I noticed while watching Girl Crazy (1943, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland) tonight that at the beginning Mickey says to a cabby "take me to a gay place with a lot of girls". Needless to say, he wasn't talking about a gay bar. It's yet another example of the use of the word 'gay' in its original and traditional sense.
shareI'm not convinced.
French, German, and nearly every translation dubbed it "homosexual".
"And the Oscar goes to... Rachel Weisz!"
-Morgan Freeman
What are you talking about?
shareWhen they dub the film, they translate it homosexual. He was talking about a bar with homosexuals.
"And the Oscar goes to... Rachel Weisz!"
-Morgan Freeman
Dub this! , Dane. [[[plonk]]]]
shareThat proves absolutely nothing.
shareYes, it does. They could say "heureux" but instead... "homosexuel".
"And the Oscar goes to... Rachel Weisz!"
-Morgan Freeman
Are you really that stupid? The translater decides how he/she is going to translate a word. The translater of this film who, undoubtedly, did the translation in recent years, decided to translate 'gay' as homosexual. That doesn't mean that the word originally meant homosexual. The translation, in fact, means nothing. I'm always slightly amazed at the inability of the average IMDB poster to understand anything that requires even the smallest amount of thought.
shareIt is just another clue to the puzzle of what he really meant. Many people believe they were talking about homosexuals.
"And the Oscar goes to... Rachel Weisz!"
-Morgan Freeman
It has nothing to do with what the film makers meant in 1938 when the film was made. A translation 50 or 60 years later is meaningly.
shareA bit OT, but the 1952-53 Ziv syndicated radio program, Bright Star, with Irene Dunne and Fred MacMurray, was intro'd by Harry Von Zell with the words: "The gay, new, exciting, comedy-adventure show ..." The two leads, I think, were among the more 'aware' of Hollywoods players and had there been even a hint of ambiguity about the word it wouldn't have been used. Of course, the most common use of the word was in the sobriquet for the last decade of the 19th century: The Gay 90s. An IMDB search of Titles for the word seems to indicate its traditional use into the late 50s.
shareThese are a miniscule number of the many examples of the occurence of 'gay' in 1938 in the Los Angeles Times. Anyone with access to Proquest historical Los Angeles Times will see that the word is used daily in the newspaper in its traditional sense. It's not just that the word didn't mean homosexual but that it was in active use in the 30s in its traditional sense unlike now where it is only used to mean homosexuals.
Los Angeles Times, December 29, 1938
"Gay Holiday Show Due at Paramount"
New Year's holiday program at the Paramount Theater opens today. The screen attraction is "Artists and Models Abroad" starring Jack Benny . . .
Los Angeles Times, December 24, 1938
"White House Gay as First Family Hold Birthday Dinner"
Los Angeles Times, June 26, 1938
"Gay Summer Due for Society Folk"
Play-at-home Southlanders to be led in season's parties by Mrs. Kennedy's Beverly Hills patio breakfast.
Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1938
"Josette, Gay and Youthful"
The usual summer letdown begins in earnest at Broadway theaters this week. . . . Josette, at the Roxy, is a case in point. . .
YOUR WAISTING YOUR TIME>LYSANDRA THEY WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND
shareIn the 30's sex-scenes were not shown full-blown in the movies. Little, by little, small things passed through censors over decades until now it is shown. What Lysandra does not get is that the use of "gay" in BUB was the FIRST time it was used to mean "homosexual" on film. Massive change in society does not happen overnight. Film historians have already credited this movie as being the first time it was used on film to mean homosexual. I'm not gonna believe Lysandra over professionals who study this stuff for a living.
Oh my god, the turkeys are hitting the ground like sacks of wet cement!
BUB is not the first use of the word 'gay' in films to mean homosexuals. The only film 'historians' that made this claim have done so since the 1970s. No books on films prior to that time ever claimed that the scene was a gay joke because gay was not used to refer to homosexuals.
BUB is not the first use of the word 'gay' in films to mean homosexuals. The only film 'historians' that made this claim have done so since the 1970s. No books on films prior to that time ever claimed that the scene was a gay joke because gay was not used to refer to homosexuals.
You have absolutely no evidence that the term was an "inside joke" in the film industry. What is your source for that?
shareYou have absolutely no evidence that the term was an "inside joke" in the film industry. What is your source for that?
What evidence have people provided. I've seen none.
shareWhat evidence have people provided. I've seen none.
My evidence is that the word 'gay' was used in its traditional sense on a daily basis by people at the time. Anyone could use the word without it meaning homosexual. The joke in the film works perfectly well without any gay reference. Dressing like a woman isn't a homosexual joke. There is a long tradition in humor of men dressing up as women. It isn't about being a homosexual but is about the inate humor in seeing a man in women's clothing. No one connected in any way with the film ever said that the joke in the film was supposed to be a homosexual joke. Now what is your evidence?
shareYou seem to think that your interpretation is evidence, but it's not.
--
"An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"
I'm still waiting for your evidence. If you have nothing to contribute, go away.
shareI'm still waiting for your evidence. If you have nothing to contribute, go away.
You are a fool.
shareSo are you.
--
"An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"
People, relax. Name-calling doesn't accomplish anything. But here's what we need to keep in mind. First of all, it doesn't matter if Grant was gay or bisexual--the fact is that it was rumored at the time, and Grant most likely knew of his public reputation. (And before someone asks for evidence that it was rumored, do a little research and you'll find examples of some of the disreputable Tijuana Bibles from the time, many of which explicitly call Grant a "fairy," and hints in film reviews and movie magazines.) So this was something that the public would be gossiping about--that's all that matters. We can NEVER know empirically if someone is gay or not unless we actually witness homosexual behavior (even if someone were to identify themselves as gay). Going down that "yes he is/no he isn't" road is pointless.
Second, "gay" was used prior to 1938 to refer to homosexuality. That's a documented fact no matter how many times Lysandra says it isn't. Unless research and secondary sources such as dictionaries and film histories don't count. This isn't part of some sort of homosexual agenda--after all, the joke in question is ultimately potentially offensive to gay people. But a gay joke it is.
Hollywood films (particularly in the 1930s and 1920s) are full of thinly-veiled or explicit gay jokes. Watch or read THE CELLULOID CLOSET some time. Why should it be surprising that this one would have such a joke?
There were no rumors at the time that Grant was a homosexual and if there were the last thing Grant would do is draw attention to such rumors. That by itself is a controlling reason for it not being a homosexual joke. Obscure mentions in a couple of 1930s dictionaries don't mean that anyone, much less the film going public, knew or used the word in its non-traditional sense. On the other hand, 'gay', in its traditional sense, was used on a daily basis by everyone, including in films. The word, in its traditional sense, works perfectly in the context of the joke in the film. Incidentally, you will find no regular dictionary (Websters, etc) of that era that defined 'gay' as homosexual. No film historians of the era said it was a homosexual joke. In fact, cross-dressing isn't the same thing as being homosexual which you should know. The joke if anything is a joke about cross-dressing (see Milton Berle's TV show in the 1950s or do you think his cross-dressing was a homosexual joke too?) There are no "thinly-veiled or explicit" gay jokes in Hollywooid films of the era. This is simply gays with an agenda reading what they want into films.
shareSigh. One last question before I abandon this clearly pointless exercise: do you have ANY proof of anything you ever write? No dictionary from the 1930s would include a word that was slang and wasn't understood by the greater population. That doesn't mean the word didn't exist. No "film historians of the era"? There weren't any. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? And yes, cross-dressing isn't the same thing as homosexuality--thanks for clearing that up. 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. How far can one be in denial? Who is more likely to have an agenda here, Lysandra? The dozens of people who you keep shrilly claiming are wrong because you yell loudest, or yourself?
shareI don't need proof. There is a perfectly logical explanation for the joke that has nothing to do with homosexual humor. The audiences of the day would have never thought for a second that the joke was a homosexual joke. Why would they? You tell me. Seriuosly, how would an audience of the day even remotely consider it to be a joke about homosexuals.
There were no rumors 'swirling' around Grant. What is you source for that? Provide evidence. Why would Grant bring attention to his alleged homosexuality? Explain that. Considering that gays were universally condemned why would Grant bring such attention to himself. Do you think he was stupid?
There's no question that gays have an agenda. Just read this thread.
No rumors about Grant in the 1930s, eh? Ok--give this a try. Go to this web site, and afterward, you explain to me with your rapier intellect how this doesn't strongly suggest that SOMEONE was responding to innuendo and rumor about Cary Grant. Give it a go--I'm sure you're up to it. I eagerly await your response of "This isn't proof. There's a perfectly logical explanation for this that fits into my very narrow view of the world and how it works."
http://www.tijuanabible.org/blackjackart.htm
Wow. You really are stupid. Tijuana Bibles claimed everything about everyone. Have you actually read any of them? The answer would be a big No. And, by the way, they weren't read by the general public. There were no rumors about Grant. You have demonstrated for all to see how really dumb you are.
shareHmmm. Ok Lysandra, let's explore the logic of that reply. I'll paraphrase you, and play both parts. I don't think I'm misrepresenting your position.
You: "No one ever thought Cary Grant was gay in the 1930s. And 'gay' didn't mean homosexual in the 1930s."
Me: Interviews with contemporaries, etymology dictionaries, film historians, a cursory look at movie magazines, gossip columns, and more disreputable sources suggest that there is a very big likelihood that (a) at least a segment of the population knew of the slang use of "gay" to refer to homosexuality and (b) there were rumors (none ever substantiated) that Cary Grant was at the very least bisexual.
You: No. You're stupid.
Me: And by the way, I have read Tijuana Bibles (a big "Yes") and have in fact read several that explicitly identify Grant as gay. And they don't suggest he was a monkey, or an astronaut, or a baseball player. They don't even suggest he was straight. So the notion that "they claimed everything about everyone" doesn't make any sense, does it? What they suggest isn't that Grant was gay, but they do suggest those rumors were in play at least for some audiences.
You: No. You're really dumb. And Tijuana Bibles weren't read by the general public.
Me: My point exactly. No one is arguing that the general public would get the "gay" joke. The kind of people who would know the slang, and the kind of people who might in fact read these widely-distributed pornographic pamphlets probably would.
You: No. You're stupid.
Me: Well, I'm no Albert Einstein but I do have a PhD in Film Studies and have taught cinema classes at the university level for fifteen years. I have studied and published on Howard Hawks. So what background, qualifications and education do you have that gives you the right to call all these posters, including myself, "stupid"?
You: ?
"The word, in its traditional sense, works perfectly in the context of the joke in the film."
Does it? Why would dressing in women's clothes be connected to being particularly happy or joyful? The idea that women are more frivolous, or whatever, sounds like a forced connection to me, although perhaps that would have made more sense in the '30s.
On the other hand, it's commonplace (if perhaps incorrect) to connect homosexuality with effeminacy, so "gay" in the modern sense clearly does make sense in this context. And the word was (although not widely) used in this sense as a slang term at least as far back as 1935, so it's not impossible that the word was used with this sense as an in-joke.
I'm not saying it necessarily _was_, just that I don't see that you have presented a conclusive case that it _wasn't_.
Of course it works in the context of the traditional meaning of 'gay'. Do you think the audiences of the day understood it in any other way? Answer the question. Do you think the audiences of the day thought it was funny? Answer the question.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You're right.
shareI see a lot of people these days find it hard to believe that gay in it's original meaning wasn't some code to sophisticates almost 70 years ago. Sign of the times I guess. lol
"Girl,you betta bash Mister upside the head and think about heaven later!" - Sophia
I posted this in the other thread about the discussion of Grant's 'gay' joke, but I had to post it here too:
"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.
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.
shareNo, 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.)
She just doesn't get the defininition of "slang". I'm guessing LY never had friends whose conversations her parents couldn't understand because they spoke the slang of the day.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]