Last Scene w/ Ennis and Jack Together

[janjo]

Not Randall himself, but his affair with Jack. Do you think Jack is lying about the thing with the rancher's wife? What would be gained by lying to Ennis about such a thing? Would it not be simpler to maintain a lie about his marriage? Why the subterfuge, if indeed it is?

Like Ennis, I don't know. That is the way it should be.

[Ministering angel]

I think Ennis believes the Randall story, however. I don't see any reason given that he doubts it. He "knows" it the tire iron because of the Randall story. I think that for him, Randall is a very real person.

[Rosewood]

Not Randall himself, but his affair with Jack. Do you think Jack is lying about the thing with the rancher's wife? What would be gained by lying to Ennis about such a thing? Would it not be simpler to maintain a lie about his marriage? Why the subterfuge, if indeed it is?

Like Ennis, I don't know. That is the way it should be.

For what it's worth, here's what I think:

Jack lies to Ennis because he is still, THEY are still, even at this eleventh hour, trying to maintain a
pretense of 'normality'. But then, seconds later, Jack has had enough.
He says, "Tell you what...The TRUTH is, sometimes I miss you so much I can't hardly stand it."
That is the truth of the entire situation. Everything else is just the usual mis-direction.

That is why, I believe, he looks so sad, so damned disgruntled as he loads up the truck the next
morning. That shot of him, turning towards the truck, telling Ennis in a flat voice how he's going to
go see his folks - the usual - then a pause, waiting, hoping, praying that Ennis will THIS ONE DAMNED
TIME either STOP him from leaving OR say he's coming too. Jack the dreamer is still flickeringly
alive in Jack the old man.

The fact that Jack spoke the truth, the night before, and received no verbal response
from Ennis seems to weigh heavily on him. I think, at this point, Jack is desperate
for SOME kind of affirmative verbal response from Ennis. Perhaps he knows, in his heart of hearts,
he simply cannot go on. NOT that he will quit Ennis, but that the hope in him is dying.

And THEN, Ennis hits him with the November news.

[Ministering angel]

I have no doubt that Jack is lying but it's the form of the lie which is my concern. Janjo suggested (I think) that wondering if the thing with Randall is real or not is not relevent. I'm saying that its relevence lies in Jack's increasing isolation and loneliness, and is the cause of his mood on that last day. If he is just maintaining the illusion of normalcy then why invent an affair with a woman? Why not stick to Lureen to demonstrate his straight credentials?

He is telling Ennis something but coding it in an acceptable guise. AP is also telling the readers something about Jack and about his decline.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of the film BTW. That's pretty much how I saw it too.

[Desecra]

But we are talking about Jack in Texas, co-running a business, travelling around, going to Mexico-I have no doubt he'd hear things. And it would scare him. I don't mean that drives him to one man-I mean it makes it more palatable for him to be anxious about monogamy and wanting to not have so many outside liasons.
IMO.

So back to HIV. I don't think Jack would have been unaware, and if he had brains he would have protected himself so that he could be clean for Ennis. We never hear of any STDs happening and if Ennis had come down with something nasty he'd have been looking to Jack for an explanation, after all. So maybe Jack was thinking how much nicer it would be to have one partner and no worries, and so was prompted to have his outburst on the last day. Maybe. I still lean towards the idea that it's the thing with Randall which has him yearning to an unbearable level for a real life with Ennis.

I'm still thinking about this.   It still seems to me that the timing is a bit off.   If Jack had died, say, in 1985, there would have been no way for him to ignore the threat of AIDS and the possible consequences - so if we were meant to be thinking along those lines, why not just move the death to make it clearer? 

Good point that there were cases in Texas.  However, there were still none in Wyoming or Mexico.   Obviously there was a risk, but how much of a risk would Jack perceive when the disease seemed to be mainly occurring in the big cities?   His business was farm machinery - he probably never went to those places. 

About Jack having the brains to protect himself - remember that back then many people had become infected before they knew how the disease was passed on.     So the problem for Jack, if he was thinking about how AIDS might affect him, was not just how to avoid future infection, but whether he was already infected.

1982 - what did you (you in general) change about your sexual activities in 1982?   We didn't even know for sure about how it was passed on, didn't know about HIV, weren't clear about the risks of various sexual activities, etc.   At one extreme, people were panicking about any sort of physical contact with sufferers, and at the other extreme people were just trying to deny that it could affect them personally.    For those who didn't go to either extreme, it was difficult to know how careful to be (before we knew the relative risks of each practice) and safety needed co-operation.   Even if Jack was in that group (rather than the denial or panic extremes) I find it difficult to imagine him suddenly using condoms with Ennis.    Wouldn't it be a bit of a giveaway about his sexuality?   There's no hint that he'd started using them by the last meeting, so if he did think he was at risk then he didn't try to protect Ennis.

But of course you're right in a way - the AIDS publicity in 1982 was followed by Jack (a) taking up what seems to be a more regular sexual partner in Texas and (b) pushing to move Ennis closer to the monogamous cow and calf operation.   You could argue that he was trying to avoid further risk - that the news of AIDS was what changed his behaviour at that last meeting.    I don't see it that way, but the timing does fit. 

What about Ennis?   If he'd heard of it, he might not have applied it to himself.   However, you could also argue that it helped to contribute to his utter immovability at the last meeting.    He always suspected about 'Mexico' so it might have been in the back of his mind that Jack was at risk.    (And if he thought it through, which I don't think he did because I imagine he tried to avoid thinking about Jack's sexuality, he'd realise that Jack was putting him at risk too).    He also may have seen the 'gay plague' as a judgement - the news may have reinforced his inner sense that homosexuality was wrong.   So he may have been coming to the meeting with that in his mind. 

I tend to agree with your last sentence, Ministering Angel - that it's the relationship with Randall itself (and perhaps the reinforcement that LF is a possibility) which pushes Jack forward at the last meeting (as opposed to any other meeting).   But I'll think some more on the AIDS timing.

[Ministering angel]

I guess I was only addressing the HIV issue to make sure I wasn't avoiding an important point. I really don't see it as an issue in the story. STDs were common and Jack would have been in much more danger of contracting one of them, and there's no way he'd pass anything on to Ennis. Imagine how he'd explain that away. So, the sensible approach would be condoms when with others, none when with Ennis. Jack just couldn't afford to catch an STD too close to a fishing trip. He'd be dead in the water if he did. There's no way he could explain that away to Ennis.

[Desecra]

But pre-AIDS, I don't remember people using condoms routinely for anal or oral sex.   I'm sure some people did, but I think it was the exception rather than the rule.    We had this brief little false paradise where it seemed as if STDs were no longer a threat - even the dreaded syphilis could be easily treated with antibiotics.   Of course, there were still things like hepatitis, herpes, etc., but it just seemed a lot safer.   Condoms were seen more as being for contraception, and were marketed and used as such.   Do correct me if I'm wrong - this is just the way I remember it.   

But isn't that partly how AIDS managed to spread?  Because people didn't used to routinely use condoms?   So I think I'm probably remembering correctly.  The way I remember it, lots of people were infected before it was known how the disease was transmitted.   Even in late 1982, when we knew that it was related to sexual contact, it wasn't clear exactly how risky each activity was.   People worried about kissing, or even hugging. 

I think somebody who was using a condom at that time ('60s, 70s, and up to 1982) for all anal and oral sex would have been an exception.   I'm not sure that Jack would have been that exception.    I think we imagine condoms being used because we've all, quite rightly, had safe sex drummed into us now.   But how many of us used them solely for safe sex back then?  Of course gay men, as a group, were ahead of the game with safe sex.   But timing-wise, the big push came because of AIDS, not before it. 

So it may have been the sensible approach for Jack, but I think it's pretty unlikely that he'd have done it.   As for what he'd tell Ennis, I'd imagine he'd keep quiet about the sex of the person he caught it off (leaving Ennis to assume it was Lureen or another woman).   It didn't come up, so I suppose he was lucky, or caught the symptoms early and got treated before the meetings.   

[Ministering angel]

Yes, after I posted  I tried to remember  what the situation was. It crossed my mind that I may have been assuming too much. Dare I say, it may just have been something that AP didn't consider?

[Desecra]

It hasn't been said, I don't think that "Randall" was a figment of Jack's imagination, rather that he could have been, or his importance is not known to us. What is important is that we know what Ennis knows, which is very little.
"Randall" has to be a very vague concept. It is the way the story works.
There is for me a little too much of him in the film, but I can see why it was done that way. John Twist's words would have carried less weight without his appearance.
We can all think what we like about "Randall," but we do need to remember that what we add to what we know, is our own story, and not that of Annie Proulx.

I answered this, but somehow lost my post!   Here we go again...   Yes, we know what Ennis knows.    It's not our own story, but in the book.  The name 'Randall' isn't there, but the 'other one' and the 'rancher's wife' is.  I agree that we probably needed to see the guy in the film to get the meaning of John Twist's words.

As for how important the guy is, I think he's important in the following ways:
- he seems to provide the push for Jack to alter his behaviour at the last meeting, and try to go that bit further with Ennis
- he's what makes Ennis 'know' that it's the tire iron
- he's what makes Ennis know that Jack lost hope, which eventually leads to Ennis reflecting on how he treated Jack, and how he kept them apart.
I think that the last in particular is pretty important to the story.   And of course, why put the guy in the story at all if he's not important?

With regard to the AIDS thing, I always imagined that Jack was designed to meet his demise before this would have been an issue for him in the circles in which he moved, ie rural, far from large centres of population etc.

I think I agree (see my other posts).   It would have been easy enough to move his death a couple of years later if we were meant to think AIDS was a big issue for him.   On the other hand, it would also have been easy to move his death to a year or two earlier, taking AIDS out of the picture altogether (I know it existed then, but it wasn't called AIDS, and Jack probably wouldn't have known about it and it and applied it to himself).   So I'm just wondering if the posters who are seeing a link to AIDS have got a point. 

[Ministering angel]

I think that AP was struck by the 9 19 29 39 pattern she created, so there would be a reason to keep Jack's death twenty years after Brokeback. I think the end is tied to the beginning more than to a need to avoid AIDS. Perhaps she figured that she'd make it as late as possible, i.e. before the issue of AIDS would arise, but not push it back too far because it has to be seen as a reasonably contemporary story, not a piece of ancient history.

[Desecra]

It is possible that she didn't think too much about it.   Killing off Jack in early '83 seems to avoid the issue, but then she has taken him just into a time of growing public awareness - and AIDS had such a huge impact on public thinking.    Would she think it would be in readers' minds?   What are the chances of people not thinking about AIDS when reading a story about gay men in the '80s?

The 10 year pattern hinges on the first years of course - I'm guessing you're saying that Brokeback had to be 1963 because of Kennedy's assassination.   But would that be seen as more pertinent than AIDS?  What if they'd met in 1961?   Or do you think there's a bit of numerology going on - that it has to be '63 because it adds up to 9?

[Ministering angel]

No, I'm not thinking about Kennedy at all. I'm saying that if she thought of the AIDS issues she'd maybe place the end where she does, and the reason the beginning is in 1963 is that she likes the ten-year steps. So it's 1963 because it's 1983. If she'd decided to shift Jack's death back to, say, 1981 to avoid any AIDS stuff completely, then she would have put the beginning at 1961.  But I think she wouldn't have wanted to push it too far back in the past since it is still a contemporary story for so many people. Does that make sense?

[Desecra]

Yes, it does make sense.  I'm just thinking that she cut it a bit fine - even a year earlier would have ruled out AIDS altogether without making too much difference to how contemporary it was.

[CANSTANDIT]

Some great posting, on the HIV component, whether its there or not. I can see AP taking a common sense approach, not adding extraneous stuff that is just part of 'life'-ie the risk of passing things on to Ennis.

I do think the timing-1963 is rather interesting, and the 20 years-a 'generation'- is of course critical, so she 'lands' in 1982-3. But it is a neat irony, if unintentional, that these borders of the relationship work as they do. I've always been struck by the 'end' happening, in the early 80's, right at the point when suddenly, a REAL threat to people's lives, vs Ennis's somewhat exaggerated childhood threat, is something that could have actually kept them apart, had something happened to Jack....

(I don't mean the TI could not have happened, or was not real, BTW; I'm saying in terms of Ennis now being a basically descreet grown man, he would not have been as helpless as the childhood trauma made him..that's all.)

[Sandy]

I think the HIV/AIDS thing is veering off topic. It's in the background of the times in which the story was set, but way in the background. It's like discussing the relevance of oxygen to the story of BBM, sure the boys needed to have oxygen and they might be giddy from the lack of it in those higher altitudes, making them more daring, less vigilant etc., etc....

Maybe the secret to Jack and Ennis' fears lie inside them. So back on topic please. HIV/AIDS can be discussed elsewhere.