Gay reference?


I think the men-men relationship in this movies heavily hints homosexuality... i mean dishonerable military discharge, remote mountain location... The two main characters get really really close in a bunch of situations... The craving, hunger whatever, for "flesh"... and they don't eat a women at anypoint in the movie...

I think, it's not that far fetched, that in a time where homosexuality was considered a crime punishable by death, some people started to silence confidants by brutal means. Since that would not be a very popular story, it's disguised here as a canibalism horror tale. What do you think?

reply

The film definitely has homosexual undertones, no doubt. The scene where Boyd is tempted by the blood on Ives's hands comes to mind instantly. Also the frequent discussion of "virility."






"That is terrible advice, Ant1238."

reply

I don't know that I felt there were strong homosexual overtones in the film, but none of the men at Ft. Spencer had been discharged, dishonorably or otherwise, they were all active duty. Beyond that, Ives ate Mrs. MacCready, he made a joke about it immediately after telling Boyd that he'd felt virile after recovering from the tuberculosis. I actually took Ives' humorous comment about eating Mrs. MacCready as a double entendre suggesting cunnilingus. So while Boyd possibly could've been gay, I don't know if I would the same of Ives.

What I've always wondered is, what was Reich doing at Ft Spencer to begin with? It seemed as if being assigned there was a shìt duty reserved for punishment or being put aside for not being soldierly material; Reich seemed like a decent soldier.

That said I love this movie, and was quite pleased to see the actors that played both Reich and Toffler on Justified in the last couple seasons.

reply

Edit: meant to say undertones, not overtones.

reply

If you get the DVD there is a deleted scene which tells you exactly why Reich got sent to Fort Spencer. He shot one of his own men (his friend even) in the back for retreating during battle.


"Jesus loves you. Everyone else thinks your an a**hole." - Father Dyer (Exorcist III)

reply

I don't know about being disguised, but yes, this is a very homoerotic film.
As you said, all the talking of flesh, blood lust, strenght, virility, etc. certainly gives off that feeling.
Most of all, every scene with Boyd and Ives is extremely tension-filled; it is not purely antagonism. Camon, in the barn scene, before they "fall" in the trap, it looked like they were about to kiss or have angry sex or something! And the scene where Ives torments the chained Boyd, licking off the latter's blood from his fingers, after taking a looong look at him? That was sexy, lol.
The only woman that is eaten is merely told about, so that kinda counts as a flashback. Sure, the men are killed offscreen, too, but in present time. It is pretty much a male-only story, plus the only female character barely speaks and even goes away later on. Moreover, in the ending scene, Martha enters the barn, sees Boyd and Ives dying in each other's arms, and leaves. 

🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾

reply

I've just seen this movie for the first time tonight, and I agree that there is definetely some homosexual undertones in it, intended or not, especially the end scene.

reply