MovieChat Forums > Billy Budd (1962) Discussion > Natural homosexual desire transformed in...

Natural homosexual desire transformed into perverted sadism

posted 14 years ago by dharnold-1
25 replies | jump to latest

I have had a laugh at the deniers of john claggart's motivation for persecuting Billy Budd being his repressed homosexual lust! LOL

Of course it was repressed homosexual lust! For goodness sake! This man John Claggart is a twisted and distorted individual turned into a perverted sadist by his desire for the boy Billy.

All the versions of the story pile on the fact of the boy's physical beauty: the crew love the boy, the captain loves the boy. That and the boy's almost saintlike goodness- both aspects would drive anyone wild with lust.

Think where you are, on a ship at war, in a totally all male environment - all that testosterone and all the pheromones flying about. We know from accounts of similar environments that a pretty youth can become the object of desire for men whose tastes back home are for females.

Claggart desires the boy but is riddled with self hate which he transforms into hatred for the boy. Or maybe he just cannot cope with the emotions for the boy that he feels. Just as the captain, passively, allows Budd to be hanged and regrets it because he also wants the boy.

The story is steamy with repressed desire.

If it's not Claggart's lust for the boy and a desire to destroy what he cannot have then what on earth is the story all about? It makes no sense without understanding the repressed homosexual element.

[–] gmholden-1 13 years ago

Nothing of the sort. Claggart was a sadist, pure and simple. Homosexuality has nothing to do with his actions. I would posit that his cruelty towards others stems from his own insecurity and self-loathing, hence the need to feel superior and in control.

[–] Bernnard_Black 13 years ago

Exactly. He was a man who hated himself, and hated others as well. He was lonely, bitter, and angry at the world. His conversations with Vere and Billy show this clearly. God, why does it ALWAYS have to be homosexuality? From Holmes and Watson to Frodo and Sam, it seems people are always positing that characters are gay when they aren't. Claggart is just a mean son-of-a-bitch who hates the new, handsome young popular kid...that's it. No repressed homosexual urges...just plain meanness.

[–] Judimex 13 years ago

Claggart was a closet gay who definately wanted Billy.

If it harms none, do what thou wilt.

[–] EdgarST 13 years ago

If one accepts this "interpretation", then Claggart was after almost everybody in that ship, except his officers and the Dansker!!!

[–] ZAROVE 13 years ago

WELL, the Dansker was old...and th Captain not in the bestof shapes...

I kid, I don't buy the Homosexual theme either.

[–] Writ_in_Water 10 years ago

Maybe, but it's hard to believe that Melville didn't intend at least a little ambiguity about Claggart's sexuality. For instance, from Chapter 11 of the novel:

"What was the matter with the master-at-arms? And, be the matter what it might, how could it have direct relation to Billy Budd with whom prior to the affair of the spilled soup he had never come into any special contact official or otherwise?... Yes, why should Jimmy Legs, to borrow the Dansker's expression, be down on the Handsome Sailor?... But for the adequate comprehending of Claggart by a normal nature these hints are insufficient. To pass from a normal nature to him one must cross 'the deadly space between.' And this is best done by indirection.

"Long ago an honest scholar my senior, said to me in reference to one who like himself is now no more, a man so unimpeachably respectable that against him nothing was ever openly said though among the few something was whispered, 'Yes, X- is a nut not to be cracked by the tap of a lady's fan.'"

In Melville's time, such matters could indeed only be dealt with "by indirection."

[–] Squeeth2 11 years ago

Come off it! The film is so Electric Six you should be grateful it's not in 3-D.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] melinda2001 11 years ago

I just watched it and laughed at several things that looked incredibly gay but were probably not meant to be at the time. The shirtless and guilty-looking guys discovered on deck and stuff like that. I'm sure that any gay people involved in making the movie, as well as the ones watching probably thought it was hot, but that sort of thing wasn't talked about openly. I'm guessing that few heterosexuals even noticed.

No, I think john claggart felt Billy melting his cold heart and seemed genuinely seemed to want the friendship that Billy offered. But then moments later he snapped back to his normally hating self and felt weak and ashamed and guilty for needing companionship. I don't think it was sexual at all. And if it was homophobia, I didn't see anything to support the idea.

Oh, and I would have been grateful if it *had* had been in 3D. With nearly all shots being in close quarters and relatively still cameras, I think it would have benefited from 3D more than the vast majority of 3D movies.

[–] floridagirl47 12 years ago

I believe that latent homosexuality could be at play here, but I also believe that many human beings have a desire to eradicate anyone or anything that is pure and good or stands for those virtues/values. Although I am not a Christian per se, Jesus would be one example of it, as well as JFK, MLK, RFK, and on and on. There are many other examples.

[–] ZAROVE 12 years ago

I can understand MLK. He wast really Oure and Good totally but, his image certainly was. However, the Kennedy's? Really? No one say them as pure and innocent, even in Camelot.

[–] floridagirl47 12 years ago

MLK was not pure either! He was doing dirty deeds behind his wife's back and it wasn't pretty... It doesn't mean that he and the Kennedy's didn't have pure and good ideals for our country. The Kennedys were rich and didn't have to care about people, but they gave their lives serving our country, which is more than most people do.

[–] DennisAlexis 11 years ago

Yes, he definately desired the boy. :)

I'm sick of people complaining about others "looking for homosexuality in everything". Let people believe what they want. There's nothing wrong with being gay, so why is it wrong to look for homosexual subtext? :)

Bimbo Boy
http://bimboboy.com
http://twitter.com/bimboboy

[–] PussyCrusher_Principal 11 years ago

I agree that not EVERY close male relationship in books/plays/films should be viewed as homosexual, or even romantic-but-chaste (as opposed to strictly platonic friendship/comradery), or like in the case of Billy Budd and Claggart, repressed homosexual desire turned to hatred...however, as a previous poster pointed out, look to the setting of the story. It's no different than if it was set in prison. The setting is not coincidental to the plot and subtext.

Don't forget Winston Churchill's famous quote (I probably don't have this word for word): "Don't talk to me of British Naval Tradition...British Naval Tradition is nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and The Lash". Or something like that. You get my point, even if you disagree...I know Churchill came over a century after the proceedings of Billy Budd, but these things have been going on - and understood - since they started. Melville certainly understood.

"You will not hear me scream!" "I Will.
But it is not your screams I want.
Only your life."

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] frodo_unplugged 11 years ago

it should be Billy Butt then...sorry, couldn't resist!

[–] ryanryanmd 10 years ago

I just love how gay guys want to believe everybody is as queer as they are. I've spent a lot of time in and around the gay community and this trend is as real as the sun is bright and yellow.

[–] dannieboy20906 10 years ago

I was inclined to dismiss the "homosexual desire" claim, not as impossible, but as possible and plausible, but not necessary. I still believe that to be true, but the quotes from the book (which I haven't read) by "writ_on_water," convince me that a homosexual undercurrent was deliberately put in the book by Herman Melville. It can be seen in the movie or ignored at the choice of the viewer.

[–] mikekrit62 10 years ago

So unrequited, repressed homosexual desires lead to "perverted" sadism?

[–] ivankafka 10 years ago

So unrequited, repressed homosexual desires lead to "perverted" sadism?

So you don't mind if it leads to sadism just as long as it's not "perverted" sadism.

[–] mikekrit62 8 years ago

Yeah, can't be having perverted sadism going on...