The only thing I didn't understand
-
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 -
thesinik — 10 years ago(August 06, 2015 11:49 PM)
"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."
Do you view the gay community as a cartoon of itself? Grow up.
Made you look! -
njiuma — 10 years ago(January 14, 2016 05:55 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."
- the gay and liberal community likely isn't standing on the sidelines of a movie worried about the perceptions of homosexuals.
However, i believe that there are gay and liberal organizations that are trying to influence the general perception, trying to make gays "normal" in a society that has viewed homosexuality as "abnormal" and heterosexuality as "normal".
Colonel Fitts is clearly a homosexual that tries to cover it up with his sham marriage and outward "macho" posturing to his son, later giving in to his gay propensity and murdering Lester as a part of his conflict.
Do you view the gay community as a cartoon of itself? Grow up. - it is in some ways "a cartoon of itself", as it is certainly a bit of a self parody. To try to normalize an aberrant sexual practice in a society that has, on the whole, perceived it to be perverse, seems a bit comical.
"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"
- the gay and liberal community likely isn't standing on the sidelines of a movie worried about the perceptions of homosexuals.
-
thesinik — 10 years ago(January 14, 2016 07:05 AM)
There is nothing abnormal about being gay. We even see it in nature. Only repressed/bigoted overly religious people like you can't come to terms with it haha..
Whether we like it or not, homosexuality isn't a fad. It's also not a binary light switch but more of a spectrum. I'm sure you've had curiosity and it burns you up
-
evelienbernaers — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 10:41 AM)
Apart from the other discussion that arose from my comment, which got - in my opinion - a bit beside the question, I'd like to answer to your reaction.
You say te story clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man, hereby ignoring all my arguments why this wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.
You say that I ignore the last scene, except I clearly don't. I've just given a reason why this scene means something different to me.
You say col Fittz has to be gay, since he kissed Lester. As if things would make perfect sense then. Have you ever thought about the fact that the two of them barely knew each other and that there was no reason whatsoever to assume that the colonel was somehow attracted to Lester? It would be like saying that it would be normal for Colonel Fitts wife to go ahead and kiss Lester, just because she is a heterosexual. It makes me think I better understand homosexuals than you do.
Other than that, you seem awfully determined to attribute my opinion to some subconscious gay-hating aversion and throw it in the garbage right away. That's just too bad. But okay clearly you have made peace with your "hubristic" side. -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 11:05 AM)
You say te story clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man, hereby ignoring all my arguments why this wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.
You say that I ignore the last scene, except I clearly don't. I've just given a reason why this scene means something different to me.
You say col Fittz has to be gay, since he kissed Lester. As if things would make perfect sense then. Have you ever thought about the fact that the two of them barely knew each other and that there was no reason whatsoever to assume that the colonel was somehow attracted to Lester? It would be like saying that it would be normal for Colonel Fitts wife to go ahead and kiss Lester, just because she is a heterosexual. It makes me think I better understand homosexuals than you do.
Other than that, you seem awfully determined to attribute my opinion to some subconscious gay-hating aversion and throw it in the garbage right away. That's just too bad. But okay clearly you have made peace with your "hubristic" side.
I'm sorry, but you're really ignoring what was presented in the film.
Go and watch that scene again - look at how Fitts approaches Lester, it's not just the kiss, it's the entire tenderness of it all.
That's not the behaviour of somebody who outwardly "hates" gay people, well apart from the obvious cliche.
Truly - go an watch that scene again a couple of times, and really, are you really contending it wasn't really heatfelt, tentative exploration?
And it's not so much that I've made peace with my "hubristic" side - we just have an understanding, that's all. -
DavidStHubbinsUSA — 10 years ago(November 10, 2015 05:21 AM)
This incident was a very obvious and easy to understand chain of events. I don't think the Col's son had anything to do with what happened except for two things. He felt certain his son was gay and that Lester was gay. His life was a constant struggle with himself to repress who he really was.
He wouldn't have done that ever if he was straight. He hated himself so much for his true feelings he abused his son and wife for most of his life. He truly had major inner demons. After finding out that his son was gay (he thought) he had a melt down and seeing a known (to him) homosexual he had to take action on what was eating him up. He would have never approached anyone unsure if they were gay or not and to him this was safe, he never thought for a minute of being rejected. Since he made a mistake and was rebuffed the shear terror of what he did and exposing himself took him over the edge, he couldn't allow anyone to know. He also allowed himself to give into who he was and acted on his greatest fear but was shut down. He broke. Took him over the edge. Had he been in proper frame of mind he wouldn't have committed murder in such a way that he would almost certainly have been caught. With his son involved (he would at the very least say that his father went ballistic and might have shot Lester in rage, they would have checked his guns) Using his own weapon he would have eventually been caught, for murder anyway. No one in the world would know of his desires if Lester was gone. All he cared about in the entire world is that that secret would never get out. He was temporally insane.
If you combine his massive homophobic personality and the scene with the Nazi plate (Why was that even in the movie? There has to be a reason, not a Nazi weapon but a piece of china, something more personal) He was surely hiding his being gay.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 22, 2015 05:37 PM)
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.
Yes but that scene was NOT in the movie that Mendes MADE, so I agree entirely with your explanation.
the dead give away was the STYLE of the "kiss" which was more of a football headbutt or a kid who has been told he must kiss grandmother, and he does the same "pucker up".
same in Brokeback when Ennis does the same to Jack purely so he can get revenge on Alma for screwing up all his plans for their future. Ang did it that way as totally unlike Ennis to make a visual statement, same as Mendes did with Col F.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 11:07 AM)
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.
Yes but that scene was NOT in the movie that Mendes MADE, so I agree entirely with your explanation.
the dead give away was the STYLE of the "kiss" which was more of a football headbutt or a kid who has been told he must kiss grandmother, and he does the same "pucker up".
same in Brokeback when Ennis does the same to Jack purely so he can get revenge on Alma for screwing up all his plans for their future. Ang did it that way as totally unlike Ennis to make a visual statement, same as Mendes did with Col F.
Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.
Just because there's not further exposition, doesn't mean that the angle has been reversed - that's just daft. -
Lester_Burnham_Risen — 11 years ago(March 23, 2015 05:30 PM)
Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.
Sorry dude but your drama teach is totally wrong there.
Because the whole deal is a STORY the ONLY version is the one you see on screen - ie a director has the right to put his own tilt on a movie and ignore the so called screen play [or book].
particularly here as Mendes is English so is able to SEE the Beauty from afar because he is not sitting IN it.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/ -
douglashallth — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 03:52 AM)
Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.
Sorry dude but your drama teach is totally wrong there.
Because the whole deal is a STORY the ONLY version is the one you see on screen - ie a director has the right to put his own tilt on a movie and ignore the so called screen play [or book].
particularly here as Mendes is English so is able to SEE the Beauty from afar because he is not sitting IN it.
"drama teach"?
Way past that, junior.
Pedantry and myopia are misplaced, here.
Just because some scenes were excised, it doesn't mean that's because they retreated from the thrust of that - there may have been countless other reasons. Other scenes were too.
None of that changes what we're presented with - a guy who made he career in the army, from a time and conditioned to the view that homosexuality is a deviance and something to be shamed of / repressed, but actually is, himself.
Go and watch the scene where he goes to Lester. If you can see something other than a guy with a lifetime entrenched in a certain polarised opinion, repressing his true feelings, then decided to take a chance and expose a degree of vulnerability in the process. That wasn't some odd experiment - look at how he approaches Lester, look at how he behaves, acts.
As I've said several times, now - the mental games of twister people are prepared to play about that, and about what was going on, say as much about what they WANT to see in the film, as opposed to what was presented.