Can we quit denying that Joe and Ratso were 60s-era repressed gays?
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 01:25 PM)
Ok, I read your essay that you recommended. I then happen to notice this:
A Discussion on "Queer Film": The Subjectivity, Confusion, Oft-Denial, on another board. So, what's going on with your seemingly avid interest with "queer films". -
Paranoid-Roegian — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 07:24 PM)
My avid interest isn't necessarily in queer film, but film, in general. It's just I posing this question about a month ago, and after my
Midnight Cowboy
post, I decided to follow it up with the question. It's a topic of interest, because it
does
happen often.
2015 BUZZER FILM FESTIVAL
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/nest/251196500 -
hockeyhrs — 10 years ago(March 22, 2016 11:59 PM)
Joe & Ratso are clearly damaged goods in terms of traditional hetero relationships. Joe because of his abandonment by mom and (sorta) by grandma, plus the gang rape, Ratso due to a strict Catholic upbringing.
But that damage does NOT necessarily drive the Joe/Ratso relationship toward homosexuality per se. I think the movie has bigger targets in it's sights: showing new possibilities to bypass the conscripted boundaries that societies place on the emotional connections between males. -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(March 23, 2016 12:56 AM)
'Joe & Ratso are clearly damaged goods in terms of traditional hetero relationships. Joe because of his abandonment by mom and (sorta) by grandma, plus the gang rape, Ratso due to a strict Catholic upbringing.'
what are these assumptions? We don't know that these men are damaged goods for women, since the film does not focus or convey that. This is not a Woody Allan psycho-babble type film. Seems that people are making conclusions for these two specific movie-characters where they wouldn't for other men who had the same upbringing. We're all hopeless, then
A strict Catholic upbringing is all it takes to ruin your hetero- relationship? And a man who has been raped is not therefore a hopeless case either for a hetero-relationship. This film is just some kind of write-as-you-go-along game. (the rape, the rape, the rape) -
hodie1 — 9 years ago(May 22, 2016 05:37 PM)
Did no one here read the novel? Rizzo was a sickly kid. A Catholic upbringing won't make a guy gay if he wasn't going to be gay anyway. Joe Buck had had sexual experiences with women and men, but he was so passive he thought his sexual attractiveness was all he had going for him. It was his only connection to people before Ratso.
-
rick3262 — 9 years ago(June 26, 2016 09:05 PM)
Exactly, when Joe Buck goes into the hotel and Ratso Rizzo stares longingly from the streets, it's because he thinks its part of the fulfillment of his dream, which is shown in Florida. He's not beaming because Joe's about to have a heterosexual relationship with a woman. It's about the money and the hope that it brings.
Ratso is more interested in identity and dignity. When they go to Florida, he wants to be known as "Rico," not "Ratso" as in "rat." -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(May 24, 2016 01:16 AM)
Are we watching the film or novel? Which one are we watching? Look at the film and tell me if it's a movie or a book? There is no evidence, none, of repressed homosexuality/bisexuality. No evidence that one or the other was horny for the other. And interesting that you never used the term BISEXUALITY in your remarks.
Why critique the Wizard of Oz, since we didn't read the "book"? Why critique Psycho, since we didn't read the "book"? Why critique Monster a Go-Go, since we didn't read the "book?" -
jmichael3387 — 9 years ago(May 25, 2016 03:45 AM)
I really don't care what Dustin Hoffman or the director said. I watched the movie.and Joe and Ratso didn't seem gay. Especially not with each other.
But they were both damaged mentally.so I'm sure they would do things with men if the price was right. -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(May 25, 2016 10:45 AM)
'But they were both damaged mentally.so I'm sure they would do things with men if the price was right.'
How are you so sure? You casually equate being "damaged mentally" to whoring oneself to other men. Is that because homosexuality is frivolous and not as solid as heterosexuality to you? As if you are even educated on what mentally-damaged is. -
Kewl_Kat — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 08:49 PM)
Most likely, neither one of the characters were homosexual and even if they were, it's totally irrelevant to the story. They are just two humans trying to survive in horrible conditions and broken mental states and they form a strange bond while doing so. Why do you feel the need to label everybody?
I
'
m a real kewl kat
. -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 09:03 PM)
Kewl_Kat
who are you replying to re: labeling everybody? Since I mostly agree with what you said, and have for years, I didn't know who you were addressing. However, it's only irrelevant to the story if the story does not have homosexuality as a theme. -
Kewl_Kat — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 09:47 PM)
I was responding to you. I just didn't care about the sexual orientation of Joe or Rico. However, it seemed obvious that Joe was a straight guy who only dabbled in homosexuality when times got tough. Yes, he wanted to make money by having sex with women but he actually was excited about that. He only did gay stuff out of desperation and he never enjoyed it in any of the scenes were it happened. He was ashamed only because that's not who he was. With Rico, it was vague. But I didn't care and I don't think anybody else did, either. I just felt bad for his situation as a human. He was so sick and miserable, I doubt sexual feelings were even on his mind. He just seemed to eventually appreciate Joe as a friend.
I
'
m a real kewl kat
. -
rick3262 — 9 years ago(June 26, 2016 09:07 PM)
They were linked together because they both had to survive. Joe Buck was an idealist who thought that he would be a street hustler in New York where women would pay him. Ratso was a survivalist who did what he could to save himself. The kindness that they eventually showed each other wasn't love or repressed feelings. It was an acknowledgment that they were working together to make their lives better.
-
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 11:47 PM)
'Did no one here read the novel?'
Why should we? The film is not the novel, and the novel is not a prerequisite to watch the film. I don't' care about the novel, nor should anyone else who relies on the film. -
TheBoz — 9 years ago(June 20, 2016 08:13 PM)
All which proves that Homosexuality is not something your necessarily born with, which I think is fraud as there are plenty of Twins who are 1 of each, if its genetic then it should either or. Traumatic childhood incidents can so F up your mind that your standards of what you will or will not do, no matter what, to survive, may hinge on those early experiences.
-
Kewl_Kat — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 08:56 PM)
All which proves that Homosexuality is not something your necessarily born with,
'Necessarily' is the key word. There is a spectrum of sexuality. People fall all along it based on a mixture of nature & nurture. It's not black and white. Why would you think there is a simple explanation to something that nobody can explain?
I
'
m a real kewl kat
.