Homosexual subtexts?
In this movie? Where?
shareFred MacMurray says "I love you, too" to Robinson. That's all I've got...
share
MovieChat Forums > Double Indemnity (1944) Discussion > Homosexual subtexts?
No homosexual subtext, but certainly some male bonding.
"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx
Now, I haven't seen the movie yet but I have read the Screenplay and I found there to be homosexual subtext. Maybe it wasn't come across like this on screen but in the script I found there to be some.
Mainly in the scenes with Neff and Keyes. Neff lit Keye's cigar every time and cigars are phallic symbols which could mean something. Also, Neff asks why he doesn't just buy matches and Keyes responds with: "I don't like them, they always explode in my pocket." This could be interpreted differently. Also the scene with Norton, Neff, and Keyes when Norton has a small speech about the size of a mans desk. “There’s a widespread feeling that just because a man has a large office he must be an idiot." Norton could have been implying something other than a desk.
And yes the last line of Keyes saying "I love you." Kind of drives home some the subtext in the script. Again, I haven't seen the film yet just read the screenplay but I did find homosexual subtext in it. Maybe I completely missed the point and there was none, or maybe there was. I guess it just depends on how you look at it.
I had no idea that there was so much homosexual subtext in the script, particularly regarding Keyes's cigars. I've always believed that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" but evidently, this movie wasn't one of those times.
This casts a whole new light on the relationship between Walter and Keyes. I always thought they were just horsing around but now I'm not so sure. Also, could it be that Mr. Norton summoned them both to his office not only to show off the size of his desk but also in hopes of being invited to join in their "horseplay"?
Maybe it wasn't come across like this on screen but in the script I found there to be some.
That's not how it plays on screen between the actors ...... Not at all.
Keyes and Neff play on screen entirely as a surrogate father - son or older brother - younger brother relationship. That includes the appropiateness of the "I love you too" at the end.
You can see the physical side of Neff's interest in Stanwyck every single time he looks at her. There is absolutely *none* of that (on either side) in any of the interaction between Neff and Keyes.
You should also try not to confuse / combine the concepts of "big office" and "big desk". As played on screen, that one is entirely a matter of the higher ranking executive being an idiot. It's a shot at corporate culture for tending to apply the "Peter Principal" of having people "rise to the level of their incompetence".
I'm often one who argues for "Golden Age" movies containing sexual / homosexual references and / or subtext. However, in this particular case, after multiple viewings, I don't see any of it on screen. share
[deleted]
I found him to be nothing more than a surrogate father.
My voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21703251
EXACTLY
shareSometimes a large desk is just a large desk. This is one of those times.
shareWhy does everyone these days have the "Not Gays"? It's like people have to be reassured that a male character is a full on heterosexual, or there is a huge problem. I go on almost any forum at IMDB about an old movie and there are people wondering if the characters were intended as gay, or that they seemed gay, acted gay, and so on. It never fails. Two men can't even be friends in a movie without being accused of latent homosexuality. This is a subject people really need to get off of unless it's really there. I think that people are projecting their own latent feelings into these films.
share[deleted]
Mainly in the scenes with Neff and Keyes. Neff lit Keye's cigar every time and cigars are phallic symbols which could mean something...And yes the last line of Keyes saying "I love you." Kind of drives home some the subtext in the script. Again, I haven't seen the film yet just read the screenplay but I did find homosexual subtext in it. Maybe I completely missed the point and there was none, or maybe there was.
Oh, boy, did you miss the point! Even Freud conceded that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Next time watch the movie-don't comment on it from a screenplay.
http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/
This is a case where you need to look at the record, at Wilder's films, and Chandler's writing. I can find no examples in either of homosexual subtexts (outside of obvious examples in a film such as Some Like it Hot.
It doesn't mean that this analysis is impossible, just unlikely.
"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx
"This is a case where you need to look at the record, at Wilder's films"
Actually, there are abundant references to camp and underground gay culture in Wilder's films: cross-dressing in SOME LIKE IT HOT, the suggestions that Bim is gay in THE LOST WEEKEND (more overt in the novel, admittedly), Herbie's 'man-crush' on Kirk Douglas in ACE IN THE HOLE, the camp excesses of SUNSET BOULEVARD (recognised by Paul Morrissey and underlined in his vague remake, HEAT), that sequence in AVANTI! in which Jack Lemmon is mistaken for a gay man, the two generals kissing in LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, the not-so-subtle gay 'gags' in STALAG 17 (the 'I Love You' dance, for example), the turning of Holmes into an Oscar Wilde-style camp icon in THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. Wilder's a director with a big gay following. Over the years, I've read interviews with Wilder where he has suggested that both AVANTI! and DOUBLE INDEMNITY were planned as films featuring gay romances - although how much of this was critic-baiting, I don't know.
Of course, all of this is coded and wrapped in terms acceptable for the Motion Picture Production Code, and it's (mostly) presented in a very ironic, playful way.
'What does it matter what you say about people?'
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958).
I didn't see any homosexual subtext at all, and I don't believe it would have been a necessary addition to the story.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. *eyeroll*
Unbelieveable that some say its homo subtext to THIS!? There's an old saying: 'If you're looking for something with hindsight you're going to find it everywhere.'
I suspect Homosexual subtext keyword was added by someone gay, who wants it.
If you apply this standard to gay subtext, there should be a lesbian subtext in just about every movie.
[deleted]
I assumed Keyes was gay.
The brief but significant reference to the wife that was not meant to be and the constant reference to the little man inside of him. Also, the double entendre of being awoken by the janitor.
"I'm finished"
Perhaps Keyes was gay - his private life is only explicitly referred to when he speaks of his almost getting married - but I agree with others that the relationship he had with Neff was similar to a surrogate father.
I think Keyes saw some of himself - if you'll pardon the expression - in Neff, and wanted to help him out, for example, when he tries to convince Neff to take the job investigating claims rather than always working in sales.
They were just friends, and as interesting as a gay subtext would be, I don't think there's much in that theory.
Maturity. The very staple of the IMDb message boards.
Also in the end where Keyes says "closer than that, Walter" as respons to Neff's line mentioning Keyes didnt figure out it was Neff that did the murder because he was too close to him (working together and being friends).
Of course I see this as Keyes meaning Neff were like a brother or son, and not that its about homosexual feelings. But maybe if you only read the script and not see it on the screen you might get ideas - if your looking for them.
"If only you could see what i've seen with your eyes"
O.P. - no, the idea is crazy. It just isn't there. The examples listed in this topic are reaching to such an extent as to be nothing but caricature of psychoanalysis. This is homosexual subtexts for those whose life is not complete unless they find homosexual subtexts in everything.
What about the bath house scene?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
As lecturer in "higher education" and I use the term loosely, I have had to deal with the onslaught of PC theoretical systems of analysis, in other words, BULL***T, that have arise over the past 20 years or so, among so-called academicians. One of the most notorious of these is, "Queer Theory."
We can now expose to the light of day, Beethoven's true nature! A homosexual! Cleary, the use of repeated rhythmic structures in the cellos and basses articulate his anger against his forced denial of his true nature! Look at the part he gives to the flutes! FLUTES! Come on now, stop denying the truth!
I have only exaggerated SLIGHTLY here.
No, there is no sub-text of homosexuality here. A cigar is a cigar. Lots of men regularly smoked LOTS of cigars. (remember Kipling's quote about a cigar --- oops! Was that a homosexual reference?? )
A desk is a desk. Stanwyck's legs are her legs. The piano is a piano. The train is a train.
There's plenty of sub-text involving other elements of the human psyche here. Plenty. Look for it.
Geez, I shouldn't have to explain this. . .