Were they gay? (Jack & Ennis)

[AZ.bbm]

I think it does make a difference, which you were exposed to first.   I can't think of the film in isolation, because I was influenced by the short story even when I first saw it.  Alma's thought the sex Ennis liked didn't produce babies makes it very clear that it was anal sex.  In the film I knew it was anal sex because I'd read the story.  I can't tell how I would know otherwise, although probably gut instinct would be enough (if it wasn't anal sex, why show us it?). 

 
Good point.
I thought Ang set it up to demonstrate that Ennis was reckless "on all roads"..?

I'm aware that the film is very different in some aspects.   I don't believe that film Ennis ever does manage to convince himself that he's only has sex with Jack on the mountain because there are no women around.   For me, there are several clues that he knows what's going on - the way he looks when he rides off after the FNIT, the dead sheep, the conversation with Jack on the mountainside, and the SNIT in particular.   He knows he wants Jack and feels bad because of it.  Whereas in the short story, he avoids knowing he wants Jack, so doesn't feel bad until later ("nothing felt wrong").

Yes, Ennis feels torn -- he wants it from Jack, yet he wants to be the good & righteous fellow. But yes, he's feeling bad because can no longer avoid the truth -- that he is "different" -- the consummation officially renders him "one of those  people" who are routinely dissed and excoriated by proper society -- even murdered.

But I do think both story and film show him as gay, although he deals with it in different ways on the mountain.  I did try to think right back to my first viewing of the film, and I remember being surprised at the first scenes with Alma.  I wasn't sure why we were being shown them. 

I do know what you mean, and I think you're probably right to some extent.   But I think that's because people are (generally) brought up straight, taught to be straight, warned off being gay, etc.    Being straight is considered the default position by society, and it seems much more likely that somebody might repress their homosexuality than that they might repress their heterosexuality.   So a straight guy who sleeps with a man might be seen as finally giving into his natural inclination, whereas a gay guy who sleeps with a woman might be seen as conforming.   I'm not saying that's correct, but I think the answer is probably somewhere in the middle.  People aren't completely free to act - we aren't always seeing completely natural behaviour when it comes to sexuality.

-Oh, Des -- you are so very astute!   

[Paul029]

~snip~ I seem to remember something about Jack twisting the knobs on the radio until the battery went dead ....

An interesting issue for S&I, but Proulx (unfortunately) wrote  ‘the dial,’ rather than ‘the knobs.’

 

[AZ.bbm]

^^^

My Dear Dr. Paul,

If Jack had indeed twisted the dial rather than the knobs the radio would likely have been rendered useless. 

[Paul029]

^^^^^^

Proulx wrote that Jack was "poking the flames with a stick, twisting the dial of the transistor radio until the batteries died," so who am I to misconstrue what she said he was doing?

On the other hand, what do I know about Wyoming cowboy slang in May 1983—or Jack's pet love-name for his boyfriend?  

Then, a bit later, after some "incidental chit-chat," Ennis (batteries recharged) is (at last) "undoing buttons"  ... and "they rolled down into the dirt."

Messy!!!

[fofol]

George Bush II:  "Any man who does it with another man is de-heterosexualated."

[janjo]

 

[garyd]

"If there's one thing I hate it's a bisexual homosexual."

Maggie Smith, famously in CALIFORNIA SUITE.

[AZ.bbm]

^^^^^^

Proulx wrote that Jack was "poking the flames with a stick, twisting the dial of the transistor radio until the batteries died," so who am I to misconstrue what she said he was doing?

On the other hand, what do I know about Wyoming cowboy slang in May 1983—or Jack's pet love-name for his boyfriend? 

Then, a bit later, after some "incidental chit-chat," Ennis (batteries recharged) is (at last) "undoing buttons"  ... and "they rolled down into the dirt."

Messy!!!

BTW, Paul, what happens after they roll down into the dirt, or 'can that even be known' according to strict literalism??   

[Paul029]

BTW, Paul, what happens after they roll down into the dirt, or 'can that even be known' according to strict literalism??   

Who knows? It’s suddenly “A day or two later...”   

[fofol]

Thanks, gary, for that civil response...
No; quite the opposite, actually. 

I have learned that in literature as well as in RL, sometimes, a seemingly-offhand comment can say more about the commenter's orientation than the casual reader/listener will typically hear.

For example: the last line in your post, Reply#7232:
"Good 'ol Frank, just another straight dude who figured out how to play on two different teams.  "

Or, Ennis del Mar's statement, in the BBM screenplay,"Get beaver fever doin that."

Both statements suggest to me that the commenter has a strong, 'non-gay' nature.


Just an observation.

Not one of the truly straight men I know could possibly care less about 'gay' nature, much less comment on it: scratch a homophobe, find a man who's fighting same-sex desire...

[janjo]

I second this, really straight men aren't particularly worried or alarmed by gay men. Mr Janjo went to see Brokeback Mountain quite happily. He said, "As long as you are secure in your own sexuality there isn't a problem."
It is the ones who protest, who won't see it for fear of being "corrupted" into the gay life that you need to worry about.

[garyd]

Thanks, Gary, but you missed the point entirely. 

Ha! 
Oh, I think you can rest assured that I "caught" the point.
Choosing to ignore a catch is a bit different than being ignorant of the content of the catch.

And, no offense, but should I seek assistance with personality analysis, there are probably others ahead of you on my referral list.

[garyd]

BTW, Paul, what happens after they roll down into the dirt, or 'can that even be known' according to strict literalism??  

I think it can be safely assumed that "after they roll down in the dirt", they engage in "brilliantly charged sex" since the line exists within the context of the story and, at this point, the reader understands that the two of them meet once or twice a year and engage in this type of activity.  (Not to mention the fact that the text mentions one or two foreplay activities including hands between legs and unbuttoning.)

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by "strict literalism".  Are you introducing exegesis and/or hermeneutics into the conversation?  If so, why?
I can not locate a single post addressing so-called strict literalism, biblical literalism, exegesis or hermeneutics.  
Is it possible,in your rush to dismiss certain posts discussing formalism, new criticism, and the thoughts presented in Nabokov's lectures, that you have misinterpreted/misunderstood the underlying theories presented and as a result simply "coined" strict literalism as a personal label?


ETA: Silly me, it just occurred to me that you probably meant the bolded as sarcasm?

[AZ.bbm]

I second this, really straight men aren't particularly worried or alarmed by gay men. Mr Janjo went to see Brokeback Mountain quite happily. He said, "As long as you are secure in your own sexuality there isn't a problem."
It is the ones who protest, who won't see it for fear of being "corrupted" into the gay life that you need to worry about.

I agree, Jess; 

Mack said essentially the same thing, too, but refused to see the movie, anyway (-until months later). After he finally watched it, he thought it was an excellent film, but like some others, he could not understand all the 'fuss' Brokies were making over 'just a movie.'


Anyway, the discussion has been fun and riveting in place, let's take the issue, again, sometime in the future.


Take care & much love. <XXX>!!

-Stan

[Sandy]

I can not locate a single post addressing so-called strict literalism, biblical literalism, exegesis or hermeneutics.  
~snip~

It may not have been recently, but I remember the time in our "discussion" of allegory that we brought up and bandied about notions of scholastic exegesis. Seems like the Middle Ages now.