I find it rather distressing that so many comments are being made about the possible homosexuality of the characters in the movie. Surely the point ought to be the soulless, random murder?
I do blame the playwright, and Hitchcock to a lesser degree. By focusing on this aspect, they not only divert attention from the sheer cold-blooded cruelty of the crime, but paint homosexuals as something completely inhuman. Whether you think homosexual behavior is right or wrong, it surely ought not to be the point of this story. And whether you believe homosexual behavior is right or wrong, it shouldn't be presented as if it were the cause of this random murder.
i think you are a little angry without just cause here. it is never said that the chracters are homosexual, albeit it seems quite obvious that they are. it also never makes it seem as though their possible homosexuality is the reason they kill their classmate. by you saying that because they appear to be homosexual makes all homosexuals look inhuman is ridiculous. that would mean that any movie that has a straight murderer as painting all straight people inhuman (this could work for any other group of people like men, women, african americans, latinos, etc). i think you are the one putting too much emphasis on the homosexuality aspect of the film, not other people. i think the film does a fine job of painting the characters for what they are: cold-blooded and conniving killers.
Actually, many minority viewers have taken television police shows to task for showing even one minority criminal.
I'm not at all angry. What bothers me is that the homosexual aspect in this movie seems to be connected with the cold-bloodedness of the murder. It seems that the playwright designed it so.
In fact, the film doesn't do such a fine job of painting the characters as cold-blooded and conniving killers; only one of them is painted that way. The other is depicted as an unwilling follower, and there is a certain hint that that is because of the sexual aspect. If you don't find that unnerving, that's fine, but I do.
Look at the "chicken strangling" thread if you think I'm overreacting.
could you explain in greater detail why the "homosexual aspect" is connected with the cold-bloodedness of the murder? i really want to understand your point of view.
and i don't think that the fact that one of the characters seems unnwilling is because of the sexual aspect at all. gay or straight, i feel like phillip is simply a weak person with admiration for someone (brandon) who is smarter and more charming than he is, and he is willing to do whatever brandon wants in order to be accepted by him.
I just watched the movie. I didn't see any connection between the homosexuality and the killing. The homosexuality was evident, and it has a lot of emphasis just because it was so taboo to have something of that subject matter in a movie at that time, but there is no implication that they murdered because they were gay. The homosexual undertones in the movie were slight, Hitchcock toned it down from the play. Brandon made it clear he murdered because he thought he was superior, he didn't say he murdered because he was gay.
Homosexuality is not presented as ''inhuman'' in this film. I doubt that the gay screenwriters and the gay and bisexual actors (Dall and Farley) intended that.
Absolutely. They're not killers because they're gay. They're killers who in this particular case happen to be gay, with one partner obviously dominating the other emotionally. This could just as easily happen with a heterosexual couple, and in real life often has.
Get over it. Hitch had numerous gay villains in his films. Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca, Robert Walker in Strangers on a Train, Claude Rains in Notorious (even though he was to marry Ingrid Bergman), the sabateur in Sabateur, and Martin Landau in N by NW.
I never thought Hitch was homophobic at all but instead put a mirror up to the hypocrisy of western society by implying, "Okay, you think these people are criminal by virtue of who what they are. See that this thinking indeed makes them criminals."
People can be too sensitive about gay characters in films. Just because a character is gay and a villain doesn't mean they are a villain because they are gay.
I had just naturally assumed it was necessary for them to have a hidden relationship. The interactions wouldn't have worked so well if they had been in an openly acknowledged relationship, or if they hadn't been intimate.
Why would the playwright "hardly have expected" that in a film adaptation the protagonists would be gay? I mean, whatever the case with his play, the original real-life prototypes WERE actually gay, so... ?
Why do you think that the censors were playing such close attention to the dialogue in this film?
The reason that this movie was pored over with such a fine-toothed comb looking for signs of homosexuality was because the characters in the original play *were* homosexual, and that wouldn't have made a "decent" movie, obviously! (Well, obviously to the 1940's censor board).
Would Leopold and Loeb have gone down in history for one sloppy murder, which is barely newsworthy, if it weren't for the fact that they just happened to be same-sex lovers? Most likely not.
They went down in history because they were the first murder (that we know of) that the sole motive was to get away with the perfect crime for just the reasons spoke of in the film.
It also flew in the face of some crackpot theories that had grown out of Darwin's theories - that race had something to do with brain development. They even argued for movie censorship by claiming that "lesser developed" races were more prone to violence and killing if shown how. Since both Leopold and Loeb had exceptionally high IQs and were well educated and yet killed without conscience it went against all of that.
And then the defense claimed that since they'd been taught Nietzsche's philosophy in college in a serious manner they couldn't be completely blamed for following it....
Before the murder, Leopold had written to Loeb: "A superman ... is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him, exempted from the ordinary laws which govern men. He is not liable for anything he may do".
Think them being a couple was the least of it at the time.
Only thing that has me scratching my head (about the film) is that Brandon for all his intelligence and feelings of superiority had either not been sure he was gay until well into college and/or he was putting up a front since it's said in the script that he used to be one of Janet's "romances". A guy who was in the closet in college now suddenly doesn't care what people think if he murders someone? Yikes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last night, I was lying back looking at the stars and I thought...where the *beep* is my ceiling???
reply share
The Gay aspect of the real case and the characters in the movie just makes it easier for some people to understand the "hold" that the more dominate of the two had over the other.
That's not fair but.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Last night, I was lying back looking at the stars and I thought...where the *beep* is my ceiling???
reply share
Yeah I've never thought that they killed because they were gay. It was an issue of dominance that led to the killing. Brandon obviously has hold over Phillip in their relationship and that's why he goes along with it when he is obviously conflicted. Whats in the play but not the film is the fact that Brandon had also had an affair with Rupert. It was because of his admiration and relationship with his teacher that he adopted Ruperts ideas and theories quite literally. Unfortunately, Jimmy Stewart refused to play the fact that the Rupert was gay and so you don't get that dynamic in the film. I agree that Mrs. Danvers was gay but don't think Hitch was trying to make gay villans. I think he was just not afraid to tell the story he wanted to.
Jimmy Stewart refused to play the fact that the Rupert was gay and so you don't get that dynamic in the film. >>> Are you sure about that? I thought that, in the supplements, there was mention of that aspect being left out during the script stage. I don't think it was ever on the table at all by the time Jimmy Stewart took the role. Many things were changed, altered, and Americanized during the script stage, but it still manages to be a fascinating film. I think it works well without Rupert being gay, but that is just my opinion. I agree that the effort here was not to make gay people villains, but to simply tell the story of dominance. The inclusion of the gay subtext was a challenge for Hitchcock in 1948, one that he wasn't afraid to tackle and one that he did an excellent job of quietly layering into the film.
- - - - - - - Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
The homosexual, in that age and society, is seen as a criminal, a deviant, no better than a murderer.
What seems to him completely right (his love life) is seen as indecent by everyone else. Much like Brandon argues that murder is allright whereas nobody else agrees. And the person he thinks would sympathise in the end condemns him as well.
So if we forget the murder and just think of the guilt of the murderer (which after all is more prominent in the film than the murder), the murderer, as a fugitive/outlaw/immoral person, is like a 1948 homosexual.
I think the analogy lies in this, and it is good to my mind. That is why all these gay people were ready to do this film. What they are really discussion is society's condemnation of homosexuality, disguised as its condemnation of murder.
Of course murder in the end is condemned, while the artists (and most of the modern audience) would not condemn homosexuality but it is not supposed to work on a mathemathical/logical level but rather to capture the life and feelings of the outlaw/deviant, guilty and about to be captured.
The key part of the story is the murder, not the homosexuality.
However, that doesn't change the fact that those two young killers were likely lovers. Even though the story is about the murder, the homosexuality of the two characters can still be acknowledged.