Last Scene w/ Ennis and Jack Together

[CANSTANDIT]

[almost keels over picturing him saying that....]

Ennis might just be not able to deny that particular thing coming out of that particular person's mouth...deep down, its the one thing he really is missing, as he hates himself, right? That might've clicked something into place..I have my doubts, but its nice to think of it. Realistically? He might've brushed Jack off of even the lovemaking that night, out of fear of the truth..I hope I'm wrong, from a character standpoint. I bet AP could make a good guess....

[Marc]

I think the major thing between the lines in the story and film is that if either had said he loved the other -- and Jack would have said it first -- the outcome would have been different. 

That happened on one of the Photo Captioning threads, and it's really funny because after they casually profess their love one says that they just nuked what could have been a really good movie.

[Marc]

As I think about it, though, I'm sure Jack loved Ennis less in their final scene than earlier, at least because his relationship w/ Randall had been going on for 4 years.

Here's a thought.  To the extent we can quantify such things, maybe Jack loved Ennis most in 1963, and it steadily declined after that.  There was a potential uptick as the reunion loomed, but hopes were dashed quickly.

Here's another thought.  Maybe Ennis's love for Jack was always increasing, from 1963 all the way to the end.  That makes sense, given what Ennis learns from the shirts.

I've never been to the Jack and Ennis's relationship thread.  Maybe it's been discussed over there.

[o2binla]

As I think about it, though, I'm sure Jack loved Ennis less in their final scene than earlier, at least because his relationship w/ Randall had been going on for 4 years.

I don't think Jack's thing w/Randall had any effect on his love for Ennis.  Sure, he was getting down with another guy, but that's not love.  If anything, I think the Randall thing made him even more desperate over Ennis, b/c it proved he couldn't quit him, not even for a relationship that was much easier and more fulfilling, on the surface at least.  Before Randall, Jack could at least tell himself that he'd walk away from Ennis if something better came along.  When he says "I wish I could quit you," I think it's b/c he's genuinely tried and found it impossible. 

As for when Jack loved Ennis the most, I think he'd fallen for him but good by the SNIT if not sooner, that the DE was the final nail in the coffin, and that despite a general sense that Jack was flaky/flighty, he was amazingly steadfast in his love for Ennis, and was as committed to him on the day he died as when they first got involved.  It's one reason we cut to the DE during their last scene -- the love never diminished, though it extracted a steep price and killed Jack's hope. 

[janjo]

Hey! Hold on a minute, who says that Jack's thing with Randall has been going on for four years? In the book it's a few months, if it is to be believed at all. In the film. we don't see Jack taking Randall up on his proposition at all. It is deliberately so.
Even if you want to believe it, the script time line is all over the place anyway. I would take the four year thing with a HUGE pinch of salt!

[Ministering angel]

It's a little bit all over the place but there's an implication that the thing with Randall was pretty well established. I see no reason to disbelieve that it happened, but I do think it wasn't as long as the film implied. A few months is what Jack confesses to in the SS but he could be lying.

[CANSTANDIT]

The thing with Randall is that Jack got propositioned by him in 1978-look at the banner at the dance in the film-so the filmmakers are establishing a quit reason, to a degree, with the idea that Jack has been weaning off of his dependency on Ennis, for lack of a better way to describe it. That is the feeling I get-not that his love is any less, but as I said, I think some bitterness takes over, in both film and SS.

The book says only a few months. As you know, I always defer to the book, so I agree that the lack of long-term in this relationship calls into question the seriousness nature of it. It can be argued that he fell for Ennis in a matter of weeks-but Ennis is his once- in- a- lifetime, IMO.

OTOH, the guy is a neighbor, so who knows how long he's really actually known him? The affair could simply have got kicked into high gear a few months before...

[janjo]

I am not arguing with the banner etc. just saying that in book and film, anything that was going on with "Randall / ranch neighbour" is left entirely to our imagination. No more no less.

[CANSTANDIT]

Hmmm...don't you think the film is implying something? I mean they even filmed an embrace between them, which Ang thought was too obvious, apparenlty-?

[janjo]

Absolutely! Ang thought it was too obvious. I think it's too obvious. We are not meant to know.

[Desecra]

There's some more info about the 'deleted scene' with the embrace on TDS.   One suggestion about why it was left out was that it wasn't an appropriate way for us to last see Jack.   If it's cut, we're left with that poignant look after he remembers the DE.    I think that works better.

Another reason, I think, is that it pretty much tells us how Jack died - those mechanics done him in with the tire iron.   This is at odds with the book, where the certainty about the tire iron is only in Ennis's mind. 

I don't think the reason for leaving it out was to show that there wasn't a 'ranch neighbour'.   We're still shown Randall's approach, and have Jack's words at the last meeting and his father's words at Lightning Flats.

[janjo]

Despite you and I arguing about it constantly, Des, actually I don't think we are supposed to really know about either exactly how Jack died, or what was really going on with the ranch neighbour. AP only gives us hints we can take a thousand ways, and ulimately so does AL.
They are very cunning.

[Sandy]

I have to agree with Janjo on this one. We are not meant to know how Jack died. The tension that this unsolvable dilemma raises is a narrative device meant to increase the emotional drive toward the climax of the story, finding the nested shirts.

[CANSTANDIT]

IMO, I would say, ultimately, that is true-the point of the story is Ennis's redemption-or its failure. Not about how Jack passed...

But I do think the inclusion of the embrace with R, and the subsequent viewing by the two grease monkeys with the TI  would lead many veiwers to a certain conclusion. I see Des's point that that is one reason it was left out.

 For those of us who read the book, as many viewers would NOT have,  we know there is a bit of fabrication on the part of the filmmakers. But at the time the movie was released, I believe we would have been in the minority.

[Desecra]

Despite you and I arguing about it constantly, Des, actually I don't think we are supposed to really know about either exactly how Jack died, or what was really going on with the ranch neighbour. AP only gives us hints we can take a thousand ways, and ulimately so does AL.
They are very cunning.

Arguing about what constantly?   You know that my view is that we're not meant to know how Jack died in the book - you've said that we're meant to think Jack killed himself in some way.   I don't have a huge disagreement with you on that, only that I've always felt we're meant to be left in doubt.   It looks like you've now changed your view and are leaning more towards it being left open too, so we're now in agreement.   That fits with my point that the 'deleted scene' wouldn't have left it open enough.   I'm sure that if it had been left in, most viewers would have assumed that Jack was murdered. 

The ranch neighbour is more clear in both book and film - even in the book we have Jack's conversation at the last meeting, and his father's words at Lightning Flats.   To believe there was no ranch neighbour we have to go through the whole thing about whether Jack was lying, whether his father was lying, etc.   We don't only have Ennis's imagination to go on.   It fits in with what we know about Jack, so there's no reason to dismiss it.   If you think the intention of the film-makers was to make us doubt the existence of the ranch neighbour, why bother to flesh him out by showing us 'Randall' at all?