MovieChat Forums > Calamity Jane (1953) Discussion > Was this supposed to be gay?

Was this supposed to be gay?

posted 12 years ago by nigelfans
7 replies | jump to latest

There's so much gay undertone in this film that I don't even think you can call it an undertone. People have given full reasons before but just off the top of my head, there's the guy in drag doing the show, Jane has an unusual reaction when shown the photo of a scantily-clad woman, Jane invites a woman to live with her, that causes a minor scandal, they clean up the house together like a married couple, throughout the film Jane is depicted in a butch manner both in dress and mannerisms. There's loads more but that's just off the top of my head.

I know the film was released in 1953 but the Jane character does everything short of actually saying, "I'm a lesbian". And I know that there's a love interest of sorts with two men. But it's really shocking seeing the film now knowing the year it was released. How did this get past the censors? Were audiences not shocked by this? Did they not appreciate that this is a lesbian character? Or, by some frame of mind that I can't comprehend, was this character not even supposed to be gay in spite of the many, many references to the contrary?

[–] Tresix 12 years ago

They make mention of it in the documentary The Celluloid Closet, which chronicled the portrayal of gays in movies from the Silent Era to the Nineties. I haven't seen this movie since the late Sixties, but the clip they showed in the doc made it look that way. In fact, there were quite a number of movies in the Fifties that some people felt had gay subtext, particularly in musicals. Over the closing credits of The Celluloid Closet, they play this movie's Oscar-winning song, "Secret Love".

Yippee: "For king!"
Yappee: "For country!"
Yahooie: "And, most of all, for 10¢ an hour!"

[–] funkiste 12 years ago

By "many, many references to the contrary" are you talking about all the things you listed in your post, that have since become gay stereotypes and in fact don't actually apply to most gay people?

[–] nigelfans 12 years ago

Yes, I'm talking about gay stereotypes. Thank you for your weird question.

[–] funkiste 12 years ago

You're welcome.

We can therefore conclude that, no, the movie was not supposed to "be gay", since the only way you can justify such an idea is by imposing modern day gay stereotypes into a 60 year old movie :)

Next.

[–] Andrwz 11 years ago

Funkiste hit the nail on the head. You can not apply modern stereotypes to a movie from the 50's. Things were a little different back then.

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

Disagree with the gay subtext implied by the OP. Its more of a valid argument that there is a gender subtext through the change of Calamity Jane's character from a tough tomboy faking an aura of masculinity to accepting her place as a woman and becoming a wife.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]