The discussion about how Jack truly died in this movie has been interesting, here on this board and on the other boards.
But one thing that I feel strongly about....and as it states in my sig....it's impossible to try to have these type of discussions if you mix the two media.
The movie is a movie and is has to be analyzed on the content contained within it. The short story is likewise the short story and has to be analyzed on it's own.
As an example (....at this point in time anyway...) no one would consider to argue a point of discrepancy in the short story by quoting what they found in the film. People would say (or do tend to say...) well, surely the author of the story has the last word, if someone were to try to counter an interpretation of the story by quoting something from the movie, especially those elements of the movie which don't even appear in the short story!
But the reverse is just as flawed. The movie is an entity unto itself.
Although Annie Proulx had the original idea for a story about two cowboy types in Wyoming who are in love and in a sexual relationship, and whose relationship stretches out over a 20 year time period until one of them dies, and she wrote a masterpiece of a short story, when the decision to translate that IDEA into a film, the screenplay writers first, then the director next, then the editor finally, each independently and all collaboratively, presented their interpretation of that original idea and elaborated on it as well. They did NOT film the short story in documentary form.
In the end the film is VERY CLOSE to the original short story which is great for those who first came to this film via that short story, but in the end, the film is an entity unto itself and can not be held hostage to the short story. If one wants to interpret the film, one must restrict one's observations and reasonings to that which is in the film and that which can be found or inferred from within the film.
And that includes eliminating the author of the original story as well! She is most certainly entitled to state what she wrote and what she meant by what she wrote. She is the author and owner of the short story. But she is not the author or owner of the film. And she is NOT the authority or last word on what is in the film, or what the film makers intended, or meant by any aspect of the film or it's characters's development. The film belongs to the film makers and it is they if anyone who can say what they presented, or intended to present in their film.
With that elaborate introductory comment I will say that if you have experienced repeated viewings of the film, and you actually WATCH the film (as opposed to enter into the story emotionally) I'm quite certain you will see that based on Lureen's performance, Lureen's story of Jack's death, Ennis's reaction, AND THE FILMMAKER'S insertion of the scenes of Jack's death, you will have no doubt that Jack was murdered by three men as it is shown in the film.
I experienced 7 viewings to date (which is few by some standards!) and it was only at the most recent viewing where I was able to stay somewhat emotionally separated from the story and characters, and literally WATCH the film that it became so clear to me.
Just to touch on a few facts which lend support to that interpretation I would start by referring to the so called "flashback" scene when Jack and Ennis are last together. I've never heard it said that that was anything BUT an actual memory Jack had of a real experience which the two had shared during their first Brokeback Summer. IE, it was real, it was NOT Jack's or Ennis's imagination being presented to us by the filmmakers.
Ennis's recounting of his traumatic experience from his youth is likewise imagery presented by the filmmakers which no one as far as I know, has ever suggested was simply a figment of Ennis's imagination, a nightmare, or a deep unspecified fear given a visual image by Ennis. No, we all accept it at face value. We see imagery about which Ennis is narrating and we believe we have been there too and seen the horrible sight Ennis has seen.
So, when in the telephone scene between Ennis and Lureen, and we are again presented with time displaced imagery, we are seeing what Lureen is saying, although she is using words which are telling a differnet tale. To me it is so clear that it is NOT Ennis's imagination we are envisioning, but Lureen's ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE about what happened to her husband, and even though she is mouthing a different story, THAT KNOWLEDGE is going through her mind. This is why she is so tight-lipped, so clipped, and why she begins to break down when she realizes that she is at last speaking with someone with whom SHE COULD HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH to, because he would have understood, and he would have felt her pain WITHOUT judging Jack and the tragedy of his death. The "tragic" but acceptable story of Jack's accidental death is presented out of rote habit, because it is easier to retell that gruesome story, and then automatically receive sympathy from the hearer, then it could ever be if she had told the truth. Typically, had she told the truth, she would have been subjected to the hearer's shock and/or condemnation of Jack's sexuality, and lots of questions, instead of sympathy at the loss of her husband.
And she loved Jack probably as much at his death, as she did when she met him. Whatever has transpired over 20 years, she has had to deal with as well. We actually see her have to deal with that in one scene with the two customers exchanging condescending critical remarks about Jack, while she is sitting right there at the desk within hearing. To me that was an indication that over time, she learned that Jack was not admired, not respected, not capable, not a HERO in other's eyes. Likely that gradual awareness may have fostered some bitterness in her heart about her situation, and possibly outwardly to others about her marriage, but had she been so uncaring, had she "known" about Jack, had she not still loved him, she would certainly have divorced him and gone her separate way. She would not still have been married to him after 20 years at the time of his death. Her father owned the business, her father had the money, and her father would certainly take care of her and her child. She was not tied to Jack as another woman might have been, financially dependent, and with a child so forced by those circumstances to stay with a husband she had grown to hate, or simply not love. The fact that she is still married to him, states quite clearly that she still loved him at the time of his death.
And so her grief, her genuine sorrow, and her anger (which is a part of grief) still comes out as she once again mouths the public story of her loss even though started in an annoyed controlled clipped manner .
(In keeping with my view that Lureen still loved Jack, do not forget her facial expression from an earlier scene, barely containing her joy and pride in her husband, at the Thanksgiving dinner when Jack stands up to her father.That was about 1977 if I recall the date. She is certainly no bitter unloving wife at that point. If fact quite the contrary. She is pleased and proud that her husband stood up for HER, and took ownership of THEIR house and child even though it meant confronting her pompous and bully father. Likely her father had never made a secret of his dislike of Jack even to her. Likely she had had to endure her father criticizing and putting down HER husband. Here at last, her husband finally stood up to the pompous and disrespectful bully, which was no small feat. And just as an aside, likely her father never bad-mouthed Jack again, to him, or to Lureen or within Lureen's hearing.)
To get back to the imagery of Jack being killed, someone has posted a screen capture for those who don't believe it, but as Jack is being beat, we can quite clearly see that it is the Jack of age 39, with a mustache. And although I can't quote you a minute by minute scene development sitting here at my keyboard, I can say that while WATCHING the film (as I said, slightly detached from the emotionality of the characters), the inter-cutting of the beating scene is attached to Lureen's on-screen image as much as it is to Ennis's on-screen image in those scenes.
In other words, we don't see Ennis, THEN see this scene, THEN see Ennis again, such that if it were only in his mind that sequence would make clear. (Of course one can say that Ang Lee purposefully didn't do that for intrigue and art) What we do see is Lureen's image on screen, THEN a cut to the beating of Jack, THEN a cut to Ennis in the phone booth. So the imagery of Jack's beating death is tied to the two of them, and that's because they both KNOW what happened in spite of the story Lureen flatly relates.
And to repeat myself from above, it is this sudden but belated awareness on Lureen's part that HERE was a person she COULD have told the truth to, AND SO COMMISERATED WITH, she had already told the story to, and simultaneously with realizing that, she also realized that HERE WAS HER COUNTERPART in Jack's life. Here she was speaking to someone who had known Jack LONGER than she had. And someone whom she had never met, even though she did know that Jack went to meet him several times a year for over 15 years. The place that Jack had talked of so dearly, the place where Jack wanted to have his ashes spread, and here she was speaking with the person that Jack spent that time with in that place. Jack wanted to have HALF his ashes, at a monument there in Texas where his Wife and Child lived, and the other half, on Brokeback Mountain which he loved WITH his love, she realizes. He didn't say, half here with you wife, and half with my parents. So it's obvious that Brokeback suddenly was HUGELY significant to Lureen, yet she had NOT been sure what it was, and even if it had actually been real. UNTIL Ennis tells her, No ma'am, we was herding sheep together up there in 1963.....BOING! Lureen sees it all clearly at last, this man on the phone and her husband ALSO had a 20 year relationship, just as she and Jack had had. This man on the phone is linked to Brokeback Mountain, a place so important to Jack that he wanted half his ashes to go there, while half stayed with her. This is a very important person to Jack, she realizes.
To me it is quite clear that Jack was murdered and Lureen knew that, and that Lureen still loved Jack and was experiencing genuine controlled angry bitter grief, which threatened to get away from her, until she finally had to end the call. If she hated Jack, she would hate this man she finally spoke with. If she hated Jack, and realized who this man was, she would NOT have sent him to Jack's parents for the ashes. The whole tight-lipped and painful telephone conversation was like that because she was trying to control herself, to stifle her grief. Initially she starts off.....Oh yeah...what happened...expecting to once again boringly retell the far fetched story of Jack's accidental death, and be sure to include all the details to cover all bases and not leave any room for questions......but then her connection to Ennis dawns on her and it becomes more and more difficult to continue and to control herself.
When she finally has to end the call, she tells Ennis to get in touch with Jack's parents. Has she hated Jack, or had she hated this man on the phone who was obviously important to Jack, she would never have said that. She would have terminated the call and left Ennis hanging. Instead she stays on the phone, even through Ennis's shocked silence.....Hello Hello.....she didn't hang up on him then she reached out to him by staying on the phone. There is no doubt that the whole even of Jack's death, the retelling of the story, the realization of just who she was speaking with, the realization that Brokeback was REAL that it was connected to this man....all that....is intense and overpowering her and she can barely keep it together to get off the phone. I have no doubt that Lureen broke down into real grieving sobs when she did get off the phone.
And as further evidence of her realization that Ennis was a special person to Jack, she tells him to get in touch with Jack's parents! Why would she imagine some casual, simply a friend, would want to get involved in that way. She knows he would consider this and probably do this, because she realizes how important he was to Jack, and how much he, Ennis, this man on the phone with her, is also shocked and grieved by Jack's death. For her to tell Ennis that is to say, go, get the other half of his ashes, and bring them to Brokeback.....you had half his life, I had half his life, we each will have half his ashes in the places that were important to each of us.
It's a marvelous movie. Beautiful and excruciatingly sad. After this scene with Lureen.....we enter into the scene with Jack's parents. We were shown Lureen's grief and sorrow at losing Jack, and then we are shown his parent's grief and sorrow, and like the anger that goes with Lureen's grief, Jack's father is filled with anger in his grief. We perceive the surface bitter man, spitting in his cup, saying Jack's ideas were all imagination, never coming to anything....he is bitter and resentful, but he is in grief and sorrow, and his way of showing that is to hold on to Jack's ashes. Not out of evil intent, but out of his own wish to keep something of his son. This last part is probably better left for another thread, but I do feel that Jack's father has been shortchanged as a complete negative. A man, a father, does have expectations of his son, especially his only son, and for whatever had happened in his son's life up to that point, his son was ONLY 39. So Jack's father could very well still had some hope of a future with Jack. Some hope that one of these days, Jack WOULD do what he had long said he would do, and come up and shake that farm into shape. Likely some of Jack's father's attitude was resentment TOWARD Ennis that, now, after Jack has died, you finally come here!
Well that's my take on this tragic death of Jack.
Jack in Maine
****FEB 28, 2006 LATER EDIT ADDED BY, JACK_ME, REGARDING THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FROM THE ABOVE POST:
In other words, we don't see Ennis, THEN see this scene, THEN see Ennis again, such that if it were only in his mind that sequence would make clear. (Of course one can say that Ang Lee purposefully didn't do that for intrigue and art) What we do see is Lureen's image on screen, THEN a cut to the beating of Jack, THEN a cut to Ennis in the phone booth. So the imagery of Jack's beating death is tied to the two of them, and that's because they both KNOW what happened in spite of the story Lureen flatly relates.
Regarding the above comments about the sequencing in the film, I WAS WRONG.
In viewing the film again since I'd made that post I see that in fact the screen imagery does cut to Ennis first, then to the beating, then back to Ennis and Lureen. I do admit that the murder scene coming between two images of Ennis weakens the argument for my point of view and does tend to lend more support for the alternate theory, namely that it is only Ennis's fears given imagery and not reality, however, personally I still feel as I posted, that what we see is what actually happened, and Lureen knows it factually and Ennis knows it instinctively.
Jack in Maine