DeMille, not knowing anything about Roman history, wanted Laughton to play Nero as a chilling villain. But Laughton knew Nero was more of a camp figure and played him that way. DeMille objected but Laughton stood his ground. Pretty gutsy considering how homophobic DeMille was.
share"DeMille, not knowing anything about Roman history ..."
How do we "know" what DeMille "knew" about Roman history?
"But Laughton knew Nero was more of a camp figure ..."
How do we "know" what Laughton "knew" about Nero?
"Pretty gutsy considering how homophobic DeMille was."
Then, again, how do we "know" how "homophobic" DeMille was? . . . (Seems a bit of a stretch considering how hard DeMille fought for the inclusion of the lesbian dance in "Sign of the Cross". Ah, and his acceptance of Laughton's characterization of the emperor.)
Then, again, how do we "know" how "homophobic" DeMille was? . . . (Seems a bit of a stretch considering how hard DeMille fought for the inclusion of the lesbian dance in "Sign of the Cross". Ah, and his acceptance of Laughton's characterization of the emperor.)
"As for the rest of your comment, how absurdly naive."
The comment was a question. You mean, what an absurdly naive "question". Well, I'll ask it again: HOW do we know HOW homophobic DeMille was? I'll follow with a few more naive questions: Was he so homophobic that he wouldn't hire an actor suspected of being a homosexual? Did he refuse to portray homosexuality in his films? Did he have no homosexual friends? Did he merely consider it, as you suggest, a threat to the hypermasculine "ideal", and, ah, who's ideal? And, what IS "hypermasculinity", pray? A quote out of the plethora of conventional Hollywood wisdom you reference, John Baxter, or from DeMille or one or two of his closest friends might help. Btw, can you tell us how you define "homophobic"? Can you tell us how DeMille who, presumably, was "hyper" homophobic (to borrow a term) defined it?
Last time I looked, lesbianism was considered homosexuality -- before and during the present enlightened era, and looked at with enough disdain, at least, to have concerned the censors then as much as it concerns like-minded people today (setting aside for the moment the hypermasculine "ideal" which I'm hopeful you'll define for we, the more naive posters on these boards).
Quick points:
1. Except I never said he was "hyper-homophobic". You did. He apparently wasn't homophobic enough to avoid hiring gay cast and crew; he and other directors had little choice in any event.
2. Lesbianism doesn't get patriarchal boxers in a bunch the way male homosexuality did and still does - no anxieties over who is behind or in front, on top or on the bottom, for example.
3. Homophobic: embracing a range of negative feelings toward, in this case, male homosexuals and ostensibly male homosexual mannerisms.
4. The hypermasculine ideal - is this really so tough? - is synonymous with machismo.
5. And when I decide to do a dissertation on this subject, replete with footnotes and quotations, I'll be sure to let you know.
But for now, on a piddling message board, this is all you get.
More quick points -- by the corresponding numbers:
1. It's the "hyper" I was borrowing to echo the tenor of your post. So, there are apparently levels of homophobia? . . . Are there any acceptable levels, or do we need to call the thought police?
2. I guess the difference, then, is "patriarchal boxers in a bunch"? I wonder how much DeMille knew about boxing?
3. I guess that's one of those newer words (not even "in" my 30 year old dictionary) which finds itself a tool of what Thomas Sowell calls "verbal virtuosity". Defined differently depending upon the broader point to be made in advocating policy or assigning righteous vs. evil motives. I've heard it defined several ways, your definition being one of them. Why I was curious.
4. No, it ain't "tough", just new to me. I get the "machismo" and DeMille was certainly aware of that, which, no doubt, made him a lower-level homophobe?
5. The quotations even without the dissertation (and skip the footnotes entirely please) might be helpful, as I said.
"... this is all you get."
A disappointment, but since we're both just "piddling" around, it'll have to do.
Best
I should have the good sense to stay out of this slap fight, but good sense was never my strong point. I believe Laughton thought the only way to play Nero was to camp it up, but I have to disagree and say that I also believe DeMille was totally on board with the Gay characterization of Nero from the beginning. In fact, DeMille may have selected Laughton to play Nero because he was Gay. Here's the reason why I came to that conclusion: Near the end of the film, when the lions are having Christians for lunch and Nero is sitting up in his Imperial box seat, there's what appears to me to be an obviously effeminate young man seated at Nero's feet on Nero's left. Except for a well placed leg, this young man appears to be totally naked in Nero's box. Each time the film cuts back to this shot (which happens a number of times), the young man is ignoring the action down in the arena, preferring instead to stare up adoringly at the plump Nero. Clearly, the only reason to have this actor in the scene with Nero is to telegraph to the audience in cinema language that Nero is Gay. Now, while Laughton undoubtedly wanted to portray Nero as a Gay goose, I don't think he had the control in 1932 to alter scenes in the film of a powerful director like DeMille. In my opinion, the inclusion of the gay character in that scene was clearly the work of director DeMille. And, it would not surprise me if that Gay character was written into the script, just in case anyone in the audience had not already figured out that Nero was not into girls. I think DeMille wanted to portray Pagan Rome as a decadent place, and nothing spelled decadence in 1932 more than homosexuality. Let me make it very clear that I don't profess to know anything about what was actually going on in the mind of Laughton or DeMille. The theory I present is only my personal opinion, based on observations taken directly from the film, along with some elementary school logic thrown in.
shareWhat Laughton thought he "Knew" was inf act wrong, Nero was very competent and very complicated.
shareNever met the man personally. Let's just say that Nero's oft-chronicled character (i.e. marked by flamboyant attention-seeking, public extravagance and personal excesses) lent itself very well dramatically to a camp portrayal.
shareHe was basing his assumption of other Nero fiction, not on the facts.
Nero was a tyrant, but he a competent one who was actually popular with the common people most of the time, he wasn't the idiotic easily manipulated bafoon hated by everyone like in SOTC and Quo Vadis.
Nero's flamboyance, the operative word in this thread, is what I was calling attention to, both in the man as the facts (such as they are) bear out, and in Laughton's interpretation.
shareI'm not sure that's an accurate word. Nero did a "flare for the theatrical" (There is no context in which I can't find an excuse to quote Batman movies) who did honestly believe a great Musician, poet and actor. The last he certainly was since he was such a good politician.
shareThe primary basis for associating Nero with any less then Heteornormative activity takes place after Poppea died, when he has a young man who kinda resembles her castrated and called him Sabina.
"It's made up of facts, that doesn't make it true"-Spencer Hastings