Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
Ennis Stands It; Jack Fixes It
nakymaton:
I got to thinking earlier today -- you know, the elk is really somewhere between "standing it" and settling for beans, and "fixing it" and shooting one of the sheep.
Beans: that's what they're supposed to be eating. Settling for beans is following the rules that society sets forth.
Sheep: a total transgression. They're going to be counted at the end of the summer. They're domesticated, associated with farms and ranchers and people.
Elk: still breaking the rules, but with something that's wild. Somehow shooting a wild animal seems a bit less like rule-breaking than shooting the sheep is, even though Ennis is technically poaching. But they're off in the middle of nowhere, and Fish and Game are unlikely to actually catch them at it. So it's a compromise.
So, the relationship. All those years of meeting in the wilderness. Is that settling for beans?
I think the relationship equivalent of beans would be even more bleak than what Jack and Ennis end up doing. Beans would have been going their separate ways after the reunion, Ennis continuing to try to be what he was taught he should be, refusing to ever see Jack again. :'(
Sheep would be Jack's "cow and calf" operation: having their relationship out in the open, in human society, to hell with the rules. It's a big wide world, and why would anyone notice Jack and Ennis in a world of thousands of sheep, and besides, it's nobody's business but theirs.
But what they do is a compromise, breaking the rules that Ennis (and probably Jack) learned early on, but breaking them in the wilderness, where the rules don't hold in quite the same way. Kind of like shooting the elk.
Except that the bull elk is a huge, magnificent beast, enough meat to keep two hungry 19-year-old boys satisfied for quite some time. Two or three meetings a year is hardly equivalent to an elk; it's more like a jack rabbit or a ptarmigan (a bird the size of a guinea hen), hardly enough to sustain two hungry boys for one meal, let alone a lifetime. :'(
Meryl:
Wow, great analogy, Mel. Thanks! 8)
two_bloody_shirts:
That is a very good explanation. I daresay it's much more accurate than my attempt was! :)
Brown Eyes:
Yes, I agree. I really like that analogy of Elk as a creative way to subvert authority.
There's another reason why they can't kill a sheep within the 'ethics' (so to speak) of the movie. Sheep- specifically as 'sacrificial lambs'- are equated symbolically with gay men in the movie. The only images of bloody, violent death are those of the dead sheep, Earl, and the image of Jack's murder in Ennis's mind. Actually, all of these visions of violence are through Ennis's perspective (he's the only one who sees the mutilated sheep, we know about Earl through Ennis's memory and we see Jack's death in Ennis's imagination). Anyway, all three -sheep, Earl, and Jack (in the murder scenario)- are victims of 'predator loss'. Ennis and Jack absolutely cannot become the predators here (when it comes to the idea of killing a sheep for dinner). Also, early in the movie we see Jack sitting in the field gently tending to the hoof of a lamb that's lounging in his lap. I think this is meant to re-enforce the idea that Jack = lamb. In a way Ennis's emphatic statement "we're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em" becomes really, really touching when you think about it in terms of this metaphor.
By the way, I think it's interesting that before Ennis gets the first postcard from Jack, he's driving through town back to the apartment and passes a building that has a big white "ELKs" sign on it. What a contrast... the wild elk that's a sign of their romance on the mountain and the dismal, run-down Elks lodge in average society. But, I think that the word "ELK" here is a sign that romance is right around the corner again.
(I just posted this elk sign idea on the old board yesterday in the "notice anything so subtle" thread)
Ellemeno:
Amanda, that's awesome. Thank you.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version