The story flashback about Jack's dad peeing on him

[serious crayons]

What do you all think about this? What was its purpose in the short story -- symbolically, narratively, etc.? Did it achieve that/those purpose(s)? Why, aside from the obvious problems of filming it, do you think it wasn't included in the movie? Should it have been?

[Brown Eyes]

What do you all think about this? What was its purpose in the short story -- symbolically, narratively, etc.? Did it achieve that/those purpose(s)? Why, aside from the obvious problems of filming it, do you think it wasn't included in the movie? Should it have been?

This is a good, and no-doubt, very complicated topic to bring up.  It's late and I'm too sleepy to tackle this fully at the moment.  But, the first thing that springs to mind about what purpose that episode serves in the story... is that it seems important to establish that both Jack and Ennis had really, really difficult relationships with their fathers.  I'm not exactly sure what Proulx is trying to say with that gesture in the story.  But, the abusive scene with Jack's father seems somehow related, if not exactly equivalent, to Ennis's Earl story and the inherently abusive act of forcing Ennis and KE to view Earl's body.  At one basic level, perhaps the fact that they each had very difficult fathers gives Jack and Ennis something to bond over... even if it's sort of a tacit bonding.

I'm sure there are a million other meanings and ways to view this scene with Jack's father.

It also seems very significant that the filmmakers left this scene or any reference to it, out completely.  Representing that scene would definitely have been hard, but I'm not sure that that's a great reason for leaving it out.  I hope that's not really the reason they left it out (I would hope that the filmmakers would have some concrete reason/ explanation for leaving it out).... there at least could be ways of suggesting what was happening in the bathroom without actually showing it in a graphic way.  The camera could have cut away... the incident could have been represented through sound and suggestion, etc.  It would never have been a pleasant thing, but I think there are probably ways it could have been done.  In a way, I do think it should have been in the film.  It's a horrible scene/ detail, but it's so striking and leaves such an impression on the reader of the story, that I think it's a fairly major aspect of the story to leave out.

The major impact of leaving it out is that OMT doesn't seem quite as bad in the film compared to the story. And, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing when it comes to the audience's understanding of Jack's background.  We understand by the end how impoverished Jack was growing up, and we understand that his father was grouchy and cold, but the film audience really doesn't get a clear sense that Jack was a pretty severely abused child.

I'll be very interested to see how this discussion goes.

[Delmardeb]

This is a good, and no-doubt, very complicated topic to bring up.  It's late and I'm too sleepy to tackle this fully at the moment.  But, the first thing that springs to mind about what purpose that episode serves in the story... is that it seems important to establish that both Jack and Ennis had really, really difficult relationships with their fathers.  I'm not exactly sure what Proulx is trying to say with that gesture in the story.  But, the abusive scene with Jack's father seems somehow related, if not exactly equivalent, to Ennis's Earl story and the inherently abusive act of forcing Ennis and KE to view Earl's body.  At one basic level, perhaps the fact that they each had very difficult fathers gives Jack and Ennis something to bond over... even if it's sort of a tacit bonding.

I'm sure there are a million other meanings and ways to view this scene with Jack's father.

It also seems very significant that the filmmakers left this scene or any reference to it, out completely.  Representing that scene would definitely have been hard, but I'm not sure that that's a great reason for leaving it out.  I hope that's not really the reason they left it out (I would hope that the filmmakers would have some concrete reason/ explanation for leaving it out).... there at least could be ways of suggesting what was happening in the bathroom without actually showing it in a graphic way.  The camera could have cut away... the incident could have been represented through sound and suggestion, etc.  It would never have been a pleasant thing, but I think there are probably ways it could have been done.  In a way, I do think it should have been in the film.  It's a horrible scene/ detail, but it's so striking and leaves such an impression on the reader of the story, that I think it's a fairly major aspect of the story to leave out.

The major impact of leaving it out is that OMT doesn't seem quite as bad in the film compared to the story. And, I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing when it comes to the audience's understanding of Jack's background.  We understand by the end how impoverished Jack was growing up, and we understand that his father was grouchy and cold, but the film audience really doesn't get a clear sense that Jack was a pretty severely abused child.

I'll be very interested to see how this discussion goes.

[Delmardeb]

I am still confused about how you comment on parts of someone's post.

But anyway, I agree with the last part of your post where you state that people who see the movie won't really know how abusive Jack's father was towards him. (especially those who did not read the short story) I have even read that some people felt that OMT was not that bad. However, if the part about him urinating on young Jack was somehow depicted in the movie, there would have been no room to feel sorry for OMT.

We saw the extent of the abuse by Ennis' father when we saw how he and his brother were forced to look at Earl's mutilated body. But we didn't see the extent of the abuse that was suffered by Jack.

[LauraGigs]

On an initial, superficial level I think it was an unnecessary and rather dumb part of the story (similar to when Proulx goes ON and ON about the Ennis/K.E. fight thing. Why does she touch on most of the crucial details and plot points so quickly and dryly, and go on forever about that?)  Anyway . . .

What was its purpose in the short story -- symbolically, narratively, etc.?

I think it parallels other symbols suggesting that Jack (or anyone in that environment with Jack's spirit) basically lived "under a cloud" or at constant risk.

His birthplace was Lightning Flat. (In a flat place, you are constantly vulnerable to lightning strikes — the wrath of God/Zeus/Fate).

His death involved being struck down. (Either from above by tire irons — or in a random "sudden burst" of the tire.)

In between, he lived his life dogged by uncommonly short karma and vulnerability to consequence. The low startle point horse throwing him. Comforting Ennis, only to get punched. His offering a beer to Jimbo resulting in a stinging and dangerous rejection.

His father urinating on him was a similar symbol (struck from above over issues relating to his penis/sexuality).

[Penthesilea]

Why, aside from the obvious problems of filming it, do you think it wasn't included in the movie? Should it have been?

Answering only to this part (for now).

Apparently, the decision to not include the abuse scene has been made pretty early by Ossana/McMurtry. It's not in the earlier scripts. In the 2003 one, another flashback of the Earl scene was planned directly before Ennis goes upstairs (same moment when in the book Ennis recalls the abuse). Same flashback as at the reunion, but this time, the camera moves closer to the body and it's not Earl's face - it's Jack's. God, luckily they did not include this 
This second flashback was to convent the sentence "So he knew it had been the tire iron" on film. The abuse scene was not planned to be filmed from early on.

Maybe they thought it would be too much and/or would deflect from the grief for Jack at this moment of the film: the deceased postcard, the phone call, OMT talking about the ranch neighbour, and then The Shirts. I tend to agree that it simply would have been too much at this point, but they still could have included it at another point of the movie.


Amanda and Delmardeb are right: it shows OMT and Jack's childhood in a whole different, horrid light. I remember my reaction when I read the story after seeing the movie. My very first reaction was OMG, poor Jack (and 'what an §#&%$§' about OMT), and thank God they didn't include this into the movie. I felt like they had spared us from witnessing this scene.

[Brown Eyes]

I agree that it's nice, in a certain way, that we weren't subjected to experiencing that scene in the movie... of course it would be a dreadful scene to visualize or represent.  But, I still don't think that's a great reason for leaving it out.  Just because it's difficult and unpleasant doesn't mean it should have been omitted.  There are lots of difficult and harsh things in the film as it is.  The Earl scene is, of course, one thing that stands out as particularly harsh... and the filmmakers didn't even shy away from unpleasant things like Alma's reaction to being flipped over in bed... or the vision of Jack's possible-murder.

It does seem that this peeing scene would have the potential to really stand out and leave a big impression on the audience and I'm sure the film would seem much different if it was included.  But, I think it would have stood out in an equivalent way to how it stands out for the reader of the story.  I think anyone who reads the story will always vividly recall the descriptions of that memory for Jack.

[Penthesilea]

I agree that it's nice, in a certain way, that we weren't subjected to experiencing that scene in the movie... of course it would be a dreadful scene to visualize or represent.  But, I still don't think that's a great reason for leaving it out.  Just because it's difficult and unpleasant doesn't mean it should have been omitted.  There are lots of difficult and harsh things in the film as it is.  The Earl scene is, of course, one thing that stands out as particularly harsh... and the filmmakers didn't even shy away from unpleasant things like Alma's reaction to being flipped over in bed... or the vision of Jack's possible-murder.

Completely agreed. I've not made up my mind yet whether I think the scene should have been included in the movie or not. The above said was only my very first reaction.

But I think the filmmakers were right to not include it at this specific point of the movie. Which leaves me to contemplate where they could (should?) have included it....

Hell, they just should have shown all those trips in twenty years; plenty of possibilities ... 

[Brown Eyes]

A lot of things we learn in the story during the motel scene were displaced and dispersed int the film for sure.  But, you're right it's hard to think of exactly where the scene could have been included in the movie.  Maybe one simple solution to the difficulty of actually filmming a visual representation of the peeing scene would be to have Jack simply re-tell the story verbally... actually as happens in the book.

Back to the function of the peeing scene... why do you think Proulx created such awful fathers for both of these characters?  They're not just bad fathers in the story... they're pretty horrific fathers.  I think the idea that it's something Jack and Ennis can bond over (to a certain extent) is one function... but is she trying to say something else with the way she represents fathers?

And how does this impact our understanding of the kinds of fathers that Jack and Ennis are themselves?  Often in abusive families you hear about the pattern of abusiveness repeating itself across generations... and this definitely is not the case here with Jack and Ennis.  Even if Jack didn't want kids (and I do think that's directly related to his awful relationship with his father), we get the sense that he's a pretty good father (especially movie-Jack).  And, of course, Ennis is a devoted Dad too... and maybe to a greater extent than Jack.

[Brown Eyes]

I had another random thought/ question about the whole "peeing" topic related to the film of BBM just now.  This is a very long stretch and maybe grasping at straws... but, the filmmakers seemed to go out of their way to depict Jack himself peeing during the '63 summer.  Do you think this was a very, very veiled/ distant reference to the peeing topic in the story?