Topic: Did Jack's Love "Wear Out"

[vedrana]

I agree. I think one of the most impressive things about this story is that it is perfect the way it is, and because of this it makes us want more for those boys, because AP (and Ang & crew) brought them and their love to life in a way that we just can't help caring about them and wanting them to be happy. It's also wonderful to think that out of the lessons learned from what they went through, some people might actually be able to make positive changes in their own lives.

To think that all of this came out of a short story about two lonely sheep herders. Sigh...thanks AP. 

FlwrChild ,

I agree! Also, just to add: there's nothing wrong to feel the way we do, about E&J relationship and to want more for them! It is the proof of the story perfection! 

[Brach]

I agree. I think one of the most impressive things about this story is that it is perfect the way it is, and because of this it makes us want more for those boys, because AP (and Ang & crew) brought them and their love to life in a way that we just can't help caring about them and wanting them to be happy. It's also wonderful to think that out of the lessons learned from what they went through, some people might actually be able to make positive changes in their own lives.

To think that all of this came out of a short story about two lonely sheep herders. Sigh...thanks AP. 

According to the author the story is not a tale of gay cowboys or lonely sheep herders. "It is a story of destructive rural homophobia." That is what the story is about. That is the point of the story.

You might think the story ends in 1983 with the 40-year old Ennis saying, "Jack, I swear---". You might hope that this Ennis will meet somebody new. But the real story ends right where it began --- at least 15 years after Jack's death, with the present-day Ennis, an impoverished ranch hand in his mid-50s to late 60s, who lives alone in his trailer. He is recently unemployed and in need of work and a place to stay. "Yet he is suffused with a sense of pleasure because Jack Twist was in his dream."

[FlwrChild]

Exactly Brach. 

And by highlighting that condition through the plight of two beautifully written characters, we're able to feel on a personal level the toll that such homophobia can take.

What Ang Lee does through sweeping panoramic shots and intimate glimpses of the breathtaking expressions that cross his actors' faces, Annie Proulx does through the snippets of gorgeously written intimacy within the stark and stoic backdrop of both her story and the language she uses to tell it:

….During the day Ennis looked across a great gulf and sometimes saw Jack, a small dot moving across a high meadow as an insect moves across a tablecloth; Jack, in his dark camp, saw Ennis as night fire, a red spark on the huge black mass of mountain.

….They were respectful of each other’s opinions, each glad to have a companion where none had been expected.

[Leaving the mountain] As they descended the slope Ennis felt he was in a slow motion, but headlong, irreversible fall.

……..Within a mile Ennis felt like someone was pulling his guts out hand over hand a yard at a time. He stopped at the side of the road and, in the whirling new snow, tried to puke but nothing came up. He felt about as bad as he ever had and it took a long time for the feeling to wear off.

……..Ennis, wearing his best shirt, white with wide black stripes, didn’t know what time Jack would get there and so had taken the day off, paced back and forth, looking down into a street pale with dust…….Late in the afternoon, thunder growling, that same old green pickup rolled in and he saw Jack get out of the truck, beat-up Resistol tilted back. A hot jolt scalded Ennis and he was out on the landing pulling the door closed behind him. Jack took the stairs two and two. They seized each other by the shoulders, hugged mightily, squeezing the breath out of each other, saying, son of a bitch, son of a bitch, then, and easily as the right key turns the lock tumblers, their mouths came together, and hard, Jack’s big teeth bringing blood, his hat falling to the floor, stubble rasping, wet saliva welling, and the door opening and Alma looking out for a few seconds at Ennis’s straining shoulders and shutting the door again and still they clinched, pressing chest and groin and thigh and leg together, treading on each other’s toes until they pulled apart to breathe and Ennis, not big on endearments, said what he said to his horses and daughters, little darlin.

….Years on years they worked their way through the high meadows and mountain drainages…….but never returning to Brokeback.

……One thing never changed: the brilliant charge of their infrequent couplings was darkened by the sense of time flying, never enough time, never enough.

…..What Jack remembered and craved in a way he could neither help nor understand was the time that distant summer on Brokeback when Ennis had come up behind him and pulled him close, the silent embrace satisfying some shared and sexless hunger.

….Later, that dozy embrace solidified in his memory as the single moment of artless, charmed happiness in their separate and difficult lives. Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held. And maybe, he thought, they’d never got much farther than that. Let be, let be.

….The huge sadness of the northern plains rolled down on him…..

….At the north end of the closet a tiny jog in the wall made a slight hiding place and here, stiff with long suspension from a nail, hung a shirt……The shirt seemed heavy until he saw there was another shirt inside it, the sleeves carefully worked down inside Jack’s sleeves. It was his own plaid shirt, lost, he’d thought, long ago in some damn laundry, his dirty shirt, the pocket ripped, buttons missing, stolen by Jack and hidden here inside Jack’s own shirt, the pair like two skins, one inside the other, two in one. He pressed his face into the fabric and breathed in slowly through his mouth and nose, hoping for the faintest smoke and mountain sage and salty sweet stink of Jack but there was no real scent, only the memory of it, the imagined power of Brokeback Mountain of which nothing was left but what he held in his hands.

…Around that time, Jack began to appear in his dreams,……And he would wake sometimes in grief, sometimes with the old sense of joy and release; the pillow sometimes wet, sometimes the sheets.

There was some open space between what he knew and what he tried to believe, but nothing could be done about it, and if you can’t fix it you’ve got to stand it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Sorry for being so long-winded. It's just so hard to pick a favorite passage. It's language like this, and the visual portrayal of it onscreen, that has drawn so many people to this story. And the additional benefit is that for some, it has been an eye opener and an educational opportunity as well. Because only when social issues mean something to us on a personal level will we ever have any hope of improving them. I think that AP and Ang Lee & company have helped propelled us significantly further in our efforts.

[tpe]

MPJ 

beautifully said!

I second.

[tpe]

I agree. I think one of the most impressive things about this story is that it is perfect the way it is, and because of this it makes us want more for those boys, because AP (and Ang & crew) brought them and their love to life in a way that we just can't help caring about them and wanting them to be happy. It's also wonderful to think that out of the lessons learned from what they went through, some people might actually be able to make positive changes in their own lives.

To think that all of this came out of a short story about two lonely sheep herders. Sigh...thanks AP. 

To connect this with the "wearing out" question, perhaps we see Jack's ambiguity many times in our lives, when certain things are not closed -- most of the time, things are open-ended, and there is where we all come in and think of what would and could be.

[tpe]

According to the author the story is not a tale of gay cowboys or lonely sheep herders. "It is a story of destructive rural homophobia." That is what the story is about. That is the point of the story.

You might think the story ends in 1983 with the 40-year old Ennis saying, "Jack, I swear---". You might hope that this Ennis will meet somebody new. But the real story ends right where it began --- at least 15 years after Jack's death, with the present-day Ennis, an impoverished ranch hand in his mid-50s to late 60s, who lives alone in his trailer. He is recently unemployed and in need of work and a place to stay. "Yet he is suffused with a sense of pleasure because Jack Twist was in his dream."

Which is not to say that the arc doesn't change once we have reached full circle.  But we should note that in the end, Ennis WAS changed/different.  Nobody who has loved remains the same.

You cite here the ss, and not the movie per se.  Even in the ss, we see that he was considering staying with Jr. for a while -- that in itself signifies some change, don't you think?  To the Ennis of a few years back, this probably would have been unthinkable...

[lancecowboy]

According to the author the story is not a tale of gay cowboys or lonely sheep herders. "It is a story of destructive rural homophobia." That is what the story is about. That is the point of the story.

You might think the story ends in 1983 with the 40-year old Ennis saying, "Jack, I swear---". You might hope that this Ennis will meet somebody new. But the real story ends right where it began --- at least 15 years after Jack's death, with the present-day Ennis, an impoverished ranch hand in his mid-50s to late 60s, who lives alone in his trailer. He is recently unemployed and in need of work and a place to stay. "Yet he is suffused with a sense of pleasure because Jack Twist was in his dream."

Wow, I can hardly believe this thread is stilling running and producing so many poignant posts.

First of all, before responding to Brach, please let me state that I agree with FlwrChild in this post:

I agree. I think one of the most impressive things about this story is that it is perfect the way it is, and because of this it makes us want more for those boys, because AP (and Ang & crew) brought them and their love to life in a way that we just can't help caring about them and wanting them to be happy. It's also wonderful to think that out of the lessons learned from what they went through, some people might actually be able to make positive changes in their own lives.

To think that all of this came out of a short story about two lonely sheep herders. Sigh...thanks AP. 

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think Jack's love worn out, because even to the end he said I wish I knew how to quit you, not that he was quitting Ennis. His love was not worn out, but his endurance was. He could only hold on to a dream for so long, watching his true love suffer from the consequences of childhood fears for so long, and endure the isolation from that fear for so long.

Brach is perfectly correct to point out that Annie Proulx wrote a story about homophobia in rural west, and Heath Ledger portrayed a poverty stricken homophobic ranch hand in love with a man. The movie is tragic precisely because the story is tragic in the society of the past, of that time and place.

Yet, at the same time, I believe the movie was deliberately hopeful at the end, interpreting the ending of the story with more optimism, as FlwrChild stated above, "...out of the lessons learned from what they went through, some people might actually be able to make positive changes in their own lives. " Ennis was more than just the "impoverished ranch hand in his mid-50s to late 60s, who lives alone in his trailer. He is recently unemployed and in need of work and a place to stay, and suffused with a sense of pleasure because Jack Twist was in his dream."

True, Ennis derived immense importance to his memories and dreams of Jack. Are not dreams but our unconscious memories of what we remember of what we wish could have been?

True, Ennis lived alone and poor and unemployed as his ranch got sold and returned to the banker, and he needed to find another place. The poverty of his youth and adult life never left Ennis. Poverty is just as crushing as homophobia, but that's another story, another movie.

Brokeback Mountain the movie ended differently from the story because, in my opinion, the perfect scene of Ennis saying "Jack, I swear." with tears in his eyes, and tenderness in his heart, was so perfect that no more words needed saying. The deliberate final frame of the tiny window showing an amerillo sky over a wide endless plain represents the state of grace that Ennis achieved, with his daughter still devoted to him, and his love for Jack connects him with Jack's Ma. It is deliberately ambiguous because, in my opinion, I believe that Ang Lee chose to interpret the short story the same way that FlwrChild put it so beautifully above, that love transforms, and Ennis felt in the tiny closet at Jack's childhood room, the deep and immense love from those perfect days one summer on Brokeback Mountain. After twenty years of pain and loneliness, after days of grief and contemplating the unending solitude ahead, there in the claustrophobic closet, the moment of perfect clarity occurred to Ennis, breathing the fragrance of Jack's shirt, holding the fabric and touching the blood stained sleeves; the power of love finally broke down the wall of homophobia that kept Ennis captive all 'em years. Even Annie Proulx herself said of Heath, that his portrayal of Ennis is more true to Ennis than she had written him.

I agree 100% with you all that the story is perfect the way it is. As with all great art, it is not the art itself, but the interpretation of the art, which we mere mortals struggle to understand. The art stands alone above all, above us, above time...

There will never be another Brokeback Mountain.

[tpe]

Thank you, lance.  And thanks also to everyone for the many wonderful and poignant posts. 

I would want to add that for me, the Art of BBM also stands with us.  It mirros beautifully our many joys and many doubts.

[atalley]

Andrew...thanks as usual for your wonderful post!

[Brach]

Which is not to say that the arc doesn't change once we have reached full circle.  But we should note that in the end, Ennis WAS changed/different.  Nobody who has loved remains the same.

You cite here the ss, and not the movie per se.  Even in the ss, we see that he was considering staying with Jr. for a while -- that in itself signifies some change, don't you think?  To the Ennis of a few years back, this probably would have been unthinkable...

What arc? What full circle?

The film starts in 1963 and ends in 1984, leaving what happens to Ennis after 1984 to romantic speculation.

The ss starts in 1997, the year the story was published, and then unfolds like a flashback that runs from 1963 to 1983.

The film makes it clear that Ennis spent as much time with his daughters as he could. In May 1983, Ennis tells Jack that he sees his daughters about once a month.  So why is it unthinkable or significant that Ennis would accept his daughter's wedding invitation?

And what to you mean by "to the Ennis of a few years back"? Do you think that final scene in the trailer takes place years after Jack's death? Let's examine the timeline. 

Alma Jr. was born Sept. 1964. Jack and Ennis had their last trip May 1983. Ennis did know about the accident until sometime before December 1983. So Jack must have died between May and November 1983.  At the end of the film, Alma Jr. is 19 and going to be married in June 1984.  So the film ends no more than 12 months after Jack's death, by which time Ennis would have been about 40. So the film tells us what Ennis is like at 40.

But ss prologue tells us what Ennis is like at 54+, some 15+ years or more after Jack's death. What has changed in Ennis's life in those 15+ years since Jack's death except that Ennis and his elder daughter are now both 15+ years older, and she's married? He's still living alone in his trailer, still broke, still doing ranch work when and where he can, still dreaming of Jack. The ranch where he has been working is on the market. The owner has paid everyone off, shipped out the last of the horses, listed the property with a real estate broker. Ennis has to be packed and away from the place that morning. He has to find a place for his trailer. He might have to stay with his elder married daughter until he picks up another job.

Under the circumstances, it does not seem remarkable or significant that he would consider that he might have to stay with his elder married daughter until he picks up another job. Given the insecurity of jobs in ranch work, he's probably had to do it before. He couldn't have stayed with his elder daughter in the film because she was still living at home.

And another point. Jack died sometime between May and months before December 1983. So even if Ennis had been able to take time off work to meet Jack again in August 1983, we do not know that Jack would not have already been dead by then.

[FlwrChild]

Now I think we're veering more into whether or not Ennis's love wore out. That would probably be a better discussion for the Ennis' life after Jack's death thread. I'd be interested to see what people have to say.

Here's the link:

http://ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=14780.msg853620#msg853620


Meanwhile, I have to say I do love to read the recaps from the SS as well as the different interpretations people take away from the movie. It's always interesting to me to see what each of us reads into certain passages or scenes. Thanks to all for sharing.

[vedrana]

Alma Jr. was born Sept. 1984.

It's more likely that it was 1964.

[atalley]

I think he meant to say 1964.

[tpe]

What arc? What full circle?

The film starts in 1963 and ends in 1984, leaving what happens to Ennis after 1984 to romantic speculation.

The ss starts in 1997, the year the story was published, and then unfolds like a flashback that runs from 1963 to 1983.

The film makes it clear that Ennis spent as much time with his daughters as he could. In May 1983, Ennis tells Jack that he sees his daughters about once a month.  So why is it unthinkable or significant that Ennis would accept his daughter's wedding invitation?

And what to you mean by "to the Ennis of a few years back"? Do you think that final scene in the trailer takes place years after Jack's death? Let's examine the timeline. 

Alma Jr. was born Sept. 1964. Jack and Ennis had their last trip May 1983. Ennis did know about the accident until sometime before December 1983. So Jack must have died between May and November 1983.  At the end of the film, Alma Jr. is 19 and going to be married in June 1984.  So the film ends no more than 12 months after Jack's death, by which time Ennis would have been about 40. So the film tells us what Ennis is like at 40.

But ss prologue tells us what Ennis is like at 54+, some 15+ years or more after Jack's death. What has changed in Ennis's life in those 15+ years since Jack's death except that Ennis and his elder daughter are now both 15+ years older, and she's married? He's still living alone in his trailer, still broke, still doing ranch work when and where he can, still dreaming of Jack. The ranch where he has been working is on the market. The owner has paid everyone off, shipped out the last of the horses, listed the property with a real estate broker. Ennis has to be packed and away from the place that morning. He has to find a place for his trailer. He might have to stay with his elder married daughter until he picks up another job.

Under the circumstances, it does not seem remarkable or significant that he would consider that he might have to stay with his elder married daughter until he picks up another job. Given the insecurity of jobs in ranch work, he's probably had to do it before. He couldn't have stayed with his elder daughter in the film because she was still living at home.

And another point. Jack died sometime between May and months before December 1983. So even if Ennis had been able to take time off work to meet Jack again in August 1983, we do not know that Jack would not have already been dead by then.

The arc/full circle => Ennis starts and ends alone.

I highlight two portions of your post that seems to be contradictory.  Certainly, the prologue (added after the 1997 version) is long after Jack's death.  What was described there is not romantic speculation.

And what you say about his (Ennis) having to live with Alma Jr. before -- like other things discussed here, what you say is possible, but remains speculation (although I would not call it romantic).  Given Ennis's loner mentality, I find this highly improbable.  To be sure, there is nothing in the movie, ss, or screenplay that explicitly says this. 

As for the timeline of scenes surrounding Jack's death, even this is not clear-cut.  The screenplay dates for the last scenes certainly add more to the confusion.  See the thread about the timeline of the last scenes.

http://www.ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=968.0

[Brach]

Reply to comments by TPE. TPE's comments in BOLD:

I highlight two portions of your post that seems to be contradictory.  Certainly, the prologue (added after the 1997 version) is long after Jack's death.  What was described there is not romantic speculation.

What I meant is that there's some open space between what we read in the prologue (and elsewhere in the ss) and what some people are trying to believe. I think they are bouncing off the film more than the ss.

(Re the 1997 version, Proulx stated that she did include the prologue in the story she submitted to the New Yorker. She does not know why they omitted the prologue.)

And what you say about his (Ennis) having to live with Alma Jr. before -- like other things discussed here, what you say is possible, but remains speculation (although I would not call it romantic).  Given Ennis's loner mentality, I find this highly improbable.  To be sure, there is nothing in the movie, ss, or screenplay that explicitly says this.  

The prologue establishes that Ennis might have to stay with his elder married daughter until he picks up another job.
Why would you presume he has never found himself in this situation before? It would seem highly improbable that he has not found himself in this situation before, given the seasonality of ranch work, the loss of ranch jobs as more and more ranches fold, and the reluctance of ranchers to hire antique cowboys due to the increased legal requirements and the costs of providing disability, medical and other benefits for ranch workers.

I don't take Ennis's "loner mentality" as a given. And even if I did, it seems to me that "loner mentality" is a vague diagnosis with quite variable symptoms.  Even a supposed "loner" might visit or stay with his daughter.  Indeed, Ennis saw his daughters about once a month.

As for the timeline of scenes surrounding Jack's death, even this is not clear-cut.  The screenplay dates for the last scenes certainly add more to the confusion.  See the thread about the timeline of the last scenes.
http://www.ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=968.0.

Oh, don't even get me started on the odd timeline of the for-publication-October-2005 screenplay in "Story to Screenplay". It's not clear that the film even followed that timeline. The film itself has inconsistencies with its own timeline.

Even the ss has an inconsistency in it's own timeline. We read that the final trip occured May 1983, but it must have been 1982 if Alma Jr was really 17 and Jack's boy was really 15.

I see no compelling reason not to apply the basic ss timeline to the film.

[atalley]

I personally do not like the SS; I only go with the movie.  I try not to get bogged down with the timelines, but that's just me.

[tpe]

Reply to comments by TPE. TPE's comments in BOLD:

I highlight two portions of your post that seems to be contradictory.  Certainly, the prologue (added after the 1997 version) is long after Jack's death.  What was described there is not romantic speculation.

What I meant is that there's some open space between what we read in the prologue (and elsewhere in the ss) and what some people are trying to believe. I think they are bouncing off the film more than the ss.

(Re the 1997 version, Proulx stated that she did include the prologue in the story she submitted to the New Yorker. She does not know why they omitted the prologue.)

Well, both the film and the short story are separate works of art -- although they are co-dependent.  The film is more lyrical and softer, whereas the ss is more visceral and more powerful.  Both correctly leave certain things uncertain, and it is part of our reaction to the movie and the ss to "speculate" on what could have been. 

And what you say about his (Ennis) having to live with Alma Jr. before -- like other things discussed here, what you say is possible, but remains speculation (although I would not call it romantic).  Given Ennis's loner mentality, I find this highly improbable.  To be sure, there is nothing in the movie, ss, or screenplay that explicitly says this.  

The prologue establishes that Ennis might have to stay with his elder married daughter until he picks up another job.
Why would you presume he has never found himself in this situation before? It would seem highly improbable that he has not found himself in this situation before, given the seasonality of ranch work, the loss of ranch jobs as more and more ranches fold, and the reluctance of ranchers to hire antique cowboys due to the increased legal requirements and the costs of providing disability, medical and other benefits for ranch workers.

I don't take Ennis's "loner mentality" as a given. And even if I did, it seems to me that "loner mentality" is a vague diagnosis with quite variable symptoms.  Even a supposed "loner" might visit or stay with his daughter.  Indeed, Ennis saw his daughters about once a month.

If we are to talk about the movie, Ennis explicitly says that he had been forced to quit jobs previously in order to meet Jack.  In those cases, he always dealt with them alone -- not asking help from Jack or any other person (at least as far as we can tell).  This mentality is developed early on, when Ennis refuuses to borrow money from Jack.  We also see it later on, when he refuses Alma' Jr.s offer to live with him and help him in his day-to-day affairs.  Many incidents along the way (all prior to jack's death) establish that Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems.

But as I said, nothing is explicitly stated.  One can only infer.  Your opinion is just as good as mine.

 

As for the timeline of scenes surrounding Jack's death, even this is not clear-cut.  The screenplay dates for the last scenes certainly add more to the confusion.  See the thread about the timeline of the last scenes.
http://www.ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=968.0.

Oh, don't even get me started on the odd timeline of the for-publication-October-2005 screenplay in "Story to Screenplay". It's not clear that the film even followed that timeline. The film itself has inconsistencies with its own timeline.

Even the ss has an inconsistency in it's own timeline. We read that the final trip occured May 1983, but it must have been 1982 if Alma Jr was really 17 and Jack's boy was really 15.

I see no compelling reason not to apply the basic ss timeline to the film.

This is precisely my point, as I had said in the first part of the post.  There are inconsistencies in both of them.  And certainly, it is not clear what timeline the film followed in the last scenes, although they follow the scenes in the screenplay closely enough.

But rather than look at this as a fault, look at it as an invitation to see things differently.  The ambiguities of the ss and the film are among their greatest attributes.  LIke life, things are often in a blur.  And like life, the unfolding of events can be seen differently, even though we are talking about the same events.

[tpe]

I personally do not like the SS; I only go with the movie.  I try not to get bogged down with the timelines, but that's just me.

Well, there is certainly room to love both.    But you have to take them as separate works of art, with their own strengths and limitations.  And yes, it is good not to get bogged down with the  details.  There is room enough for personal interpretation.

[Brach]

Well, both the film and the short story are separate works of art -- although they are co-dependent.  The film is more lyrical and softer, whereas the ss is more visceral and more powerful.  Both correctly leave certain things uncertain, and it is part of our reaction to the movie and the ss to "speculate" on what could have been.

The term "codependent" would not apply since that term refers to a kind of disfunctional relationship between two persons. The written story (ss) IS the story. The film is merely a dramatic retellling of that story, in words, pictures and music. The film is faithful to the ss, even preserving much of the ss dialogue or deriving dialogue from the  narrative. But the written story remains the final authority when it comes to filling in "gaps". The film does not look more than a year beyond Jack's death. But the ss prologue describes Ennis 15 years after Jack's death.

If we are to talk about the movie, Ennis explicitly says that he had been forced to quit jobs previously in order to meet Jack.  In those cases, he always dealt with them alone -- not asking help from Jack or any other person (at least as far as we can tell).

OK. Let's talk about what film Ennis actually said, what ss Ennis said in the same scene, how they differ, what changed between the early days and 1983, why he used to be able to quit jobs in the early days but can't quit in 1983, and why the loss of a job in 1997 meant that might HAVE TO STAY with his elder married daughter.

Film Ennis says: "Jack, I gotta work. Huh? In them earlier days I just quit the job. You forget what it's like bein' broke all the time.
You ever hear of child support? And I'll tell you this. I can't quit this one. And I can't get the time off."

SS Ennis says virtually the SAME thing: "Jack, I got a work. Them earlier days I used a quit the jobs. You got a wife with money, a good job. You forget how it is bein broke all the time. You ever hear a child support? I been payin out for years and got more to go. Let me tell you, I can't quit this one. And I can't get the time off."

What Ennis means is that in earlier days he could AFFORD to quit a job, presumably because it was easier to find a new job and/or because his expenses were less and he could make a paycheck last until he found a new job. But now, in 1983, ranch jobs are harder to find, the cost of living and child support payments are higher and the size of his ranch hand's paycheck has not kept up with inflation. He says he's broke all the time! So he's living from paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, he cannot afford to be without a paycheck. And at this time in his life, he does not have a daughter he can stay with. That's why he can't quit the job.

Indeed, we read that after the divorce "Ennis went back to ranch work, hired on here and there, not getting much ahead but glad enough to be around stock again, free to drop things, quit if he had to, and go into the mountains at short notice." In other words, in earlier days, Ennis could afford to quit a job. Back then ranch work was easier to come by and his expenses were lower.

By the time of the prologue, 1997, ranch jobs are even more scarce than they were in 1983, especially for antique cowboys. Space rent for his trailer, utilities, groceries and other expenses have continued to rise with inflation, yet his real income has decreased. That is why he might HAVE TO STAY with his married daughter until he picks up another job. Whether he actually has to stay with her depends on how long he can hold out until he picks up another job.

This mentality is developed early on, when Ennis refuuses to borrow money from Jack.

That's an interesting spin. But this does not establish that Ennis has a "loner mentality". In the 1st place, Ennis never said he needed money. In the 2nd place, he never asked Jack for money. In the 3rd place, Jack offer was conditional: "I can spare a loan if you're short on cash." Apparently Ennis was not short on cash because he declined, saying, "I don't need your money! Huh? I ain't in the poorhouse!" Why would Ennis accept a loan, if he doesn't need the money?

We also see it later on, when he refuses Alma' Jr.s offer to live with him and help him in his day-to-day affairs.

Alma Jr.'s offer was more of a request than an offer. You're spinning things to make it sound like Ennis flatly refused her request without explanation and that he really didn't want her around. He said, "You know I ain't set up for that. With the roundup coming, I won't ever be home...I ain't saying I wouldn't..." Presumably Ennis lives in a tiny 1-room, single-bed trailer like the one we saw at the end of the film. Just where would his daughter sleep?

Many incidents along the way (all prior to jack's death) establish that Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems.

I don't see a pattern that suggests that Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems.

If Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems, then why did he ask his boss for time off for the May 1983 trip, and, after he returned from that trip, for time off for another trip in August 1983? (Ennis must have asked for time off in August because he sent Jack a postcard confirming that November still looked like the first chance.)

Ennis complained that Aguirre was cutting them out of a month's pay, and Jack said he could spare him a loan IF he was short on cash.
Apparently Ennis was not short on cash since he declined, saying, "I don't need you're money, I ain't in the poorhouse." So Jack was not helping Ennis deal with a problem because Ennis never said he needed money. Why would Ennis accept a loan if he doesn't need money?

Alma Jr. requested (not offered) to live with Ennis, said she'd be a big help around the trailer. But she was not helping Ennis deal with a problem because there was no evidence that he had a problem. Moreover, there was no place for her to sleep, and with the roundup coming, he wouldn't even be home.

But as I said, nothing is explicitly stated.  One can only infer.  Your opinion is just as good as mine.

So you say.

This is precisely my point, as I had said in the first part of the post.  There are inconsistencies in both of them.  And certainly, it is not clear what timeline the film followed in the last scenes, although they follow the scenes in the screenplay closely enough.

But rather than look at this as a fault, look at it as an invitation to see things differently.  The ambiguities of the ss and the film are among their greatest attributes.  LIke life, things are often in a blur.  And like life, the unfolding of events can be seen differently, even though we are talking about the same events.

The film timeline I have given is accurate and, except for minor discrepancies noted below, consistent with the ss timeline.

According to the screenplay, when Ennis and Jack meet in 1963, Ennis is "about 20" and Jack is 20.  Lureen states that Jack was "only 39 years old" when he died. But because screenplay Jack was 20 in summer 1963, the screenplay says it's 1982 (=1963+39-20) when Ennis gets the postcard stamped DECEASED, calls Lureen and visits Jack's folks.

But in interviews, the screenwriters and director stated that Jack and Ennis were both 19 when they met in summer 1963. Therefore, if, as Lureen stated, Jack was 39 years old when he died, then he must have died in 1983 (=1963+39-19).

So the screenplay timeline will not always agree with the timelines of the film or ss when those timelines assume that in summer 1963 Ennis was "about 20" and Jack "20".

In the screenplay, the trailer scenes occur in 1984 and Alma Jr. is 19, consistent with her ss birthday in Sept. 1964. No reason to believe the film's trailer scenes do not occur in same year.

So as I stated before, the film's trailer scenes occur withing 12 months of Jack's death.

The only timeline inconsistency in the ss is the very minor one I cited. It is easily removed by simply correcting the ages of the children. This change would not have any material effect on the story or timeline.

Minor inconsistencies between film and ss:

Film Ennis gets married in November instead of December.
Film Ennis and Jack are reunited on Sept. 24, 1967 instead of June 24.
Ennis's younger daughter is called Jenny instead of Francine.

Film timeline problem: On 9/24/1967 film Jack says he has a boy ("Bobby") 8 months old. But Jack didn't meet Lureen until August 1966, so Bobby couldn't be more than 4 mos. old.

The existence of minor inconsistencies does not mean that everything is ambiguous or indeterminate. Nor should it be construed as an open invitation to private revelations or a license to indulge in speculation that disregards, contradicts or is not supported by information in the story.

[tpe]

The term "codependent" would not apply since that term refers to a kind of disfunctional relationship between two persons. The written story (ss) IS the story. The film is merely a dramatic retellling of that story, in words, pictures and music. The film is faithful to the ss, even preserving much of the ss dialogue or deriving dialogue from the  narrative. But the written story remains the final authority when it comes to filling in "gaps". The film does not look more than a year beyond Jack's death. But the ss prologue describes Ennis 15 years after Jack's death.

We can agree to disagree here.  As in all the arts, there is such as thing as cross-fertilization.  Just because something is based or derived from another does not necessarily give the originator the authority you speak of.  As I said to another member a long time ago, this is not a question of biblical exegesis.

Again, you cannot say "more than a year beyond Jack's death."  If you follow the screenplay and what is impled in the scene with Jr. (the 2 years lag from Troy to Kurt), it would be closer to 2 years.  But in the final analysis, it is more vague than you make it out to be.

OK. Let's talk about what film Ennis actually said, what ss Ennis said in the same scene, how they differ, what changed between the early days and 1983, why he used to be able to quit jobs in the early days but can't quit in 1983, and why the loss of a job in 1997 meant that might HAVE TO STAY with his elder married daughter.

Film Ennis says: "Jack, I gotta work. Huh? In them earlier days I just quit the job. You forget what it's like bein' broke all the time.
You ever hear of child support? And I'll tell you this. I can't quit this one. And I can't get the time off."

SS Ennis says virtually the SAME thing: "Jack, I got a work. Them earlier days I used a quit the jobs. You got a wife with money, a good job. You forget how it is bein broke all the time. You ever hear a child support? I been payin out for years and got more to go. Let me tell you, I can't quit this one. And I can't get the time off."

What Ennis means is that in earlier days he could AFFORD to quit a job, presumably because it was easier to find a new job and/or because his expenses were less and he could make a paycheck last until he found a new job. But now, in 1983, ranch jobs are harder to find, the cost of living and child support payments are higher and the size of his ranch hand's paycheck has not kept up with inflation. He says he's broke all the time! So he's living from paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, he cannot afford to be without a paycheck. And at this time in his life, he does not have a daughter he can stay with. That's why he can't quit the job.
Indeed, we read that after the divorce "Ennis went back to ranch work, hired on here and there, not getting much ahead but glad enough to be around stock again, free to drop things, quit if he had to, and go into the mountains at short notice." In other words, in earlier days, Ennis could afford to quit a job. Back then ranch work was easier to come by and his expenses were lower.

By the time of the prologue, 1997, ranch jobs are even more scarce than they were in 1983, especially for antique cowboys. Space rent for his trailer, utilities, groceries and other expenses have continued to rise with inflation, yet his real income has decreased. That is why he might HAVE TO STAY with his married daughter until he picks up another job. Whether he actually has to stay with her depends on how long he can hold out until he picks up another job.

But by the time of the last confrontation, Ennis clearly had difficulty finding replacement jobs, do you admit this?  Then why did he continue to say no to Alma Jr. and refuse any help from Jack?

That's an interesting spin. But this does not establish that Ennis has a "loner mentality". In the 1st place, Ennis never said he needed money. In the 2nd place, he never asked Jack for money. In the 3rd place, Jack offer was conditional: "I can spare a loan if you're short on cash." Apparently Ennis was not short on cash because he declined, saying, "I don't need your money! Huh? I ain't in the poorhouse!" Why would Ennis accept a loan, if he doesn't need the money?

Then why was he complaining that Aguirre's action was going to cut them off of another month's pay?  It was clear from his conversation with Jack early on that he was saving up for the wedding with Alma.  Is it too difficult to infer from this that he needed money?  Even Jack assumed it, so why not us?  It was perfectly logical.

Alma Jr.'s offer was more of a request than an offer. You're spinning things to make it sound like Ennis flatly refused her request without explanation and that he really didn't want her around. He said, "You know I ain't set up for that. With the roundup coming, I won't ever be home...I ain't saying I wouldn't..." Presumably Ennis lives in a tiny 1-room, single-bed trailer like the one we saw at the end of the film. Just where would his daughter sleep?

Why, I may ask, must you consider a different interpretation to be a "spin"?  Such terminology suggests to me an inflexibility on your part to consider other viewpoints.

The above is plain semantics.  There was an offer to help Ennis -- which was proffered in order to make the request more palatable.  Does one have to exclude the other?  The distinction is moot/academic.

I don't see a pattern that suggests that Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems.

If Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems, then why did he ask his boss for time off for the May 1983 trip, and, after he returned from that trip, for time off for another trip in August 1983? (Ennis must have asked for time off in August because he sent Jack a postcard confirming that November still looked like the first chance.)

Ennis complained that Aguirre was cutting them out of a month's pay, and Jack said he could spare him a loan IF he was short on cash.
Apparently Ennis was not short on cash since he declined, saying, "I don't need you're money, I ain't in the poorhouse." So Jack was not helping Ennis deal with a problem because Ennis never said he needed money. Why would Ennis accept a loan if he doesn't need money?

Alma Jr. requested (not offered) to live with Ennis, said she'd be a big help around the trailer. But she was not helping Ennis deal with a problem because there was no evidence that he had a problem. Moreover, there was no place for her to sleep, and with the roundup coming, he wouldn't even be home.

THis is certainly your opinion, and that is fine by me.  I differ, nonetheless.

So you say.

The film timeline I have given is accurate and, except for minor discrepancies noted below, consistent with the ss timeline.

According to the screenplay, when Ennis and Jack meet in 1963, Ennis is "about 20" and Jack is 20.  Lureen states that Jack was "only 39 years old" when he died. But because screenplay Jack was 20 in summer 1963, the screenplay says it's 1982 (=1963+39-20) when Ennis gets the postcard stamped DECEASED, calls Lureen and visits Jack's folks.

But in interviews, the screenwriters and director stated that Jack and Ennis were both 19 when they met in summer 1963. Therefore, if, as Lureen stated, Jack was 39 years old when he died, then he must have died in 1983 (=1963+39-19).

So the screenplay timeline will not always agree with the timelines of the film or ss when those timelines assume that in summer 1963 Ennis was "about 20" and Jack "20".

In the screenplay, the trailer scenes occur in 1984 and Alma Jr. is 19, consistent with her ss birthday in Sept. 1964. No reason to believe the film's trailer scenes do not occur in same year.

So as I stated before, the film's trailer scenes occur withing 12 months of Jack's death.

The only timeline inconsistency in the ss is the very minor one I cited. It is easily removed by simply correcting the ages of the children. This change would not have any material effect on the story or timeline.

Minor inconsistencies between film and ss:

Film Ennis gets married in November instead of December.
Film Ennis and Jack are reunited on Sept. 24, 1967 instead of June 24.
Ennis's younger daughter is called Jenny instead of Francine.

Film timeline problem: On 9/24/1967 film Jack says he has a boy ("Bobby") 8 months old. But Jack didn't meet Lureen until August 1966, so Bobby couldn't be more than 4 mos. old.

The existence of minor inconsistencies does not mean that everything is ambiguous or indeterminate. Nor should it be construed as an open invitation to private revelations or a license to indulge in speculation that disregards, contradicts or is not supported by information in the story.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to a discussion of the timeline, so let it suffice to note one point.  As I said in the timeline thread, your objection about Jack's age at the time of his death (noted by others previously) can be explained away by saying that Jack died prior to his birthday, which makes him between 39 and 40 at the time of his death.  Age is not a step function, although for convenience, we don't say we are 40 even though we are a day away from being 40.

I would also say that the ss also had ambiguities, but this is the subject of another thread.

As much as you or I would want to argue about finer points, it is clear to me that there are things in the ss and film intentionally left ambiguous and unanswered.  And why not?  As I said in my previous post, it can be as much a strength as a weakness.  I believe it to be a strength more than a weakness.  Did we really have to know Ennis's fate after Jack's death?  No.  Can we speculate and discuss what may or could have been?  A definite yes.  Is there one answer?  A definite no.  It is as simple as that.

[lancecowboy]

Wow, the discussion here is amazing. So many gems.

The term "codependent" would not apply since that term refers to a kind of disfunctional relationship between two persons. The written story (ss) IS the story. The film is merely a dramatic retellling of that story, in words, pictures and music. The film is faithful to the ss, even preserving much of the ss dialogue or deriving dialogue from the  narrative. But the written story remains the final authority when it comes to filling in "gaps". The film does not look more than a year beyond Jack's death. But the ss prologue describes Ennis 15 years after Jack's death.

I disagree with you Brach on two counts here.

Firstly, co-dependent is an apt description of Ennis and Jack. Their relationship is indeed dysfunctional in the sense that it is crippled by Ennis' homophobia. And Jack's complacent, albeit loving, acquiesce to his fear of sharing a sweet life together, is enabling Ennis' fear.

The relationship between the short story and the movie, in the words of the authors, is that of bones and flesh. The short story provided the bones and framework, while the movie was the flesh that gave it fulfillment. I have no doubt that Annie Proulx approved of the changes in the movie. For example, the motel scene was moved from its sequence in the short story. Ang Lee insisted on the movie's sequence of story telling, and Annie Proulx later admitted to it being more powerful in the moving picture medium. When the medium changes, the story has to adapt, or it losses the spirit. It is not the letter of the law that is important, but the spirit of it. Ang Lee et al, observed the spirit of Brokeback Mountain. Cassie and Randall were introduced to flesh out parts of the short story that was implied but never made explicit. The conversation between the spouses were also made more explicit to illustrate the other sides of the dysfunctional relationship that caused much pain in Loreen and Alma.

OK. Let's talk about what film Ennis actually said, what ss Ennis said in the same scene, how they differ, what changed between the early days and 1983, why he used to be able to quit jobs in the early days but can't quit in 1983, and why the loss of a job in 1997 meant that might HAVE TO STAY with his elder married daughter.

Film Ennis says: "Jack, I gotta work. Huh? In them earlier days I just quit the job. You forget what it's like bein' broke all the time.
You ever hear of child support? And I'll tell you this. I can't quit this one. And I can't get the time off."

SS Ennis says virtually the SAME thing: "Jack, I got a work. Them earlier days I used a quit the jobs. You got a wife with money, a good job. You forget how it is bein broke all the time. You ever hear a child support? I been payin out for years and got more to go. Let me tell you, I can't quit this one. And I can't get the time off."

What Ennis means is that in earlier days he could AFFORD to quit a job, presumably because it was easier to find a new job and/or because his expenses were less and he could make a paycheck last until he found a new job. But now, in 1983, ranch jobs are harder to find, the cost of living and child support payments are higher and the size of his ranch hand's paycheck has not kept up with inflation. He says he's broke all the time! So he's living from paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, he cannot afford to be without a paycheck. And at this time in his life, he does not have a daughter he can stay with. That's why he can't quit the job.

Indeed, we read that after the divorce "Ennis went back to ranch work, hired on here and there, not getting much ahead but glad enough to be around stock again, free to drop things, quit if he had to, and go into the mountains at short notice." In other words, in earlier days, Ennis could afford to quit a job. Back then ranch work was easier to come by and his expenses were lower.

By the time of the prologue, 1997, ranch jobs are even more scarce than they were in 1983, especially for antique cowboys. Space rent for his trailer, utilities, groceries and other expenses have continued to rise with inflation, yet his real income has decreased. That is why he might HAVE TO STAY with his married daughter until he picks up another job. Whether he actually has to stay with her depends on how long he can hold out until he picks up another job.

I agree with most of what you have stated here regarding Ennis' economic condition, except for the reason why he could not quit. I was told by others here that child-support was to continue until the children turned 19. It is clear that Ennis would consider it a duty that he could not break, to pay his child-support. As you so carefully outlined, Alma Jr and Jenny would not be 19 until after Jack's death. Ennis was obligated to hold his job and make his payments. "Earlier days", I think refers to the days before his divorce and child-support payments.

I also disagree with your interpretation of his refusal to Alma Jr's request to move in with him. That was a lifestyle consideration, not only of his own wish for solitude, which is undeniable, but also considering Cassie's involvement. I don't think there would be room enough for three people. Alma Jr knew this when she made the request, and Ennis (slow as he may be) probably knew this, too.

 That's an interesting spin. But this does not establish that Ennis has a "loner mentality". In the 1st place, Ennis never said he needed money. In the 2nd place, he never asked Jack for money. In the 3rd place, Jack offer was conditional: "I can spare a loan if you're short on cash." Apparently Ennis was not short on cash because he declined, saying, "I don't need your money! Huh? I ain't in the poorhouse!" Why would Ennis accept a loan, if he doesn't need the money?
Alma Jr.'s offer was more of a request than an offer. You're spinning things to make it sound like Ennis flatly refused her request without explanation and that he really didn't want her around. He said, "You know I ain't set up for that. With the roundup coming, I won't ever be home...I ain't saying I wouldn't..." Presumably Ennis lives in a tiny 1-room, single-bed trailer like the one we saw at the end of the film. Just where would his daughter sleep?

I don't see a pattern that suggests that Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems.

If Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems, then why did he ask his boss for time off for the May 1983 trip, and, after he returned from that trip, for time off for another trip in August 1983? (Ennis must have asked for time off in August because he sent Jack a postcard confirming that November still looked like the first chance.)

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the term "outside help". To me, asking for time off, is not asking for help; it is asking for what is due. Accepting financial payments, is altogether a different story. Even accepting the use of Don Wroe's cabin, would not be considered accepting outside help, because it would be a token of friendship, indeed possibly exchange of favors. There is no doubt of their financial disparity, yet Jack never offered to buy Ennis another jacket (the one he wore in the movie for twenty years). We cannot infer too much, but there is little doubt as to the independent spirit of Ennis that is typical of all cowboys.

Ennis complained that Aguirre was cutting them out of a month's pay, and Jack said he could spare him a loan IF he was short on cash.
Apparently Ennis was not short on cash since he declined, saying, "I don't need you're money, I ain't in the poorhouse." So Jack was not helping Ennis deal with a problem because Ennis never said he needed money. Why would Ennis accept a loan if he doesn't need money?

Alma Jr. requested (not offered) to live with Ennis, said she'd be a big help around the trailer. But she was not helping Ennis deal with a problem because there was no evidence that he had a problem. Moreover, there was no place for her to sleep, and with the roundup coming, he wouldn't even be home.
[...]
But in interviews, the screenwriters and director stated that Jack and Ennis were both 19 when they met in summer 1963. Therefore, if, as Lureen stated, Jack was 39 years old when he died, then he must have died in 1983 (=1963+39-19).

So the screenplay timeline will not always agree with the timelines of the film or ss when those timelines assume that in summer 1963 Ennis was "about 20" and Jack "20".

[...]
The existence of minor inconsistencies does not mean that everything is ambiguous or indeterminate. Nor should it be construed as an open invitation to private revelations or a license to indulge in speculation that disregards, contradicts or is not supported by information in the story.

I have heard it referred to Ennis being 19 and Jack 20. But it is not important. As I said earlier, I believe the spirit of Brokeback Mountain is more important that the letter of the short story. It is my opinion, and you may not agree with it. It does not detract from our mutual enjoyment and admiration for a movie that is unique.

As for the assertion that "everything is ambiguous" and "license to indulge in speculation to disregards, contradicts", I have no idea what prompted such strong accusations. I merely asserted that the "ending" in the movie was left ambiguous. Indeed, the prologue in the short story is not so descriptive of Ennis outside of his dream and life in the trailer. There is no information regarding his continuing or lack of communication with his daughters, in-laws, etc. Great art always inspires imagination and it is permitted that we allow our imagination to soar. I agree that the flight path requires certain respect to the original and adhere to certain guidelines. However, an overly rigid adherence would be unreasonable, especially when predicated on the emphasis of a particular set of conditions that are but one among many possible variations.

I respect your emphasis on the poverty that Ennis must endure after Jack's death, but I respectfully disagree that your vision of it is the only possible one. Unless I am told otherwise by someone with the authority of Annie Proulx, I believe Ennis was so transformed by his visit to Lightning Flats, that his life thereafter was lived in honor of Jack, and not wasted as some might speculate in the ghostly dreams in a rundown trailer.

The act of putting those letters on the mailbox, the countenance of Ennis during Alma Jr. visit, all point to a very different Ennis from the prologue in the short story. Yet, Annie Proulx wrote to Heath Ledger to congratulate him, on his portrayal of Ennis as being more true to the character than she had written herself. If there is any doubt that the movie was more than the short story, then this is proof indeed that the author of the short story admitted to the creative genius of the man who gave us Ennis Del Mar on the silver screen that is superior to the Ennis Del Mar that is on paper.

Just my two cents, for what's it worth.

[FlwrChild]

Terrific posts, guys. It gives me a lot to think about. Andrew, you snuck in ahead of me and said some of what I was going to say but I'll try to sum up my thoughts briefly.

Actually, codependent can also mean simply “mutually dependent”, which is not necessarily unhealthy, but I digress.

In terms of what source material holds higher authority here, it is really a non-issue. There will be some people who have read the book, but not seen the movie, and some who will have seen the movie but not read the book. In which case, one has to rely on the version that one has been exposed to for developing ideas or theories about the story and its characters. Since both are stand alone entities, it’s all right for people to do this. Admittedly, I myself frequently refer back to the original SS to clarify certain points, but I wouldn’t want to tell anyone else that their conclusions or interpretations of the movie are wrong, as I do believe that everyone brings a little piece of him/herself to any story and I think that sharing these different ideas is a wonderful way to learn not just about the story in front of us but about each other as well.

Let’s all please remember, as tpe and lancecowboy indicate, that everyone is entitled to his own opinion and unless we’re talking about a very specific and immovable fact (their boss was Joe Aguirre, not Steve Benson/they worked on Brokeback Mountain/both got married, etc), we should simply agree to disagree and state our reasons, without a need to state it as right or wrong. I do very much appreciate everyone’s participation in this discussion.

And while my interpretation of Ennis after Jack differs from lancecowboy's, I see no need to elevate one opinion above the other. We are, after all, a discussion forum and if we all agreed on every point, it would be a pretty short discussion.


Meanwhile, we really are veering off topic, as this thread is about the state of Jack’s love, which is admittedly influenced by Ennis and his own feelings, but let’s try not to delve too far into Ennis, which is a conversation I would happily continue in another thread.

[atalley]

Andrew...really good posts.  I also agree that in the movie there are definite signs of good change for Ennis after the death of Jack.

   Do I understand that the main reason that Ennis didn't want Alma, Jr. to live with him is because she would find out more about Jack & Ennis'    trips?

[babytammy7]

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the term "outside help". To me, asking for time off, is not asking for help; it is asking for what is due. Accepting financial payments, is altogether a different story. Even accepting the use of Don Wroe's cabin, would not be considered accepting outside help, because it would be a token of friendship, indeed possibly exchange of favors. There is no doubt of their financial disparity, yet Jack never offered to buy Ennis another jacket (the one he wore in the movie for twenty years). We cannot infer too much, but there is little doubt as to the independent spirit of Ennis that is typical of all cowboys.

I so totally agree with you here, Andrew. You just said what I was gonna say. 

For me, asking for some days off so you can go on vacation or go on a trip up the mountains is not asking for help. And even it is a right you have if you're working. When you ask to your boss for a week on Xmas or in summertime, is that asking for help? I don't think so.

I believe Ennis was so transformed by his visit to Lightning Flats, that his life thereafter was lived in honor of Jack, and not wasted as some might speculate in the ghostly dreams in a rundown trailer.

Ooouuch...that was me, Andrew.   

Now, so we are supposed to not speculate, right? Not even once. But, Brach, friend, you did it here:

If Ennis never wanted any outside help to deal with his problems, then why did he ask his boss for time off for the May 1983 trip, and, after he returned from that trip, for time off for another trip in August 1983? (Ennis must have asked for time off in August because he sent Jack a postcard confirming that November still looked like the first chance.)

You don’t know for sure if Ennis asked again for time on August. Neither in the SS nor in the film we have a line that says that Ennis asked twice for time in August. So I think you’re speculating too. And if I remember well, in another thread you said that Jack had forgotten the shirts long time ago and that’s why he didn’t take them with him (I strongly disagree with that). But, once more time, you don’t have any line in the SS or in the script that support your theory. See? We all are in the same team. 

I love this place because here we respect each other opinions and because people talk about BBM from heart. We don’t try to dissect it like it was a laboratory’s rat. We all are normal people who simply talk about how we see Ennis and Jack, about how we feel them. Nothing else.

[Tony]

    Wow - this thread is livening up!  I hope the timelines discussions are resumed on the appropriate threads as those threads, after I went to them, lacked the many details that had been showing up here.
  But, to the topic here, of whether Jack's love wore out, IMO, there's not a chance in the world.  Yes, in the film, we do see that bitter look on Jack's face, replacing the dreamy look of the remembered DE, but that pointed to some kind of bitter frustration moving to a practical resolution: Randall.
But I can't believe that even if Randall had moved to Lightning Flat, Jack wouldn't have dumped him for Ennis should Ennis have ever committed, at long last.  Jack was willing to dump his wife and child, and am fairly sure Randall would have been just as quickly abandoned.  Jack's great love was Ennis- there was no other.
  But, going further into what really happened, I tend to believe Jack when he told Ennis he was having an affair with the ranch foreman's wife and could get killed for it.  Because I think he was being typically Jack and fooling around with LaShawn and Randall both, and just didn't bother to tell Ennis the full story.  We should remember, both husband and wife were attracted to him. 
  My impression, just based on the light inferences of that possibility, in the film, was that when Jack made the offer to Randall, the juggling fell apart, and Randall found out, he'd been played.  And was a part of the group of thugs who killed Jack.  It was, to me, the obvious cause of a murder, if in fact there was one.  Which would also explain Lureen's bored, rehearsed recital of the cover story meant to prevent enduring scandal.
 All of that is just connecting dots that are few and far apart.  But that Jack's love never wore out, I really feel sure of.  Even his father knew "where Brokeback Mountain was" and in his snarl, conveyed he knew what it meant.  Just as he started off: "Ennis Del Mar....he used to say..."  The venom of the father, IMO, is further proof, there was no other love for Jack.  He'd just come to the point he had take 2nd best, for awhile.

[Brach]

We can agree to disagree here.  As in all the arts, there is such as thing as cross-fertilization.  Just because something is based or derived from another does not necessarily give the originator the authority you speak of.  As I said to another member a long time ago, this is not a question of biblical exegesis.

If you wonder what happened to Ennis 15 years after Jack’s death, or what was on Ennis’s mind during his 4 year hiatus from Jack, you’ll find it in the ss but not the film. If you wonder whether Jack had really had a thing going with a rancher’s wife down in Childress, read the ss. If you wonder if Jack death was a real accident, read the ss. If you wonder why the old man was unhappy with Jack, and why he wouldn’t give up his ashes, read the ss.

If you want to know trivia, such as the names of Lureen’s parents, the name of her son, the name of Alma Jr’s fiance, the name of the woman Ennis was “putting the blocks to”, or the color of Jack’s or Ennis’s hair and eyes, see the film.
 
But the film will not give you any insights into the written story that are not contained in the written story itself. The film is merely a dramatic retelling of the written story in words, pictures and music. Apart from minor alterations for dramatic effect, the film is not inconsistent with the written story.

Again, you cannot say "more than a year beyond Jack's death."  If you follow the screenplay and what is impled in the scene with Jr. (the 2 years lag from Troy to Kurt), it would be closer to 2 years.  But in the final analysis, it is more vague than you make it out to be.

I can say it, I did say it, and I explained it very clearly. In interviews given after the release of the film, the screenwriters and directors stated that when Jack and Ennis meet they are both 19, contradicting the published screenplay which states that Jack was 20 and Ennis was about 20. If you correct the ages in the screenplay, then the year that Ennis gets the postcard, calls Lureen and visits Jack’s folks becomes 1983 instead of 1982. The screenplay gives correctly gives 1984 as the year when the Alma Jr. is 19 and comes to invite Ennis to her June wedding.  In both ss and screenplay, she would have turned 19 in late 1983.  There’s no reason for the film to invent timelines that are inconsistent with the ss.  In the final analysis, the timeline is far less vague than you want it to be.

The number of years since Alma Jr. had dated Troy is irrelevant to the timeline and implies nothing.  She said she had known Kurt for “about a year.” We don’t know how many boyfriends she had between Troy and Kurt, and apparently, neither did Ennis. Fathers don’t keep track of everyone their daughters used to date or when.

But by the time of the last confrontation, Ennis clearly had difficulty finding replacement jobs, do you admit this?  Then why did he continue to say no to Alma Jr. and refuse any help from Jack?

Where did you get the idea that Ennis was looking, or should look,  for a new job? If your boss says that you can’t take a vacation in August, that you have to defer it until November, do you automatically start looking for another job?  And where do you get the idea that Ennis “continued” to say no to Alma Jr. and “continued” to refuse help from Jack? Please list the incidents that demonstrate a continuing pattern of saying no to Alma Jr. and refusing help from Jack.

Then why was he complaining that Aguirre's action was going to cut them off of another month's pay?  It was clear from his conversation with Jack early on that he was saving up for the wedding with Alma.  Is it too difficult to infer from this that he needed money?  Even Jack assumed it, so why not us?  It was perfectly logical.

As Ennis observed, Jack was also deprived of another month's pay. If Ennis has offered a loan to Jack, would Jack have accepted it?

Ennis was complaining because Aguirre’s action DID in fact deprive BOTH of them of another month’s pay. I might be complaining about that, too, if I had expected my job to continue through the end of the summer. But my complaining would not imply that I needed a loan from a coworker. It was nice of Jack to anticipate that Ennis MIGHT be short of cash. But Ennis told him he didn’t need it, and surely Ennis knows better than you, Jack or whether he needed a loan from Jack.

Why, I may ask, must you consider a different interpretation to be a "spin"?  Such terminology suggests to me an inflexibility on your part to consider other viewpoints.

The above is plain semantics.  There was an offer to help Ennis -- which was proffered in order to make the request more palatable.  Does one have to exclude the other?  The distinction is moot/academic.

Why do you persist in trying to establish a PATTERN of behavior from an isolated incident with no probative value? Why can’t you simply accept Ennis’s very plausible, very reasonable explanation to his daughter for declining her request (or, if you insist, offer)? It is clear that even though he would like to have her stay with him, his living quarters are not set up to accommodate her and he’s not going to be home. Where is Alma Jr. supposed in sleep in that tiny, 1-room trailer with a single bed? Ennis said to his daughter, “You know I ain’t set up for that”, so evidently even she knows this. Why can’t you accept it?

THis is certainly your opinion, and that is fine by me.  I differ, nonetheless.

As I said, I don't see a PATTERN of behavior (or even a suggestion of a pattern of behavior) that suggests that Ennis NEVER wanted ANY outside help to deal with his problems. And the incidents you cite show only that Ennis’s didn’t need Jack’s money and that Alma Jr. would have no place to sleep in Ennis’s tiny 1-room trailer with a single bed.

I don't want to change the subject of this thread to a discussion of the timeline, so let it suffice to note one point.  As I said in the timeline thread, your objection about Jack's age at the time of his death (noted by others previously) can be explained away by saying that Jack died prior to his birthday, which makes him between 39 and 40 at the time of his death.  Age is not a step function, although for convenience, we don't say we are 40 even though we are a day away from being 40.

I pointed out that film Jack gives the incorrect age of his boy on 9/24/1967. I also pointed out during the May 1983 trip, the ss gives incorrect ages for Alma Jr. and Jack’s boy.

But I don’t recall objecting to Jack’s age (in any source) at the time of his death. Lureen (in ALL sources) stated that he was "only 39 years old". That is consistent with ss details, such as “neither of them was 20” when they met at start of summer 1963, last trip in May (spring) 1983, next trip planned for August 1983, then deferred to November 1983, and Ennis didn’t know about the accident until his postcard to Jack saying that November (1983) still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED.

Of course, if Jack was 20 when he met Ennis as stated in the published screenplay, instead of 19 as stated by the screenplay writers and director in interviews given after the film was released, then he could have died in 1981-1982 as one might infer from the published screenplay. But you must realize that published screenplay is differs from the film in many details.

I would also say that the ss also had ambiguities, but this is the subject of another thread.

Well, of course. It is, after all, a short story. But the story does not suffer because it fails to tell me the names of Lureen’s parents or the color of Jack’s eyes.

As much as you or I would want to argue about finer points, it is clear to me that there are things in the ss and film intentionally left ambiguous and unanswered.  And why not?  As I said in my previous post, it can be as much a strength as a weakness.  I believe it to be a strength more than a weakness.  Did we really have to know Ennis's fate after Jack's death?  No.  Can we speculate and discuss what may or could have been?  A definite yes.  Is there one answer?  A definite no.  It is as simple as that.

Nevertheless, some answers are better than others.

[Brach]

    Wow - this thread is livening up!  I hope the timelines discussions are resumed on the appropriate threads as those threads, after I went to them, lacked the many details that had been showing up here.
  But, to the topic here, of whether Jack's love wore out, IMO, there's not a chance in the world.  Yes, in the film, we do see that bitter look on Jack's face, replacing the dreamy look of the remembered DE, but that pointed to some kind of bitter frustration moving to a practical resolution: Randall.
But I can't believe that even if Randall had moved to Lightning Flat, Jack wouldn't have dumped him for Ennis should Ennis have ever committed, at long last.  Jack was willing to dump his wife and child, and am fairly sure Randall would have been just as quickly abandoned.  Jack's great love was Ennis- there was no other.
  But, going further into what really happened, I tend to believe Jack when he told Ennis he was having an affair with the ranch foreman's wife and could get killed for it.  Because I think he was being typically Jack and fooling around with LaShawn and Randall both, and just didn't bother to tell Ennis the full story.  We should remember, both husband and wife were attracted to him. 
  My impression, just based on the light inferences of that possibility, in the film, was that when Jack made the offer to Randall, the juggling fell apart, and Randall found out, he'd been played.  And was a part of the group of thugs who killed Jack.  It was, to me, the obvious cause of a murder, if in fact there was one.  Which would also explain Lureen's bored, rehearsed recital of the cover story meant to prevent enduring scandal.
 All of that is just connecting dots that are few and far apart.  But that Jack's love never wore out, I really feel sure of.  Even his father knew "where Brokeback Mountain was" and in his snarl, conveyed he knew what it meant.  Just as he started off: "Ennis Del Mar....he used to say..."  The venom of the father, IMO, is further proof, there was no other love for Jack.  He'd just come to the point he had take 2nd best, for awhile.

Of course, Jack's love never wore out. Everyone knows that love springs eternal. Nevertheless, unsatisfactory relationships can and do end, especially if one of the parties finds someone else.

I don't think Jack would have said "I wish I knew how to quit you" if he had not already been considering it. Jack was resigned ("let be, let be") that his relationship with Ennis had not progressed much farther than it had that distant summer on Brokeback when Ennis would not embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was a man he held. And Jack lied ("the sparks flying up with their truths and lies") to Ennis about having had an affair with the wife of a rancher. Ennis knew  Jack not telling him about his relationships with other men ("...what I don't know, all them things I don't know..."). Within a few days after Jack had said "I wish I knew how to quit you" Jack told his folks he was divorcing his wife and returning with a ranch neighbor from Texas to build a place and help run the ranch. Jack had apparenrly made up his mind to quit Ennis. You know all this, yet still try to believe Jack would never have forsaken Ennis for another. Perhaps there is some open space between what you know and what you try to believe.

I would suggest that Lureen delivered the account of the accident "in a level voice" simply because she had had to repeat it many times to relatives and friends of Jack. No cover story. No conspiracy.

In any case, Jack's death was, in fact, an accident. The screenplay narrative states that flash of Jack being beaten is ENNIS'S Point of View. In an interview with Charlie Rose, BBM director Ang Lee confirmed that the flash of Jack being beaten was not an actual event, but merely what Ennis was feeling at the time. In the short story, "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months until his postcard to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED." In other words, according to the ss, the BBM director, and the screenplay, Jack's death was an ACCIDENT !!!

Surely, Jack and his father didn't get along. But the source of his father's anger and resenment was that the son had moved to Texas, leaving the father to run the ranch by himself. That's why the father spoke angrily, saying, "I can't get know help out here!" Then he went on to recall how Jack used to TALK about coming back to the ranch, first with Ennis, and later with some other man. But the old man had heard such talk before and not believed it: "So he says. But like most a Jack's ideas it never come to pass."  The old man's resentment that his son had moved to Texas instead of staying at the ranch to help run the place is the reason the old man said to Ennis: "I know where Brokeback Mountain is. He thought he was too goddamn special to be buried in the family plot." In the end the old man is determined to force Jack to stay in Lightning Flat: "Tell you what, we got a family plot and he's goin in it."

[lancecowboy]

Brach, I appreciate your meticulous attention to the detail of the timeline. However, the thread to do so is not here, but at this link:

http://www.ennisjack.com/index.php?topic=968.0

[lancecowboy]

[...]
In any case, Jack's death was, in fact, an accident. The screenplay narrative states that flash of Jack being beaten is ENNIS'S Point of View. In an interview with Charlie Rose, BBM director Ang Lee confirmed that the flash of Jack being beaten was not an actual event, but merely what Ennis was feeling at the time. In the short story, "Ennis didn't know about the accident for months until his postcard to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED." In other words, according to the ss, the BBM director, and the screenplay, Jack's death was an ACCIDENT !!!
[...]

I believe you are overstating the case, Brach. From the various interviews, and specifically the Charlie Rose interview, which I happened to have watched a week or so ago, I would say that the writers intended Jack's death as murder. At best, you can say the cause of death is ambiguous according to both the short story and the movie. I cannot recall any definitive information that points to an accident.

It is perfectly acceptable for each of us to decide what is the cause of death. I believe Ang Lee said in the same Charlie Rose interview that they deleted some of the tire iron scenes with exactly this purpose in mind. Perhaps you may find re-watching the interview would be helpful.



The timestamp 15:00 is the segment that discusses the ambiguity of the cause of death. It directly contradicts what you wrote above.

[Brach]

I so totally agree with you here, Andrew. You just said what I was gonna say. 

For me, asking for some days off so you can go on vacation or go on a trip up the mountains is not asking for help. And even it is a right you have if you're working. When you ask to your boss for a week on Xmas or in summertime, is that asking for help? I don't think so.


Ooouuch...that was me, Andrew.   

Now, so we are supposed to not speculate, right? Not even once. But, Brach, friend, you did it here:

You don’t know for sure if Ennis asked again for time on August. Neither in the SS nor in the film we have a line that says that Ennis asked twice for time in August. So I think you’re speculating too. And if I remember well, in another thread you said that Jack had forgotten the shirts long time ago and that’s why he didn’t take them with him (I strongly disagree with that). But, once more time, you don’t have any line in the SS or in the script that support your theory. See? We all are in the same team. 

I love this place because here we respect each other opinions and because people talk about BBM from heart. We don’t try to dissect it like it was a laboratory’s rat. We all are normal people who simply talk about how we see Ennis and Jack, about how we feel them. Nothing else.

The theory that was advanced is that Ennis would NEVER seek ANY help to deal with his PROBLEMS. The "problem" I had in mind was how Ennis could get time off from work to meet with Jack. Ennis explained to Jack that getting time off from work was a very real problem. As Ennis told Jack, "Stoutamire is a hell-raiser and he raised hell about me takin the week." Indeed, Ennis had to turn to his boss to address Ennis's very real problem of getting time off to meet with Jack. I doubt that that's the kind of "problem" some of you had in mind, but it is arguably a real problem for Ennis to get time off from work to meet with Jack, and the only one Ennis could turn to for help with his problem was his boss.  And if his boss offered Ennis time off, I doubt Ennis would refuse it.

My point is that Ennis does not pathologically reject help if he needs it. Like msot people, Ennis will seek help IF AND WHEN HE NEEDS IT, AND ACCEPT HELP, IF NEEDED, WHEN IT'S OFFERED. I see nothing in the film or ss to contradict that.


We read, "Ennis didn't know about the accident from months until his postcard to Jack saying that November still looked like the first chance came back stamped DECEASED." Why would Ennis write to Jack that November STILL looked like the first chance unless he had checked with his boss again? A reasonable inference from the word "still" is that Ennis had checked with his boss again.