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

[janjo]

Paul, I did find your postings 247 and 248 interesting. I like very much the way you point out the differences between the book and the film. I wondered what you thought about the, to me, very erotic description in the short story of Ennis and Jack at the apartment just prior to them going to the Siesta Motel. It isn't the Second Night In The Tent, and it doesn't indicate Jack's appraisal of Ennis at the start of the film, but it is evidence of a very strong same sex attraction, at leas to me, and relates the feelings they had for each other in a different way from that used in the film.
Literature and film are very different mediums, but to me at least, the message about what made Jack and Ennis tick is the same.

I appreciated Chareugris intervention, it was nice to see that a person whose views I respect, as I do yours and Stan's too, was thinking along the same lines as I was.

[Paul029]

Gee, he can't even eat cherry cake! 

Wow, the 'fruit cake' symbolism of that just hit me!

Previously undisclosed research,* recently unearthed in the Library of Congress, has proven beyond a doubt that the eating of cake of any kind by males of any age in the State of Wyoming during the period 1963—1983 was an unequivocal indication of male homosexuality. Although the research is inconclusive regarding whether the baking of cakes by females was indicative of lesbian tendencies in the total cohort of females involved, a significant number of unmarried females who engaged in cake-baking in Wyoming during the stipulated time period were found, upon investigation, to have been parties in what have been described as "Boston marriages." A further survey of the number of married females who offered cakes to unmarried males in the northern section of Wyoming was subsequently undertaken but unfortunately its results were indecipherable due to poor penmanship, compounded by illiteracy.
Another study was proposed for the rest of Wyoming and even into Texas, with a focus specifically upon Childress, but funds for same were withdrawn. One reason provided was that such a survey was simply redundant as Texans didn't even drink coffee, let alone eat cake (of any sort). Some marginalia, inexpertly erased and subsequently written over, has revealed, through sophisticated fluoroscoping, that Texans were concerned that the survey would reveal hitherto unacknowledged numbers of homosexual males and lesbians in the Texan population.
* Inadvertently mislocated in the "Earthquakes, Seismology" section under call number QE534.2.B64.

[AZ.bbm]

(...)

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.'

Interpreting such an offer as “a friendly gesture” depends upon whether:
          a) the man making the offer had been seen previously as the recipient of anal intercourse on a cold moonlit night in a tent; and
          b) the man acting as the active partner in said anal intercourse had been earlier looked at "lecherously" (as you yourself said) by the recipient in question.

A thought:

-Hmm..Previous homosexual contact becomes a 'scarlet letter' of sorts?   

-As in, if you've ever had homosexual contact in the past, then any future overtures to friendship no matter how guileless or genuinely offered are to be perceived as 'tainted.' 

Once you're 'convicted' there's no debt you can repay that will erase the Letter from your forehead. As with being put on  a 'Sex Offender' list - once branded there's no recovery. Very unconstitutional.

Ennis del Mar felt he might be wearing the scarlet letter. 
You ever get the feelin'... I don't know,... when you're in town and someone looks at you all suspicious, like he knows? And then you go out on the pavement and everyone looks like they know too?

FWIW.


ETA: Playing @ a military honors funeral, today; Be back later!

[janjo]

[janjo]

 

[Paul029]

Backtracking a little here, but I realise that I could have focused more closely on a point you raised in your Reply #264, Jess.

~ snip ~
Annie Proulx said her characters were gay, she said she based them on a man she assumed to be gay watching the young men play pool, Ang Lee assumed them to be gay, as did Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana.
~ snip ~
But it does seem to me that these are two fictional characters who have been designed by their author(s) to be two gay men.
So why is there such a clamour here to prove that they weren't?

What Proulx and the screen writers have said has been raised before and in the past I’ve indicated that I preferred to decide for myself rather than to be influenced by them.

I’ve already indicated that I believe Jack to be homosexual so it seems that I’m in agreement with Proulx and the screenwriters on that point, at least.

But I wonder in what way/s you think the story would be any different if Ennis’s sexuality was interpreted as heterosexual?

Considering that it's about “destructive rural homophobia,” what difference would there be between:

          a) Ennis as a homosexual man fearful of being labelled as queer?
              
              and

          b) Ennis as a heterosexual man fearful of being labelled as queer?

[Paul029]

Paul, I did find your postings 247 and 248 interesting. I like very much the way you point out the differences between the book and the film. I wondered what you thought about the, to me, very erotic description in the short story of Ennis and Jack at the apartment just prior to them going to the Siesta Motel. It isn't the Second Night In The Tent, and it doesn't indicate Jack's appraisal of Ennis at the start of the film, but it is evidence of a very strong same sex attraction, at leas to me, and relates the feelings they had for each other in a different way from that used in the film.

I thought the ‘reunion kiss’ was consistent with what we were told about their behaviour for the rest of their summer together, post-FNIT.
The film’s “clinch” got the description in the story as right as it could, without being offensive to ‘sensitive’ viewers. (Although, no doubt, many female—and male—hearts were set aflutter at the sight.  )
I agree that it showed their feelings for each other more accurately than did the film’s SNIT.

Literature and film are very different mediums, but to me at least, the message about what made Jack and Ennis tick is the same.

I know that there’s been some discussion about whether they kissed at times other than at the reunion.

Proulx devoted almost half a page of text to this one incident, yet relegated the “rest of the summer” of 1963 to only six lines.
Her detailed description tallies with what we’re told about their summer sex, that it was rough, strenuous and “macho” in its intensity.

The message being given is that not only is the kiss unusual enough in itself but also that, as it occurs in a public place, a necessary onlooker is needed to propel the story further.
The young men lose control; they get carried away and kiss for the first (and only) time, which leads to unforeseen (homophobic) consequences. 

There’s no indication that they kissed in the Motel Siesta—saliva wasn’t mentioned even once in her Inventory of Bodily Fluids! 
Kissing, a big taboo, would have indicated effeminacy, and neither of them wanted to appear that way.

[janjo]

Oh! I don't think they were worried about looking or feeling effeminate at that point, they were beyond caring by then, and I suspect that whatever we are told, that that wasn't the only time they kissed. It was what came naturally.
Ennis even called Jack "little darlin,'" and he wasn't big on endearments either.
I would suggest that when they were together they found it hard to control themselves, and even if the kisses were quite rough, that they still happened.

[janjo]

Backtracking a little here, but I realise that I could have focused more closely on a point you raised in your Reply #264, Jess.
What Proulx and the screen writers have said has been raised before and in the past I’ve indicated that I preferred to decide for myself rather than to be influenced by them.

I’ve already indicated that I believe Jack to be homosexual so it seems that I’m in agreement with Proulx and the screenwriters on that point, at least.

But I wonder in what way/s you think the story would be any different if Ennis’s sexuality was interpreted as heterosexual?

Considering that it's about “destructive rural homophobia,” what difference would there be between:

          a) Ennis as a homosexual man fearful of being labelled as queer?
              
              and

          b) Ennis as a heterosexual man fearful of being labelled as queer?

I suppose that if Ennis were really heterosexual he would feel less guilt, and be happier in his own skin, but I have to say once again, truly heterosexual men don't fall in love and have sex with other men. Men who say they are "straight" but aren't, might, but honestly heterosexual men really don't.
I think if Ennis were really heterosexual it would lessen the tragedy in some respects, because then Jack would be more of a brother / friend / soul mate, with whom Ennis occasionally had sex, rather than. as I see it, the love of his life.

[AZ.bbm]

...Men who say they are "straight" but aren't, might [fall in love and have sex with other men], but honestly heterosexual men really don't...

-Begging the question, how do we know that each is being 'honest' about his sexuality...?

[Paul029]

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.'

Interpreting such an offer as “a friendly gesture” depends upon whether:
          a) the man making the offer had been seen previously as the recipient of anal intercourse on a cold moonlit night in a tent; and
          b) the man acting as the active partner in said anal intercourse had been earlier looked at "lecherously" (as you yourself said) by the recipient in question.

A thought:

-Hmm..Previous homosexual contact becomes a 'scarlet letter' of sorts?   

-As in, if you've ever had homosexual contact in the past, then any future overtures to friendship no matter how guileless or genuinely offered are to be perceived as 'tainted.'# 

I understand where you’re going with this, but I suspect it’s unlikely that the film makers intended viewers to interpret Jack’s offer, while indeed genuine, as one without guile. 

Film Jack’s gender preference is clearly indicated when he first spots Ennis, so what other explanation would you suggest motivated his offering to buy the rodeo clown a drink?

We were talking about a specific individual, one whose behaviour was recorded on film.

To infer from this specific case, as it appears you do, that the overtures of all men who’ve had past “homosexual contact” are “tainted” seems rather a dubious assumption.

# And why did you say “tainted?” (i.e. corrupt, spoiled, suspicious.)

[Paul029]

Once you're 'convicted' there's no debt you can repay that will erase the Letter from your forehead. As with being put on a 'Sex Offender' list - once branded there's no recovery. Very unconstitutional.

We are talking about Jack Twist, a specific, fictional film character, are we not?
One whose behaviour is forever—unchangingly—fixed in celluloid?

Do you see recovery of some sort?

Jack Twist can’t undo the fact that he looked “lecherously” at Ennis, that he initiated sexual activity with him, that he flirted with the film’s rodeo clown on the pretext of buying him a drink and that he went to Mexico for what he needed.

Or do you disagree with this?

Could it be that you think his death 'exonerates' his behaviour, that it wipes the slate clean?

[Paul029]

Ennis del Mar felt he might be wearing the scarlet letter. 
You ever get the feelin'... I don't know,... when you're in town and someone looks at you all suspicious, like he knows? And then you go out on the pavement and everyone looks like they know too?

Your verbatim quote from the film indicates that not only someone  but everyone in town looked at Ennis like (i.e. as if) they knew.
In other words, their expressions indicated that they actually knew something about Ennis.

The screenplay, however, has this: “You ever get the feelin,’ I don’t know, when you’re in town, and someone looks at you, suspicious...like he knows.  And then you get out on the pavement, and everyone, lookin’ at you, and maybe they all know, too?”

While the unnamed "someone" who looks at Ennis still appears to know, it seems that Ennis wasn't meant to be so certain about "everyone" looking at him and knowing.
The line indicates that "maybe" (i.e. perhaps) they know.
It’s probably a moot point, but Proulx’s intention seems to have been subtly altered by this switch from 'like' to 'maybe.'

But possibly more importantly she doesn’t even mention people looking at Ennis in the short story. 
He says, and I quote, “I been lookin at people in the street. This happen a other people? What the hell do they do?”

Her point appears to be that Ennis is wondering not only whether there are other people “in town” who feel about another man as he does, but whether they would, given the chance, live together, which appears to be borne out, in this section of the story, by the context in which he makes these remarks.

For instance, in his immediately-previous speech he says,
          “Two guys livin together? No. All I can see is we get together once in a while way the hell out in the back a nowhere—” At which Jack interjects with,
          “How much is once in a while? Once in a while ever four fuckin years?”
Ennis responds to this by saying that, while he hates that they can’t be together, they’ve got to stand it, and he then finishes with his question about the people he's been looking at in the street.
Please note that Proulx does not indicate that these people are looking at him.
Her intention here appears to be that Ennis is looking at passers-by, and wondering what they'd do if they were in his situation.
Unlike the film's version there's no indication that he has feelings of 'guilt' at all. *

It seems to me that Ennis appears to be more concerned about the idea of them living together than he is about the fact that they’re sexual partners.

This interpretation can be supported by his earlier statement that he,
          “never had no thoughts a doin it with another guy except I sure wrang it out a hunderd times thinkin about you.” Followed immediately by,
          “You do it with other guys? Jack?”

The subtext here appears to be that Ennis would be concerned should he discover that Jack did it “with other guys.”
So I ask myself “Why would he be concerned—what would it matter to Ennis that Jack had other sexual partners?”
Could it be that Ennis is likely to be jealous of potential rivals for Jack’s affections?   

I think not.

My feeling is that while Ennis is careful not to be seen as acting “queerly” he’s concerned that Jack may not be as cautious in his behaviour.
If Jack carries on with other guys it brings anonymous ‘others’ into the mix—others whose ‘loose lips’ could have dire consequences, not only for Jack but also, in a worst case scenario, for himself.

When he learns that Jack goes to Mexico his complex reaction isn’t based on jealousy, but shock (that Jack has acted irresponsibly) and his awareness of the harm his behaviour could bring to them both—as shown later by his ‘knowledge’ of how Jack died—he played around and brought the consequences upon himself.

Ennis’s self-preservation instincts would be notched up to High Alert if he found out that Jack was promiscuous.
He’s already concerned about what “two guys livin together” would mean.
After all, he knows what happened to Earl who was killed because he lived with another man.#
If Jack was careless about his ‘extramural activities’ the danger to Ennis would be exponentially increased.

Now—just for the sake of argument, Stan—let’s take it that while Ennis has sex with one other man he's actually (or, as Jess would have it, 'really') heterosexual.
I think he’d care very much indeed about being wrongly labeled as "queer" by others.

That’s why I disagree with your ‘scarlet letter’ reference.
It’s related to the point I made to Jess, that mis-labelling in a homophobic rural society can be as harmful as correct labelling.

* Which is one example of why I prefer the source material over the film's 'misinterpretation.'
# It's interesting that Proulx has Ennis say that Earl and Rich were "two old guys who ranched together," that they were "a joke" simply because of this fact.
Why not come out and provide the real reason they were a joke?
Because it didn't matter what they got up to. Living together was enough.
And that's Ennis's objection to the little C&C operation, not the bonking...
"Two guys livin together? No."

[janjo]

-Begging the question, how do we know that each is being 'honest' about his sexuality...?

There are men that I know well enough and have known for long enough that I trust to be honest with me about their sexuality.

[AZ.bbm]

Interpreting such an offer as “a friendly gesture” depends upon whether:
(...)
I understand where you’re going with this, but I suspect it’s unlikely that the film makers intended viewers to interpret Jack’s offer, while indeed genuine, as one without guile. 
Film Jack’s gender preference is clearly indicated when he first spots Ennis, so what other explanation would you suggest motivated his offering to buy the rodeo clown a drink?... We were talking about a specific individual, one whose behaviour was recorded on film.

-There's the rub. We DON'T actually KNOW Jack's true motivation for approaching the rodeo clown; we're relying upon 'subtext.'

Jack's offer to buy the clown a drink might have been innocent overture to friendship for all we know... Since you believe that  Jack is gay and therefore always looking to score, any other motivations are off the table. I don't know, was it apparent from the screenplay that Jack was hitting on the clown? Or was his offer misinterpreted? I have my doubts.

To infer from this specific case, as it appears you do, that the overtures of all men who’ve had past “homosexual contact” are “tainted” seems rather a dubious assumption.

Again, once a typical person, 'A,' whether straight, gay, bi or whatever, perceives that an individual, B, may be homosexually inclined, it is exceedingly difficult for that person 'A' to see beyond his or her preconceived notions...-Ergo, every action person 'B' takes stands a better-than-even chance of being colored by 'A's  own prejudice, i.e., "tainted."