I have watched this movie a ton of times, and it is easily in my top 5 movies ever. After lurking this board a bit, I noticed people say that there was hints of homosexuality in it. I never sensed it,nor do I think that the makers intended it to come off as so. COuld somebody explain what makes them think there is any?
"The only exercise I take is walking behind the coffins of friends who took exercise."
The first meeting between Gilda's husband and Ford is rife with homosexuality. Firstly, the husband is clearly gay, and he 'picked up' Ford during the hold up attempt. An older 'bachelor' picking up a handsome young 'thug'...think about it.
shareIt seems like the IMDB boards are obsessed with trying to pick up homosexual subtexts in films. It's very rare you'll find any kind of noir flick where there's not a thread trying to point out homosexual undertones. The only thing that I've read on here that has seemed kind of solid to me is what the other poster mentioned about the husband picking him up at the docks, I don't really see any other reason for him to have been there.
It's not over, everybody betrayed me! I'm fed up with this world!
***Spoiler***
I found the first half of the flick ripe with sexual ambiguity: Until the point where Bailin flees Buenos Aires, the relationship between the two men is full of tension, bordering on the sensual - especially Farrel's complete surrendering to all things Bailin seems curious.
Again, until Bailin leaving BA, Gilda serves more as a hindrance than a love interest. Farrel obviously seeks to spare Bailin's feelings more than trying to hide his earlier relationship to Gilda.
I some parts, Bailin and Gilda seems to be opposites between which Farrel has to choose: Bailin as a metaphor for rational, albeit criminal, thought - a cerebral being, whilst Gilda is all things emotional. Neither is idealized, both have obvious failings. This lead me to see them as representing Farrel's ambigous nature, having to choose - this ambivalence has obvious erotic undertones.
I should clarify that I saw this movie only after having seen David Lynch's Mulholland Drive, which alludes to Gilda - and ***Spoiler*** definitely thematically treats homoerotic subtext.
As I saw Gilda in this light, of course I was liable to consider the relationships and their ambivalent nature.
But it seems clear to me that the movie changes, both in it's mood as well as thematically) when Bailin leaves BA, from noir to a more traditional thriller. And it becomes much weaker for this very reason.
You could find homosexual subtexts in any movie if you try hard enough . I wonder if anyone' s found a heterosexual subtext in an overtly homosexual movie.
Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.
"You could find homosexual subtexts in any movie if you try hard enough . I wonder if anyone' s found a heterosexual subtext in an overtly homosexual movie."
I like your wit but Gilda has been notorious for years for its pronounce gay male subtext. For decades gay men spoke in "code," kind of like the way they use the term "dog wistle politics" where only the intended constituents get the meaning.
Gilda is filled with double meanings in the dialogue between the 2 men and it used to be a crowd pleaser in theaters with gay audiences in San Francisco, LA and New York.
HAH! That was great! LOL
prtfvr
I watched it last night and there's one part I found suspect:
Johnny: And get this straight. I don't care what you do, but I'm gonna see to it that it looks all right to him. From now on, you go anywhere you please with anyone you please, but I'm gonna take you there and I'm gonna pick you up and bring you home. Get that? Exactly the way I'd take and pick up his laundry.
Gilda: Shame on you, Johnny. Any psychiatrist would tell you that your thought associations are very revealing.
Johnny: What are you talking about?
Gilda: Any psychiatrist would tell you that means something, Johnny.
-You could find homosexual subtexts in any movie if you try hard enough . I wonder if anyone' s found a heterosexual subtext in an overtly homosexual movie-
Oh but weren't they not allowed to make overtly homosexual movies in the 1940s forcing them to make it a subtext?
Exactly. :) I'm so sick of people complaining about us who look for gay subtext in old movies. They almost sound like being gay is wrong. I'm gay and I love finding gay subtext in classic films, even if it wasn't intended by the film makers. Who cares? Let people interpret movies any way they want. :)
Bimbo Boy
http://bimboboy.com
http://twitter.com/bimboboy
Of course there is nothing wrong with being gay! I hope even the last person on earth will understand that soon and everybody is allowed soon to marry whom they love regardless of their sex.
I am just surprised with this particular movie since to me (as a straight woman) the tension between Gilda and Johnny was quiet overwelming and extremely sexy.
I assume it is a question of perception, since gay people look for gay signals and straight people look for straight signals.
I found that extremely fascinating because it shows us how subjective we are when judging what we see, although we try to be objective. Don't you think?
===========
http://Lorcagonzalez.blogspot.com
http://lorca-movies-reviews.blogspot.com
Funny. I took that to mean that his choice of words ("I'm gonna pick you up and bring you home.") were Freud-speak for picking up a prostitute or a slut--especially with the dirty laundry reference. That would constitute an acccusatory implication that he wasn't doing anything for Mundsen's sake. He conciously or unconsciously wanted to pick her up for himself.
share@Craighenderson
That's exactly what she meant when she said "you're not fooling anyone." Glenn Fords intentions were clearly for her. His thought process went along the lines of, "I have a really good business gig, so I don't want to mess this up, but I don't want to lose her if Ballin finds out about her indiscretions and sends her away." He basically wants to keep her real close, but also keep up his highly profitable business relationship. Its as close to a win-win as he can envision.
@LorcaGonzalez
Completely agree how subjective people are on judging things. I viewed the business relationship as strictly that. Two crooked type gamblers who viewed themselves in each other who both fell in love with the same woman. To me there weren't any overt or subtle homosexual undertones at all, again, all subjective.
I agree with all you wrote but for one thing--the way Ford's character copied so much of Bailin's behavior. A little too hero-worshippy for me. May not have meant anything except as a motivation for why he gave so much to his job.
But you were right-on about his lines to her about picking her up, etc--in those times, men treated women that way often. They'd treat them like children, to be sure nothing went wrong, that they didn't get in trouble or out-of-line. She could not be trusted. So he was going to protect his job by seeing to it that she didn't act up.
[deleted]
I cant think of one reason why the wealthy club owner / industrialist would be anywhere near that dock
why would he be watching glenn fords character?
why would he get involved in a street fight he had no stake in?
why would he invite glenn fords character back to his ritzy club?
All excellent questions.
shareGreat post. I didn't get a chance to read all of the responses. I've seen this movie many times and I've never felt a gay vibe amongst the male stars. However, the actor who plays Ballin strikes me as being homosexual or perhaps asexual, he simply doesn't seem to portray any sexual interest in Gilda or any other female in any of his movies. I have felt that way about this actor in every movie I've seen him in. It's very late so I hope I'm making sense. I don't know if the actor is homosexual or not.
shareGeorge Macready was one of the great screen villains. He was married (which proves nothing), but his voice is faintly effeminate, and certainly suggestive. In real life, he was apparently as far removed from his screen roles as one could imagine.
shareBecause he was a criminal?
shareDuring the scene in which Gilda is introduced in the movie as Ballin's wife it is clear that Johnny hates her, but since the viewers have no idea of the previous relationship of Johnny and Gilda (and it is statistically a very far fetched coincidence to suspect it before it is announced that it is the case) it seems that Johnny hates her for no other apparent reason than for her having married Ballin. There was also the scene in the casino with the toasting on friendship, where Johnny shows being annoyed by her intrusion in his relation with Ballin (and the bladed cane).
It is as if the script permits, intentionally or as some kind of Freudian slip, an interpretation of homosexuality before working to demolish it by revealing the classical love triangle structure.
We can't read the writer's mind, but I think the following is close to "the truth" (if there is one).
Gilda is about misogyny and male bonding. Whether there's anything sexual between Johnny and Ballin is likely beside the point. What is there, is that men trust each other more than they trust women.
The misogyny becomes very obvious when Johnny says "Statistics show there are more women than anything * else -- except insects."
I wonder whether Charles Badger Clark, the famous cowboy poet, saw this film. He would have liked it right up to the end, because he hated women for the way they disrupted male friendships.
Many people confuse the following:
homosocial relationships -- Men spending time with other men simply because they prefer male companionships.
homoerotic relationships -- Men with strong emotional ties, though not necessarily sexual.
homosexual behavior -- Men (often self-identifying as heterosexual) having sex with each other.
homosexuality -- Conscious sexual attraction to other men).
Johnny and Ballin's relationship goes no further than the homoerotic.
* Notice his implicitly defining women as "things".
This thread sure is interesting. Talk about "subtext", and I'm not talking about the movie.
Regarding the OP question, I did miss the very beginning, but if Mundson is at the docks, there might be several reasons- he ran a casino- somebody might owe him money, he ran a shady, even illegal business ring, the cops were on him- this is not exactly Opie we're talking about here.
The whole movie Johnny is mad- about Gilda's betrayal. It's OBVIOUS he loves her and her alone- but she betrayed that love. I saw no other signs he loved anybody else. So he threw himself into his work. You people never saw an @ss-kissing brown noser at work? These people fall over themselves for the attention of the boss/supervisor/owner. Johnny does it mostly through intense focus and seriousness of his job, and it's a diversion from his obsession with..GILDA.
Yes...some people will try to find the secret homosexual messages in any film- a way to validate their lifestyle. Sometimes there are easter eggs left around and...get this...sometimes a film is just a film. I found it amusing that defending the "film is just the film" amounts to an assault on gay people. There's plenty of that without trying to invent it.
And no..I do not have any problem with gays. I do happen to think that "marriage" is between a man and woman- but you can love and be with whoever you want. Legal matters can be attended to already. If gay marriage happens, so be it. I'm sure gays will enjoy divorce as much as heterosexuals do.
Nolegirl97 >...people say that there was hints of homosexuality in it.Oh come on, seriously? I haven't heard of anything more ridiculous in a long time.
I haven't seen "The Celluloid Closet" but I can imagine that there might be an urge among some screenwriters and other people in the business to put a homosexual subtext into movies from time to time, not necessarily because they were that way inclined themselves, or pander to a niche audience, but simply for mischievous reasons - because they could.
It wouldn't be so much of a risk - yes, financially, if it ended up delivering a less satisfying story - but not morally. The fact that homosexuality was so taboo and underground in those days meant that any moralist pointing out alleged homosexual themes in mainstream films would almost certainly be ridiculed or denounced as a dangerous pervert. As would have been the case in Elizabethan times with Shakespeare's sonnets. It's possible for something to be so unthinkable that it can be "hidden in plain view".
Farrell's devotion to Mundsen may not necessarily mean the two men are lovers. For instance, Farrell may have purely mercenary reasons for attempting to control Gilda's behaviour, knowing that if Mundsen learns of her infidelity it could lead to a scandal, perhaps even murder, which could be disastrous for the business.
But it struck me as odd that Farrell does not appear eager to get physical with Gilda, and that during his perverse and unconsummated marriage to Gilda there apparently aren't any other women in his life. If he married Gilda just to punish her, wouldn't he be all the more eager to throw himself into extra-marital affairs and one-night stands so as to cause her even more pain?
I'm not obsessed with finding "hidden agendas" in films but the thought that it might be about homosexuality, or just deliberately ambiguous, occurred to me quite spontaneously while watching it this afternoon and it's interesting to see that some people have been thinking along similar lines.
We're all entitled to our own opinions but it seems that same comment about gay subtext keeps popping up on the boards of random movies. I think it's a ploy by some people to push their own agenda; knowing most people will not call them on it. It could also be these people are so twisted in their thinking they 'see' things that aren't really there; as characterized by hypochondria and psychosis.
I don't get your line of reasoning and admit there are many strange things I'll never understand but this is just crazy. If you think every loveless marriage in which one or both partner loses attraction for the other and/or they stop having sex points to homosexuality then you don't know much about normal relationships and a lot of people are homosexuals but don't even know it.
Also, if those filmmakers took such pains and risked their careers to weave secret messages into movies and these messages were aimed at certain groups, why spill the beans now? Those messages should be shared within the communities for which they were intended. I personally have no interest in that stuff. Political correctness would lead one to believe most people are accepting of most things but don't be fooled. That is not the case!
Sorry, but the homosexual vibe in this movie is not even subtle one. I seriously doubt this film would be even half as famous if it wasn't present. It's what makes it stand out.
It's no Double Indemnity where I can't see any sign of it despite what some crazy people say.
I'm sorry, but I find your comment among the most bogus on this thread. I think the film's popularity has much more to do with Rita Hayworth and a well-written, well-directed film than any supposed "homosexual vibe." There are many older movies which have a noticeable homosexual vibe.
Admittedly, Johnny's relationship to Munson is odd. I found it more puzzling that during the entire film we're led to "put the blame on mame" only to find out that it's a farce. Gilda didn't do all those dirty things we rightfully suspect she did. I admit the line about Johnny handling Munson's dirty laundry sounds queer. Initially, I thought it had more to do with Johnny's interest in Gilda and her fine linen since there's no denying his "hate" for her is fueled by his lust.
It's possibly the case here but that raises so many questions no one has ventured to ask: If the men are gay then what is their interest in Gilda? Are they so giddily gay they just cannot help but be attracted to Gilda? I could go on but I imagine anyone answering this questions will dream up ridiculous answers in order to fulfill their "gay" agenda.
Aside from Munson's apparent femininity and his stroll down to the docks, which one may read into, I don't seen any obvious sexual attraction between he and John. When you work in organized crime you serve your boss like he's your master. You do anything he asks, no questions asked. Johnny is surpassingly loyal to Munson and he's under suspicion because of this? Thanks to Johnny's loyalty Munson entrusts him with greater responsibility, therefore he must be gay? Give me a break.
I admit the line about Johnny handling Munson's dirty laundry sounds queer.
Aside from Munson's apparent femininity and his stroll down to the docks, which one may read into, I don't seen any obvious sexual attraction between he and John. When you work in organized crime you serve your boss like he's your master. You do anything he asks, no questions asked. Johnny is surpassingly loyal to Munson and he's under suspicion because of this? Thanks to Johnny's loyalty Munson entrusts him with greater responsibility, therefore he must be gay? Give me a break.
Trax-3 says > Sorry, but the homosexual vibe in this movie is not even subtle one.I didn't say subtle, I said non-existent but whatever. I'm just glad I don't see things as you do.
I seriously doubt this film would be even half as famous if it wasn't present. It's what makes it stand out.Now I know you're bonkers. At least you made me laugh.