Were they gay? (Jack & Ennis) - Next chapter

[AZ.bbm]

I feel strongly that the intention of the writers and the director was as he says, however, obviously that is not the universal understanding in all audiences because some people, are like Stan and do not see it that way at all.

-Not just me & some people, but better than 1/3  of people on this Forum believe the men were 'something other' than gay. That's a significant percentage.

I'd also venture to say that better than half of the pro-gay contingent simply have not given much thought to the issue.

*

[Paul029]

-Not just me & some people, but better than 1/3  of people on this Forum believe the men were 'something other' than gay. That's a significant percentage.

I'd also venture to say that better than half of the pro-gay contingent simply have not given much thought to the issue.

*

I think your 1/3rd estimate is 'slightly' incorrect, Stan.  
Current membership is 6410, but let’s take a round figure of 6000.

The poll states that 651 voters contributed to the WTG poll (I’ll return to this figure a little later).
Of these 651 votes 243 were for categories “other than gay.”
A reasonable person, preferably numerically literate, would say that one third of 6000 is 2000.
243 was nowhere near that figure, Stan.

That aside, and it pains me to say this, but the so-called “Poll” is seriously flawed—if not rigged.  
It’s usual (in AU) for (some, but not all) voluntary internet polls to have a disclaimer such as, “This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.”
In other words such a poll is meaningless unless all members of the 'cohort' are compulsorily required to vote.

[I'm wondering here whether there's a connection between voluntary voting for the election of governments in the USA and the voluntary voting in the WTG poll that causes you to give credence to the poll's figures because it doesn't matter whether everyone votes? It's compulsory for Australian citizens to vote when electing their governments and, while the results may be dismaying for some at times, at least everyone was involved in the final (so-called) decision. I suppose what I'm saying is that there's a difference between the results of a 'poll' when participation is voluntary and when its compulsory.]

Anyway, the WTG poll's meaninglessness is doubly verified by its flawed figures—a point I've raised before, and which has been ignored by whoever’s supposed to be in charge of the poll's supervision.#  

The total number of voters in the image is stated as 651.
Yet, somehow or other, these 651 voters were able to cast 696 votes.

I leave you to draw you own conclusions about what these “double-dippers” voted for.

A difference of 45 may not be very much numerically, but percentage-wise (roughly 6.5%) it creates a different picture than that which is shown, and one which is skewed toward whatever opinion the errant members so desired.

Incidentally, I haven't even voted once—let alone twice.

# I understand that 'supervision' is on a voluntary basis, but still...

[Lyle (Mooska)]

-Sorry, Lyle, but I would consider your invoking of DO & LM opinions as a fallacious appeal to authority...

They created the work in significant ways and won numerous awards for it.  I'd say if I were indeed appealing to
authority those are the authorities I'd appeal to.

Regardless, according to the actors' interview in Time Magazine, what JG and HL gave us, the finished product of their labors is two straight guys who fell in love.*  (*with each other)

When I saw Jake G. in person with director Sam Mendes at a screening of Jarhead a few weeks
before BBM started screening and was released, in the Q&A Sam Mendes joked with Jake that
he had no idea right afterwards he was going to do the gay cowboy movie, Jake didn't argue
with that description.

I see the discussion of whether or not people are gay as different than discussions of
whether or not someone is a Muslim or someone is a philatelist because there's a huge
stigma about it.  I mean, BBM didn't win the Oscar for Best Film, did it?  It's the reason
Elton John said he was bisexual and not gay in the 70's. It's still not okay to say you're
gay matter of factly just about anywhere, so when a film is released like BBM and no one
knew if audiences would see it or not, much less like it, it doesn't surprise me one bit of
how J&E might have thought it would be better to try and relate their experiences to
make an audience more accepting or comfortable with the subject. Forvie my skepticism.
 

I think that you argue @WTG because you seek to be the "opinion leader" on all topics gay;

I write my opinions based on what I know.  Whether or not I am seeking anything, this forum
is a good place to express opinions on these topics.

while I, OTOH, think it is important NOT to try to force the characters into one or another sexual domain in some jealous effort to claim the story as one's own.

It sounds like you say that because if others do indeed do that it is taking something away from your
experience of it.  And I tried to point out in an earlier post that because I choose to identify with some
people like the straight ladies and their problems in the film THE WOMEN, doesn't take anything away
from the fact that those women are straight and it's about straight relationships.  I can still enjoy it.

Could you NOT enjoy Brokeback Mountain as much if Jack and Ennis are gay?

I don't remember what you said before when I pointed out that Annie Proulx said that she'd gotten
x number of letters from gay men about BBM saying that she had told their stories.  She didn't say
straight men or bisexual men.  Did she just assume they were gay or were the letter writers unclear.

No more fallacious than your invocation of JG and HL from the magazine interview.
And perhaps less.  The mental gymnastics employed by a skilled actor to deliver a performance are totally superfluous to the final performance as long as the performance satisfies the objectives of the director.  Period, cut, print.

-That is such pure unadulterated hokum.

Jake and Heath both firmly believed they were portraying straight men, they made it official.

AL thought E & J were gay, the actors never did. Can you account for that ??

A film editor can put a line of dialogue or a glance from another person into a scene and completely
change the meaning of it, regardless of what the actor firmly believed they were doing at the time.

Many actors will do every take differently so that a director or editor has a choice of what
to include when they assemble a film.  Slight variations can alter meaning or intent.

In the film Skippy, Jackie Cooper said that he was told by the director they were going to go and
do awful things to his dog to get him to cry. He started crying while they filmed that.  That's what
he was thinking about when the scene was shot, not the intent of his crying in the story.

I doubt "Uggie" in the film THE ARTIST was really thinking he was saving the lead actor from a
fire in those scenes.

In the documentary The Celluloid Closet, Gore Vidal talks about the fact he and William Wyler
definitely wanted to convey a gay subtext between Heston's character and Messala (?), which
Vidal says was conveyed in the film (as much as was allowed then) and Wyler told him not to
mention it to Heston, though.  He said Heston wouldn't know what he was talking about.

There's numerous examples of actors talking about a scene where they disagree with the director
and how they want it played and the director will ask them to try it both ways and the director
ultimately picks the one he wants to use in the film, regardless of the actors intentions or opinions.

I can only think you describe this notion as hokum because it would diminish or discount something
you don't want to.

[janjo]

Thank you. Are you two 'in cahoots?'
garyd aside, do you believe you speak for "probably" "the majority of cinema audiences and readers?"*

Are they aware of, and happy with, this fact?

*Exempting Stan, and some unidentified 'others,' of course.)

No, Gary and I are definitely not in cahoots, and we certainly don't always agree, I suspect he is greatly to the right of me politically, but in this instance he said what I have always thought.

[AZ.bbm]

Paul,
You don't suppose someone tampered with the Poll numbers, do you??   


Any-hoo, sample polling results (percentiles) are supposed to be good predictive indicators of how the entire Forum population might vote, provided that the poll participants are a representative (typical) cross-section of Forum members.

So, yes, 65.1% of 6410 members (4167) would likely consider E & J to be utterly gay; 2243 of them--well, not so much.
 
There's a very good chance that if you took another WTG poll tomorrow the new percentages would look pretty much like the old ones, or better, if you will, as more people come to recognize E & J's bi-sexual natures (and possiby their own)...

+(A 'population sample' of Forum members would be the ideal, but it's not very likely that will EVER happen.)
 
 

[AZ.bbm]

@Lyle,

Could you NOT enjoy Brokeback Mountain as much if Jack and Ennis are gay?

No, I said this for years: I enjoy BBM just as much if not more if E & J are gay. In fact I've watched the film many times since the first viewing, imagining E & J in any number of 'orientational configurations', with any number of motivations, etc.

One way I *most* enjoy watching the film(and I hope this doesn't come off as sounding 'self-serving')  is seeing Ennis as completely straight and Jack as completely gay. This mode of viewing ties up so many loose ends and removes so much of the confusion about their relationship it's almost blindingly epiphanous! But of course, as Sandy indicated, with all that BBM is practically a different story...

*

[AZ.bbm]

There's numerous examples of actors talking about a scene where they disagree with the director
and how they want it played and the director will ask them to try it both ways and the director
ultimately picks the one he wants to use in the film, regardless of the actors intentions or opinions....

Yes, but that's 'process' for ya...  Wouldn't it be fair to say that the director picks the version closest to the one he himself visualized, but that ultimately it's impossible to scrub the actor's essence from the rendition? -- I mean, you can chrome plate your Ferrari, bolt wings and a tail on it, fill it with rocket fuel and launch it off the nearest pier, but in the end it's still a Ferrari.
By the same token, Heath and Jake are two straights guys (!) intending to play two straight guys, and they cannot help it. It's who they are.
(Of course, as with the other screen artists their responses to the WTG question might be influenced by what they perceive as the overall orientation of the audience ad hoc.)

--
Speaking of 'actors'...........


They say the eyes have it, being that the eyes are the windows to the soul.
 
-So, when you peer into the eyes of actor Harvey Fierstein what do you see in there, a gay man or a straight man? *






+By the same token, when you peer into Heath Ledger's eyes what do you see there (aside from 'fear')? -gay or straight? **






* IMO, in Fierstein I see the eyes of a gay man. --There's an unmistakable glow (kindness? impudence?) in Fierstein's eyes that only a true gay man (or woman in love) tends to cast (generally speaking)... -Even when Fierstein plays 'straight' roles, that 'glow' still shines through.)


** In Heath I see a straight man  - even during the scene at the Lake when Ennis is lovingly chiding Jake about his peccadilloes with the ranch neighbor's wife, I still believe I can see the 'male persona' in Heath's eyes.

BTW- there are sites online where you can test your 'gaydar' and others where you can test your ability to accurately interpret facial expressions.

FWIW

[Paul029]

You had asked me to comment on the asterisked footnote of your post, Reply #192

The question was, “Is it possible that the boys could have different sexual orientations in the story as opposed to the film?”

You mentioned previously that Jack appeared to be “more ‘lecherous’ in the film's opening sequence than he does in the story.”
I’d take it further and suggest that he was evaluating the newcomer as a potential sex partner.
We don’t know what happened on the mountain the previous year, but film Jack’s same-sex attraction in 1963 is clear.
A brief glimpse of Ennis lounging against the trailer is enough for him to sense fresh young meat for the taking.
On the other hand, story Jack doesn’t cruise Ennis outside Aguirre’s trailer, nor is it stated that he attempts to pick up a rodeo clown. In other words we have no clues to the character’s sexual orientation.

And, although the Prologue indicates that Ennis dreams about a time in his past on a mountain with someone called Jack Twist, the reader not only has no idea who that person is but also what it was about him that prompted Ennis’s dreams.
So when story Jack seizes Ennis’s left hand in the tent one moonlit night his action comes out of the blue.
As there’s been no foretelling that Jack has any sexual interest in Ennis whatsoever what he does is unexpected, as is Proulx’s blunt description of what follows.

But in the film we’ve been prepared for something like this to happen, so there’s no surprise.
Film Jack’s attempted pick up of the rodeo clown a few scenes later reinforces viewer opinion that Jack is homosexual, and that his tent behaviour occurred not by chance, but by design.

This is borne out by the way in which Jack gets Ennis to enter the tent in the first place.
In the story his invitation is based on common sense: Ennis will “freeze his ass off when [the] fire dies down.” He’d be “better off sleepin in the tent.”
Although the film dialogue in this scene is the same as the story’s, Jack’s ‘common sense’ remarks now have an anticipatory subtext not contained in the story.
We expect that something more than sleeping will occur, as indeed it does. A viewer who hadn’t first read the book would get the message pretty clearly that Jack was homosexual.

The fact that film Jack is also more photogenic than story Jack doesn’t help, either.
Viewers wouldn’t be aware that Jack was supposed to be “average-looking,” which I presume Proulx, in her wisdom, decided would emphasise her point that sexual orientation was independent of a person’s looks.
It’s not a ‘given’ that homosexual men are good looking.

It’s a pity that an attempt wasn’t made to change the actor’s appearance so that it more closely approximated Proulx’s vision of her character, certainly as far as his teeth were concerned (not to mention the “benign growth” which “appeared on his eyelid and gave it a drooping appearance” and his “broken nose healed crooked”).
Minimising what could be described as the distracting “swoon” factor would have created a visually more plausible character.
As could have occurred, for example, had the more 'average-looking' Ben Foster been cast, but I guess that depends upon one's personal taste.



It makes commercial sense, of course, to use famous film stars when the contemporary film world (particularly in the US) generally assumes that "the logic of mass marketing is the natural order of things."
A less well-known/less "attractive" actor, irrespective of his acting ability, would probably not attract mainstream audiences as one who was, and especially so if he wasn’t a ‘star.’
This is easily countered, however, by the fact that the actor portraying Ennis was a closer match to Proulx’s idea of ‘an average guy.’

Because of these issues there is indeed, Stan, a misalignment between the presentation of Jack’s sexual orientation in the film and story.
The film presents Jack as homosexual from the outset whereas, in the story, he’s heterosexual and initially does what is expedient.
What he does after 1963 is a different matter.

In one of her comments in Getting Movied Proulx stated that there was nothing “new or out of the ordinary” for “a couple of guys...in isolated high country situations...to poke each other...if they got lonesome.”
As the point here is that the hiring of sheepherders was not based on their sexuality there’s no evidence in the story, based on that idea, that Jack was homosexual in 1963.

Although in both film and story he later marries and fathers a child, showing that he’s physically capable of sex with a woman, it doesn’t, necessarily mean that he’s bisexual.
(He does this with one woman only, and presumably only once, although the film is unclear about this.)

Whether his sexual orientation was always homosexual—or transformed into same-sex attraction by meeting Ennis—depends upon which version we prefer to consider.

[Paul029]

“Is it possible that the boys could have different sexual orientations in the story as opposed to the film?”

Continued...

I said in a recent post that although I thought that Ennis was heterosexual his relationship with Jack put him into an unclearly-defined ‘sexuality-zone.’ My reasons for this are as follows:

Proux provides little information about Ennis’s actual physical behaviour when he’s with Jack, but the exceptions which she considers important enough to relay to a reader are significant, and are primarily related to sexual activities.

For instance, she tells us that on the mountain their sex was rough and noisy, that in their reunion kiss they seized each other by the shoulders and hugged mightily, straining against each other with such energy that Jack’s teeth drew blood as they squeezed the breath out of each other, that they trod on each other’s toes until they pulled apart to draw breath, that in the Motel Siesta they were jouncing on a bed (i.e. their movements were rough and jolting).

In none of these cases does she mention affection or tenderness (for instance) but instead she focuses upon the physical behaviours involved (the mechanics, if you will) which were energetic, vigorous and rough.
Things weren't done by halves, but were a result of being ‘carried away’ by highly-charged states of sexual arousal.
A final (possible) description of preliminary sexual activity amounts simply to Ennis undoing buttons, before “they rolled down into the dirt,” leaving the reader to wonder what happened next.
Even in this case the message is clear. The 'preliminaries,' such as they are, were matter-of-fact, 'business-like.'

But she doesn’t tell us that they gazed longingly into each others’ eyes, or that they kissed tenderly and murmured gentle words to each other.
Had she done so it would have undermined the form which she wanted us to understand that their ‘love-making’ took, and taken her story into the realms of Mills and Boon.
Especially as she stated—unequivocally—that Ennis was “not big on endearments” (even to his wife and daughters, let alone Jack).

Proulx is generally reluctant to provide descriptions of facial expressions unless she deemed them necessary for conveying what she considered to be important narrative issues.
For instance, that Ennis’s face was “grey and deep-lined, grimacing, eyes screwed shut,” the only time in the entire story where she provided a reader with any idea of his facial expression.
Nor, for the same reason, does he present a reader with descriptions of her characters’ vocal tones.*
(Jack’s “tone was bitter and accusatory” being, apparently, the sole exception.)

I suspect that she was aware of the possible danger of sliding into salacious pornography, but she provided sufficient detail of bodily fluids and excretions—clear slick, spit, semen, sweat and shit—as well as a few well-chosen references to physical evidence of male sexual arousal—erect cock, gun’s goin off, wet saliva welling, pressing groins together, spent and wet, half-tumescent, blowing—to give the general reader a pretty good idea of what went on between her main characters.

None of which (the SNIT spit-string# excluded) is evident in the film.

While the story’s randy sheepherders engaged in mutually enjoyable (and expedient) sex the fact they’re two young men doesn’t unequivocally mean that both, or either, were homosexual.

The film presentation of her characters’ sexuality, however, sees things differently: the SNIT scene presents, instead, two tender lovers who kiss and murmur endearments.
I doubt that this would be the kind of behaviour engaged in by young straight men, whether in isolated high country or not.
It demonstrates instead that Jack and Ennis, rather than being heterosexual, are both homosexual.
(I've previously mentioned, elsewhere in this forum, the innate distaste young heterosexual men and teenagers had for male-to-male kissing, and especially any exchanges of saliva.)

In addition, the film’s version of the Motel Siesta scene differs so radically from its source material that it’s been basically castrated.

The vigorous jouncing Proux mentioned has been replaced with canoodling and cuddling, so that the boys, seen in close-up to avoid any physical evidence of what’s occurred, have become visual eunochs.
This queasy ‘Barbara Cartland’ approach (despite the done-to-death smoking-after-the-event cliché) has not only demasculinised both Ennis and Jack, but far worse, the message being sent is:

“See, folks—gays are just like straights, they cuddle and smoke after sex. Don’t worry about the physical details, they’re really not important.”

(At least Weekend gave viewers a graphic idea of what occurs when men have sex together—but then of course, the actors weren’t ‘big stars.’)

If that doesn’t constitute a ‘misalignment’ between the story’s and the film’s representations of Ennis’s sexuality, Stan, I don’t know what would.

I started by saying that Ennis was in an unclearly-defined ‘sexuality-zone.’ I think this true of the story, but not so in the case of the film.
It’s an easy way out to suggest that Ennis is homosexual in each of these, but I feel that the issue isn’t as cut and dried as that.

In his exchanges with Jack in the story he’s clearly cautious about, if not fearful of being identified as homosexual (with good reason, considering what happened to Rich).
But it’s not because he sees himself as homosexual, but because he’s worried that onlookers may think that he is.

There’s a subtle difference here, and it’s not to do with the fact that he’s “in denial.”
The film, however, presents his sexual orientation as being homosexual once the FNIT has occurred.
And as it is visually shown to be such, it justifies his being fearful, his being frightened of his own shadow, of what “people will think.”
This interpretative shift is significant.

The thing is that these are two different explanations for why he’s in fear of being identified as homosexual, and they subsequently represent a misalignment between the story and the film regarding his sexuality.

A once-in-a-lifetime love is extremely rare, and in Ennis’s case the fact that it involved another man is incidental, and has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

The film’s tagline (“Love is a Force of Nature”) seems to have got that right, at least.

*  I omit the sparse references to the vocal qualities of others, such as Lureen and OMT, as what we’re told about these [secondary] characters is relayed solely via Ennis’s (paranoid) perceptions.
# In this case, however, the saliva is sadly not being used as a lubricant for anal intercourse.

[Cally]

None of which (the SNIT spit-string# excluded) is evident in the film.



# In this case, however, the saliva is sadly not being used as a lubricant for anal intercourse.

The spit-string is very nice where it is, thank you - and anyway, who knows what was used later on? (Not really time to put in an order to the Basque, I suppose.)


Sorry about brief frivolous response to your complex post, Paul  .

[AZ.bbm]

A brief glimpse of Ennis lounging against the trailer is enough for him to sense fresh young meat for the taking. On the other hand, story Jack doesn’t cruise Ennis outside Aguirre’s trailer, nor is it stated that he attempts to pick up a rodeo clown. In other words we have no clues to the character’s sexual orientation....The film presents Jack as homosexual from the outset whereas, in the story, he’s heterosexual and initially does what is expedient.

I think we only saw Jack as  flirting with  Ennis if we had already been set up or predisposed to expect 'promiscuous behavior' from the outset... Frankly, I missed it, the cruising behavior that people often speak of, until someone here insisted that this is indeed what is occurring.. As you indicate, Jack didn't display any *real* 'homosexual behaviors' affectations, or inclinations until FNIT, and AFAIK, none at all past the reunion.

But in the film we’ve been prepared for something like this to happen, so there’s no surprise

-I was surprised!  -- And so was Oprah! 'We' thought it was entirely sudden   Speaking to HL &JG re FNIT, Oprah's asks in amazement, "Where did *that* come from??!"
So she too first watched the film as I did - from an unjaundiced perspective.

BTW, readers of the SS had some idea of what was about to occur, as well: e.g., In a little while their intimacy would deepen considerably...?

Film Jack’s attempted pick up of the rodeo clown a few scenes later reinforces viewer opinion that Jack is homosexual, and that his tent behaviour occurred not by chance, but by design.

Where I come from, offering to buy a man a drink is not considered as "flirting" but a friendly gesture. Of course, far too much eye contact while you are making the offer to the stranger may be 'telling.'

Fast Friends

It makes commercial sense, of course, to use famous film stars when the contemporary film world (particularly in the US) generally assumes that "the logic of mass marketing is the natural order of things." A less well-known/less "attractive" actor, irrespective of his acting ability, would probably not attract mainstream audiences as one who was, and especially so if he wasn’t a ‘star.’ This is easily countered, however, by the fact that the actor portraying Ennis was a closer match to Proulx’s idea of ‘an average guy.’ -I agree, although Oscar Madison & Felix Ungar, for example, were not exactly the most attractive characters in show business, altogether The Odd Couple -- the Broadway hit, the film, the cartoon, the television series -- was around for almost a quarter of a century?!

[AZ.bbm]

The film presentation of her characters’ sexuality, however, sees things differently: the SNIT scene presents, instead, two tender lovers who kiss and murmur endearments.
I doubt that this would be the kind of behaviour engaged in by young straight men, whether in isolated high country or not.

Again, I see your points; no doubt that AL and the screen writers deliberately or intentionally 'sexed up' the screenplay to suit their purposes. Certainly, romantic behavior (e.g., SNIT) was totally out of character, but still, even as sentimental a hangout as SNIT was, it didn't possess sufficient 'magic' to radically change the men's primary orientations (whatever that was).. SNIT may have had the power to soften Ennis' heart to some extent but not to worry - later, at the Reunion, Ennis is a hard as ever, claiming to be caught in his own loop.

I started by saying that Ennis was in an unclearly-defined ‘sexuality-zone.’ I think this true of the story, but not so in the case of the film.
It’s an easy way out to suggest that Ennis is homosexual in each of these, but I feel that the issue isn’t as cut and dried as that.

I agree, and too, I really don't know. .

If Ennis is a homosexual how can we explain his attraction to only one man in his entire life??! Mono-homo-mania (MHM)? How rare is that? -- Is that a condition listed in the DSM-IV? 

The thing is that these are two different explanations for why he’s in fear of being identified as homosexual, and they subsequently represent a misalignment between the story and the film regarding his sexuality.

-Actually, a misalignment between film & story in how he 'copes' with or regards his sexuality, wouldn't you say? 
I like to think of Ennis's sexuality per se  as separate & distinct from any of his possible 'neuroses.'  I would surmise that his fear is a symptom or consequence of his sense of personal integrity or self-esteem (threatened ego?), rather than as a factor shaping or altering his sexual orientation. (?)

[janjo]

Excuse me guys, but what would be so scary, so frightening, about them both being gay?

Seriously.

We seem to be jumping through hoops here in order to make Jack and Ennis heterosexual.

Why?

[chapeaugris]

^^^ Same here. I've been following these ping pong exchanges all along but not participating because it feels like I'd have to make a real commitment to the thread (if I didn't want to be considered a drive-by) and I don't feel I have a personal stake in the final verdict (if there ever is one). I understand why Lyle takes this argument personally but not really why Paul and Stan do. At any rate, it's been entertaining reading if not especially enlightening.

[AZ.bbm]

<opinion>
Reviewing the 'WTG?' entries posted since this time last year members are grappling with the nature of sexual orientation from a much broader more enlightened perspective than they previously have... So, then, you could say, it's about learning, ...

I certainly have learned a lot about what it means to be gay, and variously about homo- and hetero-phobia, etc.

</opinion>

-Az