Ennis' and Jack's Relationship, II

[Ministering angel]

I very much doubt that it was a particularly mushy relationship, but that doesn't mean that it involved no tenderness at all. We are, I think, left to make up our own minds about that, and we both have, you don't think there was any, I think that in a rough sort of way there probably was. Surely we are both only doing what the author wanted us to do, interpret the story in the light of our own experiences.
I don't think it is anything to argue about.

As ever, we are talking at cross purposes. I don't see it as a mushy relationship either, and I do see tenderness there, but the physical tenderness (as I see it) came with the reunion kiss. That opened the locked door to all the stuff Ennis hadn't been able to do beforehand. The previous four years of emotional growth, beginning with his trying to puke in the alley, was suddenly released in one explosive moment over which he had no control.

I don't know that our own experiences have a direct bearing on our interpretation. That would imply, I think, that we could not take an objective look at what is written. Of course we bring individual aspects to our interpretation but one doesn't have to experience a particular thing in order to recognise it in a work of fiction. Otherwise we'd never move beyond our own lives.

However, I think each one of us who is grabbed by BBM has some personal connection with the story and the characters, but not always in an obvious way.

[janjo]

I thought that the reunion kiss was what you were aiming towards, and as you well know my feelings about that, then you also know my reasons for not agreeing with you about the time on the mountain. I will say no more, I can't face seeing Dal's "worms" again. Once was enough!

As for reading in the light of experience, I was not suggesting that one had to have personal experience of things, rather just a knowledge gained through life of the varieties of human behaviour, and of the experiences of not just oneself, but also of friends and aquaintances, and of subjects studied and learned in an academic way.
I haven't ever been a man, I am not gay, but I can feel extreme pain for both Jack and Ennis. I have learned over the years a little of what it is to be a man, from living with one and having male friends and relatives, I have gay friends, many of them on this forum, so I have learned a little about that, and as a child I suffered from merciless bullying at school, so I know what it feels like to not be the same, or to be accepted by the main mass of ones peers.
I put all of that learned and personal experience together, and the tears for Jack and Ennis flow easily.

[janjo]

In relation to the above I have just found Annie Proulx's actual quote which I detail below, and whch I think more clearly illustrates my point.

Their relationship endures for 20 years, never resolved, never faced up to, always haunted by fear and confusion. How different readers take the story is a reflection of their own personal values, attitudes, hang-ups. It is my feeling that a story is not finished until it is read, and that the reader finishes it through his or her life experience, prejudices, world view and thoughts.

[CANSTANDIT]

'How different readers take the story is a reflection of their own personal values, attitudes, hang-ups. '

I do love AP's quotes!

I take above to mean there is a primary intent, and whether or not we catch that intent, is based on our own experience. Our interpretations do not nullify the author's intent. I think AP is just saying, 'take from it what you will.' I don't think she means that there are a lot of different meanings and she means them all. I think she is happy to not explain, and to allow us to finish the story ourselves.
I however, am not happy with that, personally. I want to know what SHE intended...

[Ministering angel]

Putting this here as a fairly all-encompassing thread.

Occasionally, when a debate breaks out about the "realness" of the story and the "artificiality" of certain approaches to it, mine included, I like to point out how highly structured the SS is, e.g. how the story is told three times, how it has ten-year intervals between highly significant events, how certain scenes echo and/or illuminate others, such as the two childhood traumas or the reunion and the scene at the Twists, not to mention the various leitmotifs.

Despite this structure the story is so true to human nature that, as we all know, Jack and Ennis are more real than many flesh and blood people we encounter, to paraphrase Annie Proulx. The film has a naturalness to it which is hard to get past at first, yet it is as structured as the story. My humble opinion is that this structure is there to reflect the original work, as well as to assist the telling of the story in subtle ways which mimic the written technique..

I have posted a breakdown of the film structure here.

[CANSTANDIT]

I'm always struck by how much of a set-up the story is; too many things seem to occur as if there is an artificial turf, or motorized walk-way  beneath them, pushing them on; yet the behavior of the characters is so true-to-life within this structure. That is a tribute to the enormity of the writing skills demonstrated; you don't really realize the set-up you're "in" until you get to the end.
 An example, is how we don't know about the divorce scene, so don't fully understand, perhaps, the depth of Jack's bitterness in the last argument.  His battery is running low, but perhaps one thinks, up front, it is more about the lack of living together-until we come to realize there is a short leash in place. The divorce debacle shows us the lengths to which Ennis will allow himself to go to hurt Jack, to make him hear good. And Jack keeps getting caught up in it. We know there is a potential pattern as discussed in the motel scene, ie, 'that punch a yours surprised me', followed by 'nothin like hurting somebody, etc,', and finally, 'you won't catch me again.' The anatomy of the short leash-you can go so far, but no further, cuz I'll hurt you. But the mixed signals-the DE; the Reunion; the one phone call, continue to give mixed messages to Jack. Yet we cannot know ALL of  this, until the end.
So the relationship MUST alter in our minds, even though we've been watching what we thought was a predicable and realistic pattern of behavior. Not sure, frankly, how AP accomplishes this. It's a kind of "I know it when I see it" experience. Not sure you can follow this...It's a tough thing for me to express.

[Ministering angel]

I know what you mean. There is an incredible artificiality to the whole story - the three iterations is an obvious one. And yet she wraps it up in such a realistic fashion that it's hard to see the structure first off. I'll get back to this later because it's one of the most fascinating things about the story.

[Dal]

~There is an incredible artificiality to the whole story - the three iterations is an obvious one. And yet she wraps it up in such a realistic fashion that it's hard to see the structure first off.~

Why does she do that?  How important is it? [Not for this thread, though.  I'm guessing the discussion will inevitably veer into symbolism in no time flat, so may as well move it there]

[Ministering angel]

Your wish is my command. (This offer is limited, and cannot be taken in conjunction with any other offer.)

[fofol]

'How different readers take the story is a reflection of their own personal values, attitudes, hang-ups. '

I do love AP's quotes!

I take above to mean there is a primary intent, and whether or not we catch that intent, is based on our own experience. Our interpretations do not nullify the author's intent. I think AP is just saying, 'take from it what you will.' I don't think she means that there are a lot of different meanings and she means them all. I think she is happy to not explain, and to allow us to finish the story ourselves.
I however, am not happy with that, personally. I want to know what SHE intended...

   Jo, sometimes the "primary intent" is just to tell a story.  In the instance of Brokeback, we are told by the author that the story is about homophobia, and the artist believes that this specific location and time will illustrate the total wastefulness of this emotional, irrational hate on everybody's lives.  Our interpretations of an author's story cannot logically affect the author's intent, especially since any author can only write and hope that people are entertained, at the very least, and get the message, if any, at the very most.  Everything else can be a great deal of fun, and can even be educational:  for example, without your input, as I've told you before, I would never have separated the guys' initial time on Brokeback from the rest of their fishin' trips, thereby missing, to my detriment, one of the more significant elements of the story, all those failed attempts to get it right.  Having been the target of homophobic violence, I understood their lives in a very different way than many other kinds of people who read the story, or saw the film; having been raised by parents who meant well, but kept me a social prisoner, separated from most people, my life was so profoundly affected by a sort of "kindly" homophobia my perspective is very personally identified with Ennis's internalized homophobia, and like him this also affected me with a great absence of social skills.  By listening to you, my eyes were truly opened, I saw more of the story, and more of myself.  The details which you ladies are so fond of dissecting can truly founder away into unimportance to me, but that does not negate my interest in what you have to say.  I mean to say that while we do see this grand thing, this story, this film, very differently, that doesn't mean we disagree. Same with what the author "intended:" not every word has the same intensity of intention as every other, as not every leaf on every tree needs to be dissected to understand what a forest "means,"  and that is part of any story that humans could tolerate reading.  Peace and love to all.

[CANSTANDIT]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Mike I always appreciate the thought and acuity you put into your posts, and how they challenge me, even when we disagree.

  I do think though, that  the story has a point, usually, doesn't it?. I might question that with certain stories, but not this one. I'm just saying I'd want to sit with her some day, and see what was behind each passage. I'd be ok, even if she said,'Oh, who knows what it meant-it just sounded good', I would. Cuz I understand that. But I think she engineered this story, very precisely. I just want to know. I want to go to the original source, always. That's me. I don't believe I meant anything more than that. 

[Ministering angel]

Very good article, although I haven't read it all. It is indeed long!

[Sandy]

It is an interesting article. Although it is basically descriptive, it does make a case for how well the film realizes the short story. Perhaps further discussion on the article could go into the thread on the structure of the film.

[CANSTANDIT]

I wondered where it should go. I can put it there.

[CANSTANDIT]

[I moved this from that last scene, after it was prompted by one of Janjo's comments there.]

The whole story is just one giant, unnecessary-but unavoidable- heartbreak, isn't it? ...Ennis could've stayed closeted, more or less, WITH Jack-they could've been ranch partners, ya know? So what stopped that, you have to ask?  It has to be something inside him, that won't accept himself. I still think he'd have been able to go to Denver with Jack, for example,  had he accepted himself. It would be a version of  Earl and Rich, who clearly were after a place to live quietly-Sage was pretty far out in the middle of nowhere. But even they were unsafe, in that tiny town, which is a nod to DRH. But, when Ennis asked, in the motel, 'what do other people do?' It was a bit of the window God opens, when he closes a door-and poor Jack missed it. Ennis of course, having not been to a big city-or to Mexico  would have no idea 'what other people do'. He only knows it has evil connotations-'Mexico was the place-he'd heard.' Where what? Where queers go?  Apparently. And Ennis would probably die before he'd go there with Jack...

    Right there, we know he does not see himself in the same position as he sees Jack. He doesn't go there, so he ain't it; He's got a wife and kid, so he's straight.  He's putting the blocks to a waitress, etc. She has problems, but he's having sex with her, so it's not his fault of his sexuality, that they can't make a go of it....And now that Jack has stated he is no longer having sex with his wife, well....that's just plain scary to Ennis, about Jack. He can't be having his thing with a queer man, plain and simple. It makes HIM queer, too.

The illusion about Jack shatters for ironically the very reason that should SHOW Ennis what he-Ennis-is really feeling, and why he can't love that waitress:
Ennis is 'faithful', in terms of actual sex, with Jack. There are no other men. But in order to realize that, he would need an understanding about his own sexuality; he would need to see the building blocks: I'm gay, but I don't want any other men; but I want Jack, so I must be seriously in love with Jack.

Instead, he imagines he can love women-and Jack is just a couple of times a year outlet; and now he has proof Jack is different than him-he's admitted to Mexico.

I'm not going on about jealousy here; My point is, that is about love, not sex......Even if Ennis misunderstands why Jack goes to Mexico-which allows us to see Ennis putting the promsicuous gay label on Jack, as we talked about in Q-he still misses the boat about himself; that the reason he himself cannot go after other men, is not because he is not gay-it is because he is  completely in love with Jack, and he has compartmentalized that into something else.  Jack basically blasted a hole in Ennis's wall of denial, even as Ennis ignored the impact for what it was.... And he has to keep it to that one outlet, lest he seem to want sex for sex's sake with other men-then it would terrifying to him, to think he wanted other men. That would put him in the 'boys like you' category, where he has put Jack. "I don't want to be one of them guys you see around sometimes."

  But what he misses, is the very fact that he ONLY wants Jack-This is what fits in no nicely with the disvovery of the shirts and the shattering of the BBM illusion: He knows what he feels is only about Jack,  and therefore, it must be  love-not just sexual desire. He can identify that feeling as something he's never had with anyone else, either in terms of love, or sex; but he can only face it once the threat of exposure is gone....I think this is the moment that separates his ability to have sex, ie with a woman; from his ability to want sex with Jack. For only in Jack's death, can Ennis suddenly measure what he will never have again.

   What the shirts tell him of Jack, of course, is that all those trips to Mexicio were indeed, about Ennis, starting back in 1963. Jack harboured his love in silence-because Ennis put him in the position of never talking about it, first with the punch; then with the pull-back from the Reunion; then with the divorce scene; the with his silence following, 'Sometimes I miss you so much'; and finally with his falling to his knees, unable to speak; and unable to  stand what Jack was saying to him. So the impact of that horrid little repressed place in LF, that I know for sure now, Jack had no desire to actually bring Ennis to, other than to soothe his issues with his father, is almost like a metaphor for Jack and Ennis: the two up, two down, is almost about the implicit separation, between Jack and Ennis, with Ennis in the upper rooms-the seat of power. All the imagery has signposts, esp in that their whole relationship was carried on way out in the middle of nowhere: Ennis was inadvertently giving Jack the same message as his early life gave him: You are alone in this. He locks that down, with' boys like you';  So to find that barely hidden treasure, up in that 'shallow cavity', that had not been filled enough by either parental love, or love from The Other, is to show Ennis precisely the truth-and how he, like Jack's father,  failed.

I'll never understand how anyone can hold this relationship up as a model of success...It remains to me, a serious caution about failure to thrive, with lots of false starts, where we think it is getting somewhere..and then the little engine rolls back down the hill. The key to me is always: The amazing potential it carried.

They could indeed have 'gone to Denver', and to hell with the risk.

I know there were the shining moments....I wonder, who feels the relationship was a success, because they still managed to get together even only a few times a year over 20 years? I know it was not likely they'd get together more, without the danger element increasing exponentially... How do we measure that 'success'? I'm very curious how people feel about this.?