Was Tom Gay?

No. I think you are looking for something that isn't there. I did notice that when he first walked into the bar as an adult, looking for Putty Nose, he did do something I thought strange at first. He walks in and just looks at the guy at the bar. Doesn't say anything he just gestures. The guy simply points in the direction of Putty Nose (they were expecting Tom). Tom then starts to move in the direction of PN but glances a couple of times at the lower torso of the bar guy. I reasoned at first that Tom was checking him out for weapons as I hoped he wasn't checking out ... his package. Not then. But after that I failed to see anything that hinted of your idea. They didn't do stuff like that back in the way back machine of 1931.

Absolutely not....this is your minds own manifestation.Tom Powers tossing Putty Noses salad??
Freud would have a field day with your post-

Why on earth would you think that? Tom had several girlfriends and obviously liked having sex with them. He wanted to leave Harlow because she wouldn't. And the taylor that measured him for his suits was obviously gay, and Tom acted very indignantly and even mocked him for being that way. Sociopathic yes. Gay no.

What? How is he gay? He's involved with Jean Harlow. He goes to the club specifically to meet women. If you look at Little Ceasar, also released in 1931, it's debatable that the title character from that film was gay. He seems to have an interest in his friend that goes beyond being platonic and he criticizes said friend's interest in women. William R. Burnett, the author of the novel, certainly thought the film interpretation depicted him as a homosexual.

But as for Tom Powers, the answer is no. If anything, he's more likely to be homophobic. Go back and watch his scene with the tailor. It's exactly 29 minutes into the film. Tom gets very defensive when the tailor starts making a pass at him.

Tom: [stretching out his pants] "Don't forget, plenty of room in there."
Tailor: [grabbing Tom's bicep] "Oh, Sir! Here's where you need the room. Such a muscle!"
Tom: "Make it snappy or else you're going to find out what it's for."

It's very rare to see such open depictions of homosexuality in an old movie. This was Pre-Code, but I don't think I've ever seen another movie from this era in which one man flirts with another like that. In any event, Tom seems to be exclusively heterosexual.

Do you go around this site and ask this question on every movie???

Are you so insecure in your homosexuality that you have to justify it in every movie ever made???

In a world where a carpenter can be resurrected, anything is possible.

There was a homosexual undertone to both Public Enemy and Little Caesar; pre-code films could get away with at least hinting at this when later
films couldn't. William Wellman, one of Hollywood's most macho directors, was able
to get away with this subtext in Public Enemy and in his earlier film Wings (which contains a scene of a pilot kissing his dying male friend on
the lips). Putty Nose's "boy's club" was similar to Fagin's in Oliver Twist--a smarmy father figure taking a group of boys from dysfunctional families under his wing and teaching them about petty crimes in exchange for
favors of some kind (left to the imagination). There's not much doubt that there
was something going on with a group of boys hanging out with the much older man,
who had to prove their loyalty and discretion to him. Many adult criminals were molested by adult males when they were children. Tom's adult shame at his
teenage activities would make it that much easier to rub out Putty Nose later.

Years later, in Bonnie and Clyde, Clyde would tell Bonnie that his first,
less-than-stellar sexual performance with her didn't mean anything; he insists
"I don't like boys!" In reality, Clyde Barrow wasn't averse to picking up various teenage boys during his adult years, but except for the presence of
C.W. in the film, this wasn't as overtly alluded to in the 1967 film.





I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

With all due respect, which you may not deserve, it is a matter of indifference to me whether or not there are homosexual undertones in the film. I read through this thread to see the kind of posts and responses there were. You make some points. However, I've rarely seen anyone react as irrationally as you have in many of your responses.

I'm not going to quote particular posts, since you can look for yourself. But you seem to be bent on convincing people there are homosexual undertones in the film and that if people don't see it they must be biased. Maybe you're biased? You say something about, "Watch the film with an unprejudiced eye."

Everyone has prejudices. Maybe yours is to see homosexuality where it doesn't exist? My next point is you overreact and accuse people of calling you gay, even when nothing of the sort happens. I believe that's what you write after the first or second reply to your post. You assumed people are calling you gay "like everyone else" when that isn't the case.

Furthermore, there were homosexual undertones in films during the Code Era. Hitchcock's "Rope" is a perfect example of showing homosexual undertones clearly and quite indisputably. There are many others which are suspect; films with men dressing in drag. But the bottom line for me has nothing to do with this: It has to do with the fact you are very rude and perhaps merely trying to be provocative, and yet you play the victim and pretend like you're playing nice.


As a man, Jean Harlow is passable; as a woman, Harlow is a dog.