MovieChat Forums > Fried Green Tomatoes (1992) Discussion > Stop arguing and just deal with it

Stop arguing and just deal with it

posted 13 years ago by trixie-k-88
45 replies | jump to latest

I have seen people going on and on and on and on and ON about whether or not this is a gay movie.

Do you want the answer?

YES! It IS a lesbian movie.

Proof:

1. The author/writer said they are multiple times

2. It is very clear that they are lesbians in the book it is based on, which was written by the same woman

3. Idgie is clearly a stereotypical lesbian. Her demeanor, her wardrobe, her speech, her behaviors, her friends, and her general aversion to dating/marrying men couldn't make it any more obvious.

4. Multiple scenes in the movie where is it quite obvious. (ex: the "Ruth is going to get married" scene, the honey bee scene, the kiss by the water scene, the scene where Idgie and Ruth talk about Frank coming to kidnap the baby again, etc.)

5. Come on, look at the CHEMISTRY between them and their LIFESTYLE. If you saw two women who lived together, raised a child together, gave each other long loving looks, were playfully flirtatious and extremely devoted to one another...would you call them friends?

Oh, but some people say that doesn't mean anything because....

1. Ruth was married!!! Ruth was in love with Buddy!!! Yeah...so? Lots of people who are in same sex relationships have had opposite sex ones as well. Just because Ruth loved Buddy doesn't mean could NEVER be attracted to women or fall in love with one. Ever hear of people being bisexual? Ever hear of someone being married for years and then coming out of the closet? It doesn't matter that Ruth was married or in love with Buddy. She spent most of her life in love with and living with Idgie.

2. Ruth said that Idgie should "settle down with a fella". Okay... I imagine many of you are not friendly with the LGBT crowd. MANY people who are in relationships with people of the same sex, or attracted to the same sex feel wrong and wish to be "normal". (Gee, I wonder why?)I imagine Ruth was still uncomfortable with the fact she was with a woman, and perhaps feared public opinion, the church or maybe...you know, the fact the freaking KKK just burned a cross outside their cafe and her abusive ex-husband tried to KIDNAP THEIR BABY. Honestly, she was probably also worried for Idgie's life if Frank found out about her. Abusive, racist, sexist men don't take kindly to their wives leaving them for women.

3. But it’s Not obvious!! They don’t say it and they don’t have sex!!! Uh… yeah, that’s the point. It was the early 90s and it wasn't yet culturally acceptable to have a gay love story in the mainstream. The romance was PURPOSELY watered down so it would be accepted by people who would otherwise boycott a gay movie. Also, why DOES sex have to be shown in a romance? Have you ever been in love or a long term relationship? Was it just constant sex or was there lots of flirting, silly times, laughing, hard times with support, protecting each other, caring for each other while sick and possibly raising children together? THAT is what love is. THAT is what romance is. And whether you believe it or not, gay relationships are not just constant *beep* in poorly lit nightclubs. They include just as much love and romance outside of the bedroom.

4. But Idgie/Ninny says they’re friends at the end to Evelyn! Okay, this part is actually a very poorly done part of the movie. It is poorly done because it confuses the viewer about Ninny’s identity. The old woman narrating the story is NOT Idgie, but her sister-in-law Ninny. Ninny is NEVER seen or spoken about in the flashbacks. It added to the confusion when Evelyn saw the honey on the grave, looked at Ninny and said “Idgie?!” Also, I’m sure that Ninny was alluding to her and Evelyn’s friendship when she said friends are what matters. Even if they were again trying to water down the romance, it doesn’t matter. If THIS one line about friendship is your only argument against all of this…well that’s pretty weak.

5. Oh, but I’ve known women who had relationships like this before or was in one myself and it was plantonic!!! Really? Really? JUST like this? Look, if you were in a very very close friendship with someone of the same sex and people assumed you were gay… all right, that happens. But did you look at each other like Ruth and Idgie looked at each other? Did you talk to each other like they did? Chances are, probably not. And if you think that maybe your friend or relative and their “friend” act that way and they’re perfectly plantonic! Heh well… I wouldn’t show up unannounced.

Then, when confronted with ALL this evidence people sputter about and say… oh well WHY does it matter if they’re gay or straight?

I will tell you WHY it matters and WHY it is important. I would like to ask you, how would YOU feel if everywhere you went with your serious girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse, everyone said “Oh, it’s nice you have such a sweet and loving friendship!”? I bet you’d be pretty annoyed, offended, pissed off, and eventually, sad. It is insulting to gay people when you demote their equally loving and devoted romantic relationships to “friendships”. Plus, you are trying to "claim" a movie as a movie about female friendships, when it is probably the best lesbian romance movie there is. It would be like if white people tried to say Roots was really just about the history of the South and not black people. It's insulting, and even worse when you try to take away more from an already marginalized population.

The bottom line is that you are uncomfortable with gay relationships and even MORE uncomfortable with the fact you enjoyed a movie about a lesbian couple. And no, I don’t think that makes everyone who is uncomfortable hate mongers or horrible people but… well like you say, you just don’t “approve.” That’s fine, keep those beliefs if they’re so important to you. But you know what? You cannot change the content or meaning of a movie just because you are not comfortable with the main theme. If you think or say they are “friends” you’re just in denial and flat out wrong. In fact, you’re probably not really uncomfortable with the movie itself, you’re probably uncomfortable with the fact a voice in your head is telling you that MAYBE gay relationships are okay if this is what they’re like. MAYBE they’re not bad, sinful, evil or disgusting like you have been taught and believed for so long. MAYBE, just maybe they are just like you and who you love. THAT is why people keep arguing about this.

Fried Green Tomatoes a lesbian love story. Let it go.

[–] LtotheB 13 years ago

Amen!

[–] megmarch2003 13 years ago

I'm personally more tired of the Is-Ninny-really-Idgie back and forth debate, myself. In the book they aren't the same person; in the movie there's a teaser at the end that wants us to feel they are the same person. And that's all there is to it.

"You can't tell me nothin' if you ain't had an 8-track." -Sinbad

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] perorewen 13 years ago

I think the most important question is:
If Idgie had been a man, would anyone assume their relationship was just about being friends/a platonic relationship?
The answer is, of course, no. Had Idgie been a man, there would be nothing in this film that wouldn't make people know immediatly that they were in love.

*******
They blew up Congress!

My blog(Norwegian):
http://jennukka.wordpress.com

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] perorewen 13 years ago

Another thing I've been curious about is why so many accept Idgie being a lesbian, but not that Ruth has romantic feelings for Idgie.
So the tomboy obviously has to be a lesbian because she's a tomboy, but the woman wearing dresses cannot possibly love women?

*******
They blew up Congress!

My blog(Norwegian):
http://jennukka.wordpress.com

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alanjobe 13 years ago

It never even occurred to me to think that the two were lesbians.

I always looked at it that Idgie looked at Ruth as her sister-in-law. Ruth was Idgie's best connection to Buddy because they both loved him deeply.

She was upset with Ruth marrying another man because she felt it was a betrayal to Buddy, who was her hero.

I guess people can read into it what they will. But to me, Idgie was nothing more than a tomboy. To imply that being a tomboy automatcially made her a lesbian is a stereotype IMO.

Al - Alicia
An - Andrew
Jo - Joseph
Be - Benjamin

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] makelifebeautiful 13 years ago

I think you came to this conclusion because we aren't used to seeing lesbian couples out in public, so we don't practice identifying them.

We tend to rationalize what doesn't fit into our perception of the world (the Buddy/Ruth thing).

Tomboys aren't always lesbians, and lesbians aren't always tomboys, and Ruth could as well be bisexual.... and happen to fall in love with a woman who turns out to be the love of her live.... it's all possible.

I watched the movie at a fairly young age and didn't get it either, simply because no one discussed the possibility of a romantic relationship between two women. When I watched the movie later on it became crystal clear.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mfiskey55 11 years ago

This is exactly what my thoughts were on that whole situation. I never had an indication that there was a romantic relationship between Idgie & Ruth. I thought Idgie thought of Ruth not only as a best friend but as a sister. Idgie had it in her head that they would become sisters when (not if, but when) Ruth married Buddy. Buddy's death ruined the sister per se idea, but I still think Idgie still thought of Ruth as a sister in spirit. This was why Idgie was so upset with Ruth for marrying another man and, in Idgie's mind, betraying Buddy. However, she still was the first person to come to Ruth's rescue from her abusive husband. This, in my opinion, is what sisters/brothers/best-friends do.

The reason I was thinking this is due to the family dynamics of large families. In many cases 2 siblings very close in age become each other's best friends. I saw this first-hand with my mother & aunt that was nearest her age. They were sisters & best friends for as long as I can remember. They came from a family of 13 kids & they certainly love(d) all their brothers and sisters, but they had a more special relationship. Now, I understand that Idgie & Ruth weren't actually sisters, but, to me they acted exactly like the 2 closest sisters in a large family. I think both Idgie Ruth considered one another as a sister. Just my opinion & how I interpreted the movie.

I'm ONLY discussing the MOVIE here, not the novel. Apparently, the gay relationship in the novel was perfectly clear. BTW, I've not read the novel.

I almost numchucked you, you don't even realize!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ithilfaen 11 years ago

But there's no "romance" in the book or the movie. It's about love. Romance is the marketing side of relationships. I don't see why them being friends is makes it better. What matters is that they love each other, no matter what label you want to put on it. But if it makes you feel better that they are just friends, it's cool.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] trixie-k-88 13 years ago

They did so, only it wasn't a kiss on the lips. Ruth kisses Idgie's cheek and Idgie looks absolutely lovestruck.

[–] scissorhands__emily 13 years ago

I say let people view it however they want because people are always going to argue that they are just friends. Personally I do think they were lovers in the film. For me it is crystal clear with all the little gestures towards each other (Ruth putting her arm around Idgie, etc.), the loving looks, etc. Also Idgie's line about being settled is blatantly obvious to me that the two are lovers. I know the film made it ambiguous though, so I don't really think it's wrong to view them as just friends. For me though, I think the original writer may have slipped that line into the script because it is a definite indication of more than just a friendship to me, but I guess some can choose to see them as only friends. Personally I can't watch this movie without having the perspective that the two are lovers who are raising Buddy together. Oh, and Buddy Jr's last name. Yes he is named after Idgie's brother, but that could also just be an excuse to give him Idgie's last name.

[–] QueenMean 13 years ago

Wow..it never occurred to me that people didn't realize they were a couple. It seemed fairly obvious to me.

[–] Amry0217 13 years ago

It never occurred to me they were lesbians - this is the first I'd heard of it. I suppose that makes me stupid, or clueless, or worse. I thought they were just real good friends; silly me

==============================
He lifts me clear to the sky, you know he taught me to fly.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yellowgum900 12 years ago

Hasn't anyone read the book?
Firstly, in the book Ruth never even knew Buddy, he died before she met Idgie. And secondly, it states out right that she only married Frank because she thought that's what was expected of her. Ruth and Idgie were a lesbian couple, if you read the book, it's crystal clear.

[–] dawnantonis 12 years ago

This is a discussion of the film, not the book....

"We're gonna need a bigger boat"....

[–] dawnantonis 12 years ago

I'm not "uncomfortable"... it's simply that it is not the way the film was made... it is about friends. You can read whatever you want into looks or scenes... but - sometimes friends love friends. Sometimes friends are in awe of friends who are older, more elegant and beautiful.... Sometimes friends are heartbroken when they hear a best friend is leaving - especially if they have never had a real friend before. Friends cherish each other. That is what I got from the film..... Also, read this:

"In July 2008, afterellen.com reported that Mary-Louise Parker said that she, her costar Mary Stuart Masterson, and screenwriter (and original novel author) Fannie Flagg were all strong advocates for depicting in the film the lesbian relationship between Ruth and Idgie that had appeared in the book, but the director, Jon Avnet, and the producers of the film chose instead to excise the romance and just make the two characters into friends."

The director states that they are friends, not lovers... What more do you need? So please don't judge those of us who saw the film as simply a beautiful portayal of two women who love each other, and care for each other deeply...

"We're gonna need a bigger boat"....

[–] Linda1973 12 years ago

The director also states in the special features of the DVD that, and I quote:

"The food fight was a very important moment, I thought, because I felt that if I had done my work properly in allowing Mary Stuart and Mary Louise to get into character, that the food fight would be an improvisational scene that would really allow the audience to see two people making love..."

This is coming directly from an on-screen interview with Jon Avnet, himself...not from an article.

It sounds to me like the studio possibly didn't want to venture into the lesbian territory, so Avnet chose to include it in a subtle way for the audience to pick up on, without actually coming out (no pun intended) and saying or showing it. His references to "if I had done my work properly"...."allowing Mary Stuart and Mary Louise to get into character"...."allow the audience to see two people making love"...I think that says it all.

There's also an interesting section on the DVD that shows some of Jon Avnet's scene notes. This is from his script, from the section called "THE BEE TREE" which is, of course, the scene were Idgie gets the honeycomb for Ruth:

IDGIE (Long Beat): ....you like me, don't you?
RUTH (smiles at her forwardness): Yes...you like me, too, don't you.

Idgie doesn't react.

RUTH: Come on, Idgie. Don't lie. Tell me the truth.
IDGIE: The truth is I'd kill for you if anybody ever hurt you.
RUTH: That's a terrible thing to say.
IDGIE: No, it isn't. I'd rather kill for love than hate, wouldn't you?

Ruth laughs. How else do you respond to this one?

[–] dawnantonis 12 years ago

I'm just saying that they opted to specifically not make the characters gay, for whatever reasons.... therefore, the film was designed to portay a powerful friendship.... we can all read the subtext however we want....

"We're gonna need a bigger boat"....

[–] dawnantonis 12 years ago

i say love takes many forms.... it is that simple. i feel really bad for women who can't admit that they feel love for their friends...

"We're gonna need a bigger boat"....

[–] perorewen 12 years ago

Of course most women can admit that they feel love for their friends. But that doesn't mean that women can't love eachothers as girlfriends - as it is in this story.

*******
They blew up Congress!

My blog(Norwegian):
http://jennukka.wordpress.com

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ismene_Daskarolis 12 years ago

ok, I tottally get your point, and I personally think they were gay (you can't doubt the authers words). But think a little, as annoying it is for you that some people have to not believe they were gay in order to like it, I find it bugs me that when films that show two people of the same sex in a very close reationship that they emediatly have to be gay. I find that a little disturbing on its own cause love as you said is not just about sex, or in that fact sexual preferences so why do we always have to put sex in the middle? I find that that sort of thing can do harm to the idea of true friendship, wich is why it's not so common, cause people don't know how to express their feelings and open freely to it. Why do two people of the same sex who are very close gotta be gay? As it is a complex to turn a gay story into a straight story in order to accept it, it is also a similar complex to turn a streight story and turn it into a gay story in order to accept it. Not everything has to do with sex, and especially not friendship.

[–] trixie-k-88 12 years ago

I agree. I saw people saying that they thought the movie "Gold Diggers" with Christina Ricci had a lesbian subtext and...I really don't think it's there. That's an example and pushing the LGBT issue, but in FGT it's clearly there.