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?)
