1) He said to Lizabeth Scott's caracther, at the end of the movie, something like: "I love you, but I love Johnny more".
2) he doesn't trust anyone "specially women".
3) He wanted to keep women in pills/capsules
4) He has started his 'detective journey' just because Johnny was missing.
So, what do you think?
[deleted]
When he finally thinks of a name for Lizabeth Scott, it's 'Mike'. Rip seems to be searching for his relationship with his former army buddy, and using Lizabeth Scott as a substitute/conduit for his relationship with his male friend. I'm not sure if you can say he's out-and-out gay (ie, sexually interested in men), but when you factor into the equation the fact that this movie was originally planned as a follow-up picture to GILDA - a movie with heavy homoerotic overtones that are raised in almost every critical account of the film - this seems to highlight that DEAD RECKONING shares a similar theme of homosocial 'bonding', with the relationship between Johnny and Rip mirroring that of Ballin and Johnny in GILDA. But I guess we also have to mention that Bogart's screen persona is very different from that of Glenn Ford (Bogie is more dry and laid-back, whereas Ford was often very 'angsty', which often suggested that his characters were repressing something), and this impacts on how we interpret the film.
'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).
Follow-up to Gilda? In what way would that have been, I wonder...?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
"Follow-up to Gilda? In what way would that have been, I wonder...?"
Well, not as a direct sequel, but an attempt by the same studio to recapture elements of GILDA, initially with pretty much the same personnel. It's been two years since my post and about the same amount of time since I read it, but I think this is discussed in the monograph (by Melvyn Stokes) that the BFI published on GILDA in 2010. One remaining element of similarity is in the similar style of narration that both films share.
'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).
Oh OK. Thanks for the reply.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Also, Rita was supposed to be in Lizabeth Scott's role, but she didn't end up doing it because she was having trouble with the studio at the time.
"Why do you find it so hard to believe?"
"Why do you find it so easy?"
"It's never BEEN easy!"
5. He was from San Francisco.
Nah, Rip wasn't gay. If Rip was gay, then he would've tagged along with Lizabeth Scott to the hairdresser and would have had a high pitched voice and mincing gait and mannerisms.
David Traversa Your conception of a gay man must be something you've learn in the bible belt... You're really p*ss*ing outside the jar...
shareI know the previous comment was nine years ago; nevertheless, I lived in an old house in San Francisco with three gay housemates, and I also knew their gay friends. It's a fact that many, perhaps most, gay men are obviously gay. They may think they're not, but to anyone who's not gay, they definitely are.
shareIt was the 40s. It was more about "bros before hos".
share[deleted]
ChainSawOf-LOVE, that is a good point. My best friend from the war and I call each other "blood," and he also calls me "primo" (Spanish for "cousin"), the latter being a Guamanian practice which signifies close kinship. There is that bond that hardly exists outside of war.
share20 minutes in, he calls the bartender "sweet-heart".
It's just amazing-no matter how many contortions have to be made to fit the twisted logic, some idiot will always come up with a gay thread on any movie. No, Rip was not gay. Obviously he loved his friend who won the Congressional Medal of Honor more than a woman who went around committing cold-blooded murder and who had just tried to kill him. Come on, people, don't be stupid. There's nothing gay about having a good friend of the same sex and not liking a killer of the opposite sex.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
God, I'm sure glad someone finally said what I was thinking when I read all those ridiculous previous comments. I just couldn't believe the topic of this post and had to see where it was coming from. What gives with all these homo happy knuckleheads, anyway?
shareHey folks,
This story had nothing to do with homosexuality. It may have been a love story about the relationship two men shared, but it was not a sexual relationship. The love these two men shared was a love grown from their mutual dependence on each other and the sadness and happiness they shared as a result of the war that threw them together. Fathers and sons love each other. Brothers love each other. And sometimes guys who just happen to be very good friends love each other, and it has nothing to do with sexuality.
Another film I have always described as a love story about two men had nothing to do with sexuality was Of Mice And Men. I submit that Lennie and George loved each other, and it had nothing to do with sex. Love and sex may sometimes go together, but they are not the same thing, and neither requires the other.
This film was not about two gay guys.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
Hey Dave,
Along that same theme, I have always enjoyed "The Odd Couple", which I think was a brilliantly written comedy by Neil Simon. It was about two friends living in the same apartment, but there wasn't any gay theme at all to the story. In fact, they dated the cuckoo-pigeon sisters. They got on each others nerves, but deep down they were true friends. Of course, if it were to be written today, it would have a gay theme to it, and would lose the true essence of the story about the differences of a slob and a neat-freak.
Best wishes,
Clintessence
Hey Clint,
I checked the message boards for the film and TV versions of The Odd Couple, and I was surprised there were no "gay" threads on the first pages of both. I thought the message boards for The Odd Couple would likely be fertile ground for the "gay seekers" who find homosexual themes and "sub text" anywhere and everywhere. I was surprised to find none. Tony Randall's Felix was somewhat effeminate, and with two guys living together, that just has to mean "gay" to some folks. As you noted, Felix and Oscar were not gay. They were simply two friends who lived together for the benefit of both.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile
Men can develop strong bonds with guys in war and combat (vet here) -- and it usually is not gay. It is the result of shared dangers and hardships. I still think of some of the guys I spent time with in Vietnam. As for the sweetheart comment, watch full metal jacket and see how many times the sarge calls his men sweetheart. As one of the ops said, if you are looking for it you can always find some comment or scene that can be misinterpreted. Sometimes it may be true, but not here.
shareHe's totally a power bottom.
shareIt's very common for people to watch old movies or read old books (even history books) with modern eyes and see things as homosexual.
I recently listened to a guy claim Abraham Lincoln was gay because he admitted in his diary to sleeping in the same bed with various men on camping trips. Never mind that such practice was COMMON at the time among STRAIGHT men. Seeing it through modern eyes, people say, "Oh that sounds gay!"
I think the same can be said for so many movies.
Furthermore, a lot of "tough guy" films have touches that could be called "gay" if you're willing to apply that term liberally. Charles Bronson was about as straight as a man could get but his movies are often analyzed as gay on these message boards for the most odd reasoning. "His movies rarely include romance" was one I saw recently.
Hey, if Dead Reckoning is a veiled gay film, fine. So be it. I just don't personally buy it.