MovieChat Forums > After Dark, My Sweet (1990) Discussion > 'Gay Interest' um, really?

'Gay Interest' um, really?

posted 13 years ago by scooter1964
4 replies | jump to latest

Unless we were watching a different film, I'm wondering if this movie should be categorized as "Gay Interest"?

It was the reason I came across this originally, and was disappointed after viewing that there wasn't any overt homosexuality. The confirmed bachelor doc sure seemed into Patric's character, and his intentions were likely suspect? But, man, this reminds me of the reading between the lines you'd need to do in the 30s-60s cinema.

Sure, women and some gay guys would find Patric oozing with sexuality, a performance not unlike Brando in Streetcar. I personally thought Patric was great in this--never really being much of a fan of his.

I've requested imdb remove the "gay interest" tag, as it really isn't. Maybe "gay character" might be more accurate (the doc), but even then probably not.

Did I miss some other gay subtext somewhere?

[–] Falconeer 13 years ago

Yeah, IMdB frequently lists random films under the 'gay interest' category, when a sexy lead male is featured, in the nude. Now the doctor obviously had a less than clinical interest in Patric's character, and while Rachel Ward never appeared nude in this, Jason Patric certainly showed off his stuff. I guess that is all it takes for the ImdB to make the connection. Anyway, "After Dark, My Sweet" is still a sexy movie, and a fine film in general. So you got to see a great film that you might not have seen otherwise..and that's not a bad thing, right?

[–] margin_walker2003 13 years ago

The doctor has an interest in Kid Collins that is more than just professional.

It's funny that you wrote it reminds you of the reading between the lines of 30s-60s cinema as the movie is based on a book written in the 50s and the movie is a very faithful adaptation of the book, so it basically is a 50s reading between the lines homosexual interest. Still it's there, not overt, but present.

[–] oOgiandujaOo_and_Eddy_Merckx 10 years ago

It's worth pointing out that everything you see in the movie is essentially narrated by Kid Collins. As with many Jim Thompson stories, it's likely that there is a degree of unreliable narration. Collins sees the doctor as being gay, whether he actually is gay or concerned is open to anyone's guess, you can't trust the images.

[–] merqabah 10 years ago

i agree, its a very skewed perception, however with every other actor their performances are straight, and we are led astray by collins narrative, in fact if you watch the film another time, it completely changes the narrative,

in the doctors case, the performance itself is very ambiguous, even if you rewatch the film, its never clear if he is gay and wanting to do god knows what with collins, or if he is trying to help him.

its kind of like the performance of willem dafoe on american psycho or the doctor from total recall, the performances are almost schizophrenic in nature, as to obscure what is the reality of things.