A metaphor for undisclosed homosexuality
-
taaffa — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 10:38 AM)
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.
-
DD-931 — 15 years ago(December 05, 2010 09:02 AM)
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. -
RaymondKevin — 15 years ago(March 18, 2011 01:11 AM)
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? -
Angry_Afghan — 14 years ago(May 18, 2011 10:42 PM)
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. -
Local Hero — 15 years ago(March 19, 2011 07:50 AM)
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. -
EllisFowler — 14 years ago(April 19, 2011 11:00 AM)
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? -
Local Hero — 14 years ago(April 19, 2011 09:47 PM)
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. -
EllisFowler — 14 years ago(April 19, 2011 09:55 PM)
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.
-
DD-931 — 14 years ago(April 28, 2011 03:23 PM)
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.
-
EllisFowler — 14 years ago(April 29, 2011 07:28 PM)
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.
-
kennethdower — 9 years ago(July 14, 2016 12:47 PM)
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!" -
kennethdower — 9 years ago(July 14, 2016 12:49 PM)
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!" -
puirt-a-beul — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 07:54 AM)
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.