Philip Mark- gay?


In the episode "The Sheriff of Nottingham" guest starring Lewis Collins as the 'Butcher' of Lincoln, Philip Mark, there is some subtle subtext, I think?

Aside from the fancy haircut and camp acting, deliberate given the below, there are some comments which point to Lewis' character supposedly being homosexual?

Mark initially states that with Guisburne he will-

"Fine some other use for you" Guisburne looks away shyly?

And the Sheriff's rant to Mark-

"Posturing catamite!" Which, in my dictionary, is a rent boy - a younger, submissive gay male in a pederastic relationship?

reply

[deleted]

Good post! I bet you've hit the nail dead on!

The good humour on set seems to have rubbed off onto the characters and frequent 'ad-libs' and background laughter on occasion?

reply

I'd not put it past the writers (Carpenter and Horowitz) to be sending up... Nickolas Grace's own gayness (there are a fair few nods towards this throughout the series, with the Sheriff repeatedly expressing his distaste for women)


Also the scene after the bee swarms have stung them (the Sherriff was to marry!), where the Sheriff is in the bath and asks Guisburne to 'rub him harder' (his back).

Yet the Sheriff, hinted at being a woman-hater, also mentions (The Witch of Elsdon) that if he was bewitched by the witch (Angharad Rees) he'd be "inclined to let her"? So the Sheriff was perhaps bisexual?

reply

also mentions (The Witch of Elsdon) that if he was bewitched by the witch (Angharad Rees) he'd be "inclined to let her"? So the Sheriff was perhaps bisexual?


Or perhaps he's having a subtle dig at Guy of Gisbourne's supposed masculinity 'Okay, you claim you're so straight, but this gorgeous chick throws herself at you and you turn her down.'


She's really Tyler Durden/Keyser Soze/A Man/A Ghost/Dreaming/His sled

reply

[deleted]

I think the real meaning of that remark was "What really happened was that you went after her and she turned you down! If she'd tried to bewitch you then you would have loved it!" I don't think it requires the sheriff to have been interested in women at all :)

reply

I'm glad I wasn't the only one seeing things, to me it didn't seem subtle at all. Adding to those two lines you mention, once he throws Rainault out of the castle he touches Gisbourne's hand and tells him casually "You're mine now". Poor Sir Guy, I was under heavy impression he was about to go from being verbally abused and humiliated to being abused in other ways, although judging from Robert Addie's expression he probably didn't realize it.

reply

Yes, and also Mark makes a brief comment about 'diversions' where he had come from, and also "amongst other things", to which Guisburne hides an embarrassed grin?

reply

That Mark's definitely gay and wants to have his way with Gisbourne I have no doubts, that Gisbourne is even remotely aware of it... I don't know. He's always rather thick anyway, so he may have missed it entirely. But you know what, I'm bored out of my mind, so let me watch that episode again tonight and I'll get back to you. It'll be my pleasure, really. :)

reply

Lol, cheers! I watched it a few weeks ago!

reply

I did too, or I wouldn't have remembered those details! But it was quite funny watching it again and (over)analysing those scenes. :)
When Mark first sits on the throne/armchair, Gisbourne just looks so smug and full of himself, then Mark measures him from head to toe and with a batting of eyelashes and languid tone comes the "Well, I'm sure I can find a use for you". He couldn't have been more obvious if he'd tried! I can't really read Gisbourne, whatever expression was on his face was already fading when the camera panned towards him.
The hand on hand scene was a lot more interesting than I remembered! :) Mark doesn't just put his hand on Gisbourne's, which could have been totally harmless, but instead it's *tap* *tap* *slight caress*, "you're mine now", which he simply says as a matter of fact. Gisbourne goes from being totally relaxed, to looking somewhat upset/annoyed, to a "I'm screwed again", might be because he dislikes the innuendo or simply because he doesn't seem to like someone else having power over him. Funny thing is, I think Mark was actually being protective and telling him he didn't need to worry anymore; he treated Gisbourne with respect and, if he'd managed to live longer, might have tried to seduce him instead of abusing him like de Rainault (ah, the scene in the bath tub! Not saying there was anything else going on, but it did have a strong erotic tone).
I could swear I remembered the bit about "the other pleasures" but I watched the whole episode carefully and either it's not really there or it just slipped me.
Hope I was of any help! :)

reply

Thanks, MB, now that's dedication for you!! ;-D

RoS was great fun and I'm sure the cast had a fantastic time making it. When I watch the show it only hurts more that all subsequent attempts to revive the show- even by original cast members- have failed due to lack of funding?

reply

Don't worry, I get immense pleasure from over-analysing the things I like. Besides, how do I put it, I kind of have a crush on fair Sir Guy who never gets a break, it was heart warming realizing someone might actually care for once.

I made some short movies while at the university and never had as much fun, I can only imagine how cool it must have been making RoS.

In a way I'm sorry it was never brought back, but on the other hand maybe it was just better that way. More often than not it just kills the magic. I have to admit part of what makes it so close to my heart it's the guys; Michael, Jason and Robert were very easy on the eyes. Robert sadly isn't with us anymore and I can't imagine a different Gisbourne, it just wouldn't be the same. As for Michael, Loxley's death was one of the most pungent scenes I can think of, his death and consequent rise of a new Robin are an intrinsic part of this series' mystique. Unless you ignore his death and go from there, how would they bring him back so much older? I don't think I like the options. I'm a great fan of Highlander too, but it went from bad to so terrible it hurts, I don't just dislike it, I feel terribly sorry for the people involved! I would never want that for RoS! So, I don't know, there's this group of people who seem to still be trying and I wish them all the best, so much I might even help if there's anyway I can, but I'm very afraid of the result.

reply

I agree, it's a time capsule that perhaps shouldn't be 'overwritten', even by them.

Just look at all of the awful Robin Hood shows and films? Ugh

reply

Quite true. But maybe, just like with so much else, we've imprinted ourselves with the idea that this is the true version, probably because it was the first we got to watch or like, and, therefore, everything else will always pale in comparison. I'm yet to watch the new movie with Russel Crowe, but I guess I won't like it much either.

Btw, I just learned that Philip Marc was indeed a real, historical person, a sheriff of Nothinghamshire in the beginning of the XIII century. The things one learns by obsessing a bit! :))

reply

I didn't know about the real Marc, I bet there was no saracen henchman!

Regarding the Scott film, watch it and see for yourself. I did and was disappointed I think I posted on that film's discussion board?), partly for some of what you said above, but I won't ruin it with spoilers by explaining!

reply

I actually enjoyed Scott's Robin Hood and think that if you take it as a seperate (and new) telling of Robin Hood, it's a pretty good film.


The various basic elements of the Robin Hood tale/legacy are all there and exist in a reasonalbe fashion. The characters of PJ, GKR and Queen Eleanor are all pretty historically accurate and William Marshall is great.

However, do yourself a favor and watch the directors cut.

reply

Probably not, probably wasn't gay either, but who knows? Reality has a way of often being stranger than fiction.
I was reading about the Magna Carta and found the reference by mere chance. The wiki article is here if anyone's interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Marc

Finally got to watch Ridley Scott's version, enjoyed the second half a lot more than the first, but still I don't think it's the kind of movie that'll stay with me for long. At first I thought it was yet another product of our cynical, hopeless days, in which there are no more heroes and/or the few left are flawed to the core. I can enjoy that sort of thing, the harsh reality in opposite to the much more sanitized and feel-good nature of things like RoS. I thoroughly enjoyed Ironclad, so go figure. However, the feeling RH left in me is that it's neither meat nor fish, it's something in between and not that satisfactory to me.
The assumed identity premiss was a bit strange, the heroicity and genius of Longstride's father unnecessary, king John didn't ring very true to me (true, he's usually probably portraited as a lot madder and more cruel than he may have actually been, but this one, on the other hand, seemed too sober).
Visually I liked it and it is a nice enough movie that I'll advise to anyone interested in that period or type of story, but I can't say that it actually clicked with me.

reply