Wikipedia says all references to homosexuality had to be deleted by the censors
but one that did get through was when Bogey went to Geigers bookstore, asking for a Ben Hur 1860 3rd Edition. He was clearly alluding that he was a gay guy when he was talking to Agnes.
Theoretically that entry should be modified so that it says "explicit references." The thing I like about that scene is actually Agnes. Her reactions are great.
shareThe woman who played Agnes (Sonia Darrin) was a great actress all around and wasn't even credited. It's shameful that for such a prominent role she didn't get billed. She deserved to get better roles more than the other stars and probably never did. Has she ever had top 5 billing in any major movie? I would pick her over Bacall, the spoiled and haughty millionaires, who will soon get bored with Marlowe.
shareWhat makes you think he's gay, just because he talks with a lisp and acts vaguely effeminate? Stereotypical.
shareHow stupid... why gay? He acted as a nobody, a fluke, a guy who is interested in books.... nothing more,nothing less. It's called acting and not acting gay. !!
shareWhy gay, because Marlowe acted gay in the novel during that scene. Bogie is unconvincing acting gay, out of his range. The book is much more racy than the movie. There is no romance (Marlowe was always very picky about who he bedded) and the novel explains the plot line. One must have read the book to have any chance of fully figuring out the plot of the film and even then the chauffeur's death remains open to interpretation.
The remake is worse although more faithful to the novel. Mitchum was much too old to play the famous detective, Sarah Miles' performance was downright bizarre (Miles herself is bizarre), not nearly the caliber of Martha Vickers' portrayal of Carmen which was Best Supporting worthy and the damn film takes place in Britain of all places.
This film is so ripe for a faithful remake shot in B & W in L.A. John Hamm as Marlowe.
John Hamm would be an interesting choice.
shareOh boy. Here we go. The male protagonist acts just a little bit feminine and you immediately jump the gun and say he was pretending to be gay. I'm getting really sick of people making accusations like these. You know male characters are allowed to act effeminate and still be heterosexual, right? But what's worse is that you're suggesting that men who are interested in books must be homosexual. That's a bit homophobic of you....
Oh boy. Here we go. The male protagonist acts just a little bit feminine and you immediately jump the gun and say he was pretending to be gay. I'm getting really sick of people making accusations like these. You know male characters are allowed to act effeminate and still be heterosexual, right?
Well, that's fair enough. I suppose the performance is up to interpretation. When I first watched the scene I just thought he was trying to act nerdy and unassuming so he didn't attract too much attention to himself.
Okay, so you say the way Bogart was playing it was intentional. To his credit, it was well done and a bit clever, while also staying subtle. But I also just remembered something: I found the plot confusing so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the book store secretly selling gay pornography? Is that why there was that scene where two guys were putting stuff away quickly in that back room? Because if that's the case, then Marlowe's pretend persona makes a lot more sense.
Actually the nature of Geiger's goods is never explicitly stated. All we know is that they were pornographic - nothing more, nothing less.
shareOh, I see. I realize that they couldn't explicitly say that's what they were up to, but if they had implied it I honestly wouldn't have known. I couldn't make heads or tails of this film's plot. However, I still enjoyed it overall.
shareOh the film’s plot is a mess from stem to stern for sure! I had to sit down and read the book before I finally got a truly clear picture of what was going on. The great thing about the film is its subtlety - and its lack of subtlety in spots.
shareI read the book first and then the movie was easy to follow although you could see where they changed the movie to make it more of a love story, which worked too.
share"he was trying to act nerdy "
Exactly.
"Loves turned to lust and bloods turned to dust in my heart"
Not sure I'd say the Ben Hur reference is a gay reference. I've read the book and it has none of the gay subtext of the film. It's actually pretty stodgy.
Personally, I loved this whole scene and I thought Bogey had a lot of fun with it. I'd thought it was him playing more prissy than gay (since Bogart does play nerdy straight guys in other films like The Two Mrs. Carrolls), but in light of Marlowe's chronic homophobia and the stereotypes in the novels, "nerdy" and "gay" are probably synonymous in this case.
It's somewhat subverted though. Marlowe's success in figuring out the operation is predicated in large part on his ability to do the book research necessary to figure out Agnes doesn't know what she's talking about. So, he really *is* that nerdy, even if he isn't gay. It's a great early example in the film of Marlowe the Detective actually detecting--and being damned good at it.
The Historical Meow http://thesnowleopard.net
No, you’re absolutely right. The reference to Ben Hur: A Tale Of The Christ (the full title of the book) has nothing at all to do with homosexuality – not even remotely.
The key lies in the date of publication, which Marlowe gives in Geiger’s shop as 1860, referring to a printing error in the 3rd edition on page 116. Agnes, of course, takes the bait, swallowing hook, line, sinker, boat, baggage and all – which clues Marlowe in on the fact that whatever A. G. Geiger’s business is, it probably doesn’t have much at all to do with “rare books.”
A few minutes later in the shop across the way, he put the same question about Ben Hur to the legitimate bookshop owner, who tells him that nobody would have that particular edition.
Legitimate first editions of Ben Hur, written by Lew Wallace, were published by Harper & Brothers in New York in 1880.
Ah, the days when people selling things actually knew their product.
Clerks in used book stores must have been extremely knowledgeable in the 1940s. I wouldn't expect somebody working in ANY store nowadays to know such details right off top of their head; I would expect them to consult their catalog, a reference book, the computer, etc.
I didn't like it when he kept saying hmmmmmmmmmm
Creepy