Ballin and Johnny... - Gilda (1946) Discussion

[–] B24 20 years ago

You are on the track of something that has puzzled me for years. I've tried without success to get more info on the writers of this script. The three main characters make no sense at all without knowing the "key." Nor does the plot for that matter. I have the feeling we are all victims of an inside Hollywood joke, especially people who buy into the character of Gilda as an über-sexy pinup creation -- an emancipated postwar American female.

Or am I reading too much into some of the ridiculous lines in this film?

reply

[–] onepotato2 17 years ago

Yeah but the key (Ballin and Johnny are gay) is just as unhelpful as the actual plot. If they're gay, why does Gilda become a bauble that both of them want and toy with?

It's a movie that starts well and just gets more and more bizarre.

reply

[–] dshortt-1 20 years ago

I think the movie does imply a sexual attraction between Ballin and Johnny, particularly on Ballin's part. He certainly seems to be aroused by the idea of his wife together with a studly young man! He might be a voyeur, or might even be into having a MMF three-some. Thus, Ballin might have repressed (or even overt) bisexual or homosexual feelings. Ballin's character doesn't display any awareness of having such feelings, however. As for Johnny, he is obviously consumed with jealousy over Ballin and Gilda, and no doubt tortures himself with fantasies of them two being together! Still, he has this strange loyalty and devotion to Ballin, something like a mentor or a father figure. This might suggest a subconscious homosexual attraction to Ballin on Johnny's part as well.

The reason Johnny is upset when he finds out Ballin is married is that they agreed when they first hooked-up that there would be no women in the picture, as women tend to generate tension and cause trouble. The truth of this is born-out when Gilda arrives on the scene. So Johnny feels betrayed by Ballin, and doubly so when he finds he has a common past with the woman Ballin married. Yes, Johnny is being emotionally abused by Ballin. The three main characters are all emotionally abusive toward each other, if you want to see it that way.

reply

[–] MaurasWorld 20 years ago

If you watch 'The Celluloid Closet' made in 1995 they discuss the relationship between Jonny and Ballin a little bit more...

"You are like a child, you don't see the knives people hide."

reply

[–] csu16387 20 years ago

I noticed the sexual tension between Ballin and Johnny as well. There's a scene when Ballin asks Johnny can he teach him to swim. There was plenty of subtle and clever dialogue in that scene.

BTW, I saw a few clips of The Celluloid Closet in my film class this past semester. I plan to see the entire documentary in the future.

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

reply

[–] preppy-3 19 years ago

Yeah--I can't believe some people didn't cstch it. How about the cane Ballin carries that "extends" when he needs it? That's pretty obvious! And when Johnny first meets Ballin he says, "You must lead a gay life"! AND when Ballin tells Johnny he's married Ford plays it like some jilted lover! I don't know if this gay subtext was intended but it sure comes across! I'd love to know what Ford thinks about it--but unfortunately I heard he's not in good health.

reply

[–] mpetko64 19 years ago

you can tell by this reply to the movie that this person making these comments is defintely a sexually perverted idiot.

reply

[–] ElaineLefkowitz213 18 years ago

you have got to be kidding me. seriously, cant two guys be good friends without the world running around and calling them gay. johnny was upset wehn he found out ballin was married because; first of all he and ballin had agreed that women and gambling didnt mix, and second of all he knew it was gilda because he heard her singing before he even saw her, he recognized her voice. the tension grew because gilda and johnny had an intense love/hate relationship, and ballin knew gilda and johnny had a secret they werent telling him. thats truly all there is. no underlying hidden meaning just waiting to be discovered, just a beautiful girl that comes between two good friends.

reply

[–] onepotato2 17 years ago

you have got to be kidding me. seriously, cant two guys be good friends without the world running around and calling them gay. johnny was upset wehn he found out ballin was married because; first of all he and ballin had agreed that women and gambling didnt mix, and second of all he knew it was gilda because he heard her singing before he even saw her, he recognized her voice. the tension grew because gilda and johnny had an intense love/hate relationship, and ballin knew gilda and johnny had a secret they werent telling him. thats truly all there is. no underlying hidden meaning just waiting to be discovered, just a beautiful girl that comes between two good friends.
by - srule-1 on Sat Apr 14 2007 08:45:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm assuming you're straight and it has shaken you up that a sub-culture has found a different story in the movie. Even your simple explanation makes my head hurt. Nothing could be less simple than the bizarre actions and psychology of these three characters. If they're straight the movie makes no sense, and if they're gay it answers a bunch of questions but raises just as many; again making no sense.

Johnny's hatred is ridiculously out of proportion to your explanation. He's one of the nastiest characters ever put on screen. Maybe he hates Gilda, maybe he hates women.

reply

[–] panton63 17 years ago

YOU SEEM TO BE FORGETTING THAT IN THOSE DAYS, CENSORSHIP DIDN'T ALLOW THINGS TO BE SHOWN SUCH AS HOMOSEXUALITY, ETC. WE 'HAD TO' READ BETWEEN THE LINES FOR NOW IN MOVIES, ANYTHING GOES, AND I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING, IF THAT MOVIE WAS REMADE, WITHOUT CENSORSHIP, YOU'D SEE FOR YOURSELF HOW MUCH SEXUALITY WAS REALLY MEANT IN THE ORGINAL MOVIE!!!!!

reply

[–] gwydionmoose 20 years ago

haha...I bet even Gilda doesn't have keys to Ballin's house!

reply

[–] Noirdame79 16 years ago

Actually, Gilda does have a key to Ballin's house. Rewatch the film again and you'll notice in the scene where Johnny punches a drunken Gabe Evans after he returns with Gilda from their date to Ballin's house. After Gilda and Johnny spar off about him keeping an eye on her for Ballin, you see her use a key to unlock the front door.

I did get the homosexual subtext between Johnny and Ballin, but the film is called Gilda after all. And IMO, whatever sexual tension there is between the two men doesn't compare to that between Gilda and Johnny, which is what people remember most about this movie (aside from Hayworth herself). The camera doesn't lie, and I've always felt (as Glenn Ford said), that he and Rita were indeed having an affair during filming, as they did on and off throughout their lives. It seems they had a very passionate relationship on and off the screen.

I hope they are reunited in heaven.

reply

[–] onepotato2 16 years ago

And IMO, whatever sexual tension there is between the two men doesn't compare to that between Gilda and Johnny, which is what people remember most about this movie (aside from Hayworth herself). The camera doesn't lie

by - Roseofsharon969 on Sun Jan 4 2009 13:22:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More votes doesn't mean diddly. Most of the population is oblivious.

The "passion" you speak of is abject hatred of Gilda by Johnny of r 9/10s of the running time. Their fairyland happy ending is tacked on to sell the thing and makes no sense. It's the least persuasive happy ending ever filmed.

reply

[–] Noirdame79 16 years ago

The primary focus of the movie is on the relationship between Gilda and Johnny. "The most curious love/hate pattern I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing." Yes, there is a homosexual subtext, but it's not the main point of the film.

reply

[–] muchlove86 19 years ago

First I would like to say I love this film and Rita Hayworth is drop dead gorgeous!!! As I watched this film I did notice the innuendo between Ballin & Johnny, so I did a little exploring trying to find a in-depth telling of the plot for ''Gilda''. I stumbled onto a excellent review by Tim Dirks at http://www.filmsite.org/gild.html. It confirmed that there was a sexual relationship between Ballin & Johnny in the beginning of the film and it died down when Gilda stepped in ,thus creating tension between the three. The relationship between Ballin & Johnny was censored due to the ''Production Code'' of the 1940's.If anyone is interested I recommed that everyone should check out this review. I believe it will answer alot of questions anyone has about this film.I hope this helps. Best Always!!!

reply

[–] Harold_Robbins 19 years ago

I've never had any doubt that there was something going on between Ballin and Johnny - if they remade it today of course they could emphasize the underlying "love triangle" aspect of the story more openly, if not necessarily explicitly - although Johnny had an affair with Gilda which apparently caused him to swear off women, it preceded the starting point of the film and we don't know it until after he's hooked up with Ballin; it's kind of obvious that now he's got something going on with Ballin - then Gilda re-enters the picture and, well, we have a not-particularly-happy little menage a trois. Despite the Production Code, they did manage to get certain things across in films back then: Think of Elisha Cook Jr. as Wilmer and Sidney Greenstreet as Gutman in MALTESE FALCON, and the subtle references to Peter Lorre as Joel Cairo.

reply

[–] lcga 19 years ago

There was nothing going on between Ballin and Johhny.

If they wanted to infere homesexuality they could have done a much better job of it, they did in A Streetcar Named Desire.

Johhny is working for Ballin, he swore off women before he met Ballin, he was in love with Gilda however something happened that turned that love into hate making him into something of a machionist.

If Johhny were a homesexual he wouldn't spend the entire film taunted by Gilda, you can see that he is burning for her sexually but has to restrain himself, that her mere touch and being alone with her makes him nervous.

Ballin wouldn't have married Gilda if he were a homesexual, when Johhny wants to hit him its because he believes that Ballin has made love with Gilda, infuriating the part of him that still loves Gilda.

Johhny = Heterosexual.
Ballin = Heterosexual.
Gilda = Super hetrosexual.

reply

[–] Hashimuri 19 years ago

I disagree with you, lcga, and agree with what everyone else is asserting...

This film is one where the elliptical dialogue is very loaded with implied meanings, but sometimes only by paying attention to very subtle details can the implications be confirmed.

For example, before being introduced to Gilda as Ballin's wife, Johnny lets himself into Ballin's house - that is, he has his own set of keys. Afterwards, Ballin sees Johnny out of the house and Johnny HANDS HIS SET OF KEYS BACK TO HIM, thus signalling that their affair is over - a woman has come between them.

Of course, one can choose to read it as more or less overt, as a homoeroticism that the characters repress or a homosexual relationship that they secretly indulge... The particulars are very open to intepretation, but to deny that there is queerness in this film is to see things on a very literal level - and classical Hollywood, especially film noir, is anything but!

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

Fantastic, everyone. I am amazed I never picked up on this, but it's all there. Thanks!

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

Just watched it again to check this out, I have a couple more observations. Not only am I convinced it's entirely central to a real understanding of the movie, it's obvious to me now that everyone involved at the time knew the actual story they were telling - there's no way this is something tagged on by an overzealous reader - Johnny was seducing Ballin with his eyes, when he spoke; he carried drinks for him; he smiled at him in a special way. It was handled so subtly and beautifully by both director and actors that every gesture could have two or three reasons for being the way it was, but none of them were spelled out.

When Johnny and Ballin first meet, Johnny actually says to Ballin, "what a gay life life you must lead" ..!! And though it doesn't involve Ballin, watch the scene where Uncle Pia is putting johnny's shoes on his feet - he gives a great speech about liking the "revealing vantage point" and then actually glances at Johnny's crotch before the camera takes us behind Uncle Pia... the framing is perfect, and Johnny looks pretty reeeelaxed.

and then, there's the business of the cane. The scene where Johnny punches the casino thug after convincing Ballin to "hire" him proves the cane is a phallic symbol; watch closely, at the moment Johnny shows what a hardbody he is, the cane tips up and Ballin shows us his admiration.

But I think it's not so much about homo- or hetero- sexualities, but about power. okay admittedly sexuality as the embodiment of the power. The cane was also a power symbol. The doms vs. the subs, who is who?

And Ballin was always threatening both Johnny and Gilda, I mean, that's part of the twisted motivation behind Gilda's actions, she was 1)trying to make Johnny jealous, but on another pretty solid level she was indulging in some fairly suicidal, self-destructive behaviour by playing around with such a dangerous guy as he husband. Was Johnny protecting her or himself?

So Ballin being the power, Johnny and Gilda were both whores, and each wallowed in a certain amount of discomfort in that knowledge, but only after they came face to face and recognized each other as whores - maybe neither fully realized it until then?

SO much going on here, it's dizzying, really. You can trace this power relationship like a braid. I have been pretty critical of some elements of this movie in the past, I always said the really good bits between Glenn Ford and Rita Hayworth (awe inspiring scenes) were the only good thing about the movie, and it was a pity because Hayworth and Ford are so great together. But I really think it's an utter masterpiece now, so thanks you guys for opening my eyes! Even the tungsten bits I thought were well developed this go around, nearly a perfect movie aside from that little melodramatic mediocrity in some of the supporting performances.

And still though, that ending puzzles me. I can't help but regret they didn't handle the denouement a little more carefully. Maybe there is some justification for it after all, I've just missed it ;)

reply

[–] moviemancritter 19 years ago

I actually just turned in an essay for my film class about the homosexual tendencies in the film, and yes, the writters where doing a critique on homosexuality at the main purpose of this film...

reply

[–] jal7373 19 years ago

Hopefully you have a spellchecker...

reply

[–] hollywoodclassics 19 years ago

Okay....apparently there is plenty of film class happy people on this board. I hate to be a source of discouragement but you people have left me no choice.
To start...film class is not exactly a fact class...The whole point behind film classes is to form an opinion, usually the one enforced by the professor. I know some professors who still try to claim that the whole Final Solution thing was a swell idea. Clearly not the most level headed people teach that class.

On to the movie itself. The writer's have never hinted that they were doing a critique on homosexuality. If that was the purpose, they did an awful job, because clearly the whole movie is about the love/hate relationship between Gilda and Johnny. Even a majority of quotes clearly state those very facts. Like in one of the final scenes when the detective gentlemen was talking to Johnny about how he had never seen such an interesting love/hate relationship between the two. The movie 'Gilda' was such an amazing piece on love that movie bosses tried to garner more and more on screen pairings between Rita Hayworth and Glenn Ford.

The relationship between Johnny and Ballin( or however it is spelled), was a mix of respect and friendship. The only reason Johnny was upset when Ballin left the house was because Ballin just caught the only friend he thought he could trust kissing his wife. Personally, if I kissed my best friend's husband I'd feel awful too. Ballin does not like the idea of Gilda and Johnny together, as the viewer can tell by the various expressions Mr. Lack of Words gets on his face when Gilda and Johnny are at tension with one another. Johnny is not trying to seduce Ballin with any offers..he is trying to keep Ballin from killing him. He is also trying to get a job that will make him, an obvious gambler, easily rich.

Gilda and Johnny love eachother very much and have a great amount of hostility towards one another once they meet again. If there would have been more of a pre-story to this movie, I'm sure the viewers who tried to find some homosexuality about it would have had a hard time doing so.

Censors about gayness did not exactly exist back in this time. Though the word gay or homosexual or lesbian wasn't used...the theme was very obvious in the movies it pertained to. A great example of this would be the Children's Hour...the main point of the story is the town children saying that the two women are in love. So to say censors wouldn't let them pass off the Ballin Johnny love is not even applicable. It is a pity film classes have ventured on to ruin great movies such as this...next you'll be telling me that the Godfather wasn't really about the mafia.

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

well, I've never taken a film class in my life, and I'm sure it isn't a 'film class' which has supported this idea - it's people who noticed bits of evidence.

your analysis is very straightforward and normal, thank you, no room for deviance here! why you think underlying messages ruin a film is beyond me though, you're very welcome to think what you like about a movie, and not go too deep.

It isn't necessarily the censors who dictated the subtlety of the homosexual frictions between Johnny and Ballin. It was the choice of the director, and for whatever reason they were left under wraps.

Look, it's perfectly clear to me that this dynamic is happening in the film. There was always some small thing missing when I watched Gilda, and now that gap has been filled - the relationship between Johnny and Ballin is not developed, so if you expect me to take it for granted that Johnny was the only friend Ballin thought he could trust, I'd have to say that there isn't much in the film to support that either. So you look for the little tricks of filming, the little hints of acting, and it's all there.

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

For what it's worth, I agree with zygimantas both in general with respect to criticism of films and on this point as well. Sometimes a cigar isn't just a cigar. And in this case, one has to rely on internal evidence as well as on historical factors involving the necessity for moviemakers in 1946 to keep things "clean" if for no other reason than to promote for further use the Hayworth-Ford romantic image.

The mere fact that this movie continues to generate discussion about its characters and plot so many years after its production speaks volumes. And that observation has nothing whatever to do with revisionist views from the 21st century, but rather an attempt to figure out just what was going on behind the scenes in 1946.

Keep on voicing opinions, however, wherever they may lead!

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

I do have one thing more to say about the end, I guess it must be obvious to most but I am a little slow, as you can see... I said before that I wanted the ending to be 'better' and maybe this is just me trying to make it so, but

SPOILER

regarding Ballin's death: we don't see Uncle Pia (?) actually stab him, we only see him lurch forward with his "friend" sticking out of his back - so even though we all realize Pia must have done it, it seems as though it was really only the "friend" who stabbed him in the back - the stick was actually his best friend, and he couldn't even trust her.

Not sure what this proves, but at least it smooths out (for me at least) the awkwardness of the final scene..

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

I just read something about Billy Wilder's movie 'Lost Weekend' - in the book, the main character drank to drown his homosexual guilt! Or the subtext says so anyway, and they weren't allowed to make the film that way, even to imply it. That was only the year before this.

reply

[–] Flight_of_Fantasy 13 years ago

I definitely think there was something going on between Ballin and Johnny, although I'm not sure they actually had a relationship. I'm more inclined to believe that they were on the way to starting a relationship when Ballin married Gilda. So not only did Johnny feel that Ballin betrayed him by marrying Gilda, he was terrified of betraying Ballin with that same woman, as of course he did.

"He's already attracted to her. Time and monotony will do the rest."

reply

[–] BennetDarcy 19 years ago

I think there's a difference between a special connection two people of the same sex can have, and homosexuality. It is my personal opinion that Johnny and Ballin were not having an affair, but that there was this tension of some kind between them (but neither actually wanted a sexual relationship).

reply

[–] hmpulham 19 years ago

If you want to read a homosexual aspect into the men's relationship you can. If you don't want to put that interpretation on it -- you can. There is nothing there that says straight, bisexual or homosexual. I do think the script writers and or the director, wanted to play with the characters and try to make the film stand out from the croud, so to speak. Let's face it, inspite of all the fancy pyrotechnics, this film's main purpose was to make money and to showcase "Columbia Pictures" one and only big female star of the time -- Rita Hayworth.

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

this film's main purpose was to make money and to showcase "Columbia Pictures" one and only big female star of the time -- Rita Hayworth.

Maybe so. And all the more reason to suspect the subtext may have existed in some previous form onto which "Gilda" was grafted. There is no question that her eponymous role defines a classic film star...it just seems so at odds with all the other stuff going on behind her.

reply

[–] BennetDarcy 19 years ago

You've got an awesome point, and I can't disagree with anything you've said.

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

There is nothing there that says straight, bisexual or homosexual

On the contrary, there is plenty there that says all the characters are heterosexual. If there was nothing that said homosexual, it wouldn't be valid to take away any homosexual subtext from these characters who are getting married and having love affairs.

I think there is plenty there to support bisexuality, in that there is plenty to support both homosexuality and heterosexuality, and mixed together they make bisexuality. The problem is that heterosexuality was the main gist of every romantic movie at the time, so any homosexuality had to be conveyed through pretty deeply buried subtext. The fact that in this movie the subtext was not so deep says a lot about how important Ballin and Johnny's alleged homosexual relationship was to their characterizations, from a performance and directorial point of view.

this film's main purpose was to make money and to showcase "Columbia Pictures" one and only big female star of the time -- Rita Hayworth

That may have been the main purpose of the producers, who were the capitalists behind the film, but I don't think it was the main directorial purpose. In fact, I think it denigrates Rita Hayworth's talent here to say that the role was a showcase - she made it what it was, it wasn't made for her. She wasn't Lauren Bacall in the Big Sleep, for example.

reply

[–] NMBtoNYC 19 years ago

I just saw the movie for the first time today and I was surprised by the many homoerotic overtones to this classic film. No YoYo you are not imagining this.

reply

[–] illinoisirish 19 years ago

I'd tend to agree with hollywoodclassics on this one. and to zigymantas...are you saying that just because a person doesn't read homosexuality in a film it means they are not deep thinkers. That is just a tad on the ignorant side, don't you think? Something can be deep even if it is not homosexually based. Don't be so against heterosexuality. That is a bit prejudiced.

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

Wow, illinoisirish, talk about changing the subject!!! No one ever said that or even implied it. "Deep thinkers" come in all kinds. So for that matter do shallow thinkers. And to accuse someone of being "against heterosexuality" without demonstrating actual prejudice is what is called in logic creating a strawman against which to attack.

Let's try to be more objective and less concerned with supposed personal motives when discussing features of a film.

reply

[–] illinoisirish 19 years ago

Apparently you have not been here for the duration of the thread...or read the whole thread either...so before you tell someone they are shallow or jumping to conclusions...read first. It goes along with that ' think before speaking' thing

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

Here we go again. No one -- repeat no one -- has said that you are shallow or jumping to conclusions. My comment was that your specific post in question exhibited two clear errors in logic. First, you changed the subject as a way of making a point about other commentators' presumed motivations; and second, you set up a straw man argument against those who shared some presumed "deep thinking" views in their comments.

Please note that I have said nothing against you personally or attempted to characterize your own possible motivation. All I did was note that what you actually wrote about someone else's comments on a specific point were off target.

In fact, I think a strong case can be made that some of this Johnny-Ballin speculation is just that. But I like to entertain all views about this very intriguing film and its creators.

reply

[–] illinoisirish 19 years ago

save yourself some the trouble of yelling at me...in case you haven't noticed...the thread is called ballin and johnny and it is about ballin and johnny...I'm actually sticking with the thread not changing the subject...you need to relax and really get a life.

reply

[–] cuttingedgenyc 19 years ago

The guy running the festival (a married, straight man, for what it's worth!) said in the introduction of Gilda that he had screened this movie with one of the director's (Charles Vidor's) past wives. He said that Vidor's ex-wife explained to him that the homosexual theme of the movie was intentional and reflected Vidor's own sexuality (Vidor was "omnisexual.")

And if I may say so, I think it is part of what makes the movie so wickedly fabulous. If you are missing all those double entendres between the two men,and the fact that this is a love triangle between the three of them, you are missing a lot.

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

Yelling? An impossibility in writing, unless someone writes in caps, none of which appear in my posts. And, as someone who has posted regularly on this thread since it started, I have always confined my comments to the subject. I have never said that anyone who disagreed with me needed to "get a life." If anyone can find any personal comment I made about another poster instead of writing strictly about the merits of what that poster had to say, I will retract it gladly.

reply

[–] illinoisirish 19 years ago

oh my...you are just impossible. I didn't tell you to get a life for disagreeing with me...I told you to get a life for telling me not to change the subject of the thread ....even though I was writing about the thread. Are you a little kid or something? Because you act very immature and I feel sorry for you. I am no longer going to humor your immaturity by writing back to you. This is a message board for Pete's sake..not a fighting ring. If you are so desperate to fight become a lawyer or something...though your knack for floating far from the topic may work against you. best of luck.

ANYWAYS.... to anyone on the board...has anyone ever read any interviews with glenn ford or the guy that played ballin...talking about their character's relationship?

reply

[–] wiredone 19 years ago

I have to agree with B24. His or her comments and those of zygimantas are very insightful and not immature at all. In fact they really make you think no matter how you see it the first time. Its good to open minded.

wiredone

reply

[–] avasinatra 19 years ago

B24 - I didn’t know that it was possible to yell at someone in writing by using capital letters… Silly me, I thought yelling ALWAYS involved the vocal cords.

wiredone - illinoisirish did not state that B24’s insights regarding Ballin and Johnny were immature, rather illinoisirish clearly stated that B24’s conduct on the message board was immature.

The alleged homosexual subtext in Gilda is so subtle that perhaps we are only having this discussion because the inadvertent application of our 21st century social and cultural paradigm is present. Conceivably the director’s intent may have been an implied homosexual relationship between Ballin and Johnny. But then again, the director is not here to ask, so this is all mere speculation. I do find it interesting that a past wife of the director's stated that homosexuality was a theme deliberately implied, but her comment was second hand information, which is at best slightly unreliable.

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

ho ho, you guys have been busy over here.. illinoisirish, I think you didn't read what I originally wrote very carefully:

why you think underlying messages ruin a film is beyond me though, you're very welcome to think what you like about a movie, and not go too deep

- I only wrote that to say that when someone embeds symbols, images or allegories into his art, you're certainly not obliged to focus on them. You don't have to watch Narnia as an allegory about Jesus Christ, but that's exactly what it is. Still, you are welcome to watch it as a fantasy story about a Lion and a witch, etc. -- whatever floats your boat

The alleged homosexual subtext in Gilda is so subtle...so this is all mere speculation.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the alleged homosexual subtext is not very subtle, and this is not speculation. These things are there, in the movie.

In literary discussion groups they have the "rule of thrice" wherein: if you see it once it's nothing - if you see it twice it's a coincidence, but if you see it three times it's a motif. The homoerotic dynamic here is exemplified by many more than three examples, so it is definitely an embedded motif - any second year literature major at university could prove it to a classroom full of professors.

That doesn't mean anything textual, however - and by that I mean, it doesn't prove that either Ballin or Johnny is homosexual, per se. All it proves is that the homosexual dynamic exists and therefore the triangle of characters is given a new dimension, enriching the experience of watching the film. What could possibly be wrong with that?

perhaps we are only having this discussion because the inadvertent application of our 21st century social and cultural paradigm is present.

That's possible - what is that paradigm, how does it differ from the paradigm of the mid 20th century? My op, not so much, but I certainly haven't made a study. I mean, there are homosexual undercurrents in the bible, for pete's sake - it's been around awhile, and it's found its way into our artistic media since civilization started making art.

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

Some good points, zyg. But be prepared for more ad hominem (or should I say ad homonem?) questioning of your motives. Objectivity and logic are not always strong attributes here. ;>)

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

So remember in Star Trek when Kirk hugged Spock? Proof that they were queer too, totally obvious. In fact, everyone is homosexual, and I'd like to see someone try and disprove that.

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

He said slyly.

reply

[–] Noirdame79 19 years ago

Glenn Ford was interviewed about the film some years later and he confirmed that
everyone involved in the movie's production were aware of the homosexual subtext, but, because of the standards of the Production Code, it had to be very subtle.

Obviously, the 'affair' with Ballin (if we can assume that an affair did take place between them) was one Johnny came to regret and took a backseat to his tortured infatuation with Gilda (and he can't really be blamed for that).

It's just a fabulous movie - was there ever a hotter couple that Johnny and Gilda?

And Ballin's "little friend"? Hmmmmm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CATCHING THE BUTTERFLY IN THAT DREAM OF MINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

For the record I'm not gay, but I have been the token straightboy working at a lot of drag shows and I'm shocked - shocked that I've never seen a female impersonator doing Hayworth.

I would like to watch this film and make a log of the times some character made a pretense of being something he/she is not, and also of the times a character came out and boldly faced up to his/her identity. I think there might be a reading here that has something to do with the old "closet," who was in it? Who was out?

Ballin seems to have married (like a lot of closet-cases might have done in the 40s - and now) in order to reassure others of his heterosexuality, but he promptly tosses all responsibility for the woman onto Johnny. Showing how much he actually cares about women? Does this lack of attention have something to do with Gilda's fake extramarital affairs? (I know they were mainly for Johnny's benefit, but it all comes down to how much attention Gilda was getting from the men in her life)

So many questions. If this movie is primarily about sexuality, what place does the whole tungsten subplot have? Naziism? Where in the allegory of homo/bi-sexuality can we fit these? Not that we've entirely ironed out the dynamic between homo bi and het goings on between the three leads.

But tungsten? such a convoluted plotline, so difficult to grasp at first watch; the only thing I really know about tungsten that sets it apart (as a symbolic item) is its high melting point. It stays hard longer than any other element. But surely that's a coincidence..

reply

[–] B24 19 years ago

Interesting comment. If someone who was acquainted with the writers at the time is still living and has some thoughts on tungsten or anything else about this film, I would certainly like to hear it. For that matter, I would like to get my hands on the full script and review it apart from the film itself. One of the questions I have is how it fits into the whole postwar "noir" genre with particular emphasis on the kinds of plots generated by Chandler, Hammett, etc. Structurally, there has to be some rationale for everything you have mentioned.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ericmozart 19 years ago

"Brokeback Gilda"?

reply

[–] jayans_23 19 years ago

For the record...
Ziggy-I think you are gay
B24-are you and zigyman..whatever the same person?
Brokeback Gilda-I think the two of you ( or the one) would be perfect
Johnny=Straight and lustin after Gilda

reply

[–] zygimantas 19 years ago

I'm not sure why you think someone who discusses homosexual imagery must be gay, I suppose it must be because you are a bigot? And if you read closely enough you'll see that B24 and I don't always agree on every point. but there's no real debate going on here, what purpose would double identities serve? I guess for people with a lack of imagination all incomprehensible posts must be the work of the same person.

reply