Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Mar 19, 2011 - 2:05 PM   
 By:   SteffM   (Member)

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 19, 2011 - 4:25 PM   
 By:   quiller007   (Member)

I remember some guy in college who wrote a paper on
THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY. He hinted at the prospect
of "homoeroticism" between Clint Eastwood's character
and Eli Wallach's character. Actually, he didn't hint. He
was pretty straightforward about it. My response was
something to the effect that, if he could somehow materialize
himself within the movie and tell Blondie and Tuco that he thought
there was an element of homosexuality between the two, I think
it would be best to wear a bulletproof duster, because those
guys would fill him so full of lead, so fast, he'd never know what hit him. big grin

Den

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 19, 2011 - 11:57 PM   
 By:   Preston Neal Jones   (Member)

Dear John B.,

I spoke to Paul Mantee a couple of nights ago, just to let him know about the upcoming CD release of CRUSOE/MARS, which I had just seen announced here at the FSM Board. Now, thanks to your post, I will phone him again to tell him he's dead. He wasn't too excited about the CD, but maybe this will get a rise out of him.

Sincerely,

PNJ

PS: I'm certain that Paul will forgive you for killing him, because you plugged his books. I recommend those novels to all of you. The man's a fine writer.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 20, 2011 - 9:24 AM   
 By:   John B. Archibald   (Member)

That's great to hear.

I always liked him.

Acting careers are always so unpredictable.

Sondheim said it all in "I'm Still Here," from his score for "Follies:"
"First you're another sloe-eyed vamp,
Then someone's mother,
Then you're camp.
Then you career from career to career."

I'm halfway through my memoirs,
And I'm here."

More power to him.

How's he doing lately?

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 20, 2011 - 10:41 AM   
 By:   Montana Dave   (Member)

Dear John B.,

I spoke to Paul Mantee a couple of nights ago, just to let him know about the upcoming CD release of CRUSOE/MARS, which I had just seen announced here at the FSM Board. Now, thanks to your post, I will phone him again to tell him he's dead. He wasn't too excited about the CD, but maybe this will get a rise out of him.

Sincerely,

PNJ

PS: I'm certain that Paul will forgive you for killing him, because you plugged his books. I recommend those novels to all of you. The man's a fine writer.



When I read John's obit on Mr. Mantee, I searched Google and didn't find anything, which was a relief. The last time I saw Paul Mantee onscreen was in 'They Shoot Horses, Don't They', where he played 'Jiggs' one of the marathon refs. I'm surprised Mr. Mantee wasn't too thrilled with the music cd coming out - in the 'special features' section of the film he makes comment about the music in a scene or two. (I think it was near the beginning somewhere?)
And also in the commentary - he speaks about his nude swimming scene in the film. John - YOU would want to hear his comments about this. He's nude when he jumps into the water. Then, he's wearing brown swim-trunks in a close up. Then in the long-shot he's nude again. But the commentaries from the two co-stars is very entertaining. I found it more fun to watch the film WITH the audio commentary running, than without it.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 20, 2011 - 10:49 AM   
 By:   Montana Dave   (Member)

No, not me personally. I've seen the film 10-15 times over the years and never made that connection, but it could just be a different point of view is all. For instance my take on the POV shot moving down Friday's body is that it would be a natural thing for a human to do in order to inventory the physical make up of his first encounter with an extraterrestrial being. Especially so in comparing his body to ours since it so similar/exact. It would be a common human act of differential or integral analysis done by anyone I would think.

As to the clothes he wears, it was typical of the kit NASA issued at the time, especially in survival training. The skinny dipping is true to what would happen without the need for modesty and social constraints. These are all small things that add up to as realistic a depiction of the situation as possible for the day which I believe was one of the goals of the film makers. To say that it was aknowledged that this was puposefully homoerotic is shear conjecture if it wasn't acknowledged as such from the film makers themselves. If it was then I see the points being made!

My viewpoint comes from being a total space geek growing up in the 60s and living in the NASA-JSC area so I see it with a more scientific and utilitarian slant.



Thanks for an intelligent and reasoned response Mark Ford.

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 20, 2011 - 12:02 PM   
 By:   John B. Archibald   (Member)

Dear John B.,

I spoke to Paul Mantee a couple of nights ago, just to let him know about the upcoming CD release of CRUSOE/MARS, which I had just seen announced here at the FSM Board. Now, thanks to your post, I will phone him again to tell him he's dead. He wasn't too excited about the CD, but maybe this will get a rise out of him.

Sincerely,

PNJ

PS: I'm certain that Paul will forgive you for killing him, because you plugged his books. I recommend those novels to all of you. The man's a fine writer.



When I read John's obit on Mr. Mantee, I searched Google and didn't find anything, which was a relief. The last time I saw Paul Mantee onscreen was in 'They Shoot Horses, Don't They', where he played 'Jiggs' one of the marathon refs. I'm surprised Mr. Mantee wasn't too thrilled with the music cd coming out - in the 'special features' section of the film he makes comment about the music in a scene or two. (I think it was near the beginning somewhere?)
And also in the commentary - he speaks about his nude swimming scene in the film. John - YOU would want to hear his comments about this. He's nude when he jumps into the water. Then, he's wearing brown swim-trunks in a close up. Then in the long-shot he's nude again. But the commentaries from the two co-stars is very entertaining. I found it more fun to watch the film WITH the audio commentary running, than without it.



I remember his commentary from the Criterion release. He described jumping into the pool nude for the longshot, and hitting his lower back when he landed, sustaining an injury that affected him for some time afterward, as I recall.

Sorry about posting his demise. I could have sworn I'd read that somewhere in the last 6 months or so. Glad to be proved wrong.

I hope he's doing well.

 
 Posted:   Mar 20, 2011 - 7:55 PM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

,

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 20, 2011 - 8:17 PM   
 By:   John McMasters   (Member)

Charles, you are certainly entitled to your opinion -- and I respect your views. However, looking at a work of cinema critically and identifying subtexts is not suggesting that overt content was ever intended or is on overt display -- I just honestly think that there is a subtextual current there that is ripe for examination. And I can attest that it is certainly something that I experienced when I first saw the film as a kid (and in googling the film I see that there are many other folks out there who responded the same way!). I was in no way demeaning the film, or your own very personal experience of it -- quite the contrary! Perhaps I stayed too long at the academic ranch during my student days...And I trust that it is understood that I certainly was not suggesting that any depiction of two male friends is automatically situated in a homoerotic context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy


 
 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 3:07 AM   
 By:   MMM   (Member)

If "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" is homoerotic, then "Kronos" advocates transvestism and "The Giant Claw" is a thinly-disguised look inside the world of bondage. If it were a man and a woman astronaut alone on Mars and they didn't have sex, would it be a pro-abstinence picture? And don't forget Mona the monkey is in the film, so obviously there's a beastiality subtext as well. It's just a good science fiction movie. That's all.

 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 8:29 AM   
 By:   increbula   (Member)

I was just trying to demonstrate the futility of trying to "homoeroticize" things that have no business being made that way...especially things that I watched growing up and never ever thinking it meant anything other than what was portrayed onscreen.

Just to play devil's advocate (I haven't actually seen CRUSOE in over 40 years), it isn't too far-fetched to imagine that a subliminal or subversive homoerotic undercurrent may have been intended by the director (it was the 60s, after all), and not everyone in the audience was meant to get it. The good thing about art is that there are no absolutes, and at least some room for interpretation.

 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 8:49 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

If "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" is homoerotic, then "Kronos" advocates transvestism and "The Giant Claw" is a thinly-disguised look inside the world of bondage. If it were a man and a woman astronaut alone on Mars and they didn't have sex, would it be a pro-abstinence picture? And don't forget Mona the monkey is in the film, so obviously there's a beastiality subtext as well. It's just a good science fiction movie. That's all.

If that's how you see it, David, then you stick to it! smile

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 8:55 AM   
 By:   John McMasters   (Member)

Intention may or may not have some bearing on how we emotionally and intellectually react to films as audience members -- with or without a critical eye -- especially in traditional Hollywood cinema which is such a collaborative medium. And while a film of a man and woman stranded on a planet may have nothing to do with abstinence -- it certainly has something to do with relationships! Even if it is simply advocating friendship -- which is what "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" is intentionally advocating as far as I can tell from listening to the commentary tracks and reading the supplements included in the Criterion standard DVD.

However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with trying to dig beneath to see what additional meanings a work of popular entertainment might have -- especially something as harmless and entirely positive as suggesting a homoerotic subcurrent. If we don't examine how or why we respond to a certain film -- or why such films are popular (or not) we're sort of turning a blank eye to an incredibly rich source of potentially important tools -- even it it just helps the marketing folks to gain more success for certain films and series of films.

"Robinson Crusoe on Mars" is one of my favorite films -- I find it incredibly moving and touching. I felt that way as a kid and I feel that way now as an adult. It is a terrific film -- everyone involved in it should be very proud of its lasting power and true cult status. I am agreeing with everyone who loves the film -- and in my own humble and entirely positive way I am suggesting that I may love it even more.

 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 9:15 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

So, with all this discussion about virtually anything with two men being homoerotic, how come no one ever makes the same kind of statement about two women getting all chummy?
It appears that women in our society can be more physically expressive with each other, and no one bats an eye.
But see two men walking down the street, doing anything similar, and immediately everyone assumes they're queer.
Talk about double standards.


Actually, John, I think they "do" bat an eye....but it's a different sort of eye bat. Woman-on-woman action is something men really go for in movies...and women don't seem to mind at all. So instead of the "Ewwww...those two women are kissing", every guy attracted to either of the women sees action that not only turns them on but spurs their imaginations as to how exciting it would be to join them (the presumption being that the women would "want" that guy with them). Women see the same scene as something rather natural...something they may have felt for another woman several times during their lives...or something they have done, on occasion.

This isn't an absolute, of course....there are many reasons why some people would find the action objectionable...both men and women. But their voices are not raised, for whatever reason, whenever something like "Basic Instinct" is released.

What's amusing is that "buddy pictures" have long been profitable....look at "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"...starring two actors whose screen presences electrified women and men. But did anyone ever think Butch and Sundance ever kissed, or....? Not with Etta Place around they didn't!

I think this thread originator's take on the homoeroticism of the film has a lot to do with Paul Mantee's should-have-been-starmaking masculine presence and the deeper-than-usual characterization of the titular character. He was tough but sensitive...in control but not without compassion. You just don't get that in many male screen characters.

So...everyone has a response to it...and it becomes, as someone else pointed out, what they bring to the experience.

 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 10:12 AM   
 By:   First Breath   (Member)

not EVERYTHING to do with 2 guys is gay, Dave. Sheeesh. I think the film was just portraying what would happen normally without sex entering the picture, Next you'll be telling me Kit was having it with Mona before Friday showed up and the subtle sexual overtones of squeezing food paste from a tube.

AMEN!!!

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 10:32 AM   
 By:   Montana Dave   (Member)

So, with all this discussion about virtually anything with two men being homoerotic, how come no one ever makes the same kind of statement about two women getting all chummy?
It appears that women in our society can be more physically expressive with each other, and no one bats an eye.
But see two men walking down the street, doing anything similar, and immediately everyone assumes they're queer.
Talk about double standards.


Actually, John, I think they "do" bat an eye....but it's a different sort of eye bat. Woman-on-woman action is something men really go for in movies...and women don't seem to mind at all. So instead of the "Ewwww...those two women are kissing", every guy attracted to either of the women sees action that not only turns them on but spurs their imaginations as to how exciting it would be to join them (the presumption being that the women would "want" that guy with them). Women see the same scene as something rather natural...something they may have felt for another woman several times during their lives...or something they have done, on occasion.

This isn't an absolute, of course....there are many reasons why some people would find the action objectionable...both men and women. But their voices are not raised, for whatever reason, whenever something like "Basic Instinct" is released.

What's amusing is that "buddy pictures" have long been profitable....look at "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"...starring two actors whose screen presences electrified women and men. But did anyone ever think Butch and Sundance ever kissed, or....? Not with Etta Place around they didn't!

I think this thread originator's take on the homoeroticism of the film has a lot to do with Paul Mantee's should-have-been-starmaking masculine presence and the deeper-than-usual characterization of the titular character. He was tough but sensitive...in control but not without compassion. You just don't get that in many male screen characters.

So...everyone has a response to it...and it becomes, as someone else pointed out, what they bring to the experience.


I forgot to mention Ebab's initial response. It was very..... sly and well conceived. Ron Pulliam, I think you've expressed here what I think of Mantee's performance as well as how I as well felt about his interpretation of the character. It's unusual performance, tough yet tender. NOT gay. I didn't want to even use this word because I knew detractors would use it as a club, the homoeroticism can be there, and yet not mean anything as obvious.
Yet there remains these undercurrents that are tangible to me and obviously to others and these same undercurrents are above the radar to others because we all brought something different to the experience, as it were. Nothing will ever change my mind. Nor will anything change the minds of those that don't see it - which is fine.
I have to agree with you Ron that this film should have made Paul Mantee a bigger star even though the film was a box office dissapointment.

 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 11:52 AM   
 By:   Ebab   (Member)

It’s a little sad, but if you feel more comfortable reducing this discussion to “who’s gay”, so be it.

Not at all....I was just trying to demonstrate the futility of trying to "homoeroticize" things that have no business being made that way...especially things that I watched growing up and never ever thinking it meant anything other than what was portrayed onscreen.


Here is the problem: Nobody here has been trying to question your own perception of the movie. You, in contrast, accuse Dave of pushing his queer agenda when all he does is try to present his own personal impressions, in a careful and non-confrontational way. Why not show just the respect that you expect for your own view? We all can only watch and reflect – “no business” is not for you to decide. And, sorry, the vehemence that some of you guys here demonstrate towards the mere possibility of a homoerotic aspect in that picture, or the urge to ridicule – where does it come from? What’s the threat?

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 12:22 PM   
 By:   darklordsauron   (Member)

Charles, you sound like a classic homophobe. Lighten up, bucko!

 
 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 12:28 PM   
 By:   John McMasters   (Member)

Oh my -- I don't think we should be casting insults either way. I've found this thread to be very intriguing and it really made me rethink my reactions to this film over the years. So it has been a plus plus experience for me thus far. Room for disagreement - yes. Name calling - please let's not!

 
 Posted:   Mar 21, 2011 - 12:53 PM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

,

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2022 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved...