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

[Sandy]

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Back on topic, everyone.

I am deleting a slew of off-topic posts.

If you want to talk about Mormonism, we do have a religion thread.

[AZ.bbm]

@Paul, I'm reprising my response to your footnote in Reply #192, since the original got 'scrubbed' in the recent ''clean-up.'

If you have a copy of my remarks from yesterday, please consider the following as addenda to those:

Fundamentally, the question involves two fictional characters whose sexualities are unclear...*
* I recently stated that I thought Jack was 'gay,' yet in my initial post/s I'd suggested that he was bisexual. Now, I'm not so sure which he is. He apparently has a well-developed sexual drive; perhaps that’s what’s giving me some difficulty.
My thoughts about Ennis's sexuality haven't yet been been stated, although I've leant toward the idea that he's heterosexual (with the proviso that I think his relationship with Jack puts him into an unclearly-defined ‘sexuality-zone’).

I think Jack was bisexual but leaning more toward the 'gay side' of bisexuality, whereas Ennis was also bisexual but leaning more toward the 'straight' side' of bisexuality.
It would be so much easier if we could know to which sex they were attracted, who they fantasized about prior to meeting each other. All I can say with any certainty about the pre-BBM epoch is that Twist was given to  impressing girls with his rodeo skills, and that Del Mar was determined to marry his fiance (for whatever reason) and settle down, raise a family... Giving E & J the proverbial 'benefit of the doubt'  allows those so inclined to peg both as heterosexual males, I'd say, although not reliably so.

[Another poster] recently asked me whether I thought that the characters “could be gay in the story and not in the film, or vice versa.”  I answered...by saying that the question presupposed that their sexualities were the same, but...touched on something that could explain why I’m possibly so uncertain about the issue.
Perhaps the story and the film do, for me, convey differing messages about the respective sexualities of Jack and Ennis.

No, I didn't see any 'misalignment'  between the story and the film, in regards to the boys' respective sexuality, although it is possible... Maybe I considered film-Twist to be  cast as a bit more 'lecherous' than Del Mar (ref. the cruising sequence at the beginning of the film). SS-Twist was less than forthcoming about his rodeo peccadilloes as well as implying that he blew money on hustlers while traveling on business. Film viewers however were not privy to this type of info about Twist.
Too, I have a feeling that many viewers did not have a clue as to what transpired in the alley in Mexico, even after Ennis delivered his famous line, You been a Mexico, Jack?  during the kerfuffle in the final scene at 'Jackson Lake.'*



*(Upper Lake Kananaskis, in reality)

[morrobay]

No, I didn't see any 'misalignment'  between the story and the film, in regards to the boys' respective sexuality, although it is possible... Maybe I considered film-Twist to be  cast as a bit more 'lecherous' than Del Mar (ref. the cruising sequence at the beginning of the film). SS-Twist was less than forthcoming about his rodeo peccadilloes as well as implying that he blew money on hustlers while traveling on business. Film viewers however were not privy to this type of info about Twist.
Too, I have a feeling that many viewers did not have a clue as to what transpired in the alley in Mexico, even after Ennis delivered his famous line, You been a Mexico, Jack?  during the kerfuffle in the final scene at 'Jackson Lake.'*

so what are you implying?  That Jack went there for...sex? 

[AZ.bbm]

^^^

It boggles the mind, doesn't it?!  --  I mean, the odds that Gyllenhaal had sex with Rodrigo The Cameraman..??   

[Paul029]

Thanks for posting this again, Stan. It’s appreciated.
I’ll respond in separate posts.

Fundamentally, the question involves two fictional characters whose sexualities are unclear.*
* I recently stated that I thought Jack was 'gay,' yet in my initial post/s I'd suggested that he was bisexual. Now, I'm not so sure which he is. He apparently has a well-developed sexual drive; perhaps that’s what’s giving me some difficulty. My thoughts about Ennis's sexuality haven't yet been been stated, although I've leant toward the idea that he's heterosexual (with the proviso that I think his relationship with Jack puts him into an unclearly-defined ‘sexuality-zone’).

I think Jack was bisexual but leaning more toward the 'gay side' of bisexuality, whereas Ennis was also bisexual but leaning more toward the 'straight' side' of bisexuality.
It would be so much easier if we could know to which sex they were attracted, who they fantasized about prior to meeting each other. All I can say with any certainty about the pre-BBM epoch is that Twist was given to  impressing girls with his rodeo skills, and that Del Mar was determined to marry his fiance (for whatever reason) and settle down, raise a family... Giving E & J the proverbial 'benefit of the doubt' allows those so inclined to peg both as heterosexual males, I'd say, although not reliably so.

It just seems to me that pigeon-holing each man into a specific type of sexual orientation doesn’t acknowledge the wide range of feeling of which the human heart is capable.
I believe Ennis meant it when he said that he’s not no queer.
Apart from the flawed grammar (which, considering his education, is forgiveable) it’s his attempt to verbalise the feeling that he doesn’t think he’s odd or strange, the literal use of the word.

Although the film suggests that he says this the day after his tent encounter with Jack, the story indicates not only that he did so later (once he and Jack had sex in the tent at night and in the full daylight and at evening), but also that, without a word being spoken they “both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, the sheep be damned.”
The fact that he uses an idiomatic expression is Proulx’s nod to the vernacular language of the time, with which I doubt Ennis would be familiar.
Of course, I may be wrong—they are her puppets, after all...

The thing is, of course, that the story was not written in the early 60s.
For instance, if someone (once upon a time) was hard up or short of cash they’d once have been described as being on queer street, which has no sexual connotations at all*.
A person could just as well say that they’re not artistic, without any hidden sexuality-related undertones.
It’s what could be called "raised-eyebrow knowingness" that’s given innocent words, such as these, covert meanings.

I don’t think Ennis is even talking about sexuality at all.
Jack’s interpretation is different: he’s “been around,” and knows the vernacular, as his “Me neither” shows.
Had he correctly said, when confronted with a double negative, “Nor am I,” it probably would have given the game away.
Poor Ennis thinks that Jack understood his meaning. 

Stan, I’m not sure that Ennis was ‘determined to marry his fiancee.’**
It sort of suggests that a great and strenuous effort was required, when all we’re told is that “when he met Jack Twist Ennis was engaged to marry Alma Beers.”

It’s interesting how simple statements such as this can be seen, with “knowing” hindsight (by “those so inclined,”# as you said), as having hidden meanings. 

* Well, maybe it does in the US. Who knows? I await correction. 
** Double ‘e’ when the one to whom one is engaged is female. (Sorry, Stan.  )
# Yourself excluded. Your comment brought a smile to my lips.
(Ennis: “I’m a gonna marry Alma Beers, come Hell or high water—so there!”)

[Paul029]

[Another poster] recently asked me whether I thought that the characters “could be gay in the story and not in the film, or vice versa.”
I answered him by saying that the question presupposed that their sexualities were the same, but he’s touched on something that could explain why I’m possibly so uncertain about the issue.

Perhaps the story and the film do, for me, convey differing messages about the respective sexualities of Jack and Ennis.

No, I didn't see any 'misalignment'  between the story and the film, in regards to the boys' respective sexuality, although it is possible... Maybe I considered film-Twist to be  cast as a bit more 'lecherous' than Del Mar (ref. the cruising sequence at the beginning of the film). SS-Twist was less than forthcoming about his rodeo peccadilloes as well as implying that he blew money on hustlers while traveling on business. Film viewers however were not privy to this type of info about Twist.
Too, I have a feeling that many viewers did not have a clue as to what transpired in the alley in Mexico, even after Ennis delivered his famous line, You been a Mexico, Jack?  during the kerfuffle in the final scene at 'Jackson Lake.'

Have you set me up? 

No “misalignment” about their sexualities?
How about the tender kissing etc in SNIT? What happened to the story’s “As it did go...quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises?”

They’re randy teenage sheepherders, for heaven’s sake, not something out of Mills and Boon.  

Proulx got it right at the reunion kiss...giving each other mighty hugs, clinching, squeezing the breath out of each other, straining shoulders, pressing chest and groin and thigh and leg together, hardly breathing etc etc.
Why would they behave any differently on this one night during “the rest of the summer?”

The misalignment you missed was that in the film the characters’ behaviour conforms to the stereotype of the strong man seducing the initially unwilling and submissive woman, where the respective sexualities of each participant is clear to a viewer. Each understands and acknowledges his/her role as a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female.

In film BBM’s case, we're presented with Jack as the seducer and Ennis as the eventually-submissive participant.
The only difference with this scenario is that the gender of one of the participants has changed to male, so that the roles they convey are those of consenting homosexuals.

In the story, however, we’re presented with two young men who, irrespective of sexual orientation—which, from what you’ve said, appears to be generally presupposed—fuck like rabbits. Neither represents the female role.

I understand from past discussions here that it's difficult to read the story and thereafter be objective about Ennis's sexuality-- the story's prologue biases the reader from the get-go toward Ennis being homosexually oriented, but this view might not be entirely safe, either: The giveaway seems to be that Ennis 'revels' in his dreams about Jack, I think the dreams do serve to indicate that Ennis was deeply psychically attached to Twist and very much treasured their time together, their homosexual doings, but this alone seems not enough to convince that he is fundamentally a homosexual being.

Agreed. The Prologue does indeed ‘set the scene’ for what’s to come, but reader bias that Ennis is homosexual depends upon the reader’s predilections.

Whether this is dependent upon external influence (including hindsight, among others) affecting interpretation or independently of same is the reader’s choice.

What his unconscious dreams tells us is that another man gave him something which he’d never before experienced and that, in the world in which he lived, it was exceptional.
(I say ‘unconscious’ because wet dreams are unable to occur through will alone.)

Psychically attached? Definitely.

I realise that I may appear to be teetering a little toward being off-topic, and understand that the casual reader could think that some of my comments would perhaps be more appropriately placed in the Film versus Story thread.
My point, however, is that the film and the story do “for me, convey differing messages about the respective sexualities of Jack and Ennis.”

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Giving E & J the proverbial 'benefit of the doubt' allows those so inclined to peg both as heterosexual males

Or vice-versa.

[andy]

^^^

It boggles the mind, doesn't it?!  --  I mean, the odds that Gyllenhaal had sex with Rodrigo The Cameraman..??   

Lucky ol' Rodrigo, is what I say.

[AZ.bbm]

It just seems to me that pigeonholing each man into a specific type of sexual orientation doesn’t acknowledge the wide range of feeling of which the human heart is capable.

-Certainly true.- I think that acknowledging the 'wider repertoire' seems to be the fairer approach, fairer by far than trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

<musing>
But the other side of the argument holds that by refusing to classify E & J as gay we deprive the film of its élan..(?)
+Perhaps it all depends upon one's intended purpose for using BBM, say, as an ode to gay agony/ecstasy, or, as a blunt instrument of retribution against heteros, etc...?
I can clearly understand why gay activists would DEMAND that the leads be regarded as 'perfectly gay' -- to them the film is easily a veritable beacon shining a harsh light upon the very real injustices & pain inflicted upon members of the gay community (as well as those who suffer alone or in silence having yet to find their voice)... Therefore, if one of the leads is allowed to be  'bisexual' rather than gay then Brokeback Mountain is not all about gays, its the central message is 'diluted,'  its impact lost, yada... (I could go on, but you get the gist)
</musing>

I believe Ennis meant it when he said that he’s not no queer.
Apart from the flawed grammar (which, considering his education, is forgiveable) it’s his attempt to verbalise the feeling that he doesn’t think he’s odd or strange, the literal use of the word.
Although the film suggests that he says this the day after his tent encounter with Jack, the story indicates not only that he did so later (once he and Jack had sex in the tent at night and in the full daylight and at evening), but also that, without a word being spoken they “both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, the sheep be damned.”
The fact that he uses an idiomatic expression is Proulx’s nod to the vernacular language of the time, with which I doubt Ennis would be familiar...
(...)  I don’t think Ennis is even talking about sexuality at all.

-Maybe not...

<opinion>
I rather think that Ennis's INNQ pronouncement was referring to the overall queer lifestyle.-- He knew (of) queer people in his hometown, "tough old birds" like Earl & Rich, and likely others whom he'd 'seen around' at times.  It's also likely that upon occasion, say, while at school, Ennis would have fielded a few queer epithets aimed in his direction. He would have known early on what it meant, thanks perhaps to his own family.

Re INNQ - Tripp believed that most 'straight' guys feel compelled by the unwritten code of macho ethics to regain their honor (save face?) following half a night of booze-fueled 'freaking' (-some of us can relate) -- Ennis felt compelled  to reassert his heterosexual persona (real or illusory), and Jack was obliged to follow Ennis's lead, if for no other reason than as a courtesy between friends.
</opinion>

[AZ.bbm]

No “misalignment” about their sexualities?
How about the tender kissing etc in SNIT? What happened to the story’s “As it did go...quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises?”

Whoa, hoss!  
Re "misalignment" I think you may have misundertood my intent. I claimed that I could see no difference between the two media  in the boys' respective sexual orientations -- one or both being gay, 'bi' or 'straight' -- rather than any acts they performed... (This was my answer to the question posed to you, I believe) 

IOW, if Twist was predominantly oriented in one direction in the SS then he was also predominantly oriented in that same direction in the film... If, say, Del Mar was intrinsically heterosexual in the film then IMO he was likewise so inclined in the story.

 

[AZ.bbm]

Or vice-versa.

I have noticed that when there's some doubt as to a person's sexual orientation, typically activists, homo-sexists, hetero-phobes, etc., will naturally come down on the 'gay' side.

As we discussed earlier,  it is BY FAR statistically safer to assume that any given person in the general population is straight.

[janjo]

But in a small proportion of cases it would be a profoundly wrong assumption.

[AZ.bbm]

---No argument, there.

I'm just saying that to be fair (and not prejudicial) you would assume a person is 'straight' (or even 'bi') until you have reason to believe otherwise. 


BTW, Jess, do you think you'd be willing to switch sides -- in the WTG debate, I mean? 

 

[Lyle (Mooska)]

But in a small proportion of cases it would be a profoundly wrong assumption.

Unless you were in West Hollywood.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

I'm just saying that to be fair (and not prejudicial) you would assume
a person is 'straight' (or even 'bi') until you have reason to believe otherwise.

Is it not prejudicial and the source of many problems for gay people that this attitude prevails?
As if you need a reason to exist?  You have to justify yourself and give people reasons for it?

I have noticed that when there's some doubt as to a person's sexual orientation, typically activists, homo-sexists, hetero-phobes, etc., will naturally come down on the 'gay' side.

I don't think you have to be labeled an activist or any of those other negative sounding things.
You just have to be gay.  Harvey Fierstein has always said, "I believe everyone is gay unless
I'm told otherwise."  Statistically you may say he's wrong, but then those people who are not
can justify themselves and give us reasons to believe otherwise.

As we discussed earlier,  it is BY FAR statistically safer to assume that any given person
in the general population is straight.

That's an interesting choice of words there -- safer.  Safer to assume someone isn't gay.
Because you wouldn't want to assume someone is gay now, would you?  That would just
be terrible. The words you use like "prejudicial" and "safer" and "fair" all seem to come from
a place where being gay is somehow unacceptable so we must adhere to the more normal
side of the Kinsey scale and tread lightly when veering anywhere else.