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

[Lyle (Mooska)]

I suppose one of the problems with labeling is the goalposts one uses for themselves.
Are you gay only at #6 or straight only at #0?  Are you bi-sexual from #1-#5?  Or would
you say you are straight if you were #0-#1 or gay from #5-#6?  Or permutations of those?
Or is this scale strictly about sex and doesn't take into account aspects of being gay or
straight that have nothing to do with sex?  

The notions that many straight people have about gay men wanting to be women might come
from the fact that gay men have gone to films for a century and put themselves in the position
of identifying with the women characters and those characters relationships with the male
partners.  (I was the buyer for a small chain of video stores that catered to gay areas of
L.A. Of all the films in those video stores the biggest renter and seller was the 1939 film
called THE WOMEN, which had no men in at all.  The tag line of the film is "It's all about
men."  It's why Sex and the City was popular with gay men.)

But that doesn't mean gay men want to be women.  Nor does it mean straight men want
to be gay if they can identify themselves in a film like Brokeback Mountain.

A point I want to make about that scale above is that there could be a scale like that for the film.
I think that since Ang Lee and Dianna Ossana and Larry McMurtry have said that Jack & Ennis
are gay that can't be discounted.  There are others that want to point back to the short story and
say there is nothing to "prove" that.  There are those, like me, who don't think you can look at
Brokeback Mountain and discount religious, familial and societal memes in a story like this even
if they are not explicitly mentioned in writing.

And finally, what is the point of arguing about it.  If some want to think Jack and/or Ennis are gay,
why not?  If someone wants to think one or both are bi-sexual fine. Can we both be right? Most
people take stories to their hearts or dismiss them for any number of reasons.  I wrote once about
a Jewish author who penned a heartfelt essay about why she thought AN EDUCATION was an
anti-semitic diatribe which shocked the hell out of most people who read it!

The important thing is that the characters touched us in positive ways, however we personally
view them, and justifying our personal beliefs, feelings, and thoughts can be a futile attempt to
those who just don't see it that way.

Why do we who continually or periodically post in this thread continue to do so?  To try and
sway someone to our viewpoint?  I'm sure there are few here who post that are searching for
an answer?  The "drive-by posters" that someone alluded to once probably just find the whole
discussion absurd and move on quickly.

Modified by sandy to remove reference to link and post no longer available on thread.

[AZ.bbm]

A point I want to make about that scale above is that there could be a scale like that for the film.
I think that since Ang Lee and Dianna Ossana and Larry McMurtry have said that Jack & Ennis
are gay that can't be discounted.  There are others that want to point back to the short story and
say there is nothing to "prove" that.  There are those, like me, who don't think you can look at
Brokeback Mountain and discount religious, familial and societal memes in a story like this even
if they are not explicitly mentioned in writing.

-Sorry, Lyle, but I would consider your invoking of DO & LM opinions as a fallacious appeal to authority...
They may have written the screenplay with 'gay cowboys' in mind, but somehow, like AP, they managed not to convey that to the film audiences. Was that an accident, you think? - or did these two straight writers believe that gayness is defined by what you DO, rather than what you are?
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)

(...)what is the point of arguing about it.  If some want to think Jack and/or Ennis are gay,
why not?  If someone wants to think one or both are bi-sexual fine. Can we both be right?

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

Most people take stories to their hearts or dismiss them for any number of reasons.  I wrote once about
a Jewish author who penned a heartfelt essay about why she thought AN EDUCATION was an
anti-semitic diatribe which shocked the hell out of most people who read it!

-Yes, it's good to know that people are finally waking up!


-Stan

[garyd]

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

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.

They may have written the screenplay with 'gay cowboys' in mind, but somehow, like AP, they managed not to convey that to the film audiences.

Not true by a large margin.  They did not manage to convey that to YOU and perhaps others but you can not speak for film audiences in general and you can certainly not speak for me. 
In both the film and the SS I perceive both Jack and Ennis to be latent, deeply closeted, severely repressed homosexuals. My perception is derived from the performances, the script and the SS text. 

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.

Don't you find this statement to be even a wee bit ironic?

[AZ.bbm]

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 ??

 

[Paul029]

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)[/b[ 

a) I thought I understood your intent, Stan, but you seem to be saying that ... well, I admit that I’m not exactly sure, now, what you actually are saying.  

b) Could you remind me what the question was, and who posed it to me, please?  

[AZ.bbm]

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

* 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....
...Lyle 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.

I don't believe I can tell any difference in sexual orientation between story and film.

While it's a valid question I got the impression that it was another attempt to "muddy the waters."  (-maybe)

[Paul029]

I enjoyed reading this pertinent post.  

~~~ A point I want to make about that scale above is that there could be a scale like that for the film.
I think that since Ang Lee and Dianna Ossana and Larry McMurtry have said that Jack & Ennis
are gay that can't be discounted.  There are others that want to point back to the short story and
say there is nothing to "prove" that.  There are those, like me, who don't think you can look at
Brokeback Mountain and discount religious, familial and societal memes in a story like this even
if they are not explicitly mentioned in writing.

Your point about the film interpretation is something I’ve been wanting to hear from someone for some time.
I’m also one of those who refer ‘back to the short story’ (hopefully rather than one who points to it and says there is nothing to ‘prove’ that Jack and Ennis are gay) but simply to say that, for me, the story and film differ.
 
Your reference to “religious, familial and societal” influences (?) is taken on board, and while I don’t discount them in any way (some are implied, if not actually mentioned per se in the text*),
they don’t have the over-riding influence, for me, that is perhaps their due. **

And finally, what is the point of arguing about it.  If some want to think Jack and/or Ennis are gay,
why not?  If someone wants to think one or both are bi-sexual fine. Can we both be right? ~~~

I agree whole-heartedly with all of this.

The important thing is that the characters touched us in positive ways, however we personally
view them, and justifying our personal beliefs, feelings, and thoughts can be a futile attempt to
those who just don't see it that way.

I think you’re right, with the proviso that ‘justifying’ oneself seems a little strong. It’s not a debate (or is it?).
But I suppose the word could be appropriate, when some have been here for some time, and others for not so long...

In a way it could devolve into those with fixed opinions, determined after years of thought, putting them forward to newcomers as ‘canon.’
There’ve certainly been instances of this since (with bated breath and not a little trepidation) I entered the 'fray.'

Why do we who continually or periodically post in this thread continue to do so?  To try and
sway someone to our viewpoint?  I'm sure there are few here who post that are searching for
an answer?  The "drive-by posters" that someone alluded to once probably just find the whole
discussion absurd and move on quickly.

Personally, I post here because I’ve found the thread to be a good venue for some genuine intellectual stimulation,
and certainly have no intention of ‘swaying’ anyone to my POV.
It's just good to hear others' ideas, to add them to the melting pot and to see what bubbles up.
It's illuminating, and can be enjoyable.

It’s a bit hard at times, though, when discussion veers into emotional realms,
and discussion becomes a sort of ‘pissing contest’ between those who feel they’re the most passionate about the issue.

I’m unsure, though, that “few here who post ... are searching for an answer.” It’s an interesting idea.
It would also be interesting to see how many posters, if any, had changed their initial opinion about the characters’ (respective**) sexualities after some discussion.

On the other hand, perhaps these ‘drivers-by’ have nothing, for whatever reason/s, to contribute...  

Thanks for the post, Lyle.

* In the sense, for example, that a character (or the Narrator) states as a fact, for instance, that Ennis “was so traumatised by the death of Earl and the message it sent about the automatic treatment meted out to scum-of-the-earth homosexuals by Wyoming rednecks in the mid-1960s that he was forever terrified of ever admitting to any same-sex arttraction whatsoever, let alone even acknowledging to himself that he very much enjoyed the erotic feelings he experienced when engaged in insertive sodomy with Jack, a willing and eager recipient.” and so on and so forth...

** Had she thought it needed emphasising Proulx surely would have added at least something (perhaps, a few simple lines of direct speech) at the end of the Motel Siesta scene.
For instance:
          The hollow ringing began again in the next room, and as if he were answering it, Ennis picked up the phone on the bedside table, dialed his own number.
          After he put the phone down he turned to Jack and said:
          “Yep, Alma’s okay with that. Now, let’s clean up these damn sheets. Jeezus, you came like a goddamn fountain, an’ looka all that shit!
          The maid’ll probbaly throw a fit. Don’t want the natives getting ideas of what we got up to now, do we! Riverton’s a small town, Jack—don’t want no gossip!”

          Jack said, “It’s okay, Ennis. Don’t you fret so about societal expectations, ya hear! I booked us under the names a Mr and Mrs Smith,” to which Ennis muttered to himself “Oh, Daddy!’

(Sorry, that bit came from Fargo. He should have said:)

          “You’re a real thinker, aint you! Yeah, that Jack Twist, he’s got it all figured out, aint you?”

Ditto sorry, that came from the screenplay!
How about Jack saying,

          “We should get some cleaning products.” Nope, that’s from True Romance.

Anyway, you get the idea...  

***I say this just in case it’s a ‘given’ that their sexualities are thought, by some, to be the same, of course.

[janjo]

 They did not manage to convey that to YOU and perhaps others but you can not speak for film audiences in general and you can certainly not speak for me. 
In both the film and the SS I perceive both Jack and Ennis to be latent, deeply closeted, severely repressed homosexuals. My perception is derived from the performances, the script and the SS text. 

Gary hits the nail on the head perfectly once again.

[AZ.bbm]

Unfortunately these two fictional characters were imbued ONLY with the traits the author saw fit to give them.

But we ourselves invented the rest of their baggage, heaping upon them such things as societal pressure to marry, paranoia, intrinsic gayness, endogenic homophobia, identity denial, post-traumatic stress disorder,...  to which real characters could be exposed or subjected,  but these are traits and qualities we choose to believe about fictional characters which we cannot positively demonstrate.

When Ennis del Mar jumped out of that 18-wheeler in Signal, Wyoming in 1963, *unjaundiced* movie-goers didn't know Ennis from Adam, had no preconceptions about him whatsoever... Only after he fell in 'lust' with Jack Twist did we each allow ourselves the liberty to create whatever backstory our heart desired.

[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?

Thank you! There’s been so much to-ing and fro-ing, not to mention posts leading off into the 'stratosphere*' that I lost track.
Will get back to you, Stan.

*I say that because I find it hard to focus on more than one post at a time.
By the time I catch up with those between you and others I'm out of synch. 
It's all very distracting.

*grumbles to himself*

[Paul029]

Gary hits the nail on the head perfectly once again.

Do you mean universally? Or do you mean only as far as garyd and yourself are concerned, Jess?

(Straightforward question. No hidden agenda. )

[janjo]

Gary spoke for me, and as he says, probably for the majority of cinema audiences and readers. 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.

[AZ.bbm]

(@Lyle) Your point about the film interpretation is something I’ve been wanting to hear from someone for some time.
I’m also one of those who refer ‘back to the short story’ (hopefully rather than one who points to it and says there is nothing to ‘prove’ that Jack and Ennis are gay) but simply to say that, for me, the story and film differ.
 
Your reference to “religious, familial and societal” influences (?) is taken on board, and while I don’t discount them in any way (some are implied, if not actually mentioned per se in the text*),
they don’t have the over-riding influence, for me, that is perhaps their due. **
I agree whole-heartedly with all of this.
I think you’re right, with the proviso that ‘justifying’ oneself seems a little strong. It’s not a debate (or is it?).
But I suppose the word could be appropriate, when some have been here for some time, and others for not so long...

In a way it could devolve into those with fixed opinions, determined after years of thought, putting them forward to newcomers as ‘canon.’
There’ve certainly been instances of this since (with bated breath and not a little trepidation) I entered the 'fray.'
Personally, I post here because I’ve found the thread to be a good venue for some genuine intellectual stimulation,
and certainly have no intention of ‘swaying’ anyone to my POV.
It's just good to hear others' ideas, to add them to the melting pot and to see what bubbles up.
It's illuminating, and can be enjoyable.

It’s a bit hard at times, though, when discussion veers into emotional realms,
and discussion becomes a sort of ‘pissing contest’ between those who feel they’re the most passionate about the issue.

I’m unsure, though, that “few here who post ... are searching for an answer.” It’s an interesting idea.
It would also be interesting to see how many posters, if any, had changed their initial opinion about the characters’ (respective**) sexualities after some discussion.

On the other hand, perhaps these ‘drivers-by’ have nothing, for whatever reason/s, to contribute...  

Congratulations, Paul, I salute you for this very equanimous post!

We would all do well to strive for such clarity and balance.

Stan

[Paul029]

Gary spoke for me, and as he says, probably for the majority of cinema audiences and readers. 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.

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.)

[Paul029]

Congratulations, Paul, I salute you for this very equanimous post!

We would all do well to strive for such clarity and balance.

Stan

Thank you, sir!