MovieChat Forums > Far from Heaven (2003) Discussion > Tolerance of Homosexutality vs. Intolera...

Tolerance of Homosexutality vs. Intolerance of Race Mingling

posted 15 years ago by pensivewon
12 replies | jump to latest

It was quite interesting how the characters in the film seemed more comfortable with the idea of homosexuality than with two races socially intermingling.

It was discussed between Cathy and Eleanor that the museum event was ran by someone's uncle, I believe. This uncle exhibited an alternative life style. The two women kind of giggled about it and Eleanor said something to the affect of "to each his own". But at the gallery, when Cathy was talking to Raymond, everyone, including the gay uncle, scoffed at them.

And then that Eleanor, Cathy's supposed best friend. Throughout the movie, she is caring, and loving, concerned about everything with Cathy. Cathy finally confides everything to Eleanor, who in turn is like, "If you need anything, ANYTHING at all. I mean it. I'm here for you". Then Cathy tells her how she was fond of Raymond, and makes it clear it was not a sexual relationship. Eleanor then wants nothing to do with Cathy. She even put the coffee cup down as if it were dirty because it came from Cathy! Some friend, huh, even by 1950's standards.

I also found it interesting that when ever Cathy and Raymond were speaking, someone always witnessed it and it was scandalous. However, her husband was never spotted out on the prowl for men, with a man, etc. Well, I guess that is because Cathy and Raymond were more caviler about being around each other...going for day time trips in the car, patronizing a bar, meeting at the diner, etc. Where as the husband snuck around at night and there were less likely to be witnesses to his affairs. I guess it goes further to show the innocence of Cathy and Raynond's characters....they had nothing to hide because they felt they were doing nothing wrong. They both seemed rather broadsided at all the negative reactions they received until the end of the movie.

[–] ashisthegal 14 years ago

well... i think it's worth noting that it might have to do with the fact that Cathy was a WOMAN associating with a black man, and her husband, while he was gay, was a MAN. it was easier for people to accept an alternative lifestyle if it came from a man. when a woman tried to take control of her life, it wouldn't have the same consequences.

i'm not saying this movie is all about gender roles, but i do think that does have something to do with it.

[–] fidelio1980 14 years ago

The original post in this thread doesn't characterize the movie accurately. The world this movie depicts is nowhere near as tolerant of homosexuality as the post indicates.

The women snickered about the gayness of the uncle, and while the neighbor (Patricia Clarkson's character) said "To each his own," in the same conversation she also said, "Call me old fashioned, I just like all the men I'm around to be all men."

The women also treated it as a ridiculous joke that one day a newspaper article about Cathy (Julianne Moore's character) would mention that she was kind to homosexuals, and Cathy acted like the idea of a newspaper acknowledging such a word was positively scandalous.

I don't mean to imply that Cathy was a vicious anti-gay bigot, as her character was remarkably accepting, when you consider the time period she lived in. But there's nothing in this movie that would indicate that gay people were treated with any kind of tolerance back then. When Dennis Quaid's character sought medical attention, he was told that he was sick, and that he should begin an extremely unpleasant course of treatment in order to be "cured." He also got arrested early on in the movie. He clearly had to take extraordinary steps just to keep his orientation a secret.

This movie does, however, nicely highlight the difference between the types of discrimination the two groups (gays and blacks) faced. Dennis Quaid's character could be rich and respected, but that was only possible if he either permanently denied himself romantic love and sex, or if he went to great lengths to live in secrecy (and even if he took great lengths, there was still a very real chance that he'd be found out). Being found out meant that he'd be treated as the scum of the earth. And even if he wasn't found out, he had to live with crippling shame, guilt, and feelings of inadequacy.

Dennis Haysbert's character, on the other hand, wasn't expected to live his life in secrecy - but he was going to be treated as a second-class citizen no matter what. His very presence at an art gallery, or in the proximity of a white woman, was scandalous, and that wouldn't change no matter how much smarter, better educated, or harder working he was than most people of any race.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rgcustomer 13 years ago

I agree. The film opens with the husband having been picked up by the police.

[–] C.S.Wood 13 years ago

The original post in this thread doesn't characterize the movie accurately. The world this movie depicts is nowhere near as tolerant of homosexuality as the post indicates.

I think what the OP meant was that THE MOVIE seemed to be more tolerant towards the homosexuality than it was to the interracial relationship. I kind of have to agree but mostly because that's how the story was told.

Dennis Quaid was fully aware that he had to sneak around to be with a man, whereas Moore and Haysbert were far more naive and innocent because they had more of a friendship instead of a romance, but everyone just assumed they were having sex because a man and a woman can't just be friends, they must be screwing.

I think the movie would have been a bit more interesting if they had in fact tried to have a secret romance, because then getting found out would've meant Moore being ostracized and Haysbert most likely being lynched. The fact they hadn't even done anything yet were still being harassed was sad, but the stakes just weren't high enough for me.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] MuMu2525 14 years ago

The characters in the film were not comfortable with either homosexuality or inter-racial relationships, both of which were highly taboo in the 1950s. The ladies at the art gallery may have appeared to be less condemning of homosexuality, but that's because it wasn't actually being paraded around in front of them. It was only suggested that the uncle was gay, assumingly because of his slightly effeminate behaviour ("a little light on his feet") but nothing was ever actually confirmed. You can bet that if they witnessed Cathy's husband smooching that guy at the office, the whole town would be in complete uproar!

Cathy and Raymond's "relationship", however, was something that people could see with their own eyes - even if they did misinterpret it. And because Cathy was held in such high esteem by the community, it made her "indiscretion" doubly offensive to their small-mindedness.

[–] bryanac625 13 years ago

It was discussed between Cathy and Eleanor that the museum event was ran by someone's uncle, I believe. This uncle exhibited an alternative life style. The two women kind of giggled about it and Eleanor said something to the affect of "to each his own". But at the gallery, when Cathy was talking to Raymond, everyone, including the gay uncle, scoffed at them.

I noticed this too and wondered the same thing you did. I don't tnink it's any coincidence.

Years ago, I saw a talk show; the guests were a gay interracial couple and their respective families. The host asked the families what they had a bigger problem with- race or homosexuality. Without question, their answer was race.

Personally, I think race trumps everything- gender, age, class, sexual orientation. Of course, there is absolute discrimination against homosexuals. But race prejudice has manifested itself in very different ways. A person can hide their homosexuality, whereas a person cannot really hide their skin color.

And if it means anything, the people in the movie achieved acceptance as long as they were in certain environments. Mona's uncle, an art dealer, was fine in an art gallery. But if that guy wants into a barbershop full of straight, macho men on a Saturday afternoon, forget it. And Mona was fine with Black men as long as they fixed her car or watered her lawn. Spending social time with a Black man was out of the question to her.

[–] SteveH2002 12 years ago

Well, Cathy has given the "I think of him, I do" speech right before Eleanor walks out. Yeah, it's not a sexual relationship, but Eleanor could reasonably read physical longing in Cathy's speech. Yes, Raymond and Cathy had done nothing wrong, but this was about more than acts taken.

I don't think it was possible to get Raymond to express negative opinions about Frank's sexual orientation. Had he done so he'd have every right to expect Cathy to terminate contact with him. Cathy spent most of the movie trying to keep Frank and come to grips with his homosexuality. And, since Raymond was the only person Cathy ever opened up to about Frank's 'problem', he was the only character who could castigate Frank personally - rather than a general tongue clucking at homosexuality.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fletcbk 12 years ago

The big difference is that there wasn't a single source of support for Moore/Hasbert (Cathy/Raymond).

Yes, Dennis Quaid (Frank) dealt with a lot of internal shame and was deeply closeted (had to be) but there were also sympathetic outlets for him like the therapist, Cathy, and the other closeted gay men. At one point he's in an entire bar full of men, but when Cathy/Raymond go into "his" bar they are treated just as awkwardly as if they'd gone to a "white" bar. Cathy couldn't even turn to her best friend about Raymond being a good LISTENER (nothing about sexual feelings for him) without her cutting Cathy off completely.

Another direct contrast is when Cathy finds out about his homosexuality, and is shockingly sympathetic, whereas Frank went ballistic when there were rumors about her and Raymond.

Even the scenes in Miami show a distinction. When the black kid goes into the "white" pool, white people balk and the black man gets furious with the kid (both sides are enforcing their "place")...Meanwhile, Frank gets hit on by a good-looking guy he'll eventually leave his wife for. Yes, it's in secret, but it shows the strong support/bond that will exist for men going through this whereas Cathy/Raymond eventually have none.

Cathy gets shunned and Raymond even gets rocks thrown through his window by other black people. Raymond even comments that segregation seems to be the one thing that both sides can agree on.

In the movie, homosexuality seems to be something that inspires sympathy and pity from people, whereas interracial romance inspires visceral hatred. Some of the women talk about homosexuality "having a place" and there were atmospheres they could survive, but the movie suggests there's nowhere Cathy/Raymond can go without being harassed. Other people work to help keep Frank in the closet (the cops don't reveal the real reason for his arrest, the gay bar protects its own, the men he has liaisons with aren't talking, etc.) but everyone works extra-hard to "out" whatever is going on with Cathy/Raymond.

P.S.--I've also noticed that you're now more likely to see a homosexual relationship on scripted TV/movies than a successful interracial one, not a good thing or bad thing, just that IR relationships are (sadly) STILL a taboo for ignorant types of all races. [Just look at the imdb comments every time a black actress marries a white guy, just for one example...]

[–] Darew_Oceanside 10 years ago

A history of violence and slavery in America is why violence is more likely to stir between blacks and whites. The same affect doesn't happen between other races, like latino with white or black.

https://twitter.com/#!/AndrewlinaJolie

[–] daimposter 10 years ago

Everything you said was spot on. To expand on your comment about homosexuality inspiring sympathy, historically it has been seen as 'sickness' that can be cured to that explains the sympathy. However, in real life, some people felt sorry for them and wanted them changed but still weren't very tolerant of them and other people just straight out hated them. The film captured the sympathy/change/intolerance part but did't focus on groups that wanted to treat gays like they do 'negros'. I think a reason for that is that one of the gay characters the community is introduced to is an uncle of the group and therefore a relative. The other being Frank, the community didn't know he was gay until the very end but even then, they already know him and are less likely to treat him too terribly bad.

You're comment about homosexuality and interracial marriages on tv/movie is what is troubling about movies. There far more interracial marriages in real life than gay marriages or unions or relationships but Hollywood still can't get over it's sorta subtle racism. For example, Will Smith --- one of the biggest movie stars --- has not had a real relationship with a white woman in any of his movies. He appears to be getting his first real white woman love interest in the movie Focus with Margo Robbie from Wolf of Wall St. Then look at the other biggest black movie star in Hollywood, Denzel Washington. I also believe he has not had a true white woman love interest. However, though Hollywood does have a problem with black women with white men, that problem is much smaller. Halle Berry, Zoe Saldana, Paula Patton, etc are often with white males and famous white male actors are occasionally with lesser known black actresses.

It's rather sickening that Hollywood won't portray black males with white women even though there are more black males with white women than black females with white men in real life.