MovieChat Forums > Slightly Honorable (1939) Discussion > Subtext of film? (Spoilers)

Subtext of film? (Spoilers)

posted 17 years ago by johnson1740
3 replies | jump to latest

Is there a homosexual subtext in this jaunty film? The relationship between John Webb (O'Brien) and Russ Sampson (Crawford) is, despite the emotional distancing of the snappy banter, quite a tender friendship. Particularly provocative is the scene where they are both in pajamas and jumping on a double bed. What's that really all about?

Other things to consider:

Their overly macho attitudes toward women in the film...
Webb insisting that the young nightclub singer put on her dress when she takes it off in his apartment or, when she attempts to lift the dress over her head to try on a new purchase in his office, pull down her dress...
The use of the throwing knife (as Freudian image) as the weapon associated with both of them...
Their protracted physical encounter at the end of the film...
Sampson dying from being stabbed in the back (he falls against a chair with a knife sticking through it)...
The look on Webb's face and his gestures (stroking the face) as he confronts the corpse of his friend...
The quick marriage of middle-aged Webb (to an eighteen-year old) after his friend is dead...

Are the names possibly allegorical?

The film is darker than its glittering surface would suggest. On the surface, it's about political corruption. Underneath, it hints at varieties of interpersonal "corruption."

The best scene (at least the most atmospheric and cinematographic) in the film is the cemetery scene where Sampson throws the knife and hits Webb (oddly, in the arm!) to avoid being discovered (i.e. Webb finding his surname on a gravestone).

[–] goopah 15 years ago

I noticed all of those things, but only in today's hypersensitive world could any of these perfectly innocent things be considered subtext.
Back then? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Just finished watching it. Thought it was a really good, entertaining movie.

[–] ZAROVE 13 years ago

No, I agree with the above, and will add that the way Men acted toward women, and the way men behaved with other men, and the whole idea of what it meant to be a man or woman in the 1930's and 1940's is VASTLY different than contemporary Culture, and allowed for far more interpersonal leeway.

men were suppose to be cold and Level headed. Men were responsible and the dedicated workforce than brought home the salary and provided for their Families or for themselves. Men were suppose to be Polite but also reserved and yet stand up for themselves. men were suppose to "take Charge", and the lighter more tender element just showed camaraderie. They’d see nothing wrong with two men having a warm Relationship. They’d even allow them to be very emotive and responsive to each other. Because no one actually thought these actions were Sexual, much else Homoerotic. They just showed friendship.

Today we oversexualise culture and make everything that’s interpersonal linked to that somehow, but not in 1939.

[–] dalmain 11 years ago

I did not see any of that when I watched this film. Of course maybe my way of thinking is a little old fashion since I don't sexualize everything like many people do today. I saw nothing hinting at homosexuality. I think Webb and Sampson were really close buddies. His friend was dying. That's all I saw.