Homosexuality is not disturbing, but that 2 men cannot be close without it being interpreted as homosexuality, is. Why,
-
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 07:20 AM)
Homosexuality is not disturbing.
The manner in which it is presented though, could be considered 'disturbing', As much as I like this film, this is a major flaw with it; even if it was presented in context and as tastefully as possible.
-
InherentlyYours — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 10:20 AM)
I agree with 1/2 way in it's depiction:
That if he was repulsed, he would not had done it regardless of how desperate he was.
But whether it maligns homosexuality, I don't know since women don't cruise 42nd theaters for quick sex/money exchange (I suppose theater sex-for-money scene could had been cut, but then it would weaken the grit) -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 04:23 PM)
But whether it maligns homosexuality, I don't know since women don't cruise 42nd theaters for quick sex/money exchange
No, they just hook on Hollywood boulevard instead, or where ever it is easy to pick up trade. It is no differentmale\female. Women prostituting themselves for money, can still be frowned upon; but to my mind, it doesn't appear to have the same stigma or debasement attached to it as male hustling, or it's just more accepted by the sheep.
Are all the other male hustlers cruising 42nd street, just as desperate like Joe Buck and had no other option, or were they doing it because they want too and like doing it? I don't mind the scene in MC, just not the message it appears to give out. -
InherentlyYours — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 09:52 PM)
'No, they just hook on Hollywood boulevard instead, or where ever it is easy to pick up trade. It is no differentmale\female.'
Actually, I meant the reverse. You don't have female-johns cruising the blvd to pay for sex. If so, our Joe Buck would had solicited one of them instead. -
Tidewatcher — 11 years ago(December 28, 2014 08:16 AM)
I imagine that it would be a mixture of both, some are homosexuals and straight guys looking for cheap sex for money like Joe Buck was because they are horny and enjoy it but most are probably unemployed and out of work or even homeless and just having sex for money because its all that they know how to do for a living, like with Julian Kay in American Gigalo because that was all he was good at and knew how to do.
-
I_Love_Hutch — 11 years ago(December 29, 2014 07:04 PM)
but that 2 men cannot be close without that being a thought.
Yes, this always pissed me off. I have no problem if they were gay men, but I just don't think they are. People are soooo uptight sometimes.
As far as Joe Buck, I think he was just very narcissistic. (Though a sweet, warm, tender hearted narcissist!) He was a good-looking man and he enjoyed the attention he got and sex came easily to him. He seemed slightly bothered by the gay aspect of some of his encounters, but not all THAT much.
The book goes much more into detail about his childhood. -
rascal67 — 11 years ago(December 30, 2014 12:19 AM)
He seemed slightly bothered by the gay aspect of some of his encounters, but not all THAT much.
I have the book at home; but haven't read yet. In the film's flashback scenes, it is alluded that he is raped as well as his girlfriend. If this was the case, you would think that this would have turned him off male prostitution all together, when he could have sought out other options that did present themselves to him, like dishwashing. I really don't think Joe had much of an issue with hustling himself. If he was bothered by this, it could also be perceived as plain and simple nervousness.
-
InherentlyYours — 11 years ago(February 16, 2015 08:17 PM)
Yes.
What do you make of the comments by posters who speak of their friendship as being homoerotic (or whatever) In other words, do people think the only reason why a man would befriend another man and allow him to share his home must have an attraction towards him? You don't see this when it applies to 2 women -
spookyrat1 — 11 years ago(March 09, 2015 04:07 AM)
What do you make of the comments by posters who speak of their friendship as being homoerotic
I'd say they're seeing things in the movie and their relationship that just aren't there onscreen or inferred in the story.
Joe Buck participated in homosexual behavior, but he was not a gay. He was a straight guy turning tricks to survive, because of his lifestyle choice of avoiding manual work. This behaviour however does not make him gay.
As far as Ratso is concerned, we don't see him involved in any physical relationship, perhaps indicative of his own debilitating health problems.
Joe and Ratso's relationship is formed on the basis of two damaged individuals drawn together from the need for companionship and the practical requirement to assist one another through each other's personal strengths. Can't imagine why people would think their developing friendship, as we see it in the film, is "homoerotic". -
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 05:00 AM)
Hoffman states in the 2000 Vanity Fair recollection of the film, Midnight Revolution, that both he and Voight realised and were operating on the assumption that these characters were "queer." However, Schlesinger and the other creatives were adamant that this could not be explicit, only subtly suggested, because of financing concerns and fear of alienating their already small, potential audience; these creative obstacles clearly influence the tender tone of the relationship. Though it isn't seen in the film, Hoffman saw them as sharing the same bed.
I haven't read the book yet but from viewing the film, it seems clear these men are experiencing a romantic love both in their present and in Enrico's Florida fantasy sequence. Enrico, especially, is in love with Joe Buck and aware of it while Joe Buck, through his flash-present episodes has very confused boundaries from the standpoint of his sexuality: he was clearly exposed to his grandmother's sexual shenanigans and with the imagery of the enema bag likely sexually abused; looks to have been born and partly raised in a brothel of sorts; is terrorised by the locals for over-stepping presumed moral boundaries in his sexual relations with Annie for which he either fantasises or is literally raped in vengeance for both his actions and likely his overall sexual appeal. The entire premise of the film/story is his sole perception of himself as only having value as an object of sexual desire based on his life experience in small town Texas. But in the big city, he doesn't; the cowboy garb is a costume, something he finally discards once he starts to feel some security in his future with Enrico near the film's end and starts to consider a better way of life. In New York, he appears to make all of maybe $65 legitimately as a hustler, only $20 of which he actually collects, and is usually hustled by better hustlers than he is until out of desperation and love for Enrico he resorts to violence. So no, in opposition to what one poster claims above, sex does not come easily to him. It is fraught with problems. Even with Shirley, it is not straight forward and becomes confrontational and combative and, in recounting it to Enrico, not enjoyable. Joe Buck is a big ball of confusion, nave and unaware of his place in the world, who comes to truly recognise his love for Enrico when it becomes clear he is losing him.
So given the sexual and emotional terrorism that Joe Buck has experienced throughout his life and in the present, coupled with Enrico's poor health and their shared existence of struggling for the most basic needs, it is unlikely that an active, healthy sex life with each other is high on their list of daily, immediate concerns. But their relationship is most certainly intimate and Rico's Florida fantasy is definitely fueled by his erotic feelings for Joe Buck, whom he fantasises in blond, strapping form clad in a white speedo. The fantasy is of them as a couple, at the centre of attention, of the life they would share. And there is that unmistakeable moment before they enter the party when Rico is sitting on the stairs, sweating profusely and Joe Buck pulls up his shirt tails to wipe Rico's browand Rico rests his head on Joe Buck's bare torso, closes his eyes and clearly inhales his scentit's such a tender moment encapsulating both fear and desire, longing. In the film's final scenes, Joe Buck cares for his dying lover, the only love he's known in the world; he nearly kills a man to get the money needed to save his lover and take him to a better climate where they can be together; he cares for him on the bus, even comforting him when he soils himself and changes his clothes with nothing but compassion and love, as many more would do after him in the age of AIDS; and he holds him in death, determined to see his lover through this passage and afraid to let go.
It is a romantic love relationship. And if the times had been different and Schlesinger had been a little more comfortable with his own sexuality (though he was as comfortable as the times would allow), he might've depicted their tender intimacy a little more fully. But it's there. Joe Buck was likely not fully aware of it until after it was gone but Enrico certainly was and nurtured it. It was their love relationship that the filmmakers feared the most and felt must never be depicted too directly or overtly, otherwise it would push any potential audience away. That they managed to engage audiences with this love story is a testament to their artistry. But these guys are on the margins for a reason, they marginalised themselves because they felt no place in society. They weren't drug users. They both had appealing qualities by which they could've gained entree into the mainstream. But they knew better. They were outsiders for a reason and on the outside they found each other and they found love.
Link to Vanity Fair, Midnight Revolution:
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2010/04/midnight-revolution-200503 -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 07:55 PM)
are you writing your own screenplay? I witnessed no intimacy on a romantic level between the two. Do people want there to be? What concrete example is there to indicate latent homosexuality between Buck and Ratzo? Because 2 men gave each other the time of day? It has to be more than sharing the same bed, though I don't recall them doing that. I don't care if both were flaming homosexuals, but the film did not imply repressed homosexuality.
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 08:04 PM)
that both he and Voight realised and were operating on the assumption that these characters were "queer." However, Schlesinger and the other creatives were adamant that this could not be explicit, only subtly suggested
Even if they were 'queer', it doesn't mean they were 'queer' for each other. A 'straight' person, is not going to feel amorous, over every other straight guy or gal they meet. Ratso, was disgusting to look at too and while that might sound harsh, why would someone who looked like Joe, want to screw him? They were platonic friends. Joe was more than likely 'bisexual' anyway, so that doesn't make him a 'gay' person. The 'queer' word, is just a derogatory term, for male same sex activity. It is not a complete, and 'genuine' sexuality.
-
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 11:20 AM)
I did read the book, and it is excellent. (Actually, the movie is one of the rare cases where it equals the original novel) The cover of the book describes Joe as having come from an awkward, friendless childhood who only receives a sort of vague, sexually colored attention from his grandmother. He comes to the big city with nave, completely unrealistic expectations and quickly finds himself in dire circumstances. Through fate, he and Rico become somewhat unlikely friends. But it is also the first genuine friendship Joe has ever known. It is also a testament to the true goodness of Joe's soul. After Rico passes away (this is directly from the book), Joe now knows what true loss feel like and for the first time in his life, he
feels
the true, profound fear of loneliness. It is a bone chilling, haunting truism.
I don't think that their relationship is homosexual in nature. I do think that they are both lost souls, and their mutual need for human contact and affection runs so deeply that when they do find each other, any other considerations, e.g., social norms and appearances, count for absolutely nothing. They are both so utterly lonely and alone in the world that to quibble about how their friendship might appear to the outside world would be to deny their deep, human need for connection. The kinship between Joe and Rico is stronger and more authentic than most.
To put it another way, their relationship is not gay, but it's also not not gay. It transcends the notion. -
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 04:40 PM)
^^This.
It should be noted that the author, James Leo Herlihy, was gay and described on his Wikipedia page as "a friend of Tennessee Williams."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Leo_Herlihy
I still like the above description of "not not gay" and the idea that their love for each other transcended such notions. They were everything to each other. -
I_Love_Hutch — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 08:05 PM)
Hey bliss66 I am pleased that you liked the "not not gay" notion.
But you and a few others have got me thinking about the two men, Joe in particular. I love this movie, it's definitely in my top ten favorite movies. And I love the book as well. I am a 45 year old gay man and have been "out" to others since I was 19, and out to myself since well before that. So there is no reason why I would ever have any problem with gay characters in a movie. But this is literally the first time that I ever even considered that maybe Joe Buck was, in fact, homosexual. Up to now, I just thought that Joe's ego was so underdeveloped and, because of his backwards upbringing, his needs were so profound that he would be open to sexual/romantic/friendly attention from members of either gender.
I guess it ultimately doesn't matter to me (actually I kind of would like Joe to be gay, in a way, because he is so damned cute and sweet and I would love to take care of him!), but do you, as an informed and interested observer/fan, truly believe that Joe Buck was a gay man?
I am genuinely curious. -
Edward_de_Vere — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 03:33 PM)
They were platonic friends. Joe was more than likely 'bisexual' anyway, so that doesn't make him a 'gay' person.
Since the film is fairly explicit about other sexual acts, if Joe and Ratso were lovers there would have been something in the film to indicate this was so. There wasn't, so those who insist that they were are creating fan fiction, rather discussing the film. As the OP says, I never could understand the mindset that wants to turn every friendship between men into a tale of homosexuality.
As to Joe's sexuality, my take is that he was essentially a heterosexual man who reluctantly engaged in homosexual acts for money. Sort of the reverse of someone like would-be Warhol assassin Valerie Solanas, a lesbian who would have sex with men for pay. "Situational" homosexuality (e.g. homosex in prison, straight men prostituting themselves) doesn't make a straight person bisexual any more than incidental heterosexual acts make essentially homosexual people bisexual. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 04:28 PM)
As to Joe's sexuality, my take is that he was essentially a heterosexual man who reluctantly engaged in homosexual acts for money.
Yes, essentially and Joe appeared very confident at the start, as to what he wanted and what his aim was in NY. However, hustling one a$$ for money, in front of a cinema, where there were other options available to Joethe film alluded to this, when he could have worked in a dineris also revealing.
"Situational" homosexuality (e.g. homosex in prison, straight men prostituting themselves) doesn't make a straight person bisexual any more than incidental heterosexual acts make essentially homosexual people bisexual.
I don't really get this 'situational' sex thing. There will be many males in situations where they are surrounded by 'only' men and wouldn't care to engage in sexual activity with them, because they are genuine 'straight'. I can only speak for myself here; but as a 100% 'genuine' gay guy, why would I engage in 'situational' sex, if there were only women around? I can't and am not capable of this. My sexuality is innate.
MIDNIGHT COWBOY, alluded that Joe was raped as well. Wouldn't that put him off sex with men? Joe did NOT have an issue hustling his a$$. He would have had 'bisexual' tendencies and this is a 'genuine' sexual orientation. As for women like Solanaswho was a fruitcake anywaysexuality is different for them and has more of mystical element about it. They have a different set of genitalia and not as aggressive or positive as a males sexuality. They don't need to get 'arousal' hard. Lesbians will be comfortable with women; but I would say it would be a darn sight easier for them to have sex with men, than a 'gay' guy attempting to have sex with women.
Are you 'straight' Ed?