John Wayne Comments
John Wayne blasteed the movie because of homosexual subtext. What does he mean by this? Was there any outward homosexual words or acting in the movie???? Thanks
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > They Came to Cordura (1959) Discussion > John Wayne Comments
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Any film criticised by John Wayne counts as an endorsement for me.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
So when enough celebrities endorse child sex abuse I guess that will be normal in your opinion too.
shareNOTACLERK1 says > So when enough celebrities endorse child sex abuse I guess that will be normal in your opinion too.It's sad but true. I think that's probably always been the case but it is a lot more blatant and obvious today. If enough people; especially 'celebrities' support deviant behaviors, the more willing a lot of people, those who should have better sense, are willing to embrace or, at least, accept those behaviors.
I say accept but the truth is most people are simply going along to get along and would rather not stand apart from the crowd. It's like abortion. A lot of people support it so we're all supposed to pretend there's no killing involved. For some people it's all in how it's framed; that's how they manage to live with themselves.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate] share
An entire topic thread wasted because of IMDb's overzealous, hypersensitive administrators deleting almost every post. I won't be surprised to see my own post here to be gone within the next couple of weeks.
This site is lame.
Most of the deletions were by the poster.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
Howdy Ceasar,
I'm guessing you are a fellow conservative, yes? I too, have had a post or two deleted by the Leftist fascists, but that is redundant, yes??
I finally got to see TCtC last night; it had been on my list for a long time. After watching the film, I read about it on this website and was surprised to see a supposed homosexual relationship suggested in the film; somehow I missed that subtle hint.
Well, three years later and your post is obviously still intact!
Well 3 years later and it's still here lol!
Threads looking like this aren't uncommon here on IMDb. Whether it's a poster or the admins, when you get this many deletes it's best just to remove the thread, I think.
As for this "homosexual" theme that's supposed to be in the film, I can't see it either. I do believe, however, that most men today --gay or straight-- are unable to understand how strong the bonds of friendship and camaraderie were between men just a few generations ago, especially among men in the military. Men today are uncomfortable with displaying their affections to another man, and often tag those feelings with juvenile names like "bromance" and such. But a hundred years ago it wasn't uncommon for a straight guy to admit to his friend and to others that he loved the man.
You're right -- there is no "homosexual" theme or subtext of any kind in this film, nor was there in the novel. I commented on it on this discussion board several years ago, but it too was deleted.
I speculated further that the subject may have come up when the film was in production or release because of inside Hollywood knowledge that Tab Hunter was gay, but as I said, my post was deleted.
how strong the bonds of friendship and camaraderie were between men just a few generations ago, especially among men in the military. Men today are uncomfortable with displaying their affections to another man, and often tag those feelings with juvenile names like "bromance" and such.
I wonder why this is - in this age of gay acceptance, gay rights, gay themes in literature and film. One might think that the tendency would be the opposite due to this gay "populariy", that the tendencey would be to return, unashamed, to the male affection of Yester-year...
nagmashdriver says > I finally got to see TCtC last night; it had been on my list for a long time. After watching the film, I read about it on this website and was surprised to see a supposed homosexual relationship suggested in the film; somehow I missed that subtle hint.I had never heard of this movie until I saw it in the listings. It's not usually something I'd watch but Gary Cooper and Rita Hayworth drew me in.
I was annoyed the entire time I was watching it but not because of a gay subtext. Thankfully, I did not notice any such thing. Perhaps what people consider gay is the fact an attractive woman was present and not all the guys were ready to take advantage of her. Men are often portrayed as brutes who are only after sex. When they're not behaving that way towards a woman, for some people, it must mean they must not be into women.
Anyway, what bothered me about the movie was the premise. These guys were supposed to be heroic brave and had, indeed, demonstrated extraordinary bravery during at least one battle. However, each of them also showed they were deeply flawed. We can't say they were just human because, for the most part, they were all scummy, sub-human trolls.
The 'bravery' for which they were to be recognized could also be considered reckless, irresponsible behavior that just happened to lead to a positive outcome. That same type of behavior; showing a clear lack of foresight and critical thought is what often leads to bad behaviors. Among them was a self-confessed murderer; who killed a guy for no apparent reason. At least two were potential rapists; at least one destroyed her property, even killing her bird, and all of them seemed ready to kill, lie to cover it up, and disobey orders. They also were quick to give up.
On the other hand, the Thorn, who was a coward, showed determination. He would not give up when he encountered difficulties and he always tried to do the right thing. Showing fear is also not cowardice. It makes perfectly good sense to want to save yourself when danger is near; maybe it's not a great idea in combat but it was his first time in that situation. What he did was inappropriate for the situation but it was sensible. Also, as we all know, bravery is not the absence of fear but moving forward in spite of it. Thorn could have gone AWOL; letting the fear consume him but he did not do that. Ironically, he would not get a medal. He was facing possible demotion or forced retirement.
In my opinion, being brave or heroic is a pattern of behavior that leads to the right behavior in most situations. Doing one great thing cannot wash away a lifetime of terrible behaviors or supersede them. For those reasons I agreed with John Wayne's comments when I read them in Trivia after seeing the movie. The movie did a disservice to what the Medal of Honor represents. It went too far.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate] share
I was annoyed the entire time I was watching it but not because of a gay subtext.
What annoyed me was Cooper's character and his performance. To me his acting was far too understated, and at times laughably wooden. The character seems to be the Ultimate Sap, going around with a notebook, taking down precious data on what all the heroes think comprises Cowardice and Heroism. Please, writers! - what a champion wuss you created - the Sap Supreme; an emotional, if not an intellectual, weakling, whose heroic actions in my view do not offset, but only emphasise his mincing abjection and willingness to expose his own self-doubt to others. After a while I thought I was watching a talking tree - because of all that sap!
[deleted]
I think the homos come up with this "Homosexual Sub-Text" BS to make them feel relevant
Might have been in the novel but I don't see it here in the movie
Wayne was more upset with the concept of an officer charged with finding 5 prospects for the Medal of Honor
I doubt that is how the MOH was ever awarded or meant to be awarded