The only thing I didn't understand
-
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 10 years ago(July 01, 2015 09:34 PM)
he makes a very emotional visit to Lesters garage where he finally acts on his gay feelings.
So why didn't he go for his dick in that case
like you didn't see Ennis mucking about - just straight up where the sun don't shine.
I don't see Col F as a real poofter.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
iancockbill — 9 years ago(May 18, 2016 05:08 AM)
hi cathy,i always loved this movie as i think many people see things in it that so closely mirror our own lives particularly as i am the same age as lester when it was released,i am not disagreeing on your opinion of the colonels actions but i always thought he did it because he loved his son and was appalled at the the thought of him prostituting himself for lester and in his twisted emotional state offered himself hoping that his son would be free,then tormented by his rejection by lester and the shame he felt killed lester because of his humiliation
-
temerrit — 11 years ago(November 03, 2014 10:10 AM)
The way I saw the scene was that he was NOT a homosexual.
He tried to kiss Lester because he wanted to understand and/or have a connection to his son, who he thought was gay.
The reason I think he really shot Lester was because he might have considered him a predator to his son, who he was misguided in trying to protect -
-
poem — 11 years ago(March 27, 2015 03:45 AM)
Thats a possible, but very unlikely interpretation.
We heterosexual men dont feel the motivation to find out "how homosexuals feel", even less by kissing other men. Also, the father isnt trying to understand his son. He is trying to force his son into the same repressed kind of personality he himself is.
I find the theory that he is repressed gay much easier and logical. He secretly hates himself for being gay, and he hates Lester because now Lester knows he's gay. Thus he has to kill Lester, to kill the person who found out.
You shall have no other Kates before Kate Winslet. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 10 years ago(April 25, 2015 05:11 AM)
exactly, as I say above
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
jaydub90011 — 10 years ago(September 29, 2015 02:46 AM)
Him kissing him to try to understand his son and his perceived homosexuality is wrong imo. I think the director was trying to make it clear that the colonel himself was gay in that scene with he obvious focus on how he squeezed Lester's back before he kissed him. There was passion behind that kiss.
All the gay bashing throughout the movie is case 101 repressed gay feelings as well. -
Kent_Kainer — 11 years ago(January 24, 2015 11:17 AM)
The only thing I didn't understand
For the same reason he couldn't beat up his son when he thought he sucks dicks.
Should have noticed how much more he was fighting himself in that scene than his son.
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe! -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(February 09, 2015 09:47 AM)
Colonel Fitts thought his son was gay. It was a pathetic way to try to understand his son, in which he obviously hasn't had a normal father son relationship.
I sometimes find it amusing, the mental game of twister some people perform to put spin on something they don't want to consider.
Quite ironic, really, in the circumstances
Clearly, Colonel Fitts was intended to be gay - even if you were oblivious to the excised storyline of his background.
Trying it to try and understand his son? Do you realise how bizarre that sounds?
The story has portrayed him as a repressed man in circumstances where it would be rather damaging and conflicting for him to be openly gay - and the rest of his family and circumstances bely that contradiction and internal conflict that was no doubt intended to dog his adult life.
As to the wife and kid thing - well they say marriage is the biggest closet. -
evelienbernaers — 11 years ago(March 21, 2015 06:08 PM)
You shouldn't assume that people see an other explanation for Col. Fitts behaviour because of some hidden fear of the gay community.. ("the mental game of twister some people perform to put spin on something they don't want to consider")
As for me, I also didn't think he had some repressed gay feelings. I saw him as the saddest and most intriguing character of the whole movie.
He is a man who had always lived his personal army-like beliefs of discipline and respect for authority to the fullest. When you see him earlier, confronted with his gay neighbours, you can see the deep hate he feels for these people. He detests the very idea, it completely contradicts everything he stands for. He has always done his utmost best to live by these principles which he thinks everyone should obey and would make for a perfect American society. He lives in his cocoon thinking that this is how the world works, that he is serving his land in the best way.
But throughout the movie you see him realising that the world is evolving in an opposite direction. First of all he can't get a grip on his son (whom he loves very deeply and who he wants to raise by his own beliefs, which also means showing no emotions in the process). Now gay's are just running in the street as if that's a normal thing (not my opinion), Lester is just doing as he pleases and his wife is of no support at all, seen her suffering of mental problems. His son is basically the only thing he has left in the world. When he eventually loses him too (not only to homosexuality, but also because he failed to discipline him, that way looking like the "sad old man"he is in stead of the firm leader he wants to be), his complete universe falls apart. The kiss, for me, is Col. Fitts waving the white flag, realising his life has been a lie, saying "i give up, i'll do whatever the world wants me to". Maybe not exactly to understand his son, but definitely out of love for him.
After the rejection and utter humiliation, he completely loses it and ends up killing Lester.
This is off course my personal interpretation and since there apparently were supposed to be scenes of the colonel and a lost Vietnam gay-affaire this is probably wrong. Still, the "oh he was gay all along!" solution strikes me as too easy, and quite disappointing seen of how deep the rest of the movie was. I then also feel like there should have been more fear in his performance trying not to be discovered. Now I mainly notice him being kind of puzzled as he slowly realises that his beliefs are not implemented nor respected in the rest of his neighbourhood.. -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 03:15 AM)
And again, if you like, you may see it that way.
The story - despite redacted scenes, clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man.
What's more tenable - given the way he approached Lester, in order to kiss him?
People see, or don't see what they want / don't want.
Watch that scene again, where he goes to Lester. Look at how he appeared, the conflict, yet the tenderness and vulnerability, the resulting murder.
Even if you declare the redacted scenes as being somehow, now, magically gone, and never were, there's other things you really can't ignore, unless you are determined to.
I'll say that point again, with emphasis: "the mental game of twister some people perform to put spin on something they don't want to consider" - it's always there to see. People who - for whatever reasons - be it the aesthetics of the story, their preconceptions regarding homosexuality, or simply their determination, sometimes will look at this film with every determination to reject the notion that Colonel Fitts (ret) wasn't actually a repressed homosexual man, he was just conflicted and trying to understand something.
Which is complete and utter bunk. I find it completely fatuous that people would try and suggest he wasn't gay, when he went to Lester and tried to kiss him in that way. -
bhoover247 — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 03:52 AM)
Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay. They would prefer the two neighbors jogging happily down the street. Incidentally, the two gay neighbors seem to be the only well adjusted people in the whole film. As for your phrase you love to repeat "the mental game of twister" I wonder if kids of today still play Twister, or if it was just a plot by 70's business executives to get us kids to touch each other.
-
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 04:33 AM)
Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay.
Don't know, don't truly care - doesn't really have much bearing on the story as presented.
I'm sure people of various groups may form an opinion on something, but does the gay community have one cohesive "voice" on such matters?
I could buy that some gay people may not necessarily like the cliched presentation - but then, as you say, there were the two Jims, too.
As for your phrase you love to repeat "the mental game of twister" I wonder if kids of today still play Twister, or if it was just a plot by 70's business executives to get us kids to touch each other.
"Never ascribe to malice, what could be explained as incompetence"
Whenever there's a suggestion of calculating, Machiavellian-esque as an alternative to dumb luck, or incompetence, I'm going with Occam's Razor. -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 09:17 AM)
Somewhere on an exclusive tropical island paradise a retired Milton Bradley executive is laughing at your gullibility.
Snappy comeback, but poor choice of words.
It's not gullible to default to assuming most other people are likely to fall on the simplistic, rather than calculating side. Hubristic, maybe, but not gullible.
Look at business, government, anything you care to mention, really - would you really assume they're all scheming, steely-eyed, missile-men? Or occasionally the stars align, and something works out, and the conspiracy theory nutjobs assume, rather predictably, conspiracy.
Anyway, it's all the work of those lizard people - and may I be the first to welcome our new, lizard, overlords