TopBilled

TCM spotlight on 'gay hollywood'-- June 2017

243 posts in this topic

Considering the fact that TCM is airing Psycho at the time I am posting this and has Peeping Tom scheduled next... and the fact that I saw Psycho uncut on network TV in the early '80s even though it was aired much, much later than TCM is airing it now... there should be absolutely NO problem with TCM airing Brokeback Mountain, Midnight Cowboy, The Celluloid Closet & company. If a core of TCM fans are in a state of shock and outage, they can just switch the channel to The 700 Club (featuring The Mummy) until the films finish and The Hound Who Thought He Was a Raccoon gets repeated later. (Even though only the raccoon is heterosexual in that one. The hound is most affectionate with his bro-buddy until a female raccoon intervenes.)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the fact that TCM is airing Psycho at the time I am posting this and has Peeping Tom scheduled next... and the fact that I saw Psycho uncut on network TV in the early '80s even though it was aired much, much later than TCM is airing it now... there should be absolutely NO problem with TCM airing Brokeback Mountain, Midnight Cowboy, The Celluloid Closet & company. If a core of TCM fans are in a state of shock and outage, they can just switch the channel to The 700 Club (featuring The Mummy) until the films finish and The Hound Who Thought He Was a Raccoon gets repeated later. (Even though only the raccoon is heterosexual in that one. The hound is most affectionate with his bro-buddy until a female raccoon intervenes.)

But people like the sensors are never upset about violence- but show two men kissing and it's the end of the world

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But people like the sensors are never upset about violence- but show two men kissing and it's the end of the world

 

Yeah... Brokeback has that and would have to be shown in the middle of the night. I watched Midnight Cowboy again, probably for the tenth time. All kissing there is heterosexual, even in the dark movie theater when Joe is being kissed by a guy and we get shown this dream "insert" of a girl of his past instead. Some of the slang talk hasn't aged well, such the three letter F-word. In my proposed schedule, I thought of switching this around with Sunday Bloody Sunday, this being a better choice for a 10PM slot.

 

I dunno... what do you think? This one...

 

 

 

... before this one? Here is the original 1969 trailer which is tamer than the reissue one I initially posted.

 

 

 

friday june 2, 2017

 

ben-hur: a tale of the christ (1925) with ramon novarro - replace with two shorter Ramon Novarro flix that aren't any more "gay" but fit better.

*The Pagan (1929)

*Mata Hari (1931)

*Queen Christina (1933), continuing after Mata Hari with Garbo at her most lesbian-ish despite falling for John Gilbert

storm at daybreak (1933) with kay francis - move at another day because I like these pre-code films even if they have little material to chew on

 

8PM prime time: spotlight on John Schlesinger

*Billy Liar (1963) - moved from the other day

After 10 PM (due to Brenda Vacarro's and Glenda Jackson's bare bosoms and Jon Voight's bare bottom, plus everybody smoking weed):

*Midnight Cowboy (1969)

*Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

April 7, 1970... interesting that the first "gay" Best Picture (pre-Moonlight and not counting Wings which just had a kiss scene) was presented by the gay friendliest star in Hollywood, famous for her AIDS activism in the '80s.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is TCM showing Making Love,  the 1982 film?    I really enjoyed this film and I found it to be believable (of course what do I know!).

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, but I added it into my "proposal" list many posts earlier.

 

Bottom line, I just need an excuse to get TCM to air 1969's Best Picture. Oh... and getting the two Godfathers on TCM would be nice too. Nothing "gay" there though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wizard of Oz is being shown tonight.

 

I guess... I guess... we can add that to our June schedule as well. At least that movie will please everybody, gay or straight. Bert Lahr proves he can stand up to anybody and be proud of who he is. There is lots of great bro-bonding between him, the Scarecrow and Tin Man. Also Judy singing "Over the Rainbow". Her death was shortly before Stonewall.

 

Makes sense.

 

After 1:30 AM Eastern standard time, we are treated to A Clockwork Orange. Oh... please. We can CERTAINLY see either Brokeback Mountain or Weekend at that hour in June. There is no way anybody can argue the former film is less worthy of its R rating than the other two.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wizard of Oz is being shown tonight.

 

I guess... I guess... we can add that to our June schedule as well. At least that movie will please everybody, gay or straight. Bert Lahr proves he can stand up to anybody and be proud of who he is. There is lots of great bro-bonding between him, the Scarecrow and Tin Man. Also Judy singing "Over the Rainbow". Her death was shortly before Stonewall.

 

Makes sense.

 

After 1:30 AM Eastern standard time, we are treated to A Clockwork Orange. Oh... please. We can CERTAINLY see either Brokeback Mountain or Weekend at that hour in June. There is no way anybody can argue the former film is less worthy of its R rating than the other two.

Is there a gayer movie than  "The Wizard of Oz" it's got Judy , that gay lion, the emerald city people who act as if they were in an art deco disco.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand some of the picks for June's schedule, such as films directed by Dorothy Arzner. I think they should include something of hers despite it being a "heteronormal" picture. Maybe I should put back Christopher Strong into my "schedule revision".

 

Last night they showed Rachel Rachel again, one I have on DVD and greatly enjoy. I could see it being included as well. Joanne Woodward's lead character is a virgin until her experiences with James Olson's Nick (who certainly won't turn off gay male viewers with his shirtless shots and hungry, hungry take over of her). Yet it was groundbreaking for its time with her best friend (played by Estelle Parsons) planting a kiss because she thought Rachel's avoidance of men prior to Nick meant something else entirely. Rachel's reaction resembled many strictly heterosexuals who feel awkward when something like that happens. Her husband directed her very well in that piece, making it easy for ANY viewer to identify with her.

 

On another note, I finally watched Advise And Consent all the way through. I do think the senator committing suicide rather than dealing with any exposure to his one-time same sex affair during the Korean War was too much a product of its Kennedy era time period morality. Yet it was handled rather progressively at the time with Don Murray being so likeable, much like Dirk Bogarde in Victim. However it would be a good idea for Ben Mankiewicz to mention that the film reflects the times. Roughly two thirds of the mainstream sixties dramas covering homosexuality were required to end with a death scene. Otto Preminger was at least questioning moviegoers if this death was really all that necessary, since we see Don's character as a devoted husband and father before his past is drummed up for political reasons. (It is a nice touch that Frank Sinatra music is played in the infamous gay bar scene when he was later investigating the gay "underworld" six years later in The Detective.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand some of the picks for June's schedule, such as films directed by Dorothy Arzner. I think they should include something of hers despite it being a "heteronormal" picture. Maybe I should put back Christopher Strong into my "schedule revision".

 

Last night they showed Rachel Rachel again, one I have on DVD and greatly enjoy. I could see it being included as well. Joanne Woodward's lead character is a virgin until her experiences with James Olson's Nick (who certainly won't turn off gay male viewers with his shirtless shots and hungry, hungry take over of her). Yet it was groundbreaking for its time with her best friend (played by Estelle Parsons) planting a kiss because she thought Rachel's avoidance of men prior to Nick meant something else entirely. Rachel's reaction resembled many strictly heterosexuals who feel awkward when something like that happens. Her husband directed her very well in that piece, making it easy for ANY viewer to identify with her.

 

On another note, I finally watched Advise And Consent all the way through. I do think the senator committing suicide rather than dealing with any exposure to his one-time same sex affair during the Korean War was too much a product of its Kennedy era time period morality. Yet it was handled rather progressively at the time with Don Murray being so likeable, much like Dirk Bogarde in Victim. However it would be a good idea for Ben Mankiewicz to mention that the film reflects the times. Roughly two thirds of the mainstream sixties dramas covering homosexuality were required to end with a death scene. Otto Preminger was at least questioning moviegoers if this death was really all that necessary, since we see Don's character as a devoted husband and father before his past is drummed up for political reasons. (It is a nice touch that Frank Sinatra music is played in the infamous gay bar scene when he was later investigating the gay "underworld" six years later in The Detective.)

In "Rachael, Rachael", Nick as played by James Olson was a very unlikable character - he was quite obviously taking advantage of a middle-aged virgin.

 

Calla, as played by Estelle Parsons, would have been a much better choice.

 

Rachel's final decision to leave town and take her mother with her was a very poor solution to "her problems".

 

A woman does not need a man "to complete her".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In "Rachael, Rachael", Nick as played by James Olson was a very unlikable character - he was quite obviously taking advantage of a middle-aged virgin.

 

Calla, as played by Estelle Parsons, would have been a much better choice.

 

Rachel's final decision to leave town and take her mother with her was a very poor solution to "her problems".

 

A woman does not need a man "to complete her".

 

OK... you made a good point here. Was Nick taking advantage of her? She could have said "no", but we see her naked with him TWICE. Obviously she went for a second helping because the first experience didn't seem like an "assault" to her. He also asks her in the car if she wants HIM to make a decision since she was so wishy washy. While this film DOES raise some serious questions about his character (and I agree with much of your view point, especially in the somewhat arrogant way Olson plays Nick), it didn't give me quite the same vibes you received. Maybe I am just naive. I don't know.

 

Yeah... the film has some problems. It was shot in 1967, a few years before women's liberation started altering a long history of male domination and female submission. One time-capsule aspect that is interesting is how every woman and every girl in the elementary school wears a dress to signify her gender.

 

Of course, the most self confident woman in the film is the lesbian. Not that she is confident enough. Clearly a "closet case", even if she doesn't have a controlling mother supervising her life. There is a lot to discuss here, but it would have to go onto another thread.

 

To be fair about the disappointing ending, family is a big deal to some of us and, while family is definitely a prison sentence, it isn't easy to just completely break free. Note how Rachel is smoking cigarettes in the hospital while talking to her mother. They are keeping her calm since she knows how this whole situation is going to end regardless. Mother needs her more than she needs mother.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were just talking about this yesterday-- how it had been a while (ten years) since TCM had a retrospective on gay images. I'm happy to say they are doing another round of films this coming June. Some of the selections are rather interesting.

 

screen-shot-2017-03-10-at-10-27-46-am1.p

 

thursday june 1, 2017

just a gigolo (1931) with william haines

waterloo bridge (1931) with douglass montgomery, directed by james whale

the women (1939) with marjorie main, directed by george cukor

no time for love (1943) with claudette colbert, directed by mitchell leisen

christopher strong (1933) with katharine hepburn, directed by dorothy arzner

there goes my heart (1938) with patsy kelly

 

friday june 2, 2017

ben-hur: a tale of the christ (1925) with ramon novarro

storm at daybreak (1933) with kay francis

 

thursday june 8, 2017

night and day (1946) with monty woolley, based on the life of cole porter

words and music (1948) with tom drake

rope (1948) with john dall & farley granger, directed by alfred hitchcock

the razor's edge (1946) with clifton webb, based on material by somerset maugham

a place in the sun (1951) with montgomery clift

 

friday june 9, 2017

summer stock (1950) with marjorie main, directed by charles walters

the enchanted cottage (1945) with mildred natwick

 

thursday june 15, 2017

rebel without a cause (1955) with james dean & sal mineo, directed by nicholas ray

all that heaven allows (1955) with rock hudson, directed by douglas sirk

cat on a hot tin roof (1958) with judith anderson

nowhere to go (1958) with george nader

the seventh sin (1957) with ellen corby

les girls (1957) directed by george cukor

 

friday june 16, 2017

sincerely yours (1955) with liberace

 

thursday june 22, 2017

gypsy (1962) with lyrics by stephen sondheim

billy liar (1963) directed by john schlesinger

suddenly, last summer (1959) with montgomery clift

psycho (1960) with anthony perkins, directed by alfred hitchcock

west side story (1961) directed by jerome robbins

 

friday june 23, 2017

i could go on singing (1963) with dirk bogarde

ride the wild surf (1964) with tab hunter

 

thursday june 29, 2017

who's afraid of virginia woolf? (1966) with sandy dennis, based on material by edward albee

torch song trilogy (1988) with harvey fierstein, based on his own material

arthur (1981) with john gielgud

valentino (1977) based on the life of rudolph valentino

the year of living dangerously (1982) with linda hunt

 

friday june 30, 2017

cabaret (1972) directed by bob fosse

it's a bikini world (1967) with tommy kirk

i've only recently started to binge watch classic films and become hooked to TCM; can anyone explain why each of these films (or some of them at least?) are included in the lineup?

 

for example, "words and music" make sense because tom drake might have been gay but what about the rest of the films?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've only recently started to binge watch classic films and become hooked to TCM; can anyone explain why each of these films (or some of them at least?) are included in the lineup?

 

for example, "words and music" make sense because tom drake might have been gay but what about the rest of the films?

The link seems to be that either the actor or the creative force behind the film has gay connection

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand some of the picks for June's schedule, such as films directed by Dorothy Arzner. I think they should include something of hers despite it being a "heteronormal" picture. Maybe I should put back Christopher Strong into my "schedule revision".

 

Last night they showed Rachel Rachel again, one I have on DVD and greatly enjoy. I could see it being included as well. Joanne Woodward's lead character is a virgin until her experiences with James Olson's Nick (who certainly won't turn off gay male viewers with his shirtless shots and hungry, hungry take over of her). Yet it was groundbreaking for its time with her best friend (played by Estelle Parsons) planting a kiss because she thought Rachel's avoidance of men prior to Nick meant something else entirely. Rachel's reaction resembled many strictly heterosexuals who feel awkward when something like that happens. Her husband directed her very well in that piece, making it easy for ANY viewer to identify with her.

 

On another note, I finally watched Advise And Consent all the way through. I do think the senator committing suicide rather than dealing with any exposure to his one-time same sex affair during the Korean War was too much a product of its Kennedy era time period morality. Yet it was handled rather progressively at the time with Don Murray being so likeable, much like Dirk Bogarde in Victim. However it would be a good idea for Ben Mankiewicz to mention that the film reflects the times. Roughly two thirds of the mainstream sixties dramas covering homosexuality were required to end with a death scene. Otto Preminger was at least questioning moviegoers if this death was really all that necessary, since we see Don's character as a devoted husband and father before his past is drummed up for political reasons. (It is a nice touch that Frank Sinatra music is played in the infamous gay bar scene when he was later investigating the gay "underworld" six years later in The Detective.)

Murray's character was doomed to suffer the usual fate of gay's in the movies of that period. It would have been braver if like Bogarde in "Victim" he is willing to stand up. His wive seemed to really love him but his political career would have been finished

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want to get too far off topic with Rachel Rachel, but a couple things I found interesting. *Spoiler Alert* for those who haven't seen it.

 

I found it interesting how the trip to the revival church is what suddenly prompted her to go through with the sexual relationship with Nick. Before that trip with Calla (Parsons), she was giving him the brush off. Now she was "alive"... just as Calla was when she decided to kiss her. Religious experience can lead to increased sexual activity despite how religious politicians and Pat Robertson try to suppress it.

 

Regardless of her inexperience, she still goes into the sex with open eyes. Yes, she spooked him by discussing a future with him and apparently had hopes of wedding bells. Yet she wasn't devastated when, first, he pretended to be "off the market" and, secondly, she later learned he is unmarried but doesn't wish to marry.

I did a search on actor James Olson and it doesn't seem like he ever married in real life. As with Robert Osborne, there is nothing online about his dating habits and he is still living, unlike Robert. Therefore we don't know if he has a series of unknown women satisfying him or if there is a "David". He could also be like unmarried Grant Williams of The Incredible Shrinking Man.

 

Ahem... things to wonder.

Regardless, I did think the scenes were pretty steamy considering husband Paul Newman was directing. Then again Paul Newman, who may not have had a completely "straight" past and certainly had a good read of others, must have known that his wife would be quite safe in various states of undress with James.

 

Again, things to ponder.

Back to the story. After adjusting to losing Nick, Rachel is completely on board having a baby from the relationship, only to get disappointed. In the end, it was all about The Children giving her happiness. She knew, even with the principal stopping her from coddling the boy who was often absent from school, that none of her students were hers. Maybe not receiving much affection from her parents (she had to lay in a coffin to get daddy's attention in the morgue, mommy ignores her when playing bridge with the other old biddies and calling her off screen sister the success as a mother), she wanted somebody to express "love" with, even if it meant just being a mother.

 

I also wonder if a movie sequel (if one would be made) would have Rachel return to Connecticut to start a relationship with Calla, even though she also enjoyed Nick as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray's character was doomed to suffer the usual fate of gay's in the movies of that period. It would have been braver if like Bogarde in "Victim" he is willing to stand up. His wive seemed to really love him but his political career would have been finished

 

She was very forgiving of him... as if there was anything to forgive. Movies back then got so over the top. I love how Inga Swenson becomes so wide-eyed reading The Letter.

 

I hate to go back to Rachel Rachel. I am sssssooooooo sorry, but that silly movie is on my mind today.

 

I think they should not only show this as a "gay" offering this June, but I think Ben Mankiewicz must satisfy my curiosity once and for all and yank James Olson out of retirement as a sit-down guest before and after this movie airs. I want to see Ben cheekily fish (with his usual pushing up his glasses as he speaks) for any additional information inquiring minds want to know... only if he is willing, of course.

 

Oh sure... he could also have Estelle Parsons discuss her performance as Calla too, but she is still married to Peter Zimroth so there isn't anything to fish.

 

By the way, Joanne Woodward is also still alive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want to get too far off topic with Rachel Rachel, but a couple things I found interesting. *Spoiler Alert* for those who haven't seen it.

 

I found it interesting how the trip to the revival church is what suddenly prompted her to go through with the sexual relationship with Nick. Before that trip with Calla (Parsons), she was giving him the brush off. Now she was "alive"... just as Calla was when she decided to kiss her. Religious experience can lead to increased sexual activity despite how religious politicians and Pat Robertson try to suppress it.

 

Regardless of her inexperience, she still goes into the sex with open eyes. Yes, she spooked him by discussing a future with him and apparently had hopes of wedding bells. Yet she wasn't devastated when, first, he pretended to be "off the market" and, secondly, she later learned he is unmarried but doesn't wish to marry.

 

I did a search on actor James Olson and it doesn't seem like he ever married in real life. As with Robert Osborne, there is nothing online about his dating habits and he is still living, unlike Robert. Therefore we don't know if he has a series of unknown women satisfying him or if there is a "David". He could also be like unmarried Grant Williams of The Incredible Shrinking Man.

 

Ahem... things to wonder.

 

Regardless, I did think the scenes were pretty steamy considering husband Paul Newman was directing. Then again Paul Newman, who may not have had a completely "straight" past and certainly had a good read of others, must have known that his wife would be quite safe in various states of undress with James.

 

Again, things to ponder.

 

Back to the story. After adjusting to losing Nick, Rachel is completely on board having a baby from the relationship, only to get disappointed. In the end, it was all about The Children giving her happiness. She knew, even with the principal stopping her from coddling the boy who was often absent from school, that none of her students were hers. Maybe not receiving much affection from her parents (she had to lay in a coffin to get daddy's attention in the morgue, mommy ignores her when playing bridge with the other old biddies and calling her off screen sister the success as a mother), she wanted somebody to express "love" with, even if it meant just being a mother.

 

I also wonder if a movie sequel (if one would be made) would have Rachel return to Connecticut to start a relationship with Calla, even though she also enjoyed Nick as well.

Olson is also very good in "The Andromeda Strain"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've only recently started to binge watch classic films and become hooked to TCM; can anyone explain why each of these films (or some of them at least?) are included in the lineup?

 

for example, "words and music" make sense because tom drake might have been gay but what about the rest of the films?

 

Actually Words and Music is included because the musical "heteronormalized" one of the famous songwriters it was profiling. Ditto Night and Day.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Words and Music is included because the musical "heteronormalized" one of the famous songwriters it was profiling. Ditto Night and Day.

That is, "Words and Music" - Lorenz Hart; "Night and Day" - Cole Porter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is, "Words and Music" - Lorenz Hart; "Night and Day" - Cole Porter.

 

Tom Drake was married for just a year, if that means anything. Otherwise he is just as mysterious in his private life as James Olson. Yet it still amuses me that he plays the straight one, Richard Rodgers (if shown committed to his wife, played by Janet Leigh, when he was equally a womanizer). In contrast, womanizer and multi-married Mickey Rooney plays the gay one. Only MGM didn't have the "hart" to indicate this. Instead we are to assume that he was too short to date women properly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Drake was married for just a year, if that means anything. Otherwise he is just as mysterious in his private life as James Olson. Yet it still amuses me that he plays the straight one, Richard Rodgers (if shown committed to his wife, played by Janet Leigh, when he was equally a womanizer). In contrast, womanizer and multi-married Mickey Rooney plays the gay one. Only MGM didn't have the "hart" to indicate this. Instead we are to assume that he was too short to date women properly.

Yes, MGM went out of its' way to invent a reason for the fact that Lorenz Hart wasn't dating women.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link seems to be that either the actor or the creative force behind the film has gay connection

 

In some cases this seems to be a very vague connection. It will be interesting to see the on-air wraparounds when the series gets underway on TCM.

 

Welcome to classic film and the message boards, princessjulia.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases this seems to be a very vague connection. It will be interesting to see the on-air wraparounds when the series gets underway on TCM.

 

Welcome to classic film and the message boards, princessjulia.

TCM  always "errs" on any frank disclosures - or even invents bizarre lies.

 

Like when Robert Osborne was talking about the kiss in "Deathtrap".

 

He said that the actors had to get drunk.

 

An outright LIE, as is so obvious in the scene itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TCM  always "errs" on any frank disclosures - or even invents bizarre lies.

 

Like when Robert Osborne was talking about the kiss in "Deathtrap".

 

He said that the actors had to get drunk.

 

An outright LIE, as is so obvious in the scene itself.

 

This is the one thing I don't like about the wraparounds-- sometimes what they're reading off the TelePrompTer is not fact but is either gossip or old publicity material that was basically fabrication invented to sell the movie. But it gets put forward as if it's part of the actual history of production when it's a separate side fiction. 

 

I also think some of the guests who come on and are interviewed are not always telling the truth. They like to embellish to make things seem more glamorous or outrageous than they might actually have been. So it's like this big show about show business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TCM  always "errs" on any frank disclosures - or even invents bizarre lies.

 

Like when Robert Osborne was talking about the kiss in "Deathtrap".

 

He said that the actors had to get drunk.

 

An outright LIE, as is so obvious in the scene itself.

 

Could this potentially shed some light as to why he was so private about David? Something about his relationship didn't feel "right" to him?

 

I remember how Katharine Hepburn fretted so much about Spencer Tracy feeling ashamed of stuff that she felt he shouldn't be ashamed of. She often got teary eyed thinking of it (whatever the "stuff" was, without disclosing details) in interviews she did in that last decade or two of her own life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us