Would it have worked? Merged with "Would a SWEET LIFE ever have been possible?"

[nakymaton]

Still, the question you present haunts me.  The makers of the film have stated that they did not intend or want to make a "gay statement" film.  So I guess if you look at this film, solely, the answer would have to be no.  They did no injustice by not focusing on the external struggle.

I know I wouldn't have gone to see a "gay statement" film multiple times, and probably wouldn't still be discussing it. I just don't enjoy movies in the which the message comes through too strongly or too obviously, no matter how right the message is -- I like subtlety in art. (I do watch documentaries, sometimes, especially when I'm convinced that they are about an important topic. But I don't watch them multiple times, and I certainly don't have dreams about them.)

I've seen a lot of men explain, over and over, how this or that thing in the movie really is something they have gone through. I hope it's not too horrible to keep talking about it. I think that the conversations may be more important than the actual movie in changing the world. (*gets all idealistic and Jack-like for a moment* )

The question then becomes, does Hollywood do an injustice by not showing this struggle more truthfully.  I think we all know the answer to that one.

Well, Hollywood and the entertainment industry showed their homophobia in many ways when BBM was released, with all the talk of whether Heath and Jake were afraid for their careers, and all the homophobic jokes, and the big surprise at the end of Oscar night. (But then... did Hollywood make honest movies about the Civil Rights movement when it was going on? For all Hollywood's supposed progressiveness, I don't think it really leads the culture as a whole.)

[Scott6373]

I hope it's not too horrible to keep talking about it. I think that the conversations may be more important than the actual movie in changing the world. (*gets all idealistic and Jack-like for a moment* )

Of course remembering emotionally and phsyically painfull events is always difficult, it is also the only way we can come to a better understanding of how the events in our lives have truly formed us.  There does come a time, when we need to move past those events, just so that we can keep on keeping on, but there will always be (as is evidenced by places like this and other forums) folks who need to still work through the demons that are/were resurrected by this film.

I completely agree with you that the sharing and conversations are of far more value at this point than the film.  I still find it hard to believe that the film makers had no idea that it would have this kind of far reaching emotional impact.

[jpwagoneer1964]

Secondly, if we are talking specifically about the question at hand:  Would Ennis & Jack have had the sweet life?, in a roundabout way, you answerred it.  The answer would have been no.  Jack was already on his way to a more complete understanding of himself and his sexuality (he still had a long way to go), and Ennis was not even close!  Sure, they could have TRIED to live togather under the circumstances that you wrote, but eventually, it would have been Jack who would have been the one that wanted to move forward and live a more open and complete life, and it is highly doubtfull that Ennis would have been able to do that, ever.  That alone would have driven them apart eventually.  I've seen it happen all to many times, and with far more educated and enlightened people than those two.

I think Jack main interest was being with Ennis, did not care about being 'out" as just having Ennis. He would have been more than willing to live where ever Ennis would feel at least somewhat comfortable.

[Scott6373]

i think Jack main interest was being with Ennis, did care about being 'out" as just having Ennis. He would have been more than willing to live where ever Ennis would feel at least somewhat comfortable.

Oh I respectfully diasgree.  I think Jack, though far more the dreamer, was much more progressive than that.  He was the more daring of the two, and it would only have a matter of time before he needed to be out (in the total sense of the word) in the larger world.

[Katie77]

As for the second part of your post, I would like to address it in two parts. 

First, I (and I think I can safely speak for all gay people) do not want to be just tolerated, nor do I want to "play the part" that middle, heterocentric America wants me to, just so that I am not the victim of discrimination and violence.  When you say "and it didnt necessarily have to be out on show", and "To compare the lifestyle and problems of gays with African Americans, is to me, not a good comparison", the hair on the back of my neck litteraly stood on end.  I am not saying that you are homphobic by any means, but do you realize how that sounds?  There is so much ingrained and quietly insidious intolerance toward gays, and for that matter all oppressed minority groups (women included), that we often don't even know how hurtfull what we are saying really is.

Secondly, if we are talking specifically about the question at hand:  Would Ennis & Jack have had the sweet life?, in a roundabout way, you answerred it.  The answer would have been no.  Jack was already on his way to a more complete understanding of himself and his sexuality (he still had a long way to go), and Ennis was not even close!  Sure, they could have TRIED to live togather under the circumstances that you wrote, but eventually, it would have been Jack who would have been the one that wanted to move forward and live a more open and complete life, and it is highly doubtfull that Ennis would have been able to do that, ever.  That alone would have driven them apart eventually.  I've seen it happen all to many times, and with far more educated and enlightened people than those two.

I am glad Scott, that you didnt call me "homophobic"...that would be as insulting to me as calling me a bad mother. 

I agree that sometimes my words relate to "problems of gays" and other such phrases, but it is for want of a better way of describing things...when I use words such as "problems" or "lifestyle" I am using words that society uses, not words i would prefer to use.

When I think of gay people, or talk about a gay person, my thought is that they live their lives the same way as everyone else does, the only difference with them is, is that they love someone of the same sex....a simple non dramatic explanation, which i find difficult that some people cant relate to or understand.  I guess thats why I said in my post that they dont necessarily have to be out in the open to have enjoyed a life together....to me, what goes on behind closed doors with either straight or gay people doesnt have to be out there on display for everyone to see, nor does it have to be "out there" to succeed happily.

And we are looking at it as it was in the 60's....when it was illegal.....they really didnt have a lot of choice until laws were changed.

[serious crayons]

This discussion reminds me of an experience I had once in a sensitivity training group that everybody in my workplace was required to attend.

We were all encouraged to discuss our personal experiences. So one guy told about how every day his job required him to stop in at another department and talk to these guys who, not realizing he was gay, were always making homophobic jokes. The guy said it always made him uncomfortable, of course, and he never knew how to react -- he didn't really relish facing whatever conflicts might arise from saying something, but he felt awful remaining silent, also.

Then one of the sensitivity facilitators, an African-American woman who, frankly, was pretty overbearing and obnoxious, more or less cut him off. "Well, see now, as a black woman I don't have the advantage of being able to hide my identity!" she said. "I just have to face whatever people might say about me and blah blah blah ..." and so on in that vein. And I thought, "Really? You think that's a big advantage, huh?" Because, of course, one thing she does have going for her is that most people -- not all, of course, but most -- will try not to say anything racist, even if they are racist, when she's around.

There are arguments to be made on either side, I guess. But it always made me mad that someone who was supposed to be teaching "sensitivity" could be so insensitive.

Let me quickly say that I am not telling this story to imply that either of you is being insensitive. Not at all! Just that the issues are complex either way. I bet it's no picnic being subjected to prejudice of any kind.

[moremojo]

Let me quickly say that I am not telling this story to imply that either of you is being insensitive. Not at all! Just that the issues are complex either way. I bet it's no picnic being subjected to prejudice of any kind.

Most of the lesbigay people of color with whom I've been acquainted have conveyed to me that racism and issues of racial/ethnic solidarity are more important/more pressing to them than homophobia and issues of sexual identity/solidarity with other lesbigay people. The thing that strikes me is that there should be no need to rank these kinds of issues--all are important and worthy/needful of attention. The person bearing the brunt of prejudice or hatred is not stopping to think, in the moment, about how important the cause of their suffering is in the greater picture of social issues; they just want it to stop!

[Bucky]

I am just a human being.  I am what I am and I detest all forms of bigotry.  However the bigots of the world no matter how mean spirited they might be understand that if you are Afro-American, Native-American, Oriental-American, Hispanic-American or Caucasion-American that is what you are and they know you were born as such.  However most bigots of the world do not think that a gay person is born that way.  They are sure it is a "life style choice" which it is not.

 I think most people who are gay are born that way and grow up actually confused about who they are.  I know I did and it wasn't until I was 19 years old that I would even admit that I was gay and that it became a reality to me because I had a gay relationship in which deep intense love was involved.  Sure I had been attracted to guys in the past but more in a sexual way and I never would have acted on those feelings because I am shy by nature.  I would act on feelings if it involved females even though those sexual feelings might be less intense than with males.  I had never had a guy "put the moves on me" until I was nineteen and although I was a little afraid, flattered not knowing for sure what it meant I went along with him.  Still it was eight months of the most incredible happiness that I had experienced up until that time.  We had the "safety net" of university life to cushion us from the outside world.  I think it was safer in college than out in the world as a whole.

I am now forty three years old and that was the first and last gay relationship that I ever had.  It was also the most intense relationship that I ever had in my life.  I had a few short term relationships with women later but none ever lasted over a month or two months at the most.  I have never had more than "one date" with another male since my college days and it led absolutely no where.  So I don't know for sure if it was my fault or his fault but probably my fault.

Right now I am content not having a relationship male or female.  I am becoming "comfortable" in my single life and I don't want to change that right now.  I suppose some day I may have another relationship but homophobia or the fear of homophobia killed my first really intense relationship.  So I know of the horrors of homophobia first hand from personal experience.  It is no fun to be a target of ridicule which I know would have happened if my partner and myself had outed ourselves and faced the world as two gay men who just happened to be in love.  To be sure it was probably even a more of a scary scenario for him than myself so he just left me without a word.  Now he is a very unhappy person but I am not that unhappy because I never formally involved myself with someone that I didn't love just to be accepted.  It was easier for me to just stay single than to do that to my heart.  In an IDEAL accepting world I could have been very happy but we don't live in an ideal world.

[Scott6373]

I think the fact that we are having such a heated and well thought out debate about prejudice and homophobia in 2006, puts an exclamation point at the end of the statement:  No, 20 or so years ago, they would never have had a sweet life!

[JT]

This is just my opinion, but I think being a racial minority is in a way easier than being gay and here's why.  Being an African-American for example, you can't hide.  The way you are is there and everyone sees it.  Eventhough it's hard at first, eventually people will see that being an African-American is "normal" and accept it, and get used to it.  Being gay on the other hand, you can hide it.  That to me is a negative thing because you're afraid to come out.  The more you hide, the more worthless you feel, because you have to hide, and the more worthless you feel, the more you want to hide.  You're basically going no where.  And in Jack and Ennis' time, being gay can get you kill or put in jail, so that will make you hide even more and lock the closet door.  So now in 2006 gays are still treated as second class citizen.  Now I meant by the government not the public.  It's the "can hide" vs. "can't hide".  Here's a simpler way of looking at it with a dentist scenario.  If a person is force to go to the dentist, he'll have to go no matter what.  Yes, it's painful but he'll get his problems taken care of.  If he has a choice on the other hand, very likely he will not go because it's painful.  So he'll end up with oral disease and more pain. 

Now I'm both a racial minority and gay so I get to experience both.  They both have their "problems" but I can say I'm a proud Asian to anyone out there but yet I'm still lock up in my closet.