I'm not sure if this is all correct, but considering my professor had tought the field for a while, I'm going with him on this one.
After watching "Bringing up Baby," my college professor said that the word "gay" used in the film is actually describing homosexuals. Firstly, many people have pointed out that "gay" came to be a popular term in order to describe homosexuals in the 1960s, but according to my professor, the Los Angeles area (which had quite a few homosexuals at the time, especially in hollywood) used the word gay even before it became the popular way to term homosexuals. Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, he also said that it was an improvisation by Cary Grant and Grant, being a hollywood star, knew the term gay from people he met in hollywood. Thirdly, it passed by the censors because many who headed the censorship board thought the word gay meant happy, which was commonly the case at that time. It was kind of like an inside joke I suppose...
My professor also told us some interesting trivia like how the writers actually had a wild, homosexual love affair while they worked together on the film... Well anyways, I hope that helps the debate...
Well, hmm, that's a lot of replies haha. I admit, I don't know much, but if you actually read my post, you'd understand that my professor told me that many Hollywood Homosexuals used the term Gay. It was sort of an inside joke which only a select Hollywood crowd knew about which included Cary Grant.
Now, I must've misheard or something when my professor talked about the "wild, homosexual love affair" between the writers, but remember, this is all what my professor told me.
You clearly have your mind made up, so evidence is not likely to sway you. But for others who might read this, a trip to the dictionary establishes that the word "gay" has been used to describe homosexual men since well before the 1960s. Your not having heard that usage in the 1960s: does not count as evidence.
From the Oxford American Dictionary: USAGE Gay meaning ‘homosexual,’ dating back to the 1930s (if not earlier), became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world.
From the Oxford English Dictionary: 1935 N. ERSINE Underworld & Prison Slang 39 Geycat,..a homosexual boy. 1951 E. LAMBERT Sleeping-House Party vii. 74 In a way it was an odd threesome. It occurred to me that Esther rather hung round our two gay boys. 1955 P. WILDEBLOOD Against Law I. 23 Most of the officers at the station had been ‘gay’..an American euphemism for homosexual.
The conemporary usage probably derives from a meaning of the word that goes back at least to the 17th century: 2. a. Addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose or immoral life.
It's probable that gay men by the 1930s had embraced the disparaging term and made it their own, as contemporary homosexual men and women have done with the word "queer."
As to whether Grant was bisexual -- he clearly was not exclusively gay if you accept the assertions of former wives Betsy Drake and Barbara Harris, and there is no reason not to -- the preponderance of Hollywood gossip in the 1930s indicates that he was. Reports and correspondence in studio files assert that he had affairs with men, dating back at least to an early, intense affair with designer Orry-Kelly. I see no reason, apart from homophobia, to absolutely deny these accounts, but we obviously are not likely to get any more testimony from men who claim to have had sex with him. If one needs photographic proof to believe it, then he will never believe it. But it is notable that some people seem to have a great deal invested in denying it. Not surprising. My sister has a friend who still refuses to entertain the idea that Liberace was gay.
Where to begin? Well, your post is rubbish. Some obscure entries in a dictionary doesn't prove a general use of a word even among a small subset of people. "Probable" doesn't translate into truth. If 'gay' was in general use among homosexuals in the 1930s it would have been know then. There's absolutely no evidence that it was.
There's no evidence that Cary Grant engaged in homesexual acts. You have provided no evidence. What "preponderance of Hollywood gossip" can you document? Where are the "Reports and correspondence in studio files"? There are no accounts to deny since they don't exist. And who the H are you? One post in 7 years?
Neither of you will ever prove this thing one way or another but this is very entertaining. However, you seem to have degenerated into personal insults and name-calling. Try another subject.
Another first time poster. If you don't have anything to contribute, don't post.
Well, I haven't been here in a while and you haven't changed. Everyone here is bringing factual evidence to support their opinions and all you can say is "You're wrong. You're wrong. You're wrong." Yeah, I believe you over a college professor who spends their life researching this stuff. I think. . .you just can't cope with this. It's a tiny thing to accept.
Oh my god, the turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!
I've posted this on a Wikipedia talk page (I see that there is some confusion as to when the word 'gay' meaning 'homosexual' first came into use) so I'll post it here:
'Gay' as an adjective may have been used as far back as the 1500s in England's theaters for a young man or boy wearing the costume of a woman in a play ("send in the Gay"). A suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1637. The Oxford dictionary defines one of the seventeenth-century meanings for gay as "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations, often euphemistic: of immoral life." John Ayto in 20th Century Words calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by a U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays. Hugh Rawson in Wicked Words notes a male prostitute using 'gay' in reference to male homosexuals (but also to female prostitutes) in London's notorious Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889. The word 'gay' in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a 'gay house' was a brothel. Like "molly," which was originally slang for a female prostitute, "gay" may have been extended to describe male prostitutes or transvestites who often frequented the same neighborhoods (the "gay" quarters).
The term 'gey cat' (gey is a Scottish variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in American English for "young hobo," one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older, more experienced tramp, with catamite connotations (they formed protective, often sexual, alliances). But Josiah Flynt in Tramping With Tramps (1905) defines 'gay cat' as, "An amateur tramp who works when his begging courage fails him." Gey cats also were said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women. Gey cat, "homosexual boy," is attested in N. Erskine's 1933 dictionary of Underworld & Prison Slang.
Robert Chapman's The Dictionary of American Slang reports that 'gay' (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Donald Webster Cory writes in The Homosexual in America, "Psychoanalysts have informed me that their homosexual patients were calling themselves gay in the nineteen-twenties, and certainly by the nineteen-thirties it was the most common word in use by homosexuals themselves." About this time, English speakers began to use "gay" as a playful, double-entendre code word. An early example of this usage in print is Gertrude Stein's characteristically repetitive language in her short story "Miss Furr and Miss Skeene" (1922): "They were quite regularly gay there, Helen Furr and Georgine Skeene, they were regularly gay there when they were gay. They were very regularly gay."
'Gay' was first used to refer to a male homosexual in the book The Young and Evil which was co-authored by Charles Henri Ford and Parker Tyler and published by Obelisk Press in 1933. It depicts their life in Greenwich Village in 1930-31. It was one of the first novels that dealt with homosexual characters in a nonjudgmental way and was a cause celebre for a whole circle of bohemian modernists. Published in Paris, it was banned in both the United States and Great Britain and any copies found in the possession of travelers was seized by customs. It first appeared in the United States in 1960 as a reprint by Olympia Press.
New Yorkers were using 'gay' by 1939 as a alternative to 'queer,' 'pansy,' and 'fairy.' Gershon Legman & G.V. Henry mentioned the term in their book Sexual Variations (1941). In the 1940's, Lisa Ben could discreetly call her lesbian friends "gay pals" and her publication, Vice Versa, "America's gayest magazine," knowing that most heterosexuals would not grasp the full implication of the word. Similarly in 1951, Donald Webster Cory wrote that it was such an insiders' term that "an advertisement for a roommate can actually ask for a gay youth, but could not possibly call for a homosexual."
The term was also recorded in Australia in 1951, in which the term 'gay boy' was used. In Dr. Richard C. Robertiello's book Voyage from Lesbos (1959) he details the analysis of a lesbian patient named "Connie," Connie uses the world "gay" to describe a girl in one her dreams. The term "gay" did not become widely familiar to the general public, until the Stonewall riot in 1969 and became synonymous with a (usually male) homosexual in 1971 but by 1974 the word was expanded to mean both male and female homosexuals. In the 1980's many writers, ignoring the word's history, attacked the "new" usage as a corruption of a useful, "innocent" adjective.
books: According to Vito Russo in 'The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies,' the script actually had Dexter (Grant) saying "I. . . I suppose you think its odd, my wearing this. I realise it looks odd. . . I don't usually . . . I mean, I don't own one of these." However Grant ad-libbed his own line, "No. I've just gone gay . . . all of the sudden." pg. 47. Vito Russo had pointed out that this was an indication that people in Hollywood, at least in Grant's circles, were already familiar with the slang connotations of the word. 'Completely Queer: The Gay and Lesbian Encyclopedia' By Steve Hogan and Lee Hudson, pg. 229 'Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present' by Neil Miller, pgs. 358-359 'Gay American History: Lesbians & Gay Men in the U.S.A.' by Jonathan Ned Katz, pgs. 188-189
No one connected to the film ever said that it referred to homosexuality for the simple fact that the American movie industry went by the Hays code at that time and wasn't dropped until 1967. It was also not something that was talked about freely then. Of course Grant would have never said what it meant, as it has been speculated that he was at least bisexual. He may have not even have been questioned about it. So why would he ever proclaim that it did?
How do you know that no one involved in the film were gay or bisexual? Multiple sources confirm that the word "gay" meant homosexual as far back as the 1920s, as it was used as a code word among homosexuals and bisexuals of that time (unbeknowst to most heterosexuals). And Hollywood has for a long time been a hotbed for homosexuals. Accept *that* fact.
It seems that you will not accept this even if Cary Grant came back to life to tell you himself.
Cary Grant was not gay nor bisexual (although they are the same thing). He stated he wasn't. Why would he EVER consider even alluding to a gay sexual orientation? As we both will agree, Hollywood and the rest of the country was very homophobic at the time. The last thing someone like Cary Grant would want to do is make even a hidden joke about being a homosexual. By the way, Howard Hawks never said the joke had anything to do with gays nor did Kate Hepburn. I'm sure it would not even remotely cross any of their minds that it did. You are just totally off the mark.
Gay means homosexual, someone who only has an attraction to the same-sex. Bisexual is someone who has an attraction to BOTH sexes.
Of course, because of those times, he'd have never admitted to being bisexual. If he even was one. Although he was friendly to those who were homosexual or bisexual (either way, he'd have known what the code word "gay" meant). Whether he was or not will never be known. Only he knew, and he could have easily denied it (just like the many celebrities that later came out).
Even though the whole country at that time was homophobic, New York and Los Angeles both in particular were places that still had higher than average populations of bi and homosexual people.
And why would Hawks or Hepburn ever comment on such a small line in one of dozens of movies?
I find it astounding for you to have the uncanny ability to intimately know what someone's sexual orientation is (as if you could read someone's mind from the past). Of course he never made comments suggesting that he was gay, he simply ad-libbed a line that most likely referred to homosexuality. I'm sure he knew it was still a code word at the time, and the vast majority of heterosexuals who watched the film would not grasp the true meaning of it. And if they did suspicion it, most of those would have assumed that it was simply part of the script.
As far as Chevy Chase, he also made remarks to openly gay Terry Sweeney in 1985 on SNL. And why would Grant go so far as to sue? Perhaps Chase hit the right button.
Him and fellow actor Randolph Scott lived together for twelve years. George Cukor commented on the alleged homosexual relationship between Scott and Grant: "Oh, Cary won't talk about it. At most, he'll say they did some wonderful pictures together. But Randolph will admit it – to a friend." Grant also had many gay friends, including William Haines and Australian artist Orry-Kelly.
There is absolutely no reason for anyone connected with the making of Bringing Up Baby to make a gay joke. The joke makes perfect sense using the traditional definition of gay. It was funny to audiences of the day who didn't get the alleged gay references. It was funny to generations of people who don't get the alleged gay reference. I can't understand why you don't get that.
I don't know why Grant sued Chase. Do you figure that defending yourself against being slandered is a tacit admission? I certainly don't. I think maybe Grant was offended by Chase's comment.
Scott and Grant didn't live together for 12 years. Cukor never commented on the relationship between Grant and Scott. Your quote by Cukor is a fabrication. Your sources are crap, i.e. gay writers making things up.
<< Scott and Grant didn't live together for 12 years. Cukor never commented on the relationship between Grant and Scott. Your quote by Cukor is a fabrication. Your sources are crap, i.e. gay writers making things up. >>
Different sources state that Scott and Grant shared a beach house for twelve years. Even Scott's son in his book says this. How do you know that Cukor never commented on the relationship and that it was a fabrication?
I don't think Scott's son said that Scott and Grant shared a house for 12 years. Please provide the citation. Cukor didn't gossip about his friends. He was absolutely discreet. The writers who have been producing all these supposed quotes from him did so after he died. Who claimed that Cukor said that about Grant and Scott? Marc Elliot? He's totally not credible.
The beach house, which they named "Bachelor Hall," was mentioned in Christopher Scott's book 'Whatever Happened to Randolph Scott?' However Christopher Scott makes the argument that single actors could not share a house with a woman but could with another man.
Did he say they lived there for 12 years together? Not likely since they were both married at one time or another during those years. Scott's son also denies that his father was gay. Why don't you mention that. And, by the way, Scott's son is right about men and women living together out of wedlock. It wasn't done back then. Men could live with other men and women could live with women but not the opposite sex which is how people like you jump to the silly conclusion that same sex people living together were all gay. You should try to think in terms of how people lived then. Don't apply today's sensibilities to 70 years ago.
Numerous sources say that it was twelve years (even Scott's book I believe). Of course that does not automatically make them gay or bi, but it's just one of a number of peculiarities. And of course his son is going to deny that he was anything but heterosexual, that's a given. Whether or not either one was not heterosexual is not really my concern, but was rather the ab-libbed line in the movie, your uncanny ability to know certain things for a fact, and your refusal to accept anything besides your own opinion.
Claiming that someone is something they are not is defamation as in the case of claiming that someone is gay. You are, in fact, defaming these individuals. Since they are both dead, you can do so without any consequence.
Well, you presume that they weren't. I'm not so omniscient as you so happen to be, all I can say is that I don't know what they were nor do I care only that there were peculiarities that could certainly point to a certain conclusion.
You are making assertions about people based on no evidence at all. You are doing so because you have a vested interest in claiming that as many people as possible are/were gay.
Your evidence is that Grant and Scott were good friends and that at various times in their lives they shared a house. That's it. That is no credible evidence to prove that either was gay.
I have no "vested interest" in claiming that anyone is gay or bi. I've never said with certainty that either one of them were gay or bi, only that it was a possibility.
Anything is "possible" so what is your point? Both men said they were straight and you have no evidence otherwise. Why even raise the issue? What is your motive?
Why do you keep saying homosexuality and bisexuality are the same thing? I think many gay people who have absolutely no desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex would find that idea preposterous. Remember, "bi-" means "two".
Why wouldn't it make sense? Obviously that how the audiences of the day interpreted the joke. 'Gay' in its traditional sense was in common usage in the 1930s. The word would have been very familiar to the audiences in its traditional meaning of lively/happy, etc. Do you think the audiences of the day thought it was a joke about homosexuals given that even the proponents of that usage of the word agree that the general audience wouldn't have known that usage? They didn't think it was a joke about gays but they thought is was, indeed, a joke. Therefore, the joke stands on its own without regard to any alleged gay subtext. You are totally wrong.
You are making a small amount of progress. First we know that the movie audiences of the day didn't think it was a gay joke and I'm sure they laughed at it for obvious reasons. There is inherent humor in a man dressing like a woman, see e.g. Milton Berle. Even if Grant had said nothing, the point of the joke would have remained. He put on womens apparel. The next question is why would Cary Grant have any inclination to make a 'gay joke' knowing that the way he did the scene was completely comprehensible by the audiences of the day without any 'homosexual' subtext. We know that Grant wasn't gay himself. We know that the word 'gay' was in frequent, general use in its traditional sense. So for him to use the word in its traditional sense would be perfectly normal and unsurprising. Conclusion: There is absolutely no reason to believe that the use of the word 'gay' by him meant anything else other than 'gay' in its traditional sense.
I disagree. Notice he's in woman's clothes when he says it. So saying he's happy doesn't make a bit of sense. Saying he's gay DOES. AND the word was known back then. I think you're wrong.
'Gay' in the traditional sense means "full of or showing high-spirited merriment" The joke is that Grant has put on womens' clothing which is a time honored joke employed by many male comedians. 'Gay' in this instance means that he has taken on the high-spirited attributes of a woman. It doesn't mean that he is a homosexual. The joke makes perfect sense without any homosexual inference. We know this because the audiences of the day didn't understand it to be a joke about homosexuals since the word 'gay' to means homosexuals was not in general use. The joke works. I fail to understand why you can't get it. What do you think the audiences of the day were thinking when they laughed at the joke?
I think you're right. Grant probably improvised the line in such a way that the "in" crowd would know he meant 'homosexual,' but the squares would think he meant 'lively.' I do, however, think it's a bit offensive to equate gay men to wearing women's clothes, but I digress.
Since Grant wasn't gay and, as you point out dressing as a woman isn't gay, and because no one connected with the film said that the reference was an "in" joke, your conclusion is totally wrong. The word 'gay' as used in its traditional sense was a very common usage, The joke makes more sense with the traditional usage than trying to impose a homosexual subtect. There's absolutely no reason to conclude that Grant was making a homosexual joke.
Probably not from the song since it doesn't rhyme. What is your source? And why do you think gay means homosexual?
Incidentally, Cole Porter wrote the music for The Gay Divorcee which isn't about homosexuals at all. Apparently, he knew how to use the word in its non-homosexual sense. Presumably, he well knew that the word didn't mean homosexual.
So, if I understand your response, you say my quote probably isn't authentic even though you haven't checked, which would have been quite easy to do, and have no evidence to the contrary except your baseless questioning of its validity structurally as a song lyric even though I am quoting only a few lines, again, something it would have been very easy for you to check before insulting me with the terseness and baselessness of your dismissal, and besides, if it does turn out to be authentic, you will maintain that it doesn't mean what it clearly does mean, plus you bring up something totally irrelevant that I never said and use that as evidence contrary to my point.
Here's the complete original lyric, which can be found in more than one published compendium of Cole Porter lyrics and is included when the show for which it was written, Let's Face It, is performed, including on the occasion of the authentic historical recreation presented at the New York Historical Society in 2001. Note the rhymes. The alleged "gayness" of the bull (as if I have to explain this) is offered as the reason his cow companions have never produced calves.
No response you can possibly make to this post can disprove that, three years after Bringing Up Baby, Cole Porter used the word "gay" in the modern sense of "disinterested in sexual intercourse with the opposite sex (and all that implies)." Porter's use of the word elsewhere (including elsewhere in this same song) to mean "festive" doesn't alter its inarguable meaning in this context. This is not something that is subject to your delusional claims to the contrary.
FARMING (from the Broadway musical Let's Face It)
Here's a bit of news that's quite a shocker Proving Mother Nature still has charm, Quoting Mr. Cholly Knickerbocker, "Get in the swim and buy a farm." Acres of alfalfa, fields of clover Suddenly enchant our top "Who's Who," So the moment all this row is over What say if we go hayseed too? For
Farming, that's the fashion, Farming, that's the passion Of our great celebrities of today. Kit Cornell is shellin' peas, Lady Mendl's climbin' trees, Dear Mae West is at her best in the hay, Stomping through the thickets, Romping with the crickets, Make's 'em feel more glamorous and more gay, They tell me cows who are feeling milky All give cream when they're milked by Wilkie, Farming is so charming they all say.
Farming, that's the fashion, Farming, that's the passion Of our great celebrities of today. Monty Woolley, so I heard, Has boll weevils in his beard, Michael Strange has got the mange, will it stay? Mussing up the clover, Cussing when it's over, Makes 'em feel more glamorous and more gay. The natives think it's utterly utter When Margie Hart start churning her butter, Farming is so charming, they all say.
Farming, that's the fashion, Farming, that's the passion Of our great celebrities of today. Fannie Hurst is haulin' logs, Fannie Brice is feedin' hogs, Garbo-peep has led her sheep all astray, Singing while their rakin', Bringing home the bacon, Makes 'em feel more glamorous and more gay. Miss Elsa Maxwell, so the folks tattle, Got well-goosed while de-horning her cattle, Farming is so charming, they all say.
Farming, that's the fashion, Farming, that's the passion Of our great celebrities of today. Don't inquire of Georgie Raft Why his cow has never calfed, Georgie's bull is beautiful, but he's gay! Seeing spring a-coming, Being minus plumbing, Make 'em feel informal and degage. When Cliff Odets found a new tomater He ploughed under the Group Theyater, Farming is so charming, they all say.
Farming, that's the fashion, Farming, that's the passion Of our great celebrites of today. Steinbeck's growing Grapes of Wrath, Guy Lombardo, rumor hath, Toots his horn and all the corn starts to sway, Racing like the dickens, Chasing after chickens, Makes 'em feel more glamorous and more gay, Liz Whitney has, on her bin of manure, a Clip designed by the Duke of Verdura, Farming is so charming, they all say.
"Make's 'em feel more glamorous and more gay" That doesn't mean more glamorous and more homosexual. The use later in the song obviously refers back to this line. Gay means gay in the traditional sense. And, of course, this has nothing to do with Bringing Up Baby whose use of the word 'gay' is completely comprehensible within the context of the original usage of the word. Try again.
Porter's use of the word elsewhere (including elsewhere in this same song) to mean "festive" doesn't alter its inarguable meaning in this context.
so you made your facile insult for nothing. The George Raft line only makes sense with the modern meaning of the word.
And where's your apology for dismissing the quote as inauthentic?
Some people enter a discussion to discover the truth, other people enter a discussion to hold on to their preconceived views at all costs in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Discussion with the latter type of person is futile. Goodbye.
“Maybe we're not supposed to sleep so well"
reply share
The earliest reference to "gay" meaning homosexual in the Oxford English Dictionary is from a book on "underworld and prison slang" written in 1935. So it's certainly possible that the term was being used in that sense in the film.
I came across this amusing stream while looking up Bringing up Baby. I am amazed at how much time, tact and patience some posters had in trying to provide fact-based information to you, Lysandra. I also found the research on the derivation of the term 'gay' to be quite interesting.
In turn you were rude, obstinate and condescending. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would try to debate with someone as uncivil and obtuse as yourself.
And now I'm sure you can dismiss me as a first time poster, with an ax to grind. Rest assured I have better things to do than respond to an criticisms you direct at me.
There has been no "fact based" information provided. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone connected with the film intended this to be a homosexual joke.
I didn't take the time to read more than 35 of the posts above due to the tiresome bickering about Grant's sexual orientation, but has anyone seen
WEST SIDE STORY?
There's your answer. It is a WOMAN singing, "I feel pretty and witty and *GAY*," in the "happy, cheerful, pleasant" sense. And that was in 1961, many years after Bringing Up Baby.
See my previous post regarding the use of "GAY" as a term for "elated, cheerful, etc." in WEST SIDE STORY (used by a woman, made in 1961 -- 23 years after Bringing Up Baby) but I need to add that I am a college professor and it is appalling that your professor gave you such garbage.
I will add Cary Grant was not gay, he had been married several times to women, I think married at least four times, he had one daughter. He had in late seventies sued an hollywood magazine for spreading these rumors and won in count for slander.
I asked my great uncle, who is gay at the ripe old age of 86 about this quandry, and he told me this: When he came out in the gay community sometime in 1940, he said the word gay carried homosexual connotations and that a lot of people, even those not participating in alternative lifestyles, knew about its dual meaning. I admit he is just a senile old man, but he swears that he had heard gay with its alternative meaning before 1940. When he saw the movie the first time he didn't remember how he interpreted that line. However, upon further veiwings, it is his belief that Mr. Grant was not simply referring to how hapy he was... I know my great uncle does not hold the authority of wikipedia or even that foul mouthed poster who seems to have nothing better to do but post 100's of replies here, but he deffinately has been in the game longer than most of you (I am assuming), and since he is the closest we have to an eyewitness, I suggest we respect this and move on with our lives! However, if any of you were members of the gay community rior to 1940, I welcome you to prove me wrong.
Now, lets gang up on James Dean or Errol Flynn. I heard one of them might be gay...
Being married 4 times leads me to think that perhaps it wasn't women who satisfied his needs. Perhaps he was bisexual. His living arrangements with Randolph Scott seemed a little more than that of convenience. My bottom line is this.....who really cares, why spend so much time arguing it? No one will ever know for sure, and does it really matter in the whole scheme of things?
Cary Grant is my all time favorite actor. I have most of his movies. I watched Bringing up Baby again last night. I have to say when I first saw the movie and the scene where he says he's suddenly turned gay, I took it to mean "free spirited, loosened up". I guess I wasn't aware that the word gay was used in connection with a homosexual in the 30's. Well, the joke made me laugh and I think it would make anyone laugh no matter which way it was taken?
I didn't know much about Cary Grant's life until I saw a documentary included on a disc with my copy of Bringing Up Baby. This is where I learned he shared a mansion with Randolph Scott. Needless to say, I loss no sleep last night over it, and I still find Cary Grant charming, funny, intellegent and easy on the eye.
Think about it. The "professor" assumed that Haggar Wilde was a man and then invented, out of whole cloth, a "wild homosexual love affair" between the writers, a man and a woman. Total intellectual dishonesty and with an apparent gay agenda.
"Grant was the first actor to use the word "gay" (meaning homosexual) on screen, in an ad-lib during a take for Bringing Up Baby (1938), that was kept in the film. Its meaning was not fully grasped by censors and so it slipped by the Hays code. In the scene Grant appears in a pink dressing gown, telling an incredulous observer, "Because I just went gay, all of the sudden!" The script initially had Grant saying, "I suppose you think it's odd, my wearing this. I realise it looks odd. I don't usually ... I mean, I don't own one of these." However Grant ad-libbed with a line of his own."
Now I know you like the idea of your Cary Grant having nothing to do with homosexuality. And I know that you're convinced most people wouldn't understand "gay" in this sense. But that is the extent of Grant's dry wit. Come on. Give it a rest now.
Dressing up as a woman isn't being a homosexual. They are two different things. There's a long comedic tradition of men wearing women's clothing. See, for example, Milton Berle. Or do you think Berle dressing as a woman was a homosexual joke? Please respond to this question.
I fail to see how you and the rest of the intellectually challenged around here don't get the distinction. The joke works perfectly well without any homosexual connotation. Do you think that audiences of the day thought it was a homosexual joke? (The answer to that qustion is no.) Do you think they thought seeing Cary dress as a woman was funny? (The answer to that question is yes.)
You didn't answer my question about Milton Berle. Answer the question.
David, in the film, is frustrated with the way he is being run around by Susan. He ends up putting on a woman's robe because she's taken his. His charater is a stodgy professor. Dressing in the robe is out of character for him. The joke is that he's turned gay as in happpy/carefree unlike his usual serious self. It's meant to be a sarcastic comment in the context of the scene which is funny. The comedic element of cross-dressing adds to the humor. Answer my question about Berle.
I'm surprised no one has commented on the Cole Porter song lyrics as given above in the full text.
Don't inquire of Georgie Raft Why his cow has never calfed, Georgie's bull is beautiful, but he's gay! Seeing spring a-coming, Being minus plumbing, Makes 'em feel informal and degage.
As I interpret this, the bull is gay in the sense of frolicsome and carefree. He's "minus plumbing" -- he's been castrated. That presumably has dampened his sex drive. This condition "makes 'em feel informal and degagé" -- casual and "free of restraint," "nonchalant," "free and easy." In other words, neutered bulls (the 'em of the lyric) are free of the restraint and the expectation of impregnating a cow.
By this reading, the word "gay" carries the traditional meaning consistently throughout the lyrics.
Whether or not Cary Grant intended his ad-libbed line in Bringing Up Baby to refer to homosexuality has twisted a lot of posters here into knots. But that does not negate the pleasure of interpreting it that way, with the full knowledge that we may be imposing our contemporary sensibilities on the word. So what? It certainly is a lot spicier than meaning that the repressed palaeontologist has sprung out of his shell and become the life of the party, which in any case is a sarcastic comment by Grant's sorely put-upon character. Personally, I enjoy the line most when I interpret it with both meanings.
I imagine that a heterosexual man who is comfortable with his sexuality would have no problem making a gay joke, in the sophisticated Hollywood of the 1930s as now. The comedians of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" do it all the time. Let's assume Grant was 100% straight when he made the movie. (He could have gotten crankier as he aged -- not unheard of -- and just got fed up with innuendos if he sued someone for gaybaiting; I don't know that story.) He could very well have enjoyed making a gay-tinged ad-lib during filming. Whether he actually did or not has no effect on my enjoyment.
I also believe that most heterosexuals are not pure 1's on the Kinsey scale, just as most gays are not pure 6's. I know several men and women who had homosexual affairs in the past and are now happily married and have children from their marriages. Everyone has generalized sexual feelings that can be felt for others of the same sex, if they're relaxed or aware enough to feel them -- whether they have the remotest idea of acting upon them. I'm gay, and I occasionally feel that special frisson (albeit faintly) toward certain women. Ultimately, another person's sexual orientation should be irrelevant unless you want to have sex with them. Why can't we accord that courtesy to celebrities?
No one knows what was going through his head when he exclaimed he's "turned gay all of a sudden". He isn't alive for us to ask him. Both conclusions make sense. Lysandra's conclusion explains why the censors didn't pick up on anything. But why do you insist on being right, Lysandra? You don't know any more than the rest of us. He wasn't implying that he really was a homosexual or that he played a homosexual in the film. It was a joke, and people laughed, at both interpretations. Everyone knows homosexual means happy as well as gay, and it worked in both contexts during the film.
Er, to everyone who is claiming that 'gay' was not used to refer to homosexuals until the 1960s: Just because 'gay' did not come into mainstream usage until the 1960s one would certainly be foolish to think that it was coined at that time. Gay was indeed used as early as the turn of the century in some homosexual circles in New York. The reason your Uncle Charlie, your Aunt Mabel, or Grandfather didn't hear it? They weren't exactly running in homosexual circles, were they? Also, homosexual society was underground then. Being gay was illegal, for the most part. They didn't have the freedom to go about as we do now. That in itself is enough to keep this slang out of mainstream usage. Only when the homosexual (or 'homophile rights', as their self-styled movement was called at the time) rights movement and homosexuals became more visible and involved in our society, only then could their euphemism gain notoriety. Funny, that, because "gay" was already somewhat archaic by the this time.
'Gay' in it's traditional sense wasn't "archaic" by the sixties. It simply was co-opted by the homosexual usage and stopped being used in its traditional sense. If the word hadn't been adopted by homosexuals in the 60s, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since none of the people associated with the film were homsexual, none of them would have had any reason to make a homosexual joke. And, in fact, they didn't.
Just because you aren't homosexual doesn't mean you can't joke about it. I never got the impression that Carey Grant's character in this movie was a homosexual. The way I see it, joking about it would make sense since he was in a robe at the moment. So please, stop labeling your opinion as fact, because you don't have any proof to back up your opinion.
I don't understand why this is such a controversy.
I read the two threads here last night, and I can't reread them now, so I might not hit all the arguments people are throwing around, but yes, Cary Grant's adlib joke about suddenly going gay means exactly what it seems to mean to our ears in 2006.
It doesn't mean that Cary Grant was gay or even bi, just that he was in the know about certain slang. And no, we can't know beyond the slightest shadow of the teensiest doubt that that's how he meant it, but all evidence points that way.
First of all, the traditional use of the word does not equal a funny joke. Then there's all the other evidence:
"Gay" as a code word for homosexual men was in use WAY before 1938. George Chauncey's excellent and award-winning history book "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940" documents just how pervasive its use was in the first part of the 20th century.
Gay men (the fairy stereotype) also showed up on Hollywood screens in the twenties prior to the Production Code (see Chauncey and also "The Celluloid Closet"), so it's not like Hollywood people didn't know that gay men existed or had no contact with gay subculture.
And the idea that Grant couldn't be making a gay joke because he was only cross-dressing, not French-kissing another man is pretty ludicrous. Since the beginning of the 20th century, gay men have been associated with effeminate behavior and female dress. Gay men have a long and rich history of doing drag, and this was definitely known in 1938. Again, Chauncey gives some amazing evidence of the drag balls in NYC - THOUSANDS of people attended and they were covered by the newspapers. Being a gay man and wearing female clothing were definitely associated with each other, even if it wasn't (and isn't) true for every gay man.
Even after this movie, people were still using "gay" in both the traditional AND the gay-subtext way up through the fifties - it's not an either/or situation. Just because there are examples of 'gay' being used in the traditional sense after this movie doesn't mean that people weren't also using the word as slang to connote homosexuality. They were.
And again, the joke's just not funny unless Grant knows what he's talking about.
When you are wrong you are really wrong. Gay wasn't being used as slang for homosexual in the 1930s. Gay was in general use in it's traditional meaning. The general public wouldn't have known what you meant if you called a homosexual 'gay'. The word was, however, used on a daily basis in its traditional sense as the newspapers of the day amply demonstrate.
There was no newspaper coverage of 'drag balls' in the 1930s. I've read the newspapers of the 1930s. Have you?
Finally, since the public of the day only knew the word 'gay' in its traditional sense and since they clearly thought the joke in the film was funny, it is evident that the joke stands on its own without any gay subtext. So your initial statement is just wrong.
I don't want to keep feeding a double-thread, so I'll re-post this here, and then maybe we can agree to continue future discussion only on the other, similar posting, just since it's shorter.
Look - I can tell from your previous posts that I'm not going to convince you. But just to play a little longer . . .
Why is it so hard to understand or believe that a word can be used two ways at once? That it can have a traditional or dominant meaning AND a subcultural one at the same time? A current example would be the word 'sick.' To most of us, 'sick' means either physically ill or perverted. To certain teen groups, skater cultures, extreme sports communities, 'sick' means amazing, as in "That jump was sick." It's a positive thing.
I will concede that 'fairy' was a word much more commonly known to reference homosexuals in the 30's, but neither you nor I know exactly how audiences read this joke, or how many of them might have gotten the gay subtext. And as has been pointed out in other threads, the fast pace of dialogue and action mean that not everyone was going to get every joke in the film anyway, and a lot of sexual subtext slipped by the censors. Also - many filmmakers and actors put 'in-jokes' into their films for themselves, and not necessarily for the general audience. This could be an example.
As for drag balls being in newspapers, to quote Chauncey (p. 292):
"As the New York Herald Tribune reported in its account of a 1934 Greenwich Village ball: . . . 'Men danced with women in men's clothes. Women danced with men in women's clothes. And strange androgynous couples careened about the floor oblivious to the workings of society and nature.' "
And that's just the one quote I could pull up quickly as I'm on my way to being late for class. You say "Gay wasn't being used as slang for homosexual in the 1930s" but you obviously haven't looked at the reference I use to argue that it was.
Apparently you are now agreeing that the joke stands on it's own using the traditional meaning of gay. Since that is true, there is absolutely no reason to think that there is also hidden homosexual joke. The only reason you think there is is because the word gay now mean homosexual and is never used anymore in it's traditional sense. This is so obvious that I can't understand why this idiotic discussion continues. THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THIS TO CONTAIN A HOMOSEXUAL SUBTEXT. Read that over 100 times and then don't post any more.
No, I'm not admitting that the joke works using 'gay' in the traditional sense. To me, it still doesn't make sense and it's not funny that way. I feel certain Grant slipped in a gay-subtext in-joke, and the director let it stand. How many people in the audience got it, and how many just thought it was a weird line and then dismissed it as the film moved on, we'll never know.
And the reason I think that 'gay' was also slang for male homosexuality and effeminate behavior at the time is because I've read enough to convince me of that.
But I'm happy to stop posting, since neither of us are going to be convinced. (I doubt you'll ever pick it up, but Chauncey's book is a fascinating read, and heavily footnoted and source-documented.)
"Many, believe that gay came to mean homosexual only in the late 1960s with the Stonewall riot and the rise of the gay rights movement. This is not the case. The error these people are making is confusing the adoption of the term by the heterosexual community, and thus the English language as a whole, with its origin. The term is in fact much older, being used by homosexuals to refer to themselves with certainty as early as the 1920s, and possibly as early as the 1860s.
The first unequivocal written use of gay to mean homosexual is in 1929, in Noel Coward's musical Bittersweet. In the song Green Carnation, four overdressed, 1890s dandies sing:
Pretty boys, witty boys, You may sneer At our disintegration. Haughty boys, naughty boys, Dear, dear, dear! Swooning with affectation... And as we are the reason For the "Nineties" being gay, We all wear a green carnation.
The penultimate line refers to the 1890s, which were commonly called the gay nineties. In general usage, this appellation had nothing to do with homosexuality, but in this context, Coward clearly uses it as a double entendre.
Gay appears again in 1933 in Ford and Tyler's Young & Evil. In 1938 in the movie Bringing Up Baby, the character played by Cary Grant, when asked why he is wearing women's clothing replies, "Because I just went gay all of a sudden." In retrospect, this is obviously a joke intended to slip past the censors. In their 1941 book Sexual Variations, Gershon Legman and G.V. Henry cite gay as a slang term for homosexual, which indicates that it was in use for some time prior.
OK, so gay was definitely in use in the 1920s, and perhaps earlier, but how did the term come to be associated with homosexuals? Several possibilities exist, but the acronym for Good As You is not one of them.
The most likely explanation is that it derives from gaycat or geycat, a slang term for a tramp or hobo who is new to the road. Gaycats were commonly in the company of older tramps, implying a homosexual relationship. The term, according to Lighter, dates to at least the 1890s. Gaycats were employed as lookouts while other hoboes committed crimes. The OED2 cites the 1935 Underworld & Prison Slang by N. Ersine as defining geycat as a homosexual boy. The origin of gaycat is unknown. Green, however, says a gay cat was a tramp who offered sexual services to women.
Another possible origin is the late nineteenth century slang usage of gay to mean promiscuous. A gay house meant a brothel. This sexual sense of the term could have become associated with homosexual promiscuity and the heterosexual sense lost."
Nice! Yeah, the joke's only funny given the double entendre. One of the funniest lines in the movie I daresay, up with "I haven't lost my head, I've lost my leopard!"
Have you ever seen the Milton Berle show or are you too young to understand the long comedic tradition of men dressing in women's clothing? Do you think that Milton Berle dressing in women's clothing was a homosexual joke? In case you don't know, it wasn't. It's really impossible to have coherent discussions with people who are gay and who don't have any knowledge of cultural history. You, apparently, are in both categories.
But when there's ALSO a long tradition of gay men dressing in women's clothing (for drag balls, which have been around since the late 1800's at least), how can you not entertain the possibility that Grant was playing off that tradition?
p.s. Thanks for the info, Zephyr-123! Here's what Chauncey says about the word's origins (p. 17): "Originally referring simply to things pleasurable, by the seventeenth century 'gay' had come to refer more specifically to a life of immoral pleasures and dissipation (and by the nineteenth century to prostitution, when applied to women), a meaning that [gay men] could easily have drawn on to refer to the homosexual life. 'Gay' also referred to something brightly colored or someone showily dressed - and thus could easily be used to describe the flamboyant costumes adopted by many fairies, as well as things at once brilliant and specious, the epitome of camp."
He also talks about the tramp/hobo culture, later in the book.
"It's really impossible to have coherent discussions with people are gay and who don't have any knowledge of cultural history. Wrong on both counts. I just have no trouble accepting the reality of the joke.
Lysandra refers to the definition of "Gay" in The Oxford English Dictionary as an obscure reference. I wonder, what is the definitive source for English language vocabulary, especially pre-1950?
Well, any dictionary or language collection, even one considered a 'definitive source' wouldn't necessarily include or uncover all the slang used during a certain time, especially if used by an underground subculture.
I mean, you can look at when certain terms or words pop up in books, etc. (the first paperback novels about gay men starting getting published in the early thirties, for example), but since slang has to be pretty established before it surfaces in books, it's hard to pinpoint when certain terms or words emerged.
Any linguists or language historians out there wanna weigh in with recommendations?
Yes, that's my point. If TOED(The Oxford English Dictionary) sites one of the earliest recorded examples of the word "gay" used as slang for homosexual in 1935, then it's usage must pre-date that publishing date by at least a few years.
Here's the post LY was commenting on when she refered to TOED as an "obscure reference"...
by tim2-3 (Tue Jul 18 2006 15:34:21 )
The earliest reference to "gay" meaning homosexual in the Oxford English Dictionary is from a book on "underworld and prison slang" written in 1935. So it's certainly possible that the term was being used in that sense in the film.
P.S. LY doesn't get the "...born on the side of a hill." quip either. Oh well.
reply share
It's an old HillBilly joke(my husband is from Appalachia, he told me). It's an insult, people(& cows) born on the side of a foothill have one leg shorter than the other. I'm guessing it implies that "hilljacks" don't have the smarts to circle the hill both clock & counterclockwise.
I'll bet the cow isn't dumb, it's just its girth makes it difficult to turn around on the side of a steep hill.
I wonder if your slightly misguided professor (and many of the others on this thread who are asserting the GAY=HOMOSEXUAL angle in the joke) would also say that Fred and Barney were buggering about behind Wilma and Betty's backs, as the Flintstones, in the 1960's, were having a gay old time.
Clearly this reference is to the- and read this carefully- MOST COMMON USAGE OF THE WORD GAY AT THE TIME OF THIS FILM.
Surely Grant's character, Mr. Prim and Proper, wouldn't lower himself to the point of calling himself an all-of-a-sudden homo, and was using the word GAY as his contemporaries would- as a term for lighthearted whimsy or festive, cheery or jolly.
If perhaps he had his hand down ol' Major Horace's pants he might have claimed he turned gay all of the sudden.
If you think Grant's use of GAY meant HOMO then you would also probably think Miss Swallow's name referenced her ability to consume the afterlife of a man's orgasm. (and thus a GREAT reason for Grant to marry her).
Get your minds out of the gutter folks, it was the 30's. Don't think with your modern mind when trying to figure out things from 70 years ago.
Yea, and when Goldfinger came out in the 1960s, I believed it when my dad told me that Pussy Galore refered to a big kitty cat. And you've got to be kidding me... Miss Swallow(wink-wink), of course.
It's called a DOUBLE ENTRENDRE
Do you really think people who grew up & lived during the Roaring Twenties were pure as the driven snow? Why do you think the Hays Code was imposed? Because these were raunchy people.
P.S. Why would a gay reference have anything to do with the gutter?
No, it's definetly gay as in homosexual. It was an ad lib that probably wouldn't haven't gotten past censors if it had been in the script. And if there was any confusion as to it's meaning, his next line, "I'm just sitting in the middle of 42nd Street waiting for a bus" clarifies the joke. It refers to a pre-Christopher Street era, which was New York's most prominent gay cruising ground (From Queering the (New) Deal by David Lugowski, page 21). Gay had the meaning of homosexual I think since 1929, where it first had that connotation in a Noel Coward poem (I could be wrong).
His statement "I just went gay all of a sudden!" is a response to her asking why he is wearing women's clothes. To say gay means "happy" here makes that exchange make no sense.
There's none heart so black as the black black heart of the phony leper!--Monk
It's not a question of making sense. The issue is whether the joke is funny without any hidden homosexual meaning. Clearly it is because the movie going public of the day wouldn't have known of or used 'gay' to mean homosexual yet the line is funny. The later popularization of 'gay' to mean homosexuals is simply a coincidence which caused the rise of this whole discussion. No one prior to the 1960s would have even thought twice about the line and certainly the film makers weren't making a homosexual joke.
Yes, the joke works without the "hidden homosexual meaning". The word "gay" has/had two equally valid meanings, that's why it's a double entendre. By definition, the 2nd meaning is more obscure & usually risque. (Sometimes it's homophonic- that Colonel Angus sketch on SNL cracked me up.)
I've provided you with evidence from the 1935 The Oxford English Dictionary, but you don't seem to want to believe a source as reliable as THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
Grant making that joke doesn't make him gay, and your insisting that "gay" didn't have two meanings at the time of BUB doesn't make him straight.
Again, the Hayes Code wasn't introduced because of the scenes of ice cream socials in movies...
CALL HER SAVAGE(1932, JOHN FRANCIS DILLON) Clara Bow returned to the screen with a vengeance (following a well-publicized nervous breakdown) as a Texas half-breed who takes a whip to childhood friend Gilbert Roland, brains the husband she married for spite with a stool, gets in a catfight with Thelma Todd, visits the screen’s first bona fide gay[sic] bar, and romps with an excited Great Dane —
WHO CARES! It was a funny, funny, silly movie that (in my case) made me laugh a lot!! I don't care what gay meant then or what it means now - I just enjoyed the movie, and I think you guys are picking this to death.
What year were you born? Before or after this film was released? And can anyone who has worked on the film verify your claim? You have no solid proof to back up your assumptions. You can't use words like "clearly" and "certainly" when you have no evidence to support your statement. Like others have said, it is a double entendre; it works both ways, which is why it passed through the censors (they agreed with your perspective). And just because the homosexual definition of "gay" wasn't popularized until the 1960s doesn't mean it didn't exist. Other posters have cited dictionaries that mention the homosexual definition originated well before the 1960s.
Please read MurnauNosferatu's posting and leave a response.
I have no idea who you are responding to but no one connected with the film ever said that the joke had anything to do with homosexuality. That claim came decades later from gay revisionist film writers. The joke is not a double entendre since no one connected with the film had any intention of making a double entendre joke. I don't know why you people don't get it. The joke stands on its own using the traditional meaning of the word 'gay' and there is absolutely NO evidence that it was intended to have any other meaning. It's not a gay joke.
How do you know there is no evidence? Can you prove this? Ideally with commentary from someone who worked on the film perhaps? I don't know why you don't get it either. My point is: how can you be so sure if you can't back your statement up with any kind of quote or reputable source? You are not citing anyone or anything to back your claim up. And my question about birth year was towards you. I was curious as to what year you were born. I actually don't think this will ever be solved really. I mean, everyone who has ever had any connection to the film has passed away. Too bad this debate couldn't have begun years earlier. This whole thread is just speculation anyway. No one here can prove one view or the other. I don't even know myself. What angers me most is that you, Lysandra, are trying to make it sound like your version is right no matter what, when in fact you don't know any more than anyone else.
Earlier in the thread, MurnauNosferatu wrote:
"No, it's definitely gay as in homosexual. It was an ad lib that probably wouldn't haven't gotten past censors if it had been in the script. And if there was any confusion as to its meaning, his next line, "I'm just sitting in the middle of 42nd Street waiting for a bus" clarifies the joke. It refers to a pre-Christopher Street era, which was New York's most prominent gay cruising ground (From Queering the (New) Deal by David Lugowski, page 21). Gay had the meaning of homosexual I think since 1929, where it first had that connotation in a Noel Coward poem (I could be wrong)."
At least gives evidence to support his claim. And I think it is convincing. Can you provide any kind of rebuttal to his statement (preferably with sources that challenge his)?
The presumption is that the joke stands on its own with the traditional use of the word 'gay' which was in common usage at the time. It is up to you to prove that they meant something else. So what is your proof?
MarnauNosferatu's observation is nonsensical. 42nd Street was a very busy street full of theaters in the 1930s. The idea that making reference to 42nd Street was somehow a gay allusion is ridiculous. That's the trouble with this entire thread. The pro-gay position is taking the words out of their historical context. I don't care how much you want to further your gay agenda. This isn't a gay joke.
The other users have used dictionaries to further their points (that the word was used in that form before the 1960s, even if it was uncommon). ManuNosferatu cited a book, as well as the movie itself. My own personal opinion is that we will never know since it is too late to ask. The problem I have is that you won't accept the POSSIBILITY that Grant meant gay in the homosexual sense. And yes, I AGREE with you, it does stand on its own with the traditional use. But if I am understanding it correctly, you are saying Carey Grant himself didn't mean gay as in homosexual in a line he AD-LIBBED. But how are we to know what he meant if he isn't here to tell us? You can't read his mind.
We both agree that the joke stands on its own using the traditional meaning of 'gay'. The only reason anyone is having this discussion is that 30 years after the film was made the term 'gay' was adopted into the popular culture to mean homosexual and the word in its traditional usage isn't used now as someone in 1938 would understand it. It's just a coincidence. We know that Cary Grant never said that it was a gay joke nor did anyone connected with the film. There is simply no reason to believe that it is. You can speculate all you want but the evidence is simply not there.
> We know that Cary Grant never said that it was a gay joke > nor did anyone connected with the film.
Of course, you do realize that they would have had a motive to withhold any such confirmation. As soon as there was a public confirmation that the line was in fact intended as a reference to homosexuality the censors would have started demending that it be cut from the picture. So if they wanted to keep the line in the movie, they would avoid any such public confirmation even if that was in fact the case.
The lack of such a public confirmation is not, in itself, proof positive that no such double entendre meaning ever crossed the minds of the cast / crew / writers.
None of the people connected with the film during their entire life times said the joke was a 'gay' joke. They all outlived the Hayes office censorship by many decades. If they had wanted to say it was a 'gay' joke they could very well have. No one connected with the film ever did say that.
"As soon as there was a public confirmation that the line was in fact intended as a reference to homosexuality the censors would have started demending that it be cut from the picture."
Not necessarily. They're gonna recall all these movies after it's already been released to "fix" it? That's closing the barn door after the horse got out.
A doodle. I do doodle. You too! You do doodle too! --Willow(Buffytvs)
> Not necessarily. They're gonna recall all these movies > after it's already been released to "fix" it?
Darn straight, they would have.
Why do you think there are so many "Pre-Code" movies from the early 1930's that now *only* exist in versions noticeably shorter than their original release run times? It's because when the standards were tightened the studios were forced to edit the "offensive" bits out of those already released movies if they ever wanted to have them shown again. (And in some cases we're talking about close to a quarter of the movie's original run time being gone.)
By the time it no longer mattered because of the switch from the Code to the ratings system ........
We're talking about a single line in a 30 year old movie that was almost never being seen any more anyway (Later developments would lead to the film being more widely seen again, but in the late 60's it was not a widely known picture among the general population). It's hardly the kind of thing that you would expect the people involved to be bursting to make public pronouncemnets about.
I'm not arguing that the line *was* intended as double entendre with the homosexual meaning in mind. I think that it could go either way. They might have intended that particular second layer to be there ..... or they might not have. I don't know.
I was just pointing out that the lack of specifically attributable *public* pronoucements of premeditated homosexual allusion is *not* (in and of itself) definitive proof that no such interpretation ever occurred to the people making the movie. It's exactly the same argument that applies to the fact that there aren't any quotes explicitly denying any homosexual reference proving that they must have meant it that way.
Both arguments are equally valid ..... which is to say that both are equally invalid.
Your reasoning is incorrect. The joke works perfectly well without any "hidden" homosexual meaning. Since the joke works perfectly well standing on its own and no one associated with the film EVER said it was a homosexual joke, the argument in favor of it being a homosexual joke has no value at all. The only rational conclusion, and rationality is not prized around here, is that it is not a homosexual joke.
Considering this never came up at all until the word was adopted by homosexuals in the 60s to refer to themselves, the continual assertion that its a double entendre is absurd. But I understand the vested interest associated with claiming that its so.
Why must you insist on being correct when you can't prove it? And neither can we; it's all speculation. Can you at least accept the possibility of a homosexual reference? Then again, it is your opinion so you don't have to accept ours if you don't want to. I'm just saying open-mindedness would be nice. You shouldn't call the assertion absurd since there is enough evidence to suggest both viewpoints.
Sigh yeah I have to be very careful in my wording, I've learned this from previous postings of mine. I have to take a breath and relax before responding to some posts haha ;)
There is no evidence that anyone associated with the film intended the joke to be a homosexual joke.
Let's go back to the original poster's message on page one of this thread. He tells us that his professor told the class that the joke was meant as a homosexual joke. He offers no evidence of that, of course. And then the professor goes on to tell his students an out and out and easily refuted lie; that the two writers of the script, Hagar Wilde (a woman) and Dudley Nichols (a man), had a "wild homosexual affair" during the making of the film.
Don't you see a pattern here? The professor wants to find some kind of homosexual theme in the film and he makes an assertion about a joke in the film that has no basis in fact whatsoever. He then tries to buff it up with the bogus homosexual affair story. The professor obviously had an agenda. It wouldn't surprise me if he was gay.