment such as “Oh, you’re Ennis Del Mar? I knew your daddy long ago. He was a good man. Got rid of some fag trash from our town.”
“That just extends our same argument to a larger stage. Why would K.E. or the townsfolk accuse Mr. Del Mar unjustly?”
Because KE wants to scare Ennis. Because KE believes it to be true. Because KE got a whoopin’ and wants to get back at dear old dad. Because the townsfolk think he’s a swell guy and they think what happened to Earl was swell and they connect the dots. Because they want Ennis to look up to his father. Because they heard OMDM took his boys to see dead Earl and they figure OMDM did it. Should I go on?
“Even if the idea came from the townsfolk or K.E., it would likely be based on something OMDM said or did.”
Possibly yes, possibly no.
“And if it was just one stray remark, why wouldn't Ennis, who respects his father, thinks he's right, and wants to believe he's a good man, reject this?”
Because maybe it wasn't just one stray mark. Maybe it was several over the course of a few years. The way Ennis delivered his line to Jack, this actually sounds pretty close. It isn’t an enormous fear of his father or an enormous fear of what his father would do that was instilled into Ennis.
“Or, if he didn't reject it altogether, why would he spill it to Jack on the basis of such flimsy evidence?”
Because Ennis is just talkin’ with his good friend. He’s not even a sophomore. He hasn’t learned the ins and outs of logical analysis – at least not as well as we have!
The whole point behind my bringing this up was not to suggest an alternate view that we can debate. The point was to show that there are other reasonably possible scenarios to explain the instilled homophobia (through repetition) IF we choose to not believe that the Earl incident was sufficient to accomplish this purpose. You gave one reasonably possible possibility – his dad was homophobic a lot around Ennis. However, there is evidence from the film that this was not an instilling factor for Ennis to fear his father to the point of hatred or contempt. Ennis simply did not speak of his father in those terms. Nor did he speak of his father in terms of a horribly feared old man. What I have given as a reasonably possible possibility draws on what we know of brothers growing up together and townsfolk in rural Wyoming – the use of which knowledge you have approved. And, there is nothing in the film to contradict it. (Actually, there is one thing I can think of to contradict it, but then there is also one thing I can think of that would support it. Another dilemma.)
“Or, anticipating that your next argument…”
You anticipate me well.
“… will be that K.E. or the other guy accused Mr. Del Mar unfairly, due to mistaken identity or some such misunderstanding, even though they'd probably know Mr. Del Mar well enough to know whether or not he'd be either a) homophobic or b) violent -- but OK, sure, maybe such a mistake is remotely possible. You often see that kind of thing happening in sitcoms (except, you know, funny).”
One also sees it in real-life. How many times do the neighbors of the serial killer describe him as a nice, friendly neighbor? “I’m totally shocked he could have done such a thing!”
“But why would this convoluted scenario be easier for you to accept that the idea that Mr. Del Mar is homophobic, and that he might express that homophobia on more than one occasion?”
I didn’t say that. It isn’t about which scenario is better. It’s about whether we have definitive proof of OMDM displaying actions and words over the course of Ennis life such that the Earl death scene becomes shorthand. As I have said, this is possible. But it’s also possible that other things could have accomplished this. And we do have the apparent contradiction in how Ennis views his father. In fact, Ennis displays a much greater fear of the townsfolk than he does of his father. In fact, I could even say the same concerning his brother – but I’ll admit the one thing I could say would be a stretch because it’s vitiated by something else going on at the same time.
“OR what if Ennis saw his father butcher animals they had killed (pigs, chickens, elks) with no sign of compassion for the animal (remember, Ennis is Mr. Livestock). OR what if Ennis’ father had to put a horse or a dog down? No homophobia there, but a shocking example of how his father could kill something -- that Ennis loved -- without regard.”
“Sorry, too far fetched for me to imagine a ranch kid equating an animal butchering with a man's torture/murder.”
Ah, but I did say that it was an animal that Ennis loved and I did say that he did it with no sign of compassion for the animal. You forget some of the great classic boy+animal films of the ‘50s. A common theme… boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… cue the Disney theme.
“There's someone on BetterMost who's fond of quoting Occam's Razor, the idea that one should make no more assumptions than necessary to explain something.”
I agree. It’s not a bad principle to follow.
“To me, the homophobic dad theory does not violate Occam's Razor; rather, I find it the homophobic dad almost requried to explain both Ennis' and his father's behavior.”
I would agree that it does not violate. However, there is contradictory evidence – or, at the very least, we are presented with a new question about the relationship between father and son that must of necessity be answered. Occam’s Razor does not like it when an explanation opens a new can of worms.
“But old Occam would be shaking his head at this parade of dragged-in townsfolk and K.E. and wild accusations and mistaken identities and savagely butchered farm animals.”
Agreed. That is a step further removed. However, it has no apparent contradiction attached to it, it does not open a new can of worms, and it fits into the rural mentality that you have said is acceptable. But again, it’s not about which theory is better or worse. It’s about the effects of the theories.
What kid clings to that unfounded suspicion about an otherwise respectable and seemingly just father, for 14 years, even after the guy has died tragically, in the absence of any other evidence?
We don’t know that there was no other evidence of his killing abilities. Or of other people’s suspicions brought to Ennis’ attention. Or of his father’s “murderous homophobia.
“Exactly. That's what I'm sayin'. There must have been.”
Exactly. That’s what I'm saying… there could have been. But we do not know for sure. Thus, we speculate. And the question then becomes to where does our speculation lead us? To an obliteration of what was given to us? Old Occam would have words about this.
(BTW – I should probably point out at this point, in all fairness, that even though I said above that Occam’s Razor isn’t a bad principle to follow, it really does have its drawbacks and limitations. It was probably good logic back in the medieval days of yore, but we have added other tools of logical analysis since then.)
Also, did Ennis cling to it? It’s the last thing Ennis said on the subject. And it was made as a passing comment. Listen to him say it. It’s not as if he’s relaying a deep-seated fear that his father did it. It’s an off-hand remark. Both in how he says it and with the words he actually used.
“Again, this reinforces my point. A rule-abiding son like Ennis doesn't casually accuse a respected father of a heinous crime. He has to really believe it.”
The very first thing I could do here is to ask you to make a list of all of Ennis’ attributes (words and deeds) that show him to be a rule-follower. I would then give you a list that shows how Ennis is a rule-breaker.
But, once again, Ennis did not accuse (casually or otherwise) his father (respected or not) of any crime. Ennis expressed his wondering whether his father could have done the job. He does not have to believe it. In fact, he does not believe. Nor does he not believe it. He is open-minded about the possibility. No decision has been made.
when we see how Ennis spoke of his father throughout the ENTIRE film – with only ONE exception, 9 words ... Very good evidence about just what Ennis thought of his father. One off-hand remark made in 40 years balanced against everything Ennis said and viewed in the light of the scenario you just gave.
“Let's go over again everything Ennis says of his father in the entire film. 1) He got in a car accident and died. 2) He left the kids $24 in a coffee can. 3) He was a fine roper. 4) He didn't do much rodeoin. 5) He thought rodeoers was f'ups. 6) He may have been right about that. 7) He made sure Ennis viewed the body of a man who'd been tortured to death for being gay. 8) He might have done the job himself.”
“I don't see how any of 1 through 7 even contradicts 8.”
You’re right. They do not contradict it. And they do not support it. Taken as the statements were delivered, they tend more toward contradicting #8 than supporting #8. And herein lies the apparent contradiction.
“You can be a good roper and consider rodeoers f'ups and STILL be homophobic. Even violently so.”
Absolutely. And yet, Ennis’ father’s actions on that fateful day did not instill such fear in Ennis of his father that Ennis was prevented from speaking in the terms that he did of his father on the other occasions. It all comes right down to that one comment on that one day. You yourself have pointed out this apparent contradiction in the past.
“Just as OMT shows you can be a bad dad and an SOB and yet not be homophobic, OMDM shows you can be violently homophobic and even otherwise appear to be a nice, respectable dad -- as long as you don't suspect your son is gay. Which I'm not saying OMDM did.”
You’re absolutely right.
“Furthermore, Ennis said all of those first six things within a month after meeting Jack. What is he, a shy and taciturn man who doesn't speak as much in a year as he does in five minutes ... or a guest on Oprah? Of course he's not going to start spilling all his deepest fears and suspicions and insecurities over beers after leaving Aguirre's place. Or any other time, either. Remember, this is an extremely sensitive topic for Ennis, an extremely repressed man.”
Exactly. And yet, look at how he does speak of his father. Additionally, was it not in this very conversation in which he spoke un-fearedly (now you shut up about my made-up words) about his father AND admitted to Jack that this is the most he had spoken in a year? The point of this scene is the turn-around in Ennis, the opening up of Ennis to another person – to advance the growing intimacy between the boys (excuse me, I mean our boys); thus, his words of openness carry even greater weight of his openness.
“Besides, if Ennis believed that his dad was right about homosexuality, what would cause him to mention his father's attitudes in some negative way?”
I don’t know that Ennis did feel his father was right about homosexuality.
“He believes he's the one who's wrong, not his dad, so there's no reason to complain about it, even if he felt threatened by OMDM.”
Same comment.
“And he's not very likely to want to launch into a conversation having anything to do with homosexuality -- especially to Jack, then very guy for whom he's trying to hide or repress a homosexual attraction!”
But this really has nothing to do with the fact that he did, in fact, open up to Jack with honest words of openness concerning himself and his father.
And all of this is after the Earl incident.
“Since when is before/after the Earl incident an issue? I'm only saying OMDM showed his homophobia at times OUTSIDE of the Earl incident.”
This comment of mine was meant to speak to the possibility that Ennis’ instilled homophobia could have come from outside sources (KE, the townspeople) after the Earl incident.
If we take the Earl incident as an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia, then neither Del Mar's behavior fits my view of human psychology.
Argh! You left yourself wide open here. I ain’t gonna touch this with a ten-foot pole!
“Huh? You might as well touch it, because I don't know what you're talking about. Did I phrase it unclearly? Neither Del Mar would be behaving according to my understanding of psychology if we're to believe that the Earl incident is an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia.”
Argh. You did it again. Well, since you asked… “my view” and “my understanding.” This has been the big bugaboo.
How about Ennis seeing what his father showed him and then hearing several times over years what I gave above as examples? What if the man who said that to Ennis said it to him just as Ennis was viewing his dead father’s body in its casket? Again, nothing to do with Ennis’ father himself.
“Nor is it an isolated incident at that point, either. It's a gay son growing up with a man who he's repeatedly been told is a homophobic murderer.”
Exactly. Another possible explanation for Ennis’ homophobia and paranoia and in keeping with Ennis’ earlier statements about his father. Look at it this way, which is more likely: A) Ennis grows up with a horribly homophobic man who vents his hatred at every turn AND Ennis speaks well of his father… or B) Ennis respected his father AND heard bad things about him BUT Ennis continued to support his respect for his father even though the other things he heard have not been dismissed by his paranoid brain? “A” has an apparent contradiction that needs to be explained. “B” does not.
an isolated traumatic incident that involves him only by implication, not directly
However, you describe Ennis as a gay boy who sees this. That goes much closer to “directly” than to “implication.”
“Still not close enough. Directly means he was personally involved. Not just a member of the same group that was targeted.”
You’re right. He wasn't just a member of the targeted group. HE WAS THERE AT EARL’S DEATH SCENE. He was taken there. How much closer to direct can we get? If “by implication” is “1” and “direct” is “10,” I’d say we’re at about 9.5.
Why is it not just as possible – from the story that we were told – that Ennis’ father was an otherwise respectable man who did not go around spewing homophobia all the time, but showed this one horrific lesson to Ennis because he had the ability to do it at that time, and then it gets further engrained and more deeply rooted into Ennis over years of hearing things and seeing things and becoming aware of all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with his father?
“First of all, it's not "just as" possible. Your scenario is remotely possible at best; mine is out-and-out probable.”
And yet yours includes an apparent contradiction in what we see.
I have not said that your theory is improbable. I have said that I don’t like it to take center stage. I never said my scenario should be believed by anyone. I offered it to show that there are other possible scenarios besides the one that you created. The problem lies here… The author/filmmaker gave us one horrific incident to show us the homophobia that was instilled in Ennis. If they believed that we needed more, then they would have given it. I’m specifically talking about THIS author and THIS filmmaker. If THEY believed that it was not sufficient for us to understand the instilled homophobia, then THEY would have given us more. We can all muse about all kinds of other things that could have been. I do this myself. But the one thing I do not do is to rely on those musings for argument. I have seen too many posts that make a very broad statement about this influence or that influence (which is fine for musing sake) but then they go on to use those musings to support a premise about a character that is otherwise unsubstantiated or contradicts what we are told. In our present discussion, you began with the argument that “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.” This directly contradicts what the author/filmmaker told us. If someone asks “Why was Ennis so fearful about people finding out about his sexuality?” then the correct answer is “because of the Earl death scene.” It is what we were told and what we saw. Any other answer is speculation. And when the speculation directly contradicts or minimizes or even obliterates what we were told or shown (“in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”), then it is not valid to use.
Round 10… (Really?)
TOoP/Bruce:
It's not all about Earl.
by latjoreme (Tue Oct 31 2006 23:00:56 )
UPDATED Tue Oct 31 2006 23:01:37
The way Ennis delivered his line to Jack, this actually sounds pretty close. It isn’t an enormous fear of his father or an enormous fear of what his father would do that was instilled into Ennis.
The thing is ... sigh. This brings up a whole nother discussion of human psychology.
The kind of fear I'm talking about is not something that's close to the surface and readily available to confess to a friend -- even a really good friend. Not the friend he met a couple of weeks ago on Brokeback. Not the friend to whom, having just reunited after four years, he can't even offer a decently affectionate reply the redlining confession. Ennis' fear is, by its very nature, something he has always felt must be hidden.
One also sees it in real-life. How many times do the neighbors of the serial killer describe him as a nice, friendly neighbor? “I’m totally shocked he could have done such a thing!”
But that's exactly the opposite scenario -- falsely believing a guilty man couldn't have done it. You've conjured neighbors who falsely believe an innocent man did do it. People like to believe well of neighbors; they don't point the finger readily (especially to the person's own son). Is an innocent man ever suspected of a terrible murder? Of course. But not usually without any reason or evidence or some other basis for suspicion. Can you envision some far-flung circumstances under which the neighbors would all come to wrongly suspect Mr. Del Mar, to prove there will always be some circuitous way around Mr. Del Mar expressing homophobia? Sure ... undoubtedly ... but ... *sigh*
[/i]A common theme… boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… cue the Disney theme.[/i]
I think you're remembering slightly wrong. It's: "boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… boy accuses father of potential homophobic murder ... cue the Disney theme.
we do not know for sure. Thus, we speculate. And the question then becomes to where does our speculation lead us? To an obliteration of what was given to us?
No, no, no. Again, nothing I have said obliterates what was given to us.
“Let's go over again everything Ennis says of his father in the entire film. 1) He got in a car accident and died. 2) He left the kids $24 in a coffee can. 3) He was a fine roper. 4) He didn't do much rodeoin. 5) He thought rodeoers was f'ups. 6) He may have been right about that. 7) He made sure Ennis viewed the body of a man who'd been tortured to death for being gay. 8) He might have done the job himself.”
“I don't see how any of 1 through 7 even contradicts 8.”
You’re right. They do not contradict it. And they do not support it. Taken as the statements were delivered, they tend more toward contradicting #8 than supporting #8. And herein lies the apparent contradiction.
No. The are absolutely neutral toward it. You can get in a car accident and also kill a man. You can leave $24 in a coffee can and also kill a man. You can be a fine roper and also kill a man. You can not do much rodeoin and also kill a man. You can think rodeoers are f'ups and also kill a man (possibly for rodeoin!). You can be right about rodeoers being f'ups and also kill a man.
And yet, Ennis’ father’s actions on that fateful day did not instill such fear in Ennis of his father that Ennis was prevented from speaking in the terms that he did of his father on the other occasions.
Again, Ennis said nothing about his father that would contradict him also being fearful.
It all comes right down to that one comment on that one day. You yourself have pointed out this apparent contradiction in the past.
Yes! There is a contradiction! But it is in the viewer's mind, not Ennis'. The viewer is set up to think of Mr. Del Mar as a good guy because 1) he's dead (sad!) and 2) Ennis speaks reasonably well of him. So we wrongly make that connection.
By the same token, the viewer is set up to think of Mr. Twist as a homophobe, because Jack speaks ill of him. He never says anything about his dad's views of his sexuality, but we put 2 and 2 together -- again, it turns out, wrongly.
Ennis says nothing about his dad that he might not just as easily say about a scary homophobic murderer. For that matter, the possibility that his dad was scary or homophobic does not preclude Ennis' deeply respecting him. In fact, it makes a much better 2 + 2. Ennis respects his dad, his dad hated homosexuality, therefore Ennis learns to hate homosexuality. His fear does not alter the equation. If the respect weren't there, the homophobia might be shakier.
The point of this scene is the turn-around in Ennis, the opening up of Ennis to another person – to advance the growing intimacy between the boys (excuse me, I mean our boys); thus, his words of openness carry even greater weight of his openness.
Yet how open are they, really? $24 in a coffee can. Fine roper. Rodeoers f'ups. He was right. Not exactly gushing admiration -- we just hear it that way. It's mildly respectful. Again, there's no reason he can't be a respected dad and also a scary dad. Many, many dads fit that profile.
And again, even more important, I don't care how many words Ennis has spoke, there is just no way in hell that at this point in their relationship Ennis would confess to Jack his fears of his dad's homophobic violence.
OK, there's a challenge for you. Come up with a plausible scenario in which Ennis would confess his fears of a homophobically violent dad to Jack a month after meeting him. Would he not mind sounding scared? Dissing his father? Admitting feelings he's been hiding all his life? Implying his own gayness? Bringing the topic uncomfortably out in the open with the man for whom he's been secretly lusting? If you can find a way around all that, you can attempt to explain how his failing to do so shows that he actually didn't feel that fear.
I don’t know that Ennis did feel his father was right about homosexuality.
Well, Ennis did apparently feel that homophobes are right about homosexuality. So if his father was a homophobe, there's yet another reason not to complain about the old man. What's to complain? Ennis is the one in the wrong, he believes, for being gay -- not those who disapprove of it.
But this really has nothing to do with the fact that he did, in fact, open up to Jack with honest words of openness concerning himself and his father.
What honest words of openness? He was a fine roper and thought rodeoers were f'ups? Hardly words he had to pull from the depths of his soul.
Neither Del Mar would be behaving according to my understanding of psychology if we're to believe that the Earl incident is an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia.”
Argh. You did it again. Well, since you asked… “my view” and “my understanding.” This has been the big bugaboo.
OK. I will stop using those phrases and just call it human psychology.
He wasn't just a member of the targeted group. HE WAS THERE AT EARL’S DEATH SCENE. He was taken there. How much closer to direct can we get? If “by implication” is “1” and “direct” is “10,” I’d say we’re at about 9.5.
Direct would be: he was personally involved in the violence. Most likely as a victim. Anything less than that and I'd have a hard time believing it would -- sorry, I mean, it would not shape his entire personality that way.
You know, research indicates that 18 years of experience growing up in a family hardly does much to shape a personality. Identical twins reared apart (according to a big study at the University of Minnesota) wind up just as much alike in personality as identical twins reared together (roughly 50 percent alike, in both cases). Adopted kids and their siblings (according to a big study at the University of Colorado-Boulder) share no more personality similarities than two random strangers plucked from the street. Research can be flawed, of course, but these projects are pretty well respected, their findings supported. They're not total bullsh!t.
Given that, I have a hard time believing that any one isolated incident could have much effect in shaping a personality, under any circumstances. But if it is going to do it, it had better be extremely traumatic and the person had better be intensely involved.
The author/filmmaker gave us one horrific incident to show us the homophobia that was instilled in Ennis. If they believed that we needed more, then they would have given it. ... If THEY believed that it was not sufficient for us to understand the instilled homophobia, then THEY would have given us more.
I agree with everything here. They gave us one horrific incident. They know we do not need more. If they thought we did, they'd have given it. But we don't!
“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.” This directly contradicts what the author/filmmaker told us.
No it doesn't. Direct contradiction would be somebody saying, in effect, "this is the only thing that made Ennis the way he is." Nobody -- not Ennis nor anyone else -- ever says that. They just say, "this is one thing that made Ennis the way he is."
If someone asks “Why was Ennis so fearful about people finding out about his sexuality?” then the correct answer is “because of the Earl death scene.”
I agree with everything here, except that I would say "a correct answer."
And when the speculation directly contradicts or minimizes or even obliterates what we were told or shown (“in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”), then it is not valid to use.
It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl. But Earl was there, so we do know that, in fact, the way Ennis' life played out, Earl is one reason. No contradiction, minimization or obliteration needed.
Round 10… (Really?)
*Sigh.* Didn't we agree to disagree about five rounds ago?
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl.
by darkoKnight33 (Wed Nov 1 2006 10:23:49 )
Hey, Great discussion, but your posts are getting more and more self-indulgent. You two can't possibly deny that many sentences of your respective responses could be omitted w/o any impact on the interest of this argument(discussion if you prefer). Please do not be offended, I really have enjoyed reading this discoarse, honestly. But please make your post practical for the reader to read.
Re: It's not all about Earl.
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Wed Nov 1 2006 14:33:46 )
darkoKnight33 –
“Hey, Great discussion, but your posts are getting more and more self-indulgent. You two can't possibly deny that many sentences of your respective responses could be omitted w/o any impact on the interest of this argument(discussion if you prefer). Please do not be offended, I really have enjoyed reading this discoarse, honestly. But please make your post practical for the reader to read.”
You make some very good points. latjoreme and I “is good friends” and we often get into this kind of debate. Because our arguments are usually long, drawn-out, and all over the map, we usually quote significant portions so that we can each keep up. I will do my best to keep the quoting to a minimum, but I have to say, you might not notice much difference in the overall length. I will try, though.
Anyway, since you said you enjoy following the discussion, pull up a seat… Round 10 is about to begin…
Ding!
Hi latjoreme –
“*Sigh.* Didn't we agree to disagree about five rounds ago?”
When have you ever known me to “agree to disagree?”
“Ennis' fear is, by its very nature, something he has always felt must be hidden.”
I can go with this.
One also sees it in real-life. How many times do the neighbors of the serial killer describe him as a nice, friendly neighbor? “I’m totally shocked he could have done such a thing!”
“But that's exactly the opposite scenario -- falsely believing a guilty man couldn't have done it.”
No, that’s not the point I was trying to make here. The point I was trying to make is that neighbors (or townsfolk) may believe something that is not true.
“You've conjured neighbors who falsely believe an innocent man did do it.”
No, I’ve stated that it is possible that there may have been townsfolk who believed that OMDM did the deed. All they would need is one bit of information: “I took my son to see that dead fag.” This is not unreasonable. He goes to a bar with all the other ranchers and makes this one statement. They, in their homophobia, believe OMDM to be one of them and are proud to believe he did the deed. Whether they are correct or not is not an issue. It’s that someone else may have told Ennis something that could have been a factor in the exacerbation of the instilled homophobia. Tell you what… why don’t YOU come up with any number of scenarios that YOU feel are reasonable that show Ennis having his homophobia exacerbated by forces OTHER THAN his father. I couldn’t care less if I find them to be unreasonable. If they work for you, I’ll go with them.
“People like to believe well of neighbors; they don't point the finger readily (especially to the person's own son).”
Huh? You mentioned your familiarity with “The Andy Griffith Show.” How many times did Aunt Bea and Clara misinterpret an act or a word of another townsperson to their later chagrin? And they did it all so comically.
“Is an innocent man ever suspected of a terrible murder? Of course. But not usually without any reason or evidence or some other basis for suspicion.”
And I’ve given this to you. Their own homophobia and their desire to be proud of OMDM. All they had to know is one little thing… he took his sons to see the dead fag. You’re speaking of wonderful gay-pride-supporting people. I'm talking about stereotypic rural Wyomingites from the 1950s. They did not view Earl’s death as a terrible murder of an innocent man. They viewed it as just compensation for the sins of his lifestyle. Was OMDM the only homophobe in town?
“Can you envision some far-flung circumstances under which the neighbors would all come to wrongly suspect Mr. Del Mar, to prove there will always be some circuitous way around Mr. Del Mar expressing homophobia? Sure ... undoubtedly ... but ... *sigh*”
No. You’re missing the point. First, it is not far-flung to envision a rural Wyomingite of the 1950s to be happy about what happened to Earl and to be proud to give OMDM the credit for doing the deed. Second, it’s not “all the neighbors.” It only has to be one or two, plus maybe KE… In others words, it has to be some other reinforcing events. Third, the point is not to find some “circuitous way around Mr. Del Mar expressing homophobia.” The point is this: If you are going to say that Ennis would have ended up the way he ended up even without Earl having been killed, then you had better have some pretty strong evidence from the film to support this. That’s why the Earl death scene is in the film. To show us how Ennis ended up as he ended up. If you’re going to dismiss that, then the film had better give us some explanation. But it doesn’t. The explanation you have given IS plausible. But, it’s based wholly on the Earl death scene—the scene that you could delete. This is why the discussion about the apparent contradiction between Ennis’ statements about his father is so important. If we delete the Earl death scene, point to one other statement about Mr. Del Mar that shows he’s homophobic. Just one. There are none. In order for you to make your argument you absolutely need to have the Earl death scene. So, now if you accept that the Earl death scene must be in the film, you call it shorthand for what we’re really supposed to know about the nature of Ennis’ homophobia. So to examine his homophobia – which you feel compelled to do because you have stated that you cannot accept the Earl death scene as being sufficient for this purpose-- you then fill in something that you feel could have produced the Ennis we see: speculation about his relationship with his father. And this is not based on anything we see in the film (except for the Earl death scene, which you said could have been done without). It is based on your understanding of culture, psychology, etc. And that’s entirely OK.
All I did was show that there could have been other factors apart from OMDM and mine were based on my understanding of culture, psychology, etc.
You know that I do not have a problem with you speculating. You know this because I do this myself all the time. My problem is with using that speculation to make a statement like this:
“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.”
If Earl had never been killed, show me, from the film, how Ennis could have ended up as he did. There is no evidence of OMDM’s homophobia other than the Earl death scene. None. Nada. Zip. The null set.
“I think you're remembering slightly wrong. It's: "boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… boy accuses father of potential homophobic murder ... cue the Disney theme.”
LOL! That’s a good one. I haven’t laughed so hard since the pursy comment. OK. You get five bonus points just for that one! And can’t you just see (what’s her name?) TwinkerBell (?) flying across the screen with her magic wand and sprinkling the fairy dust? LOL!
Back to being serious…
“No, no, no. Again, nothing I have said obliterates what was given to us.”
I’m talking about deleting the Earl death scene.
(re: Ennis’ comments about his father)
(If anyone’s keeping count, I just deleted four paragraphs of quoting. See. I can learn. )
“No. The are absolutely neutral toward it. You can get in a car accident and also kill a man. You can leave $24 in a coffee can and also kill a man. You can be a fine roper and also kill a man. You can not do much rodeoin and also kill a man. You can think rodeoers are f'ups and also kill a man (possibly for rodeoin!). You can be right about rodeoers being f'ups and also kill a man.”
Exactly. Yes one can. However, is there any reason at all to believe OMDM did any of this without the Earl death scene? We wouldn’t even be asking the question. The focus of the discussion on Ennis’ statements about his father is NOT to show that OMDM was a nice guy who couldn’t have killed Earl. The focus is on the fact that none of these statements gives us any evidence at all of OMDM's homophobia. That comes entirely from the Earl death scene.
“Again, Ennis said nothing about his father that would contradict him also being fearful.”
He made no direct statement to this effect. But Ennis also never made any direct statement that he is homophobic. His statements were all indirect. The statements made by Ennis about his father (on the mountain) all tend more toward respect and likeability than toward fear.
It all comes right down to that one comment on that one day. You yourself have pointed out this apparent contradiction in the past.
“Yes! There is a contradiction! But it is in the viewer's mind, not Ennis'. The viewer is set up to think of Mr. Del Mar as a good guy because 1) he's dead (sad!) and 2) Ennis speaks reasonably well of him. So we wrongly make that connection.”
Agreed.
“By the same token, the viewer is set up to think of Mr. Twist as a homophobe, because Jack speaks ill of him. He never says anything about his dad's views of his sexuality, but we put 2 and 2 together -- again, it turns out, wrongly.”
Agreed.
“Ennis says nothing about his dad that he might not just as easily say about a scary homophobic murderer. For that matter, the possibility that his dad was scary or homophobic does not preclude Ennis' deeply respecting him. In fact, it makes a much better 2 + 2. Ennis respects his dad, his dad hated homosexuality, therefore Ennis learns to hate homosexuality. His fear does not alter the equation. If the respect weren't there, the homophobia might be shakier.”
I agree that this is one valid way of looking at it. But: “There is a contradiction! But it is in the viewer's mind, not Ennis'.” So what is the contradiction in Ennis’ mind? It has to be different from the apparent contradiction that we the viewers see—because you told us we were wrong. And I agreed. If Ennis can just as easily say good and respectful things about other homophobic murders, then what does this tell us about Ennis’ psyche on the matter? What does this tell us that Ennis, by logical deduction, must feel about his father?
The point of this scene is the turn-around in Ennis…
“Again, there's no reason he can't be a respected dad and also a scary dad. Many, many dads fit that profile.”
Agreed. But that’s not the point. The point is none of what was said leads us to believe that his father was homophobic. That comes ONLY from the Earl death scene – and that’s why it’s crucial.
“And again, even more important, I don't care how many words Ennis has spoke, there is just no way in hell that at this point in their relationship Ennis would confess to Jack his fears of his dad's homophobic violence.”
Agreed. And it could also be because Ennis didn’t view his father that way. Jack told Ennis how there was nothing he could do to please his old man. (BTW—as an old man myself, I take umbrage at Jack’s choice of words. ) The contrast is, Ennis does not echo this sentiment during the yee-haw scene.
“OK, there's a challenge for you.”
Oh, I LOVE these!
“Come up with a plausible scenario in which Ennis would confess his fears of a homophobically violent dad to Jack a month after meeting him.”
Oh, now I'm disappointed. There is no need to. We don’t need it here because we have it at the Earl death scene—which I maintain is crucial. And it’s crucial BECAUSE we don’t have it here. I don’t want it to be here because then we wouldn’t need the Earl death scene and then your argument about the non-necessity of the Earl death scene would not only be strengthened, it would probably be indisputable. When it comes right down to it, in order to support your own argument, you are the one who needs to have Ennis confess his fears about a homophobic and violent dad at this point.
“Would he not mind sounding scared? Dissing his father? Admitting feelings he's been hiding all his life? Implying his own gayness? Bringing the topic uncomfortably out in the open with the man for whom he's been secretly lusting?”
Yes. Exactly. Thus, the necessity of the Earl death scene.
I don’t know that Ennis did feel his father was right about homosexuality.
“Well, Ennis did apparently feel that homophobes are right about homosexuality. So if his father was a homophobe, there's yet another reason not to complain about the old man. What's to complain? Ennis is the one in the wrong, he believes, for being gay -- not those who disapprove of it.”
Yes, I agree with this. I was talking more about exactly what his father felt about homosexuality—that it deserves death. I don’t know that Ennis would agree with this. He certainly fears it, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with it.
However, now that I think about it… Let’s say that Ennis does believe that homosexuality does deserve death. Ennis distanced himself from being a homosexual by saying that he isn’t queer -- so he distanced himself from a death sentence. And he accepted the fact that Jack agreed with him – so he distanced Jack from a death sentence. Then, at the final lake scene, when Ennis is confronted with the notion that the “not queer” pact has been broken, suddenly his comment to Jack about killing Jack for “all them things that I don’t know” (i.e., Mexico; i.e., Jack is queer) becomes much more about their homosexuality than about jealousy—as some think it is. Can you think of anyone who has ever argued that that scene is about jealousy rather than fear? Let me think…
(re: Ennis’ little, open heart)
“What honest words of openness? He was a fine roper and thought rodeoers were f'ups? Hardly words he had to pull from the depths of his soul.”
LOL! I agree that for us that wouldn’t be the case… but for poor little Ennis, with his poor, little broken heart… with all the loneliness and abandonment and rejection… To be honest, I get the feeling that every word of “openness” that Ennis shared with Jack came from the deepest part of his soul that Ennis had ever tried to reach. They may have been light years from the depth of his soul, but they were as deep as the poor little guy could reach.
He wasn't just a member of the targeted group. HE WAS THERE AT EARL’S DEATH SCENE. He was taken there. How much closer to direct can we get? If “by implication” is “1” and “direct” is “10,” I’d say we’re at about 9.5.
“Direct would be: he was personally involved in the violence. Most likely as a victim. Anything less than that and I'd have a hard time believing it would -- sorry, I mean, it would not shape his entire personality that way.”
But you don’t disagree that it’s a 9.5 on the Del Mar Standardized Basis-of-Fear Index… do you?
“You know, research indicates that 18 years of experience growing up in a family hardly does much to shape a personality. Identical twins reared apart (according to a big study at the University of Minnesota) wind up just as much alike in personality as identical twins reared together (roughly 50 percent alike, in both cases). Adopted kids and their siblings (according to a big study at the University of Colorado-Boulder) share no more personality similarities than two random strangers plucked from the street. Research can be flawed, of course, but these projects are pretty well respected, their findings supported. They're not total bullsh!t.”
Agreed. And yet we have Ennis as we have Ennis and just because he doesn’t fit the “normal” mode doesn’t mean he has to be rewritten.
“Given that, I have a hard time believing that any one isolated incident could have much effect in shaping a personality, under any circumstances. But if it is going to do it, it had better be extremely traumatic and the person had better be intensely involved.”
Again, for the vast majority of the population… no problem. But there are people for whom this is true. And they don’t necessarily exhibit any other indicia of psychosis.
The author/filmmaker gave us one horrific incident to show us the homophobia that was instilled in Ennis. If they believed that we needed more, then they would have given it. ... If THEY believed that it was not sufficient for us to understand the instilled homophobia, then THEY would have given us more.
“I agree with everything here. They gave us one horrific incident. They know we do not need more. If they thought we did, they'd have given it. But we don't!”
Yeah! And some people say you and I never see eye-to-eye on anything. Geez…
“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.” This directly contradicts what the author/filmmaker told us.
“No it doesn't. Direct contradiction would be somebody saying, in effect, "this is the only thing that made Ennis the way he is." Nobody -- not Ennis nor anyone else -- ever says that. They just say, "this is one thing that made Ennis the way he is."”
OK. Take out the fact that Earl was killed (“it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”). This means you have to take out OMDM showing the corpse to Ennis – if Earl was never killed, no corpse – and you have to take out the comment about OMDM possibly having done the deed – no deed, no doer – and now give me one other thing that they gave us to explain Ennis’ homophobia. You’re right. I shouldn’t have said it directly contradicts… it obliterates.
If someone asks “Why was Ennis so fearful about people finding out about his sexuality?” then the correct answer is “because of the Earl death scene.”
“I agree with everything here, except that I would say "a correct answer."”
Take out the Earl death scene and give me another correct answer. Are you starting to see that without the Earl death scene, we would not ever in a million years think that Ennis’ father had anything whosoever to do with Ennis’ homophobia? “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.” So where are you going to look for possible causes of Ennis’ homophobia? Suddenly, the townspeople and KE sound like pretty darn good candidates. After all, are you going to pin it on people about whom we know nothing or on a man about whom we know his son speaks respectfully? If we have to speculate, we’re not going to contradict what is given in the film, we’re going to have to search the rest of the film. And all we get then is Ennis’ glances to see if anyone is watching the reunion kiss, the white truck, and Ennis’ expressed paranoia about all those people out on the pavement. And who are all of those people in each of these examples? His dad? Nope. The townsfolk. Those Mayberry-wanna-bes.
“It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl.”
How?
Round 11…
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version