The Women of Brokeback Mountain
-
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 11:15 AM)
Mostly I edited this for clarity but I am going to add this paragraph - you like "assured men" who don't take crap? I call BS on your post. You need to reply, not just assert. We don't have to agree and you don't have to go back and forth with me ten times, but you have kinda said whatever want including accusing me of having an agenda and that is baloney. I'm just having a discussion here. Or maybe I should say try to since you don't want to talk if you don't agree? Original post follows:
Much of what I have posted is directly to counter what you have said - eg. Lureen wasn't completely honest. How can you ignore this? (Edit - this doesn't mean I'm saying Jack was honest, he had more reason to lie and as I have said elsewhere, at that time gay was considered curable) (Again,) she KNEW he had nothing and she came from a very wealthy family. You don't think she had her pick of guys being pretty as well?
Why would she pick Jack?
I say she wanted to control him. This doesn't mean she had NO feelings for him.
Speaking of ignoring, even in your first response, you ignored that she wouldn't call the teacher, she was always at the adding machine
So if you don't want to talk now, despite this being your post and I haven't been rude to you, that is okay. But since most of what I'm talking about is undisputed history of the times or from the actual movie itself, what is my agenda? -
JayHysterio — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 03:13 PM)
I don't know what your agenda is; gaystraight but a woman haterdoesn't matter. All I read is you're blaming Lureen where she is totally blameless.
Wanting to be in control isn't dishonesty. And she never misrepresented herself from the moment she met Jack. SHE MADE THE ADVANCES. She took the initiative in the car. No one Twisted Jack's armhe knew who she was, but did she know who he was?
Now, let's look at Jacknot only was he marrying knowing that he was gay, but also that he was cheating on Lureen with Ennis and other men. Did Lureen know this before? Do you honestly think she would've married Jack had she known?
Jack was weak and dishonest. Lureen was a strong woman who made a mistake, but she was misled by Jack 100% while she didn't mislead him at all.
Might I also mention how the second Jack found out about Ennis' divorce, he was right over there ready to move to Texas with him. Didn't give a damn about his wife and kid, and couldn't wait to replace poor Alma.
Jack was a terrible person. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 06:52 PM)
I already told you my agenda - I'm having a discussion. You said she was good, I said she wasn't evil but I disagree that she was blameless. PS trying to get you just to acknowledge another POV, on THIS subject, does NOT make me a woman hater. At any time in history, but especially in 1963 when a woman took a "weak" man, she knew what she was getting. When they got married Jack never thought he would see Ennis again.
Why did she pick Jack, knowing how important money was to her and knowing he had nothing?
Did he know who she was, how her father was? I doubt any two people really know each other until they get married! Do you really think Jack is terrible for being aware that if he is honest about being gay, he may starve or be killed? If you really think that, don't bother to read any more or respond.
As I also said, society is at least 70% if not more so responsible for this situation as Jack is. VERY few people live up to standards of honesty and integrity that you outline including (most likely) you. I work a government job. I really hate some of the policies they have, but they are voted on by the legislature and many are put in place by the Feds. Can I quit after this many years with numerous health problems? No way. Society plays a part here too. People could push for better non discrimination laws, but I can't fight that one all by myself. I think there are aspects of MOST jobs that people feel are unethical. You want Jack to pay with his life but are you asking the same of everyone else?
I don't think we know Jack was dishonest (for a long time anyway) - I thought he got married after that first summer on Brokeback and he didn't see Ennis until 4 years later. Since the first time fooling around without Ennis by Jack was mentioned was 20 years later, there is no way to know how much or when he started. At one point Jack said his marriage was "normal" and much later he said "their marriage could be done on the phone." It seems unlikely that this was 100% Jack's fault. Now to Jack rushing off after Ennis got divorced - He had been dealing with a non marriage 20 years and a father in law that hated him. He had little control in his own house or at the school about his son. So in many ways he was absent and overlooked already. I also think you could make a case that a happy father part time would be better than a miserable father 100% of the time. Isn't that one big reason divorce is allowed now?
At this point, I have to wonder how old you are, since you show no mercy at all about Jack marrying a woman, knowing he had feelings for men. I wonder why you even watched this movie. You apparently have no understanding how hard it was for Gay men then. I don't know for sure about the USA, but it was less than 100 years ago in Britain that you could go to prison for LIFE for being Gay. And with hard labor. Contrast this with people who ignore safety regulations and people die on the job. Not one CEO has gone to prison in 70 years of OSHA for the death of a worker. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 02:03 AM)
Without getting too immersed in roles within sexual relationships, I think Lureen chose Jack because he was the sort of man she was looking for- submissive, reactive, able to let her take the lead, willing to be second fiddle. I also believe that she was angling to take over her daddy's business in a time when women just didn't do that sort of thing.
When I was a kid, there was a girl in school who was the only child of the biggest land holder in the district. She was going to be worth a fortune
to the man who married her
. There was no thought that she would take over the farm on her own.
Jack's personality was suitable for Lureen's purposes. She was a dominant, assertive person- the 'assured' character that the OP respects. She was also a long-term planner, and truly Machiavellian. A generation earlier, and she would have manoeuvred Jack into the top job and directed him from 'behind'. For her generation, the pretext of marriage was all that was required for her to effectively take the reigns.
I see her as being just as cynical in her reasons for marriage as Jack.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 05:50 AM)
Phy - hear your points, things were different for many women in the past. A female relative of mine divorced her cheating husband in the 1950s or 60's, I'm not sure, Fairly unheard of. Ran the farm with her teen sons and a hired hand or two.
I agree that Lureen was manipulating Jack to get what she wanted. Is she more honest than Jack per Jay Hysterio? Probably. She wasn't in the same circumstances though.
So, do you think Jack was a terrible person and horribly dishonest? -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 07:39 AM)
I think she was being a manipulative person, perhaps in the sort of way that Lester has contempt for. She would have crushed Ennis if he were her partner. I don't see that in Alma.
But Jack was happy to go along with it. She didn't need to manipulate him into taking a secondary/submissive role, much like the traditional female role in most societies. Jack wanted that with Ennis. What Lureen got was a wild card, a twist in her plot (pun intended) that she didn't see coming.
It didn't really affect her plan- in fact it may have fast-tracked it. But I think she ultimately felt double crossed. I guess she figured Jack was aware of her agenda, and happy for her to do it and he ride along. That he was not in love with her and wanted to be looked after while he dreamt his whiskey dreams about Ennis and others wasn't a motivation that she read in him, or saw coming.
I think she felt she'd been played by a player she was trying to play, and that she was played worse than she played. She offered Jack what he seemed to be happy with. What Jack put over on her was, in her opinion I think, far worse, totally unexpected, and undeserved.
I think she knew who Jack really was when she talked to Ennis on the phone, even if it were so that Jack's death was accidental in the way she describes.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 08:06 AM)
I think I need to not try to rush my replies or posts. Will start writing them in the evening only and then look them over again the next day before sending!
Yes, you're right, She didn't manipulate Jack in the usual sense of the word. You and I already discussed the rich girl in town where you lived so I thought my general meaning was clear enough if not technically 100% accurate. We do agree, I think that she took a (and I'm not intending to be harsh here) loser, from her perspective, with nothing, for what purpose?
The book still hasn't come and it supposedly shipped the same day I ordered it. So, the movie was way too vague and that is surely part of why there are so many opinions on everything here on these boards to say nothing of the writer's existing mindset. Meeting someone for sex in a car and then going from there to marriage doesn't explain anything. Even if Lureen needed a man to inherit the business, and got one who wasn't completely submissive, I'm sure her father would have been able to handle the situation easily. It was his company after all.
I got the feeling at the beginning Jack was a pretty decent, average guy. He was dealt a hard hand with his rigid, uncaring father. Very poor education and very disadvantaged economically. He would work, however, he wasn't out stealing. He was never portrayed as trying to hoodwink anyone or take advantage. If he was a player, and I'm not sure where you got that idea, he surely wouldn't have "almost starved" the year he made 2 or 3 thousand dollars. I never got the impression he tried to dump work on Ennis either. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 09:07 PM)
Well, on the flip side, Lureen didn't marry Jack because she wanted a strong man to fight her fights for her. Particularly in taking on her dad. At best, she could tolerate Jack occasionally running interference. But I see her as a trade-off person, reasoning that Jack was getting plenty of positive back his way, and could face off against her father any time he wanted. Truly Machiavellian- ambition and advancement by making others around her wealthy. She wasn't going to be told by her father to get rid of Jack, so he was safe in the relationship. Perhaps more so because he pissed her father off.
Jack, otoh, knew he was deceiving Lureen, and not for the better. He couldn't even pull a
Crying Game
excuse with Lureen (I thought you knew). As a betrayal, it's palpable enough for a 'Jack's death' scenario in which she finds out, is embarrassed, ashamed and outraged (same as Alma) and reacts by blowing his cover in town, either purposefully or by 'accident' of confiding in a 'friend'.
Alma spared Ennis that. She hated Jack Nasty, in that strange way that people do (blame the other rather than their partner- the one who actually betrayed them. The other is merely an accessory), but she didn't take Ennis' pride, his social status or his girls from him.
She could have destroyed him, but she would have had to bare the associated shame, given the times. Perhaps Lureen, given the scenario I offered above, found that she didn't get the 'poor victim' status that you'd expect from such a betrayal today, but instead got variously laughed at (how many townsfolk would have been able to see her rather obvious agenda), ridiculed and even hated for what she brought into the community. I've seen that happen.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 09:35 PM)
I'm assuming you read most of the posts here, so I think it is safe to say it has been alleged that Lureen married Jack to piss off her father, but do we really have proof? I don't know any stats, but it is surely a common enough theme in any movie that no man is good enough for "my daughter" to marry. And vice versa. Another theme that is common (and I have seen this in real life often enough) wealthy people feel very superior to those with less wealth than them. I'd even go so far as to say Lureen's father would be a not uncommon "Texas or southern" or maybe just a father-in-law attitude towards Jack.
Secondly, Jack never thought he would see Ennis again. You didn't respond at all to my ideas that Jack was a pretty decent fellow - for all we know he didn't send that post card for four years because he really was trying to make a hetero marriage work. Again, no proof that he deliberately deceived Lureen. (feel free of course to jump in with whatever your thoughts are on this) And he did seem to care about his son. They really didn't show a lot of Lureen, so she may have suspected, but what evidence do you have to say she knew about Jack and Ennis? The remark 'oh yes, the fishing buddy " could have meant just that or that she knew. Although remember Jack always drove to Wyoming. She was so busy with her adding machine, I doubt she had any idea Jack went to Mexico. Anyway, that is the greatness of this movie, so many opportunities for the viewer to imagine (parts) of his own story!
Yes, I have worked 30 years in offices. I have never ever understood why the woman is mad at the other woman, and not her husband who cheated. He made the vows, not the other woman. The other woman may not even know he is married! -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 10:25 PM)
It's a fair point about Jack fooling himself, same as Ennis. Jack is portrayed as being far more accepting of his sexuality, to the point of being reckless. The first time we meet him he is checking Ennis out. He knew the fact of his sexuality going in to marriage, in contrast with Ennis.
But it is a fair comment that he was trying to be a good country boy. That is the mojo of the story, so it fits with the goal of the fiction. I can see that Jack represents someone who is far more aware of his sexuality yet still feels compelled to adhere to the existing norms. He doesn't get saddled with the job of expressing/representing homophobia by Proulx- he is just playing the game that his society demanded of him.
That makes Jack cynical in his decision. Ennis is initially naive, but as his self-awareness grows his naivety turns to ignorance. I don't see any of the characters as being manipulative in a knowing, or 'evil', sense. I do see Jack as trading off in the same way as Lureen.
I think that the 'whiskey dreams' idea suggests that we are to take Jack as falling into situations rather than engineering them. It's difficult to imagine that he didn't realise his sexuality and the lie he gave in making his wedding vows. But it's not so difficult to imagine him ignoring his sexuality and his lie to Lureen and focusing on the trade-offs, all in a subliminal way.
Iow, he and Lureen had a fundamental compatibility in ignoring the downsides of their morally dubious commitment to each other while focusing vaguely, intuitively on the upsides. It could be said that both knew in their hearts that what they were doing wasn't truly sincere, but they were listening to their mind's appraisal of their social situation too intently to hear their hearts.
I side with Lureen marrying Jack for reasons of gain. Marrying the sort of man that her dad would approve of would have meant that she would have to effectively hand over her inheritance to her husband when the time came. It was her inheritance, and she was going to have it for herself- misogyny be damned. Her dad could only despise a man who would let a woman be the stud duck. I say that because 'stud duck' is a strong theme in the story, and the in-law relationships are there primarily to represent that idea.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 11:55 PM)
Forgive me for beating this to death, but I take away from your answer a bit of contradiction. In one place you say Jack was compelled by society (I'd say he didn't have any options - he did say he nearly starved to death rodeoing), you say none of the characters were evil, then you twice say "his lie to Lureen." I think of it more as not telling the whole truth, rather than a bald faced lie; but then who does tell all? No one would ever get married!
If Jack is making an honest effort to make a hetero marriage work, then his wedding vows weren't lies, at the time and for four years, anyway. He seemed a lot more into Lureen when they met and in the car (sexually I mean) than Ennis did with Alma. The simultaneous plus and minus of this film is the viewer has to read between the lines so much and there aren't many to digest. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 05:50 AM)
I'd counter that with Jack saying to Ennis that Ennis doesn't know what it's like for Jack to have to go without sex for a year at a time. He seems to consider sex to be an act done with a male, and can't get no sexual satisfaction with Lureen.
The lie is the promise of fidelity. I don't see any reason in the movie to believe that Jack told Lureen that he had to have sex with men to feel sexually fulfilled- that he was gay. It's not a small thing to keep from your significant other prior to making those promises.
I'd accept the idea that Jack wasn't exactly the religious type, and didn't see the vows as serious enough to force him to question his decision, or feel compelled to disclose to Lureen. Whether you see it as a little white lie (before God) or a great big stinker, or somewhere in between, he lied. I'd also accept your idea that he was lying to himself first, but not foremost.
I think Lureen got the foremost, and regardless of motivations or beliefs, she has to suffer the consequences of Jack's behaviour. One merciful omission by Proulx is a discussion of STDs. But Lureen risked more than embarrassment by marrying Jack. He lied to her daily. He lied about going to Mexico. He lied about Ennis.
He could have nipped it in the bud by being honest with Lureen, but that would have required not conforming to the norm pressures. Without that there is no BM, no story, no no Ennis without Jack, and no SNAFU-FUBAR.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 02:17 PM)
When Jack told Ennis "you don't know what its like", that was 20 years later. At another earlier visit, but still many years after J/E met, Ennis asked Jack was everything "normal" in their marriage? Jack answered yes. Sure sounded like he was referring to Jack having sex with Lureen. Apparently their sex life changed between the "everything is fine visit" and the "we could do our marriage on the phone" visit. We also don't know when Jack started to go to Mexico but it doesn't seem like right away. I say it was years, because I don't think Jack was foolish enough to jeopardize his marriage AND his job immediately. Life has been too hard on him prior to this. I don't know if you can say Jack thought only sex with men was "valid". But at any rate, we agree it was no small thing to keep his homosexual desires from his wife. But (a) I don't know how you would have brought that up in 1965 or whenever and (b) Maybe he thought he could beat it. (no pun intended)
I know people who make promises and never intend to keep them even the same minute they are saying the promise. On what basis are you saying Jack did this? I still say he is basically a decent guy and tried to make his marrige work with Lureen. To be fair, maybe he was hoping. Either way, not a lie. He knows the risks of actively pursuing homosexuality. He didn't look up Ennis for four years. Doesn't that say something? (when I was in love, a day or two seemed like an eternity..)
Breaking a promise years later is infidelity, absolutely, but it isn't a lie at the time of the wedding vows. Personally, I have every intention of keeping my promises, and I do keep the vast majority. But if I don't, I'm human. Not a liar. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:11 PM)
I guess I have to admit that I have a friend who lied to two women about his sexuality, marrying them and having a total of four kids. He was conflicted, having grown up in a small town and having to hide his sexuality, but he knew all along that he was far from sincere. The effect on the women was devastating. His kids won't speak to him; not because he is gay per se, but because he lied about it in such a monumentally significant way.
I find it difficult to believe that someone in that situation isn't aware that they are deceiving their wife, and knowing of that when they make their vows. Jack seems to me to be representative of such men; that is the point of his character. Ennis represents men who genuinely reject their sexuality and have overblown fears, while Jack represents men who accept their sexuality but chose to follow the hetero path for reasons other than (strictly) fear.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:37 PM)
Your friend unequivocally did wrong when marrying a second time. When you say he was conflicted, what exactly does this mean? He was absolutely Gay the whole time and if so how would you know? How old was he and what time period did all these events take place? Seems like
if he was a good father
, at least one of the children would grow into adulthood and forgive. Or maybe the kids were too young when the divorces took place (?)
The book and movie are more ambiguous about Jack, though. We cannot know what was in his mind when he made his wedding vows. He may have been seriously trying to make it work. Neither say he went to Mexico or fooled around between his marriage and four years later and he reunited with Ennis. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 10:22 PM)
Yeah, the second marriage was close to unforgivable.
He was conflicted because he knew without doubt that he was gay, but felt the need to conform to hetero norms.
He confided after his second marriage that he knew all along, from puberty onward. He was born at the end of the sixties. He is a hap-hazard father. Part of that is his desire to put his sexuality first as he feels he was made sexually stunted, retarded by society and wants to put himself first, over and above his kids and their needs.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
JayHysterio — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 06:40 AM)
You go a long way around the barn to address something that is pretty basic. 95% of your post is off topic.
Lureen NEVER MISLED JACK. He knew from the first that she was aggressive and a woman who went after what she wantedher reasons are irrelevant; Jack knew what he was getting into. There was nothing in that film that said she was using Jack to take over her dad's business which she stood to legally inherit anyway.
Also, Jack's issue wasn't with Lureen, but with her dad, who no doubt didn't want Jack taking over his business.
You didn't follow the film; Jack hit on the rodeo clown before he met Lureen and his fling with Ennis no doubt showed his deception. His subsequent flings with Ennis and prostitutes while still married is bad behavior no matter how you spin it. Get a divorce if he wanted Ennis that badly.
I repeathad Lureen known about Jack's true nature would she ever have married him? No way. But he hid it.
I also know a woman who married and she said as soon as they got married, the man stopped having sex with her. She then discovered he was gay and had only married her to prevent suspicion of his activities. This is no different, Jack misled her first, then cheated on her.
You can only take this liberal attitude so far. Common decency is more important. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 07:21 AM)
Jay - this is really getting tiring. see 1 through 3
(Just announcing 95% of my post is irrelevant is kind of rude as well. This is a discussion board, point out
why
95% is irrelevant, if you feel that way.)- you refuse to answer my questions. only one example - I don't know how you can just ignore me saying Jack not conforming to society by not marrying and pursuing a gay relationship could cost him his life, and apparently did anyway.
- you keep misrepresenting what we DO know.
(a)Jack hit on the rodeo clown BEFORE he ever met Lureen.
(b)Jack married Lureen thinking he would never see Ennis again - this doesn't mean he wouldn't eventually cheat on Lureen,
but he didn't marry her while cheating with Ennis
or anyone else. - you constantly tearing down Jack, validly or not, does not make Lureen innocent in this. She may or may not have inherited the business automatically. Things were dicey for women then (without a husband or child/heir). Her picking a loser with nothing DO cast aspersions on her motives. Don't you see? He was way beneath her financially, educationally, every kind of way. You ignored this too - she was rich and pretty, could have had anyone she wanted. (remember Jack responding to the bartender - "do I look like I can afford the entry fees for calf roping?" So he LOOKED poor. There was no mistake what she was choosing.
(remember this discussion started out about good women. Is picking a loser to manipulate what a good woman does?)
As I have said in other places, I thought on this posting, Gay men were told it was a passing phase. Jack and Ennis didn't really think of themselves as queer anyway (yes, I'll be fair, Ennis more so), men were expected to get married no matter what in those days. A bachelor was considered very oddly. I know - my great uncle was one.
You cannot presume as you do that Jack married Lureen solely to cover up his homosexuality or to get a job.
He didn't know that Lureen was from a rich family when they met and again, he didn't ever expect to see Ennis again. I don't think there is any indication he married her solely to cover up his homosexuality. He may have, but to say for sure he did, what you have said so far was all before he met her.
You go on and on about "Jack's dishonesty" which I've addressed the bulk of but you forget - in those days it was a man's world. Women were expected to take a lot of crap from a man, both getting beaten and affairs were supposed to be overlooked too. Men getting drunk all the time and many other things was just overlooked as "boys will be boys." Men were completely in charge of the kids, the house, the finances. I've said I don't condone Jack's dishonesty, where it actually occurred, but I understand why he did it. You don't seem to. Sorry if I'm mistaken, but I get the impression you are putting a special burden on Jack for lying and not acknowledging the preceding about how it was for women in 1963 with husbands generally. You say Common decency is more important? Yes, lying and the outcomes are sad. But you don't seem to have grasped the impossible burden society put on Gay men at that time, which was almost the whole point of this movie, I wonder why you even watched it. ***
I asked how old you were, because if you didn't live through some of this like I did, it is one thing to talk about, it is another to feel some of this deeply right down to the bone.
*** there was a post somewhere in here, a woman said two married farmers were caught having an affair when she was a kid. No one would work for one of them, he LOST his farm. Does this happen to hetero people, where people would refuse to work for an adulterer? Maybe in 1800 but not in the early 1980s. This is the double standard I'm talking about.
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 01:44 AM)
While I agree that Jack knowingly misled Lureen, and had Lureen had known about his sexuality it may have stopped her from marrying Jack, I disagree that she would 'outright' inherit her father's business. She would in name, but in the times that BM discusses she would (likely) have not had executive control without a 'front man'.
She needed a compliant male, willing to take a back seat with her on top- the movie gives us that image quite bluntly. Jack is 'out front' being the 'sales face', while she keeps the books and drives the business. She pays him, he works for her.
Today that would be all very acceptable, even if the male might get some stick from his friends with castration jokes etc. But in the 60s-70s, it was thoroughly expected that the male would inherit, even as an in-law.
That is supported by Proulx's discussion of 'stud duck'. We can speculate that not all relationships at that time would be bound to that social expectation, but in BM Proulx goes to some lengths to discuss the misogyny of the times, using the term stud duck to describe both Lureen's and Jack's fathers.
It was a prevalent attitude, one that I believe Proulx wanted to get across by using Lureen's need to have a replacement stud duck who was no more than a decoy. See what I did there? Anyway; I don't see a need for speculation re the times (even though that would only bolster the argument that Lureen was using Jack), as Proulx seems to want us to see it that way regardless.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
JayHysterio — 9 years ago(September 22, 2016 03:02 PM)
Nope. In lieu of no other heirs, it would've legally been her company no matter what the times were back then, and you know damn well her Dad would've excluded Jack from ownership. She knew the books and contacts and the business, all Jack knew was selling, he never rose above being a salesman.
It proves my point about Jack being weak, he never would've had a job like that without Lureen, he'd still be a ranch hand. She gave him a good living. He stayed in an unhappy marriage under her dad's abuse and his subservience to Lureen. A real man would've walked.
And in any case, from what we know Lureen never cheated on him. Jack cheated on her with several, including the guy from the dance that he actually brought home to meet his parents. So he actually cheated on Ennis too.
Jack was a Class AAA screw up. I felt no pity for him at his demise, no matter how it happened.