I'm hoping someone has a thoughtful response, but thanks for showing an interest.
Serious response. Take into consideration that the following were the attitudes in 1967, and a lot has changed since then. But still, I think there is an element of truth:
From Wiki:
Gay identification with Garland as a tragic figure was being discussed as early as 1967. Time Magazine reviewed Garland's 1967 Palace Theatre engagement in New York City, and wrote that a "disproportionate part of her nightly claque seems to be homosexual." The review goes on to say that "[t]he boys in the tight trousers" (a phrase Time repeatedly used to describe gay men) would "roll their eyes, tear at their hair and practically levitate from their seats" during Garland's performances.[4]
Time tried to explain Garland's appeal to the homosexual. Psychiatrists thought that "the attraction [to Garland] might be made considerably stronger by the fact that she has survived so many problems; homosexuals identify with that kind of hysteria". They speculated that "Judy was beaten up by life, embattled, and ultimately had to become more masculine. She has the power that homosexuals would like to have, and they attempt to attain it by idolizing her."[4]
William Goldman wrote in Esquire magazine about the same Palace engagement. He too disparages the gay men in attendance. He dismisses them as "fags" who "flit by" chattering inanely. He also advances the tragic figure concept. He suggests that "if [homosexuals] have an enemy, it is age. And Garland is youth, perennially, over the rainbow." He wrote, "Homosexuals tend to identify with suffering. They are a persecuted group and they understand suffering. And so does Garland. She's been through the fire and lived – all the drinking and divorcing, all the pills and all the men, all the poundage come and gone – brothers and sisters, she knows."[5]
___________________________________________--
I actually remember that 1967 Time Magazine article.
(I'm older than dirt!)
reply
share