 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles, all I was pointing out is that you're acting the petulant child with your fingers in your ears. "No! No! You're wrecking my childhood!" No one is imposing their views on you, but your "run for the hills" attitude in this thread tells me all I need to know about how tolerant you are. You took a funny post about gays in film and turned it into some sort of attempt to brainwash FSMers into believing the film was a "deep sexual allegory". Take a step back and get some perspective.
I know a lot of you are old and think stone-straight Clint Eastwood is the soul of cinema, but to believe there aren't many creative types in the entertainment industry who are gay, and that their experiences wouldn't show through in the work they do is pretty naive. It betrays a pretty total lack of imagination and for someone to flip out over an interpretation of a film is silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 21, 2011 - 3:39 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MMM
(Member)
|
I'm wondering if you would characterize me the same way? One of my best friends is gay and we an joke about sexual differences all the time, but if he ever tried to touch me (and he hasn't in the 15 years we've known each other), he knows I'd slap him. Just like if I touched one of my female friends inappropriately, they'd no doubt kick me in the balls. I am more tolerant of other people's religions, sexual orientations, politics, etc. than almost anyone I know.
People just need to lighten up a bit about things that aren't that important. If you're gay, then obviously that's important to you, just as my heterosexuality is important to me. If it weren't, that means I'm wasting a lot of time looking at pretty women...
But trying to say that this film or that film is REALLY about the Jews, or Christ, or homosexuals, or the Slovakian Resistance Force (don't ask me what they're resisting), or women's rights, or the plight of the migrant worker or anything else is such a waste of energy that should be focused on more important things. If these films were REALLY about that -- it would be very obvious to almost everyone watching the movies. I have seen RCOM about 25 times in my life, and I assure you, if it were about homosexuals, I'm not so stupid that I would have missed that. Despite the fact that I'm not a homosexual.
I can tell an anti-racist film although I'm not a racist. I can tell a pro-racist film although I'm not a racist. But I could probably more easily make a case that RCOM is about treating animals as equals, the evils of slavery, how human societies are needed for our mental well-being, or half a dozen other themes that are more obvious than it's about having a gay lifestyle or whatever.
What I think this is all really about is that Adam West always seemed a little "gay," but he's just an actor playing a non-gay role. Please don't write to me, attorneys for Adam West!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 21, 2011 - 4:50 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ebab
(Member)
|
But trying to say that this film or that film is REALLY about the Jews, or Christ, or homosexuals, or the Slovakian Resistance Force (don't ask me what they're resisting), or women's rights, or the plight of the migrant worker or anything else is such a waste of energy that should be focused on more important things. If these films were REALLY about that -- it would be very obvious to almost everyone watching the movies. I have seen RCOM about 25 times in my life, and I assure you, if it were about homosexuals, I'm not so stupid that I would have missed that. Despite the fact that I'm not a homosexual.
If that is your issue, it seems ridiculously easy to sort out. Nobody in this thread has indicated that RCOM “is about homosexuals”. At the risk of reiterating: Dave pointed out a number of situations, images, dialog lines that he sees as homoerotic, i.e. they (in the eye of the beholder) reflect the attraction of the male body as watched from a male, two males in usually male/female "household" pairings (which may be a humorous nod); exhibiting attractive male features in only the presence of another male. I do agree with Dave that this picture is unusually full of these situations. At the same time I would certainly agree that they are not the topic of the movie – even if only indicated, censorship alone would certainly prevent that; it’s a nicely done, visually rich Sci-Fi adventure with an emphasis on “buddy” experiences.
I generally don’t like the term “subtext” so much, but if it helps here – these mentioned situations are not the surface plot of the movie, neither are they the expression of a conspiratorially hidden agenda of Queers International – they are a possibility, an offer under the surface – not the main plot, but still there. And I mean, come on, that artwork alone, there is something particular about it, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
