MovieChat Forums > Lifeguard (1976) Discussion > Gay subtext?

Gay subtext?

posted 17 years ago by dinky-4
13 replies | jump to latest

The capsule review in the "Time Out" film guide says that the subtext for this movie is homosexual. ("Heterosexual relationships ... pale by comparison with the romantic glow of male/male encounters.") I find this interpretation a curious one. True, I'm sure "Lifeguard" has a gay following if only because hunky, handsome Sam Elliott spends much of the time wearing nothing than swim trunks, thus showing off a quite attractive physique. But I don't think the story line and characters add up to much of a homosexual subtext. True, "Rick" doesn't sustain a relationship with any of the three women he sleeps with -- the airline stewardess, the lonely girl, and the divorced mother -- but he does enjoy having sex with them. I think it's that ol' bugaboo "committment" which puts an end to these relationships rather than any repressed preference Rick might have for gay sex.

As for those male/male relationships, there seem to be only two of them worth noting in the movie. Rick meets an old schoolmate (Stephen Burns) who urges him to become a car salesman. These two men resume their high-school friendship on a casual basis but I don't see anything more to it than that. Then there's the college student (Parker Stevenson) who becomes the assistant lifeguard for the summer. This young man also spends a lot of time in swim trunks but do you ever see Rick ogling him? ("Hey, kid, let's go take a shower".) Does Rick ever invite the guy over to his place for a drink? No and no.

True, Rick's relations with his old high school buddy and with the young lifeguard aren't fraught with the trouble and turmoil which mark his dealings with the story's three women, but might this simply be because he doesn't regard his male friends as objects of sexual interest?

[–] AWaite4 17 years ago

I think that there is a portion of the audience that, because of their own personal baggage, claim that any scene with men in it and no women, is 'gay', and somehow this makes the movie evil or tainted. And they post here often, about such films as "D-Day" or "Zulu".
Other ridiculous examples abound. The Three Stooges? Abbott and Costello? Tarzan and Cheetah? Oops, sorry, wrong perversion.

[–] lastmidnite2 16 years ago

evil or tainted??? I would have LOVED to see a hot sex scene between Sam and Parker!

[–] pocumtuck28 9 years ago

How's This ?

After a long, hot day of lifeguarding, Sam invites Parker out for a drink at the neighborhood bar. Sam gets his young co-worker all liquored up, I mean falling-down drunk, then drives him back to his apartment. Sam mentions about how hot it is, apologizes that his place isn't air-conditioned, they'd feel a lot more comfortable if they were naked, and he makes Parker take his clothes off. Then Sam starts to horseplay around with Parker, and they begin to wrestle. Sam feels the kid up, and gets him good and hot. Then Sam trips him, brings him down to the floor, and I guess you can leave the rest to your imagination.

[–] bacteriaburger 16 years ago

You'd think someone could pose a legitimate question about exploring gay subtext in a film without some jag off equating homosexuality to a "perversion." What year is it? Certainly not 1976, but even then...

Anyway, I agree with the (intelligent) commenter above - reaching for a gay subtext in this movie is pretty ridiculous. As a gay man with a healthy interest in Sam Elliot's thighs, I found myself wondering more about what went on in that lifeguard station between Rick and the young girl rather than any microscopic hint of attraction between him and the college guy.

And if we're getting at the notion that somehow Rick's commitment issues are more in line with homosexuality...well, you'd think that after years of gay people proving that they, too, can carry on long-term, monogamous relationships we'd have gotten past that.

Oh, I forgot - gays are all perverted man-on-beast sex maniacs. Forgive me.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Niki_Catalina 12 years ago

This is a dumb *beep* post!

"When people run in circles its a very very - Mad World"

[–] clockwatcher 9 years ago

There is nothing gay about this movie. Only a gay person would say this.

[–] Druff 8 years ago

Anyone looking for gay subtext is going to see it wherever they look. And no matter how clearly and coherently you show them that it isn't actually there, it won't matter. They're still going to see it.

[–] Clemencedane 8 years ago

The Time Out review sounds like the view of an under-30 historical revisionist who has no clue what the 1970s were like. There was no gay subtext in the film. The reason Rick has both sex and "relationship complications" with women is that he is oriented towards women. Rick sustains no lasting relationships with men either and of course none of the complications that you get with sexual and romantic feelings. He just doesn't want to commit right now or maybe ever.

People who didn't live through the 70s or even 80s don't know how drastically everything has changed. Until around 1985 or so, straight men used to be able to show their bodies in public. It used to be perfectly heterosexual for men to wear skimpy shorts, bare chests and tight pants in public and women admired them for it - look at old album covers and pictures of popular bands from the 60s, 70s, even the early 80s. Look at Burt Reynolds and other leading men back in the day. Now any clothing that shows the shape of men's bodies at all has been recontextualized as "gay." Most of this has come about through the rap and hip hop industry that transformed fashion AND masculinity for young men over the last 30 years. That's where baggy pants and oversized shirts came from. After a while it got to be that our culture views any man who is presented as a sexual being as under "suspicion" of being gay. To me it seems like men's fear of being perceived as gay is much greater now than it ever was in the 1970s. It feels like there's some kind of serious insecurity in masculinity now that just wasn't around back then. I'm saying this as an outsider, so I could be wrong.

Look at all the guys in the film wearing tiny bathing suits, bare chests, tight pants. It makes us uncomfortable in modern times because it feels *wrong* seeing straight men this way. By this I don't mean that being gay is wrong. I just mean that it doesn't align with what we believe is gay and and what we believe is straight in 2016. So a heterosexual movie *feels* gay to people now because all of the signs and signifiers have been completely transformed since that time.

I think it's sad. I miss seeing good looking straight men in revealing clothing.

[–] jl-39962 7 years ago

I can also say all the lifeguards look gay as hell in those tight trunks. Especially during the race scene, where they're also wearing those silly helmets.

[–] liscarkat (16592) 7 years ago

You can have Lee Marvin and Mako shooting at each other for two hours, and somebody will say "gay subtext?". It's an absurdity that seems to be ubiquitous on these forums.