Film vs. Book -- Which was better?

[Desecra]

I see what you're saying about it being negative - most definitely.  But I still feel there's an acceptance implied that there isn't in Ennis's description of his childhood experience.  Jack may get the message that he's not worthy of respect, that he's different, that he can never be like his father, etc.  Ennis gets the message that not only is he not worthy of respect, but that anyone queer deserves to be killed[...]

Do you think Jack may have taken a somewhat stronger message?  Not nearly as strong as the "Earl" business, but still:  "cut an ear or scorch a brand" -- he is different, but maybe furthermore, he is marked.  And "they'd cut me" -- they.  At the mercy of a faceless group who hurt him.  Ennis is closed by his fear in a way Jack is not IMO, But Jack may have a bit of fear and feelings of vulnerability, not just a lack of self-respect and a feeling of difference.  Maybe, anyway.

Yes, I can see that too.  Cutting ears and scorching brands are things done to livestock to mark them.  The other time brandng is mentioned is that scene where the sheep have to be sorted out, 'the task almost impossible as the paint brands were worn and faint at this late season'.  Now I have some thinking to do on paint brands v. scorch brands, one obviously benig deeper and more permanent.  I may get back to you on that.    But I agree that with that particular imagery Jack is showing that he feels 'marked'.

The difference is communicated in such an abusive way too.  The discovery is still associated with violence and threat, even if it's not as extreme as Ennis's memory.

[CANSTANDIT]

This is getting deep enough to go in the Symbolism Thread....it's a fascinating discussion.

[Dal]

[...]Cutting ears and scorching brands are things done to livestock to mark them.

Oh one more thing before work, a pretty bizzarre one but right to point of "marking", and shame:  ear-cutting, as well as branding, were sometimes done to "miscreants" while they were in the pillory exposed, to public shame!  Jack would not have known this, but I'll bet a million AP does, and she knows we might.  Just a little added oomph, that's all.

[Lance]

I believe it's time to get back on the topic of this thread; perhaps you could create two new threads for the two new topics that have occupied the past page or so?

[Sandy]

I see what you're saying about it being negative - most definitely.  But I still feel there's an acceptance implied that there isn't in Ennis's description of his childhood experience.  Jack may get the message that he's not worthy of respect, that he's different, that he can never be like his father, etc.  Ennis gets the message that not only is he not worthy of respect, but that anyone queer deserves to be killed[...]

Do you think Jack may have taken a somewhat stronger message?  Not nearly as strong as the "Earl" business, but still:  "cut an ear or scorch a brand" -- he is different, but maybe furthermore, he is marked.  And "they'd cut me" -- they.  At the mercy of a faceless group who hurt him.  Ennis is closed by his fear in a way Jack is not IMO, But Jack may have a bit of fear and feelings of vulnerability, not just a lack of self-respect and a feeling of difference.  Maybe, anyway.

Here Jack seems to be saying that his father (who directed 'them' to cut him) was treating him like an animal. That view was reinforced by John Twist beating him to the ground, brutalizing him and pissing on him. I think it would be hard to balance between Ennis' 'queers get killed, so watch out' and Jack's 'you're only an animal'.

[Desecra]

I believe it's time to get back on the topic of this thread; perhaps you could create two new threads for the two new topics that have occupied the past page or so?

Is there another thread for the book?  I had a look and this seemed the closest.

[Dal]

Is there another thread for the book?  I had a look and this seemed the closest.

I guess we can go on teasing the "anecdote" over on  "Character of JT" if our great minds have not already completely parsed it.  Or, could the name of this thread become "Film vs Book -- How do they differ?  Which is better?"  or something like that? 

[Lance]

Perhaps my suggestion of possible new threads is overly extreme , but extended discussion of the symbolism of 'cutting ears and scorching brands' is certainly not about Film vs. Book [which btw already implies differences, so the title of this thread topic doesn't really need changing ] and is more relevant for the already existing symbolism thread or for the Jack's Character thread or um... um....
um.... is there a Jack's Relationship To His Father thread?

It just seems to me that the discussions had gotten away from comparing the film to the book.

[blubird]

        The nice thing about the book is that you can keeps finding new interpretations each time you read it. But here's a good one. The first description of Jack, through Ennis's eyes says: "for a small man he carried some weight in the haunch". I should've looked up the word "haunch" but still... What is that weight refering to? A big set of nuts? Or something related? Even so, this indicates Ennis was just as fascinated by Jack as Jack was of him.

[Dal]

The first description of Jack, through Ennis's eyes says: "for a small man he carried some weight in the haunch".[...]What is that weight refering to?

His butt!  this IS a difference between film vs book, since Jakey G. does not have a whole lot of butt. 

this indicates Ennis was just as fascinated by Jack as Jack was of him.

Oh yeh... good pickup.

What is that weight refering to?  A big set of nuts? Or something related?

LOL !   I guess that must be the first direction you would look at, then!       

[CANSTANDIT]

        The nice thing about the book is that you can keeps finding new interpretations each time you read it. But here's a good one. The first description of Jack, through Ennis's eyes says: "for a small man he carried some weight in the haunch". I should've looked up the word "haunch" but still... What is that weight refering to? A big set of nuts? Or something related? Even so, this indicates Ennis was just as fascinated by Jack as Jack was of him.

Basically, it means he's checked out Jack's ass-pardon my french.

[mouk]

Is there another thread for the book?  I had a look and this seemed the closest.

I guess we can go on teasing the "anecdote" over on  "Character of JT" if our great minds have not already completely parsed it.  Or, could the name of this thread become "Film vs Book -- How do they differ?  Which is better?"  or something like that? 

This is the first time I look at this thread, and what a coincidence, I get plenty of answers to my questions about Jack being dick-clipped under 'Parents and children in BBM' (where some of you kindly answered). 'Parents and children' doesn't seem such a bad thread for this theme as, in addition to Jack's character, there is a strong element of parental influence there?

[mouk]

I don't know why the changes were made in the film, and I don't like them  .  There have been many discussions about the missing postcard in the film timeline which just doesn't fit at all [Ennis sends the postcard before November '81, doesn't get it back and visit the farm until late summer '82, several months later, which doesn't fit with John Twist's comments either].  Jack's age also has to be changed so that he's 39 when he dies.  I would love to know what exactly the reasoning was for changing the times!

Sorry for bringing back something you discussed quite a while ago, but I felt there is more to say still.  I was just wondering if this change in time line had something to do with the girls' age, to make the child support comment more plausible. Proulx got it wrong with Junior being 17 year old in May 83: she was born in October 64 and therefore was 18 - in 81 she was about to turn 17. Does child support end at 18 or 21?

But then Jack can't be 39 in 81 if he was 19 in 1963. Oh well, it's not just that tent that ain't quite right... 

Your comment about the postcard made me wonder about something that had never occurred to me before: could it be that in that apple pie scene with Cassie, Ennis is in such despair not only because he has realised he only wants Jacks and misses him like crazy, but also because he got no answer to his postcard? Perhaps 7 November has been and gone, and he thinks Jack did quit him? In this scene they are wearing cold weather, if not deep winter, clothes.
Would the post office be so inefficient as to return a card probably sent in October only in January?

[Desecra]

Yes, you're right - the book is a little mixed up too.  Alma Jr was born September 64. 

Bobby was presumably born in November 66.

Im May 83 they would be 18 and 16, but Annie has them down as 17 and 15.  Unless their fathers can't remember their ages which is quite possible!

I don't know when child support usually ends in that area.  In the film they said it was 18.  So Jenny would still be receiving child support in May 1983.

There was a poster here whom I haven't seen for a while [David G - where are you?] who had the same idea as you about the Cassie scene.  This would have meant that Jack was alive and kept the postcard, but didn't answer Ennis - he had left him.  Ennis doesn't hear from him until he dies the next year presumably [1982 - we know that he visits Lightning Flats the same year that Ennis visits because Mr Twist is talking about what Jack said in the spring of that year]. So Jack leaves Ennis, then a year later he visits Lightning Flats, mentions the ranch neighbour, then dies. 

In that case, Jack was alive in Spring 82 and Ennis didn't hear of the death for months.  So by the time he gets the postcard, it's been well over a year since he's heard from Jack.

I prefer to go with the book timeline myself, but as the film timeline is set out in the screenplay I think some people prefer to use that.

[mouk]

The short story says that 'Ennis did not hear about the accident for months, until his postcard to Jack ... came back'. I think A Proulx meant that Jack went to LF straight after that last confrontation, mentioned Randal on the heat of the moment, and then was killed sometime in that same year (1981 in the movie) before 7 November; and that Ennis got the deceased card in late 81 and went to see the parents in the 81-82 winter, probably asap in order to get those ashes. With the autumn leaves on the ranch trees, I had always thought it was late October or ealy November, a tragic alternative to the fishni'trip. Now with that new theory of Ennis having received no answer by 7th November, I am confusing myself! I don't think Jack ever received the card, the post office printed it 'deceased' precisely because it could not be delivered to a dead addressee. This is part of the tragedy, Jack dying without ever hearing from Ennis again after their argument.

Probably because there were so many revisions to the screenplay, dates that made sense in earlier versions got confused later, and the writers overlooked this aspect as, after all, it has no huge impact on the essence of the story.