condiments

[Samrim]

Hello everyone
I've read many many threads, with interest and amusement, I love our shared commitment to ole Brokeback. I put a DVD on last night, rented from Amazon; before the main film a series of trailers included BBM, and even though it was the trailer which was such a travesty (wrong sequence, altered storyline ), I was still becoming upset. All it takes is those first couple of guitar notes and I'm off! Stupid boy! The film was Johnny Depp as the Libertine, a bit cringily racey, but actually better than I'd feared (Think Shakespeare in Love with the dirty bits left in). for me JD is a 'must see, so I had to give it a try. He's a'force of nature'
Heres my question though! When Ennis takes the little girls to Alma at the 'condiments' and she is arguing, trying to put him off, I found his expression ambiguous. I don't think it was anger, nor condescending amusement, but what?
As an afterthought, I thought that Ennis's face,at that young age was quite wonderful, the planes of his jaw and cheeks were to die for- I have a face like a squashed tomato, so I guess it's just the 'green eyed monster'. Best wishes all,

[Jeff Wrangler]

The look on Ennis's face when Alma says she doesn't get off her job for another three hours always makes me think of the Annie Proulx line: "He gave [her] a look."

I can't really come up with a single word to describe the look on Ennis's face, but I know what he's trying to convey: the typical attitude of a male raised when and where Ennis was raised that used to be called "male chauvinist." 

Clearly, he does not value Alma's job--maybe even resents that she he has it. His attitude is that his job is the important one (he might get fired if any of the calves die), and Alma's job doesn't matter--never mind if she got fired for taking off in the middle of her shift. She's a woman and his wife, and her place is in the home. Like I said, male chauvinist.

He displays the same attitude in the "kick the can" scene, when they fight as Alma hurries off to the extra shift she promised to take at the store (which she probably needed for the extra money). She tells Ennis that dinner is on the stove, and he responds that nobody's eating it unless she serves it (serves it to him--he clearly isn't thinking of the children), and she needs to tell "them" (presumably actually Monroe) that she was mistaken to take the extra shift.

[serious crayons]

I can't really come up with a single word to describe the look on Ennis's face, but I know what he's trying to convey: the typical attitude of a male raised when and where Ennis was raised that used to be called "male chauvinist." 

You know, I feel like such a broken record that I'm sure people just roll their eyes by now when I rush to Ennis' defense -- "Here she goes again ..." -- and skip on to the next post. But I have to say that although I am normally quite sensitive to sexist remarks, I am not offended by Ennis' behavior in the grocery-store scene.

Actually, the scene does bother me for three reasons: 1) the hint of Australian accent, which always makes me cringe* 2) its seeming pointlessness and 3) Alma's oddly sudden acquiescence. As for his expression, he looks to me like he's appealing to her to be reasonable, maybe because Monroe doesn't seem to mind the mid-shift childcare juggling, whereas the foreman undoubtedly would, and also because Alma has a sister she can call on in a pinch. Some people have suggested she's backing down out of fear of violence, which seems unlikely. Others have said this scene was originally supposed to come after the reunion, which might explain why it seems pointless.

The ash-can scene's "No one's eatin it unless you're servin it" does sound sexist, I'll admit (though what gives you the impression, Jeff, that he is thinking only of himself, not the children?). But also note that Alma wins this round -- she doesn't come scurrying back out of fear of his violent temper (maybe now, having found out about Jack, she's not so intent on pleasing her husband). And elsewhere Ennis doesn't seem to insist on a particularly strict division of domestic chores, especially by the standards of them days -- he's the one who goes to comfort their daughters when they're crying and he's the one who puts them to bed later.

* Note to Australians: I mean hearing the hint of Australian accent always makes me cringe when I watch this scene, because it's out of place, not that Australian accents make me cringe in general -- quite the contrary, in fact!

[Jeff Wrangler]

Are you saying Ennis's assumption that he can just dump the girls on Alma--in the middle of her shift at her job--because he can't tell his boss that he can't come into work is not sexist? Granted it's behavior typical of the period, but does that mean it isn't sexist, just because it's typical?

I don't think Alma backs down out of fear. I think she backs down because she buys into the same cultural norms as Ennis. That she doesn't back down in the later scene suggests some growth on her part that ultimately culminates in her dumping Ennis. I think this also answers the concern about the apparent pointlessness of the scene. If we contrast Alma's later behavior when she storms off to the store with her backing down in the earlier scene, it isn't pointless at all.

I think you could call the look on Ennis's face a "be reasonable" look, but it's "be reasonable" on his terms. After all, why couldnt he call Alma's sister--his sister-in-law, his children's aunt--just as easily as Alma? I wouldn't be surprised if that thought never even crossed his mind, because in his mind, child care is Alma's job. He might put his little angels to bed once in a while, or wipe their noses, or buy them an ice cream, but child care is the woman's responsibility in the time and place where he was raised. I don't think those daddy-type actions necessarily demonstrate his views on division of labor in child care. Don't forget his response when Alma asks him to wipe his daughter's nose: "I would if I had three hands!"

I also read somewhere that the grocery store scene, at some point, was supposed to come after the reunion, and also that Ennis was supposed to be running off to Jack. It was probably a good thing that was changed, otherwise we would have had Ennis telling Alma an easily disprovable lie.

Why do I think Ennis isn't thinking of the children in the later scene? Because he's carrying on because Alma's not doing what he wants her to do. It doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not Alma, Jr., and Jenny get their supper. He's not getting his way, and it pisses him off.

[serious crayons]

Are you saying Ennis's assumption that he can just dump the girls on Alma--in the middle of her shift at her job--because he can't tell his boss that he can't come into work is not sexist? Granted it's behavior typical of the period, but does that mean it isn't sexist, just because it's typical?

No, being typical for the time is not a factor. Having been in that two working parents/two small children situation myself (finally, Jeff! I get to play the "firsthand experience" card in a debate with you!  ) I can say that you do what it takes to get through each day. When my kids were the ages of Alma Jr. and Jenny, my husband and I were both reporters at the same newspaper. Daycare closed at the stroke of 6, news events weren't so punctual. We would juggle as best we could -- speeding to the daycare center in rush-hour traffic, sneaking out of the newsroom just as some big story was coming in over the police scanner, handing the kids back and forth between day shifts and night meetings, occasionally bringing a baby into the office while we pounded out a deadline story. If there were conflicts, it came down to whose particular situation was the most flexible at the moment.

Back to the movie. In this case, it appears the most flexible situation at that moment is Alma's: understanding boss, sister at the ready, no animals in a health-care crisis. Could Ennis call the sister himself? I suppose, but I know I'd sure rather my husband call his own family members to babysit in a pinch than do it myself, and I'm pretty close to my in-laws. Do they trade back and forth, so that another time Alma makes Ennis take the girls to work and everything stays equitable? Probably not. Once again, she's got the sister and the understanding boss and the job that -- though clearly not the place for toddlers -- is still probably more amenable to them than Ennis'. Whether Ennis is sexist or not, what are the chances that in them days a boss would look kindly on a dad bringing his toddlers to a ranch (as compared to Monroe's sympathetic response)?

(Remember, too, and I don't mean to sound classist or patronizing, but it's possible neither Alma -- nor maybe even Ennis -- is working for exactly the same reasons you or I might. It's less about a career or independence or self-fulfillment than it is about making money to support their family. So if Ennis interferes with Alma's job, it's not exactly like he's squashing her feminist career dreams, at most he's jeopardizing her ability to make extra money to make up for what she feels he's failing to provide.)

Still, I'll admit that as I type, I can see where the ash-can scene becomes somewhat MORE sexist by comparison. After all, in that case Ennis isn't even actually working. So there's no doubt his behavior could have been better here. Frankly, I don't know why he makes such a big thing of it or what that scene is supposed to convey, given that the filmmakers go out of their way elsewhere to show Ennis is NOT that sexist. Maybe it's about Alma's increasing disillusionment. Or maybe it has some sub-surface meaning I'm not getting. Otherwise, I'd toss it into Katie77's thread about expendible scenes.

in his mind, child care is Alma's job. He might put his little angels to bed once in a while, or wipe their noses, or buy them an ice cream, but child care is the woman's responsibility in the time and place where he was raised. I don't think those daddy-type actions necessarily demonstrate his views on division of labor in child care. Don't forget his response when Alma asks him to wipe his daughter's nose: "I would if I had three hands!"

But to invoke Occam's Razor, you're positing a whole facet to Ennis character (child care is Alma's job) that we DON'T see, while ignoring the facet of his character (wiping noses, putting to bed) that we DO see. Yes, we know people were sexist in them days. But when we're shown a whole scene in which Ennis is acting in exact opposition to that stereotype, I don't think it's negligible, I think it's meant to make a point about his character. As for "I would if I had three hands," I think I saw somewhere that's supposed to have metaphoric meaning, but i don't remember what. Right on the surface, though, what we see is a man coming home from work and, instead of cracking a beer and turning on the TV, goes immediately to swoop up two screaming, runny-nosed toddlers, doing his best to charm them ("whoop, whoop, whoop!") into stopping their crying. Three hands? That's not a cop-out; anybody would feel the same way in the face of that wall of screams

So again, to me it doesn't make sense to watch that scene and draw exactly the opposite conclusion, that he's an inattentive dad and/or sexist husband.

It was probably a good thing that was changed, otherwise we would have had Ennis telling Alma an easily disprovable lie

Probably not the only time that happened, I'm guessing.  Though come to think of it, it doesn't make sense in this case -- if he were going off with Jack, why would he only be out "half the night"?

Why do I think Ennis isn't thinking of the children in the later scene? Because he's carrying on because Alma's not doing what he wants her to do. It doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not Alma, Jr., and Jenny get their supper. He's not getting his way, and it pisses him off.

Sure enough. His focus is on his anger at Alma. But it's not like he would let the girls starve ...

Tell you what, if there's one thing we're repeatedly shown about Ennis' character outside of his feelings for Jack, it's his devotion to his daughters. That part of his life is emphasized much more than it typically is in movies in which male characters,  involved in adult situations, also happen to be fathers. The standard comparison is "Walk the Line." I don't know if you saw it; it's good, Joaquin Phoenix is awesome, and I like Johnny Cash. But I can tell you we do not see any scenes of Johnny Cash wiping his children's noses. In fact, I can't remember from the movie how many children he has, or what genders. So why watch Ennis fussing over his daughters and form the conclusion that he is an inadequate father?

[opinionista]

You know, I feel like such a broken record that I'm sure people just roll their eyes by now when I rush to Ennis' defense -- "Here she goes again ..." -- and skip on to the next post. But I have to say that although I am normally quite sensitive to sexist remarks, I am not offended by Ennis' behavior in the grocery-store scene.

Actually, the scene does bother me for three reasons: 1) the hint of Australian accent, which always makes me cringe 2) its seeming pointlessness and 3) Alma's oddly sudden acquiescence. As for his expression, he looks to me like he's appealing to her to be reasonable, maybe because Monroe doesn't seem to mind the mid-shift childcare juggling, whereas the foreman undoubtedly would, and also because Alma has a sister she can call on in a pinch. Some people have suggested she's backing down out of fear of violence, which seems unlikely. Others have said this scene was originally supposed to come after the reunion, which might explain why it seems pointless.

I didn't think the scene was pointless. IMO, it has the purpose of showing that Ennis was a chauvinistic, and behaved accordingly within his domestic life. The scene tries to convey that men in general were raised to behave like that, and Ennis was no exception. This isn't about giving a negative idea about Ennis as an individual, but to show a social reality. If they were to show Ennis behaving differently it would be weird and unrealistic. Also, the fact that Alma protests shows that times were changing, even in rural America. Furthermore, this scene portrays Alma's increasing unhappiness, and Monore's interest in her. It provides context to the later scene where he is shown married to Alma.

[nakymaton]

I think Ennis is very much typical of his time and culture and gender and part of the world. If Ennis were picked up and dumped into my current world, then yeah, he would seem sexist. But I don't hold it against him -- Ennis belongs to a particular time and place, and furthermore, he changes through time. (He may dump Cassie in an annoyingly passive way, but he doesn't seem to have any problems with her aspirations to go to nursing school. And he does care about his daughters a great deal.)

But to me, the grocery store scene says that the roots of the conflict between Ennis and Alma were already established before the reunion. Neither Ennis nor Alma seems to be all that aware of the other's needs. Ennis seems a bit oblivious to the demands of Alma's job. (And earlier... you know, the "did what she hated" scene always disturbs me a bit, because Alma clearly hates it, and Ennis just doesn't seem to be aware of that. If Alma seemed to be passively going along with Ennis's preferred position, that would be one thing, but the look on her face really disturbs me.) And at the same time, Alma doesn't seem to understand Ennis, either -- not just his sexuality, but the other things that drive him as well, like his preference for open spaces and work with animals. She kind of wheedles the whole living-in-town thing out of him, for instance. (Alma's got good reasons for wanting to live in town -- she's got a really hard life out in the middle of nowhere, scrubbing away at that washboard, canning food (ever noticed all the jars on her windowsill), not getting to see people much at all. But Ennis is right about the costs of living in town -- Alma trades slaving over a washboard for working in the grocery store.)

Anyway... it seems to me that neither Ennis nor Alma really pays a lot of attention to what the other one really wants or needs out of life. Maybe in a world of rigid gender roles and societal expectations, partners don't need to listen to each other. But the world around them is changing; women's roles in the wide world change during the time Ennis and Alma are married, and they can't rely on rules to keep them together. (No more than any other couple could during the time.)

(There's a great contrast between the way Ennis deals with Alma versus Jack, too. Ennis is so much more in tune with what Jack wants, quietly ordering soup after Jack's first complaint about beans.)

[Jeff Wrangler]

I didn't think the scene was pointless. IMO, it has the purpose of showing that Ennis was a chauvinistic, and behaved accordingly within his domestic life. The scene tries to convey that men in general were raised to behave like that, and Ennis was no exception. This isn't about giving a negative idea about Ennis as an individual, but to show a social reality. If they were to show Ennis behaving differently it would be weird and unrealistic. Also, the fact that Alma protests shows that times were changing, even in rural America. Furthermore, this scene portrays Alma's increasing unhappiness, and Monore's interest in her. It provides context to the later scene where he is shown married to Alma.

Thank you, opinionista! You conveyed exactly how I feel, and you did it better and more succinctly!

[Jeff Wrangler]

No, being typical for the time is not a factor. Having been in that two working parents/two small children situation myself (finally, Jeff! I get to play the "firsthand experience" card in a debate with you!  ) I can say that you do what it takes to get through each day. When my kids were the ages of Alma Jr. and Jenny, my husband and I were both reporters at the same newspaper. Daycare closed at the stroke of 6, news events weren't so punctual. We would juggle as best we could -- speeding to the daycare center in rush-hour traffic, sneaking out of the newsroom just as some big story was coming in over the police scanner, handing the kids back and forth between day shifts and night meetings, occasionally bringing a baby into the office while we pounded out a deadline story. If there were conflicts, it came down to whose particular situation was the most flexible at the moment.

No doubt it's that way for lots of parents. I don't envy any of them, and I'm not jokin'!

Back to the movie. In this case, it appears the most flexible situation at that moment is Alma's: understanding boss, sister at the ready, no animals in a health-care crisis. Could Ennis call the sister himself? I suppose, but I know I'd sure rather my husband call his own family members to babysit in a pinch than do it myself, and I'm pretty close to my in-laws. Do they trade back and forth, so that another time Alma makes Ennis take the girls to work and everything stays equitable? Probably not. Once again, she's got the sister and the understanding boss and the job that -- though clearly not the place for toddlers -- is still probably more amenable to them than Ennis'. Whether Ennis is sexist or not, what are the chances that in them days a boss would look kindly on a dad bringing his toddlers to a ranch (as compared to Monroe's sympathetic response)?

The chances are nil that Ennis's boss would be understanding, I'd say. But that points to both the typicality of the situation in the period and location, and also that a ranch is no place for toddlers with no one to look after them. As for Ennis calling his family, remember, his parents are dead, his sister is in Casper (am I confused or remembering that correctly?), and I think we don't really know where his married brother is living. It never occurred to me to question that Alma's "people," including her sister, were the ones close by, so that Ennis calling his own sister wouldn't even have entered into the calculation.

(Remember, too, and I don't mean to sound classist or patronizing, but it's possible neither Alma -- nor maybe even Ennis -- is working for exactly the same reasons you or I might. It's less about a career or independence or self-fulfillment than it is about making money to support their family. So if Ennis interferes with Alma's job, it's not exactly like he's squashing her feminist career dreams, at most he's jeopardizing her ability to make extra money to make up for what she feels he's failing to provide.)

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, but I never had the slightest doubt that Alma's job arose from economic necessity--that talk about being behind on the bills, and so forth--not from any desire on her part for self-fulfillment (times haven't changed much, have they?). He is jeopardizing her ability to make needed extra money--but that look on his face says to me that he clearly devalues her job compared to his own (one male ego speaking to another, I guess.  )

Still, I'll admit that as I type, I can see where the ash-can scene becomes somewhat MORE sexist by comparison. After all, in that case Ennis isn't even actually working. So there's no doubt his behavior could have been better here. Frankly, I don't know why he makes such a big thing of it or what that scene is supposed to convey, given that the filmmakers go out of their way elsewhere to show Ennis is NOT that sexist. Maybe it's about Alma's increasing disillusionment. Or maybe it has some sub-surface meaning I'm not getting. Otherwise, I'd toss it into Katie77's thread about expendible scenes.

We will really have to agree to disagree yet again, because I do not believe that the filmmakers "go out of their way elsewhere to show Ennis is NOT that sexist." I see virtually all of his behavior toward Alma as sexist. To be sure, he's not some chauvinist pig lout--though he does wear a "wife-beater"  --but I see his behavior as sexist though typical of a man raised when and where and with the value system that he was raised.

But to invoke Occam's Razor, you're positing a whole facet to Ennis character (child care is Alma's job) that we DON'T see, while ignoring the facet of his character (wiping noses, putting to bed) that we DO see. Yes, we know people were sexist in them days. But when we're shown a whole scene in which Ennis is acting in exact opposition to that stereotype, I don't think it's negligible, I think it's meant to make a point about his character. As for "I would if I had three hands," I think I saw somewhere that's supposed to have metaphoric meaning, but i don't remember what. Right on the surface, though, what we see is a man coming home from work and, instead of cracking a beer and turning on the TV, goes immediately to swoop up two screaming, runny-nosed toddlers, doing his best to charm them ("whoop, whoop, whoop!") into stopping their crying. Three hands? That's not a cop-out; anybody would feel the same way in the face of that wall of screams

So again, to me it doesn't make sense to watch that scene and draw exactly the opposite conclusion, that he's an inattentive dad and/or sexist husband.

Fair enough, 'bout the razor, I mean, but here we're reading the evidence that we do have differently. I see those bits of business where Ennis displays caring behavior toward his daughters as only intending only to convey that he loves them, nothing more, nothing about his ideas or role in their care. I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a parent, but surely it's possible for a man to love his children but still believe that their care is the responsibility of his wife. Especially when that man is an uneducated ranch hand in mid-1960s Wyoming.

Tell you what, if there's one thing we're repeatedly shown about Ennis' character outside of his feelings for Jack, it's his devotion to his daughters. That part of his life is emphasized much more than it typically is in movies in which male characters,  involved in adult situations, also happen to be fathers. The standard comparison is "Walk the Line." I don't know if you saw it; it's good, Joaquin Phoenix is awesome, and I like Johnny Cash. But I can tell you we do not see any scenes of Johnny Cash wiping his children's noses. In fact, I can't remember from the movie how many children he has, or what genders. So why watch Ennis fussing over his daughters and form the conclusion that he is an inadequate father?

And when, may I ask, did I ever say Ennis was an inadequate father? All I said was that I believe he believes that child care is his wife's job. The "three hands" remark clearly shows his exasperation at that moment--it's directed at Alma and he's venting his annoyance at having to deal with the kids while Alma scrubs something on that washboard. And somebody, somewhere, on some thread--it wasn't me, honest it wasn't--has wondered why Alma left the baby cry and kept on with that scrubbing rather than dry her hands, let the laundry wait, and go see to the baby.

And there is plenty of evidence of his sexism in both the grocery store and "kick the can" scenes. Ennis is a man of his time and place and value system, but that doesn't make his behavior any less sexist.

[ZouBEini]

...Heres my question though! When Ennis takes the little girls to Alma at the 'condiments' and she is arguing, trying to put him off, I found his expression ambiguous. I don't think it was anger, nor condescending amusement, but what?  

Hello Samrim, in answer to your question:

I interpret Ennis' expression to mean, "I am the man of the house and you will do as I say". 

I saw this expression on men's faces, and the same submissive reaction from "their women", many times in my youth.  My father was not raised like Ennis but I knew men who were trained to act that way.

~Larz