Topic: was ennis gay ?

[Asali]

This just a thought of mine, and sorry if I upset anyone.

I am sure you won't upset anyone, we are all here putting our thoughts forward to a question that  doesn't have any right or wrong answer but it is making a great discussion.

[manhattangirl]

I am sure you won't upset anyone, we are all here putting our thoughts forward to a question that  doesn't have any right or wrong answer but it is making a great discussion.

Thanks Asali,

It does make for a heck of a discussion.

[myprivatejack]

I believe Ennis is a unique individual with a unique and troubled past who found love and completion in a gay man named Jack, who is also a unique individual with unique and troubled past.

Ennis and Jack were soul mates, not gay, not straight, just plain loving souls.

I think almost everything has been said about this question;so I,who hasn´t been very active these last days for technical problems-with my computer,not with me... -am afraid I'm not going to add anything important to it.I've always thought,however,that we need words to define things,persons,animals...but,what about personal and private feelings?Until what point can we use some simple words to define it?.I don't like to put human beings into stanch departments with a label above that separates us according to our tendencies or way of living. That goes beyond semantical reasons,far beyond.-I don't know if I'm explaining well;not even I know  if I'm explaining... -.
In this case,somebody said that Ennis was "Jacksexual" and I´d add that he was "Jackemotional","Jacksentimental","Jackgloballyattachedto"...For him,Jack was all he needed,this right person who appears in the right moment,in the right place and when one needs someone right in this way.I've seen-and I'm speaking for own experience-how it could be the case that someone who always has been straight,or he/she has behaved as this,finds a same-sex person who can fill all his/her expectancies in all senses and often only social pressures can avoid them to "arrive" somewhere.So simple...
For this I've marked these phrases by Lance,that seem very suitable to me,as ever.And I'd add again that the best Ennis definition would be that he was an homophobic man in love with another man.So simple also,but so complicated at the same time.Hence their tragedy.

[tenn_man]

I have not posted much, but did give my two cents worth on this subject some time back.  After having read the recent posts, and especially including the "boxers" post, all I can say is whew!  I never really gave it the thought that it deserves.  I had wanted both men to be "gay" just to break the stereotype that is shown in the media and that is one reason that the movie resonated so much with me. I really believe now, after more thought, that it really does not matter.  I think Jack was indeed more at peace with the issue in his mind than was Ennis. I have known a few men that never even knew they were "gay" until later in life, so I guess there are many colors in the spectrum of sexuality.  For me, the important thing was the love they had.  I think the impact of BBM was so great for me because of both the emotional AND sexual love that these two shared. It would not have meant much to have one without the other.  Too bad it could not have been like the reunion kiss, always!

[Tony]

    Keeping an open mind on any discussion can sometimes bring a false compromise, or the gift of new information and a fuller understanding.
I am glad to say I experienced the latter, just recently, after watching Asali's new video-"I Surrender", which you can find by going to silver
wolves thread, pg. 898, mid-way down, and clicking it on.
   She's put together the loving scenes, and put them to music, and it's beautiful.  She had no agenda, but it is difficult to see this video and
not say---hang it up, folks, this was a gay love affair, one for the ages.  Forget about "was Ennis gay?".  The video is the answer.
   Am not switching sides. And am not going for a phony compromise.  For me, there is a football field full of information sustaining my original
sense that Ennis was straight and that his human needs trumped his sexual orientation, leading to a same-gender love, because Jack was the
only one who could break through to his heart.
  So that leaves me where?  Not either-or, but both versions.  I can now see this movie and the story as supporting both, independently, and that
is a greater wealth than I had before.
  I see not conflicting versions, but a dual offering from those creative minds involved.  The theme of love, human love, smashing through every
barrier, including sexual orientation (meaning, yes, I can still see Ennis as straight, and falling off a cliff). And an entirely different rendering,
of two gay men finding themselves, amidst a hostile world.
  This is not a compromise. I really believe, now, the two versions are distinct and contradict each other (and so this thread and discussion),
but further, show a duality to the movie, meaning---BOTH versions ARE there, in full force.  That's not waffling, nor compromising---it is for
me an expansion of the film.  Am not saying there are 2 films, or 2 takes on the film.  Am saying there was a genius there in giving both,
independently, within the same careful crafting and integration of the story.
  After seeing Asali's video, then, I see both takes , not as personal interpretations, take your choice, but as an expansion of the gift from BBM.
BOTH versions are there, not subjectively, for individual interpretation.  BOTH are really there.  Doubling the majesty of this film.
  It's long over-due to picket the Academy and get them to accept-they made a huge mistake at the Oscars.  They need to undo that mistake
by going back and giving new awards in the general area of---oops, did we screw that one up, or what?

[Tony]

   It's always awkward, posting, when others are doing the same and that red warning light comes on, and you don't know what to do.
MPJ, your post was so sensible, fair, and humane---and works for me.  Tenn-man, I hope my own post helps you keep your original take on
the movie, with full confidence.  You also kept an open mind, but what you saw was valid, and there is no need to lose any of the joy or comfort
you found.  Please post more often--you're a nice guy.

[lamusica]

I don't mean this comment to be off=topic, but, as far as the Oscars go, I no longer care.  No one who votes on the Oscars takes the time to watch and analyze any film as we have done here on this forum.  In fact, many people who vote actually do NOT watch the films in contention.  This became clear to me when I saw two women "stars" who are on the Oscar voters' list say, on LIVE TC, that they had NOT watched Brokeback Mountain before voting.  They HAD watched Crash because it is so star-studded ( with their friends!) and voted for Crash.  Now, is that intelligent voting?  I don't think so.  So, let the Oscars go.  They have lost any reason to revere them with this type of voter insousiance.
        Great posts above, Tony, Tenn, and Manhattan and MPJ!!!

[babytammy7]

I don't mean this comment to be off=topic, but, as far as the Oscars go, I no longer care.  No one who votes on the Oscars takes the time to watch and analyze any film as we have done here on this forum.  In fact, many people who vote actually do NOT watch the films in contention.  This became clear to me when I saw two women "stars" who are on the Oscar voters' list say, on LIVE TC, that they had NOT watched Brokeback Mountain before voting.  They HAD watched Crash because it is so star-studded ( with their friends!) and voted for Crash.  Now, is that intelligent voting?  I don't think so.  So, let the Oscars go.  They have lost any reason to revere them with this type of voter insousiance.
        Great posts above, Tony, Tenn, and Manhattan and MPJ!!!

Oh my.....         Just a question, weren't they ashamed of say in public that they did that? I can not believe it....

[Asali]

   Keeping an open mind on any discussion can sometimes bring a false compromise, or the gift of new information and a fuller understanding.
I am glad to say I experienced the latter, just recently, after watching Asali's new video-"I Surrender", which you can find by going to silver
wolves thread, pg. 898, mid-way down, and clicking it on.
   She's put together the loving scenes, and put them to music, and it's beautiful.  She had no agenda, but it is difficult to see this video and
not say---hang it up, folks, this was a gay love affair, one for the ages.  Forget about "was Ennis gay?".  The video is the answer.
  

Thankyou Tony, I don't know about the video being an answer but I find it much easier to express my thoughts through fanvids than to find the words that I am trying to say, the link for the one you mentioned "I Surrender"
If you click were it says more from Asali you will find others and most focus on ennis as I feel I connect in many ways with him but looking at them again today a couple of them really seem to sum up my thoughts on this topic, in particular 'Love Doesn't Ask Why' and 'Now and Forever'

I believe Ennis is a unique individual with a unique and troubled past who found love and completion in a gay man named Jack, who is also a unique individual with unique and troubled past.

Ennis and Jack were soul mates, not gay, not straight, just plain loving souls.

I think this is a wonderful way of  summing the answer up and I believe this.

[lancecowboy]

I have not posted much, but did give my two cents worth on this subject some time back.  After having read the recent posts, and especially including the "boxers" post, all I can say is whew!  I never really gave it the thought that it deserves.  I had wanted both men to be "gay" just to break the stereotype that is shown in the media and that is one reason that the movie resonated so much with me. I really believe now, after more thought, that it really does not matter.  I think Jack was indeed more at peace with the issue in his mind than was Ennis. I have known a few men that never even knew they were "gay" until later in life, so I guess there are many colors in the spectrum of sexuality.  For me, the important thing was the love they had.  I think the impact of BBM was so great for me because of both the emotional AND sexual love that these two shared. It would not have meant much to have one without the other. Too bad it could not have been like the reunion kiss, always!

Hi, tenn_man, I am so glad you wrote what I bolded and colored red above. I was in fact thinking of the same thing only this morning, waiting for an opportunity to post it. Thank you for the reminder.

To me, it is possible to have love without sex, as seen by so many people who share their lives, yet without sharing a bed. From comrades in arms, to spinster sisters, and best buddies.  It is also possible to have sex without love. Examples of this is easy to find. Neither is satisfactory in terms of the sublime transcendent romantic love that we all wish, because only when love is ignited by passion, and passion is sustained by love, that heaven on earth is made into paradise, that two souls can experience the ecstasy of merging into one, sharing ... everything. Ennis and Jack had this. It is what makes Ennis gay. It is what made the movie appealing. But the statement that Ennis is gay, is still not 100% accurate. That is what I was trying to say. And as usual, Tony comes through for me by proposing what is truly the correct viewpoint, that it is not a matter of "either-or" but a matter of both. Ennis is both straight and gay. Just as light can behave both as particles and waves, so Ennis can behave both as straight and gay, depending on the circumstance. It is also what Annie Proulx was saying when she says that these are two confused young men going up the mountain, who found love in each other when they left.

[...]
  So that leaves me where?  Not either-or, but both versions.  I can now see this movie and the story as supporting both, independently, and that is a greater wealth than I had before.
  I see not conflicting versions, but a dual offering from those creative minds involved.  The theme of love, human love, smashing through every barrier, including sexual orientation (meaning, yes, I can still see Ennis as straight, and falling off a cliff). And an entirely different rendering, of two gay men finding themselves, amidst a hostile world.
  This is not a compromise. I really believe, now, the two versions are distinct and contradict each other (and so this thread and discussion), but further, show a duality to the movie, meaning---BOTH versions ARE there, in full force.  That's not waffling, nor compromising---it is for me an expansion of the film.  Am not saying there are 2 films, or 2 takes on the film.  Am saying there was a genius there in giving both, independently, within the same careful crafting and integration of the story.
[...]

I think almost everything has been said about this question;so I,who has been very active these last days for technical problems-with my computer,not with me... -am afraid I'm not going to add anything important to it.I've always thought,however,that we need words to define things,persons,animals...but,what about personal and private feelings?Until what point can we use some simple words to define it?.I don't like to put human beings into stanch departments with a label above that separates us according to our tendencies or way of living. That goes beyond semantical reasons,far beyond.-I don't know if I'm explaining well;not even I know  if I'm explaining... -.
In this case,somebody said that Ennis was "Jacksexual" and I´d add that he was "Jackemotional","Jacksentimental","Jackgloballyattachedto"...For him,Jack was all he needed,this right person who appears in the right moment,in the right place and when one needs someone right in this way.I've seen-and I'm speaking for own experience-how it could be the case that someone who always has been straight,or he/she has behaved as this,finds a same-sex person who can fill all his/her expectancies in all senses and often only social pressures can avoid them to "arrive" somewhere.So simple...
For this I've marked these phrases by Lance,that seem very suitable to me,as ever.And I'd add again that the best Ennis definition would be that he was an homophobic man in love with another man.So simple also,but so complicated at the same time.Hence their tragedy.

You make perfect sense, myprivatejack, and you contribute a great deal. When I read what you wrote, I've bolded and colored red above, it rang true to me and I agree that it is precisely the cause of the tragedy. Ennis was fighting against his own nature as well as social customs. He tried to be straight, but wanted to be gay, with Jack. "There's no reins on this one."

And I echo what manhattangirl said, that if my passion for Ennis inadvertently offended anyone, I sincerely apologize.

[lancecowboy]

I've read all these wonderful post, but I still wonder about Ennis's sexuality,all that is written makes sense, but still I can't help but feel with Ennis and slow realization of his love for Jack, how he eliminates the women in his life, the one's that want him, and try to break through that hard interior which only Jack seems to. 

Ennis had no intimate connection to Alma, and Cassie seem unable to temper his thoughts or need for Jack. 

It also seems to me, and this just my opinion is that we almost make Ennis some supernatural sexless being, figure of myths and not the fragile human being he was, caught between his needs and his fears. 

Ennis was indeed a unique human being who found himself through another unique human being, they were gay, and in love.  Why is this so hard to even comprehend that their love, is a love story, in itself, and like with many of great love stories, a sense of joy and tragedy.

This just a thought of mine, and sorry if I upset anyone.

Hi, manhattangirl, I don't think you upset anyone, and least of all me. I don't think Ennis is some supernatural sexless being. I know that there has been talk of the difference in libido between Ennis and Jack. I can only go by what is written in the short story and shown in the movie. I am hesitant to speculate what is in Ennis' mind, before or after he met Jack.

In the short story, Ennis stated clearly that he "wrung it out a hundred times thinking about" Jack. In the movie, Ennis initiated horseplay with Jack on the mountain, and certainly shown his joy and love in the reunion. There is no doubt in Jack's mind that Ennis loves him, only not expressed in the way that Jack wanted, by living together. If they were living together, I have no doubt that sex would be frequent and brilliant, as said in the short story.

Ennis is not sexless, and I will borrow the phrase from myprivtejack, but Jacksexual. He is obsessed with Jack because Jack is his first and only love.  Alma and Cassie did not stand a chance trying to win his heart because he already gave his heart to Jack.

I think we will never know whether they would still fall in love if Ennis first married Alma and then met Jack. We will never know if Ennis and Jack met under different circumstances, for example working in a ranch, if they'd still fall in love. Perhaps Ennis' homophobia would prevent that in any circumstance except Brokeback Mountain. The fact, or the story, that it happened, indicates that their destiny was meant to be, and there is little point discussing what could've what should've, when what is, is so clear.

And a little off topic here, it does not take a supernatural being to be sexless and alone. Priests and many people old and young, have been doing it for ages. It is only in recent times, with media obsession of sex that we ourselves become obsessed with the idea that sex is essential, and indeed, becoming addicted to sex in all forms.

Ennis found release in his dreams, in his "wringing it out". We are talking of a man who is happy with beans, with "wanting nothing", and "stand it" when it can't be fixed. Jack may have need to find someone without Ennis, but Ennis was perfectly content, though brooding his missing Jack, when Cassie invited herself into his life. He was happy to have her companionship, but it was not the same as having Jack.

Just my two pennies worth.

[lamusica]

Oh, I think your opinion is worth a whole lot more than two cents, lance.  You hit the nail on the head with this post.  Good thinking, for sure!

[welshwitch]

I suppose I think we don't know what Ennis is because Ennis himself doesn't know,or doesn't want to because he's afraid to. He acknowledges what Jack is to him only after Jack's dead, so that there can be no pressure on him to act on it.

[myprivatejack]

I suppose I think we don't know what Ennis is because Ennis himself doesn't know,or doesn't want to because he's afraid to. He acknowledges what Jack is to him only after Jack's dead, so that there can be no pressure on him to act on it.

I agree with you;Ennis was mainly a complicated being,divided between the "would like" and the "must" during all his life.You're right,he didn't know himself,surely more for fear against he could find than for ignorance.As I said in my former post,he found the person who gave him affection,trust,who cared for him,who loved him as he was,or maybe in spite of being so...And he found this person in the right place and moment when he could go deeper into his heart,and he did.It happened to be another man,a shock for someone who had been taught in the idea that same sex love was a sin that deserved dead (and,maybe, that also sex was something bad outside marriage).But his need for love and affection-and for a very contaminated sex for what he had learned,both with women or men-was real and present,and he put a face,a body and a name to this need,and to the satisfaction of this need.That's all.

[tpe]

I agree with you there, tpe. Being straight is overrated, anyhow.

By the way, since we are getting into definitions, how would you define orientation? Do you mean sexual arousal or do you mean romantic attraction? I understand we are stepping into fuzzy areas where definitive sharp boundaries are impossible, but I just want to make a distinction between Ennis' attraction to Jack, which is one-of, and Jack's attraction to men, which is generic. Jack also loved Ennis, and Ennis only, but he was also attracted to other men. This was NOT the case with Ennis, at least in the short story, and certainly by all appearances in the movie also.

So, Ennis is certainly not straight (as in 100% straight), but you can hardly claim that he is 100% gay like Jack.

Hello lance. 

I have so much to catch up on this thread.  But I would like to thank all of you who contribute a lot of insights to the discussion.

Orientation is much more than sexual arousal or romantic attraction, I guess.   We should note that orientation connotes or takes into consideration some grayness.  It includes but is not limited to identity.

I quote the following definitions of orientation.  I boldface those that are of particular relevance to our discussion:

1. the act of orienting
2. an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs
3. position or alignment relative to points of the compass or other specific directions
4. a predisposition in favor of something
5. a person's awareness of self with regard to position and time and place and personal relationships
6. a course introducing a new situation or environment

The words "alignment" and "predisposition" are particularly noted.   Alignment does not mean that one points dead-on at a particular direction all the time.  Predisposition implies something innate.

Again, we are never sure whether Ennis wasn't attracted to other men.  He just didn't act on them.  Not acting on it does not mean that you are any less "gay" than someone who does (as in the case of Jack).  For most of the last 2000 years, gays hid their desires and feelings as best they could.  It does not mean that they were any less gay than those who openly live the gay lifestyle in the latter part of the 20th century.

I think there is room to argue whether Ennis was "gay" or "bisexual".  But I should note that one can also argue this in the case of Jack.  It is not really his relationships with other men that preclude that discussion.  As I had noted earlier, the fact that both had sexual relations with both men and women is not the defining factor here.

[tpe]

Once again, Tony, you have made your point very well.  IF we need to categorize people's sexuality, and IF we have to use labels, yours certainly make sense and Ennis certainly fits the Boxer's description.  I'm sure you find it hard to share some of the more personal parts of your own history, but they do help clarify your thoughts, and thus, help others to understand your very astute deductions.
      I do not intend to change the topic, but I just have to say ONE thing about labels -- something I have avoided commenting upon, but just can't keep my mouth shut any longer.  You touched upon this when you discussed the future which will further and further delineate everyone by narrowing all the definitions.  Historically, it is labels that have ruled the day: one drop of Jewish blood got you the concentration camp and death; one drop of Negroid blood got you enslaved; one drop of holy water saved your soul while everyone went to hell, etc.  As horrific as these things were, they were real and those who subscribed to them were the real monsters on this earth.  Can a label ever be a good thing?  Perhaps when stratefying species or classifying blood types, etc.  But labels that serve to box in certain individuals remain as deadly today as they ever were, and they frighten me in a way nothing else can.  I know some people feel the need to, in their own mind, at least, pinpoint Ennis's sexuality for once and for all, but I wonder why there is that need? What makes human beings think they need to know everything and have the right to injure others in their search?  Oh, well, just another rant!

Of course it can.  For the millions who died in the concentration camps, many would never have considered disowning that they were Jews.  The Jews have defined themselves as a people set apart time out of mind.  The word "Jew" was not something they shunned; they celebrated it.

As Barak Obama has said in one of the more recent debates, one cannot underestimate the power of the word.

The early Christians gladly went to their deaths rather than repudiate the label of "Christian".  There are so many instances in history where we see whole nations and peoples willing to die for a label.  They rightfully considered it worth dying for.

[tpe]

I have not posted much, but did give my two cents worth on this subject some time back.  After having read the recent posts, and especially including the "boxers" post, all I can say is whew!  I never really gave it the thought that it deserves.  I had wanted both men to be "gay" just to break the stereotype that is shown in the media and that is one reason that the movie resonated so much with me. I really believe now, after more thought, that it really does not matter.  I think Jack was indeed more at peace with the issue in his mind than was Ennis. I have known a few men that never even knew they were "gay" until later in life, so I guess there are many colors in the spectrum of sexuality.  For me, the important thing was the love they had.  I think the impact of BBM was so great for me because of both the emotional AND sexual love that these two shared. It would not have meant much to have one without the other.  Too bad it could not have been like the reunion kiss, always!

Welcome, tenn_man. 

I also have known a few people who accepted their gayness only much later in life. 

If we stop to think about why they needed to do that -- after a lifetime of silence -- I think most of them would have used that other most misunderstood and controversial of labels: for the sake of "truth".

What is "truth", asked Pilate.  Jesus was silent.  The reason was not that it could NOT be defined.  It was Jesus's way of saying that he himself was ther embodiment of truth.

So it is with us who argue about Ennis's and Jack's sexuality, and the use or disuse of labels. 

For many of those people who accepted who they were only late in life, there was no fundamental shift in their true nature -- even though they had remained silent about it for the majority of their lifetimes.





 

[aintfoolin]

I suppose I think we don't know what Ennis is because Ennis himself doesn't know,or doesn't want to because he's afraid to. He acknowledges what Jack is to him only after Jack's dead, so that there can be no pressure on him to act on it.

 If Ennis acknowledged that he and Jack are the same, he knows that something will be expected of him. To take action in some way.  Give more  of himself and demand less control over the relationship.   It would be be one less excuse  he'd have to keep the status quo and doing the hard part.  I totally agree with you WW.  I started a thread a while back, "How did Jack and Ennis  Really see each Other? In this I questioned how Ennis saw Jack really. Did he feel Jack was "queer"?  It was following  an act of homosexual sex that Ennis felt the need to inform Jack that "I aint queer" .and what did he mean "boys like you"? If he thinks Jack "queer" , prefers  sex with men, and he's not,  and does'nt , what the hell is he dong with Jack then? And what does that make him? How can he reconcile the two positions in his mind? Something's gotta give right?  Is'nt Ennis just lying to himself? Just sayin/askin.

 Tpe ,please apply your bolded entries to the argument above. I'm confused. At what point did Ennis cross over from not being open to this , to being open to it? and what does that really say about Ennis being predisposed to his experience with Jack. I'm leaning predisposed now. So complex this Ennis.... Does this make sense?

[tpe]

If Ennis acknowledged that he and Jack are the same, he knows that something will be expected of him. To take action in some way.  Give more  of himself and demand less control over the relationship.   It would be be one less excuse  he'd have to keep the status quo and doing the hard part.  I totally agree with you WW.  I started a thread a while back, "How did Jack and Ennis  Really see each Other? In this I questioned how Ennis saw Jack really. Did he feel Jack was "queer"?  It was following  an act of homosexual sex that Ennis felt the need to inform Jack that "I aint queer" .and what did he mean "boys like you"? If he thinks Jack "queer" , prefers  sex with men, and he's not,  and does'nt , what the hell is he dong with Jack then? And what does that make him? How can he reconcile the two positions in his mind? Something's gotta give right?  Is'nt Ennis just lying to himself? Just sayin/askin.

 Tpe ,please apply your bolded entries to the argument above. I'm confused. At what point did Ennis cross over from not being open to this , to being open to it? and what does that really say about Ennis being predisposed to his experience with Jack. I'm leaning predisposed now. So complex this Ennis.... Does this make sense?

Hello aintfoolin.  There are three definitions I boldfaced.  Each one is slightly nuanced and subtly different from the other.

What confuses you is the 5th definition.  I should note that awareness does not mean openness.  One can very much be aware and yet remain in deep denial.  In fact, denial would most likely be the reaction -- a protective mechanism -- to such an unwanted awareness.

Likewise, I do feel an inherent predisposition on Ennis's part, even though this is also open to discussion.  It is this predisposition that makes awareness possible.

[Asali]

What confuses you is the 5th definition.  I should note that awareness does not mean openness.  One can very much be aware and yet remain in deep denial.  In fact, denial would most likely be the reaction -- a protective mechanism -- to such an unwanted awareness.

Absolutely. It can begin with denial but then even when you admit and accept this awareness to yourself you may still not ever want the world to know and the fight continues within yourself.

[lamusica]

Of course it can.  For the millions who died in the concentration camps, many would never have considered disowning that they were Jews.  The Jews have defined themselves as a people set apart time out of mind.  The word "Jew" was not something they shunned; they celebrated it.

As Barak Obama has said in one of the more recent debates, one cannot underestimate the power of the word.

The early Christians gladly went to their deaths rather than repudiate the label of "Christian".  There are so many instances in history where we see whole nations and peoples willing to die for a label.  They rightfully considered it worth dying for.

I don't think anyone ever died for a label, but for what it stood for.  It is the labeling that is the dangerous thing -- not the premise shared by a group of people who wish to proclaim their similarity to the world.  The Jews died for their belief and culture -- not for the title of Jew; the early Christians died for their belief in Christ -- not for the title, or label, of Christian.  Barack Obama is correct -- NEVER underestimate the power of a word.  And that is why I maintain the WORD, the LABLE ,is a very dangerous thing. MHO

[lancecowboy]

I suppose I think we don't know what Ennis is because Ennis himself doesn't know,or doesn't want to because he's afraid to. He acknowledges what Jack is to him only after Jack's dead, so that there can be no pressure on him to act on it.

I am sorry that I have to disagree, welshwitch. In the short story, Ennis told Jack in the motel room in the reunion that he thought about Jack often, wringing it out hundreds of time. The reunion kiss itself was proof enough that Ennis understood this thing with no reins was more than just fun and games. He just didn't know this was love, until Cassie told him love is more than just having fun, with tears coming down her face. He ACTED on this, immediately after that scene, we saw the postcard he sent to Jack, to confirm the November date. The tragedy of the movie is that when Ennis was finally ready to Jack halfway, Jack was dead.

It is a little surreal for me at the moment, considering the news. I am just carrying on as usual, not wanting to deal the sadness and pain. It's just too unreal.

[tpe]

I don't think anyone ever died for a label, but for what it stood for.  It is the labeling that is the dangerous thing -- not the premise shared by a group of people who wish to proclaim their similarity to the world.  The Jews died for their belief and culture -- not for the title of Jew; the early Christians died for their belief in Christ -- not for the title, or label, of Christian.  Barack Obama is correct -- NEVER underestimate the power of a word.  And that is why I maintain the WORD, the LABLE ,is a very dangerous thing. MHO

For many, the label stands for what they stood for.  Every word in every language is a label, if you want to think about it in terms of Platonic concepts.

Take for example the Christain martyrs of Japan.  It was enough for them to go free if they did 2 things: (1) explicitly declare that they were not Christian, and (2) step on a crucifix.

Now, one can argue with them that, sure, they can declare themselves NOT Christian and step on the crucifix, even though deep inside, they remained true to what they stood for.  After all, "Christain" was just a label, and a crucifix was just a symbol.

But none of them did that.    Because to them, the label/symbol and the reality was one and the same.  The label/symbol was synonymous with what they stood for.  And thousands went to their deaths for their obstinacy.

Again, take the Christians under the Roman Imperial persecutions.  They were considered unreasonable by the Hellenes because they were simply required at various times to burn incense before the Imperial effigy, and they refused.  Also, if we are to believe the accounts of Pliny the Younger and the Church Fathers, a simple repudiation of the title "Christian" also sufficed in some instances to save these people, but they didn't.  For them, the act of burning incense before an effigy and/or repudiating a label was tantamount to apostasy:

Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam: ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quaeri. Nec mediocriter haesitavi, sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum, an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant; detur paenitentiae venia, an ei, qui omnino Christianus fuit, desisse non prosit; nomen ipsum, si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia nomini puniantur. Interim, iis qui ad me tamquam Christiani deferebantur, hunc sum secutus modum. Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani. Confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi supplicium minatus; perseverantes duci iussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque esset quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri..

Fuerunt alii similis amentiae, quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos. Mox ipso tractatu, ut fieri solet, diffundente se crimine plures species inciderunt. Propositus est libellus sine auctore multorum nomina continens. Qui negabant esse se Christianos aut fuisse, cum praeeunte me deos appellarent et imagini tuae, quam propter hoc iusseram cum simulacris numinum afferri, ture ac vino supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent Christo, quorum nihil cogi posse dicuntur qui sunt re vera Christiani, dimittendos putavi. Alii ab indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt; fuisse quidem sed desisse, quidam ante triennium, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante viginti. Hi quoque omnes et imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra venerati sunt et Christo male dixerunt.

Plinius, X 96


Actually I have never been present at a Examination (cognitio) of Christians, so I do not know what punishment is required or how far it is to be carried out. Nor do I understand the legal grounds for a prosecution, or how stringently it is to be prosecuted. I am not clear about prosecutions in respect to the age of the persons, whether no distinction should be made between the young and the old, and furthermore whether a pardon should be granted in cases of recanting, or if there is no advantage for a person completely ceasing to be a Christian. Or is it the name "Christian" which is prosecutable, even if not involved in criminal actions, or is that "criminality" is automatically attached to the name?

In the meantime, I now handle it this way with those who are turned over to me as Christians. I ask them directly, in person, if they are Christian, I ask a second and third time to be sure, and indicate to them the danger of their situation. If they persist, I order them executed. I have had no trouble with this, since whatever it was they admitted or professed, I decided that their obstinacy and unyielding inflexibility should be sufficient reason for punishment. Some others who were virtually insane with this cult, but Roman citizens, I sent back to Rome for trial.

[lamusica]

Thomas, I refute nothing you have written.  However, I still maintain the label can, and often is and has been, and, unfortunately will continue to be, a cause of cruelty, false judgement,  punishment, death,etc.  Your examples above give proof to this.  True, every noun is a label, but some labels carry no connotations that allow prejudices to contaminate the labels.  For example, a pencil is a pencil.  A pencil engenders no emotional response for most people.  People will not argue over what a pencil is, or the value of a pencil in the world.  I doubt if anyone will endeavor to destroy all the pencils in the world because they sometimes write inappropriate words.  But labels that people CAN interpret as limiting others can, and often do, cause judgements, prejudices, etc.
When the Christians refused to refute the title of Christian to save themselves, they were refusing to refute their beliefs, not the title.  The label was only the umbrella under which all their beliefs were sheltered.
       Also, I think we have to take into consideration who is doing the labeling.  I may proudly proclaim myself to be  Christian, but, if you hate Christians, and YOU proclaim me to be  a Christian, you are limiting me, thus denigrating me  -- setting me up to be hated.
       I realize this topic may be a bit OT, but it is labels that we are trying to put on Ennis that prompted the discussion.  So, if this discussion is not appropriate in this thread, we should find a new place for it.

[orangetruck]

....It is a little surreal for me at the moment, considering the news. I am just carrying on as usual, not wanting to deal the sadness and pain. It's just too unreal.

I'm with you there. 

[tpe]

Thomas, I refute nothing you have written.  However, I still maintain the label can, and often is and has been, and, unfortunately will continue to be, a cause of cruelty, false judgement,  punishment, death,etc.  Your examples above give proof to this.  True, every noun is a label, but some labels carry no connotations that allow prejudices to contaminate the labels.  For example, a pencil is a pencil.  A pencil engenders no emotional response for most people.  People will not argue over what a pencil is, or the value of a pencil in the world.  I doubt if anyone will endeavor to destroy all the pencils in the world because they sometimes write inappropriate words.  But labels that people CAN interpret as limiting others can, and often do, cause judgements, prejudices, etc.
When the Christians refused to refute the title of Christian to save themselves, they were refusing to refute their beliefs, not the title.  The label was only the umbrella under which all their beliefs were sheltered.
       Also, I think we have to take into consideration who is doing the labeling.  I may proudly proclaim myself to be  Christian, but, if you hate Christians, and YOU proclaim me to be  a Christian, you are limiting me, thus denigrating me  -- setting me up to be hated.
       I realize this topic may be a bit OT, but it is labels that we are trying to put on Ennis that prompted the discussion.  So, if this discussion is not appropriate in this thread, we should find a new place for it.

I understand what you mean, and it is relevant to the topic at hand, IMO.  But we can certainly let the matter rest, as I do see your point, and it is indeed valid.

[manhattangirl]

Thomas, lamusica,

What you're discussing is fascinating.  My take is Ennis was "Passing" for straight in order to live in a world that he knew he would be killed if they ever found he was "queer". 

He never refuted who he was, not with Jack anyway.  But in order to live and function in his world, he had to be something he wasn't.   This was preservation mode.  Solely done so he can work, live, and not be found strung up in an irrigation ditch. 

Right or wrong labels run through this story, "queer", "Jack Nasty", "boys like you", there was no getting around it, or getting away from it.  Labels were like tire irons, and it beat both of them down.

[lamusica]

Manhattan, your post reminds me of something that has always resonated with me.  When Ennis is drying dishes and Alma tells him about the untouched fishing gear, she calls Jack "Jack Nasty"; however, she doesn't refer to "Ennis nasty"  She doesn't accuse Ennis of nastiness, although she saw him kissing Jack just as ardently as Jack was kissing Ennis.  What does this signify, I wonder.  In her mind, was Ennis less responsible for his actions, was he less gay?  She now knew why he preferred sex in a position she hated.  She knew why he took off from time to time to meet Jack.  But, STILL, she, in some way, exhonorates him, or at least gives him the opportunity to explain himself.  Of course, he just responds with anger and leaves.  What was Alma's take on Ennis's sexuality at this point?

[ksxks]

Fascinating, lamusica.  Alma blamed Jack.  Well, she blamed Ennis, too, but like it was Jack's fault he was doing what he was doing.  Maybe in just that one meeting with him and seeing him the next morning, she formed some opinion of what men like that are -- he was too pretty, too well dressed, etc.  She knew Ennis, but didn't know Jack, so she based her views of gay men (as we say now, though she didn't) on Jack.

kathy

[manhattangirl]

Manhattan, your post reminds me of something that has always resonated with me.  When Ennis is drying dishes and Alma tells him about the untouched fishing gear, she calls Jack "Jack Nasty"; however, she doesn't refer to "Ennis nasty"  She doesn't accuse Ennis of nastiness, although she saw him kissing Jack just as ardently as Jack was kissing Ennis.  What does this signify, I wonder.  In her mind, was Ennis less responsible for his actions, was he less gay?  She now knew why he preferred sex in a position she hated.  She knew why he took off from time to time to meet Jack.  But, STILL, she, in some way, exhonorates him, or at least gives him the opportunity to explain himself.  Of course, he just responds with anger and leaves.  What was Alma's take on Ennis's sexuality at this point?

For me:

She was in with love him.  Jack was her rival.  She saw what she saw, not that Ennis had Jack pinned against that wall , but Jack had Ennis pinned.   Perception is everything, Ennis was lure away from her, by this man, making Ennis have these "unnatural" feelings. I think she stayed because she wanted to win him back, not because she had not place to go, or no one to turn to, she knew the grocer was in the wings, and he was sweet on her.  It was things like the church social, the better job he refused to look for, was saying she just didn't matter to him.  After a time this could wears you down,  wears you out.   How can you fight the light in your husband's eyes for another man, and see no light, nothing at all when he looks at you.  This was "Jack Nasty" fault, not Ennis, If she blamed Ennis,  the irrigation ditch would have been a reality, with a whispered word, she could have destroyed him, but she didn't.