Why Colonel Fitts kissed Lester? - American Beauty (1999) Discussion

[–] cathy-creswell 10 years ago

The Colonel is a repressed gay man. He saw his son through the window in Lesters garage. He misunderstood what Ricky was doing. He was really rolling a joint, but at the Colonels viewpoint it looked as if Ricky is giving Lester oral sex. After the Colonel goes ape *beep* mad on his son, he makes a very emotional visit to Lesters garage where he finally acts on his gay feelings. The rebuff

reply

[–] cathy-creswell 10 years ago

The gentle rebuff he gets throws him into a fit of anger, and you know the rest. That's why he shoots Lester.

reply

[–] GrtOne41 10 years ago

Also, his exterior image is that of a tough as nails, gay-hating ex-marine. He removed that cloak when he tried to kiss Lester and Lester saw him for who he truly was. When Lester rejected him, Col. Fitts knew that Lester was likely the only other person on Earth who knew his secret and he had to be silenced.

Had Col. Fitts not killed Lester, in his mind Lester could have told Ricky or who knows who about him being a closet homosexual which would have ruined his image and in the Col.'s mind demeaned him as a man. That combined with the anger over being rejected led to him deciding to murder Lester in a fit of rage.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

he coulda just got a horse and gone up to Brokeback Mountain

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] miso_6468 8 years ago

You cracked me up

reply

[–] rc1990 8 years ago

I think Ricky realized that his father was gay when he said "What a sad old man you are". But that's my interpretation.

reply

[–] marhefka 10 years ago

@cathy.

I'm one of these people who after a movie is over while talking to other movie goers will say something like: Oh, so that's what happened. I never really understood who the killer was. The movie shows a man with a white t-shirt covered with blood entering his room. I really didn't understand that scene. I just thought it was Lester in some kind of a flashback. Now, after reading your comment and watching it again with the tilt of my screen adjusted, I realize it was the Colonel.

So, even though it wasn't your intention - thanks.

reply

[–] cathy-creswell 10 years ago

You are welcome!

reply

[–] PhoenixRising1980 10 years ago

Actually the reason he killed Lester was as a way to "punish" his homosexual desires in a sense, since he had been repressing them. They are embodied in Lester, since seeing Lester would always remind him of his repressed homosexual desires (even though Lester said he wasn't gay). He was purging his fixation by killing Lester.

The reason he gets mad at and beats Ricky is because he thought Ricky was expressing his own repressed desires for male sex. Frank hated himself because he saw homosexuality as wrong, but he still desired it. So seeing his son indulge in it (or so he thought), triggered those angry feelings of self hatred. He was just projecting it onto others... a really horrible, horrible man.

I think the real reason he tried to make out with Lester in the first place is pretty complex. When Ricky left, seemingly a homosexual, Frank snapped. His mind was in such turmoil by the repressed desires, he HAD to let them out or he'd be headed for a straight jacket... it was like a pressure cooker being released. The argument with his son triggered it, so he had to do something about it. Frank had nothing left. His wife was basically a vegetable, and his son was apparently gay and never coming back... so he had nothing left to lose by kissing Lester and giving in to his extremely repressed desires.

reply

[–] deem_bastille 9 years ago

HOLY SHI! EVER HEAR OF SPOILER ALERT BUTTONS?????? GOD WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU????

Reading the paper can really be depressing. Mr. Dithers fired Dagwood again.

reply

[–] FargoUT 9 years ago

It's a 17 year old movie. If you haven't seen it, and on the forums discussing the film, well ... the spoiler is your own fault, not the poster's.

reply

[–] suzanne-lawson1 8 years ago

I know it's really sad how people get angry about spoilers for old films

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

he makes a very emotional visit to Lesters garage where he finally acts on his gay feelings.

---

So why didn't he go for his dick in that case

like you didn't see Ennis mucking about - just straight up where the sun don't shine.

I don't see Col F as a real poofter.

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] iancockbill 9 years ago

hi cathy,i always loved this movie as i think many people see things in it that so closely mirror our own lives particularly as i am the same age as lester when it was released,i am not disagreeing on your opinion of the colonels actions but i always thought he did it because he loved his son and was appalled at the the thought of him prostituting himself for lester and in his twisted emotional state offered himself hoping that his son would be free,then tormented by his rejection by lester and the shame he felt killed lester because of his humiliation

reply

[–] temerrit 10 years ago

The way I saw the scene was that he was NOT a homosexual.

He tried to kiss Lester because he wanted to understand and/or have a connection to his son, who he thought was gay.

The reason I think he really shot Lester was because he might have considered him a predator to his son, who he was misguided in trying to protect

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TyrelLynes 10 years ago

According to the trivia, the original script called for scenes showing that the colonel had a gay lover who died in Vietnam.

reply

[–] FlorisV 10 years ago

Another sign is the colonol's (probably) depressed wife, who can be seen with a blank stare in most scenes, she looked like she was in her own world and (sexually) neglected within her relationship.

reply

[–] poem 10 years ago

Thats a possible, but very unlikely interpretation.

We heterosexual men dont feel the motivation to find out "how homosexuals feel", even less by kissing other men. Also, the father isnt trying to understand his son. He is trying to force his son into the same repressed kind of personality he himself is.

I find the theory that he is repressed gay much easier and logical. He secretly hates himself for being gay, and he hates Lester because now Lester knows he's gay. Thus he has to kill Lester, to kill the person who found out.

---
You shall have no other Kates before Kate Winslet.

reply

[–] CaptainTurco 10 years ago

This is exactly what I thought. I don't think at all that Fitts was a repressed gay.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

exactly, as I say above

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] jaydub90011 9 years ago

Him kissing him to try to understand his son and his perceived homosexuality is wrong imo. I think the director was trying to make it clear that the colonel himself was gay in that scene with he obvious focus on how he squeezed Lester's back before he kissed him. There was passion behind that kiss.
All the gay bashing throughout the movie is case 101 repressed gay feelings as well.

reply

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

The only thing I didn't understand

For the same reason he couldn't beat up his son when he thought he sucks dicks.
Should have noticed how much more he was fighting himself in that scene than his son.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

[–] bhoover247 10 years ago

Colonel Fitts thought his son was gay. It was a pathetic way to try to understand his son, in which he obviously hasn't had a normal father son relationship.

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

Colonel Fitts thought his son was gay. It was a pathetic way to try to understand his son, in which he obviously hasn't had a normal father son relationship.

I sometimes find it amusing, the mental game of twister some people perform to put spin on something they don't want to consider.

Quite ironic, really, in the circumstances...

Clearly, Colonel Fitts was intended to be gay - even if you were oblivious to the excised storyline of his background.

Trying it to try and understand his son? Do you realise how bizarre that sounds?

The story has portrayed him as a repressed man in circumstances where it would be rather damaging and conflicting for him to be openly gay - and the rest of his family and circumstances bely that contradiction and internal conflict that was no doubt intended to dog his adult life.

As to the wife and kid thing - well they say marriage is the biggest closet.

reply

[–] evelienbernaers 10 years ago

You shouldn't assume that people see an other explanation for Col. Fitts behaviour because of some hidden fear of the gay community.. ("the mental game of twister some people perform to put spin on something they don't want to consider")

As for me, I also didn't think he had some repressed gay feelings. I saw him as the saddest and most intriguing character of the whole movie.
He is a man who had always lived his personal army-like beliefs of discipline and respect for authority to the fullest. When you see him earlier, confronted with his gay neighbours, you can see the deep hate he feels for these people. He detests the very idea, it completely contradicts everything he stands for. He has always done his utmost best to live by these principles which he thinks everyone should obey and would make for a perfect American society. He lives in his cocoon thinking that this is how the world works, that he is serving his land in the best way.

But throughout the movie you see him realising that the world is evolving in an opposite direction. First of all he can't get a grip on his son (whom he loves very deeply and who he wants to raise by his own beliefs, which also means showing no emotions in the process). Now gay's are just running in the street as if that's a normal thing (not my opinion), Lester is just doing as he pleases and his wife is of no support at all, seen her suffering of mental problems. His son is basically the only thing he has left in the world. When he eventually loses him too (not only to homosexuality, but also because he failed to discipline him, that way looking like the "sad old man"he is in stead of the firm leader he wants to be), his complete universe falls apart. The kiss, for me, is Col. Fitts waving the white flag, realising his life has been a lie, saying "i give up, i'll do whatever the world wants me to". Maybe not exactly to understand his son, but definitely out of love for him.
After the rejection and utter humiliation, he completely loses it and ends up killing Lester.

This is off course my personal interpretation and since there apparently were supposed to be scenes of the colonel and a lost Vietnam gay-affaire this is probably wrong. Still, the "oh he was gay all along!" solution strikes me as too easy, and quite disappointing seen of how deep the rest of the movie was. I then also feel like there should have been more fear in his performance trying not to be discovered. Now I mainly notice him being kind of puzzled as he slowly realises that his beliefs are not implemented nor respected in the rest of his neighbourhood..

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

And again, if you like, you may see it that way.

The story - despite redacted scenes, clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man.

What's more tenable - given the way he approached Lester, in order to kiss him?

People see, or don't see what they want / don't want.

Watch that scene again, where he goes to Lester. Look at how he appeared, the conflict, yet the tenderness and vulnerability, the resulting murder.

Even if you declare the redacted scenes as being somehow, now, magically gone, and never were, there's other things you really can't ignore, unless you are determined to.

I'll say that point again, with emphasis: "the mental game of twister some people perform to put spin on something they don't want to consider" - it's always there to see. People who - for whatever reasons - be it the aesthetics of the story, their preconceptions regarding homosexuality, or simply their determination, sometimes will look at this film with every determination to reject the notion that Colonel Fitts (ret) wasn't actually a repressed homosexual man, he was just conflicted and trying to understand something.

Which is complete and utter bunk. I find it completely fatuous that people would try and suggest he wasn't gay, when he went to Lester and tried to kiss him in that way.

reply

[–] bhoover247 10 years ago

Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay. They would prefer the two neighbors jogging happily down the street. Incidentally, the two gay neighbors seem to be the only well adjusted people in the whole film. As for your phrase you love to repeat "the mental game of twister" I wonder if kids of today still play Twister, or if it was just a plot by 70's business executives to get us kids to touch each other.

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay.

Don't know, don't truly care - doesn't really have much bearing on the story as presented.

I'm sure people of various groups may form an opinion on something, but does the gay community have one cohesive "voice" on such matters?

I could buy that some gay people may not necessarily like the cliched presentation - but then, as you say, there were the two Jims, too.

As for your phrase you love to repeat "the mental game of twister" I wonder if kids of today still play Twister, or if it was just a plot by 70's business executives to get us kids to touch each other.

"Never ascribe to malice, what could be explained as incompetence"

Whenever there's a suggestion of calculating, Machiavellian-esque as an alternative to dumb luck, or incompetence, I'm going with Occam's Razor.

reply

[–] bhoover247 10 years ago

Somewhere on an exclusive tropical island paradise a retired Milton Bradley executive is laughing at your gullibility.

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

Somewhere on an exclusive tropical island paradise a retired Milton Bradley executive is laughing at your gullibility.

Snappy comeback, but poor choice of words.

It's not gullible to default to assuming most other people are likely to fall on the simplistic, rather than calculating side. Hubristic, maybe, but not gullible.

Look at business, government, anything you care to mention, really - would you really assume they're all scheming, steely-eyed, missile-men? Or occasionally the stars align, and something works out, and the conspiracy theory nutjobs assume, rather predictably, conspiracy.

Anyway, it's all the work of those lizard people - and may I be the first to welcome our new, lizard, overlords...

reply

[–] thesinik 9 years ago

"Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay."

Do you view the gay community as a cartoon of itself? Grow up.

Made you look!

reply

[–] njiuma 9 years ago

"Have you ever thought that maybe the gay community is not wanting to believe that a creepy, pathetic, loser human like Colonel Fitts could be gay."

- the gay and liberal community likely isn't standing on the sidelines of a movie worried about the perceptions of homosexuals.

However, i believe that there are gay and liberal organizations that are trying to influence the general perception, trying to make gays "normal" in a society that has viewed homosexuality as "abnormal" and heterosexuality as "normal".

Colonel Fitts is clearly a homosexual that tries to cover it up with his sham marriage and outward "macho" posturing to his son, later giving in to his gay propensity and murdering Lester as a part of his conflict.

Do you view the gay community as a cartoon of itself? Grow up.

- it is in some ways "a cartoon of itself", as it is certainly a bit of a self parody. To try to normalize an aberrant sexual practice in a society that has, on the whole, perceived it to be perverse, seems a bit comical.

"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"

reply

[–] thesinik 9 years ago

There is nothing abnormal about being gay. We even see it in nature. Only repressed/bigoted overly religious people like you can't come to terms with it haha..

Whether we like it or not, homosexuality isn't a fad. It's also not a binary light switch but more of a spectrum. I'm sure you've had curiosity and it burns you up ;)

reply

[–] evelienbernaers 10 years ago

Apart from the other discussion that arose from my comment, which got - in my opinion - a bit beside the question, I'd like to answer to your reaction.

You say te story clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man, hereby ignoring all my arguments why this wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.
You say that I ignore the last scene, except I clearly don't. I've just given a reason why this scene means something different to me.
You say col Fittz has to be gay, since he kissed Lester. As if things would make perfect sense then. Have you ever thought about the fact that the two of them barely knew each other and that there was no reason whatsoever to assume that the colonel was somehow attracted to Lester? It would be like saying that it would be normal for Colonel Fitts wife to go ahead and kiss Lester, just because she is a heterosexual. It makes me think I better understand homosexuals than you do.

Other than that, you seem awfully determined to attribute my opinion to some subconscious gay-hating aversion and throw it in the garbage right away. That's just too bad. But okay clearly you have made peace with your "hubristic" side.

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

You say te story clearly intended him to be a repressed gay man, hereby ignoring all my arguments why this wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.
You say that I ignore the last scene, except I clearly don't. I've just given a reason why this scene means something different to me.
You say col Fittz has to be gay, since he kissed Lester. As if things would make perfect sense then. Have you ever thought about the fact that the two of them barely knew each other and that there was no reason whatsoever to assume that the colonel was somehow attracted to Lester? It would be like saying that it would be normal for Colonel Fitts wife to go ahead and kiss Lester, just because she is a heterosexual. It makes me think I better understand homosexuals than you do.

Other than that, you seem awfully determined to attribute my opinion to some subconscious gay-hating aversion and throw it in the garbage right away. That's just too bad. But okay clearly you have made peace with your "hubristic" side.

I'm sorry, but you're really ignoring what was presented in the film.

Go and watch that scene again - look at how Fitts approaches Lester, it's not just the kiss, it's the entire tenderness of it all.

That's not the behaviour of somebody who outwardly "hates" gay people, well apart from the obvious cliche.

Truly - go an watch that scene again a couple of times, and really, are you really contending it wasn't really heatfelt, tentative exploration?

And it's not so much that I've made peace with my "hubristic" side - we just have an understanding, that's all.

reply

[–] DavidStHubbinsUSA 9 years ago

This incident was a very obvious and easy to understand chain of events. I don't think the Col's son had anything to do with what happened except for two things. He felt certain his son was gay and that Lester was gay. His life was a constant struggle with himself to repress who he really was.

He wouldn't have done that ever if he was straight. He hated himself so much for his true feelings he abused his son and wife for most of his life. He truly had major inner demons. After finding out that his son was gay (he thought) he had a melt down and seeing a known (to him) homosexual he had to take action on what was eating him up. He would have never approached anyone unsure if they were gay or not and to him this was safe, he never thought for a minute of being rejected. Since he made a mistake and was rebuffed the shear terror of what he did and exposing himself took him over the edge, he couldn't allow anyone to know. He also allowed himself to give into who he was and acted on his greatest fear but was shut down. He broke.... Took him over the edge. Had he been in proper frame of mind he wouldn't have committed murder in such a way that he would almost certainly have been caught. With his son involved (he would at the very least say that his father went ballistic and might have shot Lester in rage, they would have checked his guns) Using his own weapon he would have eventually been caught, for murder anyway. No one in the world would know of his desires if Lester was gone. All he cared about in the entire world is that that secret would never get out. He was temporally insane.

If you combine his massive homophobic personality and the scene with the Nazi plate (Why was that even in the movie? There has to be a reason, not a Nazi weapon but a piece of china, something more personal) He was surely hiding his being gay.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man....

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

This is off course my personal interpretation and since there apparently were supposed to be scenes of the colonel and a lost Vietnam gay-affaire this is probably wrong.

---

Yes but that scene was NOT in the movie that Mendes MADE, so I agree entirely with your explanation.

the dead give away was the STYLE of the "kiss" which was more of a football headbutt or a kid who has been told he must kiss grandmother, and he does the same "pucker up".

same in Brokeback when Ennis does the same to Jack purely so he can get revenge on Alma for screwing up all his plans for their future. Ang did it that way as totally unlike Ennis to make a visual statement, same as Mendes did with Col F.

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

This is off course my personal interpretation and since there apparently were supposed to be scenes of the colonel and a lost Vietnam gay-affaire this is probably wrong.

---

Yes but that scene was NOT in the movie that Mendes MADE, so I agree entirely with your explanation.

the dead give away was the STYLE of the "kiss" which was more of a football headbutt or a kid who has been told he must kiss grandmother, and he does the same "pucker up".

same in Brokeback when Ennis does the same to Jack purely so he can get revenge on Alma for screwing up all his plans for their future. Ang did it that way as totally unlike Ennis to make a visual statement, same as Mendes did with Col F.

Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.

Just because there's not further exposition, doesn't mean that the angle has been reversed - that's just daft.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.

---

Sorry dude but your drama teach is totally wrong there.

Because the whole deal is a STORY the ONLY version is the one you see on screen - ie a director has the right to put his own tilt on a movie and ignore the so called screen play [or book].

particularly here as Mendes is English so is able to SEE the Beauty from afar because he is not sitting IN it.

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

Just because some scenes never made it past the cutting room floor, does not reverse the previous decisions and story / backstory of the various characters.

---

Sorry dude but your drama teach is totally wrong there.

Because the whole deal is a STORY the ONLY version is the one you see on screen - ie a director has the right to put his own tilt on a movie and ignore the so called screen play [or book].

particularly here as Mendes is English so is able to SEE the Beauty from afar because he is not sitting IN it.

"drama teach"?

Way past that, junior.

Pedantry and myopia are misplaced, here.

Just because some scenes were excised, it doesn't mean that's because they retreated from the thrust of that - there may have been countless other reasons. Other scenes were too.

None of that changes what we're presented with - a guy who made he career in the army, from a time and conditioned to the view that homosexuality is a deviance and something to be shamed of / repressed, but actually is, himself.

Go and watch the scene where he goes to Lester. If you can see something other than a guy with a lifetime entrenched in a certain polarised opinion, repressing his true feelings, then decided to take a chance and expose a degree of vulnerability in the process. That wasn't some odd experiment - look at how he approaches Lester, look at how he behaves, acts.

As I've said several times, now - the mental games of twister people are prepared to play about that, and about what was going on, say as much about what they WANT to see in the film, as opposed to what was presented.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

Lester approached HIM to take off his wet clothes, and he mistook that as an invite and head butted him.

say as much about what they WANT to see in the film, as opposed to what was presented

It's the other way around, Mendes set up a lot of tropes Carefully Taught by drama teachers and stood back to see the result - and caught a huge lot of fish

eg Lester was NOT chasing Angela - she was chasing him but that don't fit small f feminist dogma

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

Lester approached HIM to take off his wet clothes, and he mistook that as an invite and head butted him.

I'm not sure you and I are watching the same film...

say as much about what they WANT to see in the film, as opposed to what was presented

It's the other way around, Mendes set up a lot of tropes Carefully Taught by drama teachers and stood back to see the result - and caught a huge lot of fish

eg Lester was NOT chasing Angela - she was chasing him but that don't fit small f feminist dogma

Lester was most certainly chasing Angela - he acted like an infatuated teenager around her - consider the scene where he's listening at Janey's bedroom door, or sneaks in whilst she's showering, to ring Angela's number.

I'm not saying it doesn't become reciprocated, but it most certainly starts with his infatuation over her, at first, she appears rather ambivalent, if not a little humoured about Lester and Carolyn.

Look at him deciding to get fit and lift weights - that was all because of a throwaway comment Angela made, whilst Lester was listening through Janey's bedroom door. Now I'm not saying that didn't take on a life of it's own - the smoking weed, the Firebird, the whole "getting his groove back" - but all the same, there were big chunks of the story that were initiated by Lester's infatuation over Angela.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

are you a married man?

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

are you a married man?

Easy, tiger - you haven't even bought me dinner.

Not really buying the thrust, though. In just the same way as some would say this film only works if you're a middle-aged, married but unhappy, disenfranchised man, in America, looking to reboot their life, I roundly reject the notion that it's only with the same experiences can people possibly understand.

Tell me what bogus reasoning you have for asking and pursuing that decidedly foolish line of argument, and I may answer.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

Tell me what bogus reasoning you have for asking and pursuing that decidedly foolish line of argument, and I may answer.

---

because I AM Lester RISEN

nuthin bogus or foolish, just that your comments say you are a babe in the woods as to life's harrowing exigencies

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

Tell me what bogus reasoning you have for asking and pursuing that decidedly foolish line of argument, and I may answer.

---

because I AM Lester RISEN

nuthin bogus or foolish, just that your comments say you are a babe in the woods as to life's harrowing exigencies

Then you're 0 for 3, then - and it is bogus and foolish.

Because you're completely wrong about that, and I was correct to ascribe it so.

You make too many assumptions, and try and assert relevance where there is none.

It's idiocy like that, that makes people reticent to answer such questions, when people such as you invent stupid preconceptions to start with, then continue to argue with them as if they're true and relevant.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

It's idiocy like that, that makes people reticent to answer such questions, when people such as you invent stupid preconceptions to start with, then continue to argue with them as if they're true and relevant.

---

OK so I REPEAT, ARE you married dude?

it's a simple question and your Freudian Slip is showing via your reticence to answer a simple question

ie you are obviously NEVER married but a SNAG sympathizer [commonly termed a femi-man].

that is what this movie is about ie the small f feminist TAKEOVER of the nuclear family in 1970, giving us the full-on AB by 1999.

welcome to the Beauty dude

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

ie you are obviously NEVER married but a SNAG sympathizer [commonly termed a femi-man]

Wrong.

There you go - one more bogus assumption, in a long line of them.

Kudos - I've not encountered that many willing to continue blathering on, in total ignorance, still convinced in the validity of their rhetoric - despite it being misfiring and demonstrably wrong.

The point you miss, though, is that it's irrelevant. The notion that we can only see things couched in the terms of our personal circumstances and experience, well that's the issue with people who are so restricted - as opposed to that which you'd like to assert.

Here's my tip - if you're going to really try and pursue this notion of pseudo-social-psychological profiling based on what you perceive in people, relevance to the topic, and being controlled by it, it really is beholden on you to actually be competent at it. And that's the problem - beyond a bit of bluff and bluster, your own hubris, and liberal sprinkling of some choice terms - you're just not good enough at that to make it work - so do yourself a favour, leave that sort of "insight" to the people who are sufficiently knowledgable and clever to be able to make it work, because it's most certainly not working for you.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

so you ARE married?

any kids?

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

so you ARE married?

any kids?

And why would I bother with such inane questions, given the completely stupid, not to mention wrong, conclusions you've already leaped to?

To try and help you write even more retarded stuff?

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

just testin mate - we knew all along you were NOT married as you have idea about what Lester was going through [cept via your small f feminist school teacher]

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] douglashallth 10 years ago

just testin mate - we knew all along you were NOT married as you have idea about what Lester was going through [cept via your small f feminist school teacher]

If you ever had the intelligent to test me, I'd tell you you could, but you don't.

And what's with this "we" business? Who is it you presume you're speaking for, and exactly how many other personalities are there in you?

As to what you're trying to claim, well you're wrong son - I've let it slide a couple of times, now, but eventually my grace in dealing with your ineptitude and stupidity will have some bounds - know your place, before I put you in it.

reply

[–] Lester_Burnham_Risen 10 years ago

gosh

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

[–] RKharlamov2001 10 years ago

This argument is why i come to IMDB guys.

Thanks so much.

reply

[–] jkm2010 9 years ago

This argument is why i come to IMDB guys.

Thanks so much.

Same.

reply

[–] nobiggie 9 years ago

<For the same reason he couldn't beat up his son when he thought he sucks dicks.
Should have noticed how much more he was fighting himself in that scene than his son. >

Very good points you make! The others here who don't think the kid's father was gay are clueless or in denial themselves!

reply

[–] mtocm-139-588081 9 years ago

homophobia=gay in deep, hahaha

reply

[–] Vicenzo-VV 9 years ago

Fitts had a homosexual relationship in the army and his then boyfriend was killed. This subplot was explored more in scenes that were eventually excised from the movie. In the commentary Sam Mendes and Alan Ball discuss it a fair bit.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

reply

[–] kya1 9 years ago

He was a repressed homosexual who could not admit his true feelings, but when he thought Lester was gay, he felt he finally could. I assume he had never really had any contact with a gay man before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

reply

[–] JudgeNotLestYeBeJudgeReinhold 9 years ago

So, I get that he was a repressed gay man, but why did he shoot Lester? Was he crushed by the rejection? Or do you think he killed him to keep his 'secret' safe?

I just watched AB for the first time in probably 15 years, and I didn't get then, and still don't! Makes me feel kinda like a dumbass, but I'm really curious to know someone else's opinion.

Thanks, Casey

reply

[–] ohumstudio 9 years ago

i believe tha col fitts was not gay.he kissed Lester to make sure if lester is gay or not.that was the only way he could find out.and once he find out he is not gay and he kicked his son out for wrong reason and lost him forever then he killed lester

reply

[–] phoenixandrew 9 years ago

Because homophobes are closet homosexuals.

reply