gay movie? - Paranoid Park (2007) Discussion

[–] guerreira4 16 years ago

wtf?!! LOL. That's a mistake, surely. This movie has nothing to do with homosexuality, the elephant is far more gay then this piece of work. That's a really funny one... have you seen the movie already? if not... i advise you to see it ;). It's about skateboard.

reply

[–] casper25_2001 16 years ago

Yeah i did see it thats why i didnt understand this comment i read?

reply

[–] buzzbuzzoz 16 years ago

The main kid isn't attracted to his hot girlfriend. Think about it...

I've never even been to Mt. Vesuvius.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] larry-411 16 years ago

I think it's safe to say that there are homoerotic undertones to many coming-of-age films about young guys, particularly those of Van Sant. I wouldn't call it a gay film, though.

-----------------------------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.

reply

[–] t_garn 16 years ago

He was more despondent because of the tragic things that were happening to him. He obviously shows interest in the other girl through out the movie.

reply

[–] praybird 16 years ago

man...his stupid girlfriend isn't hot AT ALL

reply

[–] ExPresidents 16 years ago

ALL of his movies have gay shxt. You should know that.

The finest of music awaits us in the shadows of Hell. --Charles Bukowski

reply

[–] out_on_dvd 16 years ago

he should've poked her in the butt

reply

[–] klc-16 15 years ago

If it WERE gay, it would have been a lot more interesting.

This film is just van Sant indulging his teenage boy obsession - and getting paid for it! Why the reviewers and public can't see through this is what really amazes me. This film and Elephant were total crud. The last Van Sant film I thought worthwhile was way back when he did Good Will Hunting. Although MILK is supposed to be quite good... but then, for MILK he couldn't let himself go on one of his indulgent artsy binges... he actually had to make a real film for a change...

reply

[–] wix99 16 years ago

I saw the film last night and was left with a very strong impression that this was a gay movie. I wouldn't necessarily say that homosexuality was the main theme of the movie, but it was certainly an important element.

A few key scenes in this film were:

*Alex's complete lack of interest and excitement while having sex with his girlfriend.
*Alex's friend Gerard looks at him in the car with an expression that suggests desire.
*the older skater Alex rides the train with seems attracted to Alex.
*his father's weekends at the lake house with "Uncle Tommy" (although I may be reading far too much into this).

I am not gay, so perhaps someone who is might have a different understanding of these scenes.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wickedays 16 years ago

I thought that he did pay attention to the other girl, Masey, but only because she was the only person he could talk to. She noticed something was wrong with him. Alex was closed off for most of the movie, but the time he spent with Alex was where he was most open. I think the only time he smiled all movie was when he was with her. I think he was just most comfortable with her.

reply

[–] el_diablo2003 15 years ago

Ever hear of a fag hag? I'm not necessarily married to the idea that Alex is gay, though I do find it intriguing. I'll have to revisit the film. Regardless, his relationship with Macy doesn't invalidate the theory, because although Macy clearly likes Alex a lot, his feelings for her are less clear. She is less sexually threatening than his girlfriend and is someone with whom he can form an asexual boyfriend/girlfriend relationship if he wants. That said, it's also not inconceivable that Alex could sexually desire both girls and boys, especially at that age when they're so pretty and androgynous.

reply

[–] slsk812 15 years ago

The being bisexual thing is a good point, that i never really thought of. Considering who Alex hangs out with, this punk pretty skater boys with their longer hair and skinny jeans... which could easily describe the girls too, definitely adds a bit to the argument.

And i'm not married to the idea that it is a gay movie either, but i do see where the idea comes from. Jared is obviously in the closet, hence why he keeps this younger boy around and allows him to sleep at his house.

The inaction of homosexuality in that young age is a story unto itself, told by nuances and blank stares. There is very little done because the fear of being outed is larger than you can imagine. Straight sex and straight people is as accepted as pie, but if you are gay and attracted to another boy, and especially if you think he is gay, you still dont say anything. You just live as a straight person. ...Not that its noticeable or anything, but i may have a well-learned 'opinion' on the matter.

And being that Van Sant is gay himself, i think the gay community sees more gay in his movies than do straight people, not because its there but because they want it to be there and project it.

anyway... aside from all i've said. You are one of the most intelligent posters i've ever seen on these boards. that one paragraph was brilliantly insightful. Like seriously. every sentence brought up such a great point. Thanks for making me think, its been a while it seems.

reply

[–] Randm1 15 years ago

question...

The book... if you JUST read the book, would you think it was a "homosexual" book? Or is it just because Gus Van Sant himself is known for being gay, and representing (what most say is self indulgent) in his films scenes (or in the case of MOPI the entire plot) homosexuality?

xoxo
Rand

Rand
4 8 15 16 23 42

"Don't mistake coincidence for fate" - Mr Eko

reply

[–] slsk812 15 years ago

i have read the book and feel it is definitely not a gay book, and Blake's tale is strictly straight,
and am open to saying that maybe gus' sexuality is an influence...

but then again one must admit that he did write and direct, and many of the things seen in the book were not in the movie, and that this was an adaptation. and being that, there is definitely room for changing of many things, and the ability for van sant as the creator to project. I think Nelson gave him the story-- skater kid kills a security guard, feels guilty-- but van sant created the context. The world in which this kid lived, and this kid in general.

Maybe he's gay, maybe theres no gay at all,
what is definitely there is mystery, that is undeniable. And nothing is more fun than over interpretation. Artist leave it up to perception. And we all have a narcisstic streak to us, and project what we want. That is to say when allowed, some movies are so clean an dont provoke any thought.

anyway... 4 8 15 16 23 42...love it! haah

reply

[–] jacksflicks 16 years ago

Homoesexual is the wrong word. As someone else said, "homoerotic". Alex is androgynous, and he's ambivalent about everything else, so why not sex? Another thing is, Van Sant's subjects are often teens, and so -- given the way people spazz out over "pedophilia" -- he has to use homoeroticism where he might have used homosexuality (and throws in a couple of bimbos for good measure). Also, "gay" movies narrow the market considerably, and I'm sure Van Sant feels he's "niche" enough.

Anyway, it's easy to speculate that Van Sant digs teenage jeansboys and that his films are vehicles for them. He does for them what Hitchcock did, which was (in Hitchcock's case with pretty blondes) to realize his fantasies as far as he could on film. It's not that he has nothing to say beyond this. Once you get past it you can focus on the different treatments, morose as they tend to be.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tlsnyder42-1 16 years ago

He seems to be a misogynist.

reply

[–] Iara5Bloom 16 years ago

Well, thank you. You just explained to me why I like Van Sant so much but have that stupid guilty feeling whenever I watch anything from him.

reply

[–] bstephens21 16 years ago

It's definitely a gay film, though not JUST a gay film. Whether we should read Alex as literally closeted is a different question, but the idea of a teenager with an unspeakable secret which you can't express to the people around you, and the way it ruins relationships and alienates you from those people, is undoubtedly a metaphor for closeted homosexuality.

reply

[–] datawrong 16 years ago

This supposed homosexuality in pp is far to veiled to actually exist. van sant doesnt shy from homosexual content ala elephant. if its so gay why does he seem attracted to the hippy chick, yes, he is detatched from teh sexual experience he has with the hotter girl, but that is simply becuase of his current situations, and the fact she is a pain. i think all of us can understand why he would want to be with the hippy chick and not the overpowering gift to all men that he is supposed to be coupled with.

The hippy chick is much more akin to him himself, whereas the other girl wouldnt want to be his equal, but be his "boss". i think also this is why van sant chose to dub her out when he breaks up with her, because we all know what it would have sounded like.....

reply

[–] bstephens21 16 years ago

There is nothing to suggest he is romantically attracted to the "hippy chick" (and there is nothing "hippy" about her), or rather, whether or not he is attracted to her is itself unimportant. There is a definite sense, however, that he can relate to her and be something approaching himself around her.

The homosexuality isn't veiled, since to me (and obviously others) its perfectly visible in the subtext, as Gabe ends up in several situations which homosexuality can be read into. However, whether its because of the murder, closeted homosexuality, his ability to find compatible friends/girlfriend, or any other reason, the thing that is important is that Alex has been forced to realize that there is something pointless and claustrophobic and deadening in this suburban teenage lifestyle he's been living, yet he has no real idea or ambition to due something else. It's capturing this feeling of driftless, teenage ennui that is at the center of the film, and were I feel Van Sant succeeds.

reply

[–] limshun 16 years ago

I actually think your notion that feeling guilt over killing someone is a metaphor for closeted homosexuality is off base. If in fact it was intended as such a metaphor then it's a terribly reductive one that teeters on homophobia. I do agree that there are homosexual undercurrents in the film, but I'm not sure those don't simply emanate from the eye of the director more than the heart of the story.

reply

[–] Kooba89 16 years ago

Supposedly in the original script (which is somewhere online), it's revealed that Jared and Alex had sex... however it was obviously cut out. I think that that was a good move, not because I hate the idea of Alex being gay or anything, but it leaves his sexuality up to the viewer. Definately agree that there are a lot of gay undercurrents in the movie.

reply

[–] as_if_it_is 16 years ago

The parallel was between the difficulty of telling people about the death and the difficulty of coming "out of the closet". I think this makes perfect sense. I don't think the feeling of guilt necessarily comes into it, although guilt could be something that a gay teenager growing up has to deal with. Perhaps someone who's been through this could shed more light... I don't see how it's in any way homophobic though.

reply

[–] davidgoesboating 16 years ago

Do people find it so hard to believe that a gay director can make a film that's not about homosexuality? :(

reply

[–] jacksflicks 16 years ago

Not hard to believe at all. But I think all of Van Sant's movies are informed by his homosexuality, particularly his fascination with/attraction to the older adolescent, whose world is filled with at once eroticism and ambivalence. I don't think any of his movies are out-and-out gay movies, even Private Idaho. I think Van Sant is the kind of guy who likes to keep it tacit -- I don't think he likes to say, Hey, this is a gay movie.

You're right, though, I think there's an awful of reaching here.

Speaking of which, here's what one of the reachers said:

"The homosexuality isn't veiled, since to me (and obviously others) its perfectly visible in the subtext..."

No, it's not veiled, it's perfectly visible in the subtext. Some people are soooooooo funny.

reply

[–] bstephens21 16 years ago

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was a TERRIBLE turn of a phrase, but it's not hard to know what I meant. He said it (as you do) that one needs to reach in order to see it. I say it's there if you bother to pay attention.

And yes, a homosexual director can make films that aren't gay. Yes, Van Sant did a whole string of them during the 90s, which all ranged from mediocre to lousy- with the exception of Psycho, which was both incredibly gay and a great, but misunderstood, piece of visual art, if unnecessary as a film.

However, could Van Sant make this particular movie, a very personal film about teenage ambivalence, and not have aspect of his personal life and opinion come through? No, at least if he wanted to make a truthful film. Limshun's claims that "there are homosexual undercurrents in the film, but I'm not sure those don't simply emanate from the eye of the director more than the heart of the story" is ridiculous, as if you can separate the eye of the director from the heart of the story. Unless he's making souless work-for-hire films, then the personal eye of the director will, and should, show up in the film in some way or another.

And it's a homophobic observation only if you believe I'm equating homosexuality with murder, and I am not - Cruising this film is not - however, considering the homophobic society we live in, a homophobia which probably reaches its fever pitch around high school, I don't think it's off base to compare the guilt of the two. There are very few gay teens, even today, who don't feel guilty and self-loathing about there homosexuality. Even those who are "comfortable" with it hide it like a shameful secret from there peers. I'm willing to bet Van Sant isn't a stranger to this feeling in his past. The society is homophobic, the guilt of it is (a real) consequence of that.

reply

[–] wickedays 16 years ago

I'm in one hundred percent agreement with you. I thought this message came across strongly in the film, but I am also a member of a high school where this feeling is not uncommon at all.

reply

[–] just_aloe 16 years ago

Apparently the movie was supposed to be more gay than it is but Gus had to cut back a bit. The is from an article in OUT magazine.

http://www.out.com/detail.asp?id=23524

<b>It gets even less Disney. The lens worships Alex, especially when he changes from his blood-splattered clothes and takes a cathartic shower in slo-mo. He loses his virginity by essentially bottoming for his pesty girlfriend (“in Blake Nelson's book, Alex knew that she would take charge,” Van Sant explains). A homo flashback from Alex's point-of-view during the lovemaking was in the script. “There was a scene that suggested an earlier sexual encounter with his friend Jared that we never shot,” admits Van Sant. “The parents were sensitive to it.”

But the furtive glances and lingering stares between Jared and Alex and between Alex and Scratch silently address that nameless love. As does a shot coming immediately after the abortive hetero sex scene of Alex, Jared, and a third guy sitting comfortably in a hot tub. The casual domestic glimpses of Alex's soon-to-be-divorced father and “Uncle Tommy” foreground the boy's repression.</b>

So apparently the Alex character was supposed to be gay but Gus had to make him a bit more ambiguous.

reply

[–] THEYCALLMEGUY 16 years ago

do you think that Gus will bring the uncut and unedited version to DVD to explore more into a "gay" element?

At times i thought the story drifted off into looking into a handsome young mans face. It left me with a sence of how he told the "elephant" movie... A day in the life. Not a thriller of a accidental murder.

Also the long camera one shots on the Alex charater (walking down the hall, interogation scene, shower) and the fantasy filter shots (like at the first of the movie with sigur ros type music) left me thinking that Gus wanted to take me into some homo erotic daydream about boys in skateparks. Kinda wierded me out when i realized my thoughts during the movie.

Did I like the movie. Yes... I love GVZ movies like i love the way David Lynch makes a movie, great cinematography.

reply

[–] Sodominion 16 years ago

Come to think of it the other girl he was attracted to had a pretty tomboyish look....so I guess there are homosexual undertones in a sense. I guess it all contributes to his lost and confused persona.

reply

[–] alkamal_r 16 years ago

wtf, that is the most tenuous link to the homosexual reference in this thread, or in fact, ever!

Ironically, this isn't even ironic at all.

reply

[–] doctor-tulp 16 years ago

Well... Gay?
This goes more about teenagers and their blurry sexuality...

reply

[–] mjcmike1 16 years ago

I think everyone has missed the point here. There is nothing gay about Alex. He is just stressed. Stressed that his family is *beep* up, stressed that this girl wants to lay him and he doesn't want to make his life even more complex than it already is. I think the fact that his family is such a mess makes him pretty much disinterested in anything but skating and having a feeling of belonging. He is an outsider in school and home, and is just looking for a place and people where he can just breathe. Throw in the fact that he accidentally kills this guy on the tracks and his head is a veritable mess.

reply

[–] cowboy-junkie 16 years ago

maybe Alex was intended to look ambigious about his sexuallity but there are a lot of camera shots of male faces, lot of close ups, like if Gus Van Sant enjoyed beauty in males.

reply

[–] ghbbrown 16 years ago

Well, Gus Van Sant DOES enjoy male beauty, and I think it's more thoroughly explored here than in IDAHO which was explicitly a homo/bi sexual story. Alex looks like a damaged angel. This is more homoerotic and homosocial (no girl 'boarders here--are there many in real life?) than merely sexual. The skateboarders combine physical beauty of the "bad-boy" sort--except Alex and Jared--with physical prowess and cockiness of attitude. The effect is stunning and, as one earlier comment says, induces fantasies among some who don't feel comfortable going into that space. I appreciate the original reviewer's proper reference to Ephebes. That won't keep some nasty-minded types from carrying on about "pedophilia", of course.

reply

[–] DarthJaws 16 years ago

The father was a homosexual that is why he was separated from the mother. The main character's friend was a homosexual, the scene where they are both in the car and the friend is staring at him shows this. It's what I picked up at least, it doesn't necessarily mean that was what van sant meant to convey. the main character is not gay, but his conscience is just consumed with guilt for killing that security guard, that is why he shows little interest in his girlfriend and then breaks up with her.

"We're both sticking to our guns here, the difference is... mine are loaded."

reply

[–] lillah_7 16 years ago

Oh please. What's with the fixation on the "gay director"? The fact that the guy is gay doesn't mean it comes across in every aspect of his life and work. That's your doing. What the guy behind the movie likes to do in bed is just a drop in the ocean of his personality that doesn't rule his every thought.
If you were unaware that Van Sant was gay you wouldn't notice "close ups on pretty boys", or maybe not even wonder whether this is a gay movie. You're just projecting his homosexuality onto his work, which is you totally unfocusing on what the creators of the art originally wanted to express.
Basicly, you see what you choose to see.

Now, in my opinion this is a movie about uncontrol. Something extreme happened that you didn't intend, you can't make it undone and you're just left to your own guilt, which leads you to a feeling of not being in control.
But that's just my two cents.

Oh, and no, I don't consider this a gay movie. I don't see it anywhere, and the argument about Alex not being to keen on sleeping with his girlfriend just doesn't add up to it. I mean, who'd like to get intimate with that annoying little chick anyway? Other than that, I just don't see it.

And also just to be sure I must add the famous 'I'm not homophobic' statement here, just because I don't sense anything connected with homosexuality in a movie. Just the same way I don't sense humour in The Omen. I'm open to everything and everybody is welcome to my casa.
Especially Gus Van Sant.

reply

[–] DarthJaws 16 years ago

I plan on responding to your full post in the near future, but for now I will focus on this one main point that I fundamentally disagree with you on. you said:

"Basicly, you see what you choose to see."

Saying this automatically disqualifies your argument because "seeing" what I want to see in a film is the whole point, it's called interpretation. The great director David Lynch is notorious for refusing to offer his own interpretation or the meaning behind his films, because he truly believes that we are supposed to take from the film what we want to. Van Sant is no different. Kubrick and Hitchcock are other great examples (both of which, I might add, have had tremendous influence on the work of Van Sant). William Friedkin was speaking on his film The Exorcist once, and made the point that interpreting the meaning of the movie is all dependent on the interpreter. If you believe in the power of good overcoming evil, then you will see the ending to The Exorcist as a happy one. Or, if you believe that the world has no hope at all, and that evil will always prevail, then you will see the ending to that film as a real downer. This is why, in his original cut of the film (as opposed to "the version you've never seen") he ends the film with the car leaving, and does not cut to the detective and priest talking about movies. Such an ending suggests that "everything is back to normal," and "life goes on." This would ruin the ambiguity and ability for anyone to try and interpret the film in a different way. Van Sant's Paranoid park is ambiguous in this way becuase he wants the viewer to make their own assumptions. If he was worried about anyone misinterpreting what his film really means, if it was homosexual in nature or not, then he would have to be more precise in explaining the characters to the audience. He does not do this, because he believes that the viewer has some level of intelligence going into this film, and that the viewer would also be okay with using their brain to make their own assumptions, and take from the film whatever they please.

"We're both sticking to our guns here, the difference is... mine are loaded."

reply

[–] bstephens21 16 years ago

"Oh please. What's with the fixation on the "gay director"? The fact that the guy is gay doesn't mean it comes across in every aspect of his life and work. That's your doing. What the guy behind the movie likes to do in bed is just a drop in the ocean of his personality that doesn't rule his every thought.
If you were unaware that Van Sant was gay you wouldn't notice "close ups on pretty boys", or maybe not even wonder whether this is a gay movie. You're just projecting his homosexuality onto his work, which is you totally unfocusing on what the creators of the art originally wanted to express.
Basicly, you see what you choose to see. "

You can't separate a film from its creator. Great art is personal, and this film is obviously one of the more personal films in his career.

And there are plenty blatant indicators of homosexuality in the film that, yes, if I knew nothing about the director, it would still raise a flag.

reply

[–] jononfire 16 years ago

The analyses offered by most of these posters are extremely apt and discerning. The extent to which this is a gay story is open to question, but anyone who finds it other than homoerotic just isn't paying attention. The disposition of Van Sant as a gay director is stamped throughout. It's subtly presented; there isn't an instance of male frontal nudity -- not a single shot of a measly treasure trail -- nor one of a butt, or even a bulging crotch. But...we're clearly intended to appreciate the visage of Alex the same way we would a cherub in classical art. There are metaphors hiding everywhere (in Alex's ambivalence toward the girl, even in the sex act; his guilt; the father's estrangement/absence from home with his buddy), and especially in the camera's loving, soft and slow depiction of Jared's intensely longing looks at Alex while they're driving together in the car. There's no ambiguity in that; Jared looks as if he could eat Alex up. I'm gay, myself, and if I'm wrong on this, I'll eat my hat!

"Believe not what you wish to believe, but what in truth you can"

reply