To be completely honest, it seems like the writer of this article just has an axe to grind with this film; one that, by their own admission, exists purely because they seem to feel that Gilda as a film was "overhyped" before they'd ever even watched it. The tone of the article is very dismissive of pretty much every aspect of the film and of the positive responses to it (with the arguments, as far as I could tell, basically boiling down to "but it doesn't make sense!", "but I don't like Glenn Ford!", "but it's so confusing!" etc.), and thus doesn't really lend itself to taking the writer's opinion on anything concerning the film with anything more than a grain of salt.
Personally, I think the fact that just so many people since the film's release have been able to independently read a queer subtext in the film and actually use specific images/dialogue/looks to back that reading up is a pretty clear indication that, whether one likes it or not, it's a completely valid reading and one that undoubtedly makes the film far more complex than it appears on the surface (from my own experience, everyone I've come across who says they don't like the film have also been the only ones I've come across to completely deny any hint of attraction between Johnny and Ballin; I'm not saying that's universal but it's something that has struck me as worth noting). Added to that things like Ford's later comments that both he and George Macready "knew [they] were playing homosexuals" and played their respective roles as being attracted to each other, as well as at least one of the screenwriters also stating in an interview after the fact that the bisexual "ménage a trois" angle of the story wasn't an accident...and considering that since the film was made in a time when such things had to be reduced to subtext, between them Johnny and Ballin both hit a lot of the standard beats of typical "queer-coding" that was used in that period of film-making. All these things put together means that the gay/bisexual subtext, while remaining subtext, does become fairly undeniable as a valid reading of the film and has been so since it was made, the only real difference being that we're far more open to actually discussing it now. Basically, what I'm saying is that there strikes me as being far more evidence for the "notorious gay subtext" being authentic and not just a conjuration of modern thinking than there is evidence against that.
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9358)
a year ago
The homosexual subtext is definitely there, although it does raise some questions.
Firstly, the interplay between Ballin and Johnny does seem like there's something "special" there. Not just because of the way it's played (which is debatable) but because of the actions taken by both men. When Johnny cheats in Ballin's casino, Ballin is having him thrown out but suddenly Johnny pleads for help. Ballin takes him up on it. Why? There's very little reason to trust the washed-up Johnny unless Ballin is attracted to him. In fact, very little reason is offered up in the script.
For me, though, the questions come later in the film. Ballin is clearly upset by Gilda stepping out with other men. Johnny is clearly attracted to Gilda as well. Ballin risks his empire on Gilda, and Johnny does the same. It's easy to see why: Gilda's red dynamite in a black satin dress, and as alluring and dangerous as a roulette wheel. But none of her fine qualities would be risk-worthy for a homosexual man. If Ballin was looking for a beard (why bother?) why would he do this with volatile Gilda, and with a one-day courtship?
It's possible he's trying to make Johnny jealous. It's possible he wants to see Johnny with a woman. Or it's possible that both men are bisexual.
Gilda is a fine film with a lot of complexity to the relationships, but there do seem to be some holes in the writing in places.
reply
share
momur (107)
8 months ago
Apparently, the screenwriters were writing by the seats of their pants for much of the production so I'm honestly not surprised the story doesn't entirely add up. To be honest, it's kind of my biggest regret with this film that there's not a version of it exactly the same but which doesn't completely come apart at the ending (because let's be real here, there's no way a mutually-destructive sadomasochistic couple like Johnny and Gilda are realistically getting any kind of conventional happy ending together)...
For myself, having watched this film far too often than is probably good for me, I've increasingly come to the conclusion that actually, the film ultimately makes far more sense with a queer reading than without it, even with the objectively nonsensical turn the plot takes in the third act. The entire first conversation between Johnny and Ballin on the dock, for example, I've found makes a lot more sense if you read it as either one or the other treating it as a potential pickup. Same with their next meeting with Johnny offering Ballin his services at the casino and Ballin so readily taking him up on it. Plus lots of little things like Johnny narrating that he wants to hit Ballin as well as Gilda after discovering their marriage, the whole (honestly fairly unsubtle) "swimming" conversation, Johnny going to such lengths to honour his former employer's memory with his treatment of Gilda once Ballin is out of the picture... I'm not entirely convinced that Ballin necessarily has such a straightforward orientation or if he's just a sadist (in every sense) who will take whatever he wants (again, in every sense), but Johnny to me definitely reads as more bisexual than anything else (Glenn Ford calling Johnny a homosexual was likely just due to bisexuality not really being accepted as a valid sexual orientation at that point in time since there's no doubt Johnny is also intensely attracted to Gilda).
reply
share
Ace_Spade (9358)
8 months ago
Well, on-set re-writes would add some of the odd cul-de-sacs the story heads down for sure. Hats off to those writers, though, who managed to create a great picture even if they were going off half-cocked all the time.
You're obviously more familiar with the film than I am, and your analyses make perfect sense to me.
Personally, I'd think that Ballin's psyche is messed up, regardless of his sexual orientation. He's a toxic cocktail who fuels himself up with hate and lives for Machiavellian machinations.
I think the only way the picture makes sense is to assume both men are bisexual. That explains their actions towards both each other and Gilda. They wouldn't take risks for Gilda if they weren't attracted to her; they both do. They wouldn't be as close to one another if there wasn't attraction there, too.
You're right with the homosexual/bisexual thing, too. Even to this day, bisexuality is often swept under the rug or dismissed by people all across the sexuality spectrum.
reply
share