Was Julius gay?
I wasn't sure how to interpret the scene when he was looking at the stable boy.
shareIn the movie -- yes, he was gay. When Annabel came to his room in the night to do her conjugal duty (and hopefully get pregnant) she found him asleep in bed with Lord Percy, all curled up. Obviously you missed that. Go watch it again.
As for the scene with the stable boy, I didn't interpret his look at the stable boy as sexual; I saw it as showing how uncomfortable he was with the "lower orders" and with people in general. He preferred clocks. But other viewers may have interpreted it differently, of course.
Now in the novel, Julius (called Ushant in the book) is certainly not gay. Wharton was a very popular novelist (sort of the Danielle Steel of her day) and she couldn't possibly have got away with having an openly homosexual character in her book in the 1930s. He's just very stiff and prickly.
Actually, I liked this particular change between book and film. Julius' secret sexuality makes him a much more sympathetic character. The viewer realizes that he is struggling to live up to everyone's expectations to marry, begat a family, etc., when his own inclinations are pointing in a different (and very shameful) direction.
Sorry, the scene in which Juliius is watching the groom rubbing down the horse is NOT open to interpretation - it is crystal clear that this is a furtive exchange of sexually charged glances between the two men. Not everything can be a matter of opinion - some things just are what they are. Why else would the groom wink?
The groom wouldn't normally dare look at his master so directly if there weren't the instant recognition between them that there is a sexual tension and attraction there. That sexual secret bond could have had the power to make Julius forget or not care about the difference in their status.
To attribute this to Julius revealing something about how he views the lower classes is just plain misguided. It's ALL about sex.
The last question is whether lynettecon - the poster above - has commented from the point of view of a homophobe or not. I'm really uncomfortable about the last paragraph and the reference to Julius' inclinatioins pointing to a different and very shameful direction. If it's shameful in the frame of referernce of the 19th centural and its mores and conventions I understand the comment. My fear is that it is based on what the poster believes is true in a 21st century frame of reference.
Which is it, lynettecon?
Your fears are totally ungrounded, jthekoz. I am not homophobic, not in the least.
I can see why my choice of words misled you; I should have made it clear that I meant "shameful" by the standards of the society in which Julius lived, 1870s England. Let's remember that in that time sodomy was actually an offense for which one could be arrested and imprisoned, as Oscar Wilde was in the 1890s. I did not mean to imply that I find homosexuality to be in any way shameful, and I'm sorry you took it that way.
But I'm still not sure I agree with you about the scene between the Duke and his groom. Mind you, I'm not saying you are out-and-out wrong, just that I'm not sure. I don't read that scene as showing sexual tension between the two men, but class tension -- and I don't remember any winking going on, either, and I've watched it many times. Sorry, but I just don't see it. But I'm perfectly happy to concede I may be missing something and that others, like yourself, may interpret the scene differently.
Part of my reservation here is that there is nothing in the novel to 'back up' the idea of Julius (Ushant) having a sexual connection with his groom or even being gay at all. Wharton makes no reference to Julius' sexuality at all; the reader is left to assume that he is heterosexual, albeit a cold and unfeeling one.
By adding this dimension to the character, the screenwriter and filmmakers have 'fleshed out' Ushant's rather one-dimensional character into a complex personality. In the novel, the reader comes to hate Ushant for his inexplicable coldness to his wife; but in the film, Julius' secret sexual inclinations cause the viewer to sympathize with him (or at least, I did). It's not only Annabel and the other women who are imprisoned by the expectations of their society; Julius, too, is a prisoner, as he is unable to express his sexuality and 'true self' freely and live openly as a gay man with the man he loves.
It also puts Annabel in a more favorable light, especially when you realize that the only grounds for divorce in that day were adultery, nonconsummation and homosexuality. Cruelty or incompatibility were not acceptable grounds. So by refusing to expose Julius' secret to the world, Annabel was giving up her only opportunity to free herself from her marriage in a way that would not leave her a social outcast.
Wharton herself moved in cosmopolitan and literary circles most of her life, which would have included homsexuals -- we know for a fact she was a close friend to Henry James. Also, she had a brief but passionate relationship with the bisexual Morton Fullerton when she was middle age. So clearly Wharton was aware of homosexuality, although the social mores of her time prevented her from including it as a theme in her books. One has to wonder, though -- might she introduce if she were writing today?
After her death, an unpublished fragment of a story was found among her papers which described a sexual encounter between a father and a daughter. Clearly this would never have been published during her lifetime, but the fact that she wrote it at all shows that she was not unwilling to deal with sexual taboos.
The groom definitely winks at Julius.
I, too, have always interepreted that scene to contain a sexuallly charged exchange between Julius and the groom.
Hi lynettecon. I really thought that's the point you were making and I hope I didn't offend.
I can say that I've lived moments like those that passed between Julius and the groom - charged sexual moments that are slightly forbidden and furtive. To me the significance is unmistakable.
I also think that withoutu this, the only evidence of Julius' sexuality would be in the scene in which he's in bed with another chap - I never quite figured out who that was. This scene would have come out of the blue. The use of the scene with the groom to set up the question of his sexuality makes dramatic sense. We see the exchange and a question is planted in our minds....then the scene in bed comes and all is revealed.
Your other insights were very interesting indeed as well and thanks for your thoughtful post and response.
Cheers.
Hey, jthekoz. Sorry, just discovered your reply, which for some reason is dated three days before my post. I didn't see the update until now.
No, no, you didn't offend. I'm just sorry I may have hurt or offended you by misleading you into thinking I'm homophobic simply through a poor choice of words.
It's the most stereotypical thing in the world to claim "why, some of my best friends are gay" -- but I have, in fact, had several close friends over the years who are homosexuals, and they have given me a little insight into what life is like for them. (They've educated me in other ways, too -- I'll never forget the day a college friend defined the term "fag hag" for me!)
Yeah, the guy in bed with Julius is definitely Lord Percy. You see him with Julius a lot, but you never give it a second thought -- or at least I didn't -- until that fateful moment when Annabel pulls back the bed-hangings. And you are quite right that the exchange of glances with the groom would be an excellent way of foreshadowing the revelation of Julius' sexuality, if that is indeed what's going on. Looked at in that way, you're probably right about the significance of that scene, and as a straight woman I'm just not sensitized enough to see it.
It's also worth commenting that, from what I've read, it was relatively common among the British upper classes of that time to engage in illicit homesexual liaisons with the working classes, rather than with their social equals. There's even a whole vocabulary to describe it -- "rough trade", "rent boy" (a male prostitute, usually a teenager. If you're British, you're more familiar with these terms than I am, as an American.) The underlying idea seems to have been that it was easier to keep one's sexuality a secret if one confined one's illicit amours to the "lower orders", possibly even to one's own servants. Such people would be less likely give you away -- they wouldn't be on familiar terms with your own class, wouldn't frequent the same hotels or restaurants, and would be intimidated by your high rank. Besides, a wealthy man could pay his lover for silence if necessary (if not for the sex itself).
All of which lends credence to the idea that Julius may have had designs upon his well-muscled groom, doesn't it?
i do agree that julius was gay. it was obvious, after all. but, i also think he loved annabel (in the tv version, at least). to me. it seemed more than just friendship.
though, it does seems as if julius primarily married annabel because he knew it would gall his mother if he married an american, i also think he envisioned annabel as the supreme mistress of his estate. he really felt something for her, and it seemed sparked by sexual feelings, to me. now, apparently, after they were married, julius did not consumate their union while they were away on their honeymoon. annabel even brings this up to julius when they first arrive back at his estate. she asks why he hasn't kissed her yet. so, apparently, he is attracted to her, but finally realizes he just can't feel for her as e does for a man. i imagine this might be when he truly realizes his homosexuality. i'm sure he had homosexual feelings before, but probably supressed them because of the social mores of the time period.
however, this does not explain his later behavior...when he forces himself on her...and then tries it again after the big party at his mansion.both times, julius seemed aroused by annabel...not just doing his duty as a husband. this confused me about his sexuality. he did love her. it felt clear to me. but, he just had no clue how to show real love...sexual or otherwise.
i was also confused by annabel's behavior. after their honeymoon she seemed saddened because her new husband wasn't paying her enough romantic attention. she was even shocked at the fact they would have seperate bedrooms. but, later, when julius makes sexual advances towards her, she refuses him. leading him to force himself on her. what had changed between their honeymoon to the time of the rape?
as cold as julius was, that was mainly his exterior self. appearances were everything to him, so he would never show much emotion. but, it seemed clear to me, that inside he loved her so such. the church scene between them shows this, in my opinion. and, though i may be alone, i had hoped they could somehow work out their differences. if julius had just done a few thing differently, annabel may have been able to be happy. even after the rape, there was a chance. in the scene where she asked julius to help one of the poor families living on his lands...if julius had helped them, instead of acting like the snob he had been raised to become, i think that may have changed things for them. also, if their baby had not died, i think things may have been much different. it was sad to see how things went for them. julius' story was just as tragic as annabels. at least annabel finally found happiness. the looks they gave each other near the end--when julius is walking in the funeral procession, and annabel is in the carriage--said it all, to me.
i just have to add, james frain was awesome in the role of julius.
though, it does seems as if julius primarily married annabel because he knew it would gall his mother if he married an american
Hmmm, I've never gotten that impression. Going by the series only, I'd have to say that Julius married Nan because he felt he (and his mother) could mould her into his idea of what a proper English Duchess should be. Nan, so young and innocent, was less intimidating to Julius than the English women of his social circle, who viewed him as a prize catch.
i was also confused by annabel's behavior. after their honeymoon she seemed saddened because her new husband wasn't paying her enough romantic attention. she was even shocked at the fact they would have seperate bedrooms. but, later, when julius makes sexual advances towards her, she refuses him. leading him to force himself on her. what had changed between their honeymoon to the time of the rape?
I didn't find Nan's behavior confusing at all. She and Julius did not consummate their marriage (have sex) for MONTHS. She remained a virgin until the rape. She was young, innocent, inexperienced. When Julius came at her like that, without tenderness, without allowing her a little space, he frightened her. If he had just backed off alittle bit when she asked him to, things might not have turned that ugly. But Julius was not going to be denied.
I am not of the opinion that Julius truly loved Nan. I think he was fond of her. I think he was attracted to her because she was different from the women he was used to. Not only was she young and innocent, but she was exotic, in that she wasn't English, so she had different manners, thoughts, and ideas. All these qualities, and her sweetness and charm, made her a very attractive prospect. I think Juilus liked the whole package, but I don't think he truly loved her.
Cheers!
Amen!
shareI think Randommovies 2002 has hit the nail straight on the head with his comment about Julius' relationship with Nan. Many people confuse LOVE with LUST. I think when he advanced on her both times he was feeling lustful. It is clear that he did not understand her or agree with her ideas and opinions, therefore he could not love her.
Love is having respect for another. Julius clearly had no respect for Nan when he continued to thrust himself on her when she was so scared. Equally, he showed his lack of respect when expecting her to just give herself to him in "exchange" for the money. Disgusting!
He shouldn't have asked her to marry him in the first place while she was so young. If he loved her, he would have wanted what was best for her.
No, I think he liked her for who she was. Remember when he was talking to guy, Julius said he wanted an English girl exactly like her. In his mind, he tells himself to marry an English girl, but if he had a choice, he would have preferred the original, which was Nan.
shareYes, but the reason she interested him is because he could mould her and train her his own way, like chattel. He even told his mother they could train her.
share[deleted]