MovieChat Forums > Otets i syn (2003) Discussion > Not a 'gay' film

Not a 'gay' film

posted 17 years ago by Falconeer
13 replies | jump to latest

Alexander Sokurow's "Father & Son" is not a gay-themed film. Has anyone here bothered to see this with subtitles for a better understanding of what is going on? This is a look at an unusually intense father and son relationship. These guys aren't lovers. Sometimes two people of the same sex can have intense feelings for eachother without it being sexual. Sometimes two guys, even a guy and his dad, can play-wrestle and put their arms around eachother, without a sexual thought entering their minds. Is that so hard to believe? I think it is sad that so many people can't see this. Are so many of us this jaded? I think this film is special because it possesses a kind of innocence; it takes place in a world where people are not uncomfortable with physical contact. I think many people would like to have such a relaxed relationship with their parents, or friends, where they could put their arms around eachother or embrace without feeling "weird". I for one envied the relationship of this kid and his father. I guess there is imagery here that could be seen as homo-erotic, mainly the films opening scene. Some people here should try and watch this again, without looking for a sleazy "gay incest" angle. Thinking like that really trashes what is supposed to be a nice, and extremely innocent film viewing experience.

[–] jubinne 17 years ago

Just saw the movie last night. Completely agree with you. A very intense movie and I highly recommend it as a an art movie.

[–] mojambo-3 17 years ago

I also agree. I didn't find the movie homoerotic at all. It was just demonstrated a close relationship between a father and son (which is rare among American fathers and sons). It made me evaluate the relationship I did not have with my father and left me longing for that same closeness between father and son as depicted in the film. I read a post where someone stated that "family pets receive more physical affection from family members than family members receive and/or display to each other." How sad that is. I won't even go into the many studies that indicate a lack of love and affection among American fathers and sons results in males growing up isolated, having difficulty forming bonds with others (especially with women) and are eventually prone to crime and violence....

[–] jubinne 17 years ago

Thanks for the reply. Just because 2 men are naked and their bodie touch and they are in an embrace, doesn't make a gay film. I saw it very carefully, the love of the father and son for eachother was SO touching. One could not live without other.
As you mentioned, unfortunately, in America, showing affections, embrace, etc. seems unacceptable.
I wish more people would read your postings. Americans, to me, are desperately in need of love and affection.

Jubinne

[–] giovanealex 16 years ago

Homoerotic is not the same as gay themes, dear.
And as for the opening scene, there are scenes which can be evaluated as much more erotically intense than that, as when father and son are constantly and deeply gazing each other. It does not mean that they have a sexual relationship but it means that their relationship blurs some boundaries on the usual definition of what could be a purely fraternal father and son relationship and what could be a more erotic one.
And I guess that is the point of the movie - a father and son relationship - and I did not say an incestuous one - that defies a boundary.

[–] Siel_O 16 years ago

agrees with giovane. ^^

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheManWithTwoRedShoes 16 years ago

I completely agree with giovanealex. There is a palpable sense of eroticism present in a vast number of scenes, and not just between the father and son. I never got the idea that these two were actually involved sexually with one another, but an aura of sexuality did pervade the film. Anyone who claims to have viewed the film and saw no intimations of homoeroticism at all is either lying or lacking any awareness or understanding of sexuality and human interaction. And this includes Sokurov. To try to pawn this off as some sort of cultural misinterpretation is patently absurd.

[–] akoo 16 years ago

Sokurov came out and denied any such intentions what more do you want?

If you interpret it that way, then yes it's probably because you come from a homophobic culture and one where father's and sons do not have a very close relationship. If you or anyone else who interprets the film this way saw 'Mother and Son' then you would realize there's nothing sexual about it.

[–] Prince_of_Persia 15 years ago

Whether Sokurov denies it or not is irrelevant, but I don't believe he denies the homoerotic element is present in this film, unless he has no understanding of that English word. I assume he denies that their is homosexual incestuous relationship between the two, which seems correct to me. I don't think they are having sex.

The father and son don't have to be having homosexual sex, nor do they have to have to even be homosexual for the film to be homoerotic.

Same-sexed people in very-very close relationships are homoerotic. The movie Top Gun is homoerotic. Boys and men wrestling around with each other is homoerotic. Two women splashing each other while swimming is homoerotic.

If you are under the illusion that this is just some cultural difference between the U.S. and Russia, then you are living in a fantasy world. Fathers and their teenage sons don't typically cuddle with each other half naked and stare longingly in each others eyes while gently caressing each others faces. Not in Russia, not in Portugal, not in Thailand, nor Paraguay, nor Mexico, nor New Zealand, nor the Congo. The movie is intentionally showing a relationship that makes us uncomfortable because it is too close. It is a dysfunctional relationship because the boy is being held so close by his father when it is clear that it is time for them to start leading seperate lives and for the boy to become a man.

--
www.ClamBake.org - Welcome to the Church of Scientology.

[–] giovanealex 15 years ago

"Sokurov came out and denied any such intentions what more do you want?"

He can deny it as much as he wants - it does not mean he has absolute control over each of the film's meaning. One of the first things teachers tell us on any Arts course is that when a work of art is finished it surpasses the author's intention, in many times revealing meanings the author has not intended at all. The fact that he has not intended it to have this meaning does not mean that it has not this meaning. This movie is actually a perfect example of it.

[–] msfnyc 16 years ago

This may not be a gay film, but to deny the homoeroticism is absurd. How much time do the father and son spend staring into each others eyes? That is way beyond even any normal father/son relationship. I understand the director is trying to show a strong bond, but whenever they spend time staring into each others eyes, laying in each others arms and not talking just as lovers normally do, their lips seem to alternate between getting closer and moving away. You are expecting a kiss at any moment and it looks as if they are thinking, "should we or not?", and then they don't, but almost. But hey, that is not homoerotic! I suppose for some maybe that is just incest erotic.

[–] enbilal 15 years ago

I agree. And Sokurov's denial is probably intended more for his home audience. Homophobia is very strong in Russia.
It doesn't matter that there is no incest between them. Sokurov is communicating with us trough unmistakable homoerotic imagery. I am also sure he is pretty much aware of it.
And this isn't even the only Sokurov film with homoerotic overtones. The Days of Eclipse, Confession, Soldier's Dream, Alexandra, etc.

Those who deny this are most likely afraid to admit that they like art which is homoerotic, probably because of the social stigma.

For a better film with similar military subject and homoeroticism watch Beau Travail made by a WOMAN director, Claire Denis.

“The British cinema is made of dullness...“ - F. Truffaut

[–] crasht7710 14 years ago

while to dismiss this film as simply a "gay film" is to underestimate its complexity, so too is to completely ignore the existence of homosexual imagery and theme. the film is deliberately attempting to upend our expectations of what a normal father-son relationship entails. the concepts of innocence and physical intimacy in general are certainly addressed, but it does the film a disservice to watch it without acknowledging all of the questions and ambiguities it raises. in the end, we are meant to ask ourselves what is at the root of any close personal bond between two human beings. our individual answers are simply our distinct interpretations of the movie.