Good couple of posts, Hero. Thanks for making them.
The fact that they immediately elicited - apropos of nothing at all - the yawningly predictable "some of my best friends are gay" defence that people with attitude issues about gays always trot out like some kind of merit badge, suggests to me that you hit the nail fairly square-on. Always makes me wonder how those people's gay "friends" (if, in fact, they exist) feel about said relationship, if these people are willing to speak so disparagingly about them in an open forum just to score points in a discussion.
I also wonder if it ever occurs to these people, while they're airily dismissing comments about perceived currents of homosexuality in a film as some pathological need in poofters to homosexualise the entire world, that they themselves are showing a desperate need for the world to be heterosexual, as if the very discussion of the possibility of a theme of homosexuality is somehow a threat to them. Mustn't frighten the women or stampede the horses, after all.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

I've had tons of gay friends over many decades and not one entertained the notion that virtually all straight men were closeted, etc. It would seem you're friends with a lot of shallow, vapid gays; which, actually, doesn't really say all that much for you.
"I don't want no white man lookin' at my Tampax!"

I've had tons of gay friends over many decades and not one entertained the notion that virtually all straight men were closeted, etc. It would seem you're friends with a lot of shallow, vapid gays; which, actually, doesn't really say all that much for you.
"I don't want no white man lookin' at my Tampax!"

Definitely it's beyond ridiculous. It's hypocritical.

Oh, I agree. Truly, even if I don't get it, what consenting adult human beings do between/among themselves is entirely their own affair and why anyone else would feel the need to "cure" it is beyond me. But on the other hand, I'm offended that someone (or in my own case, a lot of someones) would attribute their own proclivities to the rest of the species - it's beyond ridiculous.

Well put, Ellis. As an actor I've also come across gays with the same "all straight men are closeted gays" fantasies. It's just a desperate need for self-validation that results in this feverish search for "metaphors for undisclosed homosexuality". In it's own way it's as bad as this "gays can be cured by Jesus" garbage.

Oh, please. My wife and I have, over the years, had many (mostly male) gay colleagues, most of whom were unfortunately lost to AIDS, several of whom are still around although a number of them are sick or at least HIV-positive. With the exception of exactly two (in nearly 40 years), all of them were under the impression that virtually all straight men were closet cases who were just lying in wait for the right moment with the right guy. That has been my "literalist" experience and frankly, I think I can be excused for finding it offensive. I truly don't care what consenting human adults do between/among themselves but I think the species would have ground to a halt long ago if this theory had any credence.

It's not a productive way to think about the movie if that wasn't the director's intention
The idea that guessing the director's/author's intention is the only officially correct way to understand a text is an extremely naive and limited approach to art. In this statement, and in the muddled-and-oddly-unconvincing-even-on-their-own-terms details you've offered from the film, I'm afraid you've revealed yourself as a bit of a plodding literalist who must miss most of what's valuable in most forms of art.

It's not a productive way to think about the movie if that wasn't the director's intention (and given that I read the novel, I'd have to say it wasn't the author's, either). And as to a "homoerotic subtext" between Arthur/Tony and Charlie, let's reexamine the story. Someone gets a phone call from a DEAD friend. The friend is also doing everything possible, including citing intimate knowledge of the someone's life, in order to establish credibility. We later learn that the dead friend's motives are driven by an agenda that relies on being permanently connected to the poor shmuck he roped in; that's an incredibly intimate connection but sexual? We see that Tony/Arthur is blackmailed into having the transformation because he's straight and is later devastated to discover that his FEMALE lover is paid to watch him. He's upset to learn that his wife has pretty quickly moved on after his "death."
So where, exactly, does this homoerotic subtext come into play?

I'm afraid I can't be bothered to go through all of the responses as I just read the first few and stopped. What pathetic and, yes, phobic defensiveness your interpretation elicited.
You say yourself in the OP that the film evoked many life-reassessment themes in a broadly existential way, but your notion about homosexuality is quite clearly a productive way to think about the movie.
It's sad that your musing produced such predictable, knee-jerk narrow-mindedness.

I must admit I got the impression from the beginning that there was a homosexual subtext, it was when Charlie mentioned that he and Arthur both bought each other the same watch. I had not, however, considered the scene you address in your last point, that of Tony revisiting his former home and speaking to Mrs. Hamilton.
Some may argue that these readings are merely revisionism but I am not gay and have no reason to seek out these hidden subplots, although I must consider that elements of homosexuality are now omnipresent in Western society, which might lead one to misinterpret scenes like those described.

I don't think that the film is a metaphor for undisclosed sexuality. However, through the prism of a 21st century sensibility (2011 as I type this), there are scenes with a definite homoerotic subtext. I'm not familiar with the novel the movie is based on, but upon reading several comments on this board about the book the film utilizes the basic structure and premise of the book, which seems to be focused mainly on middle-aged men being given a second chance at living out their younger adulthood.
The scenes with Arthur/Tony & Charlie have a strong homoerotic subtext. All of the details Charlie gives Arthur in the initial phone call hint at an intimacy that may be deeper than college jock buddies. The latin inscription on the trophy may be a plot device to give Arthur confirmation that his dead friend is indeed alive, but it also hints at something much stronger.
Some of the beginning scenes of the movie where Arthur is being tailed by the man who gives him the note and Arthur's journey to find the Company hint at a descent into what the 1960s would have termed a deviant journey.
From a 2011 perspective, the scene with Mrs. Hamilton (what a treat to see the late Frances Reid, aka "Alice Horton" from DOOL in a film role) plays on dual levels. On the more traditional level, is Emily picking on on the subtle similarities between Arthur and Tony? Does she suspect that they are related (father/son) or the same person? A more nuanced contemporary take could be her realizing that Arthur's friendship with the handsome young artist who knows so much about Arthur's art and the layout of the house may answer her questions about why Arthur was quiet and somewhat removed from his family his desires and interests were with men. She's clearly moved on with her life (the remodeled study, the cleaned out garage), is it necessary to revisit that past?

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

"Reggie, are you a poofta?"
"I should bally well say so!"

'Ello sailor.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

It really does get old to once again find someone trying to claim a homosexual subtext in a film. I must be fair and acknowledge that even some homosexuals dismiss the attempt in this case, but it still seems like there is a certain group of narcissistic gays who feel a desperate need to turn every film into a parable about repressed homosexuality. Almost as if they are pursuing some self-absorbed fantasy about how all heterosexual men are actually repressed homosexuals. And yes, I've seen this fantasy expressed before, most often in the theatre. Neil Simon even used it for satire in "The Goodbye Girl".
It also indicates to me that some homosexuals are as clueless about heterosexuality as some heterosexuals misunderstand homosexuality. For instance, the person calling heterosexuality "vanilla" clearly has no clue about what it's like to be straight.

He didn't assault her, he stumbled onto her. She was an actress.

much less just sleep with one, which is in fact what he did.

The fact that he attempts to rape a woman while under the influence of some drug makes the homosexual theory implausible. If he really wasn't into women, the bad guys would not be able to induce him to assault one.

Actors draw on life experiences all the timeit's part of their process. That doesn't alter the fact that he (Hudson) didn't write the novel on which this was based, or the screenplay, and there was NO homosexual context in either"sub" or otherwise; he played it as written. I REALLY doubt that Hudsonor any other gay guy, for that matteroccurred to the author at all at any time in the context of writing this novel, which deals with a very dull, Establishment guy whose transformation results in only the most superficial change (his appearance) and you seem to have missed the pointhe didn't "HAVE to cover up who he was" because he was entirely respectable. He wanted to be who he WASN'Tand found out the hard way he couldn't. That's the whole point.

some people do think that Hudson drew on his supposed homosexuality and having to cover it up in his portrayal of a man living a lie. So yes, the film itself is not about homosexuality (perhaps the communist blacklist is alluded to), but there are subtexts about ANYONE having to cover up who you really are to live a superficially more easy life.

Nice thought, but the scene where he is captured under influence of drugs raping the anonymous woman to force him into signing would have been left out or been something else.

RidiculousI'm with gayspiritwarrior on this one. It's based on a novel, which I read after seeing the movie, and the film is not only quite faithful to it (except at the very end) but there's NO hint of homosexuality; it's just the story of a shallow guy who has led a superficially successful but ultimately unsatisfying life (WOW! Just like the film! Imagine!). The character is a man who knows something is wrong but who's missingfor lack of a better termthe spirit that would have led him to make more meaningful choices and the moral is that THIS is what the transformation can't give him. Heand every other man in that waiting roomis condemned to dissatisfaction that he'll never be able to resolve because even given a fresh start, the essence of who you are can't be altered. At no time is there any indication that sex with another guy will fix things.

You're all gay. Jeeeeze. Whine whine whine. Shut up.