Although I do not personally agree with this at all, there are suggestions out there that there could be homosexual contexts within this film. It has been proposed that Hammer takes a sadistic, yet sexual pleasure in beating up his stalker during the scene where he is followed by the man with the knife. I cannot find any other reviews of this kind than the one I was shown, but I was wondering if anyone out there has an opinion on this?
Thanks
what a load of bollocks, the camera angle in the scene was to do with escaping the censors wrath than to protray some kind of 'subliminal message'
shareI have a professor that firmly believes that the proper interpretation of that fight scene is both an expression and repression of Mike Hammer's homosexuality. I too think this a ludicrous over-analyzation. However, the support of this theory is that Hammer had other options than killing the stalker.
Sure he could've run away, but that isn't his style.
I can't make a hell of a lot of sense out of the scene because it can be labeled as extraneous since it does not advance the plot or seek any resoulution. It does serve to show how well the secret is being gurarded and how Hammer can handle himself.
"I have a professor that firmly believes that the proper interpretation..."
I firmly believe your professor is gay.
My life has major plot holes.
Because nobody but a homosexual would suggest a gay sub-text? You're basing your deduction on less than the professor is basing his.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
I'm pretty sure that remark was meant as a joke.
That's how I took it.
[deleted]
By that rational, when Hammer takes sadistic pleasure in crushing the fingers of the mortician who wont give him the key it is actually because he is attracted to him but wants to repress it using the fingers as a phallic symbal to repress his desires.
I don't buy it, I think its as simple as this... Hammer is a mean bastard, as well as a badass. He attacks several men, young and old but that dont mean he's a repressed homosexual.
'When your slapped, you'll take it and like it.'
thanks for that, you make a lot of sense....(some people probably have too much time on their hands)
shareCongratulations. The first time in the history of the world anyone ever considered Percy Helton in a sexual context of any kind (and that includes Mrs. Helton).
shareDamn, you engendered a hearty laugh. I owe you one.
shareThat made me laugh.
I had to sign on for the first time just to say that.
Yes, funny!
But... did you see Helton's pix from when he was younger? He was a child star & actually became a lead, romantic, I believe.
He was able to adapt to the ravages of age. I always loved his characters on TV serials in the early 50s.
THEORIES are so dumb -- THEORIES! Check your spelling before you start slinging mud!
share(okay 'info-1824' - calm down a bit -
Does it really matter that much how a word is spelled? Think about the fact that there are other people from different countries (or other countries if you like!)(such as me) who participate in the the discussion fora. Maybe you could spell 'theories' in danish! How about focusing on the content?
As far as I am concerned, I am looking forward to seeing 'Kiss me deadly' tonight after having read about it here on imdb.com...)
p.s just arguing for a guy in a film (or movie if you like!) being homosexual does not mean that one is against that sexual orientation...
I actually think that Hammer, IN THIS FILM, is a repressed homosexual. Robert Aldrich hated Mike Hammer and wanted to destroy that old style of character.
I don't think the character in the books is a homosexual, but Aldrich purposely put some of the coding in there (mysogynistic view of women - check, sadistic relationship with other men - check, plus he hangs out with a Greek guy.) Spillane didn't really care if his character was ruined, because he wanted a paycheck.
"Aldrich purposely put some of the coding in there?"
The strange Hammer brand of misogyny is all Spillane. None of that is added. It's very unusual when you compare it to Chandler or Hammett, who write tough-guy PIs who are hardboiled, but essentially compassionate, if rough around the edges.
Spillane, on the other hand, goes way beyond reasonable distrust or grade-school girl-hating. Of course people are always willing to consider Hammer as a repressed homosexual: how else do you explain his strange viciousness? The closest parallel I can think of is with Chris Cooper's character in American Beauty.
[deleted]
I believe that one cannot answer this question without looking at the context in which the film was made. Coming out of this post-war era where the new dominant threat was not from Fascists in Europe but rather the Communists. In fact Aldrich was nearly blacklisted from making films under the McCarthy regime. Additionally you need to consider what this movie represented. It was basically the end of film noir. Sure the film had all the conventions of film noir (low camera angles, shadows, strong feminine characters despite a real femme fatale), but it was basically the end of classical-noir.
I believe Mike Hammer does embody this "hardboiled" detective character. The name Hammer incites the feeling of strength and impermeability. Further, he literally is a private detective. He can be compared to perhaps the detective character in the noir novel "The Little Sister," who is completely unaffected by the attractive women throwing themselves at him and has a brutish way of battling people and feels little remorse or fear of death.
What you get here is a mixing of conventions in this new age. Most of the film depicts Hammer as being an incredibly tough bachelor, who does not fear the police. However when he finally finds the box containing the macguffin that everyone is fighting and killing to get, he cracks. His wrist gets burnt and gets "spooked" when the Police chief tells him this has to do with "Manhattan Project". This is the new age of ICBMs and air-raids. This demonstrates that even the strongest and most manly individual from the Noir-age can be penetrable and fearful of nuclear holocaust.
It is unambiguous that Hammer is not homosexual for these political undertones placed within the film. Of course then several people argue that he has no interest in the girls that throw themselves at his feet, however that is how one masculine breed of traditional noir-men are; namely the PI's.
For a Homosexual, he sureeeee Kissed a lot Women!!!! And ogled them! :-)) It's bunk.
Triple Irons-"I could have easily have beaten you, if I had three swords"
[deleted]
I saw the film about a month ago, I'm a bit rusty. Didn't "Sugar" (that's right a gangster named Sugar) stick the guy tied to the bed with his switchblade in a rather phallic manner? Which reminds me, is it customary to tie your male captives to the bed post face down so that their butt is facing up? When the Doctor was pacing around the room talking to him, I thought that looked a bit homoerotic.
share"I saw the film about a month ago, I'm a bit rusty. Didn't "Sugar" (that's right a gangster named Sugar) stick the guy tied to the bed with his switchblade in a rather phallic manner? Which reminds me, is it customary to tie your male captives to the bed post face down so that their butt is facing up? When the Doctor was pacing around the room talking to him, I thought that looked a bit homoerotic."
No, it is customary for male captives to be tied face up on a bed so that their penis faces up.
Better?
I've found that there are one or two suggestive scenes - but whether they represent a for or against attitude towards homosexuality on the part of Aldrich I'm not sure. (Remember, homosexuality was a subject that definitely interested Aldrich - the lesbian characters in LYLAH CLARE and SISTER GEORGE, the various gay males in CHOIRBOYS).
As for KISS ME DEADLY, the scene which strikes me is when Hammer attacks his stalker in the street - he suddenly gets behind him and the camera pans down to the attackers mid-riff where the "erect" knife is placed (definitely "placed") between his legs and is only let go, ie made flaccid, after Hammer gives it a good shaking. I think the imagery in the scene is too definite to be accidental.
[deleted]
i'd never realised these theories existed when i first watched this show, but i have to say that one moment did strike me which i thought had homosexual overtones. when mike goes to his mate nick's garage, his greek workmate is holding his hand and crying more like a grieving lover than just a work colleague. i know there's no proof or anything, but it struck me then that nick was possibly gay.
shareThe thought crossed my mind that the "Greek workmate" was Nick's brother, and that's why he was so upset. Keep in mind also that Mediterranean people generally as more expressive in their feelings as well. Even if Nick and the other guy were just buddies, he would be more likely to show more emotion over Nick's death.
As far as the homosexuality angle goes, I sensed it but not where the rest of these posts point it out. I don't think Hammer is gay, he's just a sadistic jerk. Not that you can't be both, but I just think Christine nailed it in the start of the film when she said Hammer was the type of guy who's a taker rather than a giver in relationships, who only cares about his clothes, his car and himself. I rather got the impression that many of the bad guys hanging around the pool were gay. Bad guy's sister who was coming on to Hammer made a comment that her brother was the "black mocassin" type. I may have totally missed a reference somewhere, but I took that as a hint that he was "light in the loafers", i.e. a homosexual.
The word "over-interpretation" comes to mind!
shareYes, "Sugar" and Charlie definitely had a thing going. Probably Carl, too.
The latter was for me a very fascinating character thanks to Paul Stewart's oily and ambiguous portrayal.
This movie has layers like an onion! I love it!
In re AKA_Paul_Murphy's Tue Jun 7 2005 posting:
I was "interpreting" the scene, which is what one does when one views/reads/listens to art. One can of course, as you yourself seem to do, simply accept what is on screen as documentary action, but by doing so I feel one really loses a valuable aspect of the artistic experience, ie, not just sit there and passively accept what one is watching, but going further and interacting with the film by applying ones own ideas to it. Those ideas may certainly not be objectively justifiable in all cases, but I think add a subjective enjoyment to the experience as a whole.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not every understanding of a film or novel should be attributed to authorial
intent; this is an incredibly reductive way to look at texts. Â Do any of
us "intend" to do or say all that we do, thus making it impossible to read our
actions symptomatically? Â The construction of meaning in films must be based
on a complex relationship between the text itself, its audience, and
ideology. Â Complaints against giving films homosexual readings are only valid
if you believe gender relations, whether in film or in life, to be made of
simplistic definitions of heterosexual, homosexual, or (the even less likely
to be accepted) bisexual persons. Â The argument to be made about Mike Hammer
or any other noir detective is not "is he gay," but how is his masculinity
figured with regard to women or other men within the text, and how do we read
that relationship in terms of ideology and our own desires. Â The examples
given in these posts about framing or symbolism, etc. suggest that Hammer's
gender attributes revolve around a complexity that is not reducible only to a
normative definition of "heterosexual man," and this is something likely to be
true for all men, in film or otherwise. Â The tendency of some viewers to get
angry about the queering of films is evidence of this unfortunate reading
practice that refuses to die.
A few things I picked up that could pass as evidence:
- Mike's reaction to his secretary's advances: Perhaps he's just not into her or Perhaps she's too forward, but it seems to go a bit deepre than that. When she kisses him, he seems wooden, as though he's repelled, ut isn't quite sure how to express the repulsion. Plus, if he came out and pushed her away, she might not run his dirty little errands, which also brings up his treatment of her sexuality. Mike posseses her sexuality in an asexual way. He does not indulge, but he allows other men to indulge for his gain. It's certainly mysogonistic. But repressed homosexuality? Not so sure.
- The pool: There is a defintie homoerotic vibe here. The women parade around but are ignored by the men. One of the thugs crosses his legs with impecible posture, almost daintily. The women seem frustrated in general as though the hormones are flying around, but they aren't part of the game. There is also a homoerotic vibe to his conversation after the pool incident, as though the guy is propositioning him with the whole "What would it take for you to drop this case Mr Hammer?" Or maybe its Mike proposition him when he suggests that his opponenet throw out a feeler offer so to speak
- Mike's reaction to Nick's death: Of course he'd be sad even if there was no sexual connection, but his act of mourning, sitting in a bar with a song such as "I got the blues," at least in a movie context, feels like a scene of heartbreak. he seems less sad when hearing about his supposed girl, but then again, it wouldn't do much to sit around in mope, so his actions are justified. Call this one a push.
- Beats up his shadow. When he takes out the man with the knife, there is some definite thrusting going on beneath the camera line. Its "Ambiguously Gay Duo" stuff, but its there. Plus he kills a man that could have given him answers. Big mistake.
- Knives and blackjacks look phallic. Eh, I'm not too big on phallic symbols. Its too easy to find them where they don't exist. THough it is interesting that most of the men use knives, while the women use guns.
It's kind of a draw for me. Something is there, but I hold back on wild theories. I'll need to examine the film a bit more.
I agree, the ladies are doing everything they can considering the censor, but they get nothing for their trouble. The world is going to be a childless place if 50's cool guys just stand there looking disgusted.
shareIn response mainly to bjb6984's post
Velda: My belief here is Mike is disinterested in her because she makes herself blatantly available. If she had played hard to get, then he would have been over her like a cheap suit. In this case, I don't believe its repressed homosexuality, but more misogyny.
The pool: As above. Also, where does one draw the line between male bonding and sexuality? Obviously, not all male (or female) friendships are intimations of sexual longings. (Of course, some are.) Or as I believe Groucho Marx said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Nick's death. I believe Mike is feeling pangs of remorse that he caused Nick's death.
The shadow. Of course, the way the shadow hold's the knife (right at crotch level) before being forced to drop it is obviously phallic. So a stronger male beats up a weaker male. That is just, for lack of a better term, animal nature. Is Mike happy at his triumph? Oh yes. But it is the happiness of the strong over the weak. I suppose one could analyze it as Mike being happy because het Mike beat up gay shadow, symbolizing his triumph over his gay nature. But how broad does one have to get before EVERY action indicates repressed homosexuality? (Do homosexuals exhibit repressed herterosexuality?) As for beating up someone who could give him information, I assume Mike knew the shadow was useless or he would have tried getting info from him. Or, hell, it just looks cool on screen.
Knives: As above.
In conclusion: If one wants to find repressed homosexual themes in the film, I suppose one can. I'm sure one can find them in any film if one wants. Does it mean they are there? No. Does it mean they aren't there? No. Its just theorizing (which can admittedly be fun).
Maybe Robert Aldrich meant to put these feelers in for that purpose. Maybe he meant to put them into it for some other purpose. Maybe he thought it just looked cool. I'd doubt he meant a quickie B-film to be a tract for anything, other than a plea to let him direct more films. All I know is that I love this film. Does that mean something about me? Yeah. Something. But hardly everything.
Response to tedr0113 "Do homosexuals exhibit repressed herterosexuality?" - Probably not, especially back then, as homosexuals before the 1970's (and on a smaller scale even through to today) have to keep it a SECRET, for fear of public castigation or worse. Many hollywood leading men and actors were (and are) homosexual or bisexual - but it was UNACCEPTABLE to be so publicly, ESPECIALLY in the 1930's - 1970's. Of course, Billy Crystal's gay character in "Soap" started to break that barrier. However, ANY attempt to simply portray homosexuality was (and sometimes even now, is) "hidden", "between the lines" etc i.e. "repressed homosexuality".
Back then (1930's - 1950's) especially, homosexuals were "queers", *beep* and to be avoided. Even the topic "homosexual" and of course homosexuals themselves was/were to be shunned, like lepers in Jerusalem, teenage pregnancy, illicit drug use and STD's.
If someone is homosexual now, it's no big deal to anyone if they portray tendencies to be heterosexual, as that's still generally considered to be "normal". Maybe it isn't PC of me, but the truth is, most people (including me) STILL don't consider homosexuality to be "normal". Heterosexuality is considered to be "normal" or "acceptable". No one is surprised when two lovers are a boy and a girl - it makes sense in the purest cosmic, spiritual and base levels as well.
Unfortunately, homosexuals are often conflicted people trapped in a heterosexual world. They want to be "normal", but battle with a natural attraction to the same sex. I believe that many are indeed born that way, and can't "fight" being homosexual, they just are, but have to hide it - repress it - and back then they had to express their sexuality in covert ways if they were to express it at all. Hence "repressed homosexuality".
It's hard to tell if that is the intent in "Kiss Me Deadly", but of course the explanations in this Thread are certainly valid. Knives instead of guns for men (symbolizing penetration), strange behavior of men towards women i.e. instead of men groping women constantly - very odd film in this area indeed. What red-hot blooded heterosexual man of any age group wouldn't at least heartily play with and ogle all those hot women? Even a monogamous guy would AT LEAST be distracted. Many men certainly would, even if married, they would probably do every girl possible if not for spiritual beliefs, marital commitments etc.
Hammer has women basically saying "bed me, NOW" but doesn't seem to go for it, implied or otherwise - makes no sense - by contrast, Philip Marlowe in "The Big Sleep" seems ready to pounce on every woman he meets - and he is similarly surrounded by babes who want ... action. He's like a lustful dog after a hunk of raw meat over the women he meets. The opening scene, when Carmen Sternwood appears in the sexy tennis outfit, is telling of his character's nature. He eyes her up and down, smiles, and seems ready to "do her" but is of course distracted by the higher call of his work.
Hammer, by contrast, doesn't seem at all distracted by the many women throwing themselves at him. He seems only to want to use them to meet his goals, even though he kisses them a lot. Marlowe by contrast seems more sincerely interested in women than Hammer.
[deleted]
Wow!
Did any of you enjoy the movie? I did.
I've heard this theory applied to other movies... and to me it's quite simple`if you are looking for Mike Hammer to be gay, you 'll find evidence to support that in every mannerism, costume choice and voice inflection. Personally, I think a little of those quirky elements that have led some people to interpret this movie as having homoerotic overtones, were put in there to provide comic relief and in general interesting scenes and characters.
What was Raymond doing with his hands?
Interesting. Obviously, being an American film there is a homoerotic context since this is a huge feature of American culture. I took one look at Hammer's cop friend and asked me wife if she thought he was gay. Cue derisive laughter. I'm at the 24th minute so back to the film.
Marlon the Cat 1991-17th October 2005
Hmmm, I think the story is about the blond haired woman who does the Prometheus impression at the end. Possibly she's symbolic of Mike Hammer's attempt to break into the big time. He gets ambitious, finds himself out of his depth and (subversively) for an American film doesn't succeed through hard work and determination which as every schoolboy knows is the essence of the Fascist Big Lie. Put another way, he got burnt. I think there is something in the gay overtones theory beyond the inherently homoerotic nature of American culture. I wasn't so sure of the fascist Hammer theory though because his overt violence seemed more realist than symbolic-rather like the punch-up in The Manchurian Candidate. Perhaps the contrast with vanilla fights in earlier films makes us surprised at the portrayal. On the whole I like the idea that Aldrich used the film to send up the genre and Spillane in particular by associating Mike with a milieu where his fallibility moves the plot through shades of gay. I also liked the subverting use of homages to other films. The cinematography though was blatantly taking the p1ss.
Marlon the Cat 1991-17th October 2005
Wow, both anti-American and stupid.
Most people in American who are determined and work hard are in fact successful. And there is nothing inherently homoerotic about American culture.
Perhaps you're thinking about France.
I assume you're being facetious. Homoeroticism was virtually nonexistent in public American culture in the 50's. Certainly less present than pretty much anywhere else.
shareOh behave! America is as gay as a christmas tree and hard work gets you an early grave while some corrupt bankers make off with your wealth.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.