Homosexuality is not disturbing, but that 2 men cannot be close without it being interpreted as homosexuality, is. Why,
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 02:08 AM)
if u take these 2 characters as just platonic friends i think ur really ignoring a lot of the movie.
I think you're reading 'way' too much into the movie. It doesn't matter what their orientation is, it is a film about friendship and caring and these 2 men who had nothing, were looking out for each other. Becasue the director was 'gay' and Joe hustled himself, doesn't mean that we need to 'accept' that Joe and Ratso were 'gay' for each other. Why are people reading this into it? Their sexuality, is incongruous, to what the main theme of the film is.
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 12:26 PM)
'obviously not every gay relationship is sexual in nature, and if u take these 2 characters as just platonic friends i think ur really ignoring a lot of the movie.'
That makes a lot of sense. Not every gay relationship is sexual in nature because then it would no longer be sexual. That's "obvious", alright. We're not ignoring a lot of the movie. Are you even understanding the movie??
Now, this hypothesis naturally doesn't work with 2 females in the same situation what a surprise. -
upsydaisy29 — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 07:18 AM)
i dont even get wat ur tryin 2 say here but if u read the article someone linked u would kno that the actors played the characters as 'queer', meaning they were in a relationship of som kind ..maybe a romantic friendship ?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_friendships
-
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 05:21 PM)
Not to get too militant here but I would make this suggestion for your consideration: there seems to be a lot of homo-hysteria on this thread. That, in fact, seems to be the thrust of it. It's like you're so used to seeing the entire world from a heterosexual point of view that you can't see the forest for the trees.
The author was gay. The director was gay. The actors acknowledged they were playing characters in a same-sex, romantic relationship. Enrico is clearly in love with Joe Buck. The idea that there is anything certain about Joe Buck's sexuality or even psychology, misses the whole experience of a character whom by film's end is just beginning to know himself.
You think because he is presented as a sex toy "bauble" for two women who want to use him for sex - like his grandmother did - makes him a stone, cold heterosexual Marlboro Man? The very fact that this detail concerns you, from your original post, can be considered homophobic. You just want assurance that this film that engaged and moved you isn't about two dudes who are into each other because, y'know, then you wouldn't be able to like it or something. Who knows why it matters? As a gay man, James Leo Herlihy didn't have to write in coded language or accommodate your mainstream sensibility by labelling and tagging everything so you would know whether or not it was all right for you to like it - he obviously didn't care. But why would a gay man bother to write your story? He's depicting love as he knows it. It's almost like you're trying to claim this for yourself when in fact what these men shared doesn't belong to you. And in depicting the love these men shared on the margins of society, Herlihy humanised figures that especially at that time no one even wanted to know about. Fifty years later, neither do you.
I think what is the insult here is that you seem to think that unless there is oral or anal sex involved, people are not gay as if that were the sum total of our humanity - as if the depth of humanity depicted in the film is something gay people lack. I alluded to it in my original post - it was lost on you there - that I have seen this love before and watched grown men love and care for each, in the despair of the most wretched disease, men whose lovers have died in their arms, men who have loved and lost - and I didn't need to see them having sex with each other to confirm that they were indeed gay and sharing every intimacy between them, not just sex.
So either your view of human relationships is somehow limited or your view of same sex couples is very limited. Either way, your opening gambit which tries to shut down any notion of what these men shared and your refusal to consider not just an opposing view but an INFORMED one, seems to indicate that it is a problem for you. It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right. -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 05:52 PM)
I'm not reading your essay. The first sentences summed you up. It's not homo-hysteria, at least not in the way you mean. You have no idea of the sexual=preference of anybody on this thread, for starters. You're homo-hysterical because you think homophobia is present, due to you wanting thee to be a homosexual relationship between the two characters. I'll bet if the two lead actors were not reasonably goodlooking, you wouldn't even dream about the notion.
Let's never-mind what the film showed but rush out and buy the book, and determine the director's sexuality, to discover some underlying theme. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 24, 2015 09:35 PM)
there seems to be a lot of homo-hysteria on this thread..It's like you're so used to seeing the entire world from a heterosexual point of view that you can't see the forest for the trees.It's like your enjoyment/appreciation of this film disturbs you and you're trying to make it all right.
Let's put it this way, the OP is in the closet and is a 'self-loathing' homosexual. He is as NELLIE as they come and he won't and can't admit it. So as far as seeing it from a 'heterosexual' pov, I think that notion, can pretty much get thrown out the window. I haven't yet read the book and while it is a possibility that Joe and Ratso, may have had some sexual designs on each other, I really don't think that was something, or is something, that is 'absolutely' necessary to read into the film. These guys found a common connection with each other and were looking out for each other, as they were both in a 'desperate' situation and their needs were better met, by the union. It was Ratso that offered Joe a place to stay and he was called out on his deception. He still had humanity.
Ratso was gross and dirty and while he may have had 'homosexual' designs on Joe, and that is very possible, it is not something that I feel is important in the context of the films themes and story. Joe was not 'gay', in the sense that I perceive 'gay' to be. He had sex with women and even if it might not have been his preferred choice of gender, he could still 'perform' sexually with them. That would make him 'bisexual' by my book. A true, genuine 'gay' guy, does not and cannot perform sexually with a woman. He is not aroused, by her sexual mystique and physicality. To want these characters to be full blown homosexuals, can be seen as a delusion as well. -
bliss66 — 10 years ago(July 26, 2015 06:38 PM)
I guess you missed the scene towards the end when Joe Buck couldn't "perform" with Shirley until she became combative and goaded him into having rough sex with her which he later described to Enrico as not very good and strange, off-putting.
For someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping specifics you sure do make a lot of authoritative, sweeping statements. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 27, 2015 04:47 AM)
I guess you missed the scene towards the end when Joe Buck couldn't "perform" with Shirley.
No I didn't miss that scene; but it appears ONCE AGAIN, that you have misinterpreted it. Shirley was impressed with Joe by the morning and making arrangements to see him again and wanting to hook him up with another female friend of hers. She was like a feline, all slinky, sexy and haughty and scratched the hell out of Joe's back. It was the weird, kinky sex, that Joe was referring to as being strange and off-putting. I think you 'miss' many things, due to your own strange and self-absorbed slant on things.
For someone who doesn't seem capable of grasping specifics you sure do make a lot of authoritative, sweeping statements.
I don't think you even understand what 'gay' is or male homosexuality for that matter, even though it has been explained to you. Sit on what was written for a while and with any luck, it 'just' might sink in. I won't hold my breath though.
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 12:21 AM)
upsydaisy29
Whats so very true. That men engage in heterosexual sexual acts, but "not" heterosexual? This bliss66 is pretentious and actually demeaning his own homosexuality by homogenizing sexuality.
"no, these men show no display of homosexuality nor sexual feelings, but sexuality goes beyond sex and reaches into our soul and deeper consciousness and blah,blah"and we are all threatened and frighted by this,blah,blah."
Sounds like bliss66 is dissapointed that Buck and Ritzo are are not gay, which must frustrate him on some level, and everybody who has seen the film has not discovered the mysterious thing that he has.
Oh, and because the director/writer were supposedly gay, that means the film characters must be gay. -
upsydaisy29 — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 02:46 AM)
Oh, and because the director/writer were supposedly gay, that means the film characters must be gay.
i mean yes. it probably does in this case. y r u in denial? did u even read that article? this thread is so homophobic its sad, u ppl refuse to interpret anything differently
I think bliss66's, pov is a tad askew, just as yours is upsydaisy.
???? what does this even mean?????? what is my point of view askew of .? -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 02:53 AM)
i mean yes. it probably does in this case. y r u in denial?
Well in the OP's case, yes he is in denial, about many things actually; but in this instance, he isn't.
???? what does this even mean?????? what is my point of view askew of .?
Since you are not that smart and have misinterpreted the film, it is no use attempting to explain what 'askew' means. When you stop looking at things, from your own 'limited' perception of the world and only seeing things in the manner of how they affect youwhich is being self-entitled & self-absorbedthen you 'just' might understand one day.
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 03:25 AM)
'i mean yes. it probably does in this case. y r u in denial? did u even read that article? this thread is so homophobic its sad, u ppl refuse to interpret anything differently '
Duh, you don't what you mean. You just wanted to use the term "homophobia". There is no homophobia going on. Would you like there to be? You must be hetero-phobia. Are you in denial? How sad.
You're telling me with a straight face that because the director/writer is gay, then that makes the film characters gay in this film. I was actually being sarcastic with that question, and you reply by saying "yes". The film on the screen is not what if could / should/ would have been, but what it was.
The "y, r, u" of the matter. You should be so much in denial of being illiterate. -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 10:22 PM)
Why are you using y r u?
There is no more to think about. I saw the film 40 yrs ago, to give me time to think. Why am I mad? Why are you, and the other poster who hides, re-writing the film, to make it more sensationalistic for yourselves? You can watch a nice soft-core film if you wish to see latent/overt homosexuality. THIS film was not written that way. You can dig deep and say Joe was from Mars too, but it was not clued that way either. -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(July 25, 2015 11:25 PM)
.does interpreting the characters as anything other than straight get u so mad????
upsydaisy,
read all the other posts here. No-one is claiming they are full blown 'straight'; but by that same token, that doesn't mean they have to be full blown 'homosexual' for each other either. Does it titilate you, to think that they are? It is NOT important or relevant to the films story, what their sexual designs are for each other, if their characters were supposed to have any at all.