When Timmy insists on rubbing oil into Roger's leg, even when Roger doesn't want it, and he keeps chasing Roger, pulling down his pants over and over again. Not to mention the preceding scene where they're on the same horse, blatantly simulating anal sex. Very sexy. But then again Roger is so damn pretty, who can blame Tim??
shareYOU'RE GROSS. GO HIT UP THE PORN SITES, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR A DEGENERATE LIKE YOU.
shareSorry mister or miss puritan, but even one of the reviews on this site mentions the obvious homoerotic scenes. Only a dunce would fail to recognize them nowadays. They were apparently inserted as an "in" joke by the director as a way to fool the the Hays office, which was running rampant over Hollywood in those days. So take a chill pill reverend!
share[deleted]
Exactly! lol
shareOkay, after a lot of searching, I think I found the review you're talking about. Which isn't on this site at all. There's not one mention of that either the massage scene or the riding scene on any review on this site. But, there's a review here http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review/thoroughbredsdontcry that mentions it. But, they also said it was unintentional. I've yet to find any review that claims knowledge that the director had anything like that in mind and deliberately meant for it to be seen that way. I'm only seeing people giving their own personal interpretations. I can see why someone would interpret it that way, but I don't think it's the only interpretation possible.
I know movies sneaked things past the Hays censors. But, I would believe this one did if there were actual corroborating credible reviews that stated it. Because if it's something that the director meant, I would expect someone actually connected with Hollywood who could have talked to people either involved in the film or people who knew them would be aware of it and would have written about it somewhere.
Life: An STD with 100% mortality rate
I Gave Up Trying to Find Intelligence on IMDB
I thought the same thing for a moment watching those scenes. But back in 1930's this was seen as innocent back then. But now... it seems a little homo erotic today!
shareMickey was SO handsome back then, I would tell him I need a leg rub too, never mind Judy trying to jet-propel herself into the room with or without a small stringed instrument. She could go next, why not, eh? Share the joy with others.
shareThe whole thing actually starts in the scene before the riding scene, when Timmy and Roger are on the street, and Roger says "Will you really teach me to be a tomato?" I looked at my partner and said, "does that seem kinda homo-erotic to you?" Right then starts the "riding" scene, complete with Sinclair bending forward and Mickey thrusting away behind him. We laughed so hard it hurt, and THEN comes the pull-down-his-pants-and-throw-him-on-the-bed scene. We were screaming with laughter! I can't believe anybody could see this sequence and NOT see the "double-entendre"!
shareI read this thread before I watched the movie. I thought to myself, here we go again with another jackass posting about gay undertones like you see on every damn board these days. But then when I watched the movie, the riding scene was hilarious! Obviously unintentional on the part of the movie makers. The scene where he's constantly trying to pull the kid's pants down sorta made me cringe a little. I thought that was a bit much. Having that happen immediately after the riding scene, I could see why the OP made this thread lol
share