A metaphor for undisclosed homosexuality
-
vitabuona — 16 years ago(February 27, 2010 09:25 AM)
I agree with the OP. It's very similar to other films that deal with the topic of undisclosed homosexuality somewhere in the story line. I think it is very possible that that may have been what was implied. I don't think the OP should be attacked for stating their opinion or what they grasped from the filmit's totally feasible even if that may not have been the intended message.
-
Greg75 — 16 years ago(February 27, 2010 12:43 PM)
I really didn't intend to make any fuss by opening this topic in the first place. As I wrote, "this [the homosexual subtext] seems like an interesting decyphering lead to me". I do see "Seconds" as a really fascinating, disturbing film, and not "gay" as such, but I was willing to discuss this idea that genuinely came to me. Now if mentioning anything about homosexuality subtext causes such a stir, and mostly provokes irate comments about general perception of homosexuality and not even homosexuality IN the film well I'm outta here.
-
EllisFowler — 15 years ago(June 19, 2010 06:46 AM)
RidiculousI'm with gayspiritwarrior on this one. It's based on a novel, which I read after seeing the movie, and the film is not only quite faithful to it (except at the very end) but there's NO hint of homosexuality; it's just the story of a shallow guy who has led a superficially successful but ultimately unsatisfying life (WOW! Just like the film! Imagine!). The character is a man who knows something is wrong but who's missingfor lack of a better termthe spirit that would have led him to make more meaningful choices and the moral is that THIS is what the transformation can't give him. Heand every other man in that waiting roomis condemned to dissatisfaction that he'll never be able to resolve because even given a fresh start, the essence of who you are can't be altered. At no time is there any indication that sex with another guy will fix things.
-
Shadow1517 — 15 years ago(July 27, 2010 11:42 AM)
some people do think that Hudson drew on his supposed homosexuality and having to cover it up in his portrayal of a man living a lie. So yes, the film itself is not about homosexuality (perhaps the communist blacklist is alluded to), but there are subtexts about ANYONE having to cover up who you really are to live a superficially more easy life.
-
EllisFowler — 15 years ago(August 12, 2010 10:04 PM)
Actors draw on life experiences all the timeit's part of their process. That doesn't alter the fact that he (Hudson) didn't write the novel on which this was based, or the screenplay, and there was NO homosexual context in either"sub" or otherwise; he played it as written. I REALLY doubt that Hudsonor any other gay guy, for that matteroccurred to the author at all at any time in the context of writing this novel, which deals with a very dull, Establishment guy whose transformation results in only the most superficial change (his appearance) and you seem to have missed the pointhe didn't "HAVE to cover up who he was" because he was entirely respectable. He wanted to be who he WASN'Tand found out the hard way he couldn't. That's the whole point.
-
taaffa — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 10:38 AM)
The fact that he attempts to rape a woman while under the influence of some drug makes the homosexual theory implausible. If he really wasn't into women, the bad guys would not be able to induce him to assault one.
-
DD-931 — 15 years ago(December 05, 2010 09:02 AM)
It really does get old to once again find someone trying to claim a homosexual subtext in a film. I must be fair and acknowledge that even some homosexuals dismiss the attempt in this case, but it still seems like there is a certain group of narcissistic gays who feel a desperate need to turn every film into a parable about repressed homosexuality. Almost as if they are pursuing some self-absorbed fantasy about how all heterosexual men are actually repressed homosexuals. And yes, I've seen this fantasy expressed before, most often in the theatre. Neil Simon even used it for satire in "The Goodbye Girl".
It also indicates to me that some homosexuals are as clueless about heterosexuality as some heterosexuals misunderstand homosexuality. For instance, the person calling heterosexuality "vanilla" clearly has no clue about what it's like to be straight. -
RaymondKevin — 15 years ago(March 18, 2011 01:11 AM)
I don't think that the film is a metaphor for undisclosed sexuality. However, through the prism of a 21st century sensibility (2011 as I type this), there are scenes with a definite homoerotic subtext. I'm not familiar with the novel the movie is based on, but upon reading several comments on this board about the book the film utilizes the basic structure and premise of the book, which seems to be focused mainly on middle-aged men being given a second chance at living out their younger adulthood.
The scenes with Arthur/Tony & Charlie have a strong homoerotic subtext. All of the details Charlie gives Arthur in the initial phone call hint at an intimacy that may be deeper than college jock buddies. The latin inscription on the trophy may be a plot device to give Arthur confirmation that his dead friend is indeed alive, but it also hints at something much stronger.
Some of the beginning scenes of the movie where Arthur is being tailed by the man who gives him the note and Arthur's journey to find the Company hint at a descent into what the 1960s would have termed a deviant journey.
From a 2011 perspective, the scene with Mrs. Hamilton (what a treat to see the late Frances Reid, aka "Alice Horton" from DOOL in a film role) plays on dual levels. On the more traditional level, is Emily picking on on the subtle similarities between Arthur and Tony? Does she suspect that they are related (father/son) or the same person? A more nuanced contemporary take could be her realizing that Arthur's friendship with the handsome young artist who knows so much about Arthur's art and the layout of the house may answer her questions about why Arthur was quiet and somewhat removed from his family his desires and interests were with men. She's clearly moved on with her life (the remodeled study, the cleaned out garage), is it necessary to revisit that past? -
Angry_Afghan — 14 years ago(May 18, 2011 10:42 PM)
I must admit I got the impression from the beginning that there was a homosexual subtext, it was when Charlie mentioned that he and Arthur both bought each other the same watch. I had not, however, considered the scene you address in your last point, that of Tony revisiting his former home and speaking to Mrs. Hamilton.
Some may argue that these readings are merely revisionism but I am not gay and have no reason to seek out these hidden subplots, although I must consider that elements of homosexuality are now omnipresent in Western society, which might lead one to misinterpret scenes like those described. -
Local Hero — 15 years ago(March 19, 2011 07:50 AM)
I'm afraid I can't be bothered to go through all of the responses as I just read the first few and stopped. What pathetic and, yes, phobic defensiveness your interpretation elicited.
You say yourself in the OP that the film evoked many life-reassessment themes in a broadly existential way, but your notion about homosexuality is quite clearly a productive way to think about the movie.
It's sad that your musing produced such predictable, knee-jerk narrow-mindedness.