Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > IMDb Remarkable Writings Rewound
it's not all about Earl -- by latjoreme
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl.
by latjoreme (Wed Nov 1 2006 23:44:56 )
OK, wait a minute. Wait just a goldarn minute. We need to clear something up.
There are two different ideas being flung back and forth here. One is, would Ennis be like he is, even if Earl had never been killed? The other is, would the movie/story be like they are, even if we viewers/readers had never heard about Earl getting killed -- in other words, would we understand Ennis' character the same way if that scene were deleted?
I believe you are conflating the two. I am not. They are two totally different things. My answer to the first has always been, "entirely possible." My answer to the second is, "no way, not unless they substituted something else."
I think that difference may explain a lot of our argument here. So, in deference to darkoKnight33, I'm going to skip over my counter-arguments regarding the finger-pointing neighbors and cut right to the chase.
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.
Well, that's what I've been doing in the past 247 posts.
That’s why the Earl death scene is in the film. To show us how Ennis ended up as he ended up.
I absolutely agree. The Earl death scene is in the film because it is our entrée into Ennis' childhood and his father's homophobia. I never said the Earl death scene isn't necessary in the film. It is. Or at least, it could not be omitted without substituting some other scene that serves the same function (and which would likely be inferior, because the Earl death scene is perfect: powerful and concise and horrifying and all those other things I have been giving it credit for, all along).
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.
Of course not! That's why the Earl death scene is there.
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).
I'm with you up until the parenthetical part. I did not say the Earl death scene "could have been done without" -- in the film/story!
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.
You are absolutely, unquestionably, totally, unequivocally right. There is nothing else in the film that would explain how Ennis ended up as he did.
“No, no, no. Again, nothing I have said obliterates what was given to us.”
I’m talking about deleting the Earl death scene.
Which I am not advocating doing.
(possibility that OMDM killed Earl but also was a fine roper, etc.)
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.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
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.
Absolutely!
(why Ennis doesn't confess his fears of his dad to Jack on the mountain)
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.
Yes. But I don't need that. Because the Earl death scene does this very well!
Let’s say that Ennis does believe that homosexuality does deserve death. ... Then, at the final lake scene, when Ennis is confronted with the notion that the “not queer” pact has been broken ... Can you think of anyone who has ever argued that that scene is about jealousy rather than fear? Let me think…
I can't imagine. Because everyone I know believes it's a mix of jealousy, homophobia, fear of losing Jack, and a little of Ennis' typical deflecting-the-blame strategy thrown in for good measure.
But I don't think one needs to believe that Ennis thinks homosexuality deserves death -- and I, for one, don't -- in order to think homophobia is a factor in his Mexico remark. My opinion? He got carried away because of the aforementioned homophobia, jealousy, fear and blame-deflecting.
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.
What?! I'm not advocating rewriting Ennis. You're right, he doesn't fit the twins/adoptee studies model perfectly. But that could easily be explained by 1) he had an abnormal childhood (those research results aren't necessarily reliable in cases of extreme trauma) and 2) he's fictional.
Now, don't you go telling me I've just disproved my own argument. On the contrary. Abnormal childhood -- yes, Ennis was constantly afraid of his homophobic dad. That's extreme trauma. Fictional -- I think we can cut AP some slack for not being up on the latest findings of the University of Colorado-Boulder adoptee project. (And BTW, nothing is more stultifying in fiction, IMO, than characters whose behavior is based on psychological or sociological research.)
(why Ennis is like that)
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.
But I am not advocating that. The whole purpose of the Earl scene is to signify everything I've said. Without the Earl scene, there would be no basis for my idea about Ennis' dad and his childhood, no way to explain Ennis' homophobia and repression (as if his growing up in rural Wyoming in those years isn't explanation enough ... but still. No dramatic explanation, anyway).
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?
"Starting to see"?? That's my whole point. That's how we know Ennis' father DID have something to do with Ennis' homophobia.
“It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl.”
How?
Because growing up with a homophobic, potentially violent dad would be enough in itself to warp a gay kid. Would we, the viewers/readers, know that Ennis' dad was homophobic and potentially violent without the Earl scene? No -- not unless the filmmakers/writer substituted some other scene. But why would they? The Earl scene is perfect, for all the reasons I've stated.
Could Ennis have had a homophobic and potentially violent dad -- most important, could he have known his dad was homophobic and potentially violent -- without having seen Earl's body? Sure. Any number of ways that I'm sure you can imagine just as well as I can, if not better.
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl.
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Thu Nov 2 2006 01:43:26 )
Hi latjoreme –
“OK, wait a minute. Wait just a goldarn minute. We need to clear something up.”
Now, now, latjoreme… you know the proper terminology… It’s: “Wait jus’a garsh-durn minute there cowboy!”
“There are two different ideas being flung back and forth here. One is, would Ennis be like he is, even if Earl had never been killed? The other is, would the movie/story be like they are, even if we viewers/readers had never heard about Earl getting killed -- in other words, would we understand Ennis' character the same way if that scene were deleted?”
I see the distinctions you’re making and they are valid. The answer to each is: “Who knows?” I wanted to say that the answer to each is “No.” BECAUSE we are not given any other information that would help us to understand why Ennis is the way he is. However, based on how you worded each question, the answers are “Who knows.” Ennis would still be seen as he is in each scenario but we would be even more confused as to why and as to how he came to be that way because we are not given any other information that would help us to understand why Ennis is the way he is.
But I am glad you made this distinction.
“I believe you are conflating the two. I am not. They are two totally different things. My answer to the first has always been, "entirely possible." My answer to the second is, "no way, not unless they substituted something else."”
Well, no, I'm not conflating the two. I have always gone from your premise: “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.”
But, the distinction you made is there and I agree with it. However, I must humbly admit that I believe my answer above better answers the two because in a sense we are saying the same thing. I was just a bit more concise (and a lot more loquacious).
“I think that difference may explain a lot of our argument here. So, in deference to darkoKnight33, I'm going to skip over my counter-arguments regarding the finger-pointing neighbors and cut right to the chase.”
Great! And, I agree. This occurred to me a few posts back and I was just sort of stringing it out, bit by bit. SORRY! But, you know me. (And I know you. ) The discussion has been so stimulating that when I looked at coming right out with it, all I could say was “I Will Never Let You Go.” OK. Bitch-slap me. Got a wet noodle? I’ll say 10 “Jack, I swear”s for my penance…
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.
“Well, that's what I've been doing in the past 247 posts.”
I’m sorry, I missed this part. What evidence from the film?
That’s why the Earl death scene is in the film. To show us how Ennis ended up as he ended up.
“I absolutely agree. The Earl death scene is in the film because it is our entrée into Ennis' childhood and his father's homophobia. I never said the Earl death scene isn't necessary in the film. It is. Or at least, it could not be omitted without substituting some other scene that serves the same function (and which would likely be inferior, because the Earl death scene is perfect: powerful and concise and horrifying and all those other things I have been giving it credit for, all along).”
But you did say: “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.” Does not this mean that the Earl death scene could be excised from the film? If Earl had not died, we would not have the Earl death scene or the comments from Ennis about his father that he made during the river reunion scene.
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.
“Of course not! That's why the Earl death scene is there.”
Then why did you say: “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”? Where’s that wet noodle?
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).
“I'm with you up until the parenthetical part. I did not say the Earl death scene "could have been done without" -- in the film/story!”
How can you keep the Earl death scene in the film and yet: “…if Earl had never been killed.”
That’s why we call it the Earl death scene… because Earl was killed.
Anyway, I think in deference to darkoKnight33 I should excise some of the less relevant quotes and so I’ll just keep this one:
“You are absolutely, unquestionably, totally, unequivocally right. There is nothing else in the film that would explain how Ennis ended up as he did.”
I’m going to have to have the first sentence engraved on my limited edition BBM collector plates. In gold.
Let’s say that Ennis does believe that homosexuality does deserve death. ... Then, at the final lake scene, when Ennis is confronted with the notion that the “not queer” pact has been broken ... Can you think of anyone who has ever argued that that scene is about jealousy rather than fear? Let me think…
“I can't imagine. Because everyone I know believes it's a mix of jealousy, homophobia, fear of losing Jack, and a little of Ennis' typical deflecting-the-blame strategy thrown in for good measure.[/red]
I know, I know. I’ve been keeping up too. Just another little jab at the prettiest little cowgirl in BB-dom.
“But I don't think one needs to believe that Ennis thinks homosexuality deserves death -- and I, for one, don't -- in order to think homophobia is a factor in his Mexico remark. My opinion? He got carried away because of the aforementioned homophobia, jealousy, fear and blame-deflecting.”
I agree one hundred percent. Here’s one for your collector plates: “latjoreme is da bomb!”
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.
“What?! I'm not advocating rewriting Ennis.”
No, I know you’re not saying this. I was simply trying to emphasize that Ennis is Ennis.
“You're right,”
Yes, I am.
“…he doesn't fit the twins/adoptee studies model perfectly. But that could easily be explained by 1) he had an abnormal childhood (those research results aren't necessarily reliable in cases of extreme trauma) and 2) he's fictional.”
He is not fictional! He’s as real as you and me. And if you say that again I'm going to fly to Riverton and track him down and bring him here to show you. “He’s fictional.” I spit.
“Fictional -- I think we can cut AP some slack for not being up on the latest findings of the University of Colorado-Boulder adoptee project. (And BTW, nothing is more stultifying in fiction, IMO, than characters whose behavior is based on psychological or sociological research.)”
Now there you go with that word “fictional” again! I’m gonna cry.
“Without the Earl scene, there would be no basis for my idea about Ennis' dad and his childhood, no way to explain Ennis' homophobia and repression (as if his growing up in rural Wyoming in those years isn't explanation enough ... but still. No dramatic explanation, anyway).”
And yet, “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.”
As Annie said, “You can’t have Ennis without dead Earl.”
It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl.
How?
“Because growing up with a homophobic, potentially violent dad would be enough in itself to warp a gay kid.”
And we agree that we would have no reason to suspect this without dead Earl.
“Would we, the viewers/readers, know that Ennis' dad was homophobic and potentially violent without the Earl scene? No”
See, we agree.
“-- not unless the filmmakers/writer substituted some other scene. But why would they? The Earl scene is perfect, for all the reasons I've stated.”
And yet: “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.”
“Could Ennis have had a homophobic and potentially violent dad -- most important, could he have known his dad was homophobic and potentially violent -- without having seen Earl's body? Sure. Any number of ways that I'm sure you can imagine just as well as I can, if not better.”
Me too. But without dead Earl, 1) we’d have no inclination to do this (we’d be disinclined because of Ennis’ other comments about his father), and 2) it would all be speculation not based on what we saw in the film.
Is the horse dead yet?
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl.
by latjoreme (Thu Nov 2 2006 10:34:25 )
Hi CPDM,
Is the horse dead yet?
This horse has been beaten 65 times, counting this post, but is willing to drag itself along for at least one more ride.
I feel like I'm saying a lot, but I'm not getting my point across. Where's Alma Jr. when you need her? I'm going to try a new approach.
OK, let's say there are two parallel universes. In one universe, the real Ennis (as you correctly point out, he's not fictional!) is going about his own business, living his life, none of which we viewers see except the 134 minutes of the film (minus the scenes in which Ennis doesn't appear).
In that real-Ennis universe, Earl isn't necessary. Ennis' father is a potentially violent homophobe. How does Ennis know this? Any number of ways: OMDM's homophobic rants over the dinner table, an overheard conversation in which OMDM tells a friend he'd like to kill all the homos, whatever. (And yes, as you correctly point out, it is technically possible to imagine a real-life Ennis without a homophobic dad. But it's not an Occam-friendly scenario.) Ennis respects his PVH father, because he's that kind of dad and Ennis is that kind of son, but also fears him, because Ennis is gay and is afraid of being found out by his PVH dad. So Ennis becomes withdrawn and repressed and paranoid and homophobic himself.
Now, does this real-Ennis universe need a dead Earl? No. Ennis would become Ennis whether he'd seen Earl or not, through the experience of living with a PVH dad. Earl could have happened, and if so would no doubt stand out in Ennis' mind as being one of the most horrifying experiences of his life. But if Earl didn't happen, Ennis would still be Ennis because of all the other bad experiences of his childhood.
So let's say for the moment that Earl didn't happen in this real-Ennis universe, but that everything else we see in the movie/story is the same. Jack comes along and suggests the sweet-life plan. Ennis says, "No, it ain't gonna be that way." Then Ennis, lacking the Earl story, must offer Jack some other explanation of why he could never come out as gay. The explanation probably would have to touch on the experiences he had in his youth that taught him that being gay is shameful and wrong and dangerous. Without an Earl or some similarly dramatic story to tell Jack, Ennis would be left having to explain his position by recalling the various dinner-table rants, overheard conversations, his fearful reactions, whatever ... The conversation drags on all night, as Ennis recounts all the small moments that cumulatively form a scary, repressive childhood. "Oh yeah, and then there was this other time when ..." etc. etc. etc. If Ennis says enough, maybe he can get his point across.
Or, alternatively and more probably, taciturn Ennis, unwilling to dredge up all these buried emotional moments, doesn't adequately explain to Jack why he's nixing the sweet-life plan. He just clams up. That would leave Jack frustrated and confused, but oh well. He winds up that way, anyway.
Now what if Earl did happen in the real-Ennis universe? Then suddenly Ennis has a much easier way to explain his feelings. Jack immediately grasps why Ennis would be scarred by this awful experience ("You seen this?") and accepts it as an adequate explanation for Ennis' recalcitrance (why he forgets its significance later, after Ennis' divorce, is a question for a whole nother thread). So clearly, in the real-Ennis universe, the Earl death scene comes in handy -- it's a stronger, punchier, more succinct way for Ennis to get his point across. But it doesn't change the fact that Ennis is homophobic and repressed and would reject Jack anyway, because of growing up with his PVH dad.
OK. So now there's the whole other universe, the fictional one that exists only on film and paper, the universe that occupies only 134 minutes and/or 28 pages. This universe doesn't exist for the sake of Ennis and Jack and the other inhabitants -- in this universe, they're characters, without inner lives or unseen experiences. This fictional universe exists for the benefit of the people who watch and/or read it, and nothing happens that we can't either see or infer.
In the fictional universe, Ennis is still Ennis for all the reasons we've discussed. Most likely (here's where inference comes in) he has a PVH dad. Or, possibly, as you point out, his dad isn't PVH, though old Occam and the University of Colorado researchers would be exchanging eyebrow-raised glances and shaking their heads at that conjecture. In any case, in this universe there's only one way we come to know about Ennis' PVH dad, or whatever it was in his childhood that made him what he is: through the Earl death story. So the Earl death story can't be excised from this universe, not without seriously damaging the movie and story.
Without the Earl death story, the sweet-life scene suddenly becomes awkward, confusing, pointless, endless, or all of the above. Jack makes his proposal. Ennis says, "It ain't gonna be that way." Why not? Well, here Ennis can go into his lengthy recounting of all the small though genuinely traumatic moments of his childhood that taught him to hide his sexuality. And suddenly the movie is four hours and 134 minutes long, and the story is a novel in which almost all the pages are devoted to this one scene. Neither one is high-class entertainment, if you ask me.
Alternatively -- and more likely, given Ennis' character -- Ennis would shut up about his childhood, say, "Just cause it ain't, that's all." The viewers would be left in the dark (as would Jack, but because in this universe he's fictional, we don't worry so much about his inner life -- he doesn't have any). So why the hell is Ennis like that? Couldn't have had anything to do with his parents, because his dad sounds like a decent enough guy and, we find out later, his mom sounds nice, too. Well, maybe because that's just how society was in 1960s Wyoming ... But wait -- was it? Hmmm... not according to the movie. After all, Aguirre saw the two of them together and didn't do anything. Alma saw them and didn't do anything. In "real life," we viewers/readers may have reason to suspect that life in rural Wyoming was, and still is, tough for gay men. But apparently the movie and story aren't trying to make that point, because (sans Earl) they sure don't offer any evidence that it's a big issue. Oh well, maybe rural America's view of homosexuality just isn't important to the plot. But then why is Ennis so screwed up? We're left to guess or remain ignorant. High-class entertainment? Maybe, but it's got a pretty big hole in it.
Now try it with the Earl story. Suddenly, you have a movie/story so perfect that thousands of people spend months and months dissecting them on the internet.
My original premise: “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” applies to the real-Ennis universe.
Whereas, if I were referring to the fictional universe, I would say something like, "IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- it's because his dad is a potentially violent homophobe -- but without Earl, we viewers would have no way of knowing that."
Do you like that one better?
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl.
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Thu Nov 2 2006 16:13:05 )
Hi latjoreme –
OK, let's say there are two parallel universes. In one universe, the real Ennis (as you correctly point out, he's not fictional!) is going about his own business, living his life, none of which we viewers see except the 134 minutes of the film (minus the scenes in which Ennis doesn't appear).
In that real-Ennis universe, Earl isn't necessary. Ennis' father is a potentially violent homophobe. How does Ennis know this? Any number of ways: OMDM's homophobic rants over the dinner table, an overheard conversation in which OMDM tells a friend he'd like to kill all the homos, whatever. (And yes, as you correctly point out, it is technically possible to imagine a real-life Ennis without a homophobic dad. But it's not an Occam-friendly scenario.) Ennis respects his PVH father, because he's that kind of dad and Ennis is that kind of son, but also fears him, because Ennis is gay and is afraid of being found out by his PVH dad. So Ennis becomes withdrawn and repressed and paranoid and homophobic himself.
Now, does this real-Ennis universe need a dead Earl? No. Ennis would become Ennis whether he'd seen Earl or not, through the experience of living with a PVH dad. Earl could have happened, and if so would no doubt stand out in Ennis' mind as being one of the most horrifying experiences of his life. But if Earl didn't happen, Ennis would still be Ennis because of all the other bad experiences of his childhood.
OK, I followed the entire path. But I have one question… Why do you assume a homophobic dad? As you said, there’s no dead Earl. And you said “…it is technically possible to imagine a real-life Ennis without a homophobic dad. But it's not an Occam-friendly scenario.” Why not? Why aren’t there other possible causes of Ennis homophobia given in the film? Why his dad? Why not his mom? Why not K.E.? Why not Ennis’ sister? Remember, there is no dead Earl so we have heard NOTHING about Ennis’ father to make us think he is homophobic. You picked him out of the crowd to place that label on him. Why did you do this? Because he’s family? So is Ennis’ mom, brother and sister. Why not one of them? What do you have against old men?
So let’s apply old Occam here. Does Occam want Ennis’ dad to be considered a possibility when Ennis spoke respectfully of him before? THAT would give us an apparent contradiction. Old Occam would be MORE pleased with NO contradiction. Would KE and Ennis’ sister present an apparent contradiction? I think so. Ennis spoke respectfully of them. And, it may have been KE whom Ennis chose as his best man. So Occam doesn’t like them… IF there’s a better choice. How about Ennis’ mom? Well, he said two things about her: she drove off a road and died and she hummed to him and roused him. All kidding aside from my previous post, these can be seen as Ennis speaking respectfully of her too.
So does the film give us anyone at all as a character and with whom we do not have an apparent contradiction? Let’s make old Occam happy here. Yes, there is. Society. People. All of them out on the pavement. Society appears as a character on several occasions for Ennis and he fears them and he is paranoid of them – not so with his dad, so long as Earl lives. Does he ever speak respectfully about society? I don’t see it. Another possibility is church folk. Ennis calls them a “fire and brimstone crowd.” And Ennis admitted to having been raised in a Methodist home. Did Ennis go to a Methodist church and have bad homophobic interactions with that crowd? I don’t know. But, if we’re going to apply the Razor, then we should divide rightly. We should choose as potential candidates for Ennis’ instilled homophobia first, those of whom Ennis spoke ill (church crowd), then those of whom Ennis didn’t speak anything, but of whom his reactions were negative (“society”), and third, we should consider those of whom Ennis spoke respectfully (his mom, dad, KE, and sister). And of those in the final group, we should choose them in order based on how respectfully Ennis spoke of them. I guess I’d have to put OMDM dead last in the running. Ennis’ sister is a better choice, according to the Razor, that is.
So let's say for the moment that Earl didn't happen in this real-Ennis universe, but that everything else we see in the movie/story is the same. Jack comes along and suggests the sweet-life plan. Ennis says, "No, it ain't gonna be that way." Then Ennis, lacking the Earl story, must offer Jack some other explanation of why he could never come out as gay. The explanation probably would have to touch on the experiences he had in his youth that taught him that being gay is shameful and wrong and dangerous. Without an Earl or some similarly dramatic story to tell Jack, Ennis would be left having to explain his position by recalling the various dinner-table rants, overheard conversations, his fearful reactions, whatever ... The conversation drags on all night, as Ennis recounts all the small moments that cumulatively form a scary, repressive childhood. "Oh yeah, and then there was this other time when ..." etc. etc. etc. If Ennis says enough, maybe he can get his point across.
And do you see what you did here? With no other evidence at all from the film that his father was homophobic or that his mother was homophobic or that his brother was homophobic or that his sister was homophobic, you chose to pin the label on his dad. Even despite the fact that we have other better candidates outside of his family. Are you saying that in Ennis’ 23 years before the river reunion scene society or the church crowd could not have done something, on enough occasions, to bring this about in Ennis? After all, society had Ennis longer than his dad had him. The short story makes it appear that Ennis’ parents died after he was nine but before he was fifteen.
And even if you don’t buy that as being far-flung, why his dad? Why not his mom? Why not KE? Why not his sister? Ennis spoke mostly of his dad. And it was not negative. I would characterize much of it as respectful. Yet you chose him. Why? Remember, in this scenario, Earl and Rich are alive and well and running a B&B on Fire Island.
Now what if Earl did happen in the real-Ennis universe? Then suddenly Ennis has a much easier way to explain his feelings. Jack immediately grasps why Ennis would be scarred by this awful experience ("You seen this?") and accepts it as an adequate explanation for Ennis' recalcitrance (why he forgets its significance later, after Ennis' divorce, is a question for a whole nother thread). So clearly, in the real-Ennis universe, the Earl death scene comes in handy -- it's a stronger, punchier, more succinct way for Ennis to get his point across. But it doesn't change the fact that Ennis is homophobic and repressed and would reject Jack anyway, because of growing up with his PVH dad.
Agreed, 100%. Notice the need for a dead Earl.
OK. So now there's the whole other universe, the fictional one that exists only on film and paper, the universe that occupies only 134 minutes and/or 28 pages. This universe doesn't exist for the sake of Ennis and Jack and the other inhabitants -- in this universe, they're characters, without inner lives or unseen experiences. This fictional universe exists for the benefit of the people who watch and/or read it, and nothing happens that we can't either see or infer.
Understood.
In the fictional universe, Ennis is still Ennis for all the reasons we've discussed. Most likely (here's where inference comes in) he has a PVH dad.
Agreed. I have no problem with this. Because you have kept Earl dead. Which is not what you did when you made this statement: “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.”
Or, possibly, as you point out, his dad isn't PVH, though old Occam and the University of Colorado researchers would be exchanging eyebrow-raised glances and shaking their heads at that conjecture.
Yes. Here, Occam wants a homophobic dad because even though there is an apparent contradiction between the way Ennis speaks of his father earlier and what we learn at the river reunion scene, the impact of what we learn at the river reunion scene is immense. AND because you kept Earl dead. Which you did not do in your first example above – this was intentional. Remember, in that scenario above you pinned the label on Ennis’ dad willy-nilly with absolutely no evidence of homophobia on his part – because dead Earl never happened – and despite having other Occam-better alternatives.
In any case, in this universe there's only one way we come to know about Ennis' PVH dad, or whatever it was in his childhood that made him what he is: through the Earl death story. So the Earl death story can't be excised from this universe, not without seriously damaging the movie and story.
This has been my point all along. And it has not been yours: “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.”
In "real life," we viewers/readers may have reason to suspect that life in rural Wyoming was, and still is, tough for gay men. But apparently the movie and story aren't trying to make that point, because (sans Earl) they sure don't offer any evidence that it's a big issue. Oh well, maybe rural America's view of homosexuality just isn't important to the plot. But then why is Ennis so screwed up? We're left to guess or remain ignorant. High-class entertainment? Maybe, but it's got a pretty big hole in it.
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. If this were the case… no dead Earl and no homophobic family, then we still have all of Ennis’ fears and paranoia that HE DISPLAYED in several key points of the film with regard to society (or his church). In this scenario, “rural America's view of homosexuality” BECOMES the plot. Because this is all the evidence we are given and, without a dead Earl and a homophobic family, these elements would stand out as the only elements we could tie anything to. And, it works very well. The Razor is well-honed.
My original premise: “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” applies to the real-Ennis universe.
Whereas, if I were referring to the fictional universe, I would say something like, "IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- it's because his dad is a potentially violent homophobe -- but without Earl, we viewers would have no way of knowing that."
Well you could have said this 66 posts ago. I did. This is what I have been saying all along.
(If you’ll remember, you did this to me once before. I spent hours dissecting the entire dozy embrace bit by bit only to have you come back and say “Oh, wait, I think I misunderstood one sentence from dozens of posts ago.” Even *you-know-who* got a huge bang out of it. What am I going to do with you? I guess I’ll just have to love you, faults and all. I will. Because I know you do it for me, too. )
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl.
by latjoreme (Thu Nov 2 2006 23:49:57 )
Hi CPDM,
*Sigh.* I completely understand what you're saying, that if I ditch Earl I'm losing my basis for blaming OMDM. And yet, the way I'm conceiving it, I'm not. Your point is perfectly valid. And now that you mention it, I see that my conception is so abstract I can hardly think of a way to explain it that doesn't sound kind of ridiculous. It's going to be really hard for me to make a case for my perspective in a way that makes sense and doesn't invite you to immediately tear it to rubble. So just bear with me, OK?
You're absolutely right that if there'd never been any Earl, there'd be no reason to hold Mr. Del Mar culpable. If none of us had ever heard of Earl, if Earl had been completely removed from the universe, if a time traveler had gone back to the late 19th century and killed Earl's parents before they were able to procreate and changed history so that Earl was never born (and thus Earl wouldn't have been around to fight in a key battle in WWI and the allies would have lost and all of world history would change, but that's a different story) then you're absolutely right, we would then have no basis for blaming Mr. Del Mar. Or, for that matter, Mrs. Del Mar. From what we know, they are both fine upstanding citizens. Occam probably would have us turn to the pavement people and/or the fire-and-brimstone crowd, because Ennis does, elsewhere, indicate that he's uncomfortable around both. And we viewers/readers know from our cultural knowledge that those rural Wyoming pavement/brimstone folks can be homophobic.
So why do I blame OMDM anyway? Because -- and here's where it gets so tricky that it's almost impossible to explain -- even with the Earl element removed, I continue to view Ennis through the Earl lens, thus blaming Mr. Del Mar. "Aha!" I can hear you saying. "That's why Earl is necessary." And yes, it's true, in that sense he is necessary. But he's necessary only for the sake of my understanding of Ennis' character. Not, IMO, for shaping Ennis' character.
In other words, let's say for the moment that if there's an Earl, then we automatically know Mr. Del Mar's homophobia is to blame for screwing up Ennis. (Yes, you've suggested ways around that assumption, but for Occam's sake, let's just establish that if Earl was killed it means OMDM is guilty -- not of killing Earl, necessarily, but of screwing up Ennis.) If X, then Y. If Earl, then Mr. Del Mar's homophobia.
Now comes the really, really tricky part. What if we take Earl out of the equation? Without X, does Y still exist? If we've got an Ennis who we know, via Earl, was the product of Mr. Del's homophobia, and suddenly there is no Earl, does that change everything? Do we start from scratch with a blank-slate Ennis?
The answer, in my mind, is no. We're left with the same Ennis we've come to know and love. Whose emotional problems are the product of his dad's homophobia, not the Earl death scene. Removing the Earl death scene changes neither Ennis, nor the cause of his problems. But what happens is that now, sans Earl, we don't have any way of knowing what caused his problems. If all we'd ever been given were these circumstances, we'd be turning our attention to those pavement and church folks. But, because in "real life" we have heard of Earl, then the knowledge of Earl's death -- and, thus, Mr. Del Mar's homophobia -- has already seeped into our consciousness. So now, even if Earl is removed, unless we want to go back to square one and start over with a whole new Ennis, we're still left with Ennis and his warping by Mr. Del Mar.
That's how I see all these scenarios. No matter what, we start with the same Ennis we meet in 1963 who has been warped by his father's homophobia. If Earl existed, and four years later he tells us the story, then we know exactly why. If Earl never existed, then either we never know why, or we find out only through some lengthy exposition. But either way, we're dealing with the same Ennis, product of the same circumstances.
Now you can feel free to argue that once Earl is gone, the rules have changed and we have to start from scratch. You could say that if I'm going to be rude enough to AP and AL as to reject their brilliant creation of Earl, then my punishment should be having to come up with a whole new Ennis and a whole new explanation for his hangups. But that's simply not the way I'm seeing it. I'm going with the same Ennis we've been given, whom we know via Earl, and who still exists, and for the same reasons, even in the absence of the actual Earl.
Does that make any sense?
What do you have against old men? []
Nothing! In fact, there's one I'm particularly fond of.
In "real life," we viewers/readers may have reason to suspect that life in rural Wyoming was, and still is, tough for gay men. But apparently the movie and story aren't trying to make that point, because (sans Earl) they sure don't offer any evidence that it's a big issue. Oh well, maybe rural America's view of homosexuality just isn't important to the plot. But then why is Ennis so screwed up? We're left to guess or remain ignorant. High-class entertainment? Maybe, but it's got a pretty big hole in it.
You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. [] If this were the case… no dead Earl and no homophobic family, then we still have all of Ennis’ fears and paranoia that HE DISPLAYED in several key points of the film with regard to society (or his church). In this scenario, “rural America's view of homosexuality” BECOMES the plot. Because this is all the evidence we are given and, without a dead Earl and a homophobic family, these elements would stand out as the only elements we could tie anything to. And, it works very well. The Razor is well-honed.
I disagree with your first sentence. I can be waaaayyy more wrong than that . But otherwise, fair enough. There are other scenes in the film that indict society. None as effective as Earl at establishing the stakes Ennis is facing. But between the pavement people and the brimstone crowd, they're there. (Though we would then have to bring in our cultural knowledge -- for example, that church folk often oppose homosexuality -- that you demonstrated earlier we don't have to do in the movie as it stands.)
So I still stand by my original premise: “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.” It's true, he'd still be like that, and for the same reasons. However, we viewers/readers would not have a clue why he's like that. We'd turn our attention to the pavement/brimstone folks, who may not be innocent but certainly aren't the main bad guys, and the real culprit would remain Ennis' little secret.
I guess I’ll just have to love you, faults and all. I will. Because I know you do it for me, too. [] )
I only agree with the first sentence maybe ... 85 percent (faults? what faults?! ). But the last sentence I agree with 100 percent.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version