MovieChat Forums > Box of Moonlight (1997) Discussion > Great Buddy Picture (and very gay too)

Great Buddy Picture (and very gay too)


This is a great and moving buddy picture. A movie about the desire to recapture the care-free days of young adulthood and childhood.

Al Fountain (appropriately named) is a fountain of wisdom, observing his life and writing witticisms, and in search of the fountain of youth.

There’s a very powerful scene where he finally gets to the lake he remembered as a child. The place has been abandoned to the toxic waste site next door. It really hits us hard as we understand that Fountain’s past as well as our own cannot be entirely recaptured.

But “the kid,” charmingly played by Sam Rockwell, shows Fountain that he can go back if he will allow himself to. I found the tomato fight scene to be fun and enlightening. Don’t we all need to let go and have fun?

I think the film also has strong homosexual undercurrents, although I’m not sure why. There are lots of blatant scenarios that suggest that Fountain and Bucky are romancing each other. And the physical expressions of love are very homoerotic. When Bucky is wounded from the beating and Fountain is nursing him back to health, note Bucky’s hand rests right in Fountain’s lap, if for a brief time. Then Bucky cries and Fountain hugs him.

When they are crawling in the corn field away from the cops, Fountain is kind of riding Rockwell as they both crawl. Fountain reaches out and pushes Bucky’s butt to get moving—a very homoerotic scene.

When Fountain checks the distributor cap in Bucky’s car, when they first meet on the side of the road, you’ll note Bucky quickly glances down at Fountain’s backside as he looks under the car hood. Then let’s not forget the full frontal nudity of Bucky. Very homoerotic. Couple that with the full frontal of Fountain in his shower at the beginning, and it is clear to me that the filmmaker is showcasing the male form.

So I’m wondering why, if there is so much suggestion of homoeroticism and a homosexual relationship blooming, why then did the filmmaker choose to have them both sleep with the women? Were they doing that to compensate for their longings for each other? Or was the filmmaker compensating for too many undertones of homosexuality?

I didn’t like that Fountain slept with the woman at all. I think the movie would have been so much sweeter had he kept to his convictions and just talked all night with the girl. Fountain has a great wife and kid at home, and he is a decent good person. He should not have to commit adultery to find himself and the energy of youth again.

All in all, though, I give the film high marks for warmth, charm. It’s a really, really heartwarming film.

reply

[deleted]

Right now my favorite is Brokeback Mountain (definitely not for everyone) but the film was the best and ONLY time I've ever really saw gay people portrayed like real people instead of effeminate or stereotypical.

I love Central Station. Talk about a GREAT buddy picture. I saw it about 5 times. In that road trip buddy film, it's a little boy and a middle aged woman who go searching for his long absent father. WHAT a movie! That's one of my favorites of all time.

An Officer and a Gentleman: I've seen that about 50 times, LOL. Love Richard Gere and how he morphs into a decent, kind and righteous person after being raised in poverty by an abusive dad. When he runs the obstacle course and is close to breaking the all time record, he decides that helping the weaker is more important. He turns back and fully knowing he's ruining any chance of breaking the record, he stops to coach the woman, "seegar" get over the wall--something she has never been able to do. That scene makes me ball tears of joy when she gets over that wall. One of the nicest moments in film history.

An American Werewolf in London: LOVE it. Just love that story.

And of course BOX OF MOONLIGHT. I was up late one night, nothing to do, flipping channels when I stumbled upon it. It grabbed me right away. I started watching from when Fountain is asking a motel clerk where the lake is. I fell in love with that movie almost instantly.



reply

[deleted]

Very enlightening comments!

reply

WTF... this movie has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Just cause a man shows affection or cares for another man does NOT make him gay.
It makes him human!!!!!!

__________________________________

reply

Ditto!

reply

THANK YOU, Digitalzomby. Why does every liberal a-hole have to convince themselves that every guy/guy relationship is based on fags?

I love this movie and saw nothing about secret, homosexual tendencies within the story/characters. Go watch Brokeback if you libs want to believe every male character has the potential of wanting another man. Believe it or not, it's not always the case. I know you libs find that hard to believe, being hypocritical, heterophobes and all.

reply

I'm not sure what being "liberal" has to do with what the OP said. I disagree with what he said, but your reaction is puzzling. Heterophobe? Who? Why? I agree that the people trying to force acceptance on everyone and trying to create an overly politically correct society are some of the most bigoted people in the world, but I'm not sure what any of that has to do with this thread.

BTW, rather than making assumptions, know that I'm not a liberal, or a democrat for that matter.

"Hello, Dexter Morgan." - Arthur Mitchell

reply

Yes, hetereophobe (intolerance and uncomfortable feelings towards others can come from either sides). I mentioned liberals because of what the predominantly lib Hollywood/media do to stories about guy/guy friendship. Often they try to fit a gay story in there where it isn't.

If you don't know how what I said is connected with the original post, well, sorry you missed the point. I didn't assume you were anything, but I'm pretty sure you didn't "assume" the film had gay undertones either.


These pc-obsessed times are getting old.

reply

Wow..."fags?" You're an *beep*

reply

This is a great movie.

I never picked up on any homosexuality element in this movie. I feel that the relationship between Al and Kid was a straight friendship and very much a teacher/student one, with both taking on the teacher role at times. The Kid character is the most interesting, being naive on one level, but also very enlightened on the other. It is this duality that drives the relationship between the two. I agree that the story could have been better served if Al did not sleep with the woman, but then again he was so uptight that this may have helped loosen him up, if just a little.

While I thought lakenyc's comments were very interesting, I have to say I don't agree that there is any implied homosexual relationship between Al and Kid.

reply

Agreed. No homosexuality to this movie. I think Al, both felt compasion & admiration (for the kids "free spirit") for The Kid (which has NOTHING to do with homosexuality). I feel The Kid just enjoyed have a friend around for companionship (hetrosexual) & to share how he lived. Although I do think it actually helped Al in his marriage to sleep with the woman.

reply

Ha ha, oddly enough, the fundamentalists obviously don't agree with lakenyc (look at the sidebar under 'homosexuality' in this christian review of the film):
http://preview.gospelcom.net/rev.php3?438

However, my wife and I both agree with you wholeheartedly. Not only is the movie not-very-subtly Gay in the homoerotic sense, it is also extremely gay in the
"F u c k-this-movie-sucks-I-can't-believe-we-wasted-nearly-two-hours-sitting-through-the-whole-thing-this-is-GAY!" sense, too.

But you're right, lakenyc. Entirely. Especially the longing look on Sam Rockwell's face as he's staring at John Turturro immediately preceding the "Al, what are you thinking about?" line.

That scene was Gayer than a leather-bar called the ManJack.

Homoeroticism in movies? Great. Awesome. It's the year 2006, homophobes need to just shut up and deal.

This movie, however, just plain sucked.

reply

[deleted]

Honestly, I just HAD to watch the whole thing - just to see how bad (not how gay, just how bad) it could possibly get. And it turned out to be worse than I thought it could be. In my humblest of opinions, this movie sucked, plain & simple.

You know, I didn't intend to hate on this film. It was recommended to me and I figured -before I watched it- that it would probably be good. The fact that it disappointed me, and I'm simply vocalizing my opinion on it, shouldn't bother you so much. Are you one of those people who think everyone should agree with them, espouse the same beliefs as them, to make the world a 'better' place? Are you (gasp!) fundamentalist Christian or something?



reply

Kid looked up to Al. Al was a somewhat confident, knowledgeable man, and Kid was a boy in a man's body. He looked up to Al more as a wise older brother or father. You people looking for gay where it isn't there are just as bad as the clowns in Hollywood. You can't stand to see two hetero males have a great friendship without throwing in your suspicions of "are they gay?"

Why aren't all close females suspected of being lesbians? More sexist double standards.



These pc-obsessed times are getting old.

reply

I suppose you would have to count me in among the viewers who did not discern a homosexual undercurrent in "Box Of Moonlight". A gay theme? Never once occurred to me. I'm a straight guy, gay-friendly, and I like to think I have a pretty good Gaydar on board. It never went off while watching this movie. Maybe I need to install updated firmware? (Now that sounds gay).

If people enjoy the film and pick up on certain aspects I've overlooked or missed out on because of my own world perspective, well.....I think that's one of the great beauties of cinema!
Or any other art form, for that matter. It's interesting to hear about different reactions to this fine film and people can take away from it whatever they want as it applies to them. Cool.

PS - My college roommate once prepared a "breakfast" of crushed Oreo cookies in a bowl of milk. I had to laugh at that scene.

reply

As far as I can see, there are absolutely no homosexual themes in this movie, no gay overtones, no sly "agenda" to be found between the lines - nothing, in fact, to contradict the idea that it depicts a perfectly innocent bond between two wounded loners who recognize how truly lonely they've become and how good it feels to connect, mentally, to another human being again.

At the same time, it is one of the most blatantly homo-erotic movies I've ever watched - and that's one of the most interesting things about it! I just finished watching it for the third time, after listening to writer-director DiCillo's commentary track on the second viewing. I was specifically interested to hear what DiCillo would have to say about the homo-eroticism in the film - and whether it was intentional or not. He doesn't mention it once, except to say that he's met several viewers who've told him they thought the first appearance of the two women, in the grocery store scene, was signaling them as a lesbian [!] couple (which I didn't catch at all).

There are probably hundreds of instances of homo-eroticism in movies, since the beginning of film, that were completely unintentional (or subconscious) on the director's part - and which can only be seen if the viewer is in the right frame of mind when he's watching them (or has them pointed out to him). I was just made aware a few weeks ago, for the first time (while watching some gay-themed TV program), of the almost ludicrously gay subtext of the scenes between John Ireland and Montgomery Clift in Red River, a movie I'd seen probably 15 times and yet never noticed it. But, come on: "You show me your gun and I'll show you mine"! How could Howard Hawks not have intended that to be gay? Was he that innocent? ... or that subversive?

I guess we'll have to wait until DiCillo writes a book, does another commentary track, or gets cornered at some college-campus Q&A that gets published on the web, before we hear if he ever fesses up on the subject, regarding Box of Moonlight. Was he completely unaware of it? Playing with it? Unleashing it from his subconscious?

To me, the women appear in the movie just at the point when the unintended sexual tension between the two men gets too palpable for us (and certainly them) to ignore any longer - and the women's arrival feels like something the director might have used as a method of escape from what would otherwise be inevitable (and, undoubtedly, very discomfiting to the men). I doubt, though, that any of this was actually in DiCillo's mind (at least consciously).

reply

it occurred to me that it was a little gay. but then again, the "kid" could have been just that; like a kid character and turturo the fatherly character. so either gay or paternal. but something. you don't just touch another man's ass. usually. too bad turturo isn't hotter.

reply

I'm a straight guy, gay-friendly, and I like to think I have a pretty good Gaydar on board. It never went off while watching this movie.

First of all, "straight guys" don't HAVE gaydar, period. Gaydar is an innate instinct within a GAY person to recognize other GAY people, and attract other GAY people to him/her self. It comes with the whole package, for better or worse. So there is no way in hell you HAVE gaydar, unless you're a closet case, which I suspect.

Another clue is you labeling yourself, "gay-friendly". Never in my 40 years have I met a heterosexual guy who consciously seeks out friendship with homosexual guys. So you sir, ping my gaydar off the scale.

reply

your a homophobe if you think there is anything gay about this movie

reply

Wow - the fact that I saw gay undertones between the characters in this film makes me a homophobe? I figured that my first comment in this thread made it pretty obvious I wasn't homophobic... But thank you, with your sweeping generalization and accusation, thank you so much for helping me to find my true self. It's people like you -people helping people- that make the world a much funnier place.
For the record, let me reiterate: THIS MOVIE SUCKED, whether or not it had gay undertones. It was just a $hitty movie (just for those of you who weren't sure how I felt).

reply

[deleted]

hmmm... tough to narrow it down to just one. Here's a few:

Search for One-Eye Jimmy
Hedwig & the Angry Inch
Desperate Living
Deranged (1974)
Gummo

reply

yes it makes you a homophobe to classify such things as gay

reply

Hmmm... even things like, say, picnics -which in certain times of spring, at just the right shade of afternoon, when the sun is high and the food is delectable, the setting picturesque- can be quite gay?

By your standards, saying something like "Oh, we had a gay old time at the roller rink yesterday." would make the speaker a homophobe, just because they described something as "gay"?

You, sir, are worse than Hitler.

As for Box of Moonlight, it still sucked. It also had gay undertones, which is wonderful in a film. Great! Super, even! I have no problem with homosexuality, in film or anywhere else. What I have a problem with is actors who KNOW BETTER wasting my time in go-nowhere movies. Is that okay with you, Chachi? Or am I still a big, bad, gay-bashing skinhead-type in your eyes, just because I HATED this movie which happened to have had some subtly gay undertones.

reply

not for hating this movie, but by thinking there were gay undertones

reply

[deleted]


Thankx Sigur
It's good to see someone who also believes that the progress of this character (Al) is the centre of the film. I resisted seeing a film called Box Of M... & would prefer it called "Mr Clockwork" but as I watched & saw Al's unlearning strict formal behaviors and throwing away of his up tight mechanicalness, I enjoyed how Al becomes a human being that can really understand the other person's point of view.

There are no gay undertones in this film just plain ol' honest life being lived. I felt it's good to see male nudity & less female nudity for once but I also like 'Romance' because it has appropriate female nudity. What's wrong with people that don't like nudity in movies? Especially when it helps tell the story.

The thingy about Al sleeping with that nice girl ends up in his developing a stronger loyalty to marriage, and later showing his wife some humanity by actually saying he missed her. Each twist & turn becomes a new eye-opener to Al- great work from John Turturro once again.

reply

"There are no gay undertones in this film just plain ol' honest life being lived."

There is no one as blind as one who will not see.

reply

What a pathetic retort. You're probably gay so when there are two men in a film, for some reason you have a need to find something homoerotic probably in most things. Get over yourself.

reply

It is obvious that your post is gay baiting, just to see if you can attack an angry audience. Maybe this is fulfilling some homoerotic need in you. Sadly, there was no subliminal homosexual motifs to be discovered though I am quite sure you find that in all media.

So read this, sit in the corner, realize that someone has acknowledged your existence and masturbate until your heart's content.

reply

'Gay' just stands for non-conformist in today's culture (at least in the US).

So, any intimacy between men, even those innocent moments where two men share simple childhood memories is regarded in today's adolescent culture as GAY, because the men in question are not conforming to the standard male script (a script that unsurprisingly becomes very boring).

To the adolescent mind, everything non-conformist is GAY - sad state of affairs.


reply

I caught a slight gay vibe at one point, and I was hoping it didn't develop because I was so enjoying the development of the male friendship on a more emotional level. There wouldn't have been anything wrong with a gay relationship developing--it's just not how I had envisioned their friendship working.

It is rare that a film can depict a strong friendship between men without seeming "gay"--I think this film achieved it very well.

But I agree with others that the introduction of the women seemed a bit forced (though seeing Al dance was pretty much worth it)

reply