MovieChat Forums > The Celluloid Closet (1996) Discussion > Relevant film scholar comments about Joh...

Relevant film scholar comments about John Wayne

posted 13 years ago by ewetopia
21 replies | jump to latest

About his homophobia, his masculine/feminine image in the history of cinema, and specifically how his famous walk was interpreted by some in Hollywood.

On his homophobia:

Steve Cohan in Masked Men writes about a 1960 interview Wayne gave.

Deploring "the psychotic weaklings depicted as heroes in modern down-beat movies," the star points out: "Ten or 15 years ago audiences went to pictures to see men behaving like men.... Today there are too many neurotic roles." As part of publicity preparing for Wayne's production of The Alamo later that same year, this interview reassures all of the Duke's fans that, "by his very appearance," the "big guy" is "disqualified automatically" from playing one of those "trembling, torn T-shirt types" himself. With a not-so-veiled homophobia, Wayne attributed their popularity to "the Tennessee Williams effect both on Broadway and in the movies." The actor's well-known hostility to the psychologically conflicted heroes of the period implies how much his own on-screen personification of virility depends upon the subordination of male youth in one form or another. In the binarized system of representation enhancing his masculinity onscreen, more often than not... Duke's opposite turns out to be ... a young man ... whom Wayne guides to manhood... usually in a displacement of his own character's sexual repression.

Lynn Witt's Out in All Directions alludes to:

John Wayne's famous demand about Montgomery Clift—that director Howard Hawks “get that f-ggot off my set”

On John Wayne's walk, from Richard Hornby's The End of Acting:

There was a homophobic joke around Hollywood that Wayne had a "f-g's walk" and there was a grain of truth in it - not that Wayne himself was a homosexual, but in the fact that the flamboyant homosexual, in blatantly advertising his homosexuality, moves freely and easily in the hips, allowing them to swivel naturally.

Wayne's walk from Joseph McBride's biography, Searching for John Ford:

[John Ford to Wayne on set] "Can't you walk, for Chrissake, instead of skipping like a goddamn fairy?"

Director William Wyler also said that Wayne walked "like a fairy."
-- Gary Wills, John Wayne's America, p. 62

Michael Kimmel, ed., Men and Masculinities:

Wayne's image has figured prominently in narratives that involve male homosexuality. In the French farce, La Cage aux Folles (1978), a gay nightclub owner, Renato, (Ugo Tognazi), urges ... been intrigued by men such as Wayne who exaggerated their masculinity, urges his highly effeminate lover Albin (Michel Serrault) to comport himself in a more masculine fashion, specifically by suggesting that he walk like John Wayne.

In Midnight Cowboy, Ricco Rizzo assures Joe Buck...:

that he'll have no luck with wealthy New York women if he dresses like a cowboy. "That's f-ggot stuff," he insists. Joe Buck replies incredulously, "John Wayne. Are you goin' to tell me he's a f-g?" Although Rizzo does not reply, the point is that the exaggerated manliness projected by Wayne—and perhaps even the softer, graceful side of his persona—may have more appeal to gay men than to heterosexual women.

~There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.~

[–] cindytrells 13 years ago

** John Wayne's famous demand about Montgomery Clift—that director Howard Hawks “get that f-ggot off my set” **

You have no way of knowing he said that. All three guys died without confirming it.

If John Wayne was homophobic, why did he dress up like a woman to pose for a widely circulated photograph that had nothing to do with any of his films ?

** There was a homophobic joke around Hollywood that Wayne had a "fag's walk" and there was a grain of truth in it - not that Wayne himself was a homosexual, but in the fact that the flamboyant homosexual, in blatantly advertising his homosexuality, moves freely and easily in the hips, allowing them to swivel naturally. **

A matter of opinion. Everyone was an individual at the height of John Wayne's career -- as is the case today. Stop generalizing about how people walk.

** Wayne's image has figured prominently in narratives that involve male homosexuality. In the French farce, La Cage aux Folles (1978), a gay nightclub owner, Renato, (Ugo Tognazi), urges ... been intrigued by men such as Wayne who exaggerated their masculinity, urges his highly effeminate lover Albin (Michel Serrault) to comport himself in a more masculine fashion, specifically by suggesting that he walk like John Wayne. **

That French farce was a piece of fiction that was created in a foreign country in the late 1970s. I remember what American culture was like at the time. A lot of young people didn't know who John Wayne was.

[–] ewetopia 13 years ago

Apropos this, noted above

Deploring "the psychotic weaklings

"The first time I met (John) Wayne, I had just made the film 'Kiss of Death' and Wayne was standing with a drink in his hand and said, 'Well, here comes that laughing son of a bitch!"'

Evidently, Widmark's screen persona didn't live up to Wayne's exalted notions of masculinity either.

~There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.~

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

How does JW's crack about RW's character in the film mean anything other than what RW thought of the character himself?

He didn't like his own laugh, and tried his best not to even smile (on film) for several years after it (his statement).

I fail to see JW's derision of RW's manhood in there ANYWHERE.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] ewetopia 13 years ago

In the same 1960 interview noted above, Wayne criticized the homosexual themes of Suddenly, Last Summer (1959) and They Came to Cordura (1959).

~There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.~

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

I don't see the citation for those remarks, and again...where is Wayne deriding Widmark's personal manhood?

There was no such quote about Monty Clift during Red River.

The closest thing to that were remarks made between Wayne and a stuntman (or an extra...it's not really clear) to the affect that the guy said to JW (about Clift): "You know he's a f**, right?" to which JW replied "I don't care if he IS a f**, the guy can act!"

JW was concerned about Monty's lack of screen experience (with a strong stage background), as members of the two worlds didn't always get along with each other. He was afraid Monty would not be able to hold his own (Hawks was concerned as well), but was very pleased with the results.

There's no real evidence JW was homophobic, just a backlash of (at the time) a frustrated minority within American society that attacked the status quo. Also, understand that homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973...

Another point...in Hollywood circles, the "new" anti-hero was gaining prominence, and it was quite fashionable to tear down more "traditional" viewpoints about the male animal.

***Clarity Alert***

For the most part, I have no issues with any person's lifestyle choice, provided it's not against the law, or injures other people. If people don't agree with these lifestyles due to spiritual convictions, I support their right to do so, and strongly condemn anyone who claims that said persons are "wrong" in their convictions.

I have worked (in the entertainment industry) with too many people of alternative lifestyles through the years to be anything but accepting and understanding of the issues they face. It's OK (and anyone's right, BTW) to believe homosexuality is or is not a sin, and that the lifestyle is or isn't acceptable, but to deny anyone from either side their right to expression (provided such expression doesn't break the law) IS wrong, and unacceptable.

You can't yell and scream about your rights being trampled while trying to silence the opposing view...merely for the SAKE of keeping them silent.

Even if Wayne (and lots of others in Hollywood at the time, BTW) DIDN'T agree with the gay lifestyle, it was no-one's business but their own, quite honestly.

There's been a HUGE problem in the world for the last 20 years or so to judge past generations by the standards of today. Even now, people have the right to state their opinions, even if they fly in the face of "popular" culture.

Thats why I feel you're wrong for condemning actors for not embracing a lifestyle that, while always in the human experience, to be sure, was NOT embraced by the overwhelming majority of society in "their time."

Just to point out a couple other things: Wikipedia is a LOUSY source of information, as is IMDb, quite honestly. Due diligence and correct source information are foreign concepts in both venues, and as been shown time and time again, the more salacious and negative a "fact" can be toward another person, the better...at least to those more concerned with titillation that truth.

Gary Wills' book about John Wayne has been condemned in even the most unfriendly-to-Wayne circles (his "historical" works have come under fire in academia as well) as a hatchet job worse than even Kitty Kelly's works of fiction.

Before you start with the accusations that I turn a blind eye toward Wayne's faults, relax...the man wasn't perfect. He had faults just like the rest of us, and like the rest of us, his opinions, no matter how you might disagree with them, were his own.

You need to consider how "out of touch" he was with the post WWII "intelligencia." He didn't fit their idea of the "modern" star of the era, but he movie going public - world wide, btw - loved him, and made him a huge box office star from 1949-1974 (#1 several times, in the top 10 EVERY time).

And ultimately, in Hollywood, New York, or Vegas...it's the bottom line that speaks the loudest.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

***To EVERYONE who might read this post: This is a response to an individual regarding an issue related to their beliefs and MINE. I'm not trying to say other beliefs beside Christianity are invalid or of lessor value. There are references to Judiasm in the post. Without the Jewish faith, Christianity would not exist, and when references are made to Levitical law, it applies merely to it's influence (or lack thereof) to the Christian faith***

Ddurost...

I have NO interest whatsoever in what you have to say about my faith, but I'm going to respond to your very non Christ-like post

Please read the ENTIRE post before responding. It might be better for everyone if we took the conversation to the private message boards, but I have no issue if you respond on the thread.

As a person who's main interest in claiming to be a Christian is tearing down others, you have delibertatly put words in my mouth that I didnt say, and inferred your OWN "religiosity" on the subject.

I became a Christian over 40 years ago by stating my belief that Jesus was the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, lived among humans, spreading the Gospel for 33 years. He taught people, performed miracles, was betrayed by Judas, suffered in Pilate's court, then languished and died on the cross.

He descended into Hell, where he gained control over hell itself AND death. After 3 days he rose again, appeared to his followers, and then after 40 days, ascended into heaven.

***Please take a moment and get your Bible so that you can follow along with the scripture references. It will lead to a better understanding of what I'm about to say***

Please read John chapter 3. This is the Christian creed (especially vs 16).

Also, before I go on, it's important that I point out that (per Romans 3:23) we are ALL sinners, we sin each and every day, and to stay in connection with God, we must confess our sins, and he promises to ALWAYS forgive us. Some sins are harder to resist that others, such as addictions to various things (even Paul had a "thorn in the flesh"), but he will assist us in overcoming these things.

Judging people for their sins is neither our right nor our responsibly.

Jesus also explained to an "expert in the law" (Luke chapter 10, verses 25-37) about inheriting eternal life to follow the edict (which, btw, was the old Levitical law - Deuteronomy chapter 6, verse 5) of "...'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength and will all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" That was verse 27. He went on to relate the story of the good Samaritan.

As Christians, and honestly as citizens of Earth, it would be wise to re-read that story frequently as a guide on proper co-existence in life.

I never specifically stated that I agreed with homosexuality. I merely stated (in conjunction with the premise of Johm Wayne being called homophobic) that people had the RIGHT to their beliefs regarding the issue. I went on to say that people shouldn't be condemned for basing these beliefs on spiritual teachings.

To spell it out for you even plainer: I'm supporting your right as a Christian to DSAGREE with homosexuality...but I'm ALSO supporting the rights of OTHER Christians who AGREE with the practice of homosexuality.

The statements attributed to Paul (in the New Testament) are based in large part on the old Levitical law. Please remember that Christianity was to be presented to the JEW first (Christ's first followers were Jewish), and THEN to the Gentile.

A lot of biblical scholars have pointed out through the years that, since Paul (named Saul previous to his dramatic Demascus road conversion) was a very intelligent student of the law, and a member of the Jewish high court, he was interested in upholding the laws set forth by Moses (and others) as the standard of living, in conjunction with the teachings of Jesus.

Homosexuality was not permitted, based on the old law. There's more about what the old law says about several issues later in the post, and how we don't follow it.

Am I saying we should disregard the direction the writers of the New Testament letters to the churches indicate? No. What I AM saying is that the entire Bible, but especially the letters to the churches (whether all of Paul's writings were actually his or not - some are of a different style) is basically a love letter outlining the history of God's people, his love for them, their continued disobedience of him, and their ultimate redemption.

AND...You MUST take the Bible as a guide, also using other historical sources as reference to augment what is being talked about in various parts of the text. The fact that certain sins were mentioned in certain letters ALWAYS indicates that this PARTICULAR church was having a lot it struggle with THOSE issues occurring IN the life of the church, and in actual worship practices.

Jesus spent a lot of time telling his followers what to DO, and very little time talking about what NOT to do.

I am not a homosexual, and I don't support gay marriage. BUT...I have no interest (because I have no right as a Christian or citizen of the US) to try to condemn anyone for what THEY believe about these issues. I can DISAGREE with people about these or any other issues, but because of Christ's commands, I have to LOVE THEM as I love MYSELF.

The Bible says a lot about sin. Homosexuality is NOT the only thing mentioned. The Bible also has quite a bit to say (especially those "inconvenient" red words...Jesus' words) about LOVE, and why He came among us in flesh to redeem us. Not out of fear of destruction, but because God the Father LOVED us, so he sent his ONLY son to ransom us...to deliver us from a sinful existence!

Do you smoke? Its a sin, because you're abusing your body, the Temple of Christ. To you eat to excess? Same thing. Its a sin. Do you frequently over indulge with alcohol? It's a sin. It's not a sin to DRINK (there are many examples of wine issues being acceptable), but to be "always drunk with wine" is in conflict with a "right nature" with Christ.

As I pointed out before, the basic premise of Christ's message to his followers: if you sin, confess, repent, and be forgiven. It IS a daily thing. I stress that this is kept in mind when discussing sins and sinners - which ALL of us are.

Yet, there are people that will (under the guise of Christianity) try to tell you that one sip of booze will send you to Hell. That's utter garbage, and it's NOT what the Bible teaches. Some folks will say that other things make you a passenger on a one-way ride to the Lake of Fire, too.

Things like: going to movies, watching TV, reading any book other than the Bible (even Christian commentaries ABOUT the Bible), women wearing pants, or makeup, or not being married.

According to some people who claim to be Christians, it's also a sin for a woman to be barren. How STUPID is that?!

Some believe that going to a doctor is a sin. That goes against the Bible too, as the Apostle Luke WAS a doctor!

Do you eat shellfish? According to the original Jewish law, it's unclean. Do you wear clothing that has anything but natural flaxen in it? You're breaking the Levitical law.

The fact that you believe is perfectly acceptable, and I'm glad to stand up for your right to do so. BUT, don't try to say I'm not a Christian because you and I disagree on a doctrinal issue.

Jesus said that to know God, we had to know him. Knowing HIM as our own personal Saviour is THE most important component in our lives, and it TRUMPS EVERYTHING about the law and any doctrines of denominations, as interpretations are so varied.

Read Romans chapter 10, but especially verses 9-10. That sums up the most fundamental Christian premise right there.

As Christians, if we truly seek God's direction a will for our lives, we can pray for him to guide us to what HE wants for us...even if what is right for ME to do according to my trust in God, might be the polar opposite of what he wants others to do.

In conclusion: I have no problem with people who disagree with the gay lifestyle, but I also have no issue with those that find it acceptable. What I DO take issue with is your arrogance about trying to tell me I'm not a good Christian because you disagree with what MY convictions might or might not be...

To that end, read Matthew chapter 7. In fact, start reading at chapter 5, and end with 7:29. Then, read John 8: 1-11 to see the entire Gospel of Jesus (and his reason for coming to earth) put on display

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

I have no idea of your spiritual background, but the New Testament is VERY clear in the plan of salvation, and how to remain in fellowship with God. Because we're still human, we still have the ability to sin.

In speaking of believers, it's written in the New Testament that if we say we're without sin, we're liars, and the truth (Salvation) doesn't exist in us.

The term "sinner saved by grace" is what mainline Protestant churches use. I'm not sure about the Catholic church and their reference officially, but I know Catholics who use the term.

As for other sects, like the Church of Christ, Mormons, or Seventh Day Adventists, I'm not certain.

I do know very well what the Bible says.

Re-read Romans 3 again, especially vs 21-25. By definition someone who sins IS...A...SINNER, no other word can describe that.

We are "sinners, saved by grace," but we are STILL sinners. The difference is the blood has covered us, but we still must reveal our acknowledgement of our sins.

Read Jesus' example of how we're to pray within the Lord's Prayer...

Read 1John 1...especially verse 8. It explains it all. The continue to read chapter 2 where it CONTINUES to describe the process of what to do when, as Christians, continue to sin.

Being washed in the blood of the Lamb does NOT make us perfect by any means, but it DOES sanctity and justify us, and ties us to God forever.. Through Jesus Christ. He's our bridge to God.

You have a bad habit of going to extremes to muddy the waters when you don't agree with something.

Comparing homosexuality to murder is specious reasoning. And honestly misleading and ignorant.

Read the 10 commandments. Murder, Idolatry, Adultery, Theft, Envy, Bearing false witness (lying), Honoring mom and dad, Misusing God's name, Keeping the Sabbath, and worshipping ONE God.

There's nothing in there about homosexuality. That doesn't get mentioned until much, much later in the addendums to the law.

You're splitting hairs that aren't even on the same head. By your logic, killing someone under ANY example is wrong...equal to someone being gay. So (using your logic), if someone is trying to do you or your family immediate bodily harm or possibly kill you or them, you can't use deadly force against them to protect yourself?!

Bull! You don't believe that at all. ESPECIALLY being the extreme right-winger that you claim to be. Is it OK to kill people in the form of capital punishment? According to your logic, no.

You talk about correcting other Christians. You did exactly as I thought you would, and didn't read Matthew 7. We're to PRAY for fellow Christians who are in an obvious bad place, but what makes that place bad?

As I pointed out, by your logic, because I'm not at my ideal weight, you have the right to come to me and "point out" my sin of not taking care of myself, admonish me, threaten me with separation from the church, right?

Wrong. It's NOT biblical.

Think about what you mean to say about other people and their issues with sin (we ALL have them, btw), then pray for guidance as to how to proceed.

I don't know your heart, and you don't know mine. To say you have the right to criticize anyone for their behaviors shows you haven't a clue about what the Bible has to say, especially the words of Jesus.

I'd be interested in a PM about what church you go to. As I said, don't air it publicly, but IF YOU FEEL like telling me, send a PM

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] ewetopia 13 years ago

"They were the most insensitive and intolerant men I worked with." --

In or out?: gay and straight celebrities talk about themselves and each other by Boze Hadleigh

~There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.~

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

OK....

So, rather than spell it out completely in the post, where it would be obvious to the reader, you merely continue to change the subject line.

I notice you still haven't provided a reliable source about any other derogatory comments JW was supposed to have made about MC.

BTW, where's the source for Monty's quote? In a book he wrote? Because if Hadleigh claims it as gospel, it's extremely likely it was NEVER said.

Please answer my question about Wayne picking on Widmark.

Hadleigh's "work" is anything but reliable...often more salacious for the sake of "dishing" rather than true enlightenment. He was also too young to have conducted many of his "interviews," when he claimed they occurred.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

You haven't sent me any PMs in several months. I answered all that you sent back then.

The reason I disagree with what you say about John Wayne is that (as it relates to these message boards) you're a TROLL!

You have nothing of any substance to say. Period. You claim to be angry with JW because he "wasn't a true conservative," but you wouldn't know a real conservative if they came up and slapped you in the face. The same goes for a true moderate, or a true liberal.

You quite ignorantly tie politically conservative beliefs to Christianity. Christianity is NOT tied to any politic agenda. Thats the whole purpose of the Christian faith - to be non-political. Any political party or group that claims to be the "real" representative of the Christian faith is lying, and if you try to say that Christ favors one political party or group over another, you're a liar, and a false prophet.

Also, why attack someone for not being as ignorant and narrow-minded as yourself? You claim (in your PMs to me several months ago) that you're not from the US...why do you even care about the right vs left political agendas here to begin with???

In the last 3 days, I've had to make changes with my e-mail accounts, but I check the boards and my PMs all the time, so feel free to respond.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

Check your PM page. I sent you responses.

In a previous PM you stated that your English/grammar was bad because you weren't American.

If I misinterpreted you, I apologize.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

Yeah, I got 'em!

Is it OK with you if we keep our spiritual discussions on PM?

I just think it's better. No offense.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] ewetopia 13 years ago

From Montgomery Clift: a biography by Patricia Bosworth

He told Ben Bagley

They laughed and drank and told dirty jokes and slapped each other on the back. They tried to draw me into their circle but I couldn't go along with them. The machismo thing repelled me because it seemed so forced and unnecessary.

~There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.~

[–] bari2525 13 years ago

THAT'S your "smoking gun" of reason about Wayne demeaning Monty? How is THAT demeaning or homophobic, or are you off that now since there aren't any sources of direct quotes to draw from?!

REALLY?!

It's not even a quote of Monty's because it was told BY Bagley to Bosworth. Not that there's anything bad a out what he's saying...he obviously didnt go in for what they did as far as "manly stuff" was concerned.

It's just gossip.

Where (yet again) is the proof Wayne challenged Widmark's manhood?! Why won't you cite something?!

In the course of your ever-changing subject line entries, you mentioned Wayne and Kazan, but when asked more about it, you say it's Wayne and Hawks?!?!

Your intentions are quite suspect...

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] ewetopia 12 years ago

I would be remiss if I didn't post this charming photo of Wayne.

http://tinyurl.com/83yabng

~There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.~

[–] foster1234 10 years ago

You're link doesn't work.

But I don't understand why you folks have to attack John Wayne

now Bari is more knowledgeable about The Duke than I am-----But---

I have read where Rock Hudson credited The Duke for reviving his career when he (the Duke) fought to cast Rock in The Undefeated. Said they got along very well during shooting.

It seems, from your own admission that Monty may have been a problem on set, the difference between stage and film can be huge, and he didn't adapt well, camaraderie amongst co-stars, while not required, wouldn't have hurt, and it appears that Monty shunned Wayne

As to the remark by Wayne against Widmark attacking his masculinity, well during the film referenced Widmark did in fact play a Laughing SOB, Wayne probably bought him a drink afterward, and continued forward to hire him for The Alamo, where Widmark really had a hard on because Wayne would call him Rick, or Dick and Widmark preferred to be addressed as Richard, here again seems to be a small thing from a supposed professional

You don't have to stand tall, but you have to stand up!