MovieChat Forums > King Rat (1965) Discussion > Did the guy-on-guy action get cut out?

Did the guy-on-guy action get cut out?

As I was watching this, I couldn't help but feel the whole relationship between James Fox and George Segal bordered on a love affair.

I know this movie was based on a novel - so, in the novel, were the two more romantically involved? At the end, when Segal goes off and Fox stands by watching him wistfully, I couldn't help but think Segal was one of the guys who thinks guy-on-guy action is okay in an all-male destitute setting like POW camp or prison, but outside it's strictly "UH-UH!!!"

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"


Once again on these boards, discussion about a film is reduced to wether such and such character is gay.


Yes, that's because the majority of males who frequent IMDB are gay! Look at the discussion of any film on IMDB .....there will be at least one posting re: "gay content"....especially for films that have predominately, or exclusively, male casts. War films are a common target....they are all men, so there must be gay action going on, right?

My experience on these boards tells me that people will see in films what they want to see, whatever their viewpoint, they will find an angle and obsess on it.

"Sometimes a Great Notion" is about anti-Unionism (really? Tell that to Ken Kesey!). "Jeremiah Johnson" is anti-Native-American (a film that portrays Native Americans as intelligent, articulate, individual human beings). "Saving Private Ryan" is anti-Afro-American because they were not PC enough to show blacks (or Japanese-Americans) even though the US military was racially segregated in 1944. Revisionism is killing me.



Saving Private Ryan" is anti-Afro-American because they were not PC enough to show blacks (or Japanese-Americans) even though the US military was racially segregated in 1944. Revisionism is killing me.

The point is, black people fought in World War II also, but you can count on one hand the number of films that even acknowledge this (A SOLDIER'S STORY, RED TAILS, MIRACLE AT ST. ANNA,etc.)) Yes, they were segregated in World War II and there are were a lot of amazing stories about that (black American troops fighting for basic human rights that they didn't have, being treated like s*** all the time and less than in even uniform, and were still denied at the time when they came back home, even after dying for/serving their country in the war) but the thing is, that's no excuse for always making movies that completely ignore black Americans' contribution to World War II. There isn't a damn thing "PC" or revisionist about acknowledging that.

Tired of people throwing up the words "PC" or "revisionist" every time we as black Americans want to have our contributions to the war effort or anything else we're contributed to America (which is our country too, btw, not just the country of these crazy-a** white right-wing nuts who were hollering a few years ago about how they "want their country back"---exactly who the hell do they want it back from? And funny how they only started hollering all that stupid nonsense when a black President was finally elected. ) acknowledged in a film. As if there's something wrong with just wanting that. White Americans weren't the only Americans who fought in World War II, but you'd never guess that by the majority of World War II films, other than the few I just mentioned, or unless you watched Ken Burns' documentary about World War II. That's the issue here. Like it would have been cool if Clint Eastwood could have made a companion piece to FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS that was about black soldiers and their experiences (like he made that companion piece about the Japanese soldiers)---point being is, for most of American history, our experiences and contributions were always left out of the history books or completely ignored by racist white historians. That's why it's an issue for some of us.

Only just caught the last part of KING RAT (never been able to catch the whole thing from beginning to end) on the MOVIES channel (which shows it ever now and then) but what caught my eye about the film about was how stark and haunting the cinematography was, and how stripped down and de-glamourized everything about the film was---looked ore like a European film than a typical Hollywood production of that era. I'm thinking maybe it had to with the fact that a British director (Bryan Forbes) made it. It's comparable of another World War II film that came out same year as this one called THE HILL (directed by Sidney Lumet) which in filmed in a similar stark and harsh manner (you can actually almost feel the oppressiveness of the heat in the desert watching that film---that's how good it is.

And since films couldn't deal openly with homosexuality at that time, there were other ways of being covert about it. Just because dudes weren't rubbing up against each other dosen't mean there wasn't something going on---it was just more suggested than anything else.


SPR was not anti-African American. Specious charge. It was soon after the Normandy invasion that Tom Hanks unit was called upon to rescue Ryan. It would not have been likely that an AA would have been part of his unit. 2000 AA's served in segregated units in the Battle of the Bulge under white officers while many were relegated to loading and unloading ships, truck drivers, stevedores and mess service, however the 761st tank unit was famous as well as the aforementioned RedTails. Ni-sei units were famously heroic in Italy. What about Vin D? Is he part AA? His character was Italian. No there wouldn't have been an AA in Hanks unit. Back to King Rat. A smal scene that has been deleted in some KR is a discussion in the med tent alluding to homosexuality.


There's no romance between King and Peter Marlowe in the book. Just great respect and friendship.

I haven't watched the movie yet (it should arrive tomorrow!), but there is an openly gay/trans character called Sean in the book, who is an old friend of Peter Marlowe's. There's a backstory between them focusing on Sean's sexuality/gender, which by the end of, Peter Marlowe has come to terms with.

King also has no real problem with homosexuality. In fact, most of the characters have a rather modern, liberal view on homosexuality. But then, of course, that may be because what happens in prison, stays in prison.

I found an article on the site Gender Variance in the Arts that briefly mentions the relationship between King and Peter Marlowe in the movie.

In Hollywood ‘buddy’ films there is often a possibility of reading of reading the relationship between the two leading males as homoerotic. A common diversion from this reading is to have an obvious queer character, often a trans person of some kind... The relationship between Marlowe and King could of course be taken as homoerotic. Perhaps in 1965, upper management was simply homophobic, without the understanding of the diversions that would become common a few years later.

Here's a link to the full article. It focuses mainly on Sean.

And the book is awesome. Please read it.


What was cut out was a scene where the guy who raises rats does a "Richard Gere" with one of his furry little friends.