MovieChat Forums > The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) Discussion > Was Gerald Tetley gay? (poss spoilers)

Was Gerald Tetley gay? (poss spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by watpho
14 replies | jump to latest

As a contemporary viewer, I had the impression that Gerald may be gay. His brooding sensitivity, being called "a female boy" by his father and the curious eyeglance and smile exchange he and Donald Martin have. His father also wants to take him to the lynching "to make a man out of him."
It's obvious Gerald is NOT a coward because he courageously votes against the lynching in front of the posse and his father, and refuses to participate in the actual hanging even though his father physically assualts him for it. He comes to a locked door (like how many gays are cast out of their home) and instead of pleading to be let inside brazenly tells his father off.
It's obvious that he's always had the courage to stand by his convictions, it's just that his convictions had been contrary to his father's and that kind of "queerness" disgusted his father.
We don't really know if Gerald was gay or not, but I can DEFINTELY tell you the actor William Eythe who played Gearld WAS INDEED OPENLY GAY and had a long term relationship with fellow actor Lon McCallister. I'm sure his gay sensibilites imbued the role of Gerald and which made the character even more the complex.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mowgli_07 15 years ago

I think it was clear he was
there was a lot of emphasis on him being a woman, something to be ashamed of, and there's a couple of tender silent moments between him and Quinn, and him and Martin

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

I agree. In particular, regardless of all the other evidence, when Gerald is removing the gun from Donald, they share a warm smile. A smile? What would be the reason for their eyes to lock for several seconds, and share a smile like this? I was certain we were going to learn that these two had known each other before. Obviously with the Code they wouldn't be able to say how...

The Major was really resentful of his female boy, but in contrast seemed to accept the butch Jenny. It's an interesting contrast.

Also, I found it a revealing double entendre when Gerald accuses his father of fearing the same "weakness" in himself, which is the point at which the Major shoots himself. It wouldn't be the only time a closet case did this, in film or real life. Actually, it makes the Major's behavior and backstory more understandable.

[–] gribfritz2 13 years ago

I got it. After Maj Tetley's "suicide," there's a goof where the door begins to open. Perhaps it's not a goof. Perhaps this is when he "step's out" in his garter, heels, and feather boa. THIS is what was too much for the Hays code and was cut.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

bribfritz2, you are too funny.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] FranLovesBetteD 12 years ago

"I agree. In particular, regardless of all the other evidence, when Gerald is removing the gun from Donald, they share a warm smile. A smile? What would be the reason for their eyes to lock for several seconds, and share a smile like this? I was certain we were going to learn that these two had known each other before. Obviously with the Code they wouldn't be able to say how..."
______________________________________________________________________________

I was thinking exactly the same. That scene caught strongly my attention and kept me wondering what could have been the reason. (By the way, I'm not a Dana Andrews fan, but I don't think he has ever been as charming and sexy on screen as in that particular scene. His performance was terrific, too. Most likely, my most favorite from the whole cast).

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

[–] Harvestmoonman13 14 years ago

I didn't really catch the tender moments. I mean if I watched it again that might indicate it...but...

His father trying to make a man out of him and all that...that does not make him gay. That just shows he isn't whatever his father wants him to be.

[–] Bobbygoode 14 years ago

Yeah I agree that Gerald's being gay or not is irrelevant (although the actor portraying him apparently was). I'd like to know where he got his sensitivity, though, if raised by that sad windbag (the mother is not evident). I suppose sons sometimes rebel or are repelled by such a father, especially if either physically or psychically they can't please. It is a fascinating subplot to the story, and its contrast really underscores the bankrupt morality and insecurities of that faux "major", who seemed to see the whole incident as a military campaign he could never pull of in his life (I mean, really, putting on that stupid confederate uniform), taking command of the rabble, etc.

[–] Demarates 12 years ago

All men named "Gerald" are, fictional or not.

When I'm gone I would like something to be named after me. A psychiatric disorder, for example.

[–] mercury4 12 years ago

Gerald was not gay. I wish people would stop reading so much into things. He was, however, sensitive. He was also, as he states, "a coward." Instead of taking him hunting or something, the wacko that Major Tetley was, took his son to a lynching to make a man out of him. I also wish people would stop it with that scene when he smiles and Dana Andrews smiles. Dana Andrews smiled because he could tell looking at Gerald that he wasn't like the others. He was an innocent kid.

[–] El_Guapo_Caballo 12 years ago

He was a gay coward.

I am Ripper... Tearer... Slasher... Gouger...I am the Teeth in the Darkness

[–] jd-276 11 years ago

Major Tetley's comments about his son reveal more about his own prejudices than they do about Gerald.

Gerald is a sort of anti-hero. Even though he objects to nearly everything his father tells him to do, he can't bring himself to make a meaningful stand against him. Not until the moment of execution.

He admits he's a coward but in a way it's a form of rebellion against his authoritarian father who he so clearly hates. He uses tactics which Major Tetley doesn't understand (they are not representative of what he considers to be "manly"). He doesn't understand Gerald's hatred for him. He totally underestimates him. We do too because he so clearly lives in his father's shadow. At the end, I actually found myself admiring Gerald for his capacity for honesty and reflective thought, something his pretentious oaf of a father is simply incapable of.

It is this which defines Gerald as a man, more than any heroic ideas of administering capital punishment on the basis of presumed justice.

Don't forget also that from the earliest parts of the film, any objections to forming a lynch mob are dismissed as "female" or weak points of view. From that point alone it is easy to push Gerald into a "feminine" corner.

Whether it is truly representative of his sexuality is largely irrelevant. It's his counterpoint to his father which is the most important element.

The character is wonderfully played by William Eythe and the powderkeg of animosity between the two men, which explodes at the end, is possibly the best part of the film.

[–] thbryn 11 years ago

He was a great character gay or not? I would just add that gay people are no more cowardly or brave than anyone else. And the thought of a gay guy being impossible in a mob is not accurate.
That said, if he was gay it was a positive character certainly for 1943?

Kisskiss, Bangbang

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

watpho says > I had the impression that Gerald may be gay. His brooding sensitivity, being called "a female boy" by his father and the curious eyeglance and smile exchange he and Donald Martin have.

Gay: Gerald probably was but Donald Martin was not.

Smile: Martin was a kind man who happened to smile at Gerald because he was the one approaching them. He was collecting their guns yet he looked tentative and scared. A smile is one of those human expressions that translates across nations, cultures, and time. It's a friendly gesture meant to let recipients know we are not a threat and mean them no harm.

Sensitivity: Since when is sensitivity unique to gay men? All men have a sensitive side among others. To suggest otherwise would offensive.

His father also wants to take him to the lynching "to make a man out of him."

Father and son: At first I thought Tetley was a bit cruel towards his son but what was the man to do? He had a son who didn't amount to anything. He had probably spent years trying to prepare him for life with no success. The man was probably frustrated. Taking him to a lynching during that time would be similar to taking him to a sporting event today. It's something fathers would do with their sons. Lynching, whether we like it or not, was a fact of life in the west during that time; so were shootouts, saloons, Indian attacks, etc.

Let's be real: A good father would prepare his son for life. During that time that meant how ride a horse, shoot a gun, tend to cattle if they had a ranch, farm if they had a farm, etc. If the son just wanted to sit out in the pasture all day, that would be a problem.

Think objectively for a moment; if Gerald was gay and the town found out he'd be run out just like Rose Mapin. This was a young and growing town. They encouraged settlers; people willing to lay down roots, get married, and have children not just get their kicks and disrupt the natural order of things.

It's obvious Gerald is NOT a coward because he courageously votes against the lynching in front of the posse and his father, and refuses to participate in the actual hanging even though his father physically assualts him for it.

Cowardice: That may be how you saw it but I thought he was a coward. He never stood up to his father. Even when his father knocks him out, he never made a move to defend himself.

Standing up for our beliefs is courageous; not doing so is cowardice. When he joins the group of dissenters it's because his father was so firmly on the other side and because there were others around. If his father had stepped forward, he would have stayed right where he was.

When he refuses to participate it's out of abject fear; not because he cares one way or another about the accused. Remember, there were some who were not part of the seven who refused to take part in the actual lynching too. If he was part of the seven, why would he even think of getting behind the horse? If he was really so against the lynching and not a coward, he would have stood his ground.

He comes to a locked door (like how many gays are cast out of their home) and instead of pleading to be let inside brazenly tells his father off.

Locked door: If it was for his being gay, why wasn't he thrown out ages ago? The question is why did he even return to that home? If he was against the lynching and not just against his father how could he, on top of everything, stomach being around his father? If he felt the way he supposedly did and was as sensitive and caring as he's supposed to be, it should have been the last straw. The man tried to get him to help kill three innocent people. He tells him off because he's locked out; because, like the coward that he is, he can easily attack someone when they're down and when they're on the other side of a locked door. That's the kind of spinelessness and weakness his father detested.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]