Are there homoerotic shadows in this film? It was written by the same man who did the screen play for Brokeback.
But the elements I see are more in the filming. De Wilde naked in bed. Newman carrying de Wilde on his shoulders where every scene change is a straight on shot of de Wilde's rump.
The movie is very erotic all over (I find)... most obviously in the scenes where Newman is overtly erotic with Neal. It makes sense that the eroticism would be found in the 'male element'.... without even trying, Martin Ritt exposes us to our own 'instincts'.... tight jeans on DeWilde's rump, a young man laying leisurely and 'on display' in bed.... yes... it's there.
shareWell, they DID go to a gay rodeo...didn't they? God, I hope you're joking.
Cheers.
I'm not sure I follow you.... no gay rodeo... just commenting on the fact that the male erotic element is there to be noticed....if you are willing or predisposed (not being a heterosexual male is one start) to notice it... so no, I'm not joking.
share[deleted]
I don't think he's going to understand....
I agree with a poster above. I think the entire movie is erotic. Especially Newman and Neal.
As far as homoeroticism....no, I don't think that's what Larry McMurtry is saying here. In particularly with de Wilde. There is a dynamic with Neal in his room while he's still in bed.
De Wilde was looking up to Newman in a way until he sees that he's essentially just a destructive, selfish person. His gazes are of admiration, astonishment and disgust. Not romance. I don't know if you were implying that as well or not. I am not trying to offend.
I get the feeling that the OP, like me is gay. Looking for crumbs because you're not represented much in the movies is understandable, but sometimes they get way off track. The movie is quiet and subtle.
I guess if you're gay then you can find homoerotic "shadows" in anything and everything. Being straight, I noticed that Hud was chasing women all the time. However I guess gays feel that he was using excessive womanizing as a "cover" to hide secret homosexual urges. Just like the Ku Klux Klansman uses violent racism to hide his "bleeding heart" liberalism. Notice too, that Lon told Grandad he was "thinking about girls", and he had a collection of FEMALE pin-ups in his drawer. And he, like Hud, was trying to get Alma. And don't forget the storekeeper asking Lon about the beach scene in "From Here to Eternity". So where's the gay part? To me, it seems fairly PACKED with rampant heterosexuality. Just because Newman might appeal to a gay man does NOT mean there were any gay over or undertones to this film.
shareWhoa! I think you are going off your own private deep end. I am a gay male, and I do not see homoerotic 'shadows' in everything, nor do the infinitely higher number of gay men I know, than you do. (How silly of me to believe a gay man is a better judge of what is 'gay' than you, a straight man). Yes, Hud is chasing women all the time. Yes, there is no question of his, or anyone elses heterosexuality in the film. You are correct. However, this is not what the conversation was about. We were discussing the fact that the open and obvious display of the male body, in this, or any film, or art, can be easily understood as 'homoerotic'in nature.
Contrary to your thoughts, one doesn't have to be Gay to recognize 'homoeroticism' (though it sure helps). Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, torn t-shirt.... you don't have to be gay to recognize it. I don't have to be Straight to recognize the sexual eroticism in the face and form of Scarlet Johansen. The only poster here that ever came up with your odd and worrisome analogies.... is you. Based on your over-the-top and more-than-revealing response, lets just say we percieve life and human sexuality much differently.
Pull back on your reactionary diatribe. No one is 'after' you or Hud.
Though I win a microwave with my next 'convert'... Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!
Wrong. The "the open and obvious display of the male body, in this, or any film, or art" is not "homoerotic" to anyone but those that consider the male body "homoerotic". No, someone doesn't have to be gay to recognize homoerotic content, but there are plenty that find it in any and everything. Is the statue of David by Michelangelo "homoerotic"? Are the paintings of Christ on the cross, "homoerotic"?
Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, torn t-shirt.... you don't have to be gay to recognize it.
lets just say we percieve life and human sexuality much differently
"Just like the Ku Klux Klansman uses violent racism to hide his "bleeding heart" liberalism".
Wow, help me out on this one... someone in Hud, or in real life, is a member of the Klu Klux Klan, and uses 'violent racism' to cover up for their 'bleeding heart liberalism'? Who knew?
I know of members of the extreme Right-Wing Christian movement who are members covering for their homosexuality. Do liberals join conservative organizations to cover for their liberalism? Do conservatives join liberal organizations to cover for their conservatism? I'm neither a 'bleeding heart liberal' nor a Right Wing Christian, but it's good to know these dangerous sorts are out there.
Especially in Hud. ;^)
My good fellow... I know that sometimes the written word, unembellished by vocal tones and body language, can often lead to misinterpetation, but I was merely stating that I think gays often see homosexual "clues" in nearly everything. In my opinion, just because certain images intended to gratify females(note the female response on this board to Paul Newman's portrayal) also appeal to gay men, this in no way makes them "homoerotic." In much the same way that lesbianism, however arousing to straight men, can be considered a demonstration of heterosexuality. You'll have to overlook the somewhat silly and arcane manner in which I stated these beliefs, but I guess a gay man can excuse a little natural "flamboyance". And by the way, Liberace was NOT gay. He just never found the right woman.....:)
shareGood response good fellow.
All respect to the nuance of the subject, I agree/disagree respectfully.
You are right that there are no 'clues' in Hud, and the characters are straight. There is nothing in the writing to suggest such a 'subtext', absolutely correct, and at least for my part, I never meant to suggest there was. "Homoerotic" aspects are pretty 'straight'forwardly not written into the script. Maybe it's clearer to state that 'homoerotic' does not necessarily have anything to do with being gay, or finding gay plots or motivations. 'Homoerotic' merely means the presence of, for lack of a better way to describe it, 'male beauty', or celebrating the male physique. Naturally a straight man will respond/not respond to that presence differently than a gay man.
Just take it as an awareness on the part of the viewer (and often the filmmakers) of the erotic aspect of the male form. We grow up with women being the subject of this so much, we never question it. Women can even comment on the 'beautiful figure' of another woman, without raising eyebrows. When suggesting that men can be the admired and desired 'object', our society has quite a different reaction.
Bottom line? Homoeroticism, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.
I think it can be a difficult issue, because we live in a society that still has so much denial and fear of anything that might remotely be 'queer'. Yes, Brandon DeWilde, shirtless and lounging unashamedly in bed, is nothing to you... of course. To many others, it can be seen as very erotic. That does not say anything sullen about the film, or the person seeing it, and it doesn't mean gay men are finding unfounded gay subtexts in it. It's just an awareness. Whether or not director Martin Ritt, or writer Larry McMurtry meant it as 'homoerotic', which I do not for one minute believe, is beside the point. I will say though, many films do show it intentionally, and our fear and denial of admitting anything 'queer' keeps us from recognizing it.
For decades, straight men have loved James Bond films for the beautiful 'Bond Girls', but it would be folly to deny that the film makers have intentionally paraded Connery, Moore, Brosnan, etc... especially now, with Daniel Craig... as a 'sexual object'... whether it is admired by women, or men. It's homoeroticism. That does not mean gay men are finding gay 'subtexts'in Bond films. Whether it's recognized by straight men or not... it's homoeroticism.
Anyway, good discussion. Thanks.
Thanks also for clarifying your position. I think I "get it" now.
shareI can get the "erotic" , but not the "homo".You make it sound as if women's opinion don't count. Only those of men, gay and straight. Following your reasoning, every sexy girl and every woman alone or sharing the frame with another one would be not erotic but "homoerotic" for the same reasons. A straight man can see a good looking guy and even recognice is sexy or cool without desiring him. But maybe you can't.
share"It would be folly to deny that the filmmakers have intentionally paraded Connery, Moore, Brosnan etc... especially now, with Daniel Craig as a 'sexual object'... whether it is admired by women or men. It's homoeroticism".
Yes, Bonds being admired by women is "homoeroticism". Gotcha.
And Bonds being admired by dogs or other pets is bestiality, mind you.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Absoluteley.
Lon is obviously gay & has a crush on HUD. HUD's big secret that he can't tell anyone & explains why he can't have normal relations is that he & his brother were molested as kids.
Obviously the director didn't feel capable of spelling things out in the movie, so they're very much inferred.
For the record, Annie Proulx, the novelist, wrote the short story that McMurtry adapted into Brokeback Mountain. Larry McMurtry wrote the novel Horseman, Pass By - which he adapted himself into the screenplay for Hud.
McMurtry is Hollywood's go-to man for Westerns. Pretty sure he adapted Brokeback to make sure it would appeal to a broader audience.
As for the "homoerotic" issue, others here have it nailed.
according to IMDB Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr.adapted the screenplay for HUD. Larry McMurtry provided the source material, the same as Annie Proulx for BM. Regardless the images the OP sees would have been put in by the director.
Hud's a big nelly queen.
share[deleted]
You don't seem to understand film making. Harriet Frank Jr. wrote the screenplay for HUD, not Larry McCurty (sp) who wrote the novel. The images you are talking about would have been put in by the director.
share