Gay subtext?

[deleted]

no there is nothing like that in the original, the reason i really disliked the remake is because they completely changed the final third of the film. No, what you'll find in the original is the final third being really intense, with there being a few more twists and none of the gay stuff that was in the remake.

There is a hint of it, more like admiration, but at the end of the day the two films are actually aimed at different audiences... almost half a century (the fastest changing century) apart. For me the first is simply a better film regardless of it's datedness which will only get more interesting in the future. All films made before 90's, when much fewer films were made, with much less artifice, have an historical quality which no Avatar type movie could ever have (because it doesn't represent it's time period or place as much).

None unless you count Caine mentioning dressing up in drag and jokingly hitting on Olivier. A throwaway moment in a two hour+ film.

Sadly, it's a common and lazy cliche. Particularly sad when is crowbarred onto someone else's work. It wouldn't be so bad, if it was merely added to what was there, but when it actually replaces something that was there, it's basically sabotage. Worse, is that it's done in order to make it look as though it has substance to those who don't substance, sacrificing the actual substance and foregoing those that do. It's surprising, considering who was involved in this remake.

[deleted]

I can't understand why anyone would consider that either of those two men were straight. They have both latched on to the same kind of woman, who is an obvious beard. No looker, no money, but class and connections.

Laurence Olivier is as gay as they get, slightly aroused when he forces Caine to undress. And Caine looks admiringly at a man most would fine deeply disturbing. Or at least eccentric. The constant talk of charades and games, I actually thought that the double lifestyle of being gay what was this movie was about.