So Samuel L. Jackson was gay in this one? - The Hateful Eight (2015) Discussion

[–] Sober-Friend 9 years ago

It wasn't gay it was about power.

reply

[–] snagswolf 9 years ago

I lived my teenage years in the Seventies, and it was common then for one guy to insult another guy with "Suck my d!ck." It was understood to be intended to demean the other, not a request for an actual blowjob.

And, of course, if the insult was ever answered with an "Okay, I'll suck your d!ck", the offer would be refused. So if a guy ever bragged to his friends, "I told him to suck my d!ck, and he did it," his friends would think he was gay, because you'd have to be gay to allow another guy to put his mouth on your d!ck for any reason (with the possible exception of rattlesnake and spider bites).

If Samuel L. Jackson had said something like, "I told him he had to suck my d!ck in order to live, and he begged me to let him do it," that would've been fine. But to actually let him do it, crosses the line from humiliation to participation.

So I have to side with the OP on this issue.

reply

[–] GradyQ 9 years ago

Thank you, snagswolf. It's good to see there are still some clear thinking people out there who haven't been brainwashed. Many ridiculous people are regurgitating the line about how "rape isn't sex." That whole idea was introduced by feminists in the 70's as a way to soften the blow for victims by delegitimizing it as a sexual encounter.

To the straight guys on the message board saying it was only about power and humiliation, I have to ask: Would you ever force an adversary to suck you off after you conquered him in a fight? Like ever? Even if you really hated the guy? I dare say most would not. I would maybe hit him until he's knocked out, then run his pockets and steal his cellphone. Or maybe yell at him in his face while he's down like "You got knocked the F out!" But I'd never sexually assault the person. Would definitely go with something more traditional.

GQ

reply

[–] iroquoisjoe 9 years ago

Would you ever force an adversary to suck you off after you conquered him in a fight? Like ever? Even if you really hated the guy?

Ha!  Well, no, I personally would not.

On the other hand, speaking of "hatred", if I, myself, met up with the very war criminal who had ordered the wholesale slaughter of an entire command of my surrendering compatriots at a battle that I had personally participated in. A massacre that I witnessed...

...well, then, there's no story so vile, so dirty, so revolting, so personally abhorrent or so descriptively disgusting, that I would not tell it...if I thought it would provoke that war criminal into an act so rash that it would allow me to legally avenge the ignominious murders of my comrades.

Now, if Jesus were so kind as to let me have such personal and poetic revenge, a revenge that would truly put to rest some unresolved nightmares from my own personal past...well, I would sit there afterwards, like Major Marquesse Warren did, with a wry smirk on my face, satisfied in the knowledge that something beautiful had just happened.  ...and the idea that someone might be affronted by the implications of homosexual activity would be the farthest concern from my mind. 

On November 6, 2012 god blessed America...again. 

reply

[–] GradyQ 8 years ago

bump.

GQ

reply

[–] BebeJumeau 8 years ago

If Samuel L. Jackson had said something like, "I told him he had to suck my d!ck in order to live, and he begged me to let him do it," that would've been fine. But to actually let him do it, crosses the line from humiliation to participation.

this gets the core of the matter.

Despite many of you believing that it was fiction - not wanting to own up to the idea of Jackson being seen to be involved in either a) enjoying being serviced by a man - i.e. laughing - and also suggestively using his tongue when telling the story to play up the sexual overtones b) being a rapist and using the action as a means of humiliation

the scene is portrayed in much vivid detail on screen - but you can sort of excuse it as it was a made up story

then there is the other line of discussion that the whole scene is a profound commentary on US race relations - and somehow the rape is justified as some form of cosmic revenge on behalf of African American people ... and this is the line that Tarantino himself seems to take

but no one seems to speak about the elephant in the corner - that it was an excuse for Tarantino to think up and film a scene in which someone is seen engaging in oral sex - servicing - Samuel l Jackson

and it is ironic that people spend so much energy explaining it away - either as a visualisation of Warren's ability as a liar or that it is a feel good gesture of solidarity with the oppressed and a further nail in the coffin of the lost cause - and no one questions just what was going through the film maker's mind

Or whether the scene was as profound and politically resonant as people like to think - but just a simple scene of Male on Male action

reply

[–] Carousel_HIStory 8 years ago

He wasnt gay.
He made the guy suck him because thats what the old white man did to his black soldiers that they killed after not giving them food.

The guy would do anything to get that blanket just like them black soldiers would do anything for food.

reply

[–] BebeJumeau 8 years ago

really ...

He made the guy suck him because thats what the old white man did to his black soldiers that they killed after not giving them food.

where in history is THAT fact recorded ..

reply

[–] GradyQ 8 years ago

The passage of time has not made this issue any clearer for me. Samuel L. Jackson was gay for no reason in this.

GQ

reply