What? Does Tony Curtis pay the writers and directors to make all his scenes with gay overtones, or do the writers and directors decide on their vision and only Tony Curtis will do it?
Or was there a gay quota and Tony was the go-to guy?
I'm not bashing. So don't start.
Or do. Whatever. Say that I'm projecting. I won't sqwawk. But you KNOW I've got a point.
Terror with Napalm- I want ya'll to STAY calm!share
I have seen this movie, and gay never even entered my mind. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you........ Oh forget it who cares. You are right about having a point though, I'm sure it is at the top of you head.
shareAt one point Curtis says to Poitier "you"ll make a fine old lady for someone".Thats a strange thing for one guy to say to another?
share[deleted]
What about the scene where they fall asleep and wake up with their arms round each other and jump apart?LOL The OP has a good point.
shareI seriously doubt that...I think you're looking too much into that. and the line "You'll make someone a fine old lady one day" IMO just means that Cullen has an...how do I say this..??..Umm like a strong caring personality..which um isnt a quality found in "most" straight men..or men in general for that matter. Like for instance when he noticed that Jokers hand was infected..he took care of it for him(there are other examples but I'm lazy)...they developed feelings for each other and any physical contact was I think strictly used for symbolism. Cause um, I'm pretty sure their relationship was platonic.
sharePlus when Billy hit his head on the rock
shareI imagine they wake up in each other's arms because it's raining and therefore probably rather cold. And then they jump apart because they'd rather not touch each other at that point.
shareNow that makes a lot more sense than the gay theory. If I remember right, the possee had jackets on in the daytime, so to try and sleep outside wearing only a shirt must have been pretty miserable.
The whole point of the film,IMHO, was how they found humanity and respect for each other. Can't men do that without being called into question? (especially when trying to survive) The gay bit is just silly and would add nothing to the story.
I don't think we're meant to think they're gay or that it's an important theme in the film :)
But all the same - I'm with the person who started the thread, I do think there is something slightly homoerotic about the film.
And interestingly enough - Tony Curtis agrees ;)
See this interview:
http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/issue/i06-02/tonycurtis.php
So, you see, I’ve had a lot of interesting lovers or lovers-to-be in movies I’ve been in.
That’s the truth.
If you want to really examine it, what about Sydney Poitier and Tony Curtis in The Defiant Ones. We know they didn’t "make" it.
Right.
We don’t know. What you don’t know won’t hurt you.
And here's another one:
http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=71
In 1958's The Defiant Ones, Curtis played opposite Sydney Poitier, as two prisoners, shackled together, on the run.
That movie, says Curtis, contained a homosexual subtext. "The subject of homosexuality did not come up literally," he says during a phone call from Dallas, where Hot: The Musical kicked off the current leg of its national tour, "but it was so evident. There have been a number of movies I've found myself in without even thinking about it doing it because I like the idea of the impudent attitude toward sex, politics or anything else. My film career always kind of moved in that direction.
So there you go, it seems like there really is something to it :)
It's hilarious how pretty much every poster after you ignores your post. I think it's easy to see a potential homosexual subtext to this film. In truth it doesn't matter one way or another though as it is only a subtext, certainly not a major theme of the film.
I actually think the film was likely an influence on Brokeback Mountain, in the sense that it was about two men out in the wild, coming to the conclusion that they in fact loved each other, and what could express love more than the sacrifices these two guys made for each other towards the end of the film. I thought it was beautiful.
What does it mean to regret, when I have no choice
I doubt too many (at least heterosexuals) noticed the subtext when it was first seen--or for many years thereafter.
Seeing it for the first time in the 21st century the subtext is inescapable to me.
The question in my mind is: Was the subtext consciously put there or subconsciously?
I mean, it might've just been the intent to show interracial bonding. Still, it seems (at least, now) pretty hard to not see homosexual overtones, even though they showed Tony Curtis wanting to get it on with the abandoned wife.
Then again, there's the prison culture of sexuality.
Anyone wanting to do a remake would have a lot to think about regarding today's audiences' perceptions.
If anything, that scene would prove he wasn't gay, right??
shareSo John Candy and Steve Martin are gay in Planes, Trains and Automobiles?
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
[deleted]
Oh for the love of... absolutely ridiculous comments. Obviously from people who were not born when this film was made.
No - there is nothing gay about Curtis in this film.
What you have to realize is that in the 50's homosexuality was so closeted that the majority of movie-goers wouldn't have imagined any of this as gay. Most people had never consciously met a gay man, they only had swishy stereotypical ideas of homosexuality (which would not fit either Curtis or Poitier in this film) and the joke about Poitier making a good grandmother was simply a joke acknowledging that Poiter had been kind and tender towards him (as a friend).
In the fifties, people were much less "sophisticated" than they are now. In fact, the word "gay" didn't even exist in its present sense. This lack of sophistication is probably why many people think that this film has not aged well. They see the story as too overtly battering the audience over the head with the idea that a black man is the same as you or me. But in that time, it was NECESSARY to beat people over the head - because they refused or simply couldn't see this as obvious.
Same for homosexuality. If a film in the 50's even suggested the idea of homosexuality, it was always as either a total perversion or something to be ridiculed - specifically by presenting gays as raging queens.
In other words, you have to put things into their proper context.
[deleted]
"you"ll make a fine old lady for someone".Thats a strange thing for one guy to say to another?"
OK, old post but, to correct it for 'history' sake: No, it was not - it was a common
joke/line between guys back in the day. More commonly, the line was 'you'll make someone a great WIFE someday ...".
Yeah, it implied that a guy was showing his'feminine side', something a male wasn't supposed to do (cry, get emotional watching a movie etc). Just a way of busting another guys chops, period.
"You are right about having a point though, I'm sure it is at the top of your head."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Idiotic thread.
i didnt think so..
"Do you think the end of the world will come at night time?"
[deleted]
You'd have a point if you gave examples and let us debate them...
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"