What do you all think about this? What was its purpose in the short story -- symbolically, narratively, etc.? Did it achieve that/those purpose(s)? Why, aside from the obvious problems of filming it, do you think it wasn't included in the movie? Should it have been?
This is a good, and no-doubt, very complicated topic to bring up. It's late and I'm too sleepy to tackle this fully at the moment. But, the first thing that springs to mind about what purpose that episode serves in the story... is that it seems important to establish that
both Jack and Ennis had really, really difficult relationships with their fathers. I'm not exactly sure what Proulx is trying to say with that gesture in the story. But, the abusive scene with Jack's father seems somehow related, if not exactly equivalent, to Ennis's Earl story and the inherently abusive act of forcing Ennis and KE to view Earl's body. At one basic level, perhaps the fact that they each had very difficult fathers gives Jack and Ennis something to bond over... even if it's sort of a tacit bonding.
I'm sure there are a million other meanings and ways to view this scene with Jack's father.
It also seems very significant that the filmmakers left this scene or any reference to it, out completely. Representing that scene would definitely have been hard, but I'm not sure that that's a great reason for leaving it out. I hope that's not really the reason they left it out (I would hope that the filmmakers would have some concrete reason/ explanation for leaving it out).... there at least could be ways of suggesting what was happening in the bathroom without actually showing it in a graphic way. The camera could have cut away... the incident could have been represented through sound and suggestion, etc. It would never have been a pleasant thing, but I think there are probably ways it could have been done. In a way, I do think it should have been in the film. It's a horrible scene/ detail, but it's so striking and leaves such an impression on the reader of the story, that I think it's a fairly major aspect of the story to leave out.
The major impact of leaving it out is that OMT doesn't seem quite as bad in the film compared to the story. And, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing when it comes to the audience's understanding of Jack's background. We understand by the end how impoverished Jack was growing up, and we understand that his father was grouchy and cold, but the film audience really doesn't get a clear sense that Jack was a pretty severely abused child.
I'll be very interested to see how this discussion goes.