You know, you just might have a point. I mean, John told Jim that he was smart enough to figure out what he wanted. I, on the other hand, was not smart enough to figure out what the hell John wanted. Until I found this post.
So John wanted some asss from Jim. I wonder if that's why Jim finally decided to kill John at the end. You know, because he finally figured it out. So he didn't kill John to save the girl, but he did kill John to save his asss.
As I was searching this board for answers, I saw numerous posts about this movie being an allegory. With Jim being the personification of goodness, and John the personification of pure evil. The two sides of every human, engaged in battle. But maybe this is a different kind of allegory. About the social stigma of homosexuality in the 1980's. Just hear me out.
So maybe Jim's character represents the naive mainstream society, which didn't openly recognize or discuss homosexuality. And John's character represents the frustrated homosexual desire, which was tired of being ignored. So John seeks to fulfill his desire, but is hindered by the "Don't ask, Don't tell" mindset of that era. He wanted some ass, but he literally could not ask for it. He had to make Jim figure it out. And John started killing folks to force Jim into acknowledging him.
Maybe this is why John picked Jim. He thought he'd finally found the one who was smart enough to figure it out. After killing all the other dudes who failed to figure it out. But even after Jim does figure it out, he still refuses to give John some asss. So he figured he would never get any asss, and lost his will to live.
I think we've really figured this whole thing out. Right?
Am I right?
Hello?
reply
share
Banshee57
7 years ago
That would seem pretty close to any answer i'd think hollyannbartel. I just saw the picture for the first time in many many years, and this was the first thing I felt about the chemistry, shall we say, between the characters.
That, and the way it was written. spoilers - The scene in the diner is an allegory for gay sex. The way John is excited while exchanging dialogue with Jim about their "guns" under the table. In the entire exchange, Jim seems terrified to a point of masochistically enjoying it. Certainly, there was something subtextual going on there. He just sit's there taking all that from John. Then, John bangs the table from underneath, and Jim shoots blanks out of the gun. Well, there are a lot of knife (phallic) and gun exchanges between the two of them throughout the film but that scene in specific is very sexual in that the exchange entails Jim actually submitting to John for some few moments before shooting the gun off. The scene literally works itself up to that climax. Also,John hands over bullets which he has, as in a way to say he took Jim's bullets. When a man says or shows that he has another's bullets, it usually implies that he *beep* him, or they've engaged in a sexual act resulting in that particular circumstance.
So...it's not far off. The whole picture is wrought with gay subtext, and it's beyond me why this title alludes the queer theorists and critics alike.
When will you ever learn, this feeling is all you can discern?
reply
share