Jack's adolescence is a blank page...

[Penthesilea]

I think it was the right choice.  Sorry for ranting.

Rant on as long as you want. Great posts everyone! 


I think the most obvious reason to let the urinating scene out of the movie is the difficulty to film and to see it. You would have needed a small child to film it. I realize that filming a scene is very different to seeing the end product on a screen, and you could have probalby filmed it with clever cuts, but still ....
I personally am glad they didn't include it in the movie.

Additionally, there's the question where to include it? Same place as it is in the SS? No. I think it would have destroyed the perfection of the whole LF sequence. It would have distracted the viewer.
Ang Lee would have had to find a way to make it clear to the audience that it is a flashback of something Jack had told Ennis about. Alternatively, he could have shown Jack telling Ennis about it at one of their fishing trips. But somehow this could have come out like some sort of comparison with Ennis's story about his old man.

[Mandy21]

I completely agree, Pent.  To film it, you'd need some very innocent-looking 4-year-old boy, and I can't think of any other way to get the point across except to show a grown man's uncircumcised penis in close-up, and who wants to see that when they're paying $10 for a ticket???  LOL...  Anyway, I am also glad they left it out of the movie.  True fans were going to read the book anyway.  I agree with your other points as well -- where to inject it in the story so that it's not Jack competing with Ennis as to who had the most disturbing childhood -- "I did", "No, I did", etc., AND so that the movie audience (at least) is still able to listen to what OMT has to say in the LF scene.  If the audience had already seen him do that to Jack when he was a boy, they would have just cringed when seeing him as an old man, and probably not heard a word he said.  And they'd have missed out on an important speech, one that I think is equally telling in relaying the bitterness and sickness of this old man.  That actor played OMT to perfection, I thought, right down to the timing of the spit into the cup.  If I was Ennis and walked into a room and had to sit down across the table from THAT -- eeeeeekkkkkk!!!!!!  I can't believe he managed to hold it together and speak calmly and consolingly and humanely in the face of a monster like that at the other end of the table.  But we know from the story that Jack had told Ennis of this at some point, so we as story-readers, can only presume that Ennis the movie version knows all about OMT.

Maybe Amanda and optom3 will have something to say from the opposing side?   Any thoughts/suggestions as to how they would have adapted that scene to the screen?  I'd be curious on your take. 

[optom3]

Rant on as long as you want. Great posts everyone! 


I think the most obvious reason to let the urinating scene out of the movie is the difficulty to film and to see it. You would have needed a small child to film it. I realize that filming a scene is very different to seeing the end product on a screen, and you could have probalby filmed it with clever cuts, but still ....
I personally am glad they didn't include it in the movie.

Additionally, there's the question where to include it? Same place as it is in the SS? No. I think it would have destroyed the perfection of the whole LF sequence. It would have distracted the viewer.
Ang Lee would have had to find a way to make it clear to the audience that it is a flashback of something Jack had told Ennis about. Alternatively, he could have shown Jack telling Ennis about it at one of their fishing trips. But somehow this could have come out like some sort of comparison with Ennis's story about his old man.

I jusy wonder if it could have been a flashback in the same way as we had with Ennis and the scene he witnessed.I am sure it could have been filmed just with the noise of a zipper from OMT( just as in TS1.)I agree that the circumcision part would have been difficult ,but that could have been part of a conversation between Jack and Ennis when,Jack  states that from then on having seen his dad he knew the diference and there was no going back.

I would not have wanted to witnesss the scene in full graphic detail,I just think it could have bben alluded to.You dont even need to see the child unclothed which would be very wrong,but could instead see the mess made by the child,OMT zipper sound, then cut to child soaking wet and cleaning floor and clothes etc.All as flashback.
Then cut back to present with conversation between Jack and Ennis to fill in the gaps,re Jacks feelings on the matter and how it affected him.

However I am not a director and maybe it was thought a bridge too far for the public.Lee was after all taking a big risk in the first place.
Where it was placed in the film,I would have had it as another campfire scene,where they did most of their talking.Followed of course by another tender scene in the tent.
But then I just wanted to see more of Jack and Ennis together,aka motel and TS2.After all they have more meetings over the years than we get to see in the film.

Of course that does leave a problem of length of film,which leads on to what bit to cut out to include the new scene!!!!! For me to see more of Jack and Ennis I would have beeen happy to see lesss of the sheep herding part.But I am sooo biased.In any case who am I to start mucking around with a film so perfect I must have watched it at least 50 times in just 2 months!!!!!!!!!

So thats my thoughts on the matter.I am beginning to wish I had not opened my mouth as I feel a foot in gob situation here!!!!

Feel free to disagree,I love to get other peoples opinions,sometimes it even makes me change my mind,or think more laterally about things,instead of literally.

[elomelo]

I jusy wonder if it could have been a flashback in the same way as we had with Ennis and the scene he witnessed.I am sure it could have been filmed just with the noise of a zipper from OMT( just as in TS1.)I agree that the circumcision part would have been difficult ,but that could have been part of a conversation between Jack and Ennis when,Jack  states that from then on having seen his dad he knew the diference and there was no going back.

I would not have wanted to witnesss the scene in full graphic detail,I just think it could have bben alluded to.You dont even need to see the child unclothed which would be very wrong,but could instead see the mess made by the child,OMT zipper sound, then cut to child soaking wet and cleaning floor and clothes etc.All as flashback.
Then cut back to present with conversation between Jack and Ennis to fill in the gaps,re Jacks feelings on the matter and how it affected him.

However I am not a director and maybe it was thought a bridge too far for the public.Lee was after all taking a big risk in the first place.
Where it was placed in the film,I would have had it as another campfire scene,where they did most of their talking.Followed of course by another tender scene in the tent.
But then I just wanted to see more of Jack and Ennis together,aka motel and TS2.After all they have more meetings over the years than we get to see in the film.

Of course that does leave a problem of length of film,which leads on to what bit to cut out to include the new scene!!!!! For me to see more of Jack and Ennis I would have beeen happy to see lesss of the sheep herding part.But I am sooo biased.In any case who am I to start mucking around with a film so perfect I must have watched it at least 50 times in just 2 months!!!!!!!!!

So thats my thoughts on the matter.I am beginning to wish I had not opened my mouth as I feel a foot in gob situation here!!!!

Feel free to disagree,I love to get other peoples opinions,sometimes it even makes me change my mind,or think more laterally about things,instead of literally.

I agree that shedding light on Jack's childhood would've given that movie that much of an impact but then again, maybe, Ang Lee didn't want to overdo it since the overall theme of the movie was already a huge leap. But I have to say that Jack's abuse could have been less subtle and tie in with Ennis's equally traumatizing childhood.

But then again...yeah, it would be distracting and more painful than necessary to see such a scene which would require a small child. And where that scene would go? Hmm...maybe on a fishing trip? Or even on the mountain, as per the story? Hmm...

[Brown Eyes]

I agree with the practical aspects of leaving the scene out and the ideas of "over-doing it" and the idea that the scene would be traumatic to watch are all good points.  But, I think the scene with Earl, for instance, is just about as brutal as the scene with Jack and his father would be.  They would be brutal in different ways... but probably equivalently brutal.  And, they did include a child in the Earl scene.  Granted, that child actor probably didn't really have to look at the image of the mutilated body of Earl.  I think there would be creative ways to film a scene with Jack and his father that wouldn't be too traumatic to watch (or too traumatic for a child actor to be involved in).  It could be done through suggestion... or even through Jack simply explaining it at some point (as he does in Proulx's story).

It's just such a major detail to leave out of the film.  And, it seems to completely alter a viewer's potential response to Old Man Twist.  A film viewer wouldn't know that he's not only a jerk, but a horribly abusive father.  And, as others here have pointed out, it takes away an element of understanding why Jack and Ennis might have a really powerful bond (bonding over extremely traumatic childhoods and especially difficult fathers... even if they never discussed this explicitly... I think this type of bond is implied by Proulx).

Leaving Jack's side of this out a bit, makes the emphasis of the film more on Ennis as a clear protagonist.  Maybe that was one motivation in this decision.

[elomelo]

Good points - yeah, the scene with the brutal murder was shocking as was Jack being beaten in Ennis's thoughts when he hears Lureen explaining the "accident".

And yes, maybe it's to focus on Ennis who is the main character, and not ladden the plates of the audience with this additional information on Jack. But it would have definitely had that much more of an impact, tying the two together.

We just happen to know this much because we've read the story as well. (:

[Monika]

I'm not sure "run off" would be the right term.  He was 18 in '62, and we don't know how many years of high school he completed.  Maybe his dad made him drop out at 15, expecting / needing him to be a help on the farm, continued to give him food and shelter, etc., and Jack turns out to not have his heart in it at all.  I would think he would just want to get the heck out of that place the minute he could.  We don't know if Jack had any other jobs prior to Brokeback '62 to earn some cash to buy that truck, but I'm leaning towards the idea above that it was just an old clunker of a truck, and his dad let him have it, on the hope that he'd get out of town in it, and maybe stay gone since he wasn't any help to him on the farm.  We also don't know if Jack came back home for the winter '62 / spring '63 period before heading back to Brokeback.  I'm guessing he must have cause he probably couldn't have made it to warmer climes to work the Rodeo circuit in that thing.

On the earlier topic of his "initiation" (what a nice word for it:)), I agree that he surely seems like a young man who has had some experience in the arena of sex with a man.  Let's face it, he was the one reaching for Ennis's right hand in the tent, and he didn't seem too confused by the act itself, in terms of who goes where and what goes where (hope I'm not offending anybody).  I think by the way Aguirre gives the instructions to Jack and Ennis on day one, that those were the standard set of instructions, followed year after year -- that there was always one man staying at the camp and one man staying with the sheep.  Remember, he says don't leave no signs that you were there to Jack, that the Forest Service can't know that you were there.  One person couldn't survive in just what he could carry on the back of one horse through those conditions.  So I think there had to always be two up there.  Having said that, I'm not sold on the idea that Jack had his initiation at Brokeback in '62 for this reason (bear with me, it's kind of scattered):  Jack seems to me as a very romantic, sensual man -- the kind that could fall in love and get his heart broken easily.  If he'd had sex with his Brokeback partner in '62, I suppose it could have just been casual sex, but how casual can sex be when it goes on for 6 months (April - Sept).  And if it went on for that long, Jack seems to me the type who would have fallen in love with that guy.  If that was the case, and Jack never saw that guy again, he'd have had a broken heart, he'd have been gun-shy about jumping in again.  The Jack that pulls up in front of that trailer in April '63 and gets out, kicks his truck, turns and lays his eyes on Ennis one time and then oh-so-seductively poses against his truck with those come-and-get-me-cowboy eyes (sorry, I'm getting hot and bothered now) -- to me, that is NOT a man who's ever had a broken heart or been the least bit hesitant to jump in with both feet when he sees something he wants.   So, IMHO, I don't think Jack was a virgin, but I also don't think he lost it on Brokeback.

Any of that make any sense to anybody?

I agree with everything you say. I think it´s clear that Jack has had previous experience when it comes to sex with men, but I don´t believe either it was from the summer before. I find it more likely that i happened earlier. I mean, it´s pretty common that kids play sexual games with one another. Perhaps Jack met a like-minded kid in school.

[Artiste]

Jack's adolescence is a blank page...
..........

Is it?

Maybe! Likely no!

We know about him... in some ways.

But, there are buts !!