Brokeback Mountain: Our Community's Common Bond > IMDb Remarkable Writings Rewound
Which story was true? -- by sasya
TOoP/Bruce:
Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Jul 25 2006 06:24:51 )
UPDATED Fri Sep 29 2006 03:22:41
Was Jack killed for being gay, or did he die in an accident?
I find Jack's unresolved death so interesting, because how you interpret it will give you two very different over-all understandings of the film: On one hand, has Ennis more or less groundlessly destroyed their chance of happiness due to his upbringing and the homophobia it has instilled in him and that we see many examples of? Or, on the other hand, was their love doomed like Romeo and Juliet's by social and external factors and Jack was being a fool when he thought they could have had a good life?
Or phrased differently: Is this a movie about one man's damaged psyche bringing everyone around him down - i.e. is it a psychological tragedy (Ennis is paranoid and Jack died accidentally)? Or is the film a social commentary about a time and place where some people were despised and hunted, the lovers being kept apart by their society's rules - i.e. is it a classic tragedy (Jack's an overoptimistic fool, and died because of it)?
I actually think it's a little bit of each, and that's why I'm not 100% convinced either way.
Here are the clues I can find (now edited with some clues found by others - thanks to all who participated in the thread):
Pro accident
* We only get the other theory from Ennis' imagination, and we know Ennis has been severely traumatised by a childhood experience to equate (open) homosexuality with violent death.
* The short story says: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months", perhaps indicating that the accident story is true (but maybe it simply means: "Ennis didn't hear about the accident for months", since you can't really say he ever knows about the accident as he truly believes it was a crime).
* A lot of time is spend developing Ennis' homophobia. If this were a modern day Romeo and Juliet, held apart by their society, why not make the love itself less complicated?
Pro hate crime
* The way Lureen tells the pretty incredible accident story - it's like a studied and well rehearsed lie, delivered without feeling. The way she pauses right before saying anything, like recalling how the story went, then telling it completely smoothly. If it had been the real story of her husband's death, surely she would have shown some emotion no matter how estranged they'd become? Ang Lee himself says "I think we get help (to guess what Ennis thinks about Jack's death, ed.) from the wife, Anne Hathaway`s character`s performance, that - that she`s obviously lying about what happened."
* The 'accident' occurs suspiciously soon after Jack starts having relations with a local guy, Randall. That the two have a relationship is in my view clear - first hinted in the dance scene, confirmed at the riverside (though Jack for Ennis' sake makes it out to be the wife), and repeated by Jack's father.
* No doubt gay hate crimes like that did happen in that time and place.
* We don't ever hear of other gay couples and the only reactions to homosexuality we see are negative in the extreme: Alma (can't even put into words what she has seen), Aguirre (the distaste in "stemming the rose"), Ennis' father, the rodeo clown (who goes to badmouth Jack after he hits on him). These indicate that Ennis may be paranoid, but that he's also right: No way two guys can live together in this community.
* In the short story, Ennis doesn't know what to think after the accident story he hears from Lureen - but his fears are confirmed once Jack's father mentions Randall. If the author wanted us to know it was an accident, but show us Ennis blinded by his groundless fear, the mention of Jack's local love interest seems out of place.
* If the real tragedy is Ennis' phobia, then wouldn't it be more poignant to let him know univocally that he had destroyed both their lifes for no real reason?
When I first saw the movie, I was clearly leaning towards hate crime. I thought it would give a deeper poignancy to the tragedy, as Ennis was proved right in his surmise that they in fact could not have had a (long) life together on Jack's dream ranch. Now I'm more puzzled than ever. What do you guys think? Have you thought of any further evidence in support of either theory?
--------------------------------------------
Other reasons presented, and why I won't include them in the final face-down between the two theories:
* It's just too much of a coincident that Jack is killed in exactly the same way as the guy whose death has traumatised Ennis
- It may be no coincidence at all - it may indeed be the fate openly gay men met with sooner or later in that time and place.
* The introduction of Randall doesn't make dramatic sence unless we assume he's the reason for Jack's demise.
- Randall has another role as well, namely to raise the question of whether Jack found a way to quit Ennis after all just before he died.
* Why do we see the cuts of Jack being beaten to death if that's not the way it went?
- If Jack died in an accident, the tragedy is Ennis' deranged homophobia, and the cut demonstrates his fearful imagination.
* It would have been impossible to cover up a murder
- Why? If we assume that the community is so hostile to homosexuals, it doesn't seem impossible that a murder made out to look like an accident wouldn't be investigated too closely. But it's not impossible that the murder wasn't covered up as such, just kept confidential and low profile for the family's sake.
* Even if Lureen lied we have no way of knowing that Jack was beaten to death - if she told the truth, it was an accident; if she lied, we don't know.
- If Lureen lied about how Jack dies, there is no other conclusion in my eyes than that he was murdered. Lureen needs a reason to lie - if he'd been run over or drowned or whatever, she would just have said that. It needs to be something she'd want to keep secret, and the movie doesn't present any alternative to the gay hate crime (nor does the short story).
* Jack was murdered. Otherwise the story is a trifle, a bauble. Or: Jack died in an accident. The murder scenario is too unsubtle, trite and obvious.
- Please
--------------------------------------------
In the end (EDIT)
For anyone interested, I think I've reached my final position on this matter, and it's this: The story is about homophobia, both internalised and in society. It's not either-or, it's both-and, between the classical and the psychological tragedy.
The reason why Ennis' homophobia gets so much attention is exactly because this isn't Romeo and Juliet - these men have been crippled by homophobia and won't go out in an explosion of full commitment to true love. They punish themselves more than society alone could ever do.
But it's not only about inner demons. We get a full view of the society's utter disgust and disapproval from many side characters. And in the end, I'm convinced that Jack was killed. The one argument I can't seem to overlook is Hathaway's performance that screams out to me that she's lying - when she says "yeah, that", I can just hear her anger towards Jack and the rehearsed story sounds wrong (that Ang Lee has himself stated that she's lying makes this even harder to ignore).
The tragedy of Brokeback Mountain is neither just a psychological one nor a pure classical tragedy. It's a full story of the rural homophobia that's still alive and well today, and it's at work both inside and outside the story's characters.
TOoP/Bruce:
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Jul 25 2006 07:08:23 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Jul 25 2006 07:19:18
Otherwise, what would be the point of the intercut scenes?
Certainly Ennis might fear the worst and thus imagine a hate crime where none existed, but why would he automatically doubt Lureen's iniformation? He would likely reason that she would have no reason to lie to him about the event.
I tend to agree with you, but I think the point of the intercut scenes could have been another - namely that Ennis, having spoiled both their lives with his paranoia, continues to let his fear dictate the way he sees the world.
I find Jack's unresolved death so interesting, because how you interpret it will give you two very different over-all understandings of the film: On one hand, has Ennis more or less groundlessly destroyed their chance of happiness due to his upbringing and the homophobia it has instilled in him and that we see many examples of? Or, on the other hand, was their love doomed like Romeo and Juliet's by social and external factors and Jack was being a fool when he thought they could have had a good life?
Or phrased differently: Is this a movie about one man's damaged psyche bringing everyone around him down (Ennis is paranoid and Jack died accidentally)? Or is the film more a social commentary about a time and place where some people were despised and hunted (Jack's an overoptimistic fool, and died because of it)?
I actually think it's a little bit of each, and that's why I'm not 100% convinced either way.
However, I guess I think the most interesting story would have Jack killed and Ennis wondering whether it still hadn't been better to live a shorter life with him than having him part time and facing the rest of his life without him.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monimm18 (Tue Jul 25 2006 11:19:50 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
sasya,
Good points. Although I can definitely see the poignancy of the accident version, I too am a believer of the hate crime version, for several reasons:
1. As you said, Lureen's explanaton of the accident sounded fake and rehearsed.
2. Ang Lee himself said her character was lying about the accident and that she was angry because she had discovered her husband's homosexuality and realized who Ennis was to Jack.
3. Annie Proulx herself said her story is first and foremost a story about rural homophobia and its destructive, violent manifestation. Also, Proulx's literary style is never direct or blunt - definitely not good reading for the "who done it?" readers, or people who like to take things literally. She states things subtly, by suggsting them, using phrases that almost require the reader to read between the lines. Which is why story is indeed ambiguous, although, from a literary perspective, so much higher quality.
Also, I think it's a mistake to use the story in order to explain the film. They are two separate works, even if one led to the other. Ossana, McMurtry and Lee's vision leaned strongly towards the hate crime version, but artistically it was impossible to make it clear in the film without turning it into a plain tearjerker of a tragic love story for the masses.
4. The introduction of Randall as a character makes no sense from a dramatical point of view, unless it has a point in the development of the story. Some people will say it was there to justify John Twist's mentioning of the "ranch neighbor" that leads Ennis to believe in the hate crime version. I find it a bit of a waste to spend so much time and resources for the scene where Jack meets Randall and is being chatted up by him, only to justify John Twist's mention of a "ranch neighbor" to Ennis. The mention of the ranch neighbor needed no material suport in the film, it would have sounded plausible even without Randall's character presented to us. Unless the reason for Randall's existence was more than just to fuel Ennis' imagination: it had to explain to the spectators how Jack came to die from a hate crime.
5. Like I said in other posts, I think the hate crime brings the story/film dramatically and so poignantly full circle: Ennis' fear from deadly retaliation from a homophobic society prevents him from finding happiness with Jack, which drives Jack to the exact horrible consequence Ennis was trying to avoid. The inescapablity, or the irony of Fate, if you want. If we look at it this way the story's structure follows the rules of a classical tragedy. Mundane death from a tire accident doesn't. The thing is, we don't know if the writer and screenwriters had the classical tragedy model in mind or not, but considering the level of their work I am inclined to believe they did.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Tue Jul 25 2006 12:51:10
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monimm18 (Tue Jul 25 2006 16:42:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Tue Jul 25 2006 16:43:27
Not to mention the horrible guilt that Ennis will have to live with the rest of his life in knowing that if he HAD partnered with Jack (ignoring what others thought of him), the attack would lilkely never have happened at all - and he would still be alive.
I agree with Ennis' guilt and remorse, although I don't think the end was avoidable. Homophobic retaliation would have followed them anywhere; Texas, Wyoming, or elsewhere. We're talking rural America in the 60s and 70s, a world that even today is far from welcoming homosexuality with open arms, and where ignoring what others think leads to drastic consequences (Jack's death proves that, no?). Had they built their cow and calf operation, the terrible crime would have happened anyway, maybe even sooner, since they might have been discovered faster; but at least it would not have come after a life of frustrations, sorrow and longing, appart from each other. Which is where I think the bulk of Ennis' sorrow would lay: all the time wasted and all the love denied by trying to avoid the unavoidable. Two lives unlived from fear of dying. That point remains the same even if Jack's death were an accident.
Sometimes I imagine how, hundreds of years from now, future generations are going to look at the XX and XXI centuries and think how backwards we were, with our homophobia, racism, anti-semitism, mysoginism and all the other man made plagues.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:56:40 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Thanks, monimm18, for your input
ad 2. I've heard Ang Lee's comment on the lying refered to many times - but you wouldn't happen to have a link to a transcript of the interview, so I can see it in context? That would be great, haven't been able to dig it up myself. Lureen clearly figures out who Ennis is and is upset about it, but she would be whether Jack had died in an accident or not.
ad 3. No doubt Proulxs style is subtle, and I think there is this ambiguity for a reason. But of course that doesn't mean we can't weigh the evidence and find that the scales tip to one side, nor does the subtlety alone - as far as I can see - favour one interpretation over the other.
ad 4. I think the Randall character serves more than one cause - in the parents' house when hearing that Jack recently replaced Ennis in his dream ranch, we (and Ennis) can't help wondering: Did Jack finally find a way to quit Ennis after their last big fight? The twin shirts then resolves that, which is a big emotional scene in the story. I think that alone would be enough reason to present Randall in person - after all, more than half of the script is extra material to the short story.
ad 5. I agree 100% - the question is really, as I posted before: Is this a movie about one man's damaged psyche making him incapable of living a full life and bringing everyone around him down (Ennis was paranoid and Jack died accidentally)? Or is the film a classic tragedy a la Romeo and Juliet about a time and place where some relations are just impossible (Jack was an overoptimistic fool, and died because of it)?
The short story and the film are seperate works, and they won't necessarily favour the same conclusion. But you must admit that the film is extremely close to the original work (aside from the added material, of course).
What do you think of the last sentence in the short story: "there was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it." Which "open space" do you think is meant?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monimm18 (Wed Jul 26 2006 20:12:49 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 20:20:46
Sassya,
I have heard/read Lee stating the fact that the film takes the murder version twice: one was the Charlie Rose interview whose transcript I have and I have PM'd to you. I had no way of attaching it to the PM so I had to copy, break it in three parts and paste it in three PMs that you should have received by now. It's an interview with both Ang Lee and Heath Ledger and it's quite long, but interesting, so I figured you'd like to read it all. The second time I heard Lee mention the crime version was in an interview I read online, where he talks about Ennis by saying something like "Ennis doesn't realize he had a taste of true love until after Jack's murder." It was a short interview that I didn't save.
As for your question about the last phrase in the story - I saw it as a description of Ennis' worst punishment: he is denied the relief of closure, because in his heart he knows the truth, but closure comes with proof and he would never find any proof (hence the "open space"), so he'll have to work with what he has, try to believe what others told him, and go on.
One interesting thing: all the people I know who saw the film first and read the story afterwards had no doubts that Jack was murdered. Of course, it doesn't prove anything, but, hmmm...
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Thu Jul 27 2006 11:19:10 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Thanks a lot for the pm! Very interesting reading
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by NewHorizons37 (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:09:47 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Otherwise, what would be the point of the intercut scenes?
I think they did it that way to be faithful to the short story. After Lureen finished telling Ennis what happened, the next line in the story is No, he thought, they got him with the tire iron.
And that is what they show. Lureen tells her story, then we see Ennis reacting, then we see the beating, then we see Ennis again. It is done this way to show this is what Ennis is thinking; it does not indicate what Lureen is thinking. Just like the story, we know what Ennis thinks, but we don't know what Lureen thinks as she talks to Ennis. And Anne acted that scene so brilliantly that it is totally ambiguous. Lureen could be lying to save face, or telling a truth so horrible that the only way to get through it is tell it dispassionate as if she were a reporter.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:52:51 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Certainly Ennis might fear the worst and thus imagine a hate crime where none existed, but why would he automatically doubt Lureen's iniformation?"
i think you just answered your own question.
if you have a certain scenario tattooed on your brain from childhood (especially such a vivid and hateful event orchestrated by your own father), is it so hard to believe that you might 'project' this onto an event you have NO 'factual' information about?
i dont think so.
there will never be any unequivocal 'verdict' on Jack's fate, and that's fine by me.
We live the scene as Ennis is experiencing it - and that 'experience' is totally 'coloured' by his past.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Wed Jul 26 2006 02:00:49 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Otherwise, what would be the point of the intercut scenes?"
simple answer......
to illustrate/underscore the depth of Ennis' paranoia (resulting from childhood trauma)
i have no desire to 'commit' to one interpretation 'over' the other, but i have to say that watching the scene as the product of Ennis' emotional scarring and deep-seated homophobia is, for me, far emotionally involving than watching it in the more 'obvious' way.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by marviscool (Tue Jul 25 2006 06:38:00 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I think it was an accident...for the sheer fact that it was what Ennis feared about the relationship...and its striking similarity to the story he tells of his childhood. Seems like too much of a coincidence.
Messenger of Fear in sight
Dark deception kills the light
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by LauraGigs (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:03:20 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"The way Lureen tells the ... accident story - it's like a studied and well rehearsed lie, delivered without feeling."
Many say that when they have to tell the story of a loved one's death repeatedly, their delivery becomes rote and deadpan because it's the only way they can get through it. (OTOH, I can see why others would hear it as a lie.)
A thoughtful thread on this for a change — refreshing!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:43:23 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
True. And when Ennis describes the death of his parents, it's a fairly unlikely story (one curve in the entire stretch of road and they missed it?) and he doesn't have an emotional breakdown telling the story, yet we don't have a million threads wondering if he was lying or not!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:55:38 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Fair point, but their death was 10 years ago - the acuteness of the pain would likely mellow over a decade. Remember, this is only one out of three pieces of (circumstantial, admittedly) evidence - in addition to the fact that Ennis clearly believes she's not telling the truth.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by marviscool (Tue Jul 25 2006 09:58:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Its not clear that Ennis doesnt believe her...he just imagines what he always feared.
Messenger of Fear in sight
Dark deception kills the light
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by vaporize (Tue Jul 25 2006 10:01:47 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
He imagines what he always feared as being true. Ennis most probably believes Jack was murdered because the circumstances are so real to him.
-------------
You were an island and I passed you by
You were an island to discover
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 16:57:39 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
But even if you do believe that Lureen is lying when she describes Jack's death, what evidence is there that what Ennis imagines is the truth? What Ennis imagined is just that....something he imagined. Even IF Lureen's story is false, that doesnt' automatically mean that the truth is that Jack was beaten to death with a tire iron.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by monty clift (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:21:16 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
There is ample evidence in the story's (and the movie's) previous references and relentless foreshadowing. If all that becomes just some empty-headed author's idea of red herrings, then the story's a fatuous bunch of poppycock.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:28:35 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
There is ample evidence of Ennis's fears. There simply is no evidence that Jack was beaten to death. The cut-away is either Ennis flashing on his worst fears (imagination), Lureen flashing on what really happened (in which case there's no evidence that Ennis doesn't believe the story), or it's the omniscient "narrator" showing the audience what really happened (which still doesn't give any evidence that Ennis doubts the story). Since the story pretty much demands that Ennis doubts the story, the cut-away as Ennis's imagination is the only plausible interpretation. But just because he imagined it doesn't mean it happened in reality. Like Ennis, the audience either believes Lureen or not. But even if we don't believe the exploding tire story, there's no evidence as to what "really" happened.
TOoP/Bruce:
The Truth
by Jesus-H (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:42:26 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
In the short story he dies by an accident. The story says: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months until his postcard to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED." So it says accident right there and that is no mistake.
Here is how it happened: In the short story he dies by an accident when he is out on a service call for pumping up a flat tire and it tire explodes and the tire rim smashes his face and knocks him unconscious. When people arrive later he had drowned in his own blood. No one there to turn him over like Ennis turned Alma over in the scene just before Jack is riding the bull at the rodeo and the announcer yells "Let 'er rip and snort!" even though the bull is a "'im" no t a "'er" and Jack likes riding "'ims" better!
In the SCREENPLAY, Ennis was confused about what happened. Lureen told him how it was but Ennis thought it might have been like Earl got it when he (Ennis) was a kid.
In the movie, the whole scene was a brilliant concept but Ang Lee had some trouble bringing the concept to the screen with the same affect as it was in the short story. It would have been even more AMAZING (and I am literally not kidding) if the transformation from the segue to the action in that scene had been more smooth. But the way it was it just snaps to your attention. Ang Lee wanted Ennis to be sure it was the guys who got Earl, but not for us (the audience) to know for sure because it could have been the way Lureen said, too, while she was telling Ennis on the telephone where Ennis was imagining when they beat up Jack again for being, well, the way G*d made him. But if you look close at the scene where Ennis is on the phone listening to Lureen, you can tell it is n't Jack getting beat up, anyway.
When he met Jack's dad that's when he realized it had been an accident in the short story but he would never find out in the movie because it was longer than a lot of people wanted already and Ang Lee did n't want to reveal the end of Jack because it is art and art has to make you think. So Ennis does n't know how it was, for sure, so we don't either, so it is ambiguous and lots of people think it is one way or the other and think everybody has to agree with them.
That is after Ennis wrote a card to Jack just like it was in the story to get together for a hunting trip in November where they would have borrowed a cabin and fired their guns all day but did not kill any elk (if you know what I mean). But the card comes back "DECEASED" like it said.
So it was never said in the short story or in the screenplay or in the movie that he was beaten to death, or that that is factually wrong. Annie Proulx, who wrote the original short story that this movie is based on said "It is my feeling that a story is not finished until it is read, and that the reader finishes it through his or her life experience, prejudices, world view and thoughts." So she didn't know either, or didn't want to tell. And now she says she doesn't know, or that is what I read, anyway.
And Ang Lee gave an interview on Charlie Rose's show and said he didn't know how Jack died either but some people think he did say because of his English is not 100% the best (but it is pretty d*rned good) and Charlie Rose interrupted him all the time cause he thinks he is so smart he knows what the guest, which was Ang Lee, is going to say and he doesn't listen too well.
So maybe I do not have faith that any one of the possible conclusions (murder, accident, unknowable (ambiguous), or other more uncommon conclusions) is right or wrong. Maybe I waiver, just like Ennis did in the book and Annie Proulx does, too, according to her interviews. Just like most of us, "there was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it."
Re: The Truth
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:49:14 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Actually, in the story, when Ennis meets Jack's father that's when he becomes more certain that Jack was murdered.
All we know (and all Ennis knows) is what Lureen told him, and what he feared. Either Lureen was telling the truth, or she wasn't. If she was telling the truth, we know how Jack died. If she wasn't telling the truth, that doesn't lead to the foregone conclusion that Jack was murdered, and we really have no way of knowing how Jack died.
Since we have no way of knowing whether or not Lureen was telling the truth, you either believe her or you don't. Like Ennis, we are left to wonder.
Re: The Truth
by Jesus-H (Tue Jul 25 2006 17:55:43 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I will get it right one of these days. That is right, Ennis was more sure it was the tire iron, but some readers were more sure it was an accident in the story than in the movie. And they are two different works of art, so you have to think twice about what happened in each one.
Re: The Truth
by freeskate (Tue Jul 25 2006 18:47:48 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Jack was murdered. It's clear in both the story and the movie.
And we've been over this on dozens of lengthy threads since November 2005. So you're not saying anything new in denying the Holocaust.
Re: The Truth
by ddmaul (Tue Jul 25 2006 18:50:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Lol. If it were clear, there wouldn't be dozens of threads about it, would there?
Sorry, the ambiguity stands.
Re: The Truth
by Mister_Magoo (Wed Jul 26 2006 02:12:37 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Lol. If it were clear, there wouldn't be dozens of threads about it, would there?
Sorry, the ambiguity stands."
precisely.
why do some people feel 'compelled' to stridently argue that there is only ONE 'answer'? as ddmaul said, if it were so 'clear cut', there wouldnt BE endless threads on this very topic.
interpret/view this issue in the way that is most 'emotionally resonant' for you.
going beyond that to try to 'correct' anyone else on their interpretation reveals some 'issues'.
Re: The Truth
by ailuro (Wed Jul 26 2006 03:01:37 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Which "open space" do you think is meant?
Doubt? Uncertainty?
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 03:16:10 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Ok, but of what - what does he know that is different from what he tries to believe?
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:20:22 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 02:02:57
freeskate, if you think it clear, why not state the reasons? That will convince us all a lot better
Lots of threads may have gone by and been deleted on this topic, but I couldn't find any on the first 10 pages when I posted this just after seeing the movie for the first time. So if you have any good points from old threads or can link to them, that could be helpful!
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 02:01:54 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 02:09:10
ddmaul, if Lureen lied about how Jack dies, there is no other conclusion in my eyes than that he was murdered. Lureen needs a reason to lie - if he'd been run over or drowned or whatever, she would just have said that. It needs to be something she'd want to keep secret, and the movie doesn't present any alternative to the gay hate crime (nor does the short story).
Re: The Truth
by ddmaul (Fri Jul 28 2006 17:43:24 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
IF Lureen lied. But we still don't know if she lied or not. And maybe Jack committed suicide, and she wanted to keep that quiet. Or maybe her father caught him stealing from the company and killed him in a rage, and she wanted to keep that quiet.
We just don't know.
Re: The Truth
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:28:41 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 02:11:44
there was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it.
I think that last sentence in the short story gives points to the accident theory - because if the open space is not between: "We could have had a life but I was too afraid, now it's too late, and Jack died in an accident" and "We could never have been together anyway, I was right all along, Jack's death proves it", what open space can she be referring to?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Tue Jul 25 2006 20:27:26 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Their relationship endures for 20 years, never resolved, never faced up to, always haunted by fear and confusion. How different readers take the story is a reflection of their own personal values, attitudes, hang-ups. It is my feeling that a story is not finished until it is read, and that the reader finishes it through his or her life experience, prejudices, world view and thoughts.
...Annie Proulx, quoted from the following interview: http://www.planetjh.com/testa_2005_12_07_proulx.html
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Wed Jul 26 2006 01:23:30 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Thank you - for the link, too
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by slone (Wed Jul 26 2006 11:02:58 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
For what it's worth, my understanding was that it was a hate crime and Ennis' remembrance of the murder is a way to make us understand what REALLY happened behind the words that are spoken.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Wed Jul 26 2006 12:19:16 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 15:12:56
But how can Ennis "remember" something he didn't witness? Is he suddenly psychic? If so, why 3 or 4 months after the incident? Clearly this is a projection from Ennis's own psyche; it may be a plausible scenario, but nothing would indicate at all that this is the absolute truth. In the same way, while Lureen's story may seem somewhat implausible, there is nothing absolute to indicate it's a lie. Open space, indeed.
To me, the great tragedy, both for us and for Ennis, is that we never know for sure. Ennis is consumed by the guilt of what might have been.
Yes, this topic has been discussed many times here. This, fortunately, is one of the saner threads (so far) on the topic. One comment from above: Jesus-H misquotes the story. It doesn't say "Ennis didn't know about the accident," it says "Ennis didn't hear." The subtle shift in mood, IMO, allows the possibility that Lureen's story of an [the] accident is not truth.
EDIT: (see below) I was incorrect in my quotation. I guess one should never question Jesus.
Not garnished? Not finished!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by slone (Wed Jul 26 2006 13:39:52 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Wed Jul 26 2006 13:42:53
But how can Ennis "remember" something he didn't witness? Is he suddenly psychic?
For me, there weren't enough indications, in the movie, that Ennis didn't witness it (but maybe it's made more clear in the book, I can't tell).
So my understanding was that he actually witnessed the thing. His father showed him that so that he understands how bad it is to be an homosexual which is plausible.
And when it comes to interpretation, mine is that's where lies the seed of his latent bisexuality. Instead of making him believe that it was bad to be homosexual, this had him grow pity for the victim, a kind of sympathy for the poor scapegoat, sympathy which grew into empathy ("what if I'm believed to be gay? What if I am gay?"). It stays there, under the level of conscience. Meeting Jack reveals this aspect of his sexuality that grew in him with the identification to the victim.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Jesus-H (Wed Jul 26 2006 15:01:12 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
One comment from above: Jesus-H misquotes the story. It doesn't say "Ennis didn't know about the accident," it says "Ennis didn't hear." The subtle shift in mood, IMO, allows the possibility that Lureen's story of an [the] accident is not truth.
Now just a da*ned minute here. I have it looks like made a mistake in the one post that ddmaul pointed out. But now I have the book which is called "Close Range" in front of me here and on page 277 there after about a three line break, it says
"Ennis didn't know about the accident for months until his post-card to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED."
And then it goes on to tell about how he called Lureen and all about Lureen's description of the accident.
So it says right there "Ennis didn't know..." So maybe you have a different book or maybe in the New Yorker it was different.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Wed Jul 26 2006 15:11:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I stand corrected. I apologize. Perhaps that makes the writing a little less ambiguous.
Rereading the story just now sent a shiver down my spine.
Not garnished? Not finished!
TOoP/Bruce:
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by djo-17 (Wed Jul 26 2006 15:57:18 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
To sasya: I would have to say I'm pro hate crime. Lureen's rather cold, distant account of "the accident" is a key clue. Of course, the way Anne Hathaway played it, still makes you wonder.
Doug O'Connor
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by DSTgar (Thu Jul 27 2006 10:15:53 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
> I would have to say I'm pro hate crime.
Now that's something most people won't fess up to.
Not garnished? Not finished!
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 12:11:33 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 13:14:46
Lureen told Ennis that Jack died in an accident, and Ennis immediately imagines a beating, as had happened to the murdered corpse he saw as a child.
The murder/accident question is left ambiguous, based on Lureen's credibility.
Lureen is the only person in the story who might know the truth. Even if she lied to Ennis, that doesn't necessarily prove murder. Lureen herself might not know exactly how Jack died. She, too, might have been lied to about his death.
The story gives us no answers. The ambiguity stands.
(edited for accuracy, thanks sasya, for pointing that out!)
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Thu Jul 27 2006 12:19:01 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
You may be right about the accident, but Ennis doesn't have a flashback - he imagines Jack's murder. Rewatch, if you want - the flashback is earlier and only shows the dead guy, which is what he saw as a kid, not the actual murder.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 12:31:57
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 13:24:19 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Annie Proulx does not say in the book that it was an accident. Annie Proulx writes "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..." She's telling us what Ennis "knew": that it was an "accident", based only on what Lureen told him.
Later in the story he "knew" it was the tire iron.
For Ennis, as well as the reader, the truth is uncertain.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 13:45:58 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Annie Proulx does not tell us it was an accident.
She tells us what Ennis "knew."
All we know for sure is that we don't know what really happened...
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 14:45:17 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I most certainly can refute "it."
This storyteller does NOT say it was an accident.
The use of the word "accident," the manner in which it is used, and the context in which it is written all contribute to the intended ambiguity. Taking one word out of context to argue a point isn't valid.
If Proulx had wanted us to know for sure it was an accident, she would have written:
"Jack died in an accident," or something similar.
She didn't.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 14:58:19
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 17:46:09 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I most certainly can deny "it."
The storyteller does not say: "it was an accident." What she does say is: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..."
Those two phrases have entirely different meanings.
Twisting the words, and taking one of them out of context doesn't prove anything.
I'll repeat.
Proulx does NOT say: "it was an accident."
She DOES say: "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months..."
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by ailuro (Thu Jul 27 2006 19:43:31 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Ennis didn't know about the accident..."
By that passage, AP is letting the reader know what Lureen told Ennis.
Ap is the narrator/vessel by which that bit of info is conveyed.
I G I V E U P
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 20:15:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I'm insulting noone in my posts. Even if one doesn't agree with what I post, there is no need to be defensive and take it as a personal insult. (And, additionally, take a patronizing "tone.")
Proulx is telling us what Ennis knew. What Ennis knew was what he was told by Lureen. Lureen told him it was an accident. And that's all we know, that Lureen told Ennis it was an accident.
Any other "examples" are unnecessary, and don't prove a thing. Proulx's words, taken complete, and in context, say it all.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Thu Jul 27 2006 22:21:55 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Proulx didn't say "murder" because Lureen told Ennis "accident." When Ennis learned of Jack's death, he was told "accident." As far as Ennis "knew," based on the source he had, Jack died in an accident. And...that is what Proulx tells us: what was told to Ennis.
How do we know Jack died? Ennis received a postcard marked DECEASED and called Lureen. What did Lureen tell Ennis? That Jack died in an accident. Was Lureen lying? We don't know.
(Both ways? That comment makes no sense whatsoever.)
Either way to view Jack's death would be appropriate, based on one's own interpretation. What is not appropriate is presenting one's own opinion as fact.
Murder or accident? Proulx leaves it to the reader to decide for himself.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Thu Jul 27 2006 22:49:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
I'll ask one more time:
why do some people feel 'compelled' to stridently argue that there is only ONE 'answer'? as ddmaul said, if it were so 'clear cut', there wouldnt BE endless threads on this very topic.
what is WITH you people who feel the need to endlessly repeat the 'there is only ONE interpretation and you're just wrong' sentiment? what 'issue' do you have that compels you try to invalidate someone else's take on this?
honestly.
the only thing that's been truly 'established' is that it's ambiguous. Live with it.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Thu Jul 27 2006 23:05:23
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Thu Jul 27 2006 23:31:17 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Well may I say you have just been equally strident that there is no final answer ie your argument for the ambiguity."
What a horrible 'argument'.
The difference is that I'm pointing out that everyone's interpretation can be valid, while you're obsessed with stomping your foot and saying that your view is the ONLY 'right one'.
and re: Proulx's 'narration'.....it isn't in the film.
period.
All that matters when discussing this film is what ends up onscreen.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Thu Jul 27 2006 23:50:42 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Although the fact that Jack dies in an accident is just that: fact."
Only if you ignore the REAL 'fact' that Proulx's narration does not exist in the film.
And hey, I'll happily retract the 'strident' comment since it isn't 'the' point anyway....
Continue to argue your point, but the bottom line is that there is nothing 'unequivocal' in the film re: Jack's death. Unless you can point to anything in the film that leaves absolutely no question on the matter, you calling the accident version 'fact' is absolutely baseless.
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 00:11:04 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"Sorry but it doesn't make sense to me that anyone would think the film was any different from the book in its main themes."
Don't be misleading. We're not discussing the main themes. You've reduced your 'unequivocal proof' to ONE phrase, and a phrase that is not in the film. It's as simple as that.
"And I don't 'stomp my foot' I simply state my case persistently."
Hey, imo, continually describing your opinion as "fact" IS 'stomping your foot' - especially considering the fact that there have been multiple threads on the subject, none of which has resulted in any one agreed-upon conclusion.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 00:24:45
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 00:31:38 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
"The consensus amongst scholars...."
lol
I'm sure you have links to back this up, yes? :)
Please, stick to stating your case as your opinion. You just look ridiculous trying to suggest that the "intellectual elite" agrees with you.
"Aside from the fact that the omniscient narrator, Proulx, says it was an accident in the text."
Sorry, but quit referring to that. Have I mentioned that it's not in the film?
If the filmmakers felt that it was VITAL that the viewers come away with one clear conclusion about Jack's fate, they would have done so. They didn't.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 00:51:31
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Jul 28 2006 01:04:12 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
so, to sum up, there is nothing 'unequivocal' in the film, is there?
(the most 'ironic' thing of all? I myself subscribe to your interpretation)
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by the poster
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 08:25:16 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:15:13
Although the fact that Jack dies in an accident is just that: fact.
meanderingtrevor, unless you have a direct quote of Proulx's from a reputable source, or video of an interview, you have no basis to call your opinion "fact".
Also, please supply sources or documentation to support the following comments you've made:
The consensus amongst scholars
Annie Proulx veiled the truth and confuses us with Ennis's convictions but we are to see through that.
Otherwise, you should note that what you post is your opinion only. Not doing so is misleading to other posters, and does a disservice to Annie Proulx's work. Unless you've talked to Annie Proulx, or have source material to support your comments, you cannot presume to know what she intended.
By the way, does your idea of "consensus" include all the numerous other names under which you've posted this same argument of yours as "fact"?
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 13:17:08 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
BTW there is a final answer but you have to look for it. Jack dies in an accident and Proulx cleverly veils it by giving much more pagination to Ennis's imagined fears
Until you can quote Proulx verifying as much, you cannot claim there is a "final answer." All you can claim is that your comments are your own, personal, interpretations (which is something you don't seem to do: you consistently present your arguments as "fact." They aren't.)
If any one of us knew for sure what Annie Proulx meant, we'd not be having all this discussion about it.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 13:26:38
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 13:59:25 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:14:04
Sunsilk[sic]: Until you provide a quote from Ms. Proulx herself, that this is what she intended, your comments are merely opinions, not the definitive "truths" you present them to be ...... If any of us knew for sure what Annie Proulx meant we'd not be having all this discussion about it.
____________________________________________________________________
(I know for sure and that is why I am discussing it . . . )
Well, meanderingtrevor, it appears that maybe you missed the chapter in basic university philosophy concerning the difference between "knowing" and "believing." Ennis also lacked awareness and understanding of that distinction.
TOoP/Bruce:
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 14:39:50 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:13:31
Sunset, you often descend from debate to slightly snarky and downright sarcastic insults.
That's only your opinion, meanderingtrevor. If you didn't take opposing arguments so personally, you wouldn't feel that way, and you wouldn't take insult where none existed.
I repeat, I've made no insults, just observations. For someone with your style of arguing, you should have thicker skin.
Round to your way of thinking? Hardly. Now, who's being insulting?
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Jul 28 2006 14:46:33
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Jul 28 2006 15:03:45 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Sat Jul 29 2006 16:12:50
I don't see it, because it's not there. What I do see is that when one turns the tables and talks to you the way you talk to others, you take it personally and start criticizing the imagined insult.
YOU need to stop presenting your opinions as fact. That is the entire jist of all my posts in response to those of yours...in every thread where this has been discussed, by you and all your alternate personas.....
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by djo-17 (Thu Jul 27 2006 14:52:41 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
To DSTgar: Of course, maybe I should clarify what I meant. I was referring to the scenario of Jack's death, which I think involves a hate-crime as opposed to the "accident" story which Lureen gives Ennis. Props to Anne Hathaway for nailing her part perfectly!
"Get in touch with his folks. I'm sure they'd appreciate it if his wishes was carried out. About the ashes, I mean."
Doug O'Connor
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sasya (Mon Aug 14 2006 01:40:39 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
bump
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 00:51:27 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 08:54:32
Jack was absolutely killed the way Ennis pictured it. I found an interview with Ang Lee and this is what he said...
AE: Jack's death sequence is amazing, because it's reported by Lureen to Ennis in one way, but in reality he died another way. Do you think that's a reflection of Texas, of the southwest culture telling it that way, or do you think that if they were living in San Francisco or New York the truth would have been told about the way he died, as opposed to making up a story?
AL: I don't know for a fact, but I don't think she wants to talk about it. You can tell from her performanc that she is definitely telling a lie, and she's pissed that she was never in Brokeback Mountain (laughs). The other guy was, and she is bitter that she too missed Brokeback Mountain. I think that, together with his flashback, you can put things together.
"...later."
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 01:09:34
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:04:10 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
hey basicgate...
you do make some valid points. the only thing that "bothers" me is that Ang states Lureen is lying about something. what's that something? what else would she lie about? i can't come up with anything that makes sense. also, the actress that plays Lureen said in an interview herself that "you can tell what's the truth by what Lureen says." in that case, this answered question of ang lee, makes more sense.
i kinda knew that would be your argument. and like i said... it's got valid points. i, however, come to the conclusion that he died at the hands of gay bashers.
ang said "I think that, together with his flashback, you can put things together." again, what else could he have meant. "his flashback" pertains to Ennis's flashback he had while on the phone with Lureen.
if i come up with anything else out there... i'll let you know.
:-)
"...later."
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:18:14 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 09:19:53
"the only thing that "bothers" me is that Ang states Lureen is lying about something. what's that something? what else would she lie about?"
Hmm, so I guess no one has explored the possibility that Jack may have committed suicide? (ddmaul mentioned it, but I don't think anyone commented on it)
Although I don't subscribe to any 'one' conclusion (like many others, I believe that the inherent ambiguity of the issue doesn't allow for any one 'right' conclusion), I think suicide is as plausible as anything else, and would fit with Lureen 'lying' about the accident story she relates.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:28:51 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Why would you think it's possible Jack committed suicide. I don't think it's in his character whatsoever. Tell me what you think.
"...later."
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Aug 18 2006 09:43:20 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 09:45:37
"Why would you think it's possible Jack committed suicide. I don't think it's in his character whatsoever."
Well, it was something that came up in some other thread that made the suicide idea seem 'plausible' to me (I think it was in one of the 'did Jack 'quit' Ennis?' threads)
some people who think that Jack DID 'quit' Ennis were expressing that they felt he did it out of love for Ennis (because their situation was causing Ennis such endless pain, etc). One could argue that as long as they're both alive, their 'situation' is going to continue as it has been; and if Jack did indeed want to 'leave Ennis alone' because their relationship was causing him such torment, then I think it's plausible that Jack might have thought of suicide.
One could argue that Jack 'left' Ennis because he loved him so much, but couldn't live without him.
I don't particularly subscribe to this theory, but I certainly think it's plausible.
[Post deleted]
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 10:09:47
This message has been deleted by an administrator
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 18 2006 10:33:59 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
UPDATED Fri Aug 18 2006 11:18:04
Neither Ang Lee nor Ann Hathaway have the final say in whether Jack died in an accident or not.
On this, I agree with meanderingtrevor....
I still hold with the ambiguity. I consider Ang Lee's comments to be his own personal leaning, which, fortunately, he didn't inject into the film. For all we know, Ang Lee might be caught in his own uncertainty, and the interview took place on a day when he leaned toward the murder.
Ang Lee has often said his intent was to remain true to the original story. That being the case, Annie Proulx remains the only source that matters. On this board, we have yet to see a direct quote from Proulx on the manner of Jack's death. If anyone has found an interview where she does comment, linking to it here would be much appreciated!
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by Mister_Magoo (Fri Aug 18 2006 12:00:32 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
My approach to viewing any film is always the same - that it should (and does) stand alone as a piece of art.
Everything we need is in the film. There is no need to consult a 'primary source' or read interviews with the filmmakers to appreciate/understand a film. Why? because if the filmmakers wanted something to be in the film, it would be there. Besides, once a work of art is completed, it's no longer about the maker's 'intentions', it's about what's IN the work itself.
Having said all of that, imo the bottom line remains:
there is NOTHING in the film itself that gives unequivocal 'proof' of any conclusion about Jack's fate. That's it, that's all.
Ang Lee is a wonderful artist - if he'd WANTED Jack's fate to be presented in a clear, unambiguous fashion, he could have easily done that. But he didn't.
Given that, viewers are left to come to their own conclusion(s). If one theory resonates more for one viewer than another, great.
What's the motivation behind trying to discount the essential ambiguity that's in the film? I still don't understand this.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 18 2006 12:36:59 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Everything we need is in the film. There is no need to consult a 'primary source' or read interviews with the filmmakers to appreciate/understand a film.
Once again, Mister Magoo, I agree with you completely.
My invoking of Annie Proulx as the "only source that matters" comes across as confusing, I'll admit. All I'm saying is that Proulx is the only one who would know for sure. And she isn't telling. Maybe even she, herself, doesn't know exactly what happened to Jack.
My personal opinion: If Proulx were to state how Jack died, it would rob the story of much of its artistry.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 10:35:42 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
All of the principals have stated numerous times that they do not know how Jack died nor are we supposed to know.
If this is what they ALL stated... show me. I pasted the actual interview question and answer. Prove me wrong by finding ones that show your view.
As far as suicide.. I'm of the belief that Jack wouldn't commit suicide. I don't see his character doing that. But, that's for a different thread.
"...later."
[Post deleted]
This message has been deleted by an administrator
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by sunsetsilk (Fri Aug 18 2006 11:14:03 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
meanderingtrevor's letter to the editor of the SF Bay Times doesn't really "prove" anything. His ideas, while articulate and convincing for many, remain a theory.
For "proof" to exist, we need direct quotes from sources: Annie Proulx revealing how Jack died;
Or, the screenwriters telling us they chose a certain manner of death, and wrote the script accordingly;
Or the director stating he made a choice, with the film reflecting that choice.
Until someone can post a valid link to a valid quote that confirms one of the above, we still have no "proof" how Jack died, in either the story or the film.
Re: Which story was true? (spoilers)
by idgeet (Fri Aug 18 2006 11:19:45 )
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
sunsilk... perfectly put. you're right... there was no proof in that article...however it is well written. we do need more definitive proof as you write and if i find it, i'll post it. if not, my mind is open.
thanks
"...later."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version