MovieChat Forums > Advise & Consent (1962) Discussion > Really, Otto? Homosexuality is such a si...

Really, Otto? Homosexuality is such a sin that you have to kill yourself


Really, Otto??

reply

That's what happened in the book, except Anderson shot himself there. Don't blame Otto. Blame Allen Drury.

But in fact, Drury loosely based Anderson's suicide on the real-life suicide of Senator Lester Hunt, a Wyoming Democrat, in 1954. Hunt's son was gay and was caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom. D.C. police normally hushed such things up, but two extreme right-wing Republican senators, Styles Bridges of New Hampshire and Herman Welker of Idaho, blackmailed Hunt into retiring that year, in hopes that the GOP could pick up his seat (Hunt was very popular and a shoo-in for reelection). They threatened to expose his son if he didn't retire. Hunt, in personal agony, agreed and surprised everyone with his announcement, but then the two Republican sleazeballs broke their word and leaked news of the younger Hunt's arrest anyway. In a desperate attempt to quiet the story, a despondent Hunt went into his office and shot himself (the means Brig Anderson uses in the novel). His death did knock his son's problems out of the news, but the two gutless and reprehensible senators responsible never owned up to their part in this disgusting move. But what goes around, comes around; Welker lost his reelection bid in 1956 and died the next year at 49, and Bridges dropped dead in 1961 at age 63. And, while the Republicans briefly got Hunt's seat by appointment in 1954, a Democrat won the seat back that fall. The men's evil scheme flopped anyway -- at a huge cost.

It's no coincidence that Drury made Brig Anderson a senator from a mountain state (Utah instead of Wyoming), or that he made the wicked Van Ackermann from another mountain state (Wyoming, in a thinly disguised reference, instead of Idaho). The only difference was that, as a conservative Republican, he made Van Ackermann a Democrat, while in real life the blackmailing senators were Republicans.

In the book, Drury also had the character of Ray (who lives in Indiana, not New York) commit suicide after he reads of Brig's death. Unfortunately back then death was too often the way the plots of movies or books with gay characters resolved those characters' fates. They were usually depicted as troubled souls who were left with no choice but to end their lives in despair. That was just a reflection of the times, bad as it sounds to us today. But it had some truth to it.

reply

HobNob is correct on all counts. I would just add that, while violent death, esp, by suicide, would eventually become disturbingly commonplace in movie depictions of homosexuals, for its time both the novel and film of 'Advise and Consent' was surprisingly sympathetic and even, arguably, liberal, in its depiction of Brig's ordeal. He's presented throughout as a thoroughly moral, decent, and honorable patriot. And it's worth noting that his choice of suicide was also made because, right to the end, he refused to bend on the fundamental issue of his opposition to the nominee. He could have survived and kept his secret, at least for a time, if he had surrendered to the President. He refuses and his downfall seals Leffingwell's own. Van Ackerman's too.

reply

Exactly so, poupartca, and thanks for your comments.

Drury (and Preminger) did treat the character of Brig with much sympathy, even if they resorted to the sad cliché of suicide as the "way out". But Brig was his own worst enemy, even absent his "terrible secret". He did see Leffingwell's predicament in black-and-white terms, which is hardly just or accurate. He was too unbending for his own good, even if he had never had his gay liaison in the past and was not subject to blackmail. Ultimately being too rigid, stubborn and unmoving is not a virtue.

In the book, both Leffingwell and the President are depicted as dishonest and conniving, which is not the case in the film, even though they each make a couple of dishonest decisions. In the novel the President is even complicit with Van Ackerman's blackmail. I think the depiction of the President in the film is infinitely better and more realistic.

reply

1962 was much different than 2016.




Hitler! C'mon, I'll buy you a glass of lemonade.

reply

1962 was much different than 2016.


True, but no president I know of has been involved in blackmail and suicide.

Of course, as I've written elsewhere on this board, the plot point of political blackmail over homosexuality and a suicide resulting from this despicable act was inspired by real events in Washington in 1954...which is even longer ago than 1962. Evil men and corrupt behavior have always existed in our public life, and there have been corrupt, weak, stupid and dishonest presidents, but none that has stooped to the level of blackmail and being a party to suicide.

reply

That you know of.

reply

That you know of.


True. If you have evidence of such things I'd be interested in learning about it. But facts, not conspiracy theories or political agendas.

reply