I think Jack pretty much initiates, but Ennis never really objects; and he certainly could have. But in any case, I doubt Shalit said the same thing about, say, The English Patient, or dozens of other movies about straight men pursuing reluctant women. Which is not to say that I think Shalit is necessarily homophobic, just oddly hypocritical here.

While Jack Twist takes the moral low ground for running around on his wife

Ennis is married too, at least for the first several years of their relationship.

Jack does initiate the first sexual encounter, but Ennis doesn't need any convincing, and I believe he's the one who comes to Jack the next night. Plus, as Matt says, when Jack comes back into his life, he's all too eager to continue the affair. There is a scene in which Ennis says (paraphrasing) "I wouldn't be like this if it weren't for you," but I doubt we are intended to take that as fact. So I hardly think that "predator" is the right word to describe Jack. It's a strange thing for Shalit to say, but I think GLAAD is strongly overreacting.

Ennis is married too, at least for the first several years of their relationship.

And she's the one who ends it, so it's not as if he takes the moral high ground there.

There is a scene in which Ennis says (paraphrasing) "I wouldn't be like this if it weren't for you," but I doubt we are intended to take that as fact.

Ennis is deeply self-hating, and he takes it out on Jack.

Hell, Ennis was engaged when he fell in love with Jack. He was already cheating.

I accept the power of what happened, and the intractable position they found themselves in (considering their personal limitations), but Twist as predator is weird. In fact, what I read of the review just sounded plain weird.

And I don't think of Ennis as self-hating as much as I think of him as extremely weak, and scared. I think he'd be okay with being out, if he could believe they wouldn't pay such a high price for it.

And he's kinda maybe proved right in the end--but that doesn't mean that he made the right choices between the start and the finish.

Although we don't know for sure what happened to Jack; I get the impression (from the story as well as the movie) that Ennis believes that Jack was killed by gaybashers, but there's no confirmation that that's anything but his own fearful imagination. It's certainly plausible, but it's left intentionally ambiguous.

It's certainly plausible, but it's left intentionally ambiguous.

That was my impression as well. In the film, it's deliberately left open as to whether those scenes are in Ennis' mind, or Anne Hathaway's memory (or both).

In terms of "predation," usually the predator doesn't ask, "Would you like me to drop by?" and the prey doesn't write back, "Yes please." Also, considering how defensivelly controlling Ennis is, you could say that Jack was his "victim" during the later era of their relationship. I mean, who is driving 1000 miles to visit, and who is telling his boyfriend to turn around and go home the moment he arrives?

Opening my paper, I take it as a sign of grave injustice in the world that this movie still doesn't have enough prints to open in Memphis after 4 weeks of rave reviews and record-setting per screen box office, whereas Uwe Boll's latest videogame-inspired "masterpiece" opened on 9 screens this weekend.

Who did he photograph in the midst of committing a murder that he can still get distribution money?

I think it's ambiguous, but I fall on the side of believing Ennis. It's certainly no less plausible than the story offered. I think it's less ambiguous in the story, but that could just be about how I parse the media.