it's not all about Earl -- by latjoreme

[TOoP/Bruce]

It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:38:10 )   
   
I often see posts that refer to Ennis' issues -- his internalized homophobia, his fears, his rejection of Jack's sweet-life propoal -- as if they were generated by a single traumatic childhood experience: seeing the ruined body of Earl. The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.

No doubt seeing Earl was an awful experience that haunted Ennis for life. But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.

To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood. That's all it is, a glimpse.

The most significant part of the Earl anecdote, in my view, is the line, "for all I know, he done the job." In other words, Ennis was a gay kid raised by a man who hated homosexuality so much that his own son casually accepts that he'd have been capable of torturing a gay man to death. And Ennis must have based that opinion on things that extend beyond the Earl episode.

So we can assume that Ennis wasn't just terrified that one day. He was terrified all day, every day, for years -- from the time he started noticing he was attracted to boys/men (which most likely predated Earl), until his father died, and of course well beyond. If at 30-something Ennis worries that strangers on the pavement will "know," imagine how scary it must have been for Ennis as a child to live in the same house with a violent, evil man who might at any moment be tipped off by the smallest glance or facial expression or verbal slip or, well, whatever. And what if his dad found out? At the very least, Ennis risked his father's condemnation. At worst ... well, homophobic fathers have been known to be violent to their own gay kids, too. And then, because as far as Ennis can tell his father's opinion is in step with everybody else's, even his father's death doesn't end the threat.

That, to me, explains not only Ennis' homophobia but his closedness, shyness, social awkwardness. It explains why when he first looks up at Jack outside Aguirre's trailer he immediately glances away without changing expression. Or why, when he leans to the side to check out Jack as he's riding away, he catches himself half a second later and turns back to his chores. He has spent his life training himself to suppress any behavior that might be revealing.

And of course Ennis believes that his dad was right. I don't think he goes so far as to find Earl's murder acceptable ("they was pretty tough old birds" indicates a certain respect, in fact). But he agrees that Earl's behavior was UNacceptable. In deciding not to live with Jack, Ennis is not just weighing the risks and pragmatically concluding that it's too dangerous. From Ennis' perspective, it's just outside the realm of possibility.

Shouldn't Ennis have rejected his father's teachings, once he grew up? Well, some people raised by harsh or rigid parents do eventually do that, but it's usually because they meet other people or read books with different points of view. But Ennis has never met anyone who's contradicted what his father taught -- except Jack, who's not impartial. Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.

People who are understandably frustrated by Ennis might also keep in mind the depth of the emotional obstacles were that Ennis had to overcome to be with Jack at all. It's a glass half full, in my view. Not to mention one big sign of just how deep and powerful his love for Jack is.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by BannerHill     (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:49:50 )   

Yes, yes, and yes.
Finally we are getting right down to it.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by Mrs_Billy_Costigan     (Thu Oct 12 2006 15:52:37 )   

UPDATED Thu Oct 12 2006 15:58:13
GREAT post, very true. I used to get frustrated with Ennis, but the more I watch the movie, the more homophobic crap I'm dealt with daily at my school, and the more I think about it the more I admire and care abotu Ennis and feel sorry for BOTH Ennis and Jack-Jack (my pet name for him....the name Ennis doesn't really have room for pet names....). HOmophobia is not something to be underestimated, and fear is a terrible thing to live by.....

BTW, Jack-Jack had a HORRIBLE childhood too.....from the movie I thought his father was just distant and bitter....but I bought and read the short story just today and WHOA. Lordy LORD!! HE was an intolerant abusive jerk too! poor Jack-Jack!! I can't imagine how HORRIBLE it must have been to LIVE with that man! I'm certain he beat Jack on a daily basis, I'm sure he made Jack's life a living hell, just like Ennis's father did to him. I find it interesting that Ennis and Jack BOTH had horrible childhoods but dealt with it so differently. Ennis became all withdrawn, awkward, high-strung, all that, and by looking at him, the way he walked and talked, it was obvious that he'd been hurt in some way. And Jack, on the other hand, by looking at him you'd never have thought he had an abusive childhood, he was such a full of life, live-in-the-moment guy. similar lives, different people......and I adore them both, and I REALLY hate both their fathers. If I had a father like that I'd move to Siberia to get away from him....

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Thu Oct 12 2006 16:40:04 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –

Great post! A couple small things, though, as always –



“To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood.”

I sure do agree with all of this.


“That's all it is, a glimpse.”

But not this. The fact remains, this is the one incident that Ennis refers to and this is the one incident that was shown to us. All of the other issues about his childhood certainly could have been implied, but to infer them is another thing. We were shown this one incident, and it’s the one incident that Ennis refers back to, simply because it is the most significant, single incident.


“The most significant part of the Earl anecdote, in my view, is the line, "for all I know, he done the job."”

I can agree with this.


“In other words, Ennis was a gay kid raised by a man who hated homosexuality so much that his own son casually accepts that he'd have been capable of torturing a gay man to death. And Ennis must have based that opinion on things that extend beyond the Earl episode.”

And this I can accept as speculation. But, this:


“So we can assume that Ennis wasn't just terrified that one day. He was terrified all day, every day, for years -- from the time he started noticing he was attracted to boys/men (which most likely predated Earl), until his father died, and of course well beyond.”

And this…

“…imagine how scary it must have been for Ennis as a child to live in the same house with a violent, evil man who might at any moment be tipped off by the smallest glance or facial expression or verbal slip or, well, whatever.”

These take the speculation a bit beyond what we saw in the film. All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms. This is why the line about Ennis thinking maybe his dad could have done the job is so startling. It’s startling to think any man, any father, could have murdered a man for being gay. And it’s startling to think of a man, a father, showing this to his child. But what is most startling is that Ennis now says this about his father, after the way Ennis had spoken of him earlier. (This is akin to (and converse to) the way Jack talks of his father early on. We get the feeling he’s terribly homophobic. However, in the Lightning Flat scene, he does not appear at all homophobic.) I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father – as a doler-outer of spankings, for example. Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seems as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.


“And what if his dad found out? At the very least, Ennis risked his father's condemnation. At worst ... well, homophobic fathers have been known to be violent to their own gay kids, too.”

I agree. And it seems that from film, Ennis’ father either never found out or didn’t react in either of these ways if he did find out. Or, if he did find out and reacted in one of these ways, then Ennis must have taken it as “natural consequences to such behavior.”


“That, to me, explains not only Ennis' homophobia but his closedness, shyness, social awkwardness. It explains why when he first looks up at Jack outside Aguirre's trailer he immediately glances away without changing expression. Or why, when he leans to the side to check out Jack as he's riding away, he catches himself half a second later and turns back to his chores. He has spent his life training himself to suppress any behavior that might be revealing.”

No doubt about this. However, these are also the actions of a young man who had not yet come to terms with his sexuality, nor had he explored his sexuality, nor had he had anyone to talk to or role model himself toward or against in terms of his sexuality. All of this could have still taken place within a happy family union bubble.


“And of course Ennis believes that his dad was right. I don't think he goes so far as to find Earl's murder acceptable ("they was pretty tough old birds" indicates a certain respect, in fact). But he agrees that Earl's behavior was UNacceptable. In deciding not to live with Jack, Ennis is not just weighing the risks and pragmatically concluding that it's too dangerous. From Ennis' perspective, it's just outside the realm of possibility.”

Yep.


“Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.”

How so?


Because it is the one incident that Ennis refers to and because it’s the one incident that was shown to us and because the rest is (possibly useful and logical) speculation, but also because of the way Ennis spoke of his father, and because of the “turn out opposite” example we’re given with OMT, I still believe that the Earl incident is the defining moment for Ennis that etched his fears and homophobia into him so deeply. If all of the other things were present (and it’s not a really big “if” here), then the Earl incident was the final nail in the coffin of Ennis’ soul.


“The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.”

This still remains a good assumption supported by what we see and hear in the film.





Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by dly64      (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:17:44 )   
   
Are you saying that the trauma (for Ennis) was not just seeing Earl, but (more importantly) thinking that his own father could have committed this brutal murder? If that is what you are saying, than I am in complete agreement. The visual of Earl only reinforced (to Ennis) what can happen to an openly gay individual. Ennis was taught to hate himself, his thoughts, his feelings and his attraction towards other males. Jack and Ennis’ relationship on BBM was possible because it was so private and (as others have stated) a “Garden of Eden.” Post-mountain, Ennis and Jack’s relationship was doomed to failure because all of the teachings of Ennis’ father came crashing back. IMO, Ennis spent most of his life trying to convince himself that he wasn’t “queer”. He got married (to a woman he thought he loved) and had children. He wasn’t particularly good at either one (i.e. being a husband and father). Then after the divorce, he starts seeing Cassie. Not because Ennis finds Cassie so particularly appealing, but because she’s there (and of course she made it easy, because she threw herself at him). Ultimately, when he finally had his epiphany, he knew he could no longer pretend to be something he wasn’t, but it was too late. Jack had died. But it is Jack’s death that only reinforces Ennis’ homophobia.

Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em" - Ennis, BBM

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by Mrs_Billy_Costigan     (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:59:01 )   
   
UPDATED Thu Oct 12 2006 18:25:28
<<He wasn’t particularly good at either one (i.e. being a husband and father).>>

Ehhhh, WTF? He wasn't a good husband, but he was a good father.It's obvious he loved his girls and they got to see a side of him he hardly showed to anyone but Jack.

Jack's death didn't reinforce Ennis's homophobia. I got the impression at the end that he came to terms with who he was. The way he walked into the Twist kitchen holding the shirts, not explaining why he was taking them, because obviously Jack's parents knew Jack's reasons for keeping the shirts in his room and never washing the bloodstains. and the last scene with Alma Jnr. he's obviously changed and is going to live his life more open and honest with people, obvious he's learned so much and knows that Alma Jr. who's going to be married, won't make his mistake. why else would they have ALma Jr. come to Ennis at 19 telling him she's going to married, 19 is when ENnis met Jack. It's obvious Ennis has learned a lot from his mistakes and is changed. at the Twist house when he finds the shirts it's obvious he's shocked and guilty at his neglecting Jack and he even tells Lureen about Brokeback, the first person besides Jack he's ever mentioned Brokeback to. Right away when he finds out Jack's dead he changes obviously, because he tells Lureen he knows about Brokeback. so yeah. Ennis changed for the better, and that's what matters. he doesn't know for sure how Jack died, and WE don't know how Jack died, becuase it DOESN'T MATTER, because no matter HOW he died, what matters is he's gone, and Ennis regrets.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Thu Oct 12 2006 23:06:16 )   
   
Hi dly64 –

I pretty much agree with your entire post.

I’d like to say something about this:

“Not because Ennis finds Cassie so particularly appealing,”

I agree that wasn't his main motivator. However, Cassie was physically appealing. And she was all, you know, perky. Plus, don’t underestimate the boost to a man’s ego (even a closeted homosexual man who believes himself to be straight) when a perky, sexy, young lady comes a-courtin’.


“Ultimately, when he finally had his epiphany, he knew he could no longer pretend to be something he wasn’t, but it was too late.”

I like this sentence. It’s a great sentence. I especially like the (intentional?) omission of any temporal adjectival phrase after “epiphany.”   




Hi sugarsweet666  –

I have to disagree with this:

“…and the last scene with Alma Jnr. he's obviously changed and is going to live his life more open and honest with people, obvious he's learned so much…”

All he did was agree to go to his own daughter’s wedding. A one-time trip to a church (that he has shunned) for a couple of hours, months in the future. And, he only agreed to this when he saw the pained look on her face. He initially rejected her suggestion. His “change” could not have been too big obviously. Your crediting Ennis with a change such as you describe is to take the character of Ennis as he was presented to us and unrealistically transform him into something he’s never been capable of and, quite frankly, has no use of becoming.

Because Ennis doesn’t know how Jack died, described even better in the short story than in the film, Jack’s death does serve to reinforce Ennis’ homophobia. Truer to the story and the theme of the story is that Ennis will become more homophobic and more withdrawn.


“why else would they have ALma Jr. come to Ennis at 19 telling him she's going to married, 19 is when ENnis met Jack.”

To reinforce in Ennis’ psyche the differences.


“because no matter HOW he died, what matters is he's gone, and Ennis regrets.”

And for a character such as Ennis was created and presented to us, guilt and regret more often manifest a more closed personality rather than an open one.




Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by malina-5     (Thu Oct 12 2006 17:55:30 )   
   
<<To me, the Earl story is shorthand. It's a vivid and shocking and concise way for Annie Proulx and the filmmakers to illustrate the risks that gay people faced in that culture. But more important, it's a way for both Annie and the filmmakers (creating the narrative) and Ennis (within the narrative) to offer a glimpse of Ennis' horrific childhood. That's all it is, a glimpse. >>

I TOTALLY agree with this. Thank you for pointing it out. "Shorthand" - that's a brilliant way of putting it. It's what I'd been thinking, but never in an articulate way like this.

We have to give Ennis credit. What he did in allowing himself to fall for Jack at all was HUGE. For me the 'shorthand' for that is when he enters the tent on the second night. It was surrender to a force of nature. Surrender to love and life despite fear. What greater thiing can anyone do?

Of course, for most of the 20 f*ing years it was only a partial surrender, the mountain and the 'middle of nowhere' (hmm, again with the 'nowhere') making it possible. The miracle of the place allows Ennis to transcend what he would normally have been capable of. (Big thank you to the mountain and Aguirre's creation)

Katherine, you said: <<But Ennis has never met anyone who's contradicted what his father taught -- except Jack, who's not impartial. >>

I agree to a large extent. It would have been enormously helpful, maybe, for Ennis to have known someone who contradicted his father's views. But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant.
I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.

And, if a big part of what made Ennis feel that he was unacceptable was his attraction to men, I would argue that, impartial or not, Jack's acceptance of that would have been immensely important to Ennis too. Because sex with Jack was not some random desparate sleazy f* in an alley. Jack was someone Ennis truly liked and respected, maybe even looked up to. Jack was really a great guy. And HE'S okay with it - even with the way things transpired in the first tent scene. There were probably many contradictory voices battling within Ennis that day as he watched the sheep, but that would've been one of them: maybe it IS okay. More than he'd ever dared hope for.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by Ellemeno     (Fri Oct 13 2006 00:01:30 )   
   
Hi Gang, my little addition re Ennis's father's violence - I don't thnk anyone mentioned this yet. In the story, Ennis says it in the motel room, "Dad made sure I seen it. Took me to see it. Me and K.E. Dad laughed about it. Hell, for all I know he done the job. If he was alive and was to put his head in that door right now you bet he'd go get his tire iron."

He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him. Thank God for that one curve in the road.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Oct 13 2006 00:47:16 )   
   
Hi Ellemeno --

"He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him."

Yes. However, he is certain of it at the time of the motel scene. And this is probably from the age of 9 on -- from the time of the Earl death scene forward. This says nothing about Ennis' time with his father before age 9. It also speaks to Ennis' belief directly caused by the Earl death scene.


Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by True_Oracle_of_Phoenix      (Fri Oct 13 2006 04:09:20 )   
      
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 11:33:15
I will argue differently. (People can either agree or disagree, because my opinion is neither worth more nor less than anyone else's.)

This movie works to invite repeat viewings because our understanding of the characters (as opposed to the plot) is not revealed in a linear fashion.

We see the dead sheep, and it has meaning to Ennis, but we don't understand it yet. Likewise, we see the separation of Jack and Ennis on the mountain, and we don't understand what has happened between between.

In the later light of Ennis's story, we can now look at the separation on the mountain differently.

Ennis and Jack are striking camp. Summer is over. Jack places no real importance on it, because he does not expect his friendship and sexual relationship with Ennis to end. Ennis however is seeing things entirely differently.

His relationship with Jack is suddenly over, and he can't admit to himself what his feelings mean. He is reliving his flashback to the scene of Earl with his father and brother. They are going downhill to see a dead gay man, brutally beaten and sexually mutilated, probably roped and dragged before being murdered...

Roped and dragged? uh oh...

Jack playfully lassos Ennis as a friendly gesture, but it is a gesture charged with an entirely different meaning to Ennis. He reacts violently, catching Jack by surprise and blood is shed between them. They continue down the mountain to the fenced area. Ennis is in a post-traumatic stress induced crisis, and Jack has no idea what is going on. The sheep are mixed, Ennis can't sort his feelings.

After Ennis's father died, he went to live with his brother and his wife. Something happened between them and they had a falling out - Ennis then struck out on his own. Now add to the mix of Earl's death, Ennis's sense of loss at losing his brother, and now he is losing Jack. The man is a powderkeg: ROPE, BLOOD, FENCES, DEATH, SEXUAL MUTILATION, LOSS OF FAMILY and ALIENATION. His separation with Jack now bears stunning resemblances to his witnessing Earl's dead body. It isn't shorthand, it is an integral part of his character. Top that off with Ennis's suspicion that his father may have helped to commit Earl's murder, and it is a recipe for madness.

When they get to Jack's truck, Ennis is trying to "fix" things as best he can, and he is literally "fixing" Jack's truck. But the separation is awkward, and Ennis is left alone again with only his guilt and remorse.

Jack watches Ennis recede in the rearview mirror with a sense of loss and confusion. He really doesn't understand what just happened...

Ennis proceeds to the alley where he will metaphorically disembowel himself, just as his father might have literally done. He has just lost a "brother", friend, and a lover, and he feels guilt and shame for having allowed to happen in the first place. He will tear himself apart to deny his feelings and choke on his own rage, regret, and horrific sense of loss.

"Forgive us our trespasses..."






The correct answer to the wrong question is meant to lead astray.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by malina-5     (Fri Oct 13 2006 07:55:07 )   
   
<<They are going downhill to see a dead gay man, brutally beaten and sexually mutilated, probably roped and dragged before being murdered...

Roped and dragged? uh oh...

Jack playfully lassos Ennis as a friendly gesture, but it is a gesture charged with an entirely different meaning to Ennis. He reacts violently, catching Jack by surprise and blood is shed between them.>>

V. interesting. I never thought of that. But does it give new meaning to Ennis's statement "my dad was a fine roper" - or not? Sorry, I know that sounds a bit facetious. But it isn't meant to be - it's what was running through my head when I read this..


Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by True_Oracle_of_Phoenix      (Fri Oct 13 2006 09:22:34 )   
      
Sorry, I know that sounds a bit facetious. But it isn't meant to be - it's what was running through my head when I read this..


I don't think Ennis has too many "extra" words to share about himself.

I certainly could mean something...





The correct answer to the wrong question is meant to lead astray.

Shee-it! This is interesting as hell...   
  by toycoon      (Fri Oct 13 2006 10:01:05 )   
   
True Oracle of Phoenix, you have really dissected the scenes and reassembled them quite exquisitely.

I have more to say but I'll have to come back later as I am at work!

(I wish I knew how to quit Brokeback Mountain...)

Re: Shee-it! This is interesting as hell...   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Oct 13 2006 11:07:12 )   
   
Hi True_Oracle_of_Phoenix --

I liked your entire post. I especially like it when people find symbolic meaning within the film. So I especially liked these two bits:

"When they get to Jack's truck, Ennis is trying to "fix" things as best he can, and he is literally "fixing" Jack's truck."

and

"Ennis proceeds to the alley where he will metaphorically disembowel himself, just as his father might have literally done."


My take on the Earl death scene is that it is fundamental to an understanding of Ennis. So I also liked:

"The man is a powderkeg: ROPE, BLOOD, FENCES, DEATH, SEXUAL MUTILATION, LOSS OF FAMILY and ALIENATION. His separation with Jack now bears stunning resemblances to his witnessing Earl's dead body. It isn't shorthand, it is an integral part of his character. Top that off with Ennis's suspicion that his father may have helped to commit Earl's murder, and it is a recipe for madness."



It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Fri Oct 13 2006 14:01:41 )   
   
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 14:03:04
Hi CPDM,

All of the other issues about his childhood certainly could have been implied, but to infer them is another thing. We were shown this one incident, and it’s the one incident that Ennis refers back to, simply because it is the most significant, single incident.

But I think inference from fiction is perfectly legal, maybe even required -- particularly in short stories, which have to pack a lot of info into a small space. Isn't the last part of your last sentence a bit of an inference itself? Yes, it's the most significant incident we hear about -- the only significant incident, in fact. But we don't know for sure there weren't others. Still, I think it's a safe inference.

All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms.

Well, kind of. We hear Ennis say that his dad 1) is dead (and implicitly a bad driver) 2) left the kids $24 in a coffee can 3) was a fine roper 4) was right, in Ennis' view. (Am I forgetting any?) Positive terms is a bit of a stretch. 1 is neutral, 2 is pretty neutral but not particularly flattering 3 is flattering but has nothing to do with fatherhood and 4 contains layers of meaning, none of which necessarily indicate that the guy was a world's greatest father or man.

But what is most startling is that Ennis now says this about his father, after the way Ennis had spoken of him earlier. (This is akin to (and converse to) the way Jack talks of his father early on.

Yes. I think even the lukewarm semi-positive things Ennis says about his father -- coupled with our automatic sympathy for a man who died -- are enough to make the revelation startling.

I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father

But what gives you this feeling? The feeling is an inference itself. And as far as I can tell, it's based only on the apparent lack of evidence to the contrary (except maybe Ennis' "fine roper/he was right" remarks, which don't really prove anything either way). Yet if I think the opposite, that he was a scary guy who created an atmosphere of terror for Ennis, I can gather some pretty strong support:

1) Ennis' personality and behavior: what I mentioned before about his shyness and closed-offness, and the couple of times we see him take care not to gaze too long at Jack. You could argue (and in "real life," I would argue) that genes are a stronger influence than family environment on personality and behavior. But the idea that childhood experiences shape personality is a staple of fiction, partly because people tend to believe it and partly because it frees the author from having to spell everything out. So I don't think it's insignificant that Ennis is like that; I think his personality is deliberately designed to suggest something.

1a) Even fiction writers rarely try to convince readers that a character's whole personality was shaped by a single incident, so I think we can eliminate the possibility that Ennis is shy and withdrawn, etc., because of Earl.

2) Ennis' casual acceptance of the possibility that his father done the job. Unless Ennis noticed a blood-stained tire iron in the back of the pickup, this idea must have been based on something his father said or did. And if he said or did it once, I think it's safe to assume he said or did it more than once, because it seems unlikely that the dad kept his homophobia to himself until the day he rushed out and tortured a guy to death, and then put it back under wraps ever afterward. Even if his father actually didn't do it, by taking the boys out there he showed tacit or explicit approval of the murder -- suggesting that he might have done the same, or something close to it, if given the chance.

3) Ennis most likely by age nine knew or suspected he was gay. I'm infering this because I think by age nine most people know or suspect at least something about their sexuality.

So we know that Ennis knew that his father hated gays so much that, at some point, Ennis concluded (rightly or wrongly) that his father was at least capable of torturing a gay man to death. We know that Ennis probably knew he was gay. We know how the average kid would feel living with a potentially violent dad who hates gays that much and knows that he (the kid himself) is gay. And we know that Ennis grew up to be a repressed, uptight, paranoid, taciturn man. I think by connecting those dots we can figure that Ennis' actions as an adult don't spring entirely, maybe not even primarily, from the Earl incident.

Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seem as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.

I agree, and to me that further supports the idea that Ennis' attitude is based on long-term teaching. How could Ennis develop such a deep-seated belief based on one shocking incident that he doesn't even really approve of?

And it seems that from film, Ennis’ father either never found out or didn’t react in either of these ways if he did find out.

Right. As far as we know, Ennis' father didn't find out about Ennis. But the threat was always there.

these are also the actions of a young man who had not yet come to terms with his sexuality, nor had he explored his sexuality, nor had he had anyone to talk to or role model himself toward or against in terms of his sexuality. All of this could have still taken place within a happy family union bubble.

I don't think confusion about sexuality shapes one's personality, though I do think it often goes the other way around. Take Jack. He's a guy who has, to some extent anyway, come to terms with and/or explored his sexuality. He's also got a different personality than Ennis. Is this because Jack, maybe as a teenager, figured the sex thing out and then, with that out of the way, heaved a sigh of relief and became outgoing and confident, a person willing to take risks and break rules in order to improve his life? No, I think the reverse -- his bolder personality helped him accept his sexuality. Same with Ennis: his personality hindered his acceptance.

“Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.”

How so?

In the ways we've discussed elsewhere. First by taking Jack up on his offer in TS1. Next by carrying on a long-term relationship with him after the reunion. And after Jack's death, by moving to a better understanding of love.

I still believe that the Earl incident is the defining moment for Ennis that etched his fears and homophobia into him so deeply. If all of the other things were present (and it’s not a really big “if” here), then the Earl incident was the final nail in the coffin of Ennis’ soul.

I think the Earl incident was the most shocking and horrifying moment of Ennis' childhood. I just don't think it's what turned Ennis into Ennis.

Hi Malina,

But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant. I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.

Good point. I did kind of understate Jack's importance in my OP. It would have been nice if Ennis had also gone to college and joined a gay students' group on campus or something like that. But in the absence of any other positive influences, Jack's was huge. As a role model, too.

Hi True Oracle of Phoenix,

Interesting post! Your idea about the lasso, particularly.

Hi Elle,

If he was alive and was to put his head in that door right now you bet he'd go get his tire iron."

He is certain that his own father would bludgeon him. Thank God for that one curve in the road.

That's how I read that sentence, too. Ennis assumes his father would readily extend his murderous hatred of a fellow citizen to his own son.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Oct 13 2006 15:30:42 )   

Hi latjoreme –


“But I think inference from fiction is perfectly legal, maybe even required -- particularly in short stories, which have to pack a lot of info into a small space. Isn't the last part of your last sentence a bit of an inference itself? Yes, it's the most significant incident we hear about -- the only significant incident, in fact. But we don't know for sure there weren't others. Still, I think it's a safe inference.”

I agree that it’s OK to infer from fiction. But, to infer so much that it reduces what was presented to us as “the only significant” incident to “shorthand”… that may go a bit too far. The last part of my last sentence is more of a conclusion, I think.


All the way up until the Earl death scene, we hear Ennis talk about his father in positive terms.

“Well, kind of. We hear Ennis say that his dad 1) is dead (and implicitly a bad driver)”

(Sorry… that last parenthetical really made me laugh. That’s cute.  )

He didn’t die because he was a homophobic dad.


“2) left the kids $24 in a coffee can”

He wasn't poor because he was a homophobic dad.


“3) was a fine roper 4) was right, in Ennis' view.”

I think these last two are positive.

And, when it comes right down to it, a young man who lost his parents when he was a young’un saying his dad is dead and they were poor, is kind of heart-wrenching. Puts one on his side. Doesn’t give one bad vibes about the old, misunderstood fella.


“Yes. I think even the lukewarm semi-positive things Ennis says about his father -- coupled with our automatic sympathy for a man who died -- are enough to make the revelation startling.”

Yep.


I get the feeling that Ennis was not any more afraid of his father than any other young boy might be afraid of his father

“But what gives you this feeling? The feeling is an inference itself. And as far as I can tell, it's based only on the apparent lack of evidence to the contrary (except maybe Ennis' "fine roper/he was right" remarks, which don't really prove anything either way).”

Not an inference at all. I base it on the evidence presented. Even if we go with your assertion that Ennis spoke of his dad in neutral terms, then what do we have? A character describing another character in neutral terms. (But, I must add, the way he described his father as a fine roper was said with a bit of admiration or respect.) So what can we say of Ennis’ relationship with his father? Well, Ennis described it in neutral terms. That is from the direct evidence given.


“Yet if I think the opposite, that he was a scary guy who created an atmosphere of terror for Ennis, I can gather some pretty strong support:”

But the support you gather is not direct evidence, it’s inference. For example, you talk about what you see in terms of Ennis’ personality and behaviors. This is fine. Describe them. But, now to try and decide from whence they’ve come, that’s pure speculation. Even if you connect it to the fact that his father showed him dead Earl. Because I could connect it to the fact that Ennis only mentioned his mother twice. He said “they run themselves off” (mother and father) and that his mother used to like to compare a pure, sweet little boy like Ennis to a sleeping horse. Boy, she sounds like a winner. I’ll bet she compared Ennis to all kinds of barnyard animals. Thus, his displayed personality and behaviors.

Not great arguments, if you ask me. That’s why the Earl death scene is singularly important to us, the viewers, to understand Ennis’ personality and behaviors. It’s all we need. Why? Because by having the filmmaker (author) give only that one event as a defining moment in Ennis’ character, and by having all other issues relate back to it, that one event is given a legendary impact status. In other words, by making it the only event and by having his fears constantly referred back to it, the author has characterized that event in such a way as to show us the depth of the destructive nature of that event. The author has said “Here’s an event. Want to know more about it? OK. I’ll describe it for you.” Then the author describes it by making it the only event shown to us and by referring back to it (the dead sheep and the vision of Jack’s death) AND by not adding in all kinds of other events.


“But the idea that childhood experiences shape personality is a staple of fiction, partly because people tend to believe it and partly because it frees the author from having to spell everything out. So I don't think it's insignificant that Ennis is like that; I think his personality is deliberately designed to suggest something.”

Yes. Agreed. That that one event had such a destructive effect on Ennis.


“Even fiction writers rarely try to convince readers that a character's whole personality was shaped by a single incident, so I think we can eliminate the possibility that Ennis is shy and withdrawn, etc., because of Earl.”

No and no. I’m sorry, but I see the exact opposite of your first clause to be correct. Fiction writers almost always choose a single event as being the most significant and defining. They then have other smaller events and they are usually linked to the larger one. Also, even if your first clause is correct, there isn’t an a priori connection to the conclusion you’ve made.


“2) Ennis' casual acceptance of the possibility that his father done the job.”

Again, what you’ve given are inferences that make for interesting discussion. I have no problem with that. But, it appears to me that you’re seeking to make them more important than what the author gave us: the Earl death scene. If these are more important, and the Earl death scene is “only shorthand,” then why did the author present it the way she did? To make us all run around looking for more important possible factors? This isn’t the same kind of “leave ‘em guessing” that is done with “How did Jack die?” or what is meant by “Jack, I swear”?

If we want to infer from what was said, I’d say a more direct inference would be based as closely to the words as possible. Ennis’ dad was used to killing men. But, just how big was the gay population of Sage, WY in the early fifties? Not much – but I could be wrong. It’s more likely that Ennis’ father got his practice in killing men by being the state executioner. So, Ennis was really idolizing his father in this scene because he’s proud of how well his dad was able to translate his job as state executioner to his personal life. Hack, cough, gag…


“3) Ennis most likely by age nine knew or suspected he was gay. I'm infering this because I think by age nine most people know or suspect at least something about their sexuality.”

And I have no problem with this. Not because I might agree with your inference; rather, I have no problem with this because you’re not trying to use it to negate what the author gave us as a significant event in Ennis’ life.


“So we know that Ennis knew that his father hated gays so much that, at some point, Ennis concluded (rightly or wrongly) that his father was at least capable of torturing a gay man to death.”

We only know that Ennis said this once to Jack. He could have come to this conclusion at that very moment as he spoke. His words were, “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.” The way he says it sounds to me as if he just came up with this. I don’t know. Maybe he’s always believed it? Since age nine? Maybe.


“We know how the average kid would feel living with a potentially violent dad who hates gays that much and knows that he (the kid himself) is gay. And we know that Ennis grew up to be a repressed, uptight, paranoid, taciturn man. I think by connecting those dots we can figure that Ennis' actions as an adult don't spring entirely, maybe not even primarily, from the Earl incident.”

Agree with the first part, not the second. You only listed a few dots to connect to come up with a conclusion that negates what we were presented by the film. I could say that we all know what it’s like to grow up with a distant mother who only ever refers to her children as unconscious barnyard animals… wouldn’t that make a kid repressed or uptight?

Additionally, you only list a few of the behaviors that you see in Ennis to make your point. How about if I add these behaviors: He’s a loving husband who puts his arm around his wife in parked cars. He’s a loving husband who playfully jostles with his wife in the snow. He’s a loving husband who will work a job on the pavement to make money for his family even though he’s an “earthy” kind of fella. He smiles when women come on to him. He has no problem showing his sensory pleasure concerning beans. He cares deeply for animals. He’s a hands-on kind of dad for his infants. Even when he’s got other things on his mind (like leaving to go see Jack or having an argument with Alma), he’ll always stop and be kind to his girls. He’s the kind of man who can learn loving behaviors (an ear rub) from one person and transfer it to another (Jenny). He’s fastidious (tents and buttons). He’s in touch enough with his playful side that even in a solemn event like a wedding he can crack a smile when a Jolly Minister makes a joke. He’s discreet about his extra-marital affairs. He became a good speller – better than Jack, at least. He showed an interest in an edjamacation. He had a playful side (examples of teasing Jack). He wasn’t afraid to shed a tear or two. Put all these behind the part about living with a gay-hating dad and it doesn’t connect too well.


Also, while I do not believe that Ennis would commit a gay-bash murder, his speech in the river reunion scene makes it seem as if Ennis at the very least understands what happened to Earl as natural consequences to such behavior.

“I agree, and to me that further supports the idea that Ennis' attitude is based on long-term teaching. How could Ennis develop such a deep-seated belief based on one shocking incident that he doesn't even really approve of?”

Back to the incident itself. Ennis never said he approved or disapproved of it. He simply stated what he saw and applied it to himself. This is what he was shown by his father. He has now “learned” that this is the natural consequence for such behavior. He accepts that. He thinks his daddy was right. He learned from a man he respected. Oops, there goes the whole Ennis/father tension…


“As far as we know, Ennis' father didn't find out about Ennis. But the threat was always there.”

Was there always a threat there from Jack’s mother to Jack? No. Why not? Because we weren’t given any indication that a threat could have been there. But then how do we infer that there was a threat always present for Ennis? By seeing the Earl death scene… oops, here it suddenly seems significant again… direct evidence given to us from which we may rightly or wrongly infer something else.


“I don't think confusion about sexuality shapes one's personality,”

Gulp. I’ll let this one go…


Yet, through the course of the movie, Ennis does begin to transcend those crippling early lessons.

How so?

“In the ways we've discussed elsewhere. First by taking Jack up on his offer in TS1. Next by carrying on a long-term relationship with him after the reunion. And after Jack's death, by moving to a better understanding of love.”

Sorry. I thought you were talking about something different. Yes. Agreed.


“I think the Earl incident was the most shocking and horrifying moment of Ennis' childhood. I just don't think it's what turned Ennis into Ennis.

I can go with this. I just can’t go with this: “That's all it is, a glimpse.”




If I might add… I think what you said to another poster is very true:

“But I think the fact that Jack DID contradict Ennis's father is, actually, very signficant. I'm not thinking so much about the homophobia, but the fact that Ennis was taught (implicitly or explicitly) that he himself was unacceptable or unworthy. Then he met Jack, and Jack (by his actions, by listening to Ennis and making Ennis important) does contradict what Ennis has been 'taught' for all his life.”

(Except, I might delete the last four words as assumption.)

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Fri Oct 13 2006 17:12:50 )   
   
UPDATED Fri Oct 13 2006 17:22:41
Hi CPDM,

Re that last quote, maybe I'm reading your meaning wrong, but Malina wrote it, not me. But I agree that it is true.

So before we go on debating this for a week and writing 40,000 more words on the subject, let me clarify one huge thing. You said, in agreeing with one of my points, that it was OK because you’re not trying to use it to negate what the author gave us as a significant event in Ennis’ life.

Here's the clarification: I'm not using any of this to negate the Earl episode as a significant event in Ennis' life! Of course it was significant. I said outright that it was undoubtedly the most shocking and horrifying event of his childhood.

All I'm saying is it's not the sole reason that Ennis is homophobic and paranoid and all them other things. When I say shorthand, I don't mean it's inconsequential. I mean it's a concise way for both Ennis and Annie Proulx to encapsulate an abstract and extendd and largely invisible experience -- Ennis' youthful fears -- into one dramatic and haunting anecdote. A peak moment, of course. Just not the only moment.

And I don't totally disagree when you say that the Earl death scene is singularly important to us, the viewers, to understand Ennis’ personality and behaviors. It’s all we need. Yes, it's a way for us viewers to understand Ennis. Humans constantly understand each other based on single incidents, in real life and especially in fiction, but that doesn't mean those incidents are the single influence on the person's development. In other words, as a narrative strategy it's fine. As psychological analysis, not so much.

I would disagree, though, with "it's all we need." Because when people understand Ennis as someone whose personality and behavior were shaped by a single incident -- without factoring in the implications of the incident -- they tend to underestimate the challenge Ennis faces. They say things like, "C'mon, so you saw a dead guy 20 years ago. Get over it, already."

Let me clarify a couple of other points while I'm at it:

-- I agree that Ennis respected his father. I don't think that's incompatible with fearing his violence, anger and/or disapproval -- absolutely the contrary, in fact.

-- Though I agree with your enumeration of Ennis' many virtues -- loving father, wanly affectionate husband, discrete adulterer, etc. -- I don't see how those necessarily contradict "guy whose sexual and romantic life is warped because he grew up with a brutal dad who would have hated his son if he knew the truth about him."

Now, if you want to argue that Ennis' dad was a great guy and wonderful father and fine roper at every other point in Ennis' childhood except during that one lone hour in which he forcefully escorted his two young sons to view the mutilated body of a man he himself might have slaughtered, let's get to it.

Or if you contend that Ennis must have considered his dad a great guy because he speaks of him in neutral or mildly positive terms -- that is, he doesn't spill all his deep filial fears and shames -- to Jack in the month after they met, I think I can come up with some other explanations.

Or if you can present evidence that a gay kid will sustain no serious psychological scars from knowing his respected father would, at the very least, give the thumbs up to a vicious gay-bashing murder, then by all means bring it on!

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Sat Oct 14 2006 01:58:14 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –


“Here's the clarification: I'm not using any of this to negate the Earl episode as a significant event in Ennis' life! … All I'm saying is it's not the sole reason that Ennis is homophobic and paranoid and all them other things. When I say shorthand, I don't mean it's inconsequential. I mean it's a concise way for both Ennis and Annie Proulx to encapsulate an abstract and extendd and largely invisible experience -- Ennis' youthful fears -- into one dramatic and haunting anecdote. A peak moment, of course. Just not the only moment.”

Yes. I understand this. But, you did say:

“I often see posts that refer to Ennis' issues -- his internalized homophobia, his fears, his rejection of Jack's sweet-life propoal -- as if they were generated by a single traumatic childhood experience: seeing the ruined body of Earl. The assumption often seems to be that Ennis was emotionally scarred by that one-time event, the way someone who was attacked by a dog might wind up permanently afraid of dogs.

No doubt seeing Earl was an awful experience that haunted Ennis for life. But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”

The point I'm making is, I always refer back to it because it’s what we were given. If I post something about Ennis’ homophobia rearing its ugly head in the post-divorce white truck drive-by shot, and someone asks “Where’d you come up with “homophobia?”” I would refer back to the Earl death scene. I would not refer back to the “fine roper” comment nor would I say anything about his unknown childhood.


“Humans constantly understand each other based on single incidents, in real life and especially in fiction, but that doesn't mean those incidents are the single influence on the person's development. In other words, as a narrative strategy it's fine. As psychological analysis, not so much.”

Agreed. But, isn’t any psychological analysis done of fictional characters really a literary analysis of a narrative strategy?


“I would disagree, though, with "it's all we need." Because when people understand Ennis as someone whose personality and behavior were shaped by a single incident -- without factoring in the implications of the incident -- they tend to underestimate the challenge Ennis faces. They say things like, "C'mon, so you saw a dead guy 20 years ago. Get over it, already."”

This is often true!


“Let me clarify a couple of other points while I'm at it:”

I personally love it when you clarify. I find myself doing it a lot of late.


“I agree that Ennis respected his father. I don't think that's incompatible with fearing his violence, anger and/or disapproval -- absolutely the contrary, in fact.”

But, the violence, anger and/or disapproval are assumptions about the character. Ennis said maybe his dad did the job. Ennis was not sure. Ennis did not say his father was violent or angry or whether he approved or disapproved. I personally infer from Ennis’ words in the Earl death scene (in the film only now) that there is a possibility that Ennis’ father did the job. However, if someone were to say that Ennis’ father took his boys to see dead Earl to teach them how homophobic and murderous some other guys were, then I couldn’t disagree. After all, Ennis may have misread his father that day. Ennis describes what happened and gives one possible maybe. He never said specifically why his father took them to see the body. Maybe Ennis was so scared and scarred by the whole incident that the fact that his nice father took him to see how bad those murderers were (as opposed to how bad Earl was) got twisted in his mind and he got the wrong message from his dad? Maybe his dad was a great guy?


Ennis: “The bottom line is, we're around each other and, and this thing grabs hold of us again in the wrong place, in the wrong time, then we’re dead. I’ll tell you, there was these two old guys ranched together down home… Earl and Rich. They was a joke of town, even though they was pretty tough old birds. Anyway, they, they found Earl dead in an irrigation ditch. They'd took a tire iron to him, spurred him up, drug him around by his dick till it pulled off…”

Jack: “You seen this?”

Ennis: “Yeah. I was what, nine years old? My daddy, he made sure me and my brother seen it. Hell, for all I know, he done the job. Two guys livin' together? No way.”


Ennis does not say why his father took them to see dead Earl. Wouldn’t it just be so ironic if his dad took them to see dead Earl to show how cruel some people can be to each other? And then a nine-year-old Ennis misinterpreted it. And wondered about his own father. It does rather fit the character, doesn’t it? Irony is a literary device used by the author.

Now, you may say that Ennis surmised from this that his dad may have been capable of doing this. And that gives evidence for an inference that his dad was a bad dude. However, Ennis did not say it as a fact. He said it as an interpretation and he qualified it. Flip-side -- Ennis knew they were the joke of town, yet he called them “tough old birds.” Where did this respect come from? His nice father who wanted to show his boys that something evil had been done? Evidence for an inference.

“I don't see how those necessarily contradict "guy whose sexual and romantic life is warped because he grew up with a brutal dad who would have hated his son if he knew the truth about him."”

But, technically, we do not know if this is true.


“Or if you can present evidence that a gay kid will sustain no serious psychological scars from knowing his respected father would, at the very least, give the thumbs up to a vicious gay-bashing murder, then by all means bring it on!”

(italics are mine)

Again, technically speaking…


All of the words that Ennis spoke of his father and the way he spoke those words (pre-Earl death scene) are either 1) a startling apparent contradiction to what we later learn, or 2) further evidence of an interpretation of the Earl death scene in a whole new light.


Finally, I earlier said that I was only speaking from the film perspective. The short story gives two lines that add to (or even prove) the notion of Ennis' father as a bad dude. But, if we just stick with the film...






Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Sat Oct 14 2006 12:54:27 )   
   
UPDATED Sat Oct 14 2006 14:21:54
Hi CPDM,

Wouldn’t it just be so ironic if his dad took them to see dead Earl to show how cruel some people can be to each other? And then a nine-year-old Ennis misinterpreted it. And wondered about his own father. It does rather fit the character, doesn’t it? Irony is a literary device used by the author.

   

OK, well now you're just making fun of me.

But s'alright, I can take it. And I really like your interpretation of the story: it's all about Ennis' stubborn refusal to conquer his homophobia, despite the efforts of everyone around him to help him accept his sexuality and find true love. Mr. Del Mar, the rainbow-bumpersticker-sporting liberal, sensing that his son might be gay and trying his best to warn the boy of the dangers that might lie ahead. Matchmaking Aguirre and discrete Alma, tactfully giving Ennis and Jack plenty of time alone together in hopes they will work things out. Even kindly Timmy, intuiting that his brooding coworker is working through some issues and trying delicately to broach the subject in hopes of drawing him out ...

Wow, this movie has even more subtle meanings than I thought!

I realize we could spend another two weeks going back and forth on this, presenting endless evidence and pithy retortes on either side. But we'll always wind up at the same brick wall: 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.

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.

The short story gives two lines that add to (or even prove) the notion of Ennis' father as a bad dude.

OK, I'll bite. Does it have to do with fighting K.E.? Or maybe the line Ellemeno mentioned earlier about "you bet he'd go get his tire iron"? (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?)

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by HeathandMichelle     (Sat Oct 14 2006 14:34:02 )   
   
Earl dying is small, compared to thinking his Dad might have done it. I'm in absolute awe that Ennis had it in him to have that 20 year gay relationship. He was ultimately the stongest character in the movie, overcoming his past and having his love affair with Jack.

[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.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Mon Oct 30 2006 22:55:12 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –


(Do you realize our public posts are getting almost as big as our PMs?)

“It's becoming a full-time job!”

Or, a way of life?


“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."”

Well, that makes all the difference, now doesn’t it?   


(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.)”

Well, you used it well! It still does seem quite true, huh? Also, this is a good example of how many, many things are explored and expressed at BetterMost – and always in a highly intelligent manner and without trolls.


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.”

I know… 


Ennis said “Hell, for all I know, he done the job.”

“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.”

Excellent point. And excellent wording. “…without any further proof.” Again, this has nothing to do with his father before that time.


“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.”

Fine. What if all that you say is true… AND K.E. told Ennis that his father did it? OR Ennis heard some townsfolk say that his father did it. Only one guy made a passing comment such as “Oh, you’re Ennis Del Mar? I knew your daddy long ago. He was a good man. Got rid of some fag trash from our town.” OR what if Ennis saw his father butcher animals they had killed (pigs, chickens, elks) with no sign of compassion for the animal (remember, Ennis is Mr. Livestock). OR what if Ennis’ father had to put a horse or a dog down? No homophobia there, but a shocking example of how his father could kill something -- that Ennis loved -- without regard.


“What boy wants his respected father to be a murderer, especially one he might have reason to fear himself?”

Wants to? Or has reason to? Or is “feared into” believing so?


“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?”

We don’t know that there was no other evidence of his killing abilities. Or of other people’s suspicions brought to Ennis’ attention. Or of his father’s “murderous homophobia.”

Also, did Ennis cling to it? It’s the last thing Ennis said on the subject. And it was made as a passing comment. Listen to him say it. It’s not as if he’s relaying a deep-seated fear that his father did it. It’s an off-hand remark. Both in how he says it and with the words he actually used.


“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.”

Yes way. I just gave examples of how it could have been engrained in him – all from causes OTHER than his father.


“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.”

Well, this certainly is one of many explanations… one of many that doesn’t even speak to Ennis’ father’s feelings, words, or behaviors.


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?”

Exactly! All examples of how Ennis probably did process it in his mind. And when we see how Ennis spoke of his father throughout the ENTIRE film – with only ONE exception, 9 words – it somehow starts to answer all of those questions above. Very good evidence about just what Ennis thought of his father. One off-hand remark made in 40 years balanced against everything Ennis said and viewed in the light of the scenario you just gave. I’m getting ready to call the Vatican – they got a saint in the making.


“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.”

Absolutely. And all of this is after the Earl incident. AND, it doesn’t have to have anything at all to do with his father from the Earl incident forward. As I showed, others could have influenced Ennis’ thinking just as easily.


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.”

Yes and no. I agree his attention goes there. Always? Only there? What about Earl?


“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.”

Exactly. This is why I don’t see Ennis as psychotic. I also don’t see him accuse any parent, respected or otherwise, of murder, with or without any 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.”

Now hold on there a minute little cowgirl. You know as well as I that them thar words can only be used after the word “moron!”


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.”

Argh! You left yourself wide open here. I ain’t gonna touch this with a ten-foot pole!


“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).”

How about Ennis seeing what his father showed him and then hearing several times over years what I gave above as examples? What if the man who said that to Ennis said it to him just as Ennis was viewing his dead father’s body in its casket? Again, nothing to do with Ennis’ father himself.


“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.”

However, you describe Ennis as a gay boy who sees this. That goes much closer to “directly” than to “implication.”


“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.”

Where did this character and personality and worldview come from? When was it fixed in stone? Aren’t character and personality and worldview changes often precipitated by one isolated, horrific event? They are. But even if you’re not willing to buy this, then what about the scenarios I gave above? Why is it not just as possible – from the story that we were told – that Ennis’ father was an otherwise respectable man who did not go around spewing homophobia all the time, but showed this one horrific lesson to Ennis because he had the ability to do it at that time, and then it gets further engrained and more deeply rooted into Ennis over years of hearing things and seeing things and becoming aware of all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with his father?


I’ve given you what you’ve asked for… An example that does not rely on the one, isolated, horrific experience that we were shown. You have stuck pretty darn close to the idea that for that incident to have as bad an effect on Ennis as it did, it had to have come through his father’s other homophobic behaviors or words. But why not the scenario I laid out for you? It has all of the other elements that you require of OMDM’s homophobia. It strengthens your argument about other influences and it strengthens your allusion to shorthand. Yet it has nothing to do with Ennis’ father. And, as far as inference goes, it does not present us with the apparent disconnect between Ennis’ nine words at the river and all of his other words spoken about his father.


Round 8…



[EDIT -- After reading this again, I should clarify something -- when I say it has nothing to do with his father, what I mean is, it's not his father's own words or actions... it's what OTHERS say or do... and they could be dead wrong.]

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by latjoreme     (Tue Oct 31 2006 10:42:04 )   
   
Hi CPDM,

“It's becoming a full-time job!”

Or, a way of life?

That's for sure. I've long since given up any pretense of earning a living. Next step is putting the kids up for adoption.

What if all that you say is true… AND K.E. told Ennis that his father did it? OR Ennis heard some townsfolk say that his father did it. Only one guy made a passing comment such as “Oh, you’re Ennis Del Mar? I knew your daddy long ago. He was a good man. Got rid of some fag trash from our town.”

That just extends our same argument to a larger stage. Why would K.E. or the townsfolk accuse Mr. Del Mar unjustly? Even if the idea came from the townsfolk or K.E., it would likely be based on something OMDM said or did. And if it was just one stray remark, why wouldn't Ennis, who respects his father, thinks he's right, and wants to believe he's a good man, reject this? Or, if he didn't reject it altogether, why would he spill it to Jack on the basis of such flimsy evidence?

Or, anticipating that your next argument will be that K.E. or the other guy accused Mr. Del Mar unfairly, due to mistaken identity or some such misunderstanding, even though they'd probably know Mr. Del Mar well enough to know whether or not he'd be either a) homophobic or b) violent -- but OK, sure, maybe such a mistake is remotely possible. You often see that kind of thing happening in sitcoms (except, you know, funny).

But why would this convoluted scenario be easier for you to accept that the idea that Mr. Del Mar is homophobic, and that he might express that homophobia on more than one occasion? For me, the first part is probable, and given that the second part is almost impossible not to believe.

OR what if Ennis saw his father butcher animals they had killed (pigs, chickens, elks) with no sign of compassion for the animal (remember, Ennis is Mr. Livestock). OR what if Ennis’ father had to put a horse or a dog down? No homophobia there, but a shocking example of how his father could kill something -- that Ennis loved -- without regard.

Sorry, too far fetched for me to imagine a ranch kid equating an animal butchering with a man's torture/murder. Maybe if he was a sheltered city kid, spending his first summer on the ranch ... But no. And in any case, not enough evidence for him to have told Jack.

There's someone on BetterMost who's fond of quoting Occam's Razor, the idea that one should make no more assumptions than necessary to explain something. To me, the homophobic dad theory does not violate Occam's Razor; rather, I find it the homophobic dad almost requried to explain both Ennis' and his father's behavior. But old Occam would be shaking his head at this parade of dragged-in townsfolk and K.E. and wild accusations and mistaken identities and savagely butchered farm animals.

“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?”

We don’t know that there was no other evidence of his killing abilities. Or of other people’s suspicions brought to Ennis’ attention. Or of his father’s “murderous homophobia.”

Exactly. That's what I'm sayin'. There must have been.

Also, did Ennis cling to it? It’s the last thing Ennis said on the subject. And it was made as a passing comment. Listen to him say it. It’s not as if he’s relaying a deep-seated fear that his father did it. It’s an off-hand remark. Both in how he says it and with the words he actually used.

Again, this reinforces my point. A rule-abiding son like Ennis doesn't casually accuse a respected father of a heinous crime. He has to really believe it.

when we see how Ennis spoke of his father throughout the ENTIRE film – with only ONE exception, 9 words ... Very good evidence about just what Ennis thought of his father. One off-hand remark made in 40 years balanced against everything Ennis said and viewed in the light of the scenario you just gave.

Let's go over again everything Ennis says of his father in the entire film. 1) He got in a car accident and died. 2) He left the kids $24 in a coffee can. 3) He was a fine roper. 4) He didn't do much rodeoin. 5) He thought rodeoers was f'ups. 6) He may have been right about that. 7) He made sure Ennis viewed the body of a man who'd been tortured to death for being gay. He might have done the job himself.

I don't see how any of 1 through 7 even contradicts 8. You can be a good roper and consider rodeoers f'ups and STILL be homophobic. Even violently so. If you're going to force your sons to view the body, it becomes even MORE likely that you are (notwithstanding your other far-fetched explanations for why he might have done that).

Just as OMT shows you can be a bad dad and an SOB and yet not be homophobic, OMDM shows you can be violently homophobic and even otherwise appear to be a nice, respectable dad -- as long as you don't suspect your son is gay. Which I'm not saying OMDM did.

Furthermore, Ennis said all of those first six things within a month after meeting Jack. What is he, a shy and taciturn man who doesn't speak as much in a year as he does in five minutes ... or a guest on Oprah? Of course he's not going to start spilling all his deepest fears and suspicions and insecurities over beers after leaving Aguirre's place. Or any other time, either. Remember, this is an extremely sensitive topic for Ennis, an extremely repressed man.

Besides, if Ennis believed that his dad was right about homosexuality, what would cause him to mention his father's attitudes in some negative way? He believes he's the one who's wrong, not his dad, so there's no reason to complain about it, even if he felt threatened by OMDM. And he's not very likely to want to launch into a conversation having anything to do with homosexuality -- especially to Jack, then very guy for whom he's trying to hide or repress a homosexual attraction!

And all of this is after the Earl incident.

Since when is before/after the Earl incident an issue? I'm only saying OMDM showed his homophobia at times OUTSIDE of the Earl incident.

Now hold on there a minute little cowgirl. You know as well as I that them thar words can only be used after the word “moron!”

You said it, not me ...

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.”

Argh! You left yourself wide open here. I ain’t gonna touch this with a ten-foot pole!

Huh? You might as well touch it, because I don't know what you're talking about. Did I phrase it unclearly? Neither Del Mar would be behaving according to my understanding of psychology if we're to believe that the Earl incident is an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia.

“I just don't believe this happens very often. ... ”

How about Ennis seeing what his father showed him and then hearing several times over years what I gave above as examples? What if the man who said that to Ennis said it to him just as Ennis was viewing his dead father’s body in its casket? Again, nothing to do with Ennis’ father himself.

Nor is it an isolated incident at that point, either. It's a gay son growing up with a man who he's repeatedly been told is a homophobic murderer.

“ an isolated traumatic incident that involves him only by implication, not directly ”

However, you describe Ennis as a gay boy who sees this. That goes much closer to “directly” than to “implication.”

Still not close enough. Directly means he was personally involved. Not just a member of the same group that was targeted.

Where did this character and personality and worldview come from? When was it fixed in stone? Aren’t character and personality and worldview changes often precipitated by one isolated, horrific event?

No.

They are.

Huh-uh.

Why is it not just as possible – from the story that we were told – that Ennis’ father was an otherwise respectable man who did not go around spewing homophobia all the time, but showed this one horrific lesson to Ennis because he had the ability to do it at that time, and then it gets further engrained and more deeply rooted into Ennis over years of hearing things and seeing things and becoming aware of all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with his father?

First of all, it's not "just as" possible. Your scenario is remotely possible at best; mine is out-and-out probable. Your scenario is actually a stretch to find an explanation for the same phenomena while skirting the more obvious explanation, which is mine. Besides, your scenario requires one to seek a further explanation: what prompted one or more other people to accuse an innocent man of murder? And even if we accept your scenario, we're still reaching outside the Earl incident for an explanation of Ennis' remark to Jack, which was what you were supposed to be arguing against doing.

You have stuck pretty darn close to the idea that for that incident to have as bad an effect on Ennis as it did, it had to have come through his father’s other homophobic behaviors or words. But why not the scenario I laid out for you? It has all of the other elements that you require of OMDM’s homophobia. It strengthens your argument about other influences and it strengthens your allusion to shorthand. Yet it has nothing to do with Ennis’ father.

OK. But even if we swallow your moroni - I mean, cockamamie scenario, it still relies on Ennis believing that OMDM is homophobic and murderous, in this case because of things he's been told. That's only inches away from my original explanation -- that he believed his father was homophobic and murderous because of behavior by his father that he witnessed firsthand. And it's a long way from your contention, that Ennis' behavior could be fully explained simply by his seeing Earl.

And, as far as inference goes, it does not present us with the apparent disconnect between Ennis’ nine words at the river and all of his other words spoken about his father.

Which I don't see as a disconnect, as noted above.

Round 9 ...

(ding!)

{EDIT -- After reading this again, I should clarify something -- when I say it has nothing to do with his father, what I mean is, it's not his father's own words or actions... it's what OTHERS say or do... and they could be dead wrong.)

Uh-huh. The old "townsfolk fooled into thinking their fellow citizen is a homophobic murderer when actually he's a perfectly nice man and it's some other guy who done the job" plot. I think I saw that one on "The Andy Griffith Show" once.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: Ironically, Jack is the only character shown 'peeing'...   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Tue Oct 31 2006 20:01:12 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –


It's becoming a full-time job! Or, a way of life?

“Next step is putting the kids up for adoption.”

Well even BBM doesn’t deserve that kind of treatment!   


What if all that you say is true… AND K.E. told Ennis that his father did it? OR Ennis heard some townsfolk say that his father did it. Only one guy made a passing comment such as “Oh, you’re Ennis Del Mar? I knew your daddy long ago. He was a good man. Got rid of some fag trash from our town.”

“That just extends our same argument to a larger stage. Why would K.E. or the townsfolk accuse Mr. Del Mar unjustly?”

Because KE wants to scare Ennis. Because KE believes it to be true. Because KE got a whoopin’ and wants to get back at dear old dad. Because the townsfolk think he’s a swell guy and they think what happened to Earl was swell and they connect the dots. Because they want Ennis to look up to his father. Because they heard OMDM took his boys to see dead Earl and they figure OMDM did it. Should I go on?


“Even if the idea came from the townsfolk or K.E., it would likely be based on something OMDM said or did.”

Possibly yes, possibly no.


“And if it was just one stray remark, why wouldn't Ennis, who respects his father, thinks he's right, and wants to believe he's a good man, reject this?”

Because maybe it wasn't just one stray mark. Maybe it was several over the course of a few years. The way Ennis delivered his line to Jack, this actually sounds pretty close. It isn’t an enormous fear of his father or an enormous fear of what his father would do that was instilled into Ennis.


“Or, if he didn't reject it altogether, why would he spill it to Jack on the basis of such flimsy evidence?”

Because Ennis is just talkin’ with his good friend. He’s not even a sophomore. He hasn’t learned the ins and outs of logical analysis – at least not as well as we have!   

The whole point behind my bringing this up was not to suggest an alternate view that we can debate. The point was to show that there are other reasonably possible scenarios to explain the instilled homophobia (through repetition) IF we choose to not believe that the Earl incident was sufficient to accomplish this purpose. You gave one reasonably possible possibility – his dad was homophobic a lot around Ennis. However, there is evidence from the film that this was not an instilling factor for Ennis to fear his father to the point of hatred or contempt. Ennis simply did not speak of his father in those terms. Nor did he speak of his father in terms of a horribly feared old man. What I have given as a reasonably possible possibility draws on what we know of brothers growing up together and townsfolk in rural Wyoming – the use of which knowledge you have approved. And, there is nothing in the film to contradict it. (Actually, there is one thing I can think of to contradict it, but then there is also one thing I can think of that would support it. Another dilemma.)


“Or, anticipating that your next argument…”

You anticipate me well.


“… will be that K.E. or the other guy accused Mr. Del Mar unfairly, due to mistaken identity or some such misunderstanding, even though they'd probably know Mr. Del Mar well enough to know whether or not he'd be either a) homophobic or b) violent -- but OK, sure, maybe such a mistake is remotely possible. You often see that kind of thing happening in sitcoms (except, you know, funny).”

One also sees it in real-life. How many times do the neighbors of the serial killer describe him as a nice, friendly neighbor? “I’m totally shocked he could have done such a thing!”


“But why would this convoluted scenario be easier for you to accept that the idea that Mr. Del Mar is homophobic, and that he might express that homophobia on more than one occasion?”

I didn’t say that. It isn’t about which scenario is better. It’s about whether we have definitive proof of OMDM displaying actions and words over the course of Ennis life such that the Earl death scene becomes shorthand. As I have said, this is possible. But it’s also possible that other things could have accomplished this. And we do have the apparent contradiction in how Ennis views his father. In fact, Ennis displays a much greater fear of the townsfolk than he does of his father. In fact, I could even say the same concerning his brother – but I’ll admit the one thing I could say would be a stretch because it’s vitiated by something else going on at the same time.


“OR what if Ennis saw his father butcher animals they had killed (pigs, chickens, elks) with no sign of compassion for the animal (remember, Ennis is Mr. Livestock). OR what if Ennis’ father had to put a horse or a dog down? No homophobia there, but a shocking example of how his father could kill something -- that Ennis loved -- without regard.”

“Sorry, too far fetched for me to imagine a ranch kid equating an animal butchering with a man's torture/murder.”

Ah, but I did say that it was an animal that Ennis loved and I did say that he did it with no sign of compassion for the animal. You forget some of the great classic boy+animal films of the ‘50s. A common theme… boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… cue the Disney theme.


“There's someone on BetterMost who's fond of quoting Occam's Razor, the idea that one should make no more assumptions than necessary to explain something.”

I agree. It’s not a bad principle to follow.


“To me, the homophobic dad theory does not violate Occam's Razor; rather, I find it the homophobic dad almost requried to explain both Ennis' and his father's behavior.”

I would agree that it does not violate. However, there is contradictory evidence – or, at the very least, we are presented with a new question about the relationship between father and son that must of necessity be answered. Occam’s Razor does not like it when an explanation opens a new can of worms.


“But old Occam would be shaking his head at this parade of dragged-in townsfolk and K.E. and wild accusations and mistaken identities and savagely butchered farm animals.”

Agreed. That is a step further removed. However, it has no apparent contradiction attached to it, it does not open a new can of worms, and it fits into the rural mentality that you have said is acceptable. But again, it’s not about which theory is better or worse. It’s about the effects of the theories.


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?

We don’t know that there was no other evidence of his killing abilities. Or of other people’s suspicions brought to Ennis’ attention. Or of his father’s “murderous homophobia.

“Exactly. That's what I'm sayin'. There must have been.”

Exactly. That’s what I'm saying… there could have been. But we do not know for sure. Thus, we speculate. And the question then becomes to where does our speculation lead us? To an obliteration of what was given to us? Old Occam would have words about this.

(BTW – I should probably point out at this point, in all fairness, that even though I said above that Occam’s Razor isn’t a bad principle to follow, it really does have its drawbacks and limitations. It was probably good logic back in the medieval days of yore, but we have added other tools of logical analysis since then.)


Also, did Ennis cling to it? It’s the last thing Ennis said on the subject. And it was made as a passing comment. Listen to him say it. It’s not as if he’s relaying a deep-seated fear that his father did it. It’s an off-hand remark. Both in how he says it and with the words he actually used.

“Again, this reinforces my point. A rule-abiding son like Ennis doesn't casually accuse a respected father of a heinous crime. He has to really believe it.”

The very first thing I could do here is to ask you to make a list of all of Ennis’ attributes (words and deeds) that show him to be a rule-follower. I would then give you a list that shows how Ennis is a rule-breaker.

But, once again, Ennis did not accuse (casually or otherwise) his father (respected or not) of any crime. Ennis expressed his wondering whether his father could have done the job. He does not have to believe it. In fact, he does not believe. Nor does he not believe it. He is open-minded about the possibility. No decision has been made.


when we see how Ennis spoke of his father throughout the ENTIRE film – with only ONE exception, 9 words ... Very good evidence about just what Ennis thought of his father. One off-hand remark made in 40 years balanced against everything Ennis said and viewed in the light of the scenario you just gave.

“Let's go over again everything Ennis says of his father in the entire film. 1) He got in a car accident and died. 2) He left the kids $24 in a coffee can. 3) He was a fine roper. 4) He didn't do much rodeoin. 5) He thought rodeoers was f'ups. 6) He may have been right about that. 7) He made sure Ennis viewed the body of a man who'd been tortured to death for being gay. He might have done the job himself.”

“I don't see how any of 1 through 7 even contradicts 8.”

You’re right. They do not contradict it. And they do not support it. Taken as the statements were delivered, they tend more toward contradicting #8 than supporting #8. And herein lies the apparent contradiction.

“You can be a good roper and consider rodeoers f'ups and STILL be homophobic. Even violently so.”

Absolutely. And yet, Ennis’ father’s actions on that fateful day did not instill such fear in Ennis of his father that Ennis was prevented from speaking in the terms that he did of his father on the other occasions. It all comes right down to that one comment on that one day. You yourself have pointed out this apparent contradiction in the past.


“Just as OMT shows you can be a bad dad and an SOB and yet not be homophobic, OMDM shows you can be violently homophobic and even otherwise appear to be a nice, respectable dad -- as long as you don't suspect your son is gay. Which I'm not saying OMDM did.”

You’re absolutely right.


“Furthermore, Ennis said all of those first six things within a month after meeting Jack. What is he, a shy and taciturn man who doesn't speak as much in a year as he does in five minutes ... or a guest on Oprah? Of course he's not going to start spilling all his deepest fears and suspicions and insecurities over beers after leaving Aguirre's place. Or any other time, either. Remember, this is an extremely sensitive topic for Ennis, an extremely repressed man.”

Exactly. And yet, look at how he does speak of his father. Additionally, was it not in this very conversation in which he spoke un-fearedly (now you shut up about my made-up words) about his father AND admitted to Jack that this is the most he had spoken in a year? The point of this scene is the turn-around in Ennis, the opening up of Ennis to another person – to advance the growing intimacy between the boys (excuse me, I mean our boys); thus, his words of openness carry even greater weight of his openness.


“Besides, if Ennis believed that his dad was right about homosexuality, what would cause him to mention his father's attitudes in some negative way?”

I don’t know that Ennis did feel his father was right about homosexuality.


“He believes he's the one who's wrong, not his dad, so there's no reason to complain about it, even if he felt threatened by OMDM.”

Same comment.


“And he's not very likely to want to launch into a conversation having anything to do with homosexuality -- especially to Jack, then very guy for whom he's trying to hide or repress a homosexual attraction!”

But this really has nothing to do with the fact that he did, in fact, open up to Jack with honest words of openness concerning himself and his father.


And all of this is after the Earl incident.

“Since when is before/after the Earl incident an issue? I'm only saying OMDM showed his homophobia at times OUTSIDE of the Earl incident.”

This comment of mine was meant to speak to the possibility that Ennis’ instilled homophobia could have come from outside sources (KE, the townspeople) after the Earl incident.


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.

Argh! You left yourself wide open here. I ain’t gonna touch this with a ten-foot pole!

“Huh? You might as well touch it, because I don't know what you're talking about. Did I phrase it unclearly? Neither Del Mar would be behaving according to my understanding of psychology if we're to believe that the Earl incident is an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia.”

Argh. You did it again. Well, since you asked… “my view” and “my understanding.” This has been the big bugaboo.


How about Ennis seeing what his father showed him and then hearing several times over years what I gave above as examples? What if the man who said that to Ennis said it to him just as Ennis was viewing his dead father’s body in its casket? Again, nothing to do with Ennis’ father himself.

“Nor is it an isolated incident at that point, either. It's a gay son growing up with a man who he's repeatedly been told is a homophobic murderer.”

Exactly. Another possible explanation for Ennis’ homophobia and paranoia and in keeping with Ennis’ earlier statements about his father. Look at it this way, which is more likely: A) Ennis grows up with a horribly homophobic man who vents his hatred at every turn AND Ennis speaks well of his father… or B) Ennis respected his father AND heard bad things about him BUT Ennis continued to support his respect for his father even though the other things he heard have not been dismissed by his paranoid brain? “A” has an apparent contradiction that needs to be explained. “B” does not.


an isolated traumatic incident that involves him only by implication, not directly

However, you describe Ennis as a gay boy who sees this. That goes much closer to “directly” than to “implication.”

“Still not close enough. Directly means he was personally involved. Not just a member of the same group that was targeted.”

You’re right. He wasn't just a member of the targeted group. HE WAS THERE AT EARL’S DEATH SCENE. He was taken there. How much closer to direct can we get? If “by implication” is “1” and “direct” is “10,” I’d say we’re at about 9.5.


Why is it not just as possible – from the story that we were told – that Ennis’ father was an otherwise respectable man who did not go around spewing homophobia all the time, but showed this one horrific lesson to Ennis because he had the ability to do it at that time, and then it gets further engrained and more deeply rooted into Ennis over years of hearing things and seeing things and becoming aware of all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with his father?

“First of all, it's not "just as" possible. Your scenario is remotely possible at best; mine is out-and-out probable.”

And yet yours includes an apparent contradiction in what we see.


I have not said that your theory is improbable. I have said that I don’t like it to take center stage. I never said my scenario should be believed by anyone. I offered it to show that there are other possible scenarios besides the one that you created. The problem lies here… The author/filmmaker gave us one horrific incident to show us the homophobia that was instilled in Ennis. If they believed that we needed more, then they would have given it. I’m specifically talking about THIS author and THIS filmmaker. If THEY believed that it was not sufficient for us to understand the instilled homophobia, then THEY would have given us more. We can all muse about all kinds of other things that could have been. I do this myself. But the one thing I do not do is to rely on those musings for argument. I have seen too many posts that make a very broad statement about this influence or that influence (which is fine for musing sake) but then they go on to use those musings to support a premise about a character that is otherwise unsubstantiated or contradicts what we are told. In our present discussion, you began with the argument that “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” This directly contradicts what the author/filmmaker told us. If someone asks “Why was Ennis so fearful about people finding out about his sexuality?” then the correct answer is “because of the Earl death scene.” It is what we were told and what we saw. Any other answer is speculation. And when the speculation directly contradicts or minimizes or even obliterates what we were told or shown (“in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”), then it is not valid to use.


Round 10… (Really?)

[TOoP/Bruce]

It's not all about Earl.   
  by latjoreme     (Tue Oct 31 2006 23:00:56 )   
   
UPDATED Tue Oct 31 2006 23:01:37
The way Ennis delivered his line to Jack, this actually sounds pretty close. It isn’t an enormous fear of his father or an enormous fear of what his father would do that was instilled into Ennis.

The thing is ... sigh. This brings up a whole nother discussion of human psychology.

The kind of fear I'm talking about is not something that's close to the surface and readily available to confess to a friend -- even a really good friend. Not the friend he met a couple of weeks ago on Brokeback. Not the friend to whom, having just reunited after four years, he can't even offer a decently affectionate reply the redlining confession. Ennis' fear is, by its very nature, something he has always felt must be hidden.

One also sees it in real-life. How many times do the neighbors of the serial killer describe him as a nice, friendly neighbor? “I’m totally shocked he could have done such a thing!”

But that's exactly the opposite scenario -- falsely believing a guilty man couldn't have done it. You've conjured neighbors who falsely believe an innocent man did do it. People like to believe well of neighbors; they don't point the finger readily (especially to the person's own son). Is an innocent man ever suspected of a terrible murder? Of course. But not usually without any reason or evidence or some other basis for suspicion. Can you envision some far-flung circumstances under which the neighbors would all come to wrongly suspect Mr. Del Mar, to prove there will always be some circuitous way around Mr. Del Mar expressing homophobia? Sure ... undoubtedly ... but ... *sigh*

[/i]A common theme… boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… cue the Disney theme.[/i]

I think you're remembering slightly wrong. It's: "boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… boy accuses father of potential homophobic murder ... cue the Disney theme.

we do not know for sure. Thus, we speculate. And the question then becomes to where does our speculation lead us? To an obliteration of what was given to us?

No, no, no. Again, nothing I have said obliterates what was given to us.

“Let's go over again everything Ennis says of his father in the entire film. 1) He got in a car accident and died. 2) He left the kids $24 in a coffee can. 3) He was a fine roper. 4) He didn't do much rodeoin. 5) He thought rodeoers was f'ups. 6) He may have been right about that. 7) He made sure Ennis viewed the body of a man who'd been tortured to death for being gay. He might have done the job himself.”

“I don't see how any of 1 through 7 even contradicts 8.”

You’re right. They do not contradict it. And they do not support it. Taken as the statements were delivered, they tend more toward contradicting #8 than supporting #8. And herein lies the apparent contradiction.

No. The are absolutely neutral toward it. You can get in a car accident and also kill a man. You can leave $24 in a coffee can and also kill a man. You can be a fine roper and also kill a man. You can not do much rodeoin and also kill a man. You can think rodeoers are f'ups and also kill a man (possibly for rodeoin!). You can be right about rodeoers being f'ups and also kill a man.

And yet, Ennis’ father’s actions on that fateful day did not instill such fear in Ennis of his father that Ennis was prevented from speaking in the terms that he did of his father on the other occasions.

Again, Ennis said nothing about his father that would contradict him also being fearful.

It all comes right down to that one comment on that one day. You yourself have pointed out this apparent contradiction in the past.

Yes! There is a contradiction! But it is in the viewer's mind, not Ennis'. The viewer is set up to think of Mr. Del Mar as a good guy because 1) he's dead (sad!) and 2) Ennis speaks reasonably well of him. So we wrongly make that connection.

By the same token, the viewer is set up to think of Mr. Twist as a homophobe, because Jack speaks ill of him. He never says anything about his dad's views of his sexuality, but we put 2 and 2 together -- again, it turns out, wrongly.

Ennis says nothing about his dad that he might not just as easily say about a scary homophobic murderer. For that matter, the possibility that his dad was scary or homophobic does not preclude Ennis' deeply respecting him. In fact, it makes a much better 2 + 2. Ennis respects his dad, his dad hated homosexuality, therefore Ennis learns to hate homosexuality. His fear does not alter the equation. If the respect weren't there, the homophobia might be shakier.

The point of this scene is the turn-around in Ennis, the opening up of Ennis to another person – to advance the growing intimacy between the boys (excuse me, I mean our boys); thus, his words of openness carry even greater weight of his openness.

Yet how open are they, really? $24 in a coffee can. Fine roper. Rodeoers f'ups. He was right. Not exactly gushing admiration -- we just hear it that way. It's mildly respectful. Again, there's no reason he can't be a respected dad and also a scary dad. Many, many dads fit that profile.

And again, even more important, I don't care how many words Ennis has spoke, there is just no way in hell that at this point in their relationship Ennis would confess to Jack his fears of his dad's homophobic violence.

OK, there's a challenge for you. Come up with a plausible scenario in which Ennis would confess his fears of a homophobically violent dad to Jack a month after meeting him. Would he not mind sounding scared? Dissing his father? Admitting feelings he's been hiding all his life? Implying his own gayness? Bringing the topic uncomfortably out in the open with the man for whom he's been secretly lusting? If you can find a way around all that, you can attempt to explain how his failing to do so shows that he actually didn't feel that fear.

I don’t know that Ennis did feel his father was right about homosexuality.

Well, Ennis did apparently feel that homophobes are right about homosexuality. So if his father was a homophobe, there's yet another reason not to complain about the old man. What's to complain? Ennis is the one in the wrong, he believes, for being gay -- not those who disapprove of it.

But this really has nothing to do with the fact that he did, in fact, open up to Jack with honest words of openness concerning himself and his father.

What honest words of openness? He was a fine roper and thought rodeoers were f'ups? Hardly words he had to pull from the depths of his soul.

Neither Del Mar would be behaving according to my understanding of psychology if we're to believe that the Earl incident is an isolated example of OMDM's homophobia.”

Argh. You did it again. Well, since you asked… “my view” and “my understanding.” This has been the big bugaboo.

OK. I will stop using those phrases and just call it human psychology.

He wasn't just a member of the targeted group. HE WAS THERE AT EARL’S DEATH SCENE. He was taken there. How much closer to direct can we get? If “by implication” is “1” and “direct” is “10,” I’d say we’re at about 9.5.

Direct would be: he was personally involved in the violence. Most likely as a victim. Anything less than that and I'd have a hard time believing it would -- sorry, I mean, it would not shape his entire personality that way.

You know, research indicates that 18 years of experience growing up in a family hardly does much to shape a personality. Identical twins reared apart (according to a big study at the University of Minnesota) wind up just as much alike in personality as identical twins reared together (roughly 50 percent alike, in both cases). Adopted kids and their siblings (according to a big study at the University of Colorado-Boulder) share no more personality similarities than two random strangers plucked from the street. Research can be flawed, of course, but these projects are pretty well respected, their findings supported. They're not total bullsh!t.

Given that, I have a hard time believing that any one isolated incident could have much effect in shaping a personality, under any circumstances. But if it is going to do it, it had better be extremely traumatic and the person had better be intensely involved.

The author/filmmaker gave us one horrific incident to show us the homophobia that was instilled in Ennis. If they believed that we needed more, then they would have given it. ... If THEY believed that it was not sufficient for us to understand the instilled homophobia, then THEY would have given us more.

I agree with everything here. They gave us one horrific incident. They know we do not need more. If they thought we did, they'd have given it. But we don't!

“But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” This directly contradicts what the author/filmmaker told us.

No it doesn't. Direct contradiction would be somebody saying, in effect, "this is the only thing that made Ennis the way he is." Nobody -- not Ennis nor anyone else -- ever says that. They just say, "this is one thing that made Ennis the way he is."

If someone asks “Why was Ennis so fearful about people finding out about his sexuality?” then the correct answer is “because of the Earl death scene.”

I agree with everything here, except that I would say "a correct answer."

And when the speculation directly contradicts or minimizes or even obliterates what we were told or shown (“in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”), then it is not valid to use.

It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl. But Earl was there, so we do know that, in fact, the way Ennis' life played out, Earl is one reason. No contradiction, minimization or obliteration needed.

Round 10… (Really?)

*Sigh.* Didn't we agree to disagree about five rounds ago?

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by darkoKnight33     (Wed Nov 1 2006 10:23:49 )   
   
Hey, Great discussion, but your posts are getting more and more self-indulgent. You two can't possibly deny that many sentences of your respective responses could be omitted w/o any impact on the interest of this argument(discussion if you prefer). Please do not be offended, I really have enjoyed reading this discoarse, honestly. But please make your post practical for the reader to read.


Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Wed Nov 1 2006 14:33:46 )   

darkoKnight33 –

“Hey, Great discussion, but your posts are getting more and more self-indulgent. You two can't possibly deny that many sentences of your respective responses could be omitted w/o any impact on the interest of this argument(discussion if you prefer). Please do not be offended, I really have enjoyed reading this discoarse, honestly. But please make your post practical for the reader to read.”

You make some very good points. latjoreme and I “is good friends” and we often get into this kind of debate. Because our arguments are usually long, drawn-out, and all over the map, we usually quote significant portions so that we can each keep up. I will do my best to keep the quoting to a minimum, but I have to say, you might not notice much difference in the overall length. I will try, though.

Anyway, since you said you enjoy following the discussion, pull up a seat… Round 10 is about to begin…

Ding!


Hi latjoreme –


“*Sigh.* Didn't we agree to disagree about five rounds ago?”

When have you ever known me to “agree to disagree?”   


“Ennis' fear is, by its very nature, something he has always felt must be hidden.”

I can go with this.


One also sees it in real-life. How many times do the neighbors of the serial killer describe him as a nice, friendly neighbor? “I’m totally shocked he could have done such a thing!”

“But that's exactly the opposite scenario -- falsely believing a guilty man couldn't have done it.”

No, that’s not the point I was trying to make here. The point I was trying to make is that neighbors (or townsfolk) may believe something that is not true.


“You've conjured neighbors who falsely believe an innocent man did do it.”

No, I’ve stated that it is possible that there may have been townsfolk who believed that OMDM did the deed. All they would need is one bit of information: “I took my son to see that dead fag.” This is not unreasonable. He goes to a bar with all the other ranchers and makes this one statement. They, in their homophobia, believe OMDM to be one of them and are proud to believe he did the deed. Whether they are correct or not is not an issue. It’s that someone else may have told Ennis something that could have been a factor in the exacerbation of the instilled homophobia. Tell you what… why don’t YOU come up with any number of scenarios that YOU feel are reasonable that show Ennis having his homophobia exacerbated by forces OTHER THAN his father. I couldn’t care less if I find them to be unreasonable. If they work for you, I’ll go with them.


“People like to believe well of neighbors; they don't point the finger readily (especially to the person's own son).”

Huh? You mentioned your familiarity with “The Andy Griffith Show.” How many times did Aunt Bea and Clara misinterpret an act or a word of another townsperson to their later chagrin? And they did it all so comically.


“Is an innocent man ever suspected of a terrible murder? Of course. But not usually without any reason or evidence or some other basis for suspicion.”

And I’ve given this to you. Their own homophobia and their desire to be proud of OMDM. All they had to know is one little thing… he took his sons to see the dead fag. You’re speaking of wonderful gay-pride-supporting people. I'm talking about stereotypic rural Wyomingites from the 1950s. They did not view Earl’s death as a terrible murder of an innocent man. They viewed it as just compensation for the sins of his lifestyle. Was OMDM the only homophobe in town?


“Can you envision some far-flung circumstances under which the neighbors would all come to wrongly suspect Mr. Del Mar, to prove there will always be some circuitous way around Mr. Del Mar expressing homophobia? Sure ... undoubtedly ... but ... *sigh*”

No. You’re missing the point. First, it is not far-flung to envision a rural Wyomingite of the 1950s to be happy about what happened to Earl and to be proud to give OMDM the credit for doing the deed. Second, it’s not “all the neighbors.” It only has to be one or two, plus maybe KE… In others words, it has to be some other reinforcing events. Third, the point is not to find some “circuitous way around Mr. Del Mar expressing homophobia.” The point is this: If you are going to say that Ennis would have ended up the way he ended up even without Earl having been killed, then you had better have some pretty strong evidence from the film to support this. That’s why the Earl death scene is in the film. To show us how Ennis ended up as he ended up. If you’re going to dismiss that, then the film had better give us some explanation. But it doesn’t. The explanation you have given IS plausible. But, it’s based wholly on the Earl death scene—the scene that you could delete. This is why the discussion about the apparent contradiction between Ennis’ statements about his father is so important. If we delete the Earl death scene, point to one other statement about Mr. Del Mar that shows he’s homophobic. Just one. There are none. In order for you to make your argument you absolutely need to have the Earl death scene. So, now if you accept that the Earl death scene must be in the film, you call it shorthand for what we’re really supposed to know about the nature of Ennis’ homophobia. So to examine his homophobia – which you feel compelled to do because you have stated that you cannot accept the Earl death scene as being sufficient for this purpose-- you then fill in something that you feel could have produced the Ennis we see: speculation about his relationship with his father. And this is not based on anything we see in the film (except for the Earl death scene, which you said could have been done without). It is based on your understanding of culture, psychology, etc. And that’s entirely OK.

All I did was show that there could have been other factors apart from OMDM and mine were based on my understanding of culture, psychology, etc.

You know that I do not have a problem with you speculating. You know this because I do this myself all the time. My problem is with using that speculation to make a statement like this:

“But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”

If Earl had never been killed, show me, from the film, how Ennis could have ended up as he did. There is no evidence of OMDM’s homophobia other than the Earl death scene. None. Nada. Zip. The null set.


“I think you're remembering slightly wrong. It's: "boy loves an animal, father has to kill it, boy is adversely affected against his father, reconciliation is necessary, reconciliation occurs… boy accuses father of potential homophobic murder ... cue the Disney theme.”

LOL! That’s a good one. I haven’t laughed so hard since the pursy comment. OK. You get five bonus points just for that one! And can’t you just see (what’s her name?) TwinkerBell (?) flying across the screen with her magic wand and sprinkling the fairy dust? LOL!


Back to being serious…


“No, no, no. Again, nothing I have said obliterates what was given to us.”

I’m talking about deleting the Earl death scene.


(re: Ennis’ comments about his father)

(If anyone’s keeping count, I just deleted four paragraphs of quoting. See. I can learn.   )

“No. The are absolutely neutral toward it. You can get in a car accident and also kill a man. You can leave $24 in a coffee can and also kill a man. You can be a fine roper and also kill a man. You can not do much rodeoin and also kill a man. You can think rodeoers are f'ups and also kill a man (possibly for rodeoin!). You can be right about rodeoers being f'ups and also kill a man.”

Exactly. Yes one can. However, is there any reason at all to believe OMDM did any of this without the Earl death scene? We wouldn’t even be asking the question. The focus of the discussion on Ennis’ statements about his father is NOT to show that OMDM was a nice guy who couldn’t have killed Earl. The focus is on the fact that none of these statements gives us any evidence at all of OMDM's homophobia. That comes entirely from the Earl death scene.


“Again, Ennis said nothing about his father that would contradict him also being fearful.”

He made no direct statement to this effect. But Ennis also never made any direct statement that he is homophobic. His statements were all indirect. The statements made by Ennis about his father (on the mountain) all tend more toward respect and likeability than toward fear.


It all comes right down to that one comment on that one day. You yourself have pointed out this apparent contradiction in the past.

“Yes! There is a contradiction! But it is in the viewer's mind, not Ennis'. The viewer is set up to think of Mr. Del Mar as a good guy because 1) he's dead (sad!) and 2) Ennis speaks reasonably well of him. So we wrongly make that connection.”

Agreed.


“By the same token, the viewer is set up to think of Mr. Twist as a homophobe, because Jack speaks ill of him. He never says anything about his dad's views of his sexuality, but we put 2 and 2 together -- again, it turns out, wrongly.”

Agreed.


“Ennis says nothing about his dad that he might not just as easily say about a scary homophobic murderer. For that matter, the possibility that his dad was scary or homophobic does not preclude Ennis' deeply respecting him. In fact, it makes a much better 2 + 2. Ennis respects his dad, his dad hated homosexuality, therefore Ennis learns to hate homosexuality. His fear does not alter the equation. If the respect weren't there, the homophobia might be shakier.”

I agree that this is one valid way of looking at it. But: “There is a contradiction! But it is in the viewer's mind, not Ennis'.” So what is the contradiction in Ennis’ mind? It has to be different from the apparent contradiction that we the viewers see—because you told us we were wrong. And I agreed. If Ennis can just as easily say good and respectful things about other homophobic murders, then what does this tell us about Ennis’ psyche on the matter? What does this tell us that Ennis, by logical deduction, must feel about his father?


The point of this scene is the turn-around in Ennis…

“Again, there's no reason he can't be a respected dad and also a scary dad. Many, many dads fit that profile.”

Agreed. But that’s not the point. The point is none of what was said leads us to believe that his father was homophobic. That comes ONLY from the Earl death scene – and that’s why it’s crucial.


“And again, even more important, I don't care how many words Ennis has spoke, there is just no way in hell that at this point in their relationship Ennis would confess to Jack his fears of his dad's homophobic violence.”

Agreed. And it could also be because Ennis didn’t view his father that way. Jack told Ennis how there was nothing he could do to please his old man. (BTW—as an old man myself, I take umbrage at Jack’s choice of words.  ) The contrast is, Ennis does not echo this sentiment during the yee-haw scene.


“OK, there's a challenge for you.”

Oh, I LOVE these!   


“Come up with a plausible scenario in which Ennis would confess his fears of a homophobically violent dad to Jack a month after meeting him.”

Oh, now I'm disappointed. There is no need to. We don’t need it here because we have it at the Earl death scene—which I maintain is crucial. And it’s crucial BECAUSE we don’t have it here. I don’t want it to be here because then we wouldn’t need the Earl death scene and then your argument about the non-necessity of the Earl death scene would not only be strengthened, it would probably be indisputable. When it comes right down to it, in order to support your own argument, you are the one who needs to have Ennis confess his fears about a homophobic and violent dad at this point.


“Would he not mind sounding scared? Dissing his father? Admitting feelings he's been hiding all his life? Implying his own gayness? Bringing the topic uncomfortably out in the open with the man for whom he's been secretly lusting?”

Yes. Exactly. Thus, the necessity of the Earl death scene.


I don’t know that Ennis did feel his father was right about homosexuality.

“Well, Ennis did apparently feel that homophobes are right about homosexuality. So if his father was a homophobe, there's yet another reason not to complain about the old man. What's to complain? Ennis is the one in the wrong, he believes, for being gay -- not those who disapprove of it.”

Yes, I agree with this. I was talking more about exactly what his father felt about homosexuality—that it deserves death. I don’t know that Ennis would agree with this. He certainly fears it, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with it.

However, now that I think about it… Let’s say that Ennis does believe that homosexuality does deserve death. Ennis distanced himself from being a homosexual by saying that he isn’t queer -- so he distanced himself from a death sentence. And he accepted the fact that Jack agreed with him – so he distanced Jack from a death sentence. Then, at the final lake scene, when Ennis is confronted with the notion that the “not queer” pact has been broken, suddenly his comment to Jack about killing Jack for “all them things that I don’t know” (i.e., Mexico; i.e., Jack is queer) becomes much more about their homosexuality than about jealousy—as some think it is. Can you think of anyone who has ever argued that that scene is about jealousy rather than fear? Let me think…


(re: Ennis’ little, open heart)

“What honest words of openness? He was a fine roper and thought rodeoers were f'ups? Hardly words he had to pull from the depths of his soul.”

LOL! I agree that for us that wouldn’t be the case… but for poor little Ennis, with his poor, little broken heart… with all the loneliness and abandonment and rejection… To be honest, I get the feeling that every word of “openness” that Ennis shared with Jack came from the deepest part of his soul that Ennis had ever tried to reach. They may have been light years from the depth of his soul, but they were as deep as the poor little guy could reach.


He wasn't just a member of the targeted group. HE WAS THERE AT EARL’S DEATH SCENE. He was taken there. How much closer to direct can we get? If “by implication” is “1” and “direct” is “10,” I’d say we’re at about 9.5.

“Direct would be: he was personally involved in the violence. Most likely as a victim. Anything less than that and I'd have a hard time believing it would -- sorry, I mean, it would not shape his entire personality that way.”

But you don’t disagree that it’s a 9.5 on the Del Mar Standardized Basis-of-Fear Index… do you?


“You know, research indicates that 18 years of experience growing up in a family hardly does much to shape a personality. Identical twins reared apart (according to a big study at the University of Minnesota) wind up just as much alike in personality as identical twins reared together (roughly 50 percent alike, in both cases). Adopted kids and their siblings (according to a big study at the University of Colorado-Boulder) share no more personality similarities than two random strangers plucked from the street. Research can be flawed, of course, but these projects are pretty well respected, their findings supported. They're not total bullsh!t.”

Agreed. And yet we have Ennis as we have Ennis and just because he doesn’t fit the “normal” mode doesn’t mean he has to be rewritten.


“Given that, I have a hard time believing that any one isolated incident could have much effect in shaping a personality, under any circumstances. But if it is going to do it, it had better be extremely traumatic and the person had better be intensely involved.”

Again, for the vast majority of the population… no problem. But there are people for whom this is true. And they don’t necessarily exhibit any other indicia of psychosis.


The author/filmmaker gave us one horrific incident to show us the homophobia that was instilled in Ennis. If they believed that we needed more, then they would have given it. ... If THEY believed that it was not sufficient for us to understand the instilled homophobia, then THEY would have given us more.

“I agree with everything here. They gave us one horrific incident. They know we do not need more. If they thought we did, they'd have given it. But we don't!”

Yeah!       And some people say you and I never see eye-to-eye on anything. Geez…


“But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” This directly contradicts what the author/filmmaker told us.

“No it doesn't. Direct contradiction would be somebody saying, in effect, "this is the only thing that made Ennis the way he is." Nobody -- not Ennis nor anyone else -- ever says that. They just say, "this is one thing that made Ennis the way he is."”

OK. Take out the fact that Earl was killed (“it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”). This means you have to take out OMDM showing the corpse to Ennis – if Earl was never killed, no corpse – and you have to take out the comment about OMDM possibly having done the deed – no deed, no doer – and now give me one other thing that they gave us to explain Ennis’ homophobia. You’re right. I shouldn’t have said it directly contradicts… it obliterates.


If someone asks “Why was Ennis so fearful about people finding out about his sexuality?” then the correct answer is “because of the Earl death scene.”

“I agree with everything here, except that I would say "a correct answer."”

Take out the Earl death scene and give me another correct answer. Are you starting to see that without the Earl death scene, we would not ever in a million years think that Ennis’ father had anything whosoever to do with Ennis’ homophobia? “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” So where are you going to look for possible causes of Ennis’ homophobia? Suddenly, the townspeople and KE sound like pretty darn good candidates. After all, are you going to pin it on people about whom we know nothing or on a man about whom we know his son speaks respectfully? If we have to speculate, we’re not going to contradict what is given in the film, we’re going to have to search the rest of the film. And all we get then is Ennis’ glances to see if anyone is watching the reunion kiss, the white truck, and Ennis’ expressed paranoia about all those people out on the pavement. And who are all of those people in each of these examples? His dad? Nope. The townsfolk. Those Mayberry-wanna-bes.


“It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl.”

How?




Round 11…

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by latjoreme     (Wed Nov 1 2006 23:44:56 )   
   
OK, wait a minute. Wait just a goldarn minute. We need to clear something up.

There are two different ideas being flung back and forth here. One is, would Ennis be like he is, even if Earl had never been killed? The other is, would the movie/story be like they are, even if we viewers/readers had never heard about Earl getting killed -- in other words, would we understand Ennis' character the same way if that scene were deleted?

I believe you are conflating the two. I am not. They are two totally different things. My answer to the first has always been, "entirely possible." My answer to the second is, "no way, not unless they substituted something else."

I think that difference may explain a lot of our argument here. So, in deference to darkoKnight33, I'm going to skip over my counter-arguments regarding the finger-pointing neighbors and cut right to the chase.

The point is this: If you are going to say that Ennis would have ended up the way he ended up even without Earl having been killed, then you had better have some pretty strong evidence from the film to support this.

Well, that's what I've been doing in the past 247 posts.

That’s why the Earl death scene is in the film. To show us how Ennis ended up as he ended up.

I absolutely agree. The Earl death scene is in the film because it is our entrée into Ennis' childhood and his father's homophobia. I never said the Earl death scene isn't necessary in the film. It is. Or at least, it could not be omitted without substituting some other scene that serves the same function (and which would likely be inferior, because the Earl death scene is perfect: powerful and concise and horrifying and all those other things I have been giving it credit for, all along).

If we delete the Earl death scene, point to one other statement about Mr. Del Mar that shows he’s homophobic. Just one. There are none.

Of course not! That's why the Earl death scene is there.

So, now if you accept that the Earl death scene must be in the film, you call it shorthand for what we’re really supposed to know about the nature of Ennis’ homophobia. So to examine his homophobia – which you feel compelled to do because you have stated that you cannot accept the Earl death scene as being sufficient for this purpose-- you then fill in something that you feel could have produced the Ennis we see: speculation about his relationship with his father. And this is not based on anything we see in the film (except for the Earl death scene, which you said could have been done without).

I'm with you up until the parenthetical part. I did not say the Earl death scene "could have been done without" -- in the film/story!

My problem is with using that speculation to make a statement like this:

“But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”

If Earl had never been killed, show me, from the film, how Ennis could have ended up as he did. There is no evidence of OMDM’s homophobia other than the Earl death scene. None. Nada. Zip. The null set.

You are absolutely, unquestionably, totally, unequivocally right. There is nothing else in the film that would explain how Ennis ended up as he did.

“No, no, no. Again, nothing I have said obliterates what was given to us.”

I’m talking about deleting the Earl death scene.

Which I am not advocating doing.

(possibility that OMDM killed Earl but also was a fine roper, etc.)

is there any reason at all to believe OMDM did any of this without the Earl death scene? We wouldn’t even be asking the question. The focus of the discussion on Ennis’ statements about his father is NOT to show that OMDM was a nice guy who couldn’t have killed Earl. The focus is on the fact that none of these statements gives us any evidence at all of OMDM's homophobia. That comes entirely from the Earl death scene.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

The point is none of what was said leads us to believe that his father was homophobic. That comes ONLY from the Earl death scene – and that’s why it’s crucial.

Absolutely!

(why Ennis doesn't confess his fears of his dad to Jack on the mountain)

I don’t want it to be here because then we wouldn’t need the Earl death scene and then your argument about the non-necessity of the Earl death scene would not only be strengthened, it would probably be indisputable. When it comes right down to it, in order to support your own argument, you are the one who needs to have Ennis confess his fears about a homophobic and violent dad at this point.

Yes. But I don't need that. Because the Earl death scene does this very well!

Let’s say that Ennis does believe that homosexuality does deserve death. ... Then, at the final lake scene, when Ennis is confronted with the notion that the “not queer” pact has been broken ... Can you think of anyone who has ever argued that that scene is about jealousy rather than fear? Let me think…

I can't imagine. Because everyone I know believes it's a mix of jealousy, homophobia, fear of losing Jack, and a little of Ennis' typical deflecting-the-blame strategy thrown in for good measure.

But I don't think one needs to believe that Ennis thinks homosexuality deserves death -- and I, for one, don't -- in order to think homophobia is a factor in his Mexico remark. My opinion? He got carried away because of the aforementioned homophobia, jealousy, fear and blame-deflecting.

Agreed. And yet we have Ennis as we have Ennis and just because he doesn’t fit the “normal” mode doesn’t mean he has to be rewritten.

What?! I'm not advocating rewriting Ennis. You're right, he doesn't fit the twins/adoptee studies model perfectly. But that could easily be explained by 1) he had an abnormal childhood (those research results aren't necessarily reliable in cases of extreme trauma) and 2) he's fictional.

Now, don't you go telling me I've just disproved my own argument. On the contrary. Abnormal childhood -- yes, Ennis was constantly afraid of his homophobic dad. That's extreme trauma. Fictional -- I think we can cut AP some slack for not being up on the latest findings of the University of Colorado-Boulder adoptee project. (And BTW, nothing is more stultifying in fiction, IMO, than characters whose behavior is based on psychological or sociological research.)

(why Ennis is like that)

Take out the fact that Earl was killed (“it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”). This means you have to take out OMDM showing the corpse to Ennis – if Earl was never killed, no corpse – and you have to take out the comment about OMDM possibly having done the deed – no deed, no doer – and now give me one other thing that they gave us to explain Ennis’ homophobia. You’re right. I shouldn’t have said it directly contradicts… it obliterates.

But I am not advocating that. The whole purpose of the Earl scene is to signify everything I've said. Without the Earl scene, there would be no basis for my idea about Ennis' dad and his childhood, no way to explain Ennis' homophobia and repression (as if his growing up in rural Wyoming in those years isn't explanation enough ... but still. No dramatic explanation, anyway).

Take out the Earl death scene and give me another correct answer. Are you starting to see that without the Earl death scene, we would not ever in a million years think that Ennis’ father had anything whosoever to do with Ennis’ homophobia?

"Starting to see"?? That's my whole point. That's how we know Ennis' father DID have something to do with Ennis' homophobia.

“It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl.”

How?

Because growing up with a homophobic, potentially violent dad would be enough in itself to warp a gay kid. Would we, the viewers/readers, know that Ennis' dad was homophobic and potentially violent without the Earl scene? No -- not unless the filmmakers/writer substituted some other scene. But why would they? The Earl scene is perfect, for all the reasons I've stated.

Could Ennis have had a homophobic and potentially violent dad -- most important, could he have known his dad was homophobic and potentially violent -- without having seen Earl's body? Sure. Any number of ways that I'm sure you can imagine just as well as I can, if not better.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Thu Nov 2 2006 01:43:26 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –

“OK, wait a minute. Wait just a goldarn minute. We need to clear something up.”

Now, now, latjoreme… you know the proper terminology… It’s: “Wait jus’a garsh-durn minute there cowboy!”


“There are two different ideas being flung back and forth here. One is, would Ennis be like he is, even if Earl had never been killed? The other is, would the movie/story be like they are, even if we viewers/readers had never heard about Earl getting killed -- in other words, would we understand Ennis' character the same way if that scene were deleted?”

I see the distinctions you’re making and they are valid. The answer to each is: “Who knows?” I wanted to say that the answer to each is “No.” BECAUSE we are not given any other information that would help us to understand why Ennis is the way he is. However, based on how you worded each question, the answers are “Who knows.” Ennis would still be seen as he is in each scenario but we would be even more confused as to why and as to how he came to be that way because we are not given any other information that would help us to understand why Ennis is the way he is.

But I am glad you made this distinction.


“I believe you are conflating the two. I am not. They are two totally different things. My answer to the first has always been, "entirely possible." My answer to the second is, "no way, not unless they substituted something else."”

Well, no, I'm not conflating the two. I have always gone from your premise: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”

But, the distinction you made is there and I agree with it. However, I must humbly admit that I believe my answer above better answers the two because in a sense we are saying the same thing. I was just a bit more concise (and a lot more loquacious).


“I think that difference may explain a lot of our argument here. So, in deference to darkoKnight33, I'm going to skip over my counter-arguments regarding the finger-pointing neighbors and cut right to the chase.”

Great! And, I agree. This occurred to me a few posts back and I was just sort of stringing it out, bit by bit. SORRY! But, you know me. (And I know you.  ) The discussion has been so stimulating that when I looked at coming right out with it, all I could say was “I Will Never Let You Go.” OK. Bitch-slap me. Got a wet noodle? I’ll say 10 “Jack, I swear”s for my penance…


The point is this: If you are going to say that Ennis would have ended up the way he ended up even without Earl having been killed, then you had better have some pretty strong evidence from the film to support this.

“Well, that's what I've been doing in the past 247 posts.”

I’m sorry, I missed this part. What evidence from the film?


That’s why the Earl death scene is in the film. To show us how Ennis ended up as he ended up.

“I absolutely agree. The Earl death scene is in the film because it is our entrée into Ennis' childhood and his father's homophobia. I never said the Earl death scene isn't necessary in the film. It is. Or at least, it could not be omitted without substituting some other scene that serves the same function (and which would likely be inferior, because the Earl death scene is perfect: powerful and concise and horrifying and all those other things I have been giving it credit for, all along).”

But you did say: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” Does not this mean that the Earl death scene could be excised from the film? If Earl had not died, we would not have the Earl death scene or the comments from Ennis about his father that he made during the river reunion scene.


If we delete the Earl death scene, point to one other statement about Mr. Del Mar that shows he’s homophobic. Just one. There are none.

“Of course not! That's why the Earl death scene is there.”

Then why did you say: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed”? Where’s that wet noodle?


So, now if you accept that the Earl death scene must be in the film, you call it shorthand for what we’re really supposed to know about the nature of Ennis’ homophobia. So to examine his homophobia – which you feel compelled to do because you have stated that you cannot accept the Earl death scene as being sufficient for this purpose-- you then fill in something that you feel could have produced the Ennis we see: speculation about his relationship with his father. And this is not based on anything we see in the film (except for the Earl death scene, which you said could have been done without).

“I'm with you up until the parenthetical part. I did not say the Earl death scene "could have been done without" -- in the film/story!”

How can you keep the Earl death scene in the film and yet: “…if Earl had never been killed.”

That’s why we call it the Earl death scene… because Earl was killed.


Anyway, I think in deference to darkoKnight33 I should excise some of the less relevant quotes and so I’ll just keep this one:

“You are absolutely, unquestionably, totally, unequivocally right. There is nothing else in the film that would explain how Ennis ended up as he did.”

I’m going to have to have the first sentence engraved on my limited edition BBM collector plates. In gold.


Let’s say that Ennis does believe that homosexuality does deserve death. ... Then, at the final lake scene, when Ennis is confronted with the notion that the “not queer” pact has been broken ... Can you think of anyone who has ever argued that that scene is about jealousy rather than fear? Let me think…

“I can't imagine. Because everyone I know believes it's a mix of jealousy, homophobia, fear of losing Jack, and a little of Ennis' typical deflecting-the-blame strategy thrown in for good measure.[/red]

I know, I know. I’ve been keeping up too. Just another little jab at the prettiest little cowgirl in BB-dom.


“But I don't think one needs to believe that Ennis thinks homosexuality deserves death -- and I, for one, don't -- in order to think homophobia is a factor in his Mexico remark. My opinion? He got carried away because of the aforementioned homophobia, jealousy, fear and blame-deflecting.”

I agree one hundred percent. Here’s one for your collector plates: “latjoreme is da bomb!”


Agreed. And yet we have Ennis as we have Ennis and just because he doesn’t fit the “normal” mode doesn’t mean he has to be rewritten.

“What?! I'm not advocating rewriting Ennis.”

No, I know you’re not saying this. I was simply trying to emphasize that Ennis is Ennis.


“You're right,”

Yes, I am.   


“…he doesn't fit the twins/adoptee studies model perfectly. But that could easily be explained by 1) he had an abnormal childhood (those research results aren't necessarily reliable in cases of extreme trauma) and 2) he's fictional.”

He is not fictional! He’s as real as you and me. And if you say that again I'm going to fly to Riverton and track him down and bring him here to show you. “He’s fictional.” I spit.


“Fictional -- I think we can cut AP some slack for not being up on the latest findings of the University of Colorado-Boulder adoptee project. (And BTW, nothing is more stultifying in fiction, IMO, than characters whose behavior is based on psychological or sociological research.)”

Now there you go with that word “fictional” again! I’m gonna cry.


“Without the Earl scene, there would be no basis for my idea about Ennis' dad and his childhood, no way to explain Ennis' homophobia and repression (as if his growing up in rural Wyoming in those years isn't explanation enough ... but still. No dramatic explanation, anyway).”

And yet, “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”

As Annie said, “You can’t have Ennis without dead Earl.”


It is entirely possible that Ennis would be like that without Earl.

How?

“Because growing up with a homophobic, potentially violent dad would be enough in itself to warp a gay kid.”

And we agree that we would have no reason to suspect this without dead Earl.


“Would we, the viewers/readers, know that Ennis' dad was homophobic and potentially violent without the Earl scene? No”

See, we agree.


“-- not unless the filmmakers/writer substituted some other scene. But why would they? The Earl scene is perfect, for all the reasons I've stated.”

And yet: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”


“Could Ennis have had a homophobic and potentially violent dad -- most important, could he have known his dad was homophobic and potentially violent -- without having seen Earl's body? Sure. Any number of ways that I'm sure you can imagine just as well as I can, if not better.”

Me too. But without dead Earl, 1) we’d have no inclination to do this (we’d be disinclined because of Ennis’ other comments about his father), and 2) it would all be speculation not based on what we saw in the film.


Is the horse dead yet?

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by latjoreme     (Thu Nov 2 2006 10:34:25 )   
   
Hi CPDM,

Is the horse dead yet?

This horse has been beaten 65 times, counting this post, but is willing to drag itself along for at least one more ride.

I feel like I'm saying a lot, but I'm not getting my point across. Where's Alma Jr. when you need her? I'm going to try a new approach.

OK, let's say there are two parallel universes. In one universe, the real Ennis (as you correctly point out, he's not fictional!) is going about his own business, living his life, none of which we viewers see except the 134 minutes of the film (minus the scenes in which Ennis doesn't appear).

In that real-Ennis universe, Earl isn't necessary. Ennis' father is a potentially violent homophobe. How does Ennis know this? Any number of ways: OMDM's homophobic rants over the dinner table, an overheard conversation in which OMDM tells a friend he'd like to kill all the homos, whatever. (And yes, as you correctly point out, it is technically possible to imagine a real-life Ennis without a homophobic dad. But it's not an Occam-friendly scenario.) Ennis respects his PVH father, because he's that kind of dad and Ennis is that kind of son, but also fears him, because Ennis is gay and is afraid of being found out by his PVH dad. So Ennis becomes withdrawn and repressed and paranoid and homophobic himself.

Now, does this real-Ennis universe need a dead Earl? No. Ennis would become Ennis whether he'd seen Earl or not, through the experience of living with a PVH dad. Earl could have happened, and if so would no doubt stand out in Ennis' mind as being one of the most horrifying experiences of his life. But if Earl didn't happen, Ennis would still be Ennis because of all the other bad experiences of his childhood.

So let's say for the moment that Earl didn't happen in this real-Ennis universe, but that everything else we see in the movie/story is the same. Jack comes along and suggests the sweet-life plan. Ennis says, "No, it ain't gonna be that way." Then Ennis, lacking the Earl story, must offer Jack some other explanation of why he could never come out as gay. The explanation probably would have to touch on the experiences he had in his youth that taught him that being gay is shameful and wrong and dangerous. Without an Earl or some similarly dramatic story to tell Jack, Ennis would be left having to explain his position by recalling the various dinner-table rants, overheard conversations, his fearful reactions, whatever ... The conversation drags on all night, as Ennis recounts all the small moments that cumulatively form a scary, repressive childhood. "Oh yeah, and then there was this other time when ..." etc. etc. etc. If Ennis says enough, maybe he can get his point across.

Or, alternatively and more probably, taciturn Ennis, unwilling to dredge up all these buried emotional moments, doesn't adequately explain to Jack why he's nixing the sweet-life plan. He just clams up. That would leave Jack frustrated and confused, but oh well. He winds up that way, anyway.

Now what if Earl did happen in the real-Ennis universe? Then suddenly Ennis has a much easier way to explain his feelings. Jack immediately grasps why Ennis would be scarred by this awful experience ("You seen this?") and accepts it as an adequate explanation for Ennis' recalcitrance (why he forgets its significance later, after Ennis' divorce, is a question for a whole nother thread). So clearly, in the real-Ennis universe, the Earl death scene comes in handy -- it's a stronger, punchier, more succinct way for Ennis to get his point across. But it doesn't change the fact that Ennis is homophobic and repressed and would reject Jack anyway, because of growing up with his PVH dad.

OK. So now there's the whole other universe, the fictional one that exists only on film and paper, the universe that occupies only 134 minutes and/or 28 pages. This universe doesn't exist for the sake of Ennis and Jack and the other inhabitants -- in this universe, they're characters, without inner lives or unseen experiences. This fictional universe exists for the benefit of the people who watch and/or read it, and nothing happens that we can't either see or infer.

In the fictional universe, Ennis is still Ennis for all the reasons we've discussed. Most likely (here's where inference comes in) he has a PVH dad. Or, possibly, as you point out, his dad isn't PVH, though old Occam and the University of Colorado researchers would be exchanging eyebrow-raised glances and shaking their heads at that conjecture. In any case, in this universe there's only one way we come to know about Ennis' PVH dad, or whatever it was in his childhood that made him what he is: through the Earl death story. So the Earl death story can't be excised from this universe, not without seriously damaging the movie and story.

Without the Earl death story, the sweet-life scene suddenly becomes awkward, confusing, pointless, endless, or all of the above. Jack makes his proposal. Ennis says, "It ain't gonna be that way." Why not? Well, here Ennis can go into his lengthy recounting of all the small though genuinely traumatic moments of his childhood that taught him to hide his sexuality. And suddenly the movie is four hours and 134 minutes long, and the story is a novel in which almost all the pages are devoted to this one scene. Neither one is high-class entertainment, if you ask me.

Alternatively -- and more likely, given Ennis' character -- Ennis would shut up about his childhood, say, "Just cause it ain't, that's all." The viewers would be left in the dark (as would Jack, but because in this universe he's fictional, we don't worry so much about his inner life -- he doesn't have any). So why the hell is Ennis like that? Couldn't have had anything to do with his parents, because his dad sounds like a decent enough guy and, we find out later, his mom sounds nice, too. Well, maybe because that's just how society was in 1960s Wyoming ... But wait -- was it? Hmmm... not according to the movie. After all, Aguirre saw the two of them together and didn't do anything. Alma saw them and didn't do anything. In "real life," we viewers/readers may have reason to suspect that life in rural Wyoming was, and still is, tough for gay men. But apparently the movie and story aren't trying to make that point, because (sans Earl) they sure don't offer any evidence that it's a big issue. Oh well, maybe rural America's view of homosexuality just isn't important to the plot. But then why is Ennis so screwed up? We're left to guess or remain ignorant. High-class entertainment? Maybe, but it's got a pretty big hole in it.

Now try it with the Earl story. Suddenly, you have a movie/story so perfect that thousands of people spend months and months dissecting them on the internet.

My original premise: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed” applies to the real-Ennis universe.

Whereas, if I were referring to the fictional universe, I would say something like, "IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- it's because his dad is a potentially violent homophobe -- but without Earl, we viewers would have no way of knowing that."

Do you like that one better?

 

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Thu Nov 2 2006 16:13:05 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –


OK, let's say there are two parallel universes. In one universe, the real Ennis (as you correctly point out, he's not fictional!) is going about his own business, living his life, none of which we viewers see except the 134 minutes of the film (minus the scenes in which Ennis doesn't appear).

In that real-Ennis universe, Earl isn't necessary. Ennis' father is a potentially violent homophobe. How does Ennis know this? Any number of ways: OMDM's homophobic rants over the dinner table, an overheard conversation in which OMDM tells a friend he'd like to kill all the homos, whatever. (And yes, as you correctly point out, it is technically possible to imagine a real-life Ennis without a homophobic dad. But it's not an Occam-friendly scenario.) Ennis respects his PVH father, because he's that kind of dad and Ennis is that kind of son, but also fears him, because Ennis is gay and is afraid of being found out by his PVH dad. So Ennis becomes withdrawn and repressed and paranoid and homophobic himself.

Now, does this real-Ennis universe need a dead Earl? No. Ennis would become Ennis whether he'd seen Earl or not, through the experience of living with a PVH dad. Earl could have happened, and if so would no doubt stand out in Ennis' mind as being one of the most horrifying experiences of his life. But if Earl didn't happen, Ennis would still be Ennis because of all the other bad experiences of his childhood.

OK, I followed the entire path. But I have one question… Why do you assume a homophobic dad? As you said, there’s no dead Earl. And you said “…it is technically possible to imagine a real-life Ennis without a homophobic dad. But it's not an Occam-friendly scenario.” Why not? Why aren’t there other possible causes of Ennis homophobia given in the film? Why his dad? Why not his mom? Why not K.E.? Why not Ennis’ sister? Remember, there is no dead Earl so we have heard NOTHING about Ennis’ father to make us think he is homophobic. You picked him out of the crowd to place that label on him. Why did you do this? Because he’s family? So is Ennis’ mom, brother and sister. Why not one of them? What do you have against old men?   

So let’s apply old Occam here. Does Occam want Ennis’ dad to be considered a possibility when Ennis spoke respectfully of him before? THAT would give us an apparent contradiction. Old Occam would be MORE pleased with NO contradiction. Would KE and Ennis’ sister present an apparent contradiction? I think so. Ennis spoke respectfully of them. And, it may have been KE whom Ennis chose as his best man. So Occam doesn’t like them… IF there’s a better choice. How about Ennis’ mom? Well, he said two things about her: she drove off a road and died and she hummed to him and roused him. All kidding aside from my previous post, these can be seen as Ennis speaking respectfully of her too.

So does the film give us anyone at all as a character and with whom we do not have an apparent contradiction? Let’s make old Occam happy here. Yes, there is. Society. People. All of them out on the pavement. Society appears as a character on several occasions for Ennis and he fears them and he is paranoid of them – not so with his dad, so long as Earl lives. Does he ever speak respectfully about society? I don’t see it. Another possibility is church folk. Ennis calls them a “fire and brimstone crowd.” And Ennis admitted to having been raised in a Methodist home. Did Ennis go to a Methodist church and have bad homophobic interactions with that crowd? I don’t know. But, if we’re going to apply the Razor, then we should divide rightly. We should choose as potential candidates for Ennis’ instilled homophobia first, those of whom Ennis spoke ill (church crowd), then those of whom Ennis didn’t speak anything, but of whom his reactions were negative (“society”), and third, we should consider those of whom Ennis spoke respectfully (his mom, dad, KE, and sister). And of those in the final group, we should choose them in order based on how respectfully Ennis spoke of them. I guess I’d have to put OMDM dead last in the running. Ennis’ sister is a better choice, according to the Razor, that is.


So let's say for the moment that Earl didn't happen in this real-Ennis universe, but that everything else we see in the movie/story is the same. Jack comes along and suggests the sweet-life plan. Ennis says, "No, it ain't gonna be that way." Then Ennis, lacking the Earl story, must offer Jack some other explanation of why he could never come out as gay. The explanation probably would have to touch on the experiences he had in his youth that taught him that being gay is shameful and wrong and dangerous. Without an Earl or some similarly dramatic story to tell Jack, Ennis would be left having to explain his position by recalling the various dinner-table rants, overheard conversations, his fearful reactions, whatever ... The conversation drags on all night, as Ennis recounts all the small moments that cumulatively form a scary, repressive childhood. "Oh yeah, and then there was this other time when ..." etc. etc. etc. If Ennis says enough, maybe he can get his point across.

And do you see what you did here? With no other evidence at all from the film that his father was homophobic or that his mother was homophobic or that his brother was homophobic or that his sister was homophobic, you chose to pin the label on his dad. Even despite the fact that we have other better candidates outside of his family. Are you saying that in Ennis’ 23 years before the river reunion scene society or the church crowd could not have done something, on enough occasions, to bring this about in Ennis? After all, society had Ennis longer than his dad had him. The short story makes it appear that Ennis’ parents died after he was nine but before he was fifteen.

And even if you don’t buy that as being far-flung, why his dad? Why not his mom? Why not KE? Why not his sister? Ennis spoke mostly of his dad. And it was not negative. I would characterize much of it as respectful. Yet you chose him. Why? Remember, in this scenario, Earl and Rich are alive and well and running a B&B on Fire Island.


Now what if Earl did happen in the real-Ennis universe? Then suddenly Ennis has a much easier way to explain his feelings. Jack immediately grasps why Ennis would be scarred by this awful experience ("You seen this?") and accepts it as an adequate explanation for Ennis' recalcitrance (why he forgets its significance later, after Ennis' divorce, is a question for a whole nother thread). So clearly, in the real-Ennis universe, the Earl death scene comes in handy -- it's a stronger, punchier, more succinct way for Ennis to get his point across. But it doesn't change the fact that Ennis is homophobic and repressed and would reject Jack anyway, because of growing up with his PVH dad.

Agreed, 100%. Notice the need for a dead Earl.


OK. So now there's the whole other universe, the fictional one that exists only on film and paper, the universe that occupies only 134 minutes and/or 28 pages. This universe doesn't exist for the sake of Ennis and Jack and the other inhabitants -- in this universe, they're characters, without inner lives or unseen experiences. This fictional universe exists for the benefit of the people who watch and/or read it, and nothing happens that we can't either see or infer.

Understood.


In the fictional universe, Ennis is still Ennis for all the reasons we've discussed. Most likely (here's where inference comes in) he has a PVH dad.

Agreed. I have no problem with this. Because you have kept Earl dead. Which is not what you did when you made this statement: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”


Or, possibly, as you point out, his dad isn't PVH, though old Occam and the University of Colorado researchers would be exchanging eyebrow-raised glances and shaking their heads at that conjecture.

Yes. Here, Occam wants a homophobic dad because even though there is an apparent contradiction between the way Ennis speaks of his father earlier and what we learn at the river reunion scene, the impact of what we learn at the river reunion scene is immense. AND because you kept Earl dead. Which you did not do in your first example above – this was intentional. Remember, in that scenario above you pinned the label on Ennis’ dad willy-nilly with absolutely no evidence of homophobia on his part – because dead Earl never happened – and despite having other Occam-better alternatives.


In any case, in this universe there's only one way we come to know about Ennis' PVH dad, or whatever it was in his childhood that made him what he is: through the Earl death story. So the Earl death story can't be excised from this universe, not without seriously damaging the movie and story.

This has been my point all along. And it has not been yours: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.”


In "real life," we viewers/readers may have reason to suspect that life in rural Wyoming was, and still is, tough for gay men. But apparently the movie and story aren't trying to make that point, because (sans Earl) they sure don't offer any evidence that it's a big issue. Oh well, maybe rural America's view of homosexuality just isn't important to the plot. But then why is Ennis so screwed up? We're left to guess or remain ignorant. High-class entertainment? Maybe, but it's got a pretty big hole in it.

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.   If this were the case… no dead Earl and no homophobic family, then we still have all of Ennis’ fears and paranoia that HE DISPLAYED in several key points of the film with regard to society (or his church). In this scenario, “rural America's view of homosexuality” BECOMES the plot. Because this is all the evidence we are given and, without a dead Earl and a homophobic family, these elements would stand out as the only elements we could tie anything to. And, it works very well. The Razor is well-honed.


My original premise: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed” applies to the real-Ennis universe.

Whereas, if I were referring to the fictional universe, I would say something like, "IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- it's because his dad is a potentially violent homophobe -- but without Earl, we viewers would have no way of knowing that."

Well you could have said this 66 posts ago. I did. This is what I have been saying all along.




(If you’ll remember, you did this to me once before. I spent hours dissecting the entire dozy embrace bit by bit only to have you come back and say “Oh, wait, I think I misunderstood one sentence from dozens of posts ago.” Even *you-know-who* got a huge bang out of it. What am I going to do with you? I guess I’ll just have to love you, faults and all. I will. Because I know you do it for me, too.   )

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by latjoreme     (Thu Nov 2 2006 23:49:57 )   

Hi CPDM,

*Sigh.* I completely understand what you're saying, that if I ditch Earl I'm losing my basis for blaming OMDM. And yet, the way I'm conceiving it, I'm not. Your point is perfectly valid. And now that you mention it, I see that my conception is so abstract I can hardly think of a way to explain it that doesn't sound kind of ridiculous. It's going to be really hard for me to make a case for my perspective in a way that makes sense and doesn't invite you to immediately tear it to rubble. So just bear with me, OK?

You're absolutely right that if there'd never been any Earl, there'd be no reason to hold Mr. Del Mar culpable. If none of us had ever heard of Earl, if Earl had been completely removed from the universe, if a time traveler had gone back to the late 19th century and killed Earl's parents before they were able to procreate and changed history so that Earl was never born (and thus Earl wouldn't have been around to fight in a key battle in WWI and the allies would have lost and all of world history would change, but that's a different story) then you're absolutely right, we would then have no basis for blaming Mr. Del Mar. Or, for that matter, Mrs. Del Mar. From what we know, they are both fine upstanding citizens. Occam probably would have us turn to the pavement people and/or the fire-and-brimstone crowd, because Ennis does, elsewhere, indicate that he's uncomfortable around both. And we viewers/readers know from our cultural knowledge that those rural Wyoming pavement/brimstone folks can be homophobic.

So why do I blame OMDM anyway? Because -- and here's where it gets so tricky that it's almost impossible to explain -- even with the Earl element removed, I continue to view Ennis through the Earl lens, thus blaming Mr. Del Mar. "Aha!" I can hear you saying. "That's why Earl is necessary." And yes, it's true, in that sense he is necessary. But he's necessary only for the sake of my understanding of Ennis' character. Not, IMO, for shaping Ennis' character.

In other words, let's say for the moment that if there's an Earl, then we automatically know Mr. Del Mar's homophobia is to blame for screwing up Ennis. (Yes, you've suggested ways around that assumption, but for Occam's sake, let's just establish that if Earl was killed it means OMDM is guilty -- not of killing Earl, necessarily, but of screwing up Ennis.) If X, then Y. If Earl, then Mr. Del Mar's homophobia.

Now comes the really, really tricky part. What if we take Earl out of the equation? Without X, does Y still exist? If we've got an Ennis who we know, via Earl, was the product of Mr. Del's homophobia, and suddenly there is no Earl, does that change everything? Do we start from scratch with a blank-slate Ennis?

The answer, in my mind, is no. We're left with the same Ennis we've come to know and love. Whose emotional problems are the product of his dad's homophobia, not the Earl death scene. Removing the Earl death scene changes neither Ennis, nor the cause of his problems. But what happens is that now, sans Earl, we don't have any way of knowing what caused his problems. If all we'd ever been given were these circumstances, we'd be turning our attention to those pavement and church folks. But, because in "real life" we have heard of Earl, then the knowledge of Earl's death -- and, thus, Mr. Del Mar's homophobia -- has already seeped into our consciousness. So now, even if Earl is removed, unless we want to go back to square one and start over with a whole new Ennis, we're still left with Ennis and his warping by Mr. Del Mar.

That's how I see all these scenarios. No matter what, we start with the same Ennis we meet in 1963 who has been warped by his father's homophobia. If Earl existed, and four years later he tells us the story, then we know exactly why. If Earl never existed, then either we never know why, or we find out only through some lengthy exposition. But either way, we're dealing with the same Ennis, product of the same circumstances.

Now you can feel free to argue that once Earl is gone, the rules have changed and we have to start from scratch. You could say that if I'm going to be rude enough to AP and AL as to reject their brilliant creation of Earl, then my punishment should be having to come up with a whole new Ennis and a whole new explanation for his hangups. But that's simply not the way I'm seeing it. I'm going with the same Ennis we've been given, whom we know via Earl, and who still exists, and for the same reasons, even in the absence of the actual Earl.

Does that make any sense?

What do you have against old men? []

Nothing! In fact, there's one I'm particularly fond of.

In "real life," we viewers/readers may have reason to suspect that life in rural Wyoming was, and still is, tough for gay men. But apparently the movie and story aren't trying to make that point, because (sans Earl) they sure don't offer any evidence that it's a big issue. Oh well, maybe rural America's view of homosexuality just isn't important to the plot. But then why is Ennis so screwed up? We're left to guess or remain ignorant. High-class entertainment? Maybe, but it's got a pretty big hole in it.

You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. [] If this were the case… no dead Earl and no homophobic family, then we still have all of Ennis’ fears and paranoia that HE DISPLAYED in several key points of the film with regard to society (or his church). In this scenario, “rural America's view of homosexuality” BECOMES the plot. Because this is all the evidence we are given and, without a dead Earl and a homophobic family, these elements would stand out as the only elements we could tie anything to. And, it works very well. The Razor is well-honed.

I disagree with your first sentence. I can be waaaayyy more wrong than that . But otherwise, fair enough. There are other scenes in the film that indict society. None as effective as Earl at establishing the stakes Ennis is facing. But between the pavement people and the brimstone crowd, they're there. (Though we would then have to bring in our cultural knowledge -- for example, that church folk often oppose homosexuality -- that you demonstrated earlier we don't have to do in the movie as it stands.)

So I still stand by my original premise: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” It's true, he'd still be like that, and for the same reasons. However, we viewers/readers would not have a clue why he's like that. We'd turn our attention to the pavement/brimstone folks, who may not be innocent but certainly aren't the main bad guys, and the real culprit would remain Ennis' little secret.

I guess I’ll just have to love you, faults and all. I will. Because I know you do it for me, too. [] )

I only agree with the first sentence maybe ... 85 percent (faults? what faults?! ). But the last sentence I agree with 100 percent.

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by darkoKnight33     (Fri Nov 3 2006 13:15:02 )   
   
Thanks guys, for trying; and not ripping me a new one for my last post.

"Don't you wanna come with me? Don't you wanna feel my bones, on your bones? It's only natural!"

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Nov 3 2006 13:33:51 )   

Hi darkoKnight33 --

"Thanks guys, for trying; and not ripping me a new one for my last post."

You made sense. I am rather proud of the fact that my very last post was about half as long as the others. Not too shabby, imho.

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Fri Nov 3 2006 13:31:22 )   
   
Hi latjoreme –


“I see that my conception is so abstract I can hardly think of a way to explain it that doesn't sound kind of ridiculous.”

Now you know how I feel when I write!   


“So just bear with me, OK?”

Just like Jack with Ennis, I always do…


“Occam probably would have us turn to the pavement people and/or the fire-and-brimstone crowd, because Ennis does, elsewhere, indicate that he's uncomfortable around both. And we viewers/readers know from our cultural knowledge that those rural Wyoming pavement/brimstone folks can be homophobic.”

Yep. All if there were no Earl.


“So why do I blame OMDM anyway?”

Yeah, why do you… it’s the “old man” thing, isn’t it?


“Because -- and here's where it gets so tricky that it's almost impossible to explain -- even with the Earl element removed, I continue to view Ennis through the Earl lens, thus blaming Mr. Del Mar. "Aha!" I can hear you saying. "That's why Earl is necessary." And yes, it's true, in that sense he is necessary. But he's necessary only for the sake of my understanding of Ennis' character. Not, IMO, for shaping Ennis' character.”

Well, I was halfway through this paragraph and I was going to say “OK, I'm with you…” But then I got to the last two sentences and you lost me. I’ll keep reading…. Keep bearing with you…


“In other words, let's say for the moment that if there's an Earl, then we automatically know Mr. Del Mar's homophobia is to blame for screwing up Ennis.”

OK.


“Now comes the really, really tricky part.”

I’m all a-twitter.


“What if we take Earl out of the equation? Without X, does Y still exist? If we've got an Ennis who we know, via Earl, was the product of Mr. Del's homophobia, and suddenly there is no Earl, does that change everything? Do we start from scratch with a blank-slate Ennis?”

Well, yes. But, the blank slate needs to be filled with something. Now, it’s up to us to choose how to fill that blank slate.


“The answer, in my mind, is no. We're left with the same Ennis we've come to know and love. Whose emotional problems are the product of his dad's homophobia, not the Earl death scene.”

I’m getting confused. Yes, this is ONE way to fill the blank slate. But there are (with Earl out of the picture) better ways given by the film.

I guess I have to go back to “Without X, does Y still exist?” If Y is Ennis’ homophobia (period) then, yes, it does. But if Y is Ennis’ homophobia instilled by his father, then, no. Because in this scenario, the X-Y equation can only be valid (it would only appear) IF we have dead Earl.


“Removing the Earl death scene changes neither Ennis, nor the cause of his problems.”

Accepting that the cause of Ennis’ problems is not removed, we don’t know what that cause is. So we have to look for candidates. And OMDM comes far down the list.


“But what happens is that now, sans Earl, we don't have any way of knowing what caused his problems. If all we'd ever been given were these circumstances, we'd be turning our attention to those pavement and church folks.”

Absolutely.


“But, because in "real life" we have heard of Earl, then the knowledge of Earl's death -- and, thus, Mr. Del Mar's homophobia -- has already seeped into our consciousness. So now, even if Earl is removed, unless we want to go back to square one and start over with a whole new Ennis, we're still left with Ennis and his warping by Mr. Del Mar.”

I’m sorry. LOL. And you said I came up with far-fetched ideas? Now, what you’re talking about to support your point is to watch the film in order to get certain information and then cut that information out of the film, but keep it in our heads. The problem here is that if we showed the new, edited film to a newbie, that person would not have the knowledge that we got from the uncut version and they wouldn’t have a clue as to why we blame OMDM. I just thought of something horrible… Someday BBM will be broadcast as a movie of the week on FCC-controlled broadcast television. They’ll have to edit it. What if they edit scenes like this and then a whole new generation will come up believing that Ennis’ isn’t homophobic at all – he’s just non-committal…


“That's how I see all these scenarios. No matter what, we start with the same Ennis we meet in 1963 who has been warped by his father's homophobia. If Earl existed, and four years later he tells us the story, then we know exactly why. If Earl never existed, then either we never know why, or we find out only through some lengthy exposition. But either way, we're dealing with the same Ennis, product of the same circumstances.”

But we only know it’s the same Ennis because we saw both versions of the film. If you ever call any of my ideas far-flung again… I’m saving this one!   


“Now you can feel free to argue that once Earl is gone, the rules have changed and we have to start from scratch. You could say that if I'm going to be rude enough to AP and AL as to reject their brilliant creation of Earl, then my punishment should be having to come up with a whole new Ennis and a whole new explanation for his hangups. But that's simply not the way I'm seeing it. I'm going with the same Ennis we've been given, whom we know via Earl, and who still exists, and for the same reasons, even in the absence of the actual Earl.”

What if I cut out the baby Bobby in the bedroom scene? Then I can come up with my own explanation of why Jack decided it was time to reconnect with Ennis? Or, I could cut out the Ennis in the closet scene and say that it was Ennis who stole and kept the shirts for twenty years, unrevealed until the very last moments of the film. (Actually, this one is kind of poignant, isn’t it? Would change the whole story, imho.)


“Does that make any sense?”

I wish you wouldn’t have asked.


What do you have against old men?

“Nothing! In fact, there's one I'm particularly fond of.”

Then why do you make him work so hard?


“So I still stand by my original premise: “But IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” It's true, he'd still be like that, and for the same reasons. However, we viewers/readers would not have a clue why he's like that.”

Well I certainly CANNOT and WOULD NOT disagree with the very last sentence here. It sure would make BBM into the century’s biggest “whodunit?” or, rather, the biggest “whatdunit?”.


“We'd turn our attention to the pavement/brimstone folks, who may not be innocent but certainly aren't the main bad guys, and the real culprit would remain Ennis' little secret.”

Then we’d have to change the title to “The Secret of Brokeback Mountain.” And the tagline would be: “Shhh! Don’t tell anyone. It’s not what you think!”

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by oilgun     (Fri Nov 3 2006 13:43:10 )   
   
But he's necessary only for the sake of my understanding of Ennis' character. Not, IMO, for shaping Ennis' character.

I can't believe you two are still at it, lol! I agree with the above and that was exactly my point when I said that Earl was only important to the reader/viewer not the character of Ennis.


))<>((
forever.


Re: It's not all about Earl.   
  by latjoreme     (Fri Nov 3 2006 16:27:43 )   
   
But he's necessary only for the sake of my understanding of Ennis' character. Not, IMO, for shaping Ennis' character.


I can't believe you two are still at it, lol! I agree with the above and that was exactly my point when I said that Earl was only important to the reader/viewer not the character of Ennis.

Oilgun, that is exactly right. You have summed up in a sentence what I've been trying over 72 posts, tens of thousands of words and countless far-fetched hypothetical scenarios to say.

CPDM, it's not really about whether Earl existed or not. It's about whether Earl is crucial to shaping Ennis' character. Our original positions were that you felt he is, and I felt he isn't. Mine hasn't changed. Given what I have learned about Ennis' background -- yes, via Earl! -- I don't believe Earl was the single watershed moment. Are there other possible imaginable factors? Yes. But none works as well as the Mr. Del Mar theory.

But I ALSO believe that Earl is crucial to conveying Ennis' background to the viewers/readers/Jack. There would be no other effective way to do it, short of dreaming up some other powerful, horrifying, succinct, resonant anecdote for Ennis to tell in the sweet-life scene. He's essential in the movie and story, just not in Ennis' life.

So I can still say, “IMO, Earl is not even the main reason Ennis is like that -- in fact, it's entirely possible that he would be like that if Earl had never been killed.” In fact I can say it with even more conviction, because you've made me defend it against dozens of alternate scenarios.

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Fri Oct 27 2006 20:54:25 )   
   
UPDATED Fri Oct 27 2006 23:25:15
Thanks for the comments, oilgun! I agree with much of what you said.

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.

Good point. The Earl scene is powerful. It stays in the viewer's mind, as it would have in Ennis'. In the absence of anything else, I think CPDM is right to say that this incident alone is enough to explain Ennis' homophobia, for casual fiction purposes. And it wouldn't work to have Ennis go on for hours, confessing to Jack all the bad stuff in his childhood. It would be vague and rambling and ambiguous. So from a narrative standpoint, this is punchy.

But just because this incident is sufficient and memorable doesn't mean that's all there is to it. It doesn't mean that other bad stuff didn't happen, or that the story doesn't support the interpretation that there's other bad stuff, in fact even imply it. And it certainly doesn't suggest that any bad stuff contradicts what we have been shown.

When you consider other factors -- what would shape Ennis' paranoia and repression, whether a potentially murderous father would express homophobia only on one isolated occasion -- it doesn't make sense, to me, to think that the Earl incident is all there is. "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. 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. The author and filmmakers give us credit for knowing that much. They may surprise us, or challenge our expectations. Or they can show us things that work in accordance with our expectatoins. But they don't expect us not to have any.

They can give us credit for taking cues and considering their larger implications. I don't understand the argument that one might just as easily come away with a vision of a nice Mr. Del Mar -- after Ennis has described him pretty clearly as a guy who is a potential murderer.

Either way, the Earl story gets the point across. It works whether it stands for a whole horrible youth or a single horrible incident. The viewer gets the message.

- 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.

That's one good explanation. Another might be that watching a small child get abused that way would be too shocking for movie audiences. It's bad enough in a book, but would be worse in a movie. Viewers would be distracted from what they're really supposed to be watching at that point: Ennis' going into Jack's room and finding the shirts.

Another is that to show Jack's impression of that scene -- Jack's father isn't circumcised and Jack is -- would require full frontal nudity of a man and kid and probably would be impractical.


Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by latjoreme     (Fri Oct 27 2006 23:28:29 )   

“…but it's like you and latjoreme are in different dimensions, lol!”

You’ll get no argument from me. latjoreme? []

I've always thought of us as on different planets. But dimensions works for me, too.

 

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by ClancyPantsDelMar     (Sat Oct 28 2006 01:36:17 )   
   
“But just because this incident is sufficient and memorable doesn't mean that's all there is to it. It doesn't mean that other bad stuff didn't happen, or that the story doesn't support the interpretation that there's other bad stuff, in fact even imply it. And it certainly doesn't suggest that any bad stuff contradicts what we have been shown.”

See, I can agree with this, but then this raises some questions: How does the story “support the interpretation that there's other bad stuff?” How does the story “imply it?” How does the story not “suggest that any bad stuff contradicts what we have been shown?” Then, we also must ask, if these elements are implicitly present, what are we to make of this? If they are, what are we to make of this? Is the story “complete” without the extras? Is the story disadvantaged by their absence? What advantages are there to including the extraneous information? What extraneous information do we include and what information do we reject? As information is injected to give us a picture of the character, is the picture better, worse, clearer, more confused, etc. Is the theme advanced or inhibited by the new information? Does the plot suffer or strengthen from the additional stuff? From where does the extra stuff come? Should there be consensus on source material? Should any revelations that emerge be considered on a personal level? A group level? Are there better explanations for the results of the additional information rather than the additional information itself? What are the criteria against which we should judge the extraneous information? These are all I can think of off the top of my head.


“When you consider other factors -- what would shape Ennis' paranoia and repression, whether a potentially murderous father would express homophobia only on one isolated occasion -- it doesn't make sense, to me, to think that the Earl incident is all there is.”

But are you able to explain that even though this is the way the character was drawn for us, it must necessarily be inadequate? Must all characters make sense to each and/or any of us? From what perspective? Our own? From others? Do the experiences of others matter in our own understanding? Why or why not?


““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?


“The author and filmmakers give us credit for knowing that much. They may surprise us, or challenge our expectations. Or they can show us things that work in accordance with our expectatoins. But they don't expect us not to have any.”

You’ve actually answered a lot of the questions by your second and third sentences. And you conclusion sentence (#4) works well with the two answering questions. In other words,

The author and filmmakers don’t expect us to not have any expectations. However, based on what they have given us, did they then surprise us and challenge our expectations or did they show us something that works in accord with our expectations?

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. We were challenged and surprised. And we were constantly challenged and surprised as the story played out, driving the theme.


“I don't understand the argument that one might just as easily come away with a vision of a nice Mr. Del Mar -- after Ennis has described him pretty clearly as a guy who is a potential murderer.”

The simple answer is, because he may not have been a murderer. Look at all that is said about Ennis’ father before the Earl death scene. Has he been painted as a potential murderer? No. Now, look at the Earl death scene. Has he been painted as a potential murderer? Yes. So we have a conundrum. Is he a potential murderer or not? What is our source of this information? Ennis. What do know of Ennis? Many things. One relevant item is that he is paranoid. IF Ennis’ father is not a potential murderer, then is it not possible that Ennis could think his father to be a potential murderer based on Ennis’ misunderstanding of what his father did on that day? Based on Ennis’ paranoia? Could Ennis have misunderstood what happened that day?

One strong argument that you make in understanding the argument is your use of the word “after.” Nothing before this episode indicates that Ennis’ father may be a potential murderer. It’s only after what has been described by Ennis. And he is describing it based on his personal perception. Now, if I remember correctly, it is not only OK, but it is also beneficial and natural and expected of us to add additional information into the film that would give us a more complete understanding of Ennis. What additional information do we need to add that would help us to understand Ennis as someone who would misinterpret a traumatic event? None whatsoever. We have it all right there in the film itself.


“Either way, the Earl story gets the point across. It works whether it stands for a whole horrible youth or a single horrible incident. The viewer gets the message.”

Absolutely.


(re: urination incident)

“Viewers would be distracted from what they're really supposed to be watching at that point: Ennis' going into Jack's room and finding the shirts.”

This is the best explanation I can think of for it not being in the film. However it is in the short story and so we must ask “why?”

[TOoP/Bruce]

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by oilgun     (Sat Oct 28 2006 11:12:25 )   

But just because this incident is sufficient and memorable doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

That was my point actually. The Earl incident is primarily for the viewer/reader not the character. To me it's implicit that Earl is, like you said, a quick way of telling us that Ennis grew up with active and constant homophobia at the hands of his father and other male role models in his community. It's purely a literary tool. We all know real-life Ennises and chances are few of them have experienced such trauma as a child, it's just not required in real life. Constant low-grade "brainwashing" is all that's needed, but like you said, that's not as punchy.

Another might be that watching a small child get abused that way would be too shocking for movie audiences.

No kidding! I realize this scene would be impractical to film and I certainly didn't expect it to be. However, it could have been alluded to in conversation but that would have lessened the impact of the Earl incident IMO. Plus OMT comes off as enough of an old b@st@rd as it is, so it's hardly required.


"Now scoot!"-Ms. Perky

Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by stitchbuffymoulinfan     (Sat Oct 28 2006 16:02:38 )   
   
OP: so good!

www.jlodown.com
www.petitionspot.com/petitions/jlodown
   
Re: It's not all about Earl   
  by norway-jm      3 seconds ago (Tue Jan 9 2007 09:49:11 )   
Ignore this User | Report Abuse   
Earl is the one physical, factual, indisputable thing Ennis can point to as the reason he and Jack could never "ranch up together." "If this thing grabs hold of us, in the wrong place, wrong time... we're dead." If not for Earl, Ennis would still think it was wrong, but he wouldn't have something so tangible to hang his hat on... just a feeling that two guys can't do that. Earl is Ennis' get-out-of-gay-free card.