Author Topic: Were Jack+Ennis Selfish? (Read 18003 times)

Jennis · « **on:** Jul 05, 2006, 11:34 AM »

I just put an item in news coverage thread and it got me wondering.I didn't want to pose the question there and take that thread o/t so here is part of the article.

Diane Ladd said this about a new indie film (All God's Children)that she is producing...

The ever-outspoken Ladd — who's been touring the country promoting her new motivational book, "Spiraling Through the School of Life" — says "All God's Children" is "probably what 'Brokeback Mountain' wanted to be in that their (Heath Ledger's and Jake Gyllenhaal's characters) relationships with other people are clearer, and they really care about other people.

"Don't get me wrong — 'Brokeback Mountain' is a great film. Ang Lee is a magnificent director, and the performances were unbelievable, but the fault I had was in the people themselves. Did they really care about each other, who they saw for, like five minutes once a year, or did they care about their children or their wives?

You know, it was all about 'me.' In 'All God's Children,' the guy is concerned about his sister, the kids and his own involvement in the relationship he's trying to have."

My question is.Do you agree with her? Did you ever see it like that when you watched/watch Brokeback Mountain?

I know sometimes we have to watch films more then once to notice things that didn't occur to us the first time around and i am pretty sure i remember all my thoughts from the first viewing.Ennis probably was the only one that struck me as not really being bothered about Alma,but not to the degree that Diane is suggesting.I don't think he would have applied for a divorce even though he was in a loveless marriage.I think he loved his children and would have stayed in the marriage for their sake.Jack, would have left Lureen in an instant but i didn't think he came across as uncaring.

What do you think?

Jennis.x

P.S.(Apologies if any of these questions have been posed before but the article triggered my train of thought)

welshwitch · « **Reply #1 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 04:48 PM »

Diane Ladd has never been in love.

Of course you can love someone and go on loving them even if you see them rarely or not at all.
"Love is not love
That alters when it alteration finds
Or bends with the remover to remove."

Of course they were selfish - love is. But Ennis marries Alma and helps with the babies and pays child support with grim determination for years. And Jack sticks with Lureen and helps deal with Bobby - OK, he'd have been off like a shot if Ennis had given hoim the chance but I love Jack so I'm going to make out a case.

Jennis · « **Reply #2 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 04:57 PM »

Quote from: welshwitch on Jul 05, 2006, 04:48 PM

Diane Ladd has never been in love.

Of course you can love someone and go on loving them even if you see them rarely or not at all.
"Love is not love
That alters when it alteration finds
Or bends with the remover to remove."

Of course they were selfish - love is. But Ennis marries Alma and helps with the babies and pays child support with grim determination for years. And Jack sticks with Lureen and helps deal with Bobby - OK, he'd have been off like a shot if Ennis had given hoim the chance but I love Jack so I'm going to make out a case.

welshwitch said..."Love is not love that alters when it alteration finds"

That is one of my fave Shakespearean quotes and i use it all the time

...Not sure it fits here,but i love it anyway

Thanks for that

J.x

CrimsonSky · « **Reply #3 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 05:21 PM »

I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation,Ennis and Jack caring about each other, and their wives and families aren't mutually exclusive. I think Diana Ladd is missing the point somewhat,people can, and do, hurt people they care about, without intending to, it doesn't mean they do it selfishly,or that they set out to hurt them deliberately, most of the time it's down the circumstances they find themselves in.
Yes, Alma and Lureen get a raw deal from the men they marry, but it was, to borrow a phrase, a bitch of a situation for Jack and Ennis too, and it's not as if they could help being gay, or being in love with each other, or that society wouldn't allow them to be together. You could argue that neither of them(particularly Jack) should have got married, knowing that it couldn't work,but it's easy to say that with hindsight, and I don't doubt that they both tried to make their marriages work, and went into them with the intention of making it work, let's face it, it would've been a lot easier for both of them if they could have made it work, but you can't force yourself to love someone, or to stop loving them, that's nothing to do with selfishness, it's just human nature.
Like you said, Jennis, Ennis wouldn't have left Alma and the kids, it was her who filed for divorce(not saying I blame her, just pointing it out!), and Jack liked and admired Lureen from the start, and even years later, in the Thanksgiving scene,the argument with LD starts with Jack backing Lureen when Bobby's watching TV, teaching him to have respect for her.I think it's clear that, in their own way, they both loved their wives, it just wasn't even on a comparable level to what they felt for each other.
In any case, even if Ennis and Jack had never met,they would never have been able to make themselves and their wives happy, something would always be missing, even if neither of them knew what it was, so how can anyone really blame them for grabbing a small bit of happiness once or twice a year?

tpe · « **Reply #4 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 05:22 PM »

Did Romeo and Juliet ever care about their families' or friends' wishes?

How about Abelard and Heloise? Tristan and Isolde? Lancelot and Guinevere? Yang kwei-fei and her Lord the Emperor? The Shining Prince and Lady Murasaki? Kaoru and Ukifune? Dai-yu and Bao-yu?

People should read a bit more before saying such inanities.

Jennis · « **Reply #5 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 05:56 PM »

CrimsonSky and Thomas,
I like what you both said.I tried to get my head around what Diane said,but i did wonder if we watched the same film?I guess not everyone sees things the same and she might also have quoted BBM to promote her own up and coming project?
J.x

tpe · « **Reply #6 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 06:03 PM »

Quote from: Jennis on Jul 05, 2006, 05:56 PM

CrimsonSky and Thomas,
I like what you both said.I tried to get my head around what Diane said,but i did wonder if we watched the same film?I guess not everyone sees things the same and she might also have quoted BBM to promote her own up and coming project?
J.x

Yes, I hope it is the last possibility. I am quite aghast at such statements -- as if true love was never selfish, in its own undying way.

shieldmaid · « **Reply #7 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 06:07 PM »

Thanks for posting this article, Jennis; it really got me thinking. Part of what really annoys me about it is I see it as a cheap attempt to piggyback on the artistry (not to mention the critical and commercial success) of Brokeback Mountain. Of course Diane Ladd thinks people are going to go see her film if she compares it to BBM, even if that comparison denigrates BBM. But her comments also, as you and tpe and CrimsonSky wisely point out, display her ignorance about some of the greatest love stories ever put on paper or captured on screen. Love is complex, and I think that's one of the biggest reasons why we all feel so passionate about the film, and Annie Proulx's story. The filmmakers' goal was really to challenge our perceptions of love by showing us exactly how complicated it is, how many possible outcomes exist, and how nothing can ever really be smoothly resolved. The best literature, I would argue, grows out of stories that don't end happily for all characters. It hurts that Jack and Ennis didn't get their happy ending; it hurts a lot. But we know their story is true on so many levels, and that's what matters.

Jennis · « **Reply #8 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 06:23 PM »

Quote from: shieldmaid on Jul 05, 2006, 06:07 PM

Thanks for posting this article, Jennis; it really got me thinking. Part of what really annoys me about it is I see it as a cheap attempt to piggyback on the artistry (not to mention the critical and commercial success) of Brokeback Mountain. Of course Diane Ladd thinks people are going to go see her film if she compares it to BBM, even if that comparison denigrates BBM. But her comments also, as you and tpe and CrimsonSky wisely point out, display her ignorance about some of the greatest love stories ever put on paper or captured on screen. Love is complex, and I think that's one of the biggest reasons why we all feel so passionate about the film, and Annie Proulx's story. The filmmakers' goal was really to challenge our perceptions of love by showing us exactly how complicated it is, how many possible outcomes exist, and how nothing can ever really be smoothly resolved. The best literature, I would argue, grows out of stories that don't end happily for all characters. It hurts that Jack and Ennis didn't get their happy ending; it hurts a lot. But we know their story is true on so many levels, and that's what matters.

Yes,i think i voiced that a good while back that many people will most probably jump on the
"BBM Bandwagon".I like that we all feel protective of this film and it's characters.It seems to evoke that instinct.And yes you are right.Love can be complicated,but like you the article did get me thinking even if i didn't see it through Diane's eyes

Jennis.x

LuvJackNasty · « **Reply #9 on:** Jul 05, 2006, 07:45 PM »

Great thread and comments everyone. Not much to add since it was said so well already but I never saw them as selfish. If anything is to be deemed selfish in the world of BBM it is society with it's preconceived notions of what is "right" and what is "wrong." Ennis' father was selfish to put that incredible weight on a small child. The men who took Jack's life because of who he was were selfish.

TheBoyFromNoWhere · « **Reply #10 on:** Jul 06, 2006, 02:46 AM »

i've felt something a bit negative about ennis's and jack's relationship after my second viewing (as well, reding short story and screenplay). but that doesn't mean i love them less.

in our lives, we have to be honest with many things. we do have to honest with ourselves. i must accept who i am otherwise i won't be happy for all my life. people sometimes make a wrong choice or many ones. that can't be changed. but do we really need to live with that for the whole life? i do not know the answer. i do not know that what could be 'right' or 'wrong'.

if i choose to love myself, choose to do something i really wanna do and, people call, cheat on my marriage, i accept that i'm not a good boy. to be selfish if that is called. i'm most of my time because i love myself.

if i chose to live with alma, i knew i wouldn't be happy as well alma.

i think relationship is too complicated to understand and just judge that selfish or not. so jack + ennis were selfish. maybe. but what should they do? choose one.

frances · « **Reply #11 on:** Jul 06, 2006, 03:21 AM »

Quote from: tpe on Jul 05, 2006, 05:22 PM

Did Romeo and Juliet ever care about their families' or friends' wishes?

How about Abelard and Heloise? Tristan and Isolde? Lancelot and Guinevere? Yang kwei-fei and her Lord the Emperor? The Shining Prince and Lady Murasaki? Kaoru and Ukifune? Dai-yu and Bao-yu?

People should read a bit more before saying such inanities.

.......and Paolo and Francesca........

Amor, ch'a nullo amato amar perdona,
Mi prese del costui piacer sì forte
Che, come vedi, ancor non m'abbandona

Love, that releases no beloved from loving,
took hold of me so strongly that through his beauty
that, as you see, it has not left me yet.

I agree with you on this one, Tpe

welshwitch · « **Reply #12 on:** Jul 06, 2006, 06:28 AM »

In fact the single-minded devotion of the fictional lovers is generally held up, at least to some degree, as an admirable trait, proof that their love is "the real thing", and social norms and expectations ften presented as the villains of the piece.

tpe · « **Reply #13 on:** Jul 06, 2006, 07:06 AM »

Is not the whole tradition of Courtly Love built on Infidelity?

Thanks frances and welshwitch. This is why I don't understand this viewpoint. We have at least a thousand years of tradition that glorified this kind of love between a man and a woman. Would it be any different if the partners were of the same sex?

We call love "all-consuming". We should learn to face up to what "all-consuming" really means. If you want to call this selfishness, then be prepared to count Selfishness among the Heavenly Virtues.

welshwitch · « **Reply #14 on:** Jul 07, 2006, 06:58 AM »

I don't know whether I want to get into an argument I've had with a friend off and on for years about the nature of courtly love, which, if you take it to be non-adulterous, could be seen as selfless at least on the side of the man. On the other hand, if it is adulterous, then it has aspects of treachery, deceit, betrayal and selfishness built in. As a litereary construct I take it to be non-adulterous; in reality and factoring in human nature I see it differently.

What "selfish" seems to mean in this context is doing what you want in a given situation with no regard for the feelings of some of the other people involved, prioritizing and privileging yourself over others. Which is arguably what lovers do, and certainly what Ennis and Jack do. You can, of course, mitigate their selfishness to some degree by finding short-comings in the others involved, sufficient to justify their being seen as contributing toi the selfisheness of others.

Or you can just take the romantic view, amor omnia vincit," All for Love or the World Well Lost", love is a force of nature, inpossibl to resist and to be surrendered to no matter what.

tpe · « **Reply #15 on:** Jul 07, 2006, 07:19 AM »

Quote from: welshwitch on Jul 07, 2006, 06:58 AM

I don't know whether I want to get into an argument I've had with a friend off and on for years about the nature of courtly love, which, if you take it to be non-adulterous, could be seen as selfless at least on the side of the man. On the other hand, if it is adulterous, then it has aspects of treachery, deceit, betrayal and selfishness built in. As a litereary construct I take it to be non-adulterous; in reality and factoring in human nature I see it differently.

What "selfish" seems to mean in this context is doing what you want in a given situation with no regard for the feelings of some of the other people involved, prioritizing and privileging yourself over others. Which is arguably what lovers do, and certainly what Ennis and Jack do. You can, of course, mitigate their selfishness to some degree by finding short-comings in the others involved, sufficient to justify their being seen as contributing toi the selfisheness of others.

Or you can just take the romantic view, amor omnia vincit," All for Love or the World Well Lost", love is a force of nature, inpossibl to resist and to be surrendered to no matter what.

Yes, one can indeed look at Courtly Love as an Allegory, in the way CS Lewis proposed for "Le Roman de la Rose" in his book, "The Allegory of Love". The evolution of "Romantic Love", as outlined in Lewis's ideas, would certainly bring us to a confrontation between the selfless and selfish aspects.

Not so sure if this is exactly what you had in mind, but I thought immediately of this after reading your post. A wonderful point.

Rønnaug · « **Reply #16 on:** Jul 07, 2006, 12:47 PM »

I guess it is appropriate for someone coming out of Hollywood to talk about how it is propper to stay with the ones you started with.... I mean I have never heard of anyone in Hollywood leaving their wives/husbands and/ or children to be with someone else...

jesseanne21 · « **Reply #17 on:** Jul 07, 2006, 12:49 PM »

Were Jack and Ennis Selfish?

EVERYBODY is selfish...it's human nature. Everyone wants what they want, when they want it. Just look at any small child. As we grow older we LEARN to compromise with the world and other people, but we still have our own wants and needs. And, no matter how much a person does for others, their own wants and needs will be the most important.

I've learned when someone calls me SELFISH, what they mean is I am not doing what they want me to do.

If Ennis and Jack were selfish, then they were selfish a couple of weeks out of every year, because that is all the time they had together...the rest of the time they did what they had to do and took care of their responsibilities.

tpe · « **Reply #18 on:** Jul 07, 2006, 01:01 PM »

Quote from: Esme on Jul 07, 2006, 12:47 PM

I guess it is appropriate for someone coming out of Hollywood to talk about how it is propper to stay with the ones you started with.... I mean I have never heard of anyone in Hollywood leaving their wives/husbands and/ or children to be with someone else...

Excellent.

tpe · « **Reply #19 on:** Jul 07, 2006, 01:03 PM »

Quote from: jesseanne21 on Jul 07, 2006, 12:49 PM

Were Jack and Ennis Selfish?

EVERYBODY is selfish...it's human nature. Everyone wants what they want, when they want it. Just look at any small child. As we grow older we LEARN to compromise with the world and other people, but we still have our own wants and needs. And, no matter how much a person does for others, their own wants and needs will be the most important.

I've learned when someone calls me SELFISH, what they mean is I am not doing what they want me to do.

If Ennis and Jack were selfish, then they were selfish a couple of weeks out of every year, because that is all the time they had together...the rest of the time they did what they had to do and took care of their responsibilities.

Yes, for me, Selfishness is an intrinsic part of human nature. It is a close relation to Love, I think...

FlwrChild · « **Reply #20 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 12:18 AM »

Great thread and comments! I have had a similar argument about this before. If ever a case could be made for extenuating circumstances, this is it. Taking into consideration the time, the taboo nature of same-sex relationships, the impact on Ennis of his father's attitudes and about a hundred other things, I'd say our boys did the best they could. Clearly they cared about their families. Clearly they cared about each other more. Clearly they couldn't help that. It is the nature of love. And would I question their love and commitment to each other? No, Ms Ladd was definitely not watching the same movie if she didn't get that. Selfish? Sure. Maliciously? Never. If they were truly selfish people, there would be no tragedy because they would have just ridden off into the sunset together. Fate was selfish - they paid the price.

Jennis · « **Reply #21 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 01:53 AM »

Quote from: FlwrChild on Jul 08, 2006, 12:18 AM

Great thread and comments! I have had a similar argument about this before. If ever a case could be made for extenuating circumstances, this is it. Taking into consideration the time, the taboo nature of same-sex relationships, the impact on Ennis of his father's attitudes and about a hundred other things, I'd say our boys did the best they could. Clearly they cared about their families. Clearly they cared about each other more. Clearly they couldn't help that. It is the nature of love. And would I question their love and commitment to each other? No, Ms Ladd was definitely not watching the same movie if she didn't get that. Selfish? Sure. Maliciously? Never. If they were truly selfish people, there would be no tragedy because they would have just ridden off into the sunset together. Fate was selfish - they paid the price.

FlwrChild You raised some good points.I was actually wishing that Ennis would be a bit more like Jack and not give a damn what anyone thought.Not because i like to see anyone hurt.I don't.But the way things were,nobody was happy.They were all miserable in their home lives and marriages.And like you said.They paid the price.

J.x

welshwitch · « **Reply #22 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 06:57 AM »

You can if you like argue that love is the ultimate selfishness, wanting to possess and become one with the beloved.

Whether or not Jack and Ennis experience this kind of love (I think Jack does, Ennis doesn't), they don't allow it to overtake their other lives, though Jack would, given the chance. To me Ennis appears outwardly much more committed to duty, propriety,work, devotion to his children, though his motive isn't selflessness but fear, which is another manifestation of selfishness in the form of the desire for self-preservation.

So it follows, if that line of reasoning holds, that Ennis is more selfish than Jack, whose desires at least include another while Ennis's are focused only on himself.

welshwitch · « **Reply #23 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 06:58 AM »

tpe, what we need here is some Jesuiitical casuistry.

FlwrChild · « **Reply #24 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 08:48 AM »

Interesting analysis welshwitch!

welshwitch · « **Reply #25 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 02:04 PM »

Yes, except that now I've talked myslef into not understanding myself!

FlwrChild · « **Reply #26 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 02:09 PM »

Quote from: welshwitch on Jul 08, 2006, 02:04 PM

Yes, except that now I've talked myslef into not understanding myself!

Occupational hazard for me - all I have to do is open my mouth!

tpe · « **Reply #27 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 06:39 PM »

Quote from: welshwitch on Jul 08, 2006, 06:58 AM

tpe, what we need here is some Jesuiitical casuistry.

With God and the Jesuits, everything is possible.

I think we should step back and take a look at ourselves deep down as human beings. Can we judge Ennis and Jack this way? I cannot. As a human being, I cannot.

FlwrChild · « **Reply #28 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 08:14 PM »

I agree tpe. As I said, I think they did the best they could. The deck was stacked against them.

stacp · « **Reply #29 on:** Jul 08, 2006, 09:56 PM »

Quote from: FlwrChild on Jul 08, 2006, 08:14 PM

I agree tpe. As I said, I think they did the best they could. The deck was stacked against them.

I totally agree that they did the best they could. Isn't love in and of itself selfish, if we want to get technical? Don't we say in our wedding vows we "forsake all others?" Yes, I know it means to be faithful, but the words are still there. I think there is "selfishness," if we want to put Ms. Ladd's lable on it, on many different levels in the movie. Society was selfish for not allowing Jack and Ennis to be together. Alma would say Ennis was selfish for refusing to take higher paying jobs so he could drop everything to be with Jack, and for going on his fishing trips instead of taking his wife and daughters on vacation. Lureen would say Jack was selfish for driving 14 hours to be with Ennis instead of staying home and doing his salesman job. Ennis would say Jack was selfish for seeing other men. Jack would say Ennis was selfish for refusing to see him more than once or twice a year and only out in the middle of nowhere. This just shows how complicated and tangled their lives were. In other words, they were human, dealing with an impossible situation. This is a love story and love is complicated. For Ms. Ladd to try to put a spin on it to serve her own promotional purposes is a cheap shot if you ask me.