MovieChat Forums > The Fox (1968) Discussion > The Fox is homophobic, misogynist nonsen...

The Fox is homophobic, misogynist nonsense. SPOILER


Who exactly is Ellen March? Is she a lesbian at the beginning of the story? Two women sharing a bed would be reason enough for some to think so.

Ellen and Jill seem to have a distant husband wife relationship, Ellen taking the male role. But if she loves Jill why does she want to marry Paul? Also, why would she want to leave the independence of her life on the farm to spend it with a man as controlling as Paul? Is the message we are supposed to get that she needs to be tamed and only a real man like Paul can do it?

A clue could be when he approaches Jill, rejecting her bribe to leave, and tells her she needs the right man to straighten her out. Ellen isn't there when this happens. So, we might logically think that Paul might not make a faithful husband.

Then Ellen descends the stairs in a pink dress, appearing far more feminine than she ever had before. The new look is to satisfy Paul. The only scenes of intimacy are when Paul and Ellen are in the cabin and between Jill and Ellen on the bed. The one between Paul and Ellen shows them nude, which means it's the serious one. Jill, conforming to the stereotype, is shown running, and crying and shouting while searching for Ellen, frustratrated and hysterical. When she is on her bed, lonely and depressed, the confusing Ellen has a kissing scene with her. It's to mollify Jill after telling her that she loves Paul.
But their clothes stay on them. It was just a schoolgirl crush that Ellen has on her we are told to think. Before Paul enters their lives, Ellen is shown standing before a mirror, naked and obviously starved for sex, ripe for a man to do it.

Both of these love scenes show Jill as the stereotypical movie lesbian.

But Jill's ridiculous death by standing in the path of the falling tree is like other films where homosexuals are conveniently killed off. She can't possibly have a happy life if she can only love women. It's like killing a lame horse to put it out of it's misery. This is true even in a movie that was made in the seemingly liberated sixties, after the Production Code had ended.

Paul won't make the humane choice and refuse to cut down the tree if Jill won't move. Nothing can come between him and Ellen. Jill commits suicide because she knows that because Paul has returned she can never have the vacillating Ellen to herself. If the film had to end this way, why couldn't Jill and Ellen be shown having a thoughtful discussion about Ellen's feelings for Paul before Jill departs from them? But that would be boring. A suicide saves time as well as being what the screenwriters think a lesbian deserves.

There is one piece of dialogue that would indicate that we should still feel some sympathy for Jill. After all, she did make the supreme sacrifice for Ellen's supposed happiness. As Ellen and Paul are leaving, she looks back and says that the house needs shingles. A part of her will always be back on the farm with Jill. We are asked to think isn't that sweet?

reply

Agreed.

The film insults your intelligence. The cliche' "all she needs is a man in her life" really hits home here.

So does the implication that the reason Jill doesn't like men is because she was "possibly" raped.
While I won't deny that may or may not happen, seeing it in film cements stereotypes.

Ellen and Jill's relationship wasn't made clear. No I don't need to see lebians doing it to know that they're in love, but they hardly seemed a couple.
Other than sharing a bed(maybe even for warmth in the winter), they just seemed like close roommates.

And Jill, the one who seems to keep Ellen from fulfilling her heterosexual future, getting killed is utter BS.
Shame on the movie makers and shame on the writer.



I have had days infinitely more enjoyable

reply

Thanks for your reply, and I'm glad that someone agrees with me about The Fox.

But I wondered how Jill shows that she hates men for "possibly" being raped. She asked Paul to stay at the farm in their first scene with him.

reply

True about my comment. Maybe "hates men" was too strong an obsevation.
Yes she did seem genuinely pleased at the appearance of Paul.

I just meant the assumption she a lesbian because of a possible rape.




I have had days infinitely more enjoyable

reply

I have added some observations to my message about The Fox.

reply

I completely agree. Nothing about this film is true on any level. Even episodes of Bewitched were more progressive than this nonsense. However, this is wonderful example of how gay men and lesbians were consistently treated in mainstream cinema from the 1960's through the early 1990's.

reply

I think it was a good movie. But I'm a big Sandy Dennis fan so I like anything she is in. And re. all the criticisms. It was made in 1967! You are looking at the movie through a 2007 lens. Of course it was stereotypical re. Lesbians . But on a movie level, I think it was a very entertaining and thought provoking film. I guess, I'm in the minority here...

reply

I still don't understand why Jill killed herself, and was Ellen gay, and why did Ellen go off with Paul, i don't get it

"I gotta get somewhere in this world. I just gotta"

reply

"I still don't understand why Jill killed herself"

Because, as I wrote in my post: 1) When Paul returned, Jill knew that Ellen would want him, not her. Also, if Paul was persistent enough to come back to the farm after getting Ellen's letter of rejection, he wouldn't leave until he got her. When they saw Paul walking towards them when they were trying to cut down the tree, Ellen didn't tell Paul to get out.

2) Jill was showing a lesbian attachment to Ellen all the way through the movie.
It was implied in Jill's actions.

Jill did ask Paul to stay at the farm when he was about to leave. But that could have been because they needed help on the farm, especially with killing the fox.

Another reason was that Jill was the more sociable of the two women. Although she loved Ellen, the latter could be quiet and unresponsive. So, Jill could have been lonely. One could also imagine her being bored, living on a farm way out in the country, near only a small town.

But, as I also explained, Jill couldn't come between Paul and Ellen in the end. However, because she was a lesbian, according to movies at that time, she had to get the death penalty. Suicide was the favorite way for the movies to show how they knew, or thought, the public wanted to see gays or lesbians punished for their supposed perversions.

If you think this view is extreme, see three other films shown last month in the TCM series on gays and lesbians in the movies, Advise and Consent, The
Childrens' Hour and Reflections In a Golden Eye. Another one, The Sergeant, wasn't shown. But it came out the same year as The Fox did in the U.S. It did nothing more than the other four for improving the image of same sex attraction
on the screen.











reply

The title The Fox refers to Paul. He is the fox who raids the henhouse and carries away Ellen. That is why, just before the final credits roll, the head on the skin of the fox that was shot by Paul is looking at the camera and grinning.

It might also explain why, before Paul comes to the farm, Ellen can't bring herself to shoot the fox that is attacking their hens. She could really sympathize with what the fox is doing.

As for Ellen's sexuality and whom she loves, I wouldn't blame anyone for being confused. At least the fox had one clear goal in mind concerning the chickens.

reply

The bottom line of this movie is: Lesbian relationships have no place in this world. Lesbians don't deserve happiness, of course, because Lesbianism is *wrong.*
Not only that, unless they *wisen up* and do the *right* thing aka, finding a man to obey, they deserve to die.
In my opinion, another bunch of criminal lies against women. Women cannot choose how to live and who to love, unless under the guidance and supervision of a man, who of course, knows what is best for them.
And did I mention how anti-wild life it is? The WWF should be worried.

reply


Your right the way gay men and lesbians treated in the movies


"I gotta get somewhere in this world. I just gotta"

reply

Ellen would have been bisexual because she had sex with a man. If she was a lesbian she obviously would never have done that.

reply

Except for one brilliant, allbeit an English import, exception: Sunday, Bloody Sunday. It's an honest, non-sensational depiction of three people involved in a love triangle. See it...it will change you view about ALL films from the sixties through the nineties being homophobic.

reply

give me a break!the fox makes it very clear that paul is the villian of the piece,and that jill is the victim of both his ruthlessness and march's flaky indecisevness.and what about the ending? do you think that was supposed to be a "happy" ending? jill letting herself die out of despair? don't you think it speaks volumes when paul assures march that she'll be happy,and march says "will i?" do you actually want to believe this film is homophobic? if d.h. lawrence knew how you interpreted his story he'd be turning over in his grave.

reply

Guess what? I spit on D.H. Lawrence's grave. He could have been good at straight love and sex, but this he wrote is homophobic. The man lived on the 19th century if I am not mistaken. In England. In his brain this might have been ok. But it's not. The story has a clear be straight or die subtext. It's insulting.

reply

lawrence was openly bisexual and claimed the person he came closest to having a perfect relationship with happened to be a man.

reply

Okay now I haven't seen this movie but my English class is reading and discussing the novella. The author, D.H. Lawrence, wrote the story as a response to the "traditional" role of women in the early 20th century. In the book, he makes it quite clear that Henry (whose name appears to be Paul in this movie) destroys March/Ellen by encouraging her to conform the the traditional roles of women. He esentially kills her spirit because she has experienced independence from men and has now given it up for Henry/Paul.
And in the book, Henry/Paul kills Banford/Jill... the screenwriters didn't just make that up because they hate lesbians. Its part of the story.

reply

D.H. Lawrence was a homosexual himself, so I think the screenwriters included the homophobic material.

reply

there is no "homophobic" material.the story was adapted unaltered from lawrence's novel.

reply

I thought he was bisexual

reply

I just saw this interesting film yesterday. But reading the slew of negitive posts has me wondering if some people saw the same film.
First,I'm shocked this movie even saw the light of day,40 years ago. The swinging 60's were pretty much swingin' for heterosexuals- sorry to burst someone's nastalgic bubble!
I thought the depiction of the lesbians was actualy fairly positive/realistic.
Jill was a little annoying, Ellen a bit resentfull. Just like a "normal" couple( if there is such a thing.)
I'm hetero, and I would'nt mind having them as neighbours, they seemed to be good/decent people, and I felt their relationship was more healthy, more loving- than Jill's bizzare "relationship" with Paul.
I'm a man, and I found Paul to be a repulsive creep.Paul is cold,manipulative,arrogant and a sadist( especialy to animals) I don't think the ending was anti-gay, a litle contrived perhaps. I disagree with some of the posts, I don't think Jill killed herself, she just stupidly would not move out of the way.I think the ending was to allow for Paul arranging a convient"litle accident" for her- showing him as a murderer.
The most dissatisfing aspect of the movie was Ellen- what the hell was wrong with her? Does it work if a strange man simply grabs a woman ( that he barely knows )forcefully, tells her he loves her and then demand that she leaves her lover and marry him ?- and she's a lesbian to boot! I would think Jill should have scrambled his huevos, if you get my meaning.
The only thing I can say is I've seen a lot of women who seem facinated by guys who are control-freaks/ a******s -but not lesbians. Why did Ellen "fall" for Paul? Was she only "experimenting" with him- or Jill for that matter? She seems vaguely dissatisfied in the start of the film. I just don't see the attraction to Paul.
Paul is the fox- he ruins Ellen's life and takes Jill's. He's a preditor, and just as Ellen was facinated by the fox's stare, so she seems unable to free herself of a sick facination with Paul. Why did they even allow him back on the farm?
If anything the movie is anti-male... the only male character is Paul, and he's EVIL.It seems that the only acceptible ending for some would have been a happy one-mabey a sort of gay Thelma and Louise, with the ladies bumping off the scummy guy, and bailing hay happily ever after? I don't think you should bash the film just because it dosn't end the way you personaly want it to.

reply

Why does NO ONE in this thread consider that Ellen could've been..oh I dunno...BISEXUAL??

"OMG was Ellen supposed to be straight or lesbian; I'm sooo confused."

People who live in a black and white world seriously get on my nerves.

[/rant]

"That is one badass spider. I hear Samuel L. Jackson is going to play it in the movie"

reply

I just thought I might throw some light on one of your original questions, tkrolak, about why Ellen feels so drawn to Paul. I have seen the film but not read the book. I also found Jill's death offensive.

It could be that Ellen is the 'strong' one in her relationship with Jill, with a lot of the responsibility (she says to Jill at one point, something like "I do most of the hard work round here" - I am just paraphrasing). So the arrival of Paul means she gets to abdicate some of this responsibility. She gets to be the 'weak' one - something novel, and thrilling. She is carried away, rather than having to carry. When Paul leaves she reverts to her usual role again.

Sometimes, someone who is apparently responsible or strong, occasionally does something reckless or out of character - they just need to lighten the load, even if sadly, that involves a sociopath like Paul Renfield.

reply

Even if you ignore the ridiculous ending, there are still a lot of homophobic and misogynist elements throughout the film. And even if you ignore those elements with the support that many films 'back then' were homophobic, the film is just poorly made with silly heavy-handed metaphors and no redeeming qualities other than Sandy Dennis' great performance.

reply

Maybe but I remember Kier was hot.

reply