MovieChat Forums > Ben-Hur (1959) Discussion > What was the gay sub-text?

What was the gay sub-text?


Did I miss something....I keep reading about the gay-subtext in the reviews.

reply

Gore Vidal wrote part of the script for BEN-HUR. The gay-subtext is that Messala's relationship with Judah was more emotional than just friendship, and that his betrayal is more like a lover scorned (while realizing he could use it as a wise career move in his ambitions). Vidal has also mentioned that William Wyler directed their scenes by having Stephen Boyd play up this homosexual aspect but not telling Charlton Heston.
Certain aspects of the scenes do play to this assertion. Boyd's emotional gaze at Judah in their meeting. Lines like "Judah we must believe in one another...Beg?! Didn't I beg you?" the scene where Messala and Judah drink their cups with arms crossed by one another. This does add an angle toward Messala's sidekick Drusus, who hangs around at his side, sharing space, his great concern when he gets trampled by the horses.

reply

One can interpret it all as one likes. That's the special contribution an audience makes to a film, play, novel, etc. The scenes, dialogue you cite can be reasonably applied to any strong emotional attachment between old friends, relatives, etc. without there having been a sexual antecedent. Enjoy it the way you like. Expect others to do the same.

reply

wrightinchicago

The fact that you had to enquire about the supposedly "gay sub-text" just about says it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

reply

The reason you cannot see it is because it's not there.
Of course you are free to project your own thoughts about the character's motivations, or let your imagination run wild about a possible implied background story.
Why not use the same logic to ask questions about Arrius's fondness for Ben-Hur, his desire to adopt him, etc...
Judah seems overly affectionate to his own sister...?
The sheik's 'entourage'...?
There's something queer about Balthazar and his perverted 'quest'...?
Then there's continual use of horses as a sexual metaphor...

reply

This supposedly "gay-subtext" matter is getting a bit boring!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSPcAyCgwE

reply

Utter bollix

reply

As angmc43 indicated above:

The late Gore Vidal said that he and Wyler and Boyd "conspired" to have Boyd's regard for Heston/Hur "look like" the hurt gaze of a rejected gay lover from the two characters' shared youth. Vidal suggested in words to the effect that Boyd regard Heston like a starving man might regard a buffet of lovely treats forbidden to him - i.e., the greed, hunger and frustration of a man who still loves Ben-Hur, but who knows that the adult Judean prince cannot and/or will not return it. Regardless of this story's truth, once viewed from the Vidalian perspective, the two major characters' relationship takes on a somewhat colorful dynamic. It's still a wonderful film with or without the "gay interpretation".

reply

Did Heston know about this? Heston was a strict conservative. He must not have known.
I agree about it being a wonderful film, much better than 2016 Ben Hur.

reply

No, you're right, he didn't, that's why I used the word "conspired" in describing the supposed Vidal/Wyler/Boyd "cabal" that they kept from Heston, who, had he learned of it, would surely have disavowed it and demanded some changes...I guess. It depends on Vidal's truthfulness because afaik he's the only one who told the tale in that way...

reply

Heston ABSOLUTELY DID NOT know. Decades later Gore Vidal repeated this story in a well-known magazine, (either TIME, Newsweek, or TV Guide). I remember him relating on TV as well, how Wyler said, "Gore, this is Ben-Hur! The subtitle is 'A Tale of the Christ,'" then allowing as how it was fine to reveal the idea to Boyd but not to breathe it to Heston as "Chuck would have a fit" at any such suggestion, so here was Heston thinking he was Ramon Novarro from the original (who was, in fact, gay), utterly missing Boyd making goo-goo glances at him. They showed this part with clips from the scene of them talking about their friendship. When the article appeared, Heston responded saying Vidal was on set about half a day and was exaggerating his influence, and that no such thing was EVER connected with the film. So anyone who may have said at the time that "Chuck would have a fit" was 100% correct.

reply

The Bible speaks against gays from leviticus and deuteronomy up until 1 Timothy

www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2R0eYhLwJI The Omega Men

reply

The Bible speaks against gays from leviticus and deuteronomy up until 1 Timothy

Which only shows the Bible's nasty, all-too-human origins.

reply

I missed it too!!!

reply

You didn't miss anything. There is no gay subtext.

reply

no

reply