MovieChat Forums > Crossfire (1947) Discussion > Phobias and Sexual Themes

Phobias and Sexual Themes

posted 20 years ago by abletonyallen
15 replies | jump to latest

I notice that in the 'user comments' somebody mentions that the theme of the novel 'The Brick Foxhole' by Richard Brooks on which 'Crossfire' was based was homophobia, a subject too hot for Hollywood to handle in 1947.

Oddly, enough, while watching 'Crossfire' for the umpteenth time a few minutes ago, I was struck by the thought that the plot would, indeed, be better suited by a homophobic rather than an anti-Semitic treatment.

One is reminded of Lilian Hellman's play 'The Children's Hour', which was stripped of all references to lesbianism when it was first filmed (as 'These Three') in 1936. When it was remade, under its original title (imaginatively renamed 'The Loudest Whisper' for its British release) in 1961, the lesbian theme was restored, though not too explicitly.

One has to wonder how 'The Brick Foxhole' or 'The Children's Hour' would look if filmed in the 21st Century. Is there a director out there brave enough to show us?

[email protected]

[–] mobile707 19 years ago

"Is there a director out there brave enough to show us?"

What's bravery got to do with it?

[–] trpdean 19 years ago

Geez, I don't think any bravery is required at all - not at a time when dozens and dozens of plays, films and television series have sympathetic homosexual characters.

[–] dshortt-1 18 years ago

Exactly ... if we already have "dozens and dozens of plays, films, and t.v. shows with sympathetic homosexual characters," why do we need to dig up some novel from 1947 and make a new movie out of it today?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gayspiritwarrior 17 years ago

There are more than "dozens and dozens of plays, films and television series" about sympathetic women. Does that mean there's no need for any more movies about how hard life can be for a single woman? The safety of today's society for gay people is greatly over-estimated; and we still aren't allowed to serve openly in our country's defense.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

[–] AlanSquier 17 years ago

Pals, I'm inclined to be opposed to remakes of classic films and I also have admitted that I'm a closet homophobe, but I do think that Crossfire in the hands of a capable director (Say Curtis Hanson, maybe) could justifiably be remade to stick closer to the original novel. I would go to see it.

I was born when she kissed me. I died when she left me. I lived a few weeks while she loved me.

[–] mobile707 16 years ago

I agree that a contemporary re-telling of the story as it was written in the 1940s could make for a very interesting movie. My point was simply that the production of such a movie-- in the Hollywood of today-- would not require anymore "courage" than needed to make another Shrek movie.

[–] lachrymologist 15 years ago

"My point was simply that the production of such a movie-- in the Hollywood of today-- would not require anymore "courage" than needed to make another Shrek movie."

Really? The only reason this may be true is that Shrek the 3rd was horrendous and a movie about something more realistic and true, like say.. the struggle for equality of homosexuals in a still very homophobic world would actually generate income and spark intelligent debate.

Granted, the remaking of movies is generally a terrible enterprise anyway, but to suggest that making homosexuality palatable to mainstream audiences is no less brave than Dreamworks drivel bespeaks a large degree of ignorance about the American masses and their proclivities.

[–] pjwoodall1 15 years ago

When THE STREET WITH NO NAME was remade as HOUSE OF BAMBOO, Robert Ryan, who played the Widmark role) played the villain as a homosexual, but nobody apparently told Robert Stack about it. There is a scene where Ryan crosses his legs over Stack's, and Stack becomes visibly uncomfortable.

Recently I watched FLASH GORDON'S TRIP TO MARS in which Donald Kerr's character Hap deliberately adopts some stereotyped mannerisms and voice to lure away Ming's soldiers. Somehow, I'd missed that over the years, and I wonder now if anybody else has ever picked up on it when the film was released or in the years since.

On a very minor note a friend of mine told me during the war he'd been in a bar(maybe in California) when a drag queen came in, had a drink and left. The bartender asked Harry "Do you know who that was? Buster Crabbe." Can such things be?

[–] mdudnikov-1 15 years ago

Actually this film is very well suited to an exploration of anti-Semitism, especially with just the attitude that Montgomery had, believing that somehow Jews had exempted themselves form military service. Certainly no one would have thought that of homosexuals as they were prohibited from serving. With so few movies down through the years examining anti-Semitism, thank goodness this one did. Just two years later Home of the Brave, based on a play about anti-Semitism in the army during WWII became a film about race prejudice. And one more thought. For several years TCM described this movie as the murder of a wealthly Jew, playing into the very type of stereotyping and prejudice this film tried to adddress, as it implicated that the murder was based on theft rather that hatred. Recently the description was changed and became accurate. It is hard to see where that error had come from as in the movie Captain Finley even has a line where as he tries to come up with a motive he eliminates robbery as he specifically states that the victim samuels had no money.

[–] Orbtastic 15 years ago

I watched the film knowing nothing about it, save what I read in Mitchum's biography.

I thought it was quite obvious that the victim was homosexual - Why else would he chat solely to a soldier in a bar, sympathise with someone who was obviously in trouble/conflicted to get him "on side" and then invite him back to his house? He was also being very tactile and conspiratorial and ignoring/excluding the others to the point of rudeness.

I felt the undertone was quite clear - I felt it was implied that the man seemed to be struggling with his sexuality - He was ambivalent about his wife (not seen her for 4 years?) and he had to get blind drunk in order to make a pass at the hooker.

[–] bradford-1 13 years ago

(Spoilers on "Brick Foxhole")

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I rewatched the film a coupla days ago, and I too, read the Levene character as more homosexual than I'd realized on earlier viewings. The woman he was with could've been a "beard" or just a female friend. I have read "The Brick Foxhole" and there are several important differences:
The military characters are Marines, not soldiers.
The Jewish character, Max, is a boxer and tough.
Monty, Floyd and Mitch are hitchhiking to Washington when they are picked up by Mr. Edwards, who invites them for sandwiches and liquor at his apartment. Monty and Floyd gay-bait Edwards incessantly, while the drunk Mitch only catches bits and pieces. Tellingly, Monty whispers to Mitch that he and Floyd PLAN to beat Edwards to teach him a lesson. Mitch leaves the apartment KNOWING something bad will happen. And Edwards is severely beaten with the lid of his toilet, obviously something that couldn't be depicted in a 1947 movie!

"We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

I agree about the undertone. There was also some comment about "fairy story" or something, which seemed intended to suggest the original material. Yet, I also feel that the film hypocritically succumbs to the bigotry that its original story was intended to call out, by shoving it all back into the closet.

This is well worth remaking with the original story-line. It could be set in any time period from the 1940s to present day, and still work. There have been military gay-bashing stories similar to this (my memory isn't serving me as well as it could).... Certainly there's the docudrama Any Mother's Son (1997), and Handsome Harry (2009) has a different angle.

Some other apparently "straightened" features I've seen are Hans Christian Andersen (1952), A Beautiful Mind (2001), Martian Child (2007), Let Me In (2010).

[–] twhiteson 10 years ago

I also thought it was heavily hinted that Samuels was a homosexual. So, it wasn't surprising to discover that the original story did involve homophobia rather than anti-Semitism.

The entire scene at the bar looked like a homosexual pick-up with the overly friendly Samuels trying to lure a drunken soldier back to his place. It screamed: GAY pick-up! Heterosexual men do not invite unknown, drunken males back to their place to "talk."

It appears that the producers recognized how gay Samuels' character came across which resulted in them giving him a girlfriend for no other reason so they could claim that he wasn't really a homosexual to a 1940's film audience.

[–] Fred-333 10 years ago

What is wrong with the way people interpret a a film - they are not stupid and generally understand the real real meaning the director and/or writer is conveying. That does not mean they find it necessary to accept it. Read the book.