Sign in to follow this  
jaragon

"Far From Heaven" (2002)

45 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, DougieB said:

I get it. I'm going a little farther afield that I usually do too. Passion for movies, right? Please don't ever say you like something you don't. My response was probably based on an instinctive gut reaction whenever I hear the words "too gay". There's an awful lot of unpleasant history behind those words, so I may have filled in some blanks in ways you didn't intend,

Sorry but if a film seems too gay to me I will probably continue to say so. That phrase is not forbidden on this website. If a film seems too straight and anti-gay, I will likewise comment on that. So yes when something feels too politically motivated or too much about sexual politics, like I feel Haynes' work is, I will speak up about it. Saying a movie feels too gay or too straight is not a personal attack against any person or group of people. It's a comment about the (in)effectiveness of the picture. If another poster gets offended they can put my comments on ignore. There is no need to throw an unpleasant history of anything on it. That is really going over the top, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TopBilled said:

It seems you have been quick to shoot down all my comments to protect the director's reputation instead of having this be more of a difference of opinion. In your last paragraph above you seem to imply that I am advocating censorship. That it would be wrong for me or politically incorrect for me to say directors guilty of "too-gayness" (your phrase not mine) tone it down to be more commercially successful. What's wrong with toning something down to make it sell more broadly to audiences? So yeah, I am going to defy political correctness in this instance and maintain my view that the director is not commercially more successful because of his agenda (sexual politics) and that limits the profitability of his pictures.

"Too gay" came from you, not from me. And I'm not much of a fan of political correctness myself. But I still maintain toning it down works against artistic vision and that a director would be a fool to plan a career on that basis. I don't make movies but I love movies and I wouldn't be happy to know there had been that kind of element to the decision-making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Interesting comment. I agree with your second paragraph whole heartedly.

As for Haynes' agenda, to me he could easily have told the same story, about a wife's alienation from her husband (or maybe it's his alienation from her) in the perfect world of the 50s by making it a male menopause story. Or a story about a man who's alcoholic or going through depression related to a failing business and experiencing impotency. He did not have to be gay for this story to work. The fact Haynes makes him gay says it all, that this whole story was an excuse to platform his belief that in the 50s men were lusting after other men and anxious to get it on the minute their wives weren't around. So the selling point becomes Quaid's character being gay instead of Quaid's character having a crisis of faith or a crisis of identity in the marriage. Moore still could have had the same feelings of inadequacy if her husband was shutting down because of other issues instead of sexual orientation.

I will offer what I call a sugar analogy. If I favored sugar, I would try to put sugar into all my movies. I could tell the media I am remaking Hamlet, but the minute I have Hamlet ask for sugar before he kills Polonius or if he's craving sugar when visited by the ghost of his father, then that's an obvious case of me just using "art" (Shakespeare's text) to push my own agenda about sugar. If I do this in all my movies, across genres, then critics and viewers can see I am more about pushing sugar than telling a legitimate human interest story. In short my biases are quite evident because I can't keep sugar out of my movies. It almost makes me the filmmaker something to parody. There's that sugar director. When my next movie comes out, how many minutes into the two hour movie before I have someone drool over sugar.

In this same way Haynes' preoccupation with gay themes becomes didactic and on some level a joke. Van Sant and other openly gay directors do not need to bring gay themes into all their works. They are more interested in the reality of a story, instead of using it to push an agenda. 

I almost spilled my coffee. I forgot to put sugar in it.

I wish I could "Like" and "LoL" your post both, but since I could only do one, I laughed at your humor, not your premise, which I can see, and agree with somewhat, with Haynes and a few other notable directors. I think with regards to Far from Heaven, making the husband a closeted gay man was really one of the main points of the story. I don't think Haynes was saying that all men were secretly longing for each other, only that there was a gay underground of fiercely closeted men who made themselves and the others in their lives miserable due to the constraints of the time. If Haynes had made the Quaid character a drunk or an emotional hermit the movie would have been just like those Sirk made in the 1950's, instead of a modern take on the same milieu.

I can't recall any gay themes in I'm Not There, although there was quite a bit of pretentiousness. And I haven't seen Wonderstruck, but there didn't appear to be a gay theme there, either. Velvet Goldmine had to address the issue, since the glam-rock scene was all about sexual ambiguity and the effect the artists had on mainstream audiences who were questioning their own orientation. Carol seemed like a lesbian variation on Far from Heaven in many respects.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I wish I could "Like" and "LoL" your post both, but since I could only do one, I laughed at your humor, not your premise, which I can see, and agree with somewhat, with Haynes and a few other notable directors. I think with regards to Far from Heaven, making the husband a closeted gay man was really one of the main points of the story. I don't think Haynes was saying that all men were secretly longing for each other, only that there was a gay underground of fiercely closeted men who made themselves and the others in their lives miserable due to the constraints of the time. If Haynes had made the Quaid character a drunk or an emotional hermit the movie would have been just like those Sirk made in the 1950's, instead of a modern take on the same milieu.

I can't recall any gay themes in I'm Not There, although there was quite a bit of pretentiousness. And I haven't seen Wonderstruck, but there didn't appear to be a gay theme there, either. Velvet Goldmine had to address the issue, since the glam-rock scene was all about sexual ambiguity and the effect the artists had on mainstream audiences who were questioning their own orientation. Carol seemed like a lesbian variation on Far from Heaven in many respects.

Interesting reply. Thanks for sharing your views.

It occurred to me after my earlier post that we could even say Hitchcock has an agenda in his films (most directors do). In his case, he can't refrain from inserting cameos of himself into his movies, which are not really necessary at all. His agenda is one of narcissism and ego. His ego wants him to be in his own movies to signify he is the author (auteur) of the work not the screenwriter. And his narcissism means he wants to see himself reflected somewhere in the final print. He wasn't satisfied to do this in just one or two films but had to do it in all his films.

I tend to admire the workman directors that showed their versatility across genres and studios without having to draw attention to their work and be lauded as so-called gods of the cinema.

A few nights ago I watched THUNDER ON THE HILL and I actually like it better than Sirk's later stuff. There are highly stylistic touches but he serves that story more faithfully. It's about a nun (Claudette Colbert) who questions what is right and moral in helping an innocent young woman (Ann Blyth) avoid execution. The nun breaks a lot of rules to prove the gal is innocent and she ultimately succeeds. Nowhere in the film did I feel Sirk was trying to show off with the camera work or push his own views of society into the picture. His later works are over-praised when such a fine earlier effort is forced to remain in the shadows. But critics are biased and ignorant when addressing his career at Universal in the 50s, focusing almost exclusively on the melodramas with Hudson.

Of course our boy Haynes couldn't be bothered to remake something like THUNDER ON THE HILL, because it wouldn't serve his agenda. Unless he could suggest the nun was a closet lesbian who helped the girl because she might have been secretly in love with her...then throw in stuff about how the church wouldn't allow her to express it openly. Only then would Haynes' creative juices flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Interesting comment. Norman seems most related to real-life killer Ed Gein. Gein confessed to killing two women but there were possibly more. Since Norman is technically a "fictional character," a director could remake Bloch's story and turn the character into a bisexual or homosexual killer. I'm glad Van Sant did not do that. It would have become about him being gay instead of about him just being a killer dealing with his mother's domination.

I like the idea of a gay psycho movie - there was a recent story about a gay serial killer preying on gay men in Toronto- and of course you have Dahmer the ultimate gay psycho- he did not want his victims to leave so he kept their remains in his refrigerator:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

I wish I could "Like" and "LoL" your post both, but since I could only do one, I laughed at your humor, not your premise, which I can see, and agree with somewhat, with Haynes and a few other notable directors. I think with regards to Far from Heaven, making the husband a closeted gay man was really one of the main points of the story. I don't think Haynes was saying that all men were secretly longing for each other, only that there was a gay underground of fiercely closeted men who made themselves and the others in their lives miserable due to the constraints of the time. If Haynes had made the Quaid character a drunk or an emotional hermit the movie would have been just like those Sirk made in the 1950's, instead of a modern take on the same milieu.

I can't recall any gay themes in I'm Not There, although there was quite a bit of pretentiousness. And I haven't seen Wonderstruck, but there didn't appear to be a gay theme there, either. Velvet Goldmine had to address the issue, since the glam-rock scene was all about sexual ambiguity and the effect the artists had on mainstream audiences who were questioning their own orientation. Carol seemed like a lesbian variation on Far from Heaven in many respects.

Good points- in Hayne's "Poison" one of the three segments in "****" inspired by Jean Genet about homoerotic longings in a prison- it does feature the rather kinky spit scene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was so long ago when I watched this one. I read the reviews at the time comparing it to the famous soap dramas of the fifties and actually liked that aspect of it, if also feeling that there wasn't much of a story. Fassbinder did similar material in the seventies with more "meat" in Ali: Fear Eats the Soul. I liked the Eisenhower era period detail. The whole "point" (the way I saw it back then) was Moore's character maintaining her composure at all times, not unlike the characters Leonardo and Kate played post-Titanic in Revolutionary Road. In other words, everybody was keeping up appearances in order to keep-up-with-the-Jones, but struggled in a world resembling the latter film's suburban Connecticut with its cookie cutter houses.

As for the gay storyline, my only opinion (again back then) was... well, this is a nice movie for people like my parents to tolerate since there was no way they was ever going to watch the later Brokeback Mountain. All we had was a kissing scene, after all. Far From Heaven really didn't go very far... and it wasn't heavenly either. It was as if the whole gay issue was just something to incorporate, but it had to be done with great caution so as not to disturb The Ruling Heterosexual Class Who Doesn't Wish To See Such Deviance.

The 1990s saw a lot of progress regarding sexual orientations on screen as well as more representations of different races and religion. Yet the post-Monica/Clinton backlash, post 9/11 paranoia, conservative Bush politics (declaring a war against gay marriage to divert attention from the Iraq one so he could get re-elected) and, of course, the Janet Jackson Super Bowl "accident" all caused the Hollywood "mainstream" to become more repressive in multiple areas. What struck me at the time was that, while there were limited released "indies" (with  gay themes, multiple races and ethnic groups represented) that made the move from Sundance Film Festival to your local DVD rental place without a trip to the multi-plex in suburbia, virtually all of the big budget productions getting theatrical attention at the multi-plex in suburbia would only address such topics if they were "historical". Major mainstream "gay" films of 2001-08 era that I can think of right away, besides FFH and BM, include a minor brother Arthur subplot in the pre-Stonewall set A Serious Man and the biopics Kinsey and Milk. Would Brokeback Mountain make the impact it did had it been made in the 1990s or after 2010 as it did right after a major election obsessed with gay marriage? Also would it have succeeded with positive feedback if it was set in 2004 (year it was filmed, but released '05) instead of the "long ago" '60s and '70s?

What I liked about the biopics by Bill Condon and Gus Van Sant was that they were more straight forward: Kinsey and Milk were real-life characters who wanted to bring social change, even though the setting of the latter, the 1970s, already was seeing the changes take place. This really was the mentality of the 1940s through '70s America at least, if less so later on in an age of cynicism. There was a generalized belief that, yes, the times are repressive and, no, you can't always enjoy the private life you want... but, yes, you can make a difference for the future.

I'm reminded of the speech the mother makes to daughter Dorothy McGuire in A Tree Grows In Brooklyn that living in America allows opportunities for your children even if you don't see the opportunities for yourself. Also America did not want to be identified with the Holocaust atrocities exposed in 1945 and this helped encourage the civil rights marches, post-Stonewell marches and women's liberation somewhat faster than it would have had Americans not seen how freedom was suppressed in other countries.

I guess I need to get to the point here.

I feel that many in the entertainment industry felt repressed in the first decade of the 21st century due to the more conservative climate and, instead of simply attacking the current times, they decided to attack earlier times "in disguise" (like the way science fiction deals with heady topics that writers are too fearful to address). Look at how horrible 1950s "conformity" was in Far From Heaven and Revolutionary Road and even the Coen brothers' A Serious Man featuring a suburbia of 1967 filled with cookie cutter houses and cookie cutter boxy Chryslers parked in the driveways. However, when you actually watch made-in-the-1950s/'60s films, the attitude isn't quite so repressed. Yes, there was censorship, but also more optimism and "yes, we can make a difference". I mean... at least we got Sayonara (Oscar winning Miyoshi Umeki getting her GI husband upset trying to get surgery so she can look "Caucasian"), Victim (Dirk Bogarde was NOT going to be one simply because he once liked guys) and Advice And Consent (in which we are supposed to sympathize with the suicidal senator whose wife correctly blames politics rather than his homosexuality as The Real Problem).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like LawrenceA's idea that Carol is a lesbian variation of Far From Heaven. The two share a time fame and there's a stylistic unity from the standpoint of costuming, set decoration and cinematography. They also share a focus on a central female character who would be difficult to read if not for Haynes' tight focus on them. Their faces are inscrutable by their own intention since both harbor secrets: Blanchett's being a forbidden sexual attraction and Moore's being an unease with the hypocritical social niceties demanded by her husband's career path and also her cross-racial sympathies which are notably out of synch with her social environment. It all plays out on their faces and both actresses are up to the task, under Haynes' deft hand. The movies also both feature a strategically placed supporting actress with whom the leads can at least partially unburden themselves. And both play out in a kind of dreamlike fugue state where words and actions need to be carefully calculated before being committed to, though Moore's character in particular has a naïve impulsiveness fueled by her basic good nature, so that she's sometimes puzzled and embarrassed by her own words. She's endearing and there are any number of hauntingly indelible images of her in Far From Heaven. I think it was jaragon who characterized this as a women's picture, a genre with a long tradition, and that may have gotten lost in all the previous discussion of the gay elements. Obviously, I'm anything but iffy about this movie, but I understand that others have reasons to be non-committal or disapproving. All part of the discussion, so let's keep it going.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, DougieB said:

I like LawrenceA's idea that Carol is a lesbian variation of Far From Heaven. The two share a time fame and there's a stylistic unity from the standpoint of costuming, set decoration and cinematography. They also share a focus on a central female character who would be difficult to read if not for Haynes' tight focus on them. Their faces are inscrutable by their own intention since both harbor secrets: Blanchett's being a forbidden sexual attraction and Moore's being an unease with the hypocritical social niceties demanded by her husband's career path and also her cross-racial sympathies which are notably out of synch with her social environment. It all plays out on their faces and both actresses are up to the task, under Haynes' deft hand. The movies also both feature a strategically placed supporting actress with whom the leads can at least partially unburden themselves. And both play out in a kind of dreamlike fugue state where words and actions need to be carefully calculated before being committed to, though Moore's character in particular has a naïve impulsiveness fueled by her basic good nature, so that she's sometimes puzzled and embarrassed by her own words. She's endearing and there are any number of hauntingly indelible images of her in Far From Heaven. I think it was jaragon who characterized this as a women's picture, a genre with a long tradition, and that may have gotten lost in all the previous discussion of the gay elements. Obviously, I'm anything but iffy about this movie, but I understand that others have reasons to be non-committal or disapproving. All part of the discussion, so let's keep it going.

The problem I have with "Carol" that yes it is companion piece to "Far From Heaven" is that Blanchett or the character she is playing seems very cold and distant- yes maybe this part of the "nice" behavior of the period. Moore is much more emotional in her movie dealing with both the shattering of her perfect marriage and her forbidden attraction to the black man.  I wish Haynes would do a third film but make a gay man the main character perhaps an adaptation of Vidal's " The City and The Pillar"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jaragon said:

The problem I have with "Carol" that yes it is companion piece to "Far From Heaven" is that Blanchett or the character she is playing seems very cold and distant- yes maybe this part of the "nice" behavior of the period. Moore is much more emotional in her movie dealing with both the shattering of her perfect marriage and her forbidden attraction to the black man.  I wish Haynes would do a third film but make a gay man the main character perhaps an adaptation of Vidal's " The City and The Pillar"

Again, I have to re-watch this one. The interracial affair, even if it doesn't go beyond certain limits, at least makes the film more interesting to me in hindsight. The director may not have been as intensely focused on just the "gay" part as I seem to be thinking when reading all of these comments, but was just critical of society conformity as a whole. Certainly that was just as "forbidden" back then as her husband's affair.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the film were made in the 50's, if there was "something wrong" with the husband - it would have to be limited to socially acceptable problems for the 50's - like alcoholism, for example.

I think that Todd Haynes revelled in the freedom to inform us that the husband was actually a closeted gay man.

But he placed the emphasis on how the man's wife handled it - she was dealing with something that she could not understand and it plunged her into a biracial attraction with the gardener.

Again, Haynes must've revelled in the fact that he could make the gardener a black man.

So, he could actually re-invent the genre - the soap opera - and make it edgier and riskier.

He created a whole new challenging world for an actress who could play a newer version of soap opera hysteria.

I would've preferred a closer look at the husband, who was a deeply troubled man.

But, Haynes probably would have had a much longer film, then.

The wife's future is left doubt - but there's no doubt that she is deeply scarred.

As is her husband.

He does not belong here!

far-from-heaven-main-review-640x330.jpg

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rayban said:

If the film were made in the 50's, if there was "something wrong" with the husband - it would have to be limited to socially acceptable problems for the 50's - like alcoholism, for example.

I think that Todd Haynes revelled in the freedom to inform us that the husband was actually a closeted gay man.

But he placed the emphasis on how the man's wife handled it - she was dealing with something that she could not understand and it plunged her into a biracial attraction with the gardener.

Again, Haynes must've revelled in the fact that he could make the gardener a black man.

So, he could actually re-invent the genre - the soap opera - and make it edgier and riskier.

He created a whole new challenging world for an actress who could play a newer version of soap opera hysteria.

I would've preferred a closer look at the husband, who was a deeply troubled man.

But, Haynes probably would have had a much longer film, then.

The wife's future is left doubt - but there's no doubt that she is deeply scarred.

As is her husband.

He does not belong here!

far-from-heaven-main-review-640x330.jpg

 

 

When I first heard about this film, I was extremely excited. To actually get an authentic cinematic 1950s approach to a taboo post-war subject seemed surreal to me-- but so satisfying.

 

Sometimes I think you actually would have had to have lived in the 1950s to understand the sexual repression, the hateful segregation and how there were so many men living, should we say, Secret Lives. I knew a few of the younger ones myself. They were all such good actors; they could have gone into the business. LOL

Real life was scripted like a Hollywood movie and there would be hell to pay if you deviated from the script.

You have two perfectly remember this was a time when Elvis Presley's legs we're covered with black bars when he appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show. But there were live sound bites on TV  News of bigoted Southerners screaming that they didn't want their children corrupted by that N***a music that Elvis was singing.  And in 1953 they couldn't even use the word pregnant on I Love Lucy, of course.

Sex wasn't openly discussed in the public sphere, there were no explanations about it much less discussions of what would have been considered, in those times, as sexual deviations.

The women's magazines were full of true life stories about how to save your marriage from divorce even though the husband was seeing another woman he was a drunk or he couldn't hold a job.

One women's magazine that my mother took had a monthly article called: "Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

What seems so strange to me today - - is that I don't remember any discussion about wife abuse or homosexuality in any of those stories. It was the wife's job, no matter what, to keep the marriage going no matter how and if there was a failure it was her fault.

 

I get a certain personal satisfaction about getting an opportunity to see a rendition of 1950s Cinema with a realism that we never had then.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rayban said:

If the film were made in the 50's, if there was "something wrong" with the husband - it would have to be limited to socially acceptable problems for the 50's - like alcoholism, for example.

I think that Todd Haynes revelled in the freedom to inform us that the husband was actually a closeted gay man.

But he placed the emphasis on how the man's wife handled it - she was dealing with something that she could not understand and it plunged her into a biracial attraction with the gardener.

Again, Haynes must've revelled in the fact that he could make the gardener a black man.

So, he could actually re-invent the genre - the soap opera - and make it edgier and riskier.

He created a whole new challenging world for an actress who could play a newer version of soap opera hysteria.

I would've preferred a closer look at the husband, who was a deeply troubled man.

But, Haynes probably would have had a much longer film, then.

The wife's future is left doubt - but there's no doubt that she is deeply scarred.

As is her husband.

He does not belong here!

far-from-heaven-main-review-640x330.jpg

 

 

That shot is perfect illustration of Hayne's talent as director.  The framing perfectly defines the problems with the marriage. If the film had been made in 1950's the husband might have been gay coded like the coach in "Tea and Sympathy" who clearly prefers to go camping with the boys than spending time with his wive.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's Viola Davis standing on the stairs. Even though she wasn't yet a star, she already had a reputation and it shows how serious Haynes was about doing it right. Davis must have agreed, because there she was playing "the maid" against what should have been her better judgement in most cases.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jaragon said:

That shot is perfect illustration of Hayne's talent as director.  The framing perfectly defines the problems with the marriage. If the film had been made in 1950's the husband might have been gay coded like the coach in "Tea and Sympathy" who clearly prefers to go camping with the boys than spending time with his wive.

"Tea and Sympathy" was made in 1956 and the husband was gay-coded - although in the play by Robert Anderson, the husband, not Tom Lee, is revealed to be the true homosexual.

If "Far From Heaven" were made in 1956, Dennis Quaid's husband could have been gay-coded, too.

In the play by Robert Anderson and the film version, Laura Reynolds does leave her husband.

But the film version doesn't deal with her discovery of her husband's homosexuality or her misery or with her husband's emotional aftermath - except that, in the film, when Tom Lee comes to visit years later, the husband is alone.

If Dennis Quaid's husband was gay-coded, it could not have come from his job - the husband in "Tea and Sympathy" was a house master and involved in sports.

We probably would have seen a scene in which Dennis Quaid looked longingly at a young man.

In a restaurant or the supermarket.

Gay-coding in the film version of "Tea and Sympathy" -

11-Events-Tea-Sympathy-Beach.png

 


   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jaragon said:

The problem I have with "Carol" that yes it is companion piece to "Far From Heaven" is that Blanchett or the character she is playing seems very cold and distant- yes maybe this part of the "nice" behavior of the period. Moore is much more emotional in her movie dealing with both the shattering of her perfect marriage and her forbidden attraction to the black man.  I wish Haynes would do a third film but make a gay man the main character perhaps an adaptation of Vidal's " The City and The Pillar"

You're right about Blanchett being cold and distant. When you think about it, she's the one playing the Dennis Quaid role, the one hiding the big secret, so she isn't really a kindred character to Julianne Moore, which is what you'd initially assume. Blanchett shows a lot of the same reserve and intentional obfuscation which Quaid did both in his marriage and in his professional life. Also, Carol seems to have had a history of extramarital activity (She and the Sarah Paulson character discussed this.) but it's not really clear how much Frank has been active that way. Carol has definitely settled into a pattern of lies and deceit, unlike the more open and honest Cathy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rayban said:

"Tea and Sympathy" was made in 1956 and the husband was gay-coded - although in the play by Robert Anderson, the husband, not Tom Lee, is revealed to be the true homosexual.

If "Far From Heaven" were made in 1956, Dennis Quaid's husband could have been gay-coded, too.

In the play by Robert Anderson and the film version, Laura Reynolds does leave her husband.

But the film version doesn't deal with her discovery of her husband's homosexuality or her misery or with her husband's emotional aftermath - except that, in the film, when Tom Lee comes to visit years later, the husband is alone.

If Dennis Quaid's husband was gay-coded, it could not have come from his job - the husband in "Tea and Sympathy" was a house master and involved in sports.

We probably would have seen a scene in which Dennis Quaid looked longingly at a young man.

In a restaurant or the supermarket.

Gay-coding in the film version of "Tea and Sympathy" -

11-Events-Tea-Sympathy-Beach.png

 


   

In this image it's almost explicit rather that coded, isn't it? This is so much more than an arm around the shoulder; fingertips are actually caressing the skin of the guy on his left. Also, I'm not convinced he's looking at the magazine.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, rayban said:

"Tea and Sympathy" was made in 1956 and the husband was gay-coded - although in the play by Robert Anderson, the husband, not Tom Lee, is revealed to be the true homosexual.

If "Far From Heaven" were made in 1956, Dennis Quaid's husband could have been gay-coded, too.

In the play by Robert Anderson and the film version, Laura Reynolds does leave her husband.

But the film version doesn't deal with her discovery of her husband's homosexuality or her misery or with her husband's emotional aftermath - except that, in the film, when Tom Lee comes to visit years later, the husband is alone.

If Dennis Quaid's husband was gay-coded, it could not have come from his job - the husband in "Tea and Sympathy" was a house master and involved in sports.

We probably would have seen a scene in which Dennis Quaid looked longingly at a young man.

In a restaurant or the supermarket.

Gay-coding in the film version of "Tea and Sympathy" -

11-Events-Tea-Sympathy-Beach.png

 


   

Gay coding indeed! :rolleyes:Minnelli really knew how to use Cinemascope.  And the gay casting director at MGM must have had field day casting this group.  :wub: 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jaragon said:

Gay coding indeed! :rolleyes:Minnelli really knew how to use Cinemascope.  And the gay casting director at MGM must have had field day casting this group.  :wub: 

I'd love to know what magazine they're reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DougieB said:

In this image it's almost explicit rather that coded, isn't it? This is so much more than an arm around the shoulder; fingertips are actually caressing the skin of the guy on his left. Also, I'm not convinced he's looking at the magazine.

Of course not, he's experiencing a certain hardness below the belt.

  • 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
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us