Parents and children

[serious crayons]

This is a thread for discussion of any parent/child relationship in the movie or story -- Ennis and Jack with their parents, with their kids, Lureen with the Newsomes, and any others you think of.

To start things off, I'd like to ask how y'all feel about the frequent criticism of Jack and Ennis as bad parents. To me, this belongs in the same category as criticisms of their adultery -- by viewers who, for some reason, are not moved to criticize "Walk the Line" or a hundred other films on that basis.

Here is an exerpt from an otherwise fairly perceptive essay http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102477.html
by Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post:

The movie also misses the deepest joy of family, which is that sense of connection to the great wheel of life. Giving birth to, educating and loving a kid are among the profound joys of human existence. "Brokeback Mountain" cannot begin to imagine such a thing; that reality simply is not on its radar, and if you looked at the story from another vantage -- the children's -- it would be a different tale altogether: about greedy, selfish, undisciplined homosexuals who took out a contract in the heterosexual world, and abandoned it. They weren't true men; they failed at the man's one sacred duty on Earth, which is to provide.

This seems ridiculous to me. For one thing, both Jack and Ennis are caring fathers, more involved with their children than most 1970s dads, and all three kids are depicted as being pretty happy. Are Jack and Ennis the only people in history, in movies or real life, who made mistaken marriages and as a result had affairs or got divorced? What does their homosexuality have to do with it? Who would think to call Johnny Cash a "greedy, selfish, undisciplined heterosexual"? Yet Johnny is depicted -- in that movie, anyway -- as a much less involved and loving dad than Ennis and Jack.

[Front-Ranger]

That critic obviously either watched the movie with his own agenda clouding his eyes, or didn't watch it at all. I saw the "good mother" Alma tending to laundry while her two small children wailed despondently in the next room; then, when Ennis came in the house, he rushed to comfort them as soon as his hands were clean.

Also, the story says, "Alma, Jr...was born...and the sounds were of squalling and sucking and Alma's sleepy groans, all reassuring of fecundity and life's continuance to one who worked with lifestock." Not many fathers are as happy with the smells and sounds of a new baby as Ennis is portrayed to be.

[Mikaela]

Wow - that passage from the Washington Post is so clueless, I hardly know how to begin dissing it! 
That line "man's one sacred duty on Earth, [  ] is to provide" alone makes me sceptical. I seem to recall having read about a US organization called "Promise Keepers", that among other matters is perceived as anti-gay? I could well imagine that bit about sacred duty to have been written in a "promise keeper" context.

Anyway, just looking at film-Ennis's relationship with his daughters, we see a man that despite having grown up with the exact opposite of a caring and positive father as his own role model, loves his daughters and takes his responsibilities as their father seriously:

- He rushes to soothe and comfort them when they're crying as babies

- He cuts one of his precious "fishing trips" short to instead join his daughters on a picnic with the "fire and brimstone" crowd

- He sends the love of his life packing after one minute because he has his daughters visiting over the weekend (Granted, Ennis had other and more prevailing reasons to refuse Jack in the post-divorce scene, but the reason that he didn't even try to talk to Jack or make him stay a while, has to be that his girls are there.)

- He goes to Thanksgiving at his ex-wife's and her new husband's to be a good daddy to his daughters, however uncomfortable that setting must make him

- He keeps in touch with the girls, collecting them for weekend outings

- He cannot entertain the thought of leaving his daughters behind, so his idea of an unrealistic "fairy tale" life involves the girls coming with him to where he settles down

- He carefully pays child support, although it stretches his financial resources considerably, and even when it means he can't even meet up with the love of his life those measly 3 times a year.

- He promises to be there for Junior's wedding and overcomes his reluctance,  and he even finds the right words to make Junior happy when she comes to tell of her marriage


The girls on their part obviously love their father - another sign that he's not the kind of failure in that respect that the WP considers him.

All in all, I think the film has been very careful in deliberately depicting both Ennis and Jack as good, caring fathers - at any rate, doing a fantastically better job of it than their own fathers.

As for the guys "taking out contracts in the heterosexual world" - well, certainly Ennis at least obviously wanted children - that may have been one reason among several compelling ones why he went through with the marriage. The article seems to indicate that gays have no business wanting children, and no legitimate reason or even permission to contemplate fatherhood - because the only way to achieveing that is a heterosexual marriage which would of necessity be a sham. In addressing the issue from that angle they're deliberately overlooking the strength of one of the most deepset and instinctual human impulses, I think. 

But neither Jack nor Ennis define themselves as fathers *only* (does anyone do so??). There seems to be an intentional nuance in the depiction of Jack and Ennis and their respective priorities - Jack seems willing to leave his son behind if he can have a life with Ennis, Ennis doesn't seem at all able to imagine a life where he abandons his girls.  But be that as it may, neither Jack's son nor Ennis's daughters know anything about this, and so are not directly emotionally impacted by it.

However, Ennis *is* willing to stick to low-paying jobs and to quit them at any time - thus bringing less money home - perhaps that's where the WP's accusation about him being a poor provider comes in? They're closing their eyes to the significant portion of the Ennis-as-father portrayal, if so.

Granted, there are the two scenes where the girls witness Alma and Ennis fighting, and they must of course also have picked up on the uneasy, strained and increasingly cold relationship between their parents in their day-to-day life together. That, and the divorce, must have caused the girls much grief and anxiety, but I don't think they ever doubted either their mother's *or* their father's love for *them*....


Since I just wrote another post touching on Jack and Ennis as fathers in the film, I'll do the lazy thing here and link to that post instead of repeating it all:

http://bettermost.net/forum/index.php?topic=1953.msg42085#msg42085

[serious crayons]

Excellent points, Mikaela. I thought that was a very odd paragraph, myself. And you're right -- that last sentence does sound a bit Promise Keeperish, as opposed to something you'd read in a big national (even liberal) newspaper. Who is a movie critic to declare the rules on a man's sacred duty on earth?

And this sentence

nd if you looked at the story from another vantage -- the children's -- it would be a different tale altogether: about greedy, selfish, undisciplined homosexuals who took out a contract in the heterosexual world, and abandoned it.

is also ridiculous. If you looked at the story from the vantage of the children -- particularly Ennis' daughters, and particularly Alma -- you'd see a tale about a sympathetic, adored (if slightly mysterious) father. There's no sign that Alma Jr. is even slightly upset by her dad's divorce or romantic woes -- only by the work conflicts that dads of all sexual orientations must somehow balance with family life.

[Penthesilea]

I begun to write a posting on this thread yesterday, but couldn't finish it. Saved it on my pc to complete it today.
Now Mikaela has written nealry the same as I wanted. But I'll throw in my POV anyway.


Uuuuh, I don't even know where to begin to rip this comment of Stephen Hunter apart.

First, his world-view is apparently some decades outdated. "they failed at the man's one sacred duty on Earth, which is to provide". Gives me goosebumps,  but in a bad way. It's not man's duty, it's parents' duty to provide. And not only in terms of money, but even more to provide emotional warmth, closeness and love and security.
I'm really fed up with people who think it's a mother's job to stay at home and cluck around the kids 24 hours a day linke a hen, meanwhile the father's "sacred" duty is to make enough money.

Back on BBM:
Where and when did Ennis or Jack abandon their children or any kind of "contract with the heterosexual world"? They did marry and had children and they fullfilled the duties which go along with that. This is one of the points which is so sad in the movie: sometimes it's better to break wrong contracts (with the women) and negotiate a better solution (about the children) than to stick to wrong situations. Better for the sake of all people affected by it.

Jack may have been ready to leave Lureen for Ennis in a second - but to split up with your wife/husband doesn't mean to abandon your children.  And I think Mr. Hunter knows this very well. It's the old case of double standards. Like Katherine already said in her comparison to Johnny Cash. It's the old accusation about adultery and neglected family duties, which so many brought up on TOB.  And it was discussed over there ad nauseam.


Greedy, selfish and undisciplined? Did he see the movie at all? It was just the other way round: Ennis's duteousness towards his family was one of the reasons he said no to the sweet life with Jack (though it was not the most important one) and he cuts short at least one fishing trip for his girls. If he hadn't have to pay child support, maybe he even would have quit his job again to see Jack in August 1983.
Mikaela has already listed the details, so I won't repeat them here.

And for Jack: we don't see him interact with his family resp. Bobby as much as we see Ennis. But when we do, we see him as loving and caring father, too: the combine scene, "Teacher don't like me" scene (I can picture him nagging to the teacher, bitching and complaining repeatetly, like he did about Aguirre the first summer - it's cute  ). And at the Thanksgiving scene, he acts like any responsible parent should do. To Bobby he is calm but consequential, he doesn't yell at him but makes his point very clear in a responsible way.

I think there's nothing in the quoted paragraph I can agree with.

[nic]

I have a personal angle on this theme: seeing the film version of BBM helped ease some of my anxieties about being a parent in myself in the future.  I have Ennis characteristics: built a shell around me, not open to many others, etc & other personal "baggage" that has always made me feel worried about having a family because of these types of personality traits, increasingly so just recently as I am at the age where I shouldn't leave it too much longer.  To see Ennis have that great father-daughter relationship with Alma Jnr was wonderful for me, as it reassured me that the unconditional love between a parent & child can naturally come to those who are emotionally reticent in other relationships. And the depth of it can help sustain either side through the really tough times life throws at us.

I know there are many examples in other situations but in BBM it shone through to me because I became so involved in the story for all the other aspects that make it a great story.  I'm not one to usually be wishy washy or what other people might call "silly" about such things so it's quite strange for me to draw comfort from a story like this.  It settled my worries in this respect & for that I am very grateful. But it is after all a human story and includes the full spectrum of human emotions.  Now I just have to worry about all the other practical stuff of having kids!! 

[serious crayons]

Greedy, selfish and undisciplined? Did he see the movie at all? It was just the other way round

Another excellent point. How is going on a few fishing trips each year "greedy, selfish and undisciplined"? From the kids' perspective, it doesn't matter whether they were fishing or not -- most parents go out of town once in a while without the kids being permanently scarred. And you're right, Penth, in a sense the whole movie was about Ennis not being greedy, selfish and undisciplined enough.

[jpwagoneer1964]

Will said Mikaela. I think both Ennis and Jack were both good fathers. If it came down to it I think jack woukd be very reluctant to leave Bobbie behind, Ennis thought that through for him.

[jpwagoneer1964]

I javascript:void(0);
Angry
I'm really fed up with people who think it's a mother's job to stay at home and cluck around the kids 24 hours a day linke a hen, meanwhile the father's "sacred" duty is to make enough money.

 

Studies show that where there is a stay at home parent,especially very young children, children have much higher self esteem, get better grades, very less likely to to drugs etc. It is much better for parents to raise their own children, rather than leaving it to day care.

[Penthesilea]

Studies show that where there is a stay at home parent,especially very young children, children have much higher self esteem, get better grades, very less likely to to drugs etc.

"Studies show..."
Well, one of the first things I've learned about studies and statistics is the following: Never trust in any statistics unless you've faked them yourself.
I know it's kind of cynical  and unfair, because you can counter any argument with this sentence. But it shows us to be careful with any kind of studies and statistics as a general rule.

I happen to have dealt with this very topic during my studies. There's a special part of psychology which adresses to the development of children. I hope I translate it right, I think it's called "Developmental psychology" ("Entwicklungspsychologie" in German, if anybody can help me out here). Hope you know what I mean.

Most studies I've seen say (in a nutshell) that the proper development of children into healthy, well-adjusted persons depends not on the question whether or not the main attachment figure of a child is working or not. But the more weightily impact is the contentment of the main attachment figure with his/her personal working/not working situation.
Understood that only the impact of the working/not-working situation of the main attachment figure is taken into account of what I said.

Now add the fact that in real life there are many more factors of influence to the development of children. And the fact that psychology, pedagogics and similar sciences do often deal with soft-data.

(Excursus: again I hope my translation is correct or at least understandable. For example: how do you measure self-esteem? High self-esteem, low self-esteem? Depends on the definition the scientist prefers and on the variables he therefore chooses = soft data
Hard data = anything you can measure exactly, you can count: How tall is the average male US citizen? Which is the average annual temperature in Anchorage? And so on.
I don't have the vocabulary of scientific language in English, so please forgive that I have to explain long winded.)

Given the factors I mentioned, I simply do not believe the equation you set up. Hope that doesn't sound rude (if so, this one is to apologize:  ). And sure you don't have to agree with me, it's ok to have different opinions.