Topic: Ennis & Jack: gay mainstream? or, masculine gay subculture?

[jetzenpolis]

How do you see Ennis del Mar & Jack Trick?  Which side of the gay world do they belong to?  Do they fit into the gay "mainstream" best?  Or do they fit into the masculine gay subculture best? 

[greenfrog]

Hmm 

First of all, hello Jetz and welcome to Ennisjack.com 

Now as for your question. I think if I where to put Ennis and Jack into the "gay world" as you call it, I think they would fall more under the lines of the masculine gay subculture.

But that being said Ennis and Jack are just Ennis and Jack and it's hard (for me) to categorise them.

[tpe]

Welcome,  jetzenpolis. 

It's hard to define the gay mainstream, and I hear so many different definitions of "gay mainstream" from so many different folks. 

In practice, it is safer (but not always accurate) to talk about subcultures within the gay world. 

Now, I am not entirely sure of the question. You are refering to the relationship between Ennis and Jack, no?  Or are you refering to the gay demographic of Brokies/BBM lovers?  Please clarify. 

[welshwitch]

Hello, jetzenpolis. nice to see you here.

I tend to agree with Greenfrog - would find it hard to categorize either of them. Anyway, I'm a middle-aged straight female and not au courant with the gay wolrd's categories. I wonder if there was, at the time of their first meeting in 1963, much notion of gay culture ( outisde of the big cities, I mean)? Someone on here will have an answer, I guess.

[jetzenpolis]

Hello everybody!

Thank you for your warm welcome greenfrog, tpe, welshwitch!

I agree with tpe that it's hard to define the gay "mainstream"! 

I thought about just that question as I walking home from my small Minnesota hometown's public library (where I typed my question and submitted it in my ennisjack.com post).

The use of the acronym, GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgender) might be helpful to begin to pin down what "mainstream" gay culture might be.  Grouping some of society's many sexual minorities under the acronym, GLBT, gives a name to some of these different sexual minorities.  All these groups share a "human rights" interest in opposing traditional sexual prejudices that harm them. 

The gay "mainstream" is something distinct from both the masculine gay sub-culture (another sub-group within the culture of the gay male cultural world) and the culture of the transgender world (transvestitism and transsexuality).  The gay "mainstream," in other words, lies somewhere between the "masculine" gay sub-culture and the "feminine" transgender world of the transvestite "cross-dresser" (who wears the clothing, hair styles, etc. of the opposite gender; who may also adopt the speech and mannerisms of the opposite gender) and the transsexual (who seeks gender change through surgery, hormonal treatments, etc.). 

It should be pointed out that a transvestite man may be either heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual.  Transvestitism is a matter of adopting the appearance of the opposite gender through dress, make-up, hair-styling, speech, body language, etc.  It's not a sexual orientation, itself.

The sexual orientation of a transsexual (who may have born as a either a man or a woman) can also be either: heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual. 

A transsexual who was born as a man would describe herself as a woman trapped inside a man's body.  That says nothing about this woman's sexual orientation. 

A transsexual (who was born as a woman) can be either a heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual man.  (Such a transsexual, born as a woman, would describe himself as a man trapped inside a woman's body.)

As to what the gay mainstream might be, I guess I'm thinking of that sub-cultural group within the gay male world that would be the main competitor with the masculine gay sub-culture for providing the overall gay culture with its leading ideas.   This gay mainstream is, therefore, in a "dialectical" cultural opposition to the masculine gay sub-culture.

A "dialectical" cultural opposition is a fancy philosophical answer to your question about what the gay mainstream is.

Let me explain what the "dialectic" is. 

I'm digging deep down into a bag of political ideas that Marxists and others on the political Left are probably most familiar with.  The "dialectic" is an idea used to analyze history that Karl Marx (1818-1883) borrowed from George Hegel (1770-1831), a German "Idealist" philosopher.

In Hegel's view, there is always a conflict between two leading ideas that history must choose between.  Yet, all pairs of opposites are, themselves, part of an overall "unity." 

Or, to use different terminology to describe exactly the same thing: an original idea (the "thesis") is set in contrast to its opposite (the "antithesis").  But these two ideas can also be brought together under a larger umbrella.   They belong to a much larger category of an idea that can encompass both of them (their "unity," in other words).

This "unity of opposites" is called: the "synthesis."  For example, "white" and "black" are opposites.  But both "black" and "white" belong to the larger category of "color."  Therefore, the "synthesis" (or the "unity") of "black" and "white" is: "color."

Applying Hegel's approach to history, the overall culture of the gay male world is divided between two sub-cultures: the masculine gay subculture and its opposite, the gay "mainstream."  Again, the unity of these two opposing ideas is a larger category we can loosely call "gay culture."

The masculine gay sub-culture is defined by its "masculinity" (to say the least, to say the most obvious thing about its most notable cultural characteristic of being "masculine").  Therefore, using the logic of "dialectical" reasoning, the gay mainstream must somehow incorporate "non-masculinity" into itself, in some way.  (After all, the gay mainstream is the cultural opposite of the masculine gay sub-culture within the gay male world.)

In their logic as cultural opposites, the masculine gay sub-culture and the gay mainstream will contend against each other to become the leading cultural ideal of the gay male world.  It is helpful to define the difference between "masculine" and "non-masculine" in order to be more specific about what the cultural values of the gay mainstream are.

To begin with, the masculine gay sub-culture and the gay mainstream probably have very different ideas what sort of man is the "ideal" man.  Start with a list of "masculine" characteristics.  Then use dialectical logic to look at the opposite of these masculine characteristics.

In the masculine gay sub-culture (as well as traditional male heterosexual society), "strength" is probably the most essential characteristic of "masculinity."  In the gay mainstream, male "beauty" counts for more (as a characteristic to be sought after in the "ideal" man), perhaps.

Similarly, in the masculine gay sub-culture, other traditional characteristics of "masculinity" are admired: large physical size, boldness, physical activity, decisiveness, etc..  In the gay mainstream: a balanced proportion of the size of different parts of the body and the face might be more important than mere physical size. 

(Interestingly, the gay bodybuilder, Bob Paris, in his autobiography, "Man in a Gorilla Suit," said he is more sexually attracted to men who have a comparatively slender body, with balanced proportion between all the muscle groups, than to extremely muscular bodybuilders.  As a professional bodybuilder, Bob Paris, is best known for his emphasis on a balanced proportion in the muscular size between the different parts of his body: upper arms, upper legs, forearms, calves, chest, back, head, torso, etc.  But he seemed to be saying, here, that he preferred men who were less muscular, but better proportioned, than himself.  As a professional bodybuilder he gained lots of muscular bulk to compete effectively against other bodybuilders.) 

In the gay mainstream sensitivity, tolerance, gentleness, thoughtfulness can also be greatly valued.  There seems to be significantly emphasis on these values within the masculine gay sub-culture.

Of course, within what is generally regarded as the province of the masculine gay sub-culture, there are further sub-divisions.  These are usually a matter of specific sexual interests: bears (men who have hairy bodies), leather men (who are often associated with sado-masochism), etc.  In contrast, the gay mainstream seems to prefer men with hairless bodies (or shaved of body hair).  The sexual practices of the gay mainstream are typically perceived as less "extreme" than the sado-masochism that is thought of as being more common in the leather "community."

There's not a precise correspondence between the sub-sub-cultural worlds of "bears" and "leather" and the sub-cultural world of the masculine gay male, though.  Certainly, there could be bears who might prefer to think of themselves as part of the gay mainstream.  There are leather men who call themselves "queens."  But, generally, bears and leather men are thought of as "masculine" in overall gay male culture.

[tpe]

Hello jetzenpolis. 

I must admit that I am a bit biased. as I have always sided with Heidegger's critique of the Hegelian dialectic.  For example, the Greco-Roman ideas about same-sex love fit better in Heidegger's ontology as opposed to Platonic and Hegelian notions of dialectic.

But given what you have outlined in the above post, do you ask whether we apply this to the love between Ennis and Jack, or our love for BBM?

If the former, then I would say that the love of Ennis and Jack surprisingly fits your definition of mainstream culture, rather than the masculine gay sub-culture.  I base this on the fact that Ennis and Jack are both superb anti-heroes -- perhaps one of the most beautiful examples of such in recent memory, IMO.    The notions prevalent in masculine gay sub-culture, as is probably embodied (in a simplistic sense) best by Whitman, would most likely shy away from the core anti-heroism that is at the heart of the love between Ennis and Jack.

For me, the love of Ennis and Jack is closer to the Japanese sensibility of "heroic" failure.  I refer you to "The nobility of Failure", a wonderful but simple elucidation of this viewpoint, as seen by the late Ivan Morris.

Perhaps this would be suffiicient to start a discussion on this interesting topic.

[ksxks]

Jetzen...  This is interesting, to try to really get the definitions down to a fine point in the (male) gay world.  I do find it interesting...but I'm chuckling at the same time -- because let me tell you, gay women don't have the same criteria.  There is no "ideal" woman amongst us.  It's love and warmth and sweet compatability -- sure, the hots and a nice bod (if you're young) are nice, but that's not what it's ultimately about.  I think actually the same is true for men, when it all comes down to it.  People might have ideals of physical beauty, but that isn't usually what we fall in love with.  There is such variety in nature and in the world of people -- ideals are just too different in all cultures.

The discussion, however, is interesting -- in an historical and socialogical sense.  As to Ennis and Jack...just two somewhat unique rural Joe's (unique but living average lives), who happen to be good looking (in the movie, though not in the SS) who by a beautiful quirk of fate were thrown together.  As to how they are seen by 2005 viewers, then the discussion of definitions does become more relevant.

kathy

[jetzenpolis]

Hi tpe!

Please tell me what Heidegger's critique of the Hegelian dialectic is!  I'd love to know.  (I won't have to spend the weekend reading Heidegger!)

How do Greco-Roman ideas about same-sex love fit better in Heidegger's ontology as opposed to Platonic and Hegelian notions of dialectic?

What is Plato's notion of the dialectic?  (Is it a Socratic dialogue of asking a series of questions to arrive at a logical conclusion.  I believe Socrates, Plato's ancient Greek teacher, sought to show that anyone could master logical thought.  Such methods of thinking were not something that belonged to just an educated, intellectual elite.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

What are Greco-Roman ideas about same-sex love?  (Didn't the Greeks believe it was acceptable for an older man to have sex with a younger man - with the older man as a teacher, mentor, etc. to the younger man, who was correspondingly a student, protégé, etc.  In other words, it's something similar to the sub-sub-culture of "daddies" and younger men in the masculine gay sub-culture.)

[tpe]

Hi tpe!

Please tell me what Heidegger's critique of the Hegelian dialectic is!  I'd love to know.  (I won't have to spend the weekend reading Heidegger!)

How do Greco-Roman ideas about same-sex love fit better in Heidegger's ontology as opposed to Platonic and Hegelian notions of dialectic?

What is Plato's notion of the dialectic?  (Is it a Socratic dialogue of asking a series of questions to arrive at a logical conclusion.  I believe Socrates, Plato's ancient Greek teacher, sought to show that anyone could master logical thought.  Such methods of thinking were not something that belonged to just an educated, intellectual elite.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

What are Greco-Roman ideas about same-sex love?  (Didn't the Greeks believe it was acceptable for an older man to have sex with a younger man - with the older man as a teacher, mentor, etc. to the younger man, who was correspondingly a student, protégé, etc.  In other words, it's something similar to the sub-sub-culture of "daddies" and younger men in the masculine gay sub-culture.)

Hello jetzenpolis.  Did/are you major/majoring in Philosophy?  (I was, for a short time).  I admire your persistence in this, but at the risk of going too far out of topic, let me just provide you with a number of references.

There are a number of works devoted to Plato's dialectic.  As you may know, it is based largely off of The Republic as well as the more metaphysical dialogues.  A good (if not slightly revisionist) book is Allan Silverman's "The Dialectic of Essence":



As you may guess, at the heart of the argument is the tension between essence and form. 

The same tension exists in the Greek (and by extension, Hellenistic and Roman) notion of "ideal" love (especially pertaining to the same sex)  versus its actualization ("realism").  Of particular relevance is the following statement from Plato:


Same sex love is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love -- all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.


Of course, you can directly reference Plato's Republic and Timaeus.

There are a number of books dealing with the mature Heidegger's critique on the dialectic, especially dealing with the "failure" of Philosophy in the 20th Century. But what I had in mind was Heidegger's 1958 paper, which I was astonished to find available on the internet:

http://www.morec.com/hegelgre.htm

Of particular interest is the following section:


The dialectic is the process of self-production of subjectivity, of the absolute subject, and as such is its "necessary action". According to the structure of subjectivity, the production process has three layers. First of all as consciousness, subjectivity is drawn immediately to its object. This immediate, therefore indeterminate, representation, Hegel names 'being', the universal, the abstract. But the relation of the object to the subject is thereby overlooked. Only through this relating back of objects to the subject, will the object as object for the subject, and the subject for itself, that is, as relation to the object, be represented Nevertheless, as long as we only distinguish between object and subject, refection and being, and remain tied to these distinctions , the movement from object to subject has not yet produced subjectivity as this totality for itself. The object, being, is doubtless already with the subject as mediated by reflection, but this mediation itself is not yet itself the presentation of this innermost movement of the subject for itself. Only when the thesis of object and the antithesis of subject becomes discernible in its necessary synthesis , is the movement of the subjectivity of the object-subject-relation established in its trajectory. This trajectory is departure from the thesis, progression through antithesis, transition as synthesis, and, as this totality , the return of this posited establishment to itself. This trajectory gather the totality of subjectivity in its developed unity. So assembled it grows, 'con-crescit', becomes concrete. Accordingly, dialectic is speculative. 'Speculari' means to discern, to set before, conceive, com-prehend [be-greifen]. Hegel states in the introduction of the 'Science of Logic' (ed. Lasson, Bd. I, S. 38) : Speculation consists "in conceiving the opposed in its unity". Hegel's characterization of speculation becomes clearer when we take note that with speculation the synthesis results not only from conceptual unity, but , in the first place and always, from the conception of 'the opposed', as such. To this belongs the conception of opposites as appearing against and within one another, which as the reign of antithesis is in this manner presented in the "Logic of Essence" ( that is , the logic of reflection). From this self reflecting appearance, this mirroring, the 'speculari' ('speculum': the mirror) receives its sufficient determination. So considered, speculation is the positive totality of what dialectic must signify here: not transcendental delimitation critically or polemically thought, but the mirroring and reuniting of opposites as the spirit's process of self production.


Going back to the subject at hand, do you agree with me when I said that BBM is more of the "mainstream"?

[tpe]

I believe Socrates, Plato's ancient Greek teacher, sought to show that anyone could master logical thought.  Such methods of thinking were not something that belonged to just an educated, intellectual elite.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

I would want to add just a trifle more specificity into this.  If we are to believe Plato about Socrates's views, what you have said is correct to a point.  But embedded in the above quote from Plato (see previous post) is the implicit distinction drawn between the Greek world and barbarism (in the Greek sense).  As would become apparent in Plotinus and the neo-Platonists of a later age, the distinction would develop into a form of elitism -- a chosen few, so to speak, where perfect knowledge and understanding is attained via the pursuit of the "ideal".

 

[jetzenpolis]

tpe

1.) Is the "dialectic" to be applied to the love between Ennis and Jack, or our love for BBM?

2.) Is BBM more "mainstream" gay than "masculine" gay sub-culture?

My main interest is understanding the love between Ennis & Jack.  (But I'm happy to discuss the deep interest many people have found in Brokeback Mountain, too: either the story or the movie.)

Again, in the case of Ennis & Jack, using the logic of Hegel's dialectic, I see Ennis & Jack as distinct personalities.  Being individual, there will inevitably be differences in their point of view between them on various issues, situations, and other questions that arise between them.  In this sense, Ennis & Jack inevitably become "opposites" within the romance they share as two male same-sex lovers.   (Their romance - their love for each other - becomes the "synthesis" or the "unity" of their distinct individual personalities.)

For example, the main conflict apparent between Ennis & Jack, of course, is Jack's wish that they live together.  Jack wants Ennis to ranch together with him on Jack's parents' ranch in Lightning Flats, Wyoming in the northeastern corner of the state, near the Montana state line.  Ennis, who, interestingly, is described as being from the opposite end of Wyoming, the southwest corner of the state, where it borders Utah, resists Jack's plan.  Ennis thinks that it is impossible for two men to live together in the rural society of the American West.   Instead, they will have to do the best they can, living within the limits their society imposes on them - complicated by the fact that Ennis & Jack have both gotten married in the meantime and have obligations to their wives and children Ennis & Jack must meet in order for them to remain "decent."  Ennis tells Jack (in Annie Proulx's short story), while they are in the Siesta Motel in the summer of 1967 (the first time they have seen each other since herding sheep on Brokeback Mountain in 1963), that if "you can't fix it, you have to stand it."  He also tells Jack, that they "will ride it for as long as we can."  (In other words, he and Jack will continue their love affair for as long as they can - as long as society doesn't prevent them from being with each other or as long as they can put up with the hardships society's intense hatred of their homosexuality imposes upon them.)

As individual personalities, it is possible that Ennis & Jack, themselves, also stand on opposite sides of the great divide in the gay male cultural world: the "mainstream" gay sub-culture and "masculine" gay sub-culture.  I believe that, contrary to my own first impressions (of the movie), Ennis is "mainstream" gay while Jack is "masculine" gay.  This, too, adds to personality conflict between them.

In fact, because they are in love with each other, any conflict between them becomes heightened in intensity.  Falling in love can release such an outpouring of emotion it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, at times, for people to stay on top of their emotions - good or bad. 

In the short story, Annie Proulx describes Ennis's & Jack's last argument (May 1983) as Ennis having decided to "cut fence."  (In Wyoming, "fence cutting" is the equivalent of a declaration of all-out war.)  Ennis, in other words, crosses a line that he can't turn back from. 

In their argument, Ennis threatens to kill Jack if he ever "finds out" Jack is seeing someone else (namely, other men, since he laughed at Jack's "predicament" when Jack told him he was seeing a ranch neighbor's "wife," earlier, Ennis obviously not threatened by any sort of sexual intimacy Jack might have with another woman).  Jack replies that Ennis keeps him on a "short leash," that they've spent very little time together, after you add it up, after Brokeback Mountain.  Jack tells Ennis they could have had a "good life" together, calling Ennis a "son of a whoreson bitch."  Jack then asks how he can get Ennis out of his head.  Ennis collapses in grief.  (In the movie, Ennis, after replying bitterly with the question, "Why don't you then?," says that he, Ennis, is "nothing."  I assume Ennis is talking about his entire life, especially his lack of steady employment, as a ranch hand, and his low income.  After first throwing off Jack's efforts to embrace him by, Ennis relents.  He allows Jack to hold him and comfort him.

Annie Proulx describes the scene of their last encounter, metaphorically, as vents of steam opening up in the ground beneath them.  These previously closed-off vents of steam have been been building up pressure for years: all the doubts and disagreement between them, left unlooked at, unresolved.  She says there was no point in them looking at them now.  Instead, she says Ennis & Jack patch things back up "almost" as they were before.  At this point (in the movie), I believe Jack resolved to leave Ennis (for his Texas ranch neighbor, Randall).   There is a determined stare in Jack's eyes - in contrast to his favorite memory of Ennis (holding Jack from behind on Brokeback Mountain that Annie Proulx describes in her short story as satisfying a "sexless" hunger in Jack that Jack didn't understand).

[tpe]

Beautiful post, jetzenpolis.  I understand the argument.  Indeed, it can also be applied to the other characters: Alma and Lureen, Mr. and Mrs. Twist, etc.    It is an interesting construct for understanding Ennis and Jack, and the love that they share between them.

You therefore see the love at star-crossed from the onset.  If one can apply a "propositional calculus" to the two of them, one can say that the end was inevitable, given this diametric opposition.

[jetzenpolis]

tpe:

Yes, in the case of Ennis & Jack, I do see their love as "star-crossed from the onset." 

However, I don't know what change might have been possible for either of them to make that might have made it possible for love to become permanent between them.  We find ourselves attracted to who we find ourselves attracted to.  We live with who we can.  Sometimes the two - who we are attracted to, who we can live with - aren't the same.

Was the ending of Brokeback Mountain inevitable (given this "diametric opposition" between the characters of Ennis & Jack)?
 
I urge you listen to Michael Silverblatt's 30 minute interview with Annie Proulx on "Bookworm," a radio program on KCRW-FM. 

You can listen to it on the KCRW website.  KCRW is the "flagship radio station of National Public Radio (NPR) on the west coast" according to the entry for it in wikipedia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCRW


The interview with Annie Proulx was on January 19, 2006.  You can listen to it on the Internet on KCRW-FM's website.


 www.kcrw.com/sitesearch?dosearch=1&SearchableText=Annie+Proulx
 

Annie Proulx also did an earlier shorter (15 minute) interview with Michael Silverblatt on "Bookworn" on KCRW-FM on August 19, 1999.

In her January 19, 2006 "Bookworm" interview, Annie Proulx said Brokeback Mountain wouldn't work as a story if she let Ennis & Jack stay together.  She discusses her opinion of the movie at the end of the interview.

Annie Proulx said she felt as if Heath Ledger had read her mind and crawled inside it (with his portrayal of Ennis del Mar in the movie).  Heath Ledger in the movie was what Ennis del Mar was for her in the story.  (Obviously, this is a question of personality not physical appearance.  In the short story, for example, Ennis has a narrow face.) 

Annie Proulx said that she had just been able to Ennis & Jack out of her head, after being there for several years, when the movie came out.  Then they came rushing back in. 

On her website (annieproulx.com), she said that she only used characters as plot devices in her stories.  But in another section of her website she said she lied when she said that.  It was different for her with Ennis & Jack.  She loved Ennis & Jack. 

In her KCRW "Bookworm" interview, Annie Proulx said Ennis & Jack were her first characters who took on a life of their own.  In other words, as a writer she had to "listen" to them since they had developed minds of their own.  (Their thoughts, emotions, inclinations, and decisions became independent of what she wanted.) 

She said that she felt as if the story came from somewhere, someone outside of her.  She had the feeling she was being guided in its writing.

She said Jake Gyllenhaal had his own vision of who Jack Twist was.  Of course, Jack is a somewhat different character in the short story than he is in the movie (not just in physical appearance, but also in his personality).  I remember reading somewhere that Ang Lee wanted Jake Gyllenhaal to be "New West" in comparison to Heath Ledger (representing the "Old West" in his portrayal of Ennis del Mar).
 
On Gay.com there's an interview with the movie's director, Ang Lee ("Brokeback Mountain" -- as gay as it gets: An interview with Ang Lee"; interviewer: Robert Ordona).


http://www.gay.com/entertainment/interview.html?sernum=1139&navpath=/channels/entertainment/brokeback/


In his interview, Ang Lee describes Ennis as having "...no vocabulary to understand what he feels. He's self-loathing and in denial -- he denies even his own existence. There's something poignant and beautiful about him, but also tragic."  Ennis stands for the "...conservative side of America.  He's the biggest homophobe in the whole movie -- culturally and psychologically -- but by the time he admits his feelings, it's too late." 

For Ang Lee, "Jack is more knowing and less denying. In a way he's the all-American boy -- dreamy and romantic, adventurous."

Obviously, Ang Lee's characterization of Ennis & Jack would reverse my characterization of Ennis as "mainstream gay" and Jack as "masculine gay."  But I still find Ennis (underneath it all) to still be "mainstream." (Perhaps Ennis is secretly "gay mainstream," giving Ennis a second "secret" in addition to his being homosexual).   For me, Jack remains "masculine."

Of course, in 1963, Ennis & Jack would have no idea what the difference between the "mainstream" gay and the "masculine" gay subcultures were.  But that might have changed twenty years later.  Certainly, there were plenty of news stories in the newspapers and television news by that time.  Ennis knew something about "Mexico" (that men went there for homosexual sex).  How did Ennis know anything about "Mexico"?  Who did he hear it from?  Where did he hear it?  Jack, having sex with lots of men over the years, probably knew a lot about gay culture, probably more than Ennis.

In the interview, Ang Lee explains that the characters of Ennis & Jack are different in the movie from Annie Proulx's short story, simply saying: "Movies and books are different."  For him, Brokeback Mountain is a romantic love story.  The characters have to fit the genre of "romantic love story."  Jake Gyllenhaal was suitable as a romantic figure.  But his "Jack Twist" was a deviation from the short story, where "bulkier and stockier and more manly."

From Ang Lee's perspective, "...a good couple is quite opposite from each other in disposition and appearance. I think Heath and Jake made a good couple -- plus they're good actors."  This helped the film to function well as a love story.

Obviously, from this point of view, opposites can not only be attracted to each other.  They can also complement each other.

[ksxks]

A wonderful post, jetzenpolis.  Good overview of this topic.  So interesting, not only their characters as we saw them and interpreted, but between the story and movie, and in AP's and AL's minds.  And thanks very much for the links to the interviews.  I think I've heard one of them, but not both of AP.  And haven't seen the Ang Lee one you linked.  Thanks!

kathy

[greenfrog]

Great post jetzenpolis 

[tpe]

jetzenpolis, I join the other here in commending you for the wonderful post.  Thank you.  I shall check the Proulx interview.

I must agree with Proulx that the short story would not have worked had he allowed Ennis and Jack to finally be together.  This is, afterall, the crux on which the greatness of the short story rests -- an underlying tension that does not find clear resolution, and yet enriches and deepens the complexity of the main protagonists.

I love Ennis because he is indeed a great anti-hero.  I love Jack for the frailty/humanity of the characterization.  Indeed, by their own differences, they are wonderfully matched.  And I do believe that in spite of the differences in vision, the film is true to the spirit of Proulx.  Whether or not Ang Lee's vision explicitly goes against your view of mainstream and masculine depends on interpretation, IMO.

There is something very natural with both the finality and the ambiguity of the fate of Jack and Ennis.   I won't have it any other way.

[Raisa]

I love Ennis because he is indeed a great anti-hero.  I love Jack for the frailty/humanity of the characterization.  Indeed, by their own differences, they are wonderfully matched.  And I do believe that in spite of the differences in vision, the film is true to the spirit of Proulx.  Whether or not Ang Lee's vision explicitly goes against your view of mainstream and masculine depends on interpretation, IMO.

There is something very natural with both the finality and the ambiguity of the fate of Jack and Ennis.   I won't have it any other way.

Thank you for this interesting discussion and points of views. Help, I´m not a queer researcher or philosopher! I second your last words, tpe.

[dodoLea]

Wow!...what a beautiful discussion! Thank you tpe, thank you jetzenpolis, discussions like yours is one of the reasons that make me love this community.  

[tpe]

I love Ennis because he is indeed a great anti-hero.  I love Jack for the frailty/humanity of the characterization.  Indeed, by their own differences, they are wonderfully matched.  And I do believe that in spite of the differences in vision, the film is true to the spirit of Proulx.  Whether or not Ang Lee's vision explicitly goes against your view of mainstream and masculine depends on interpretation, IMO.

There is something very natural with both the finality and the ambiguity of the fate of Jack and Ennis.   I won't have it any other way.

Thank you for this interesting discussion and points of views. Help, I´m not a queer researcher or philosopher! I second your last words, tpe.

Carmilla, thank you.  I am certainly not addicted to sad endings, but yes, the cloud that obscures the fates of Ennis and Jack makes it all seem like a dream.  And we know that life itself is a dream.

[tpe]

Wow!...what a beautiful discussion! Thank you tpe, thank you jetzenpolis, discussions like yours is one of the reasons that make me love this community.  

Thanks also, dodoLea.  We both have jetzenpolis to thank for bringing up this wonderful topic.  It provokes thought, and yet it is so full of feeling.

[ksxks]

This is not breaking news or anything, but one thing I loved that jetzenpolis mentioned in his post was about Ennis representing the Old West, and Jack the New West.  A good expression of the bases for all their many differences.

And tpe, of course I loved your words -- the finality and the ambiguity.  What keeps driving our interpretations.

And you said:  I love Ennis because he is indeed a great anti-hero.  I love Jack for the frailty/humanity of the characterization.  Indeed, by their own differences, they are wonderfully matched.  Did not Ang Lee also say, and jetzen mention, that he saw this "difference" as making a perfect couple.  And that he saw that in Heath and Jake, the differences that would make them the perfect couple.

kathy

[greenfrog]

This is not breaking news or anything, but one thing I loved that jetzenpolis mentioned in his post was about Ennis representing the Old West, and Jack the New West.  A good expression of the bases for all their many differences.

And tpe, of course I loved your words -- the finality and the ambiguity.  What keeps driving our interpretations.

And you said:  I love Ennis because he is indeed a great anti-hero.  I love Jack for the frailty/humanity of the characterization.  Indeed, by their own differences, they are wonderfully matched.  Did not Ang Lee also say, and jetzen mention, that he saw this "difference" as making a perfect couple.  And that he saw that in Heath and Jake, the differences that would make them the perfect couple.

kathy

This is a beautiful post Kathy 

[tpe]

This is not breaking news or anything, but one thing I loved that jetzenpolis mentioned in his post was about Ennis representing the Old West, and Jack the New West.  A good expression of the bases for all their many differences.

And tpe, of course I loved your words -- the finality and the ambiguity.  What keeps driving our interpretations.

And you said:  I love Ennis because he is indeed a great anti-hero.  I love Jack for the frailty/humanity of the characterization.  Indeed, by their own differences, they are wonderfully matched.  Did not Ang Lee also say, and jetzen mention, that he saw this "difference" as making a perfect couple.  And that he saw that in Heath and Jake, the differences that would make them the perfect couple.

kathy

Thanks kathy.  Heath and Jake are wonderful choices.  The duality of their creations and the arc of redemption/damnation traced by each one are breathtaking, but not overbearing.  However we wish to frame this duality is of secondary import.  Recognizing and appreciating it is what counts.

[welshwitch]

If you see them as Old West/New West their unity might also point to a whole new direction for the future, and/or a modification of the limits of the categories into which the labels rather arbitrarily put them.

[tpe]

If you see them as Old West/New West their unity might also point to a whole new direction for the future, and/or a modification of the limits of the categories into which the labels rather arbitrarily put them.

Ina sense, they did break some new ground, no?  In the end, both were changed.  Love and life had changed them.  The old and new had become diluted.