Homosexuality
-
grendelkhan — 13 years ago(March 03, 2013 08:46 PM)
Yeah, there were censors, the MPAA. The practice censorship via the arbitrary assignment of ratings which limit the size of the movie's audience and influence theaters when they book movies. Suggestion of elements like homosexuality were often enough to get you an R, so there goes your teenage crowd, which was a prime target for a movie like this.
The MPAA is far worse than the Hayes Code ever was. At least there, things were pretty well spelled out. The MPAA is notorious for telling filmmakers they have to make cuts to get a desired rating, but won't provide specific information as to what is objectionable. The documentary This Movie Is Not Yet Rated exposes it for the lie that it is.
"Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!" -
Fluke_Skywalker — 12 years ago(April 01, 2014 10:28 PM)
I suppose you could read it one of two ways; 1.) It shows an acceptance of homosexuality, as the OP sees it. 2.) Since the culture of
Logan's Run
is one of hedonism and excess, it could be lumping homosexual behavior into the category of debauchery.
I'm not saying this to be hateful, but it's interesting how often two people (or groups of people) can look at the same thing and see something different. I like it when things like this aren't explicit and are left open for interpretation. Who wants to be beaten over the head with ideas? You don't think that way. You just take your lumps and move on.
'Cause there's thunder in your heart. Every move is like lightning! -
gabby_bm — 11 years ago(April 05, 2014 11:43 AM)
**
WARNING:
MY POSTS
MAY
CONTAIN SPOILERS
**
.
I suppose you could read it one of two ways; 1.) It shows an acceptance of homosexuality, as the OP sees it. 2.) Since the culture of Logan's Run is one of hedonism and excess, it could be lumping homosexual behavior into the category of debauchery.
Or that homosexuality was encouraged as a form of population control. In domed cities with limited resources and the need to kill people at 30 years of age, I'd imagine that population control is one of the primary concerns of that society, so i can see how non-reproductive sexual behaviors might be encouraged over time. -
liberius — 10 years ago(November 08, 2015 10:53 PM)
Nope. These people were tightly controlled including their reproduction. There's no suggestion that women were getting pregnant accidentally and homosexuality was used to moderate population. It was Last Day that controlled the population and babies were brought up in Nursery.
This concept is stolen from Brave New World and modified. The state controls all. I can't remember what the book says but no doubt contraceptives were in the water and nothing was left to chance. -
PillowRock — 11 years ago(January 13, 2015 02:57 PM)
The practice censorship via the arbitrary assignment of ratings which limit the size of the movie's audience and influence theaters when they book movies. Suggestion of elements like homosexuality were often enough to get you an R, so there goes your teenage crowd, which was a prime target for a movie like this.
In this era (mid-1970s), not really . as long as you didn't go far enough to get an X.
Nobody was trying to keep movies down to a PG back then (and the PG-13 hadn't been invented yet). If anything, movie makers / studios tended to go the other way entirely: throwing the odd topless scene that was entirely gratuitous even though it would change the movie's rating from PG to R. The switch from the Code to the ratings system was still recent enough that seeing things on screen that used to be forbidden was still a marketing positive.
Also, an R didn't really cost you the teen audience back then. Many theaters still tended to treat the ratings as what they actually are: industry guidelines, not the virtual equivalent of legal drinking ages that the ratings have become. They just didn't work that hard at enforcing the rating age limits (again, aside from X). Theaters hadn't yet consolidated into huge chains run by corporate lawyers in full CYA mode to avoid any possibility of law suits. Speaking as someone who was 14 - 15 in 1976 (depending on the month), I can tell you that I had no trouble seeing
Logan's Run
in a theater. It wasn't my first R rated movie either. -
Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 — 9 years ago(September 06, 2016 05:57 AM)
In the U.S. the Hays Office was succeeded by the MPAA Office. For a long time, they were (in)famous for putting more restrictive ratings on scenes with any gay action than on similar scenes between a straight couple. (A single kiss between two men was almost sure to get a movie an "R" rating.)
Find the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" (2006)
http://www.imdb.com/board/10493459/combined
It outlines the unequal treatment of that era. Including the "Drumhead Court Martial" tone of their "appeal process".
Perhaps that bit "slipped past" because it didn't go anywhere, they didn't even speak to each other.
"Love looks not with the eye but with the mind;
Therefore is wingd Cupid painted blind."
A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act I -
Nikon11 — 13 years ago(January 23, 2013 11:25 AM)
Must be the mid-70's or maybe just the British
In The Man Who Would Be King, Ootah offers Daniel and Peachy any of his daughters, and after they refuse (they swore off women for a bit), he offers them any of his sons. -
omoxus — 11 years ago(April 07, 2014 08:50 PM)
It was a hedonistic society that accepted all types of sexual behavior. I don't think Logan 5 was Homosexual. As he rejected the guy that came through the circuit before Jessica 6. More than likely, he and Frances would get involved in orgies. The relationship between the two were more of a "bromance".
I am the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega -
LauraJ1234 — 11 years ago(December 05, 2014 07:51 PM)
Certainly, the City culture of Logan's Run does accept it as normal. But whether the film itself accepts it as normal is debatable.
In the film, sex was just sex. It had no moral value, positive or negative (nothing in the City had any moral value, positive or negative). It was simply an action undertaken by willing parties. Clearly people might have preferences (we see both Logan and Jessica rejecting same-gender partners but not having any stigma about the possibilities), but those preferences were not connected to identities the way we think of them today. That is, a guy preferring other guys is not 'gay', because there is no such identity in the world of the City, but he would be just a guy who prefers guys.
I am ambivalent about how the movie depicts it is it using the openness around same-gender sex as a positive depiction of the openness of the sexual revolution of the 1970s? I really find it wonderful to see the ease with which they talk about it. On the other hand, in the end the movie reinforces traditional heterosexual, monogamous, for-the-purpose-of-procreation partnerships, so in that light, same-gender sex would be seen as an example of the decadence of the City, suggesting that the film might ultimately reject same-gender sex. -
Helenlaurence — 10 years ago(June 03, 2015 01:56 PM)
I get what you're saying here- but for some reason it felt to me like it was just a non issue. It didn't matter if you preferred men or women just because It didn't.
Although as someone else said, Logan and Jessica did seem to represent 'the norm' at the end. And Francis could be seen as being 'sick' and 'obsessive' in his live for Logan.calthough at the same time they seemed to have a great relationship in the beginning!
Hmmmmm
. Not sure now!!! ? -
kaskait — 10 years ago(July 02, 2015 05:49 PM)
I see it differently. Yes, the film did accept homosexuality as a non-issue.
What it was showing was that there was no outlet for LOVE. This society did not allow people to build relationships, to create lives together. And if they did attempt to do so, I'm sure the computer would have found ways to break it up.
The reason why Francis went insane was because he had no outlet for the feelings he had for Logan. He wasn't allowed to have a life with him. So he took what he could get.
But when he saw Logan fall immediately in love with Jessica, Francis realized what he was missing. And that is part of the reason he was so angry and hurt.
Could Logan have fallen in love with Francis? Probably. He certainly doesn't turn his nose away from male affairs or his hook up machine would reject male candidates immediately and only let women through the channel. But it just happened that he fell in love with Jessica. -
megArnold — 10 years ago(July 26, 2015 07:55 AM)
Yes, the film did accept homosexuality as a non-issue.
or at least gay sex for recreation.
But when he saw Logan fall immediately in love with Jessica, Francis realized what he was missing.
says who?
or his hook up machine would reject male candidates immediately
says who?
Everything you say, however nice and plausible it may be, is your interpretation of things that are not in the movie.
No, Schmuck! You are only entitled to your INFORMED opinion!!
Harlan Ellison -
kaskait — 10 years ago(July 29, 2015 08:38 PM)
Says who?
The film.
Francis was acting way too intensely over a friend who meets a new woman. Wouldn't you think? Especially in the last scenes, where he is complaining that Jessica changed him.
The Circuit
If Logan didn't have flings with men or didn't want them, he could easily program the machine not to show available men. In turn the men on the circuit could request only female partners. What would be the point of the machine if it didn't allow choice?