What are your interpretations of the interactions between Olivar (the Mexican boy whom Petulia picks up) and Petulia's husband David?
It seemed like there may have been some taboo goings-on, but I may just be reading too much into this film.
Petulia's husband and father-in-law scare me.
I don't think you're reading too much into this. Danner's "fondness" for the boy suggests (to me at least) that he's a pedophile--and married to Petulia to give him the appearance of being "normal."
And, yes, the Danners, both father and son, are very scary characters.
I picked up on that myself. It was implied that he took the boy to bed, to put it mildly.
shareThen why did Mr. Danner suddenly want the boy out of the house and why did the boy seem like he was hesitant to leave? Petulia literally dragged him out. It was all very strange, I am not completely sure there was something sexual going on there, could be though.
Petulia's relationship with the boy is equally interesting she was intimidated by him and yet she wanted to protect him. Later through all the flashbacks you can see how the boy's accident & surgery deeply affected Petulia. I believe that she felt a great ammount of guilt about the Mexican boy, it was either from the accident or from the exposure to her husband. Good film either way.
The way I see it, is that we weren't retreating, we were just attacking in a new direction.
To me, the movie is ambiguous about Danner's sexuality in general and about what if anything happened between him and the Mexican boy. The only thing that's unambiguous in this respect is that Danner can't have a normal sexual relationship with his wife, and is suppressing something(s) that are so strong that he erupts into uncontrolled and counterproductive violence. But as to whether he's a pedophile (active or latent), or just homosexual (ditto), and/or has some problems with his mother and/or (shudder) father, the movie lets us speculate.
Of course, the wife is such an unbelievable PIA ditz that I'm not sure I could have a sustained relationship, of any kind, with her either. I'm a sailor and I wouldn't go on a cruise in a boat that size with any of those bozos! George C Scott was tempted, but ultimately got it right.
I lived in Berkeley in the late 60s, I loved the movie then, and I love it still. Ah, nostalgia...
I agree that we have no evidence that Richard Chamberlain's character wants to do something inappropriate with the Mexican boy. A male pedophile who is trapped in a phony marriage never would order an underage boy to vacate their home while acting possessive of his wife.
shareThe nature of the boy's relationship with either Petulia or her husband is unclear. The only thing that is clear is that the child is endangered by his proximity to both of them, something which Petulia seems to know.
If David had a sexual relationship with the boy, it was a bolt of freakish bad luck for the kid, since the guy had nothing to do with him getting in the car or going all the way to San Francisco in it. That's all on her. David had nothing to do with the boy getting hurt, either. Petulia was the one on the scene. In fact, David's reaction about the boy is annoyance, albeit mixed with something resembling amusement which causes Petulia unease. Whether it's its something sexual, just abusive, or creepy smugness about Petulia's characteristically poor choices in life isn't clear.
Nothing really is in this movie.
It's exactly what you'd expect to go on between a privilged, sadistic homosexual pervert and an underaged, illiegal immigrant boy. The kid got a watch out of the deal, and Petulia seems to resent the kid and wants to get him away from her husband.
share"It's exactly what you'd expect to go on between a privilged, sadistic homosexual pervert and an underaged, illiegal immigrant boy. The kid got a watch out of the deal, and Petulia seems to resent the kid and wants to get him away from her husband. "
Are you implying that to be a homosexual is to be both a pedophile and a pervert?
Because if you are, that is
1/ not true
2/ hate speech
3/ forbidden here.
*****
With the newspaper strike on, I wouldn't consider dying! /Bette Davis/
Don't ya just love it when people try to twist someone's words to fit their own nonsense?
Did this person say that ALL homosexuals are pedophiles? No, don't think he did. As a matter-of-fact he didn't even mention the word "pedophile". Did he say that ALL homosexuals are perverts? Nopes, once again, he didn't. Did he go "implying that to be a homosexual is to be both a pedophile and a pervert"? No he didn't. Instead, what he did say was that DAVID was a "privileged, sadistic, homosexual pervert". How you got that he was saying "that to be a homosexual is to be both a pedophile and a pervert", I'm not sure, but he didn't say that, YOU did.
David was a "privileged, sadistic, homosexual pervert". That is a statement of fact, not a statement that ALL homosexual people are also sadistic perverts. Sheesh.
You know what is "not true" here? What is "not true" is the accusation that this poster was "implying that to be a homosexual is to be both a pedophile and a pervert". He never did that, instead you twisted his words so you rush in and lecture people about hate speech.
Next time trying READING what someone writes before you go off on a tangent, twisting their words and tossing up straw men so you can rant about hate speech and inform us what is forbidden here. Thanks.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
Of course it would never be hate speech to bash rich people. Just gay people.
Nothing wrong with that quote..."privileged, sadistic, homosexual pervert"..
It's accurate to the character he was talking about in the film.
No, Saint is quite right. Brefane did use the terms pedophile and homosexual interchangeably. Either he doesn't know the difference or he doesn't believe there is one.
share