MovieChat Forums > Bringing Up Baby (1938) Discussion > Once Again, the Usage of the Word 'Gay'

Once Again, the Usage of the Word 'Gay'


I fail to understand the controversy surrounding Grant's usage of this word. The word "gay" HAS in fact been used to imply homosexuality since the turn of the century. This is a quote directly from dictionary.com:

"In addition to its original and continuing senses of “merry, lively” and “bright or showy,” gay has had various senses dealing with sexual conduct since the 17th century. A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer, a gay house a brothel. This sexual world included homosexuals too, and gay as an adjective meaning “homosexual” goes back at least to the early 1900s. After World War II, as social attitudes toward sexuality began to change, gay was applied openly by homosexuals to themselves, first as an adjective and later as a noun. Today, the noun often designates only a male homosexual: gays and lesbians. The word has ceased to be slang and is not used disparagingly. Homosexual as a noun is sometimes used only in reference to a male."

Although wikipedia may have questionable accuracy at times, it also references Bringing Up Baby as one of the first films to use the word in this context. (Here is the address, in case you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bringing_Up_Baby#Usage_of_the_Word_.22Gay.22)

After reading previous discussions on this topic, I have no doubt that I will be thoroughly flamed for posting this, however, it seems clear to me based on the way the joke was stated, its circumstances, and the history of the word, exactly what was being implied. It's a fairly irrelevant discussion; the movie is extremely enjoyable without an added level of controversy.

reply

You're right. I had once heard that this is one of the first films to use the word "gay" in reference to homosexuality. Interesting, yes, but as you said, fairly irrelevant.

reply

I do not in any way think that the use of the word to mean homosexual was or is at all a detraction from the story or film, but it was a revolutionary move. It is only through constant exposure to ideas and things that are different from what we are used to that we will progress as a society and at that time speaking of homosexuality was not common in film and it is a step forward toward acceptance that was not there before. Sorry for the rant...I did love the movie.

Dre: That money's got blood on it, man.
Fallon: You ever seen any that didn't?

reply

acrylica, if what you're supposing were true, can you opine how the gay reference got past the myriad of writers,directors, and dialogue/script/production assistants/copywriters for the countless productions of all kinds in which it was used in its traditional sense for all those years after BUB? You're implying that the most culturally aware of the time had no idea of what wiki now wants you to believe was common traffic. Impossible.

reply

The word 'gay' was in common usage in its traditional sense at the time,and for many years after, and interpreting it that way makes perfect sense in the context of the joke and the film. There's absolutely no evidence that it was a covert or overt homosexual reference. It's just wishful thinking on the part of gay film fans.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Looks like acrylica might be one of normie's names when he "dresses up".

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Don't forget the chances of it making it past the censors.

reply

Yes, I can supply my opinion, although it is just an opinion. My answer is twofold.

First of all, context is important here. To use blasphemy as an example, a person may say Jesus, or god in a referential context, for instance: "Many people in the world today believe in Jesus Christ." This is considered to be an innocuous and inoffensive usage of this term. However, if I were to shout "Jesus Christ!" on television, I would be censored, because in this context the phrase is blasphemous. This interpretation is based entirely on the inflection and circumstances of the statement. I submit to your consideration that people are, for the most part, intelligent enough to understand context.

The second thing that I would like to point out is that although during the time of the Hays Code it was difficult to get away with things that were overt (although people still got innuendo and private jokes in), an examination of the history of film prior to the implementation of the code would reveal some eyebrow raising things. Nudity (for example, in 1934's Tarzan and His Mate), swearing, drinking, and "trashy" behavior were depicted on screen during the Jazz age much more frequently than many people suppose. In animation, Betty Boop, and the films that were made by Tex Avery (such as Red Hot Riding Hood) were just a couple of examples of the amusing and adult lengths that film makers were permitted to take a joke.

The Independent Film Channel is currently airing a wonderful four part miniseries on the history of sexuality in films. Last night, the segment on censorship was aired. I strongly recommend this if you're interested in more information on this topic. Here is the website with more information: (WARNING, partial nudity) http://www.ifc.com/static/sections/indiesex/series.html

reply

Is a joke a joke if there's no one to "get it"? That's the case in this instance. No matter how much gay revisionists would like it to be so, the word had no such meaning to 99.99% of it's potential audience. For those who understood the word in its usual sense its use conveyed a moment of giddy silliness. This is a no-brainer. A line is a precious piece of work never intentionally wasted on the few.

Of course, this is not really about a word, it's about making Cary Grant gay. I've yet to see an attribution in this space for an author of the line. Was it Hagar Wilde? Dudley Nichols? Howard Hawks? Did Hollywood routinely insert wink and a nod lines aimed at infinitesimal subsets of its audience?

reply

I completely agree that most people in the audience would not get this joke at the time that it was filmed, although I do disagree that jokes and lines are never "wasted on the few." Many films are full of discrete references to things that are not intended to be caught by the majority of audiences. Easter eggs and hidden implications are things that movie buffs spend a lot of time finding and debating. The films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are loaded with subtle references to other films, cultural events, and music that are not mainstream at all. Most audience members do not catch these references, but that does not mean that they were wasted. It just means that the majority of the audience was able to enjoy the movie without needing to understand the reference, and that the people who did got to enjoy an added dimension.

The line was ad-libbed by Cary Grant. I am not trying to make him out to be gay, just stating the source of the line. I don't know enough about Grant to make an assertion one way or another about that idea, and frankly, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest whether he was gay or not.

The answer to your last question is an emphatic yes. The documentary that I referenced in my previous post really goes into quite a lot of detail on the subject. I strongly recommend watching it, and the other parts of the series. As I said earlier, a subtle reference in movies isn't wasted on the few if it doesn't detract from the rest of the audience's enjoyment, and with this knowledge in hand, I think that Hollywood (and other artists, both visual and literary) indulge in jokes, commentary, and innuendo that may not be accessible to everyone, but that don't hurt the people who are not in on it.

As a side note, I would like to point out that I am not a gay revisionist. I'm a straight 23 year old female film student, and I don't have an agenda on this subject. I'm really enjoying the discussion, and hope that people can calmly and dispassionately debate an idea like this without getting upset or aggressive. Even if I'm wrong, which is a possibility that I am completely open to, I think it's fun to talk about. Thanks for your input on the subject, whether you agree with me or not.

reply

Acrylica, if you're not a gay revisionist, you're a tool of them, and I say that with kindness. Do an IMDB Title search for "Gay" and you'll get 100's of results dating to decades before BUB and to decades after.

So why this film? Why not The Gay..Deception, Desperado, Parisian, Shoe Clerk, Falcon, Sisters, Bride, Ranchero, Adventurer, Amigo, Anties, Diplomat, Dog, or Gaucho or dozens of other titles?

In the most homophobic era of film history why weren't the producers of these films warned off of the word? How could so many hundreds of film executives, many of them gay, fail to grasp the 2nd meaning of the word?

The answer is, of course, that it's Cary Grant that just has to be gay. It's Cary Grant on whom so many gay culturists have made their livings. And it's Cary Grant who's the sharpest stick in the eye to the straight world.

What if that line had been uttered by, say, Ralph Bellamy or any other actor? Do we have a thread? No way.

reply

It's 2012. Perhaps by now you've accepted that the line is a sly evasion of the censors. To "go gay" means to do what, exactly, in your world?

Perhaps the cross-dresser and gay communities should be debating this, but not those who play at being hetero by taking pot-shots at gay-friendly comments.

reply

Oh come on, Grant's character says he feels gay while wearing a woman's fluffy robe. It's obviously a case of double meaning. It got past the censors because it can be "read" as gay as in happy, but of course Hawks craftily put it in there on purpose. He also has Grant dress up as a woman in his film "I Was a Male War Bride"... not to mention calling him a war bride! Gender bending was a part of Hawks' films. I seriously seriously doubt he didn't know what he was doing by using the word "gay" in Bringing Up Baby.

reply

Your use of 'gender bending' to describe the cross-dressing phenomenon of mid-20th century entertainment is off the mark.
Berle, Wynn, Gleason, Lewis, Lucille Ball and Skelton all did it on TV and it was lapped up. No sexual overtones at all! The audiences thought it was hilarious.

That we're dumbstruck at the sense of humor that would find hilarity in prancing men in dresses doesn't mean that more sinister motives were in play. They thought it was funny!

Though I was a child at the time I saw the TV stuff, it wasn't hard to see that it was employed for cheap laughs; just like the faked 'breaking up' of a comedian wary of his own material. Definitely not the best use of winks or nods at 'gay' life.

reply

Ok, so gender bending maybe wasn't the best way to put it... but it is gender reversal.

I know of course it's for comedic effect. I'm not sure why it having to do with homosexuals would make it "sinister"!

Anyway, I'm just saying that Cary Grant exclaiming "Because I just went GAY, all of a sudden" in reply to why he is wearing a woman's robe obviously does not mean he just went happy all of a sudden... doesn't make sense.

reply

'...doesn't make sense.' That's exactly what we can infer, it's nonsense. Nothing more than that. And I used sinister only to differentiate that skit from the very many overt references to homosexuality we can find in classic film. This was not one of them.

reply

[deleted]

Of course its makes sense in the traditional meaning. Gay meant happy, light, frivilous. A man dressing in a frilly woman's robe is just that: gay. There is no reason to add a second meaning to what is a straight forward visual joke with an aside by Grant to top off the joke. I've read that Grant adlibbed the line and I can believe it.

reply

[deleted]

I think they meant gay-- like homosexual.
Because I just went happy all of a sudden DOESNT MAKE FREAKIN SENSE!

End of story.

But why are you wearing *these* clothes?
Because I just went gay all of a sudden!

reply

Of course it makes sense in the tradtional meaning of the word gay. Even assuming somehow 'gay' was used by the so-called homosexual underground at the time, the vast majority of film goers would only know the word in its traditional sense. And clearly it is funny in that sense. There's absolutely no evidence that the film makers, including Grant, intended it to have any other meaning other than the traditional usage of the word 'gay'. Men dressing as women is a time honored comedic effect. The joke is a visual joke. The line is just a throw away.

reply

God, you're back on this AGAIN? Yes, the joke works with the "traditional" usage of "gay." Thank you for repeating that 700 times.

But is it AS funny?

And why are you so caught up in intentionality? (Beyond your obvious anti-gay "agenda"?) It doesn't matter if it was intended or not. If there was the potential for some people to read it in a certain way, then that is a valid interpretation, no? Are movies made for the audience, or for the filmmaker?

Just how DID you get to be the bearer of the ultimate TRUTH? That must have been exhausting.

reply

The only reason that post 60s viewers think the joke is a hidden homosexual joke is because coincidentally Grant used a word which several decades later was used to designate someone as being homosexual. At the time, no one in the film audience would consider it to be a joke about homosexuals. The word 'gay' was in general use in its traditional sense. That's just a fact. It is not a valid interpretation to claim that this is a hidden homosexual joke. That's clear and obvious unless you are determined to take the film out of its historical context, which clearly you are.

reply

Wow, this is quite a thread. One of the longest running I've seen on imdb.

Probably no point, but just in case someone cares, I agree with Lysandra. There is no reason to think that anyone in the audience would have interpreted gay as homosexual. "Gay" was a very common ordinary word that meant lighthearted fun, maybe a little silly. It may be hard for some to believe, but homosexuality was not an issue at all; it was not a topic hardly ever thought of, certainly never spoken of, by the vast vast majority of Americans.

reply

lewis-51 wrote:

There is no reason to think that anyone in the audience would have interpreted gay as homosexual.
You don't think that homosexuals went to the movies in the 30s? They would have understood the reference."Gay" was well-established in the homosexual community at the time, and it was used both as a code word to determine if someone else was homosexual, and by the fairies, the extremely effeminate men, of their lifestyle. Grant is not saying, "Because I just became a homosexual." He is saying, "Because I just became a fairy," when he is asked why he is wearing female clothing. He accompanies this with a gesture typical of fairies.See the thread started by tripleattackgrrl for extensive documentation. See particularly her initial post and my later posts.Most people did not get it. The censors did not get it. The homosexuals did, and people who were familiar with their jargon did. It was an in-group joke. Movies are full of them. Part of the pleasure was doubtless slipping something past the censors._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

[deleted]

Lysandra_Yaxley wrote:

Homosexuals were called queers in the 30s
And other things. The fairies use the word "gay" to describe themselves, and "the Gay Life" to describe their lifestyle.We have been through all of this before, but let me repost this for the benefit of other people interested in this thread. They can make up their own mind which of us is making a silly claim.
But [gay] did not simply mean "homosexual," either. For all the boys, the "gay life" referred as well to the flamboyance in dress and speech associated with the fairies.Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 by George Chauncey. Page 17. And Cary Grant's famous line in the 1938 film Bringing Up Baby played on several of these meanings: he leapt into the air, flounced his arms, and shrieked "I just went gay all of a sudden," not because he had fallen in love with a man, but because he was asked why he had put on a woman's nightgown. The possibility of a more precise sexual meaning would not have been lost on anyone familiar with fairy stereotypes.Ibid. Page 18.amazon.com/Gay-New-York-Culture-1890-1940/dp/0465026214/ref=cm_cr_pr_p roduct_top
Right after the "went gay" line, comes this exchange:
Mrs. Random: What are you doing? David Huxley: I'm just sitting in the middle of 42nd Street waiting for a bus.
In a footnote, Chauncey explains that, when the film was made, 42nd Street was the primary cruising area for the city's male prostitutes, including transvestite prostitutes.imdb.com/title/tt0029947/board/inline/110327077?d=192800223#192800223 and following.You still have not fixed your post in which you directly quoted a long article without any indication that it was not your own work.imdb.com/name/nm0000031/board/flat/197285927?d=197353198#197353198_______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

[deleted]

As pointed out, it probably can work in both ways, sort of - although it´s undeniably a very ´lame´ joke without any homosexual overtones. And it also appears Hawks & Co were very likely aware of the "alternative" meaning of the word. Whether or not it might have anything to do with the speculated sexual orientation of Cary Grant the actor, is a different matter altogether though.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply





What IS indicative of a gay joke is the word "gay" coming from an actor who did, regardless of what you claim, have rumors swirling about him while wearing a frilly nightdress.

Thanks for making that clear dmatt. It is indeed about your obsession with Grant. No need then to prattle on about dictionary.com or wiki or regurgitate some trash from Marc Eliot. You need him to be gay? He's gay. Happy now? Valid now? Mahvelous.


reply

[deleted]

Ok, ignore the people that insist Cary Grant was gay.
Ignore some sort of "gay revisionists like to think it's gay".
Ignore the people that mention those things, because the conversation isn't about that. The conversation is about that the line makes less sense as "happy" or "frivolous". Maybe a lot of people interpreted that way, but as Plymouth said, he "went gay" and also he's wearing WOMEN'S CLOTHING. There's now way that they just missed a referenced that had been floating around the gay community for over 10 years, especially in Hollywood.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay

The idea that Cary Grant could be gay is completely irrelevant. I don't even have an opinion on the subject. I also don't care what the social impact or whatever is. Regardless, it was intended as a gay joke, end of story. Even better, there's nothing controversial about it. Maybe it could be potentially controversial back then, but not enough people noticed. Either way, he made a joke that sometimes gay people where flamboyant, frilly, women's bathrobes. Wow, you know what? Some gay men do that. I dont' see any controversy.

www.thecinemasource.com
Free DVD giveaways, movie reviews, and advance screenings.

reply

I'm not even sure I understand that response.

Ok, let's try this. More relevant than my "obsession" with Grant (because I agree that Grant's sexuality is more or less beside the point) would be an understanding of the films of Howard Hawks, which often feature extreme male-bonding, which is often read as homosocial behavior (homosexuality without the sex--in other words, the proposal that male relationships are the most lasting and important). Molly Haskell noted this about Hawks's films many years ago.

But let's get this straight--Hawks was no pro-homosexual crusader. He simply liked, like many directors/writers working from the 1920s until now, to make jokes and create situations in his films (subtle and otherwise) that turn on homosexuality/homoeroticism. (Sometimes these are very homophobic jokes, I might add.) See RED RIVER, THE BIG TREES, TODAY WE LIVE, SCARFACE, etc.

So relax, anti-gay crusaders. You needn't feel threatened. Your homophobia and narrow-mindedness can remain unchallenged.

reply

Haha, my response wasn't terribly understandable. I came into this thread looking for some insight to whether the joke was actually meant as a joke about him being dressed in a woman's robe in the film and the stereotype of gay men as crossdressers. Instead I got a bunch of people arguing things completely off-topic about Cary Grant's sexuality and accusations of some kind of gay conspiracy to turn our beloved classics into celebrations of homosexuality.

So I went into a rant about how everyone was an idiot and I didn't understand why the only topical arguments involved unreferenced banter of "Audiences wouldn't understand that gay meant that back then!" "Yes they would!", which would eventually digress into "Cary Grant wasn't gay. It's offensive that gays keep treating this movie as a gay movie" because of one line where he said "I suddenly went gay." (or whatever the exact wording was).

Either way, thank you for intelligent insight into this. I've been curious about that.

www.thecinemasource.com
Free DVD giveaways, movie reviews, and advance screenings.

reply

Oops. I didn't mean your response didn't make any sense. I meant to reply to joes119 (or whatever that name was). Your response was perfectly understandable (and I agree with you).

reply

Oh thanks. Yea, I wasn't sure what he meant either.

I'd understand if mine didn't make sense though. There were a few typos and skipped words and redundant words and stuff that comes from lack of proofreading.

The important thing here is that we clearly agree, haha.



www.thecinemasource.com
Free DVD giveaways, movie reviews, and advance screenings.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Again, let's look at this grammatically, without the word 'gay'.
Please, just READ the sentences, below, and choose which sentence sounds more grammatically correct.

I just went 'queer'...all of a sudden?

I just went 'happy'...all of a sudden?


You can't argue which one sounds more appropriate, in the grammatical sense. You know if you were in an English class and it was a test question, worth 20 points on the test, which one you would choose.

That is the point that quite a few of the previous posters have been trying to explain. That the second one doesn't make sense in the context of how it was stated.

If it was meant to have been 'happy' the word 'went' would have been 'felt'.

Being it has been stated time in and time out that CG ad-libbed the line, he was too intelligent to have said it incorrectly. Also, the writers whom wrote most of the other dialogue would not have erred this way, either.

It was a GAY (in the so called modern sense of the word) joke. Haven't you ever heard a GAY joke before? You've probably been the one to tell them on more than one occassion. Just because the line meant something doesn't imply that the character was implying he was gay, nor does it mean the actor was implying he was gay. IT WAS A SARCASTIC REPLY TO WHAT WAS PERCEIVED AS A DUMB QUESTION! Or don't you naysayers know what sarcasm is? I believe sarcasm falls on deaf ears and hard heads. I've gone through these boards and, next to the 'who was gay' and 'religious' arguments, the next largest disagreements occur in movies and of qoutes that relate in sarcasm. I never thought one had to be intelligent to get sarcasm, but maybe I've been wrong in assuming that if I get it, so will the next person.




reply

More likely that 'I just went queer all of a sudden' would have meant felt dizzy or faint. Sorry, your arguments still fail.

reply

boxerrebellion wrote:

More likely that 'I just went queer [sic] all of a sudden' would have meant felt dizzy or faint.
So, when Grant is asked why he is wearing female clothing, he jumps into the air, flounces his arms, and shrieks, "I just feel faint (or dizzy) all of a sudden." Really.
Mrs. Random: But why are you wearing *these* clothes?David Huxley: Because I just went gay all of a sudden!
What Grant is saying is, "I am wearing a negligee because I just became a fairy."
Sorry, your arguments still fail.
See New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940 by George Chauncey. Particularly, pages 17 and 18 and Chapter 7, footnote 38 on page 421.boxerrebellion wrote:
Don't forget the chances of it making it past the censors.
"Gay" was only used with homosexual implications inside the gay community at that time. Only gay censors, or others who associated with gays, would have recognized the implications, and they were unlikely to say anything.Grant, having worked in musicals in New York, was certainly familiar with the usage. For easy markup in Firefox & Opera, see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

reply

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029947/board/thread/85586425?d=147792759# 147792759

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

reply

The word has ceased to be slang and is not used disparagingly.

Obviously, the wiki-author has not been in a Middle or High School recently.

reply