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 ClancyPantsDelMar (Sat Oct 14 2006 15:20:44 )
Hi latjoreme –
“OK, well now you're just making fun of me."
No, I really didn’t mean to.
“I think it's perfectly acceptable -- in fact, in many cases, is exactly what the author intends -- to extrapolate. You apparently don't. Both are legitimate approaches to reading fiction, I guess. And we both wind up in more or less the same place. So to each his/her own.”
No. Please look again. I agreed with you that this is OK. It’s just how far to go with and whether it violates either the author’s intent or contradicts what we read (see, for film).
“Only, your side had better take responsibility for all those people who think Ennis is being silly for making such a big f'in deal about something he saw for five minutes 20 years ago. And frankly, if I thought that was absolutely all there was to it, I might just about agree with them.”
You’ve missed my point and you’ve misplaced me on a “side.” If you'll read what I wrote, I'm the one who placed greater importance on that scene than you did. I just didn't add other inferences that negate the power of that scene.
“Or do you see that one as simply suggesting that his dad, finding the two forced to spend the night in a motel, would assume they are stranded with a flat tire and no tools to fix it, so he hurries out to lend a hand?”
I really do think you missed my point.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by latjoreme (Sat Oct 14 2006 15:58:40 )
“OK, well now you're just making fun of me."
No, I really didn’t mean to.
OK. I honestly wasn't offended, either way. I took it as lighthearted.
“I think it's perfectly acceptable -- in fact, in many cases, is exactly what the author intends -- to extrapolate. You apparently don't. Both are legitimate approaches to reading fiction, I guess. And we both wind up in more or less the same place. So to each his/her own.”
No. Please look again. I agreed with you that this is OK. It’s just how far to go with and whether it violates either the author’s intent or contradicts what we read (see, for film).
OK. Then maybe we just extrapolate differently. Personally, I don't feel that my version violates the authors' intent or contradicts what I read/see. Apparently you understand the author's intent differently and read/see it a different way. How's that?
You’ve missed my point and you’ve misplaced me on a “side.” If you'll read what I wrote, I'm the one who placed greater importance on that scene than you did. I just didn't add other inferences that negate the power of that scene.
Sorry for missing your point. Sorry for misplacing you on a side. Meanwhile, you've missed my point; I don't deny the power of that scene. Not at all! I just think that some -- not all -- of its power comes from what it suggests, whereas you think its power is sufficiently contained in the scene itself. Right? If not, sorry again.
“Or do you see that one as simply suggesting that his dad, finding the two forced to spend the night in a motel, would assume they are stranded with a flat tire and no tools to fix it, so he hurries out to lend a hand?”
I really do think you missed my point.
That's possible. If so, sorry yet again. But in the paragraph above, I was joking, in the spirit of your vision of a hypothetical nice Mr. Del Mar, which I assumed was kind of a joke. Sorry if my assumption was incorrect and the joke bothered you. Really. I'll have to start being more careful or using more smileys or something.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Sat Oct 14 2006 18:17:58 )
“Sorry for missing your point. Sorry for misplacing you on a side. Meanwhile, you've missed my point; I don't deny the power of that scene. Not at all! I just think that some -- not all -- of its power comes from what it suggests, whereas you think its power is sufficiently contained in the scene itself. Right? If not, sorry again.”
We’re both a coupla sorry cowpokes, huh?
Yes. For purposes of completely understanding Ennis as he’s been presented to us, then, yes, “its power is sufficiently contained in the scene itself.”
The key word is "sufficiently." Nothing more, that is not there, is required for us to understand Ennis as much as we need to -- from the literary perspective.
That said, I agree that we can infer more from the character and others and other scenes that may give us a better understanding. No problem.
But, we then have to keep a few things in mind. While we may infer this or that, the implication may not be there. Different people can draw different inferences. Because different people/different inferences, different people will see the film completely differently. And if any of these contradict what we see on the screen or violate the integrity of the piece, then it may be questionable.
This is why I gave the example above of how someone could walk away thinking Ennis’ father was a swell guy, misunderstood by Ennis. (From the film. Not from the short story.) The example I gave above is not contradicted by the film itself and it is supported by the film itself and it gives greater insight into the character of Ennis. After all, Ennis’ problem never seems to be with his father. Ennis' problem seems to be with what his father made him see. Very fine distinction, sure. But, again, another twist. Jack’s problem was always with his father on a personal level. Not so for Ennis.
“But in the paragraph above, I was joking, in the spirit of your vision of a hypothetical nice Mr. Del Mar, which I assumed was kind of a joke. Sorry if my assumption was incorrect and the joke bothered you. Really. I'll have to start being more careful or using more smileys or something.”
You could go to that venerable old institution of higher learning, Will U, and learn more about smileys, imho. (P.S., you brought it up. )
Actually, my example was not a joke. I do not believe it. BUT, I do seriously mean that a person could come up with that interpretation and that person could have a solid foundation for that belief.
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl
by oilgun (Fri Oct 27 2006 18:03:01 )
Well Clancypants, I reread the whole thread. more carefully this time, and it's a fascinating discussion if somewhat frustrating to read.
Frustrating, because in a way you are both right, but it's like you and latjoreme are in different dimensions, lol!
You may be technically right but Latjoreme is right in a more practical and holistic way. She factors in human experience & knowledge that exist outside the work itself. You seem to look at the film as if it existed in a vacuum, excluding history, what we know of human nature and the society we live in.
I also think it's interesting and perhaps contradictory that you disapprove of too much inference yet you approve of looking for symbolism which is much less logical.
Anyway, I agree with Latjoreme's comment about the Earl incident being shorthand for the extreme rural homophobia that Ennis grew up with. We as readers or viewers (not Ennis) needed something that horrible so we wouldn't question (at least most of us wouldn't) why Ennis was so repressed and incapable of self acceptance. - It just occurred to me that an equally scarring father/son incident in Jack's life was omitted from the film. I think the bizarre washroom episode when OMT urinated on his 4 year old son to teach him a lesson was never mentioned so as not to lessen the impact of the Earl scene.
Earl is a potent symbol of (rural) homophobia.
I hope you weren't expecting a long missive, I've just been really busy lately
"Now scoot!"-Ms. Perky
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Fri Oct 27 2006 20:35:34 )
UPDATED Fri Oct 27 2006 20:49:57
Hi oilgun –
Thanks for the comments. latjoreme and I have been going back and forth on this and we appreciate the input.
“…but it's like you and latjoreme are in different dimensions, lol!”
You’ll get no argument from me. latjoreme?
“You seem to look at the film as if it existed in a vacuum,”
I can see how this would come across. The problem with bringing in “history, what we know of human nature and the society we live in” is two-fold (to me, for purposes of this discussion). First, and this was really my only quibble with latjoreme, is if these outside items either destroy or obscure what has been given to us by the author. Second, everyone is going to bring in all kinds of different things from their own “history, what we know of human nature and the society we live in,” since these are not objective observations; rather, they are subjective ways of each person making his or her own sense of “reality.” For example, while I don’t like the “dad was a nice guy theory,” it can be supported from what the movie gives us (not the short story). Here, we’d have two diametrically-opposed views of the characterization of Ennis, one of which could very possibly change the author’s intent.
“I also think it's interesting and perhaps contradictory that you disapprove of too much inference yet you approve of looking for symbolism which is much less logical.”
Here, one must look at under what circumstances I approve or disapprove of the use of inference, as I explained above. As for logic being applied to inference, imagery, and symbolism… in a sense, it’s the logic each person chooses to apply to each, if any, that gives it a logical dimension.
Also, one must remember that Ang Lee is a director known for extensive use of symbolism and imagery. Proulx is an author known for her strong use of imagery and not so strong use of symbolism.
“Anyway, I agree with Latjoreme's comment about the Earl incident being shorthand for the extreme rural homophobia that Ennis grew up with.”
Agreed as long as we don’t let it obscure the fact that…
“We as readers or viewers (not Ennis) needed something that horrible so we wouldn't question (at least most of us wouldn't) why Ennis was so repressed and incapable of self acceptance.”
“It just occurred to me that an equally scarring father/son incident in Jack's life was omitted from the film. I think the bizarre washroom episode when OMT urinated on his 4 year old son to teach him a lesson was never mentioned so as not to lessen the impact of the Earl scene.”
Agreed. I still haven’t figured out how this adds a lot to Jack’s character – on a personal level – except for a contrast to Ennis’, each with respect to fathers, influences, installations, etc.
“Earl is a potent symbol of (rural) homophobia.”
Amen Brother Ben!
“I hope you weren't expecting a long missive, I've just been really busy lately”
Long or short, I just like the direction you’re going.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by oilgun (Sat Oct 28 2006 13:18:37 )
I still haven’t figured out how this [OMT urinating on son] adds a lot to Jack’s character – on a personal level – except for a contrast to Ennis’, each with respect to fathers, influences, installations, etc.
I'm puzzled by that incident as well. That episode has a vaguely sexual subtext but I'm not sure what it's suppose to tell us about either characters. Could it be that Jack discovering the difference in his and his father's genitalia (cut/uncut) was in some way helpful for him to separate himself from his abusive parent resulting in him accepting more easily his own sexual "difference"? Anyway, I'm in over my head here, lol!
Thnak you both for letting me join in this pleasant discussion.
"Save the cheerleader, save the world"
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Sat Oct 28 2006 17:09:53 )
Hi oilgun –
“I'm puzzled by that incident as well. That episode has a vaguely sexual subtext but I'm not sure what it's suppose to tell us about either characters. Could it be that Jack discovering the difference in his and his father's genitalia (cut/uncut) was in some way helpful for him to separate himself from his abusive parent resulting in him accepting more easily his own sexual "difference"? Anyway, I'm in over my head here, lol!”
In the short story, this comes right after OMT told Ennis about “another one’s goin a come up here with him and build a place and help run the ranch, some ranch neighbor a his…” This comment caused Ennis to believe it had been the tire iron (“So now he knew it had been the tire iron”).
He stood up to go up to Jack’s room (described in terms of a “boy” rather than a “man”). This remembrance occurred after he walked away from OMT but before he got to the top of the stairs (with their own climbing rhythm, akin to climbing the mountain – AP used the imagery of climbing and “up” only and whenever she referred to Brokeback and to Lightning Flat).
So, as Ennis is climbing to Jack’s room – an allusion to Brokeback, an allusion to sexual identity freedom – he remembers this story. We hear it as Ennis recalls it as Jack told Ennis about it. It’s described as “the anatomical disconformity.” This immediately sets it up as a contrast between father and son. The contrast is continued: “I seen he had some extra material that I was missin. I seen they’d cut me different like you’d crop a ear or scorch a brand.” There is an implicit control or ownership element, tied to the penis, and instilled by a lesson carried out through the penis. This episode centers on “piss.” Piss is the cause and piss is the solution. This is something his father only did once. But it seared the lesson into Jack such that his belief after that was “No way to get it right with him after that.” Here, we see Jack distancing himself from his father. We do not see Ennis distance himself from his own father. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Earl death scene is linked to this scene not only because of the instilling of a belief or mindset into each child, but also by Ennis’ comment after he told the Earl death story to Jack in the motel room: “It scares the piss out a me.”
There are only two other examples of “piss” in the short story. Both are up on Brokeback. The first is when Jack is trying to get Ennis and Jack to “live together,” in one camp – the pup tent smells of cat piss; the other is when they are having their first true moment of connection as they sit by the fire and talk at length, getting to know each other, respecting each other’s opinions. It is right after this that Ennis felt he could paw the white out of the moon. AP is not really big on symbolism, but she is HUGE on imagery. Here she uses the imagery of “piss” and smell to showcase the connection that had been made between Jack and Ennis, a connection that is tied to the penis and that also distances the father from the son. When Ennis finally finds the shirts, he hopes “for the faintest smoke and mountain sage and salty sweet stink of Jack, but there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain…”
She also uses the imagery of water – “then he throws a towel at me and makes me mop up the floor, take my clothes off and warsh them in the bathtub, warsh out the towel” – just as she used this in the Alma Thanksgiving scene, most explicitly, and elsewhere such as the laundry where Ennis thought he had lost the shirt.
Again, this comes immediately after Ennis "got reason" to believe that Jack was killed for being gay. It's immediately after this that the anatomical disconformity, the imagery of the penis as a separator, comes into play as a connection between Jack and Ennis, bolstered by the other connections of the two described through the imagery of climbing Brokeback and what that represents to the two of them, appositionally to the father-son relationship.
“Thnak you both for letting me join in this pleasant discussion.”
My thanks to you. You restarted the discussion.
Re: It's not all about Earl
by oilgun (Sat Oct 28 2006 17:32:05 )
Here, we see Jack distancing himself from his father. We do not see Ennis distance himself from his own father.
Excellent analysis clancypants! It also explains why Jack speaks so derogatorily about his father while Ennis still speaks of his with a measure of respect.
))<>((
Re: It's not all about Earl
by latjoreme (Sat Oct 28 2006 17:32:38 )
Thank YOU for being here, oilgun!
The best I've come up with to explain the peeing episode in the book are 1) it undercuts the sentimentality of the bedroom scene. AP is, um, zealously unsentimental and uses tricks like this to keep sweet or sad scenes from getting too sappy. 2) Jack noticing the differences in their genitalia symbolizes his noticing the differences in their sexuality. "They'd cut me different like you'd scorch a brand" suggests this. And good point, oilgun, that Jack may have used it in a positive way; once he established that clear-cut (sorry) difference, he was freed of some pressure to conform.
In the book, I interpret that scene as suggesting that Jack's homosexuality was the source of tension between father and son: "No way to get it right with him after that." But in the movie, OMT is not portrayed as homophobic. An SOB, yes, but not a homophobe, as far as we can tell. I think the filmmakers did this on purpose, and had their reasons. So there's still another explanation for omitting the peeing scene in the movie; it would confuse that issue.
One reason for making OMT unhomophobic, BTW, is to create a parallel with Ennis' dad. We think Ennis' dad is OK, then find out he's a murderer. We know OMT is a jerk, assume he's homophobic, then find out he's not.
UPDATE: CPDM, your post came in as I was writing this. Interesting analysis! Much more complex than mine, and I don't think I disagree with anything in it.
Hi CPDM,
But are you able to explain that even though this is the way the character was drawn for us, it must necessarily be inadequate?
When you talk about drawing interpretations beyond what the author has presented or how the character was drawn, you always make it sound as if we're going behind Annie Proulx's back and, against her permission, sneaking in some extra information that she hasn't authorized and wouldn't approve of. On the contrary, I think she is setting us free to do just that. If we're content with the Earl story as sufficient in itself to explain Ennis' childhood, fine. But I don't believe she would frown on the interpretation that the Earl scene is a shocking emblem of a larger bad situation. I believe she intends it.
To say Ennis got to be like he is because of one brief experience contradicts what I know about developmental psychology in real life. But OK, this is fiction. If that's the point a story wants to make, I can cut it some slack. But to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.
So how about the proposal that Mr. Del Mar's homophobia could be a product of Ennis' paranoia? I'm sorry, but that's not remotely arguable. Ennis observed his dad's behavior and attitude during the Earl incident. And yet somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime, even in the absense of supporting evidence -- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence? Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder, even while forcing his sons to view the body? Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic ... or psychotic?
IMO, his opinion that his dad could have done the job must be basing on something, and something that doesn't fly in the face of what he observed -- during the Earl incident certainly, and more than likely before and after as well.
Must all characters make sense to each and/or any of us?
I don't think we need to know, for example, why OMT is such a jerk. (We might need to know whether his treatment of Jack has to do with homophobia, but not much eyond that.) We don't need to know why Lureen was eager to marry Jack. But Ennis' homophobia and repression, Jack's relative comfort with his sexuality, Alma's willingness to stick around for a while without confronting Ennis about his sexuality -- those are all aspects of character that are central enough to the story that, yes, they do have to make some degree of sense.
And in this case, especially. We're presented with the Earl incident specifically as a way to explain Ennis' character. So yeah, in that case I think it has responsibility for explaining it. And I think it does! Because of what it implies as well as what it contains.
““History, what we know of human nature and the society we live in” is exactly what we're supposed to bring to the table as readers/viewers.”
Why?
“We're not supposed to clear our minds of everything we know about societal homophobia or developmental psychology or prejudice or violence or anything else before reading/viewing.”
Why not?
Because without that basic information none of it would make any sense whatsoever. We're expected to understand, for example, why Ennis' dad -- or someone -- would have killed Earl. All we're told is that Earl lives with another man and was tortured to death. We're able to connect the two because we realize that Earl and Rich must be gay and that gay people often get attacked. In fact, our realization that this sort of thing happens in real life is what lets the incident stand on its own to represent society's homophobia. Someone here once protested that we never see any evidence of society's homophobia -- it's all in Ennis' head. Wrong. But it's not illustrated at length, either; it's concentrated in the Earl incident. That scene is given responsibility for representing all of the societal homophobia in the story, and most of it in the movie.
Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.
You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive. They work together to form the whole, and the second could not exist without the first. To say they can't is like saying "Romeo and Juliet" is not a heterosexual love story, it's a play about the destructive effects of family feuds. Or "Titanic" is a movie about the destructive effects of icebergs. Both, and both. Love stories do not have to end happily. When Annie Proulx said that, I think she meant only that the term "gay love story" is simplistic. Maybe she feels that phrase implies sentiment (ugh!) and romance and a nice happy ending. Of course, it doesn't. Yes, it's about homophobia. But as far as I'm concerned, it's also a love story.
We were challenged and surprised. And we were constantly challenged and surprised as the story played out, driving the theme.
True!
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: It's not all about Earl
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Sun Oct 29 2006 23:17:59 )
UPDATED Mon Oct 30 2006 01:18:13
Hi oilgun –
Thanks. You’re very nice.
Hi latjoreme –
Sorry I missed this post of yours. It deserves a well-thought out response. So what the heck am I doing here?
“AP is, um, zealously unsentimental and uses tricks like this to keep sweet or sad scenes from getting too sappy.”
I’d agree with all of this, except I’d change the word “zealously” to … oh, never mind!
“One reason for making OMT unhomophobic, BTW, is to create a parallel with Ennis' dad. We think Ennis' dad is OK, then find out he's a murderer. We know OMT is a jerk, assume he's homophobic, then find out he's not.”
Agreed. Except the word “possible” should be in there somewhere…
(re: My analysis of "pee")
“…and I don't think I disagree with anything in it.”
You’re funnin’ with me, huh?
But are you able to explain that even though this is the way the character was drawn for us, it must necessarily be inadequate?
“When you talk about drawing interpretations beyond what the author has presented or how the character was drawn, you always make it sound as if we're going behind Annie Proulx's back and, against her permission, sneaking in some extra information that she hasn't authorized and wouldn't approve of.”
Well… I’d change the first few words to: “When you talk about drawing interpretations that contradict or defeat what the author…” Then I’d agree.
“On the contrary, I think she is setting us free to do just that.”
With the same restriction as above, I’d agree.
“If we're content with the Earl story as sufficient in itself to explain Ennis' childhood, fine. But I don't believe she would frown on the interpretation that the Earl scene is a shocking emblem of a larger bad situation. I believe she intends it.”
I don’t know if I agree with the last sentence, but I agree with the rest… because it’s within the above limitations.
“To say Ennis got to be like he is because of one brief experience contradicts what I know about developmental psychology in real life. But OK, this is fiction. If that's the point a story wants to make, I can cut it some slack. But to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.”
This makes me say “Hmmm…” Ennis said “My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it.” This makes it sound to me as if the father knew about what happened to Earl (regardless whether he was involved in the dastardly deed) and thought it would be a good educational opportunity for his boys. He wanted to instill in the boys a sense that Earl was wrong for being gay and thus deserved death. It’s worth noting that he did not bring his daughter along. Only the boys.
Again, it should be noted, again, that I have not said that it is wrong to muse whether OMDM was homophobic or whether he spoke of it or whether he acted on it at other times. I have said that it detracts from the destructive significance of this one episode on Ennis. As long as we keep first and foremost in our minds that this one isolated incident was the most horrific – thus, the key – incident, then all the other musings are just fine. There is a reason why AP and AL each showed us this one incident and purposefully did not show us any others: to highlight the significance of this incident on the destruction of Ennis’ emotional detachment from himself and from others.
“So how about the proposal that Mr. Del Mar's homophobia could be a product of Ennis' paranoia? I'm sorry, but that's not remotely arguable. Ennis observed his dad's behavior and attitude during the Earl incident. And yet somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime, even in the absense of supporting evidence -- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence? Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder, even while forcing his sons to view the body? Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic ... or psychotic?”
Ummmm, the obvious answer is “Yes.” Ennis was a nine-year-old boy. If someone wants to make the argument as I’ve outlined above – and which I do not subscribe to, then they are on very solid ground. Both with regard to the evidence from the film and from “real life” psychology.
“IMO, his opinion that his dad could have done the job must be basing on something, and something that doesn't fly in the face of what he observed -- during the Earl incident certainly, and more than likely before and after as well.”
Sure. I can go with this. But if someone wants to say what I outlined above, I cannot disagree. The film and psychology support it.
Must all characters make sense to each and/or any of us?
“I don't think we need to know, for example, why OMT is such a jerk. (We might need to know whether his treatment of Jack has to do with homophobia, but not much eyond that.) We don't need to know why Lureen was eager to marry Jack. But Ennis' homophobia and repression, Jack's relative comfort with his sexuality, Alma's willingness to stick around for a while without confronting Ennis about his sexuality -- those are all aspects of character that are central enough to the story that, yes, they do have to make some degree of sense.”
I agree with all of this.
“And in this case, especially. We're presented with the Earl incident specifically as a way to explain Ennis' character. So yeah, in that case I think it has responsibility for explaining it. And I think it does! Because of what it implies as well as what it contains.”
Exactly. But the questions remain: What does it imply? Do we all agree? Could something else be implied? Are all of the various implications that different people come up with supported by the film? Are any any better or worse than any others?
“History, what we know of human nature and the society we live in” is exactly what we're supposed to bring to the table as readers/viewers. Why? “We're not supposed to clear our minds of everything we know about societal homophobia or developmental psychology or prejudice or violence or anything else before reading/viewing.” Why not?
“Because without that basic information none of it would make any sense whatsoever. We're expected to understand, for example, why Ennis' dad -- or someone -- would have killed Earl.”
I disagree. We’re supposed to understand the effects that the Earl incident had on Ennis. If we never know what really happened to Earl or why or whether OMDM was involved or what his motivation was for showing this to Ennis (all of these being musings), we still know one thing: The effect it had on Ennis. Interestingly, we do not know the answers to any of those musings and yet we do know about the effects on Ennis, and yet, somehow, it all still makes sense to us… from our own experiences, from our own hearts. The same can be said about whether Lureen knew, whether Lureen was in on it, how Jack died, whether Randall was randy and ready…
“All we're told is that Earl lives with another man and was tortured to death.”
And that they were tough old birds… and that they were the joke of town… Hmmmm… interesting that an apparent dichotomy has been set up for us, huh?
“We're able to connect the two because we realize that Earl and Rich must be gay and that gay people often get attacked.”
Sure. I can go with this. Is this everyone’s experience? Would everyone see it this way? If someone saw it differently based on his/her experiences in life, would that person be wrong?
“In fact, our realization that this sort of thing happens in real life is what lets the incident stand on its own to represent society's homophobia. Someone here once protested that we never see any evidence of society's homophobia -- it's all in Ennis' head. Wrong. But it's not illustrated at length, either; it's concentrated in the Earl incident. That scene is given responsibility for representing all of the societal homophobia in the story, and most of it in the movie.”
Absolutely.
Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.
“You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive.”
But I don’t. Notice that I also said: “we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.” The theme is the primary focus of any story; the plot is always secondary to the theme. The theme has been enunciated by AP herself. Those words are not mine. They are hers. In fact, if you’ll look at her quote (in her essay “Getting Movied”) you will notice that she herself did not link the two as I have. She is much more responsible for any mutual exclusivity.
“They work together to form the whole, and the second could not exist without the first.”
Yes. This is what I have always said.
“To say they can't is like saying "Romeo and Juliet" is not a heterosexual love story, it's a play about the destructive effects of family feuds. Or "Titanic" is a movie about the destructive effects of icebergs.”
And I have not said any of this.
“When Annie Proulx said that, I think she meant only that the term "gay love story" is simplistic.”
Now you shut up about Annie Proulx... this ain't (all) her fault. I have to disagree with this. The word “only,” I mean. Yes, I believe that she would agree that to call this a gay love story is simplistic. But by her own words and given their context, she is focused on the theme – almost exclusively. (As I have shown, I am not.) Her exact words are: “…the urban critics dubbed it a tale of two gay cowboys. No. It is a story of destructive rural homophobia.” Notice her use of the word “No.” That sounds pretty exclusive to me. But I'm willing to cut her a break.
“Yes, it's about homophobia. But as far as I'm concerned, it's also a love story.”
And I have always agreed with this. It is a gay love story that is used to propel a specific theme. One problem with focusing only on the plot and not recognizing the theme (which I am not saying that you are doing here) is all of the posts we see here from young, gay men who were terribly disappointed in this film. They expected a pro-gay agenda film and they did not get it. Truly, they did not “get it.”
Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by toycoon (Mon Oct 30 2006 13:26:10 )
After all these years, I guess he finally mastered the technique!
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Mon Oct 30 2006 13:33:10 )
Hi toycoon --
I had no idea what you were talking about until I read the subject line of your thread.
LOL! That's really good. He was pretty proficient, huh? Not such a total f-up after all.
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by toycoon (Mon Oct 30 2006 15:52:29 )
Hello ClancyPants,
It's the only subtle reference to the abuse that Jack suffered as a child inflicted by his father.
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by latjoreme (Mon Oct 30 2006 16:26:11 )
UPDATED Mon Oct 30 2006 16:27:38
Hi CPDM,
“We think Ennis' dad is OK, then find out he's a murderer."
Agreed. Except the word “possible” should be in there somewhere… []
Oops! You're right. Sorry.
re: My analysis of "pee")
“…and I don't think I disagree with anything in it.”
You’re funnin’ with me, huh?
No! Every now and then you get something right.
“When you talk about drawing interpretations beyond what the author has presented ...”
Well… I’d change the first few words to: “When you talk about drawing interpretations that contradict or defeat what the author…” Then I’d agree.
How does my interpretation "contradict or defeat" what AP presented? On the contrary, it includes, in fact relies upon, what she presented. I simply read AP's words as implying more than you read in them.
"to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.”
This makes me say “Hmmm…” Ennis said “My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it.” This makes it sound to me as if the father knew about what happened to Earl (regardless whether he was involved in the dastardly deed) and thought it would be a good educational opportunity for his boys. He wanted to instill in the boys a sense that Earl was wrong for being gay and thus deserved death. It’s worth noting that he did not bring his daughter along. Only the boys.
Sure, I agree with all this. So what's with the "hmmm ..."? In other words, I don't see how this contradicts what I said.
As long as we keep first and foremost in our minds that this one isolated incident was the most horrific – thus, the key – incident, then all the other musings are just fine. There is a reason why AP and AL each showed us this one incident and purposefully did not show us any others: to highlight the significance of this incident on the destruction of Ennis’ emotional detachment from himself and from others.
Now how do you know there's "a" reason AP and AL showed us this one incident? Yes, I agree, the scene highlights an incident that was significant and destructive for Ennis. I'd even go along "most horrific -- thus, the key -- incident." But IMO, there all kinds of additional reasons AP and AL might have limited anecdotes from Ennis' childhood to this one scene: It's dramatic and horrifying, for both Ennis and the viewers. It conveys a lot of meaning in a concise, efficient way. It's easy for the writer to describe and for the director to film. It's the kind of thing that would stick in a kid's mind, as well as in a reader's/viewer's. It wouldn't work, on paper or on film (at least not in the styles that either AP or AL uses elsewhere), for Ennis to spend the next three hours describing his horrible childhood. It is a powerful and effective way to encapsulate the horror of rural homophobia both within and beyond the Del Mar family. 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.
“somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime, even in the absense of supporting evidence -- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence? Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder, even while forcing his sons to view the body? Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic ... or psychotic?”
Ummmm, the obvious answer is “Yes.” Ennis was a nine-year-old boy. If someone wants to make the argument as I’ve outlined above – and which I do not subscribe to, then they are on very solid ground. Both with regard to the evidence from the film and from “real life” psychology.
Wait, you're saying "yes," the father is a cipher, or "yes," Ennis is psychotic, or what? In either case, to me the obvious answer is "no." I've outlined my reasons, but I don't understand yours, and you don't provide enough support to challenge them. I've never heard of anyone acting that way (that is, betraying no sign of homophobia except on the one occasion it might have driven the person to torture someone to death), in film or in real life. Sure, I suppose it's remotely possible -- never say never -- but I don't think AP or AL were trying to paint Mr. Del Mar as some bizarre crazed unhinged psychotic. Instead, he's a man who shares his culture's prejudices, albeit to an extreme degree.
What does it imply? Do we all agree? Could something else be implied? Are all of the various implications that different people come up with supported by the film? Are any any better or worse than any others?
What I just said. Obviously not. Maybe. Not necessarily. Probably.
I subscribe to the idea that works of fiction are open to more than one possible interpretation. So yes, different people could find different implications. IMO, no, they are not all equally valid. But it's not impossible that more than one could be valid.
We’re supposed to understand the effects that the Earl incident had on Ennis. If we never know what really happened to Earl or why or whether OMDM was involved or what his motivation was for showing this to Ennis (all of these being musings), we still know one thing: The effect it had on Ennis.
I agree.
“All we're told is that Earl lives with another man and was tortured to death.”
And that they were tough old birds… and that they were the joke of town… Hmmmm… interesting that an apparent dichotomy has been set up for us, huh?
OK, so ...?
“We're able to connect the two because we realize that Earl and Rich must be gay and that gay people often get attacked.”
Sure. I can go with this. Is this everyone’s experience? Would everyone see it this way? If someone saw it differently based on his/her experiences in life, would that person be wrong?
I think yes, this much is within the experience of, and would be the likely interpretation of anybody who is casually familiar with Western American culture, history, current events and so on. If a hypothetical person saw it differently based on different experiences, I guess I would have to know more of the specifics before declaring that version right or wrong -- that is, clearly outside of the author's intentions.
If someone interpreted it as saying, for example, that Mr. Del Mar potentially killed Earl, a rancher, because Mr. Del Mar was a vegetarian who objected to raising animals for food, then I would boldly say they are wrong. But I'm guessing not many viewers saw it that way. That's where our basic cultural knowledge comes into play.
“You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive.”
But I don’t. Notice that I also said: “we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.” The theme is the primary focus of any story; the plot is always secondary to the theme.
But you did not say the gay love story is secondary to the theme of TDEORH. You said "Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story." Emphases mine. It's NOT one thing. It's another thing INSTEAD.
Her exact words are: “…the urban critics dubbed it a tale of two gay cowboys. No. It is a story of destructive rural homophobia.” Notice her use of the word “No.” That sounds pretty exclusive to me.
In the context of that whole paragraph, she sounds to me like someone who is annoyed by clueless "urban critics" who romanticize and/or oversimplify what she was trying to do. (In the context of the whole essay, I'd say she sounds like she is annoyed by clueless urbanites in other circumstances, too.) In the sentence that follows the one you quoted, she mentions Matthew Shepard. Yes, I agree her story has a larger point to make, and that she wants to place the emphasis on that point. But let's face it, setting aside her quibble with the term "cowboy," it IS irrefutably a tale of two gay cowboys. She's just saying that's not all there is to it. Otherwise, the quote wouldn't make any sense at all.
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by ClancyPantsDelMar (Mon Oct 30 2006 18:33:46 )
Hi latjoreme –
(Do you realize our public posts are getting almost as big as our PMs? )
(re: My analysis of "pee")
“No! Every now and then you get something right.”
Well, I think my moron chip finally short-circuited.
(re: (mis-)interpretations)
“How does my interpretation "contradict or defeat" what AP presented? On the contrary, it includes, in fact relies upon, what she presented. I simply read AP's words as implying more than you read in them.”
I was going back to the beginning of the thread when you said… well, YOU know! You’ve come a long way, baby. (Or is that "girlie-girl"?)
"to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion? That would be stretching my tolerance for literary license.”
This makes me say “Hmmm…” Ennis said “My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it.” This makes it sound to me as if the father knew about what happened to Earl (regardless whether he was involved in the dastardly deed) and thought it would be a good educational opportunity for his boys. He wanted to instill in the boys a sense that Earl was wrong for being gay and thus deserved death. It’s worth noting that he did not bring his daughter along. Only the boys.
“Sure, I agree with all this. So what's with the "hmmm ..."? In other words, I don't see how this contradicts what I said.”
You said it would be stretching your tolerance for literary license “to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion?” I gave an example of just why this may have been “one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic – occasion.” We are not told that OMDM killed gays every Sunday right after church and his chicken dinner. We can believe it if we want to, but to not believe it is equally valid. The same is true about us not being told that OMDM murdered Earl. The same is true about whether OMDM never had another occasion in his life of seeing a man murdered for being gay. We were never told any of these things. So we can believe them or not – equally valid. So, for purposes of this argument, let’s go with the idea that OMDM has never before murdered a gay man, including Earl, and he has not had such an occasion before. NOW, he finds out a man was murdered for being gay and here’s his opportunity to show his boys what happens to gay men. So he does. This is the one and only time that we KNOW of him “express[ing] murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic – occasion.” And I just gave a reason wherein this is plausible. Let’s say OMDM went around the house all day long for Ennis’ first nine years complaining about those two gay old birds. That’s not “express[ing] murderous homophobia.” Here, he had an opportunity to show his boys something to instill a lesson and he took advantage of it. No stretch of literary license at all.
As long as we keep first and foremost in our minds that this one isolated incident was the most horrific – thus, the key – incident, then all the other musings are just fine. There is a reason why AP and AL each showed us this one incident and purposefully did not show us any others: to highlight the significance of this incident on the destruction of Ennis’ emotional detachment from himself and from others.
“Now how do you know there's "a" reason AP and AL showed us this one incident?”
Because I called them each up on the telephone and asked them just so we could settle this question. They each said I was right. I’d show you the call on my phone bill, but I think I lost it somewhere…
(Ha-ha?)
I still think that my wording makes the point that you also make:
“Yes, I agree, the scene highlights an incident that was significant and destructive for Ennis. I'd even go along "most horrific -- thus, the key -- incident."”
“But IMO, there all kinds of additional reasons AP and AL might have limited anecdotes from Ennis' childhood to this one scene: …”
Yep. I agree with everything you said here. And, none of what you said contradicts what I said.
(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.”)
“somehow this one isolated incident could have shocked Ennis into such extreme homophobia that he later comes to believe that his father could have committed the crime,”
Yes.
“even in the absense of supporting evidence”
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. Ennis said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” He didn’t say he believed it. He said he didn’t know. He was shown a murdered corpse by his father with his father’s tight hand on his neck. He was nine years old. Young and impressionable. This is supporting evidence to explain why Ennis had thoughts or doubts in his mind about who killed Earl. Let’s draw this out. That night Ennis went to bed. All he could think of was what his dad showed him. Wouldn’t the thought somehow cross Ennis' mind “Gee, I wonder who did that to poor old Earl?” Seems pretty reasonable to me. If his next thought was “Gee, I wonder if daddy did it? I mean, he knew it happened, he took me to see it…” then I think that would be pretty reasonable too. A nine-year-old boy wondering like that… pretty reasonable. He’s probably still got monsters under the bed. But back to Ennis’ exact words. He didn’t say to Jack “Hell, he probably done the job.” He also did not say “Hell, I’m convinced, he done the job.” He said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” If you ask me, that gives even MORE support to the notion that OMDM didn’t go around acting like a murderous homophobe all the time. If he did act that way enough to compound little Ennis’ fears, wouldn’t Ennis have had a much more definite statement to make to Jack? At the time Ennis made that statement to Jack, Ennis had all the knowledge he was ever going to have of his father’s murderous homophobic ways. Yet, he said “for all I know.” Which is akin to “I dunno” and “maybe” and “who knows?”
“-- in fact, most likely in the presence of contradictory evidence?”
What contradictory evidence?
“Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder,”
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.
“even while forcing his sons to view the body?”
Yep. Even then. The focus is not on OMDM. It’s on Ennis and his mental condition at the time and thereafter.
“Did the experience make Ennis repressed and homophobic”
Yes.
“... or psychotic?”
Maybe. How do you define “psychotic” based on Ennis’ further feelings, actions, and words?
“I've outlined my reasons, but I don't understand yours, and you don't provide enough support to challenge them. I've never heard of anyone acting that way (that is, betraying no sign of homophobia except on the one occasion it might have driven the person to torture someone to death), in film or in real life.”
But you keep changing the scenario. And you’re mixing in a lot of assumptions. And you’re switching the focus. Are you talking about what is or isn’t believable in OMDM’s actions or are you talking about Ennis? Why do you always describe OMDM as murderously homophobic? What’s your evidence of this? The one reason I keep hearing from you is that you have never heard of this. This is where I am stymied. Talk to any psychologist. This is exactly how millions of people end up screwed up for life: one, isolated, horrific incident in childhood. Ennis was there. He done seen it with his own two eyes. You can read these stories practically everyday in newspapers and magzines… in true-crime books… in psychological journals… on TV talk shows… on news programs… in documentaries… One, isolated, horrific episode causing a person to be detached from his emotional self. I’m sorry, but the answer is undeniably “Yes.”
“If someone interpreted it as saying, for example, that Mr. Del Mar potentially killed Earl, a rancher, because Mr. Del Mar was a vegetarian who objected to raising animals for food, then I would boldly say they are wrong. But I'm guessing not many viewers saw it that way. That's where our basic cultural knowledge comes into play.”
Um, no. This has nothing to do with cultural knowledge. It has to do with what was shown in the film. We were given nothing that would connect Earl’s death to another man’s vegetarianism. We were given the implication that Earl was gay and the fact that he was murdered. From those two bits we can infer that Earl was killed for being gay. This does not require “cultural knowledge.” If we are given that a man has a book and then we see him get killed and then the killer walks away with the book, we can infer there’s something pretty damn special about that book to the killer. Then we start to wonder whether it’s a valuable book or whether it has incriminating evidence in it against the killer or whether it was a special book given to the killer by his dear departed mother and later stolen by the killed man, etc. No special cultural knowledge required. And the film will probably later show us what was so special about the book. Or, it could keep us guessing. It depends how good or bad the film is.
You know, I always disagree when you pit "gay love story" against "destructive effects of rural homophobia" as if the two were mutually exclusive.
But I don’t. Notice that I also said: “we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story.” The theme is the primary focus of any story; the plot is always secondary to the theme.
“But you did not say the gay love story is secondary to the theme of TDEORH. You said "Many people expected that this movie would be about a gay love story. However, that is not what the author/filmmaker gave us. Instead, we were given an exposé on the destructive effects of rural homophobia exposed through the plot device of a gay love story." Emphases mine. It's NOT one thing. It's another thing INSTEAD.
No, read it again. I did not say “It’s not a gay love story; it is a story of the destructive effects of rural homophobia. Period. End of sentence. That’s all she wrote.” I said it has both elements. Your complaint was that I pitted them against each other as if they were mutually exclusive. I showed that I included both elements. You did not complain about me ordering them. The reason that you did not complain about this is because you saw me as making them mutually exclusive, thus obliterating any ordering of them. I added the ordering of them simply to reemphasize the fact that the theme is primary and the plot is secondary, to reemphasize the fact that they are not mutually exclusive, and to reemphasize the fact that they do co-exist. So, in a sense, your last two sentences are correct. "It's NOT one thing -- it's not justa gay love story." "It's another thing instead -- it's a gay love story plot advancing a theme of the destructive effects of rural homophobia."
Her exact words are: “…the urban critics dubbed it a tale of two gay cowboys. No. It is a story of destructive rural homophobia.” Notice her use of the word “No.” That sounds pretty exclusive to me.
“In the context of that whole paragraph, she sounds to me like someone who is annoyed by clueless "urban critics" who romanticize and/or oversimplify what she was trying to do. (In the context of the whole essay, I'd say she sounds like she is annoyed by clueless urbanites in other circumstances, too.)”
Yes, I agree. This is why I also said that I cut her some slack.
“In the sentence that follows the one you quoted, she mentions Matthew Shepard. Yes, I agree her story has a larger point to make, and that she wants to place the emphasis on that point. But let's face it, setting aside her quibble with the term "cowboy," it IS irrefutably a tale of two gay cowboys. She's just saying that's not all there is to it. Otherwise, the quote wouldn't make any sense at all.”
Agreed. But, I quoted her to show you that her words were more exclusionary than my words.
Ding! End of Round 6. Round 7 coming up…
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...
by latjoreme (Mon Oct 30 2006 22:01:03 )
(Do you realize our public posts are getting almost as big as our PMs? )
It's becoming a full-time job!
You said it would be stretching your tolerance for literary license “to think that a man would express murderous homophobia only on one isolated -- and yet hugely dramatic -- occasion?” ... We are not told that OMDM killed gays every Sunday right after church and his chicken dinner.... Let’s say OMDM went around the house all day long for Ennis’ first nine years complaining about those two gay old birds. That’s not “express[ing] murderous homophobia.”
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."
“Now how do you know there's "a" reason AP and AL showed us this one incident?”
... Yep. I agree with everything you said here. And, none of what you said contradicts what I said.
OK. Good. Because all those things I said were reasons why AP and AL would have used that one incident as an emblem of a larger problem.
(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.)
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.
Ennis said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” ... He was shown a murdered corpse by his father with his father’s tight hand on his neck. He was nine years old. Young and impressionable. This is supporting evidence to explain why Ennis had thoughts or doubts in his mind about who killed Earl. ... Wouldn’t the thought somehow cross Ennis' mind “Gee, I wonder who did that to poor old Earl?” Seems pretty reasonable to me. If his next thought was “Gee, I wonder if daddy did it? I mean, he knew it happened, he took me to see it…” then I think that would be pretty reasonable too."
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. 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. What boy wants his respected father to be a murderer, especially one he might have reason to fear himself? 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? 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.
He also did not say “Hell, I’m convinced, he done the job.” He said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” If you ask me, that gives even MORE support to the notion that OMDM didn’t go around acting like a murderous homophobe all the time. If he did act that way enough to compound little Ennis’ fears, wouldn’t Ennis have had a much more definite statement to make to Jack?
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.
“Could a father possibly be such a cipher or blank slate that it's impossible to determine whether he approves or disapproves of a horrible murder,”
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?
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.
“even while forcing his sons to view the body?”
Yep. Even then. 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.
“... or psychotic?”
Maybe. How do you define “psychotic” based on Ennis’ further feelings, actions, and words?
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.
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.
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.
The one reason I keep hearing from you is that you have never heard of this. This is where I am stymied. Talk to any psychologist. This is exactly how millions of people end up screwed up for life: one, isolated, horrific incident in childhood. Ennis was there. He done seen it with his own two eyes. You can read these stories practically everyday in newspapers and magzines… in true-crime books… in psychological journals… on TV talk shows… on news programs… in documentaries… One, isolated, horrific episode causing a person to be detached from his emotional self. I’m sorry, but the answer is undeniably “Yes.”
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). 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. 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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version