There are lots of clues pointing to the fact that Rico is homesexual.
The 3 most obvious:
He hates 'dames'.
He favors Joe Masara.
The scene where Rico is trying on the tux; the tailor is in an obvious oral sex position.
Dire_Straits
lover of all B&W; especially film-noir
[deleted]
I've read Shadoian's book and think he makes some excellent observations about the film in general and the friendship between Rico and Joe. Shadoian remarks that Rico's jealous possessiveness toward Joe can be interpreted as part of a repressed homosexuality, but not necessarily. Rico's devotion to Joe is his weakness, the only really human part of him, and is therefore a major factor in Rico's downfall.
The fact that Joe's dreams are different from his own is intolerable to Rico. There are a couple bits of dialogue that make clear Rico's contempt of anything that could remotely be considered homosexual. When Joe gets nostalgic about his dancing career and how he'd like to take it up again,Rico stares at him in ill tempered surprise, and scoffs at the idea of dancing as a way to earn a living. In a later scene, Rico and Joe are arguing ,and Rico says that dancing isn't his idea of a man's job. He concedes that it might be useful as a front, but nothing more.
Of course, it can be argued that Rico's vehement rejection of anything considered soft or unmanly could be a sign of his own deeply repressed homosexuality. The undertones are there, but I think it's ambiguous enough not to necessarily be the only view.
And when he crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him
[deleted]
I'm leaning toward the theory that the hints toward homosexuality are intentional, but I would also offer that in addition to avoiding women, Rico also avoids booze, which I think speaks to his single-mindedness when it comes to his ambitions.
Also, there is another scene that mirrors the tailor scene with Otero seeing Rico "on a pedastal", right after Rico is told Montana is through, which supports the "hero worship" theory.
so no one here has gotten fitted for a tux or otherwise. There is always hands and body parts near your junk when getting fitted. It is an ridculous to deem any non masculine behavior on screen as gay. I guess since I have kissed my father I am gay and incestuous. I have also put pens to my lips as well as other objects, so certainly I am gay. It seems to be an issue with the subconscience of the viewer to have come up with these accusations. I also dont know how many businesses (legal or not) work without right hand men or women, who have adoration and aspirations for the success the enigmatic leader.
shareI saw the implications but not everyone that shows homoerotic tendencies is gay. I would like to think of it more as a close bond between these men instead of them being involved in sexual affairs.
No, I am not homophobic, I just don't think that "being gay" has to be the end-all answer to everything that hints at it.
[deleted]
I understand your point. I guess I don't go into films looking for these signs of homosexuality, so I missed the purpose of those scenes.
This whole "gay" phenomenon where everything seems to be scrutinized and labeled as automatically gay is really getting on my nerves. Go on most IMDb pages for male professionals and there probably will be a "Is he gay?" board. My topic didn't come out of bashing the film or the character, but the culture in which I live in (the US).
[deleted]
If the author was mad about it potentially being hinted at that Rico was gay, I'd say that was a strong argument that Rico wasn't gay. While watching the film, particularly the scene where Otero hops onto Rico's bed and reads the newspaper over his should, ending with them smiling about their next plan, I remarked to myself about how different films were and how the idea of homophobia hadn't crossed their minds. Looking back almost immediately after watching the film, I wonder if somewhere the writer or director knew what they were doing with that scene and others. Is it hero-worship on the part of Otero or are they trying to hint at something? In the James Whale Frankenstein films (especially Bride of Frankenstien) of that same era, the historians often note that James Whale, Colin Clive, and Ernest Thesiger were gay and pick up every potential hint of a Frankenstein/Pretorius relationship as if it were a subtle reference that Whale himself had placed into the film. Decades later, the Batman comics had to create the characters of Batwoman and Batgirl to silence rumors of a potentially homosexual relationship between the caped crusader and the boy wonder. If movie monsters and comic book heroes can be accused of homosexuality in that era, why should it be unthinkable that Rico might have been gay as well? Then again, the previous two were either viewed in hindsight or the victim of a witch hunt. Perhaps the writters and directors never thought that one would read homosexuality into Rico's character. Then again, maybe so. I was going to use the queer theory (the belief that being a homosexual makes a person less of a man) rules that society had (and still have to an extent) to argue that Rico's fixation on being the toughest would go against it, but maybe it would play right along with it. What better way for a homosexual in the 1930s to prove his masculinity than to try and be the toughest guy around? Also, it may be important to note that while he is the antihero, he's also the villain of the story. It would not be too unlikely that a homosexual would be portrayed as a deviant. I don't know. If the director screenwriter were gay, historians everywhere would be saying he was gay. Since it's just speculation, there's no way of knowing whether or not they intended the character to be interpreted that way or if the thought that someone might remark "Rico is gay" had never crossed their minds.
If you asked me, I'd say that Rico isn't gay; that he's just more powerhungry than he is interested in the opposite sex and that he felt betrayed by the one individual he considered a true friend. He's an assexual power-monger.
---
"Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?"
[deleted]
While in college, I overheard a conversation between two psychology professors about males and their automobiles. One of the points that one of the doctors was making was that a young man that owns a Corvette is really repressed sexually and if the vehicle had a manual transmission with that 'phallic' stick protruding from the floor boards, he is a repressed homosexual.
They addressed the other end of the automobile sexuality spectrum by discussing the Volkswagen and how their owners are really fearful of their homosexuality and are hiding from themselves.
Their dissertation covered the female/automobile psyche also with much the same conclusions.
They went on to discuss other makes of vehicles and each one had it's sexual connotation usually addressing homosexuality in one form or another.
Point being, no matter what the subject, unless overtly displayed, people will read into anything whatever they want to......either that, or everyone who owns a car is gay..........
I had doubts about the gay thing until I noticed the scene where otero is in bed with rico. Both are clothed but just the fact two men are in a bed right close to each other.
Rico's pose at the tailors is totally flaming gay. His jealously for joe's hetero relationship.
It's all there nobody has to project anything. Rico is gay!
>>> just the fact two men are in a bed right close to each other.
Different time, different place. Men could sleep together in the same bed in those days and there was nothing sexual about it. Imagine that!
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!
Very true, The Three Stooges shared beds and were not gay.
What really gets me is the mentality that while people say the man who embraces ballroom dancing (Joe) is gay, they also say Rico is gay and over-compensating with toughness. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
[deleted]
You could interpret it that way, I suppose, but I agree with Skye Reynolds. There's nothing wrong with discussing the topic (!), but I have a feeling it wasn't intentional. In the movie Mean Streets, Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro sleep together in their boxers, but it's still pretty obvious that they aren't gay because of how their characters are presented to us. Otero was killing me with the hero worship, though, he needed to chill : )
"I like to have sex with Mexicans."
Peter Manfredo said:
Otero was killing me with the hero worship, though, he needed to chill
"I like to have sex with Mexicans."-
Oh yeah, he was, I forgot! My tag is a marvelous quote, though, I'm not the one who said it honest. (/ps I'm a she) but either way, Otero was a little annoying
"I like to have sex with Mexicans."
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Kind of interesting, two days ago I was in the Warner Brothers archive at USC, studying the documentation for this movie. I wondered the same thing, and I saw more of a subtext in the earlier drafts of the script. In one draft, Ma Magdalena says to Rico, "You are cold, Rico. Don't like wine. Don't like women. You are no good, Rico."
Also, Otero's role is magnified a bit - in one earlier draft, when Rico collapsed from exhaustion in the latter half of the film, Otero quietly plces a hand on his forehead and croons a Spanish lullaby.
Otero's death is also significant, as every draft of the script mentioned him getting shot in the leg, Rico stopping to carry him, and Otero getting shot a second time before hitting him and shouting, "Let me down, boss! They got me! I'm done for!"
Contrast this with the fact that several early drafts did not have Rico sparing Joe Massara, but instead simply not reaching him before the cops - or sparing him, and later saying, "I shoulda finished him when I had the chance."
Honestly, I don't think that Rico is meant to be overtly gay. I think that they added some subtle undertones in Otero's hero-worship, but he was meant to be more of a narcissist, but giving him the surprising capability of close friendship (Massara and Otero) is a humanizing point. Rico was likely meant to be single-minded and asexual - another script comment is that he didn't understand what Olga meant to Massara, as he had "never experienced" anything comparable.
Interpretations of the film can easily go either way, and no matter which side you're on, you have really good points.
Well, there's my two cents.
Excellent info, Moreyjr. Thanks.
I got the gadar feeling from the tailor scene and again from his inability to kill Joe.
Very subtle, though.
Also, Edward G. transcends the otherwise mediocre film to create something amazing.
What an acting performance. Wow.
[deleted]
Rico is gay!
He has no desire at all for women. Compare that to public enemy where the tom powers character is often around loose dams.
If you hadn't fiqured this out by the tux scene you should when rico makes a blatantly limp wristed gay pose for a photo.
I am a little suprised to find this thread, because I took Rico to be a repressed homosexual, too. Not sure that was the moviemakers' intent, especially in the '20s and '30s when being gay could destroy careers. But from today's perspective, the Rico character comes off as a latent homosexual who would probably pull out his gat and shoot you if you even implied he was gay. But that's what he was. Except, of course, that he was somewhat modeled on Capone who cavorted with many a female prostitute, resulting in his contracting the VD which eventually killed him.
So go figure.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Excellent points, Dan_Rhaticul, and well stated! This has been a very interesting topic, with merits on each side of the debate, but thus far your post makes the most sense [to me] of anything else I've read here.
shareI'm not sure why people are so hostile to the idea that Little Caesar can be interpreted as a gay character, unless they're downright homophobic.
I don't think there's enough evidence to say conclusively that Rico is gay, but there's a definite homoerotic undercurrent. He won't let Joe leave the gang, but can't kill him, either. Smart money says his motivation is jealousy; he feels betrayed by his friend (either for abandoning him or for taking on a love interest), but loves him too much to kill him, even knowing it will bring about his own downfall. Since it's been established that Rico is trigger-happy, it seems logical that his emotions must be deeper here than mere friendship.
Also, in the tuxedo scene you mention, Otero (who is not a tailor but his lackey) lays down on the bed next to Rico in a position which seems too sexually suggestive to be accidental. And, as you mentioned, he hates dames (although you could argue that he doesn't indulge in women the same way he doesn't indulge in alcohol--it makes you vulnerable).
----
Finally I can stop suffering and write that symphony!
Gay? For me, not clear but what is he's awfully leadship, cash greedy
shareI've been involved in so many of these type of debates on this forum. Like someone else said already, there is an "I think he is gay" post for nearly every actor on this site. I am not sure what that means yet. I would like to think that we don't all go around in total denial of what we are, we have agendas in even the most meaningless of forums. I want to say that "multiplememories" made some brilliant points.
I began adult life as homophobic being exposed to very few homosexuals up to that time. I even punched out a guy who must have misunderstood me or some cues after he reached for "me" at a urinal in a bar restroom. I risked being thrown out of college for this, but I refused to explain what happened to the dean in precise detail (it was kind of an on-campus bar, campus police responded; this was the early 80's and I realize it is pretty difficult to believe in this era, but there were bars even in a dormitory complex or two at my school)other than to explain it as self defense to an assault. I felt pretty bad because I broke his nose and I did not want to further destroy the guy necessarily. Fortunately the "victim" fessed up himself and we actually became minor friends in the end.
I grew out of that type of reaction, yet, I still feel a very corporeal revulsion at seeing sexual acts between same sex partners (men a lot more, but I definitely do not acquire any excitement at watching women go at it...I won't use the hackneyed Seinfeld phrase, don't worry). This is real to me and I do not think it means that much really. It is what it is. Just because I have never fantasized about a guy's butt (forgive my crudeness for a moment) and only feel "personal" revulsion while being tolerant of individual choices does not automatically make me a "repressed" homosexual. Violence is often an aspect of ignorance.
Someone made the agrument that Rico/Little Caesar shows no interest in women whatsoever and that constitues his denial of his homosexuality. Well, there are cetain people that could be best described as "asexual" for whatever reason, and I am thinking it does not necessarily incorporate a homosexual defense mechanism.
If Rico is a sociopath (and there can be a very convincing argument made for that) I wonder how that reflects on his sexuality. Interesting, I think I would like to explore the subject of sociopathy and sexuality.
"I pranked him to death with a tire iron"
I personally don't know where I stand on this. I don't really think that Rico had homosexual desires for Joe, but it did seem in the bed scene (and the tuxedo scene following) that there was a bit of a homosexual undercurrent.
I am a proud believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.
>>> I don't really think that Rico had homosexual desires for Joe, but it did seem in the bed scene (and the tuxedo scene following) that there was a bit of a homosexual undercurrent.
Going through the several years of this argument I think everybody is simply forgetting to adjust for the context of the time.
For example the bed scene: The characters were two American-Italians. During the time frame they would have grown up the large Italian family was a stereotype. Oversized families squeezed together in a small lower-income house or tenement. Boys sharing beds with their brothers would have been an ordinary and unremarkable fact of life. Carried over to their adult situation it simply shows they are close enough as friends and and gang colleagues to be "almost" family so they can be comfortable around each other.
The clothing scene: Form follows function. How else would Otero be situated if he is helping Rico dress? That's not the look of love he gives Rico, that's undisguised admiration. Anybody can be a gangster but not many have the intelligence and ruthlessness to be a successful gang leader. And the monkey suit he has put on his boss shows Otero that his boss has just reached the highest levels. He's pleased and impressed Rico has made good, going from petty stickup man to running the rackets in the big town.
Bottom line, no pun intended, not a gay movie.
I love to think that this film taught two generations of little boys how gangsters talked. "Yeah you mugs, Yeahhhh".
Someone mentioned how Thomas Jackson was unlikeable here. I disagree, this in fact is the only movie of his I've seen he actually is likeable. The other films I've seen always have him as a clueless foil being made to look foolish in a comic situation, or the corrupt no-good as in Manhattan Melodrama. I guess that would have made Jackson the last guy Dillinger saw gunned down, at least until he left the theater.
mousalope - good post, well said...and I agree.
I too, do not perceive Rico's character with homosexual overtones.
A lot of mainstream characters from that age were similar in that they never seemed to show any attraction to females. A good example is Hopalong Cassidy, who *never* got the girl, nor was he ever inclined to persue one. Does this make him gay? Nope.
Rico's one true love was power. He also had this pathological philosophy related to "gang loyalty". No one quits, ever...for two reasons:
1- Rico views the bonds of the gang in a very serious manner, the gang is his family basically, and no one betrays family...unless of course it's in the advancement of power. It's this weird juxtaposition...if "you're through" you have to leave the gang or be carried out. But if you want to quit, that's forbidden.
2- Another reason no one quits would be that gang members "know too much". If you're not active in the gang, you're a security risk.
Personally I didn't think any of the characters were gay in the film, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.
Nobody can ever know what the intent of the director and writer was but looking at all the mob boss characters in film i assume that most of them in real life are like the sopranos where in addition to a wife you have a steady girl fiend and lots of quickie sex in the side. You see the same thing in Good fellas.
These are men with an appetite for sex, booze and women and anything gay would not be tolerated. So to have a character who doesn't like women or booze is unusual!
It does imply that Rico is different. Take that where you want.
The issue of Rico's sexuality makes this film more interesting and it is a great film. No reason for people to get bent out of shape at the suggestion that Rico might be gay.
I can see how one could read into Rico's character that way, but it's the absence of character development that leaves it in question if the viewer wants to over-analyze the film. There is zero backstory on all the characters, and the subtler moments with Joe or Otero simply serve to show Rico's faculty for friendship and loyalty to better establish him as a tragic figure. If he was heartless, what would we care?
He is gay or he isn't doesn't make the story better or worse. Rico was into fame and money, and he wouldn't let booze knock him off course, about the furthest leap you could make is he felt the same about sex, with women or men. None of the main characters aside from Joe were shown with women- there was only one female character - were they all gay? An actual gay mafia? The film isn't nuanced enough to include any subtext as in Rico being gay.
Yes. and the vehemence with which he demands Joe Massarra abandon his girlfriend. way over the top.
shareIn this entire thread, only one person alluded to content from the film's source material: the novel, "Little Caesar" by W. R. Burnett. I read the book when I was a teenager. For all the world to read, Burnett calls Otero a "fruit". Burnett did not call Rico a "fruit" nor spelled any homosexuality in Rico but the novel offers more backstory on Rico than the film does. The implication I got was that the camaraderie that gangsters could afford each other was a place where Rico could be himself and emotionally safe in overcoming his impoverished and dysfunctional family relationship. One could say he repressed homosexuality but Rico repressed almost everything in his quest to be head of the Chicago underworld. So, Rico would not be asexual as much as a man highly driven to succeed at all costs. To do that, he fell away from activities he felt would undermine that achievement: liquor and sex.
Gentlemen and ladies, let's also not be naïve about the extent of homosexuality in 1920's and 1930's America, especially in realms that people of that era would've called "manly" (where did people get the idea that gay men were not masculine? Such are the vagaries of the human mind! Does anyone realize that gangsters controlled gay bars in the United States. It was not unheard of for gangsters to indulge in gay sex but, because of homophobia, they kept that secret while also having sex with women and with their wives. One or two of the gangsters that owned the Stonewall Inn, site of the riots that sparked the gay liberation movement were sexually involved with some of the regular patrons of the bar. The gay tailor character in "The Public Enemy" did not appear in that film out of thin air. Screenwriters of the early sound period put in gay characters in films with New York or Chicago settings because such gay characters would've been part of scene, even the underworld, in those cities in the late '20's/early '30's. Scotty Bowers ,author of "Full Service", he wrote about how he had been one of many young men who were used as prostitutes by several of Chicago's gangsters and priests. No one would have admitted to such a thing at the time but that is not to say such same-sex sexual relations did not exist. Reading this thread, I'm still surprised by the extent of homophobia in the United States. What are homophobes so afraid of and repelled by?
[deleted]
I don't think Rico or Massara are gay, but Otero does seem to be a bit more obsessed with Rico than can be explained by normal straight male bonding.
It is, or was normal for someone being fitted for clothes to stand on a stool or pedestal. It doesn't signify anything.