Intriguing Perspective on Bobby Twist's Paternity

[Jeff Wrangler]

This discussion takes me back! I remember--and participated in--a different one at IMDb before the Great Troll Uprising.

I don't remember much of that discussion, but one thing I do remember was that at some point the dates on the sign in the rodeo arena entered into it, and I'm pretty sure the concensus in the end is that we are to take it that Jack met Lureen in the same summer--1966--as Ennis took on the bikers.

I don't recall that discussion ever actually resolving anything. I do remember somebody pointing out that the baby Lureen is holding is way too big to be a newborn. It's always seemed to me to be more logical to assume that Lureen got pregnant by Jack, and that was the reason for the marriage and why L.D. Newsome hated Jack's guts. It was speculated that the screenplay moved the reunion from Annie Proulx's June to September to allow more time, but that's still not enough for the baby to be eight months old, even if Jack and Lureen's rendezvous in the back seat of the car took place on July 4, 1966, and Lureen conceived that very night.

I would think that parents would be pretty accurate about the ages of their children, but I'm not a parent. Maybe our cowboys are just a little vague about their children's ages. In the original story's account of the last fishing trip, even Annie Proulx gives an age for Alma, Jr., that doesn't jive with her given birth date of September 1964.

In earlier versions of the screenplay, Lureen's surname was Phillips.

[opinionista]

Let's do some math. I'm pretty bad with numbers so If someone sees a mistake, do tell please.

So Bobby was 8 months old in September 1967 and "smiled a lot"  . So he must've been born on Jan 1966 considering Lureen had a normal pregnancy and gave birth on her due time, because that's another possibility, although a silly one, that Bobby was born premature or something. Lureen then had to get pregnant by April 1966 and by May she was one month along. If she got pregnant the very same night she had sex with Jack then they met on April 1966. If she didn't, she met Jack sometime between 1965 and April 1966.

[Mikaela]

The word Lure is just too apparent in the first name.

That's a good point. Annie Proulx chose the names Ennis, Del Mar and Twist for a reason - there likely was a specific reason for her to name  "Lureen" too. But it may be no more than that Lureen held a lure for Jack - offered something he'd like to have - could be her money, could be companionship, could be any number of things, really. Jack himself clearly indicates to Ennis that it's her family money held the lure. Then again, in the short story he holds on to her for many years before she gets at that money. And in both story and film he has every reason to soothe Ennis into thinking the money is the (only) lure - it's a safe and non-emotional reason.They've already established earlier that "money is a good point" in doing anything.

When it comes to the filmmakers, they must have made the change from the early script's "Phillips" to the later "Newsome" for a reason - I've imagined they are hinting at Lureen representing "something new" for Jack, and in more ways than one.

Personally, I doubt that any of the names is intended as an anagram with hidden meanings, though some intrieguing ones can definitely be constructed. That just sounds like something that Dan Brown would do, rather than the down-to-earth Annie Proulx.

[bbm_stitchbuffyfan]

Actually, Mikaela, I heard somewhere that Ennis means "island" in (I think) Spanish. (I think I heard somewhere that Del Mar means "of the sea.") And Alma means something too (I think "water"), if I remember accurately...

How do we even know the 4-year reunion was September 1967? Maybe it wasn't exactly four years.

And they didn't skinny-dip on that reunion. We saw them in the hotel room and then we saw them sitting by the fire (this is when Ennis recalls Earl's death...).

[opinionista]

Actually, Mikaela, I heard somewhere that Ennis means "island" in (I think) Spanish. (I think I heard somewhere that Del Mar means "of the sea.") And Alma means something too (I think "water"), if I remember accurately...

How do we even know the 4-year reunion was September 1967? Maybe it wasn't exactly four years.

And they didn't skinny-dip on that reunion. We saw them in the hotel room and then we saw them sitting by the fire (this is when Ennis recalls Earl's death...).

Ennis means Island in gaelic, Alma means "soul" in Spanish, and Twist has something to do with rodeoin. I can't remember accurately but it has to do with leg muscles or something.

[bbm_stitchbuffyfan]

Gaelic, hmm... far cry from Spanish, huh? Regardless, I knew it means 'island' in some language...

I was thinking Alma was water but I guess I just thought that because of the film's "Earth - Wind - Fire - Water" symbolism.

[Jeff Wrangler]

How do we even know the 4-year reunion was September 1967? Maybe it wasn't exactly four years.

I believe "September 1967" is visible on the postmark of Jack's postcard when Ennis reads it.

[whiteoutofthemoon]

Thanks everyone for the interesting input, I knew I'd get some great info!    The reason the OP on IMDB had a compelling argument was that he noted that specific dates were mentioned, either in PA annoucements or painted signs, that basically stamped the dates on the scenes, and therefore made it biologically impossible for Jack to be Bobby's dad.   I thought I noticed the same things on prior viewings.    So, that posters argument was simple:  either this was intentional, and Jack was very subtlely implied to not be the sperm-donor, or else, it had to be a mistake.

So let's debate that last question:   first of all, was it a mistake?  I guess we all would hate to think there are mistakes in an otherwise perfect movie, but we all are well aware of disappearing logs on stumps and the magic levitating peanut jars, so, yeah, it happens.   But, why make a point of making sure these dates are announced in the first place, if it was all a mistake.   It just seems so un-Ang-like for Ang, who we all know is meticulous, to take the trouble of making sure the dates are included in these noted scenes, and have them be wrong chronologically.    Was he secretly putting in a little puzzler, to be discovered by only the true Brokie?   These dates, as I understand, were not a conflict in the short story, so it was purely an issue of the movie.


And, let's just say, for argument, that Jack was NOT the father of Bobby.   Some of you wonder why in the world this would be added to the plot line at all, when it was not developed in any way, and it could have made a bigger impact on the whole theme of the movie?    Well, again, the points are subtle: as noted by me already, Jack seems more disconnected to his son than Ennis to his daughters.    A poster above made some excellent points about why that might be, but Jack seemed just so much more available and willing to leave his family, namely his son, for Ennis, and I'd like to think that he would be just as loyal to his son as he was to Ennis.   

Another small but little-discussed detail:    did it occur to you that Jack's parents had NEVER met their only grandson?   Jack always visited Lightning Flat alone, and even in the book, Lureen specifically says she never met her in-laws.   I can imagine that the distance and their limited means might make travel to Texas impossible, but not a mention by them, not even a picture of their grandson in their house (although, no picture of Jack either).   

So, mistake, or very sly insertion by our famed Director, to add this other element of Jack's miserable life, that he was stuck in a marriage of convenience and appearances only, and his son was not even his son?   Just makes it all the more sad, that Jack then died so bitterly, sadly ......  alone.      He lost Ennis, his parents were distant, his wife didn't give a damn, his in-laws hated him, and he had no kids, no legacy to continue.     Makes it all the more profound of what Ennis meant to him.

[Mikaela]

OK, I'll bite once more! 

Either this was intentional, and Jack was very subtlely implied to not be the sperm-donor, or else, it had to be a mistake.

So let's debate that last question:   first of all, was it a mistake? 

In my opinion, it was. At least I don't think the film intentionally wanted to indicate that Bobby wasn't Jack's son. As much as anything because it doesn't make sense to me to insert that in relation to the main plot and story, as I've outlined at length above so won't repeat myself.

Reading script versions, I have noted how the script writers did go to great lengths to insert date/year references into many scenes of the story in order to illustrate the passage of time. Tv commentaries, calnendars, posters, banners and cards etc. show the years. I see why they did that, but I think they also may have painted themselves into a corner or two when it came to later editing of the scenes and the sequence of scenes in some cases.

And, let's just say, for argument, that Jack was NOT the father of Bobby.   [snip] ....but Jack seemed just so much more available and willing to leave his family, namely his son, for Ennis, and I'd like to think that he would be just as loyal to his son as he was to Ennis.   

In my view, there *is* a difference in Jack and Ennis here. Jack *is* more willing to leave his son, than Ennis his daughters. In my opinion as explained above, this is partly because Jack anticipates and plans on actually leaving from the boy is very small - while Ennis does not, and so they behave differently in forming bonds with their kids. Jack's not a saint, he's got his good sides and his less-than-perfect ones. His treatment of Bobby possibly falls into the latter category.

Even if the boy isn't Jack's, I can't see that his behaviour (ie. willingness to leave the boy) is thereby shown up in any better light. *He* might know that the boy is not his, and *Lureen* might know - but have they told Bobby? I think not. Whether Jack was the biological father or not, Bobby would hurt just as much when Jack left. To Bobby it would mean losing the only father he'd ever had - and Jack'd have to know and consider that impact on the boy, whether or not he knew himself to be the biological father.

Another small but little-discussed detail:    did it occur to you that Jack's parents had NEVER met their only grandson?   Jack always visited Lightning Flat alone, and even in the book, Lureen specifically says she never met her in-laws.   I can imagine that the distance and their limited means might make travel to Texas impossible, but not a mention by them, not even a picture of their grandson in their house (although, no picture of Jack either).   

This is an interesting topic; - why Jack kept these two of his 3 lives so separate. It deserves more time and thought than I have at present.  It could well have to do with the reasons I outlined in the previous post, - that Jack expected and planned to leave soon, and therefore did not work on establishing links between the Newsomes (including Bobby) and the Twists. In fact, that he discouraged it so that his parents would not feel the loss of their grandson keenly after Jack had moved in with Ennis and the boy would be a Newsome who'd likely never be allowed contact with the Twists. It could also have to do with Jack's father - if he thought Jack was too goddamn special, what wouldn't he think of the Newsomes, including Bobby and Lureen? And the more jack and Lureen prospered down in Texas, the more Jack may have felt the distance  to the humble nature of the Twist ranch - perhaps he'd rather not Lureen go up there and see it?

Anyway, there could be many reasons for the Twist/Newsome divide not related to Bobby's paternity.


All just IMO, of course. I can see that the opposite points can be argued.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'm sticking with the idea that it's an error. The screenwriters made an admirable attempt to incorporate Annie Proulx's dialogue whenever they could, and the "eight months old" comes right from AP. If someone had thought to reduce the number of months, there would have been no question and it might have even made it more plausible that Jack was willing to abandon Lureen and the baby for Ennis--he wasn't yet as bonded to his son as he later became.

It does seem a stretch that nobody in the entire cast and crew questioned this discrepancy, but I'm falling back on my favorite tool of analysis, Occam's Razor--I think it's a simpler explanation to assume that somebody goofed than it is to concoct an elaborate scenario where Jack is not Bobby's father, a scenario that is then not developed or does not play any noticeable part in the plot of the film.

Added: I've wondered, too, about Lureen never meeting her in-laws in like, what, 15 years of marriage to Jack? On the other hand, considering Jack and Lureen's place in Childress, can you see Lureen in the Twist homestead in Lightning Flat?