MovieChat Forums > From Here to Eternity (1953) Discussion > Homoerotic moments

Homoerotic moments

posted 15 years ago by Welch57
47 replies | jump to latest

There are no 'gay' characters in the film version of From Here to Eternity but the relationship between Clift and Lancaster's characters is interesting. Says Stephen Bourne in the UK magazine Gay Times (Montogomery Clift: Tarnished Angel, April 1990, pp62-63):

"...one of the most intimate scenes in the film involves Clift and Lancaster sitting together, drunk, in the road. Lancaster gently strokes the back of Clift's head, thus creating one of the most tenderly homoerotic moments in cinema history."

Bourne also acknowledges that in the novel (not the film) author James Jones devotes an entire chapter to Prewitt and Maggio befriending two gays, Tommy and Hal, in a local gay bar and, while making the film, Jones found himself attracted to Clift and admitted: "I would have had an affair with him but he never asked me."

reply

[–] yoda87960 15 years ago

Eh, I never got that vibe between those two characters. Lancaster was putting himself on the line to have an affair with that guy's wife and Clift was borderline harassing the woman who worked at the club. It was more father and son or brotherly love.

The relationship between Sinatra and Borgnine had a lot of gay subtext, I thought. The stockade director guy's zest for torturing and dominating guys had a bit of a creepy subtext that that same guy might be into rape.

reply

[–] rgcustomer 14 years ago

We shouldn't eliminate the possibility of bisexuality and/or the closet. Despite their outward interest in women, the way Warden intimately touches the subordinate Prewitt, fondling his neck, ruffling his hair, seems more along the lines of the "I was drunk" kind of homoerotic behaviour some men experience. And there was pressure not to be perceived as gay at that time, with the military discouraging and then forbidding recruitment of gay men into the military, prior to Pearl Harbor. If they hadn't been nearly run over (and the Hays Code not been in effect) who knows what might have happened... As the film progresses, Warden makes a choice to be with his men (and Prewitt) rather than the woman he was after.

I had not considered the Maggio-Judson relationship, but it's an interesting comment. We know that some men who are denied the ability to express their desires act out violently towards those they desire. Still, I don't think the film itself points us one way or the other.

reply

[–] acostine-1 14 years ago

"The relationship between Sinatra and Borgnine had a lot of gay subtext"

These characters brawl in a bar,threaten to kill each other,trade racial insults, and one beats the other to death. How is this a "gay subtext"?

reply

[–] yoda87960 14 years ago

Not necessarily gay, a but domination/power/control type thing. If Oliver Stone had made this flick in the 80s, Borgnine would definitely have been raping the prisoners. The thing is as soon as the guard gets him in captivity, he starts beating him senseless and doesn't stop. I've disliked men in my life, but never enough to make beating them up my day job. Sinatra's refusal to submit was almost a way of asking for it, like in an S&M situation. Also, when you're beating someone, it simply involves a lot of physical contact.

reply

[–] DD-931 14 years ago

The Warden/Pruitt relationship is a father/son relationship. It's kind of hilarious sometimes how desperately certain people try to read gay relationships into every male/male relationship they see on the screen.

reply

[–] willjohn 14 years ago

By some people's standards if two men speak to each other without women being present it is gay. If you read the book there is one part where Pruitt is remembering his time riding the rails as a hobo before he joined the army. Another hobo tried to rape him and Pruitt killed him.

reply

[–] southwestern71 14 years ago

I never read the book but Welch57 who started this thread says about the book "author James Jones devotes an entire chapter to Prewitt and Maggio befriending two gays, Tommy and Hal, in a local gay bar". In the book at least the two must have been gay or had gay tendencies otherwise they would not have been in a gay bar. If you are straight you do not go into a gay bar & you can't argue with that.

reply

[–] alisotom 14 years ago

BULL---!!! i'm straight and i've been to gay bars. the music is usually much better than straight bars, the crowd is classier, and the chicks are hotter. if a guy knows he's straight, he has no problem with a gay bar; it's the one's who arent secure in their own sexuality that feel uncomfortable in a gay bar due to their own insecurities. where have you been??? this is the 21st century...

reply

[–] turi43 14 years ago

Jesus ! Does every fricking movie have to have a gay subtext or overtone ? Enough with the gay theme and talk that's supposed to be in every movie. Yeah, it's 2011, but the straight people, last time I checked, are still the majority and we are sick of this theme being shoved down our throats ! Enough is enough !

reply

[–] gribfritz2 14 years ago

Haven't you heard? The entire world is gay, apparently. It's amazing that the species continues to propagate, especially since every actor, author, director, producer has been flooding their works with gay subtext since, apparently, the dawn of time. We're just smart enough to see it now. You know, we're much smarter in 2011 than anyone else. Aren't we? Please tell me we are.

Anyway, yesterday, I saw a cloud float by and someone got stung by a bee. All the while the earth was rotating. Most would think these are ordinary things, but there was so much homoeroticism and gay subtext. I'm astounded no one notices it each and every day.

reply

[–] derekbd1966 13 years ago

straight people, last time I checked, are still the majority and we are sick of this theme being shoved down our throats !

Because he wanted to discuss it, the OP started a thread and clearly named it so there was no doubt about its subject. How is that "being shoved" down your throat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Derekbd

reply

[–] nobiggie 13 years ago

@turi43, actually YOU are the one who's becoming part of a minority more and more every day since nowadays str8 people are supporting gays and gay rights like never before so don't talk about ALL straight people in general, talk only about those fewer and fewer narrow-minded ones Okay?

reply

[–] caseymck 12 years ago

I think you're scared of (and maybe excited by) something else being shoved down your throat. First of all, Jones the author was gay, and he was definitely dealing with homosexual feelings through his characters in the novel. The fact that P killed a hobo for making a pass at him shows that he was terrified of anyone that embodied the feelings he was trying to hide. That's not a difficult interpretive move, buddy, so you're either an idiot or ridiculously homophobic. Hollywood films in 1953 couldn't openly represent homosexuality because of the Production Code, so the moment of tenderness between Lancaster and Clift was as explicit as films were allowed to be at the time. To refuse to to see that is either willful ignorance or fear of sexual introspection on your part.

reply

[–] Alfriend 12 years ago

Please don't think you speak for the whole heterosexual world. Your imagery however about having what you call "this theme being shoved down our throats" is something a therapist would have a field day with.

reply

[–] deanmorris_nyc 10 years ago

The movie is about war, brutal fights, torture, extramarital affairs, murders, and you freak about gay subtexts.

Thanks for your visit.

reply

[–] melnar1 10 years ago

Since when did they have "gay bars" in 1941?

reply

[–] indy_go_blue44 13 years ago

I'm an older straight male, but I'll have to say there was a tenderness present in the Warden-Prewitt relationship that seemed a... bit unusual coming from a tough career 1st sargeant. One could perceive it as sexual, but one could also say it came from the respect Sgt. Warden had for this man who, though not willing to fight in the ring, definitely was not a coward and was standing up against his scuzzball CO and his boxer minions.

One thing is clear: In 1941 a serviceman convicted of homosexual behavior faced a dishonorable discharge and 10 years in the stockade. Even in 1970 when I served, it still meant a dishonorable discharge.

reply

[–] mad_roke 13 years ago

You're right. It's kind of creepy though, that every scene where two men express feelings is instantly considered as gay. You can brotherly love another man with no sexual thoughts in the background and we as humans don't know any other good ways to express brotherly (or sisterly) love, besides stroking, or hugging someone.
If Burt and Montgomery would've made out, well then it'd be obvious, but besides a drunken "Hey c'mon pal"-shoulder rub there is not much of "gay touching".

reply

[–] tj19 13 years ago

In the book, Maggio is a gay hustler.
And in real life, Monty Clift was homosexual so its not surprising people are getting these vibes. Its really up to the viewer to decide if there are homoerotic tendencies. IMO there is some hints to it but it doesn't affect how I feel about the film. I found the two hetero relationships to be far more interesting.

reply

[–] DD-931 13 years ago

All this proves is that some gays are completely clueless about relationships between heterosexual males. And that it's pure insecurity when gays want to read a homosexual subtext into those relationships.

The fact that some people think affection between two people must always be seen in sexual terms is pitiful.

reply

[–] Squeeth2 13 years ago

Oh come on DD, I got a 2:1 on the strength of writing essays for two years on the inherently homosexual nature of American society. (laugh)

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply

[–] DD-931 13 years ago

Oh, it's still got legs. It's definitely still got legs.

reply

[–] deanmorris_nyc 10 years ago

Relax, people seek what they know in the world. OPINIONS DON'T HURT MOVIES.

I just watched The Misfits and could spot Biblical themes in it and I'm an atheist homosexual; imagine what a devout Christian would have made of them. You're problem is with sex that you feel you're in a superior position to insult.

Look at themes and subtexts as methods people use to relate, learn from, and empathize with art and drama.

reply

[–] ginbelt 9 years ago

In the book, Maggio is a gay hustler.

I'm reading the novel now, and so far, about a third of the way in, it seems Maggio (and others) certainly hustle gay men for money, but it's understood that they are doing it for only for the money. Perhaps Maggio (and Bloom, another soldier who does this) are bi, and just keep the fact that they're actually turned on by the tricks they sometimes turn, but more likely, it seemed to me from other clues, was that they (or at least Maggio) are in fact straight, but willing to do such things with gay men, strictly for the money. It's kind of accepted -- the way they talk amongst themselves about "rolling queers" for money. How they spend the money once they have it, though, is telling....they spend it whorehouses, having sex with women.

If, later in the book, it comes out that Maggio does these things even for free at times, or admits to someone about actually being gay or bi, I haven't gotten to that part yet...

People have trouble believing this, but some straight men apparently can, under the right circumstances -- such as being in prison only with men, or stuck on a ship for a long period of time, only around other men, etc -- be sexual with another man even though it wouldn't be their first preference, given different circumstances. That doesn't necessarily mean the guy was "gay" in the way it's usually understood (a man or women being turned on by and preferring a member of their own sex).

reply

[–] cindyfrye 8 years ago

Rape is not sexual. It is about power. IMO it has no relationship to straight or gay or bi or any other orientation.

reply

[–] stevegallanter 11 years ago

The intensity of the physicality is a "gay subtext". All of the other stuff is just male bonding.

reply

[–] malcomtucker 12 years ago

Aw, horse flop.

reply

[–] molien 12 years ago

Yes in the book Maggio is a gay hustler on the side, which would have been a fascinating angle in the film, but in 1953 there's no way they could put that in the film.

reply

[–] Uvtha 11 years ago

I find it funny that people are debating the homosexual/homoerotic elements of Jones' work. I have to wonder if they ever read this book.
It's pretty explicit, as you said Maggio WAS a gay hustler, gay hustling was presented as completely commonplace for soldiers, they all talked about it.
The only characters that engaged in gay sex were Maggio and Bloom to the best of my recollection. And bloom was the only one who admitted to liking it in his mental monolog before killing himself. Otherwise it was just sort of something that they felt they had to do to keep getting money from the guys they were hustling.

As for Prew and Warden, I don't think it was gay at all, or father/son. It was fraternity, and understanding and respect. They shared similar core ideals. Thats how I took it anyway.

reply

[–] dshortt-1 11 years ago

Yea right ... that's why Warden (Burt Lancaster), was chasing Captain Holme's wife ... because he was really a closet homosexual. That whole affair between Lancaster and Deborah Kerr's character was just a distraction to throw naive viewers off the REAL story.

Give your heads a shake, folks.

reply

[–] Uvtha 11 years ago

Did you even read what I wrote? I said I DIDN'T think the relationship between Prew and Warden was of a homosexual nature.

But the book very clearly not only had homoerotic undertones, it directly had gay sex in it. Thats not bias, it's just there.

reply

[–] brockmeeks 10 years ago



You didn't even read what he wrote.

And he read the book!

reply

[–] ginbelt 8 years ago

It's pretty explicit, as you said Maggio WAS a gay hustler, gay hustling was presented as completely commonplace for soldiers, they all talked about it.
The only characters that engaged in gay sex were Maggio and Bloom to the best of my recollection. And bloom was the only one who admitted to liking it in his mental monolog before killing himself. Otherwise it was just sort of something that they felt they had to do to keep getting money from the guys they were hustling.

I posted earlier in this thread, saying Maggio, while he and other enlisted men did consort with openly gay men, was not gay himself. At the time, I'd read about a third of that rather long novel...since then, I've finished it, and stick to this assertion. Maggio did it for money, since they didn't earn much pay for soldiering, apparently. And since so much of that money was itself spent on female companionship at the local whorehouses, I concluded that Maggio was not gay himself (the Bloom character seems to have been, though, or at least was bi, though he was deeply ashamed and at times in denial to himself about it). I see now that what you and others meant by "gay hustler" is that he HUSTLED GAYS --- not that he's gay, and, uh, also a hustler, the other possibility.

presented as completely commonplace for soldiers, they all talked about it.

That's what struck me, how commonplace and normal it was painted in the book. And Jones is SO detail-oriented in this novel that, taken with the fact of his own Hawaiian military experience, you really gotta wonder how much of action (not just scenery) in the novel is completely of Jones' own observations and recollections....

reply

[–] Uvtha 8 years ago

Yeah I certainly never assumed that Maggio was gay, but I do think he was portrayed as having more of a tolerance or even fondness for the gay fellows, as opposed to Prew's out and out disdain. He was clearly doing it for money, but he also clearly genuinely liked his "guy", though it was probably in a platonic way. I really took the homosexuality in all of his books to be predominantly utilitarian (to get money or because there were simply no women around), rather than genuine, except in the case of a one or two characters.

As for whether or not it was his experience or imagination, I read an article about FHTE's publishing and how they demanded he cut out the *beep* and remove the homosexual content, but that he balked at doing so because he claimed it was an accurate portrayal of what he had seen in his army experience. Whether or not his experience was unique or universal is hard to say. I honestly haven't read a ton of first hand accounts fictionalized or otherwise of american soldiers in WW2. Stuff written at the time was so constricted as well. Books were getting taken off the shelves for explicit heterosexual content, so... who knows.

I'm sure there are non-fiction books on the subject out there, though.

reply

[–] aciolino 11 years ago

More proof that if you're looking for something, you're sure to find it.

reply

[–] Uvtha 11 years ago

Or proof that most people here are not familiar with the source material.

reply

[–] brockmeeks 10 years ago

People hate to think that Sinatra played a guy who was a hustler in the book.

It's just a book.

reply

[–] Uvtha 10 years ago

That's silly. They left all the hustling stuff out of the movie anyway, and all the other overt gay stuff so it's a non issue on that topic.

The book and Jones other books have plenty of explicit examples of homosexuality though.

reply

[–] brockmeeks 10 years ago

Really? Every novel Ive read written before the 1960's with the exception of The City and the Pillar (Carol -The Price of Salt, maybe) delt with homosexuality very carefully.

There is that line in The Maltese Falcon, "This guy is queer..." But by and large...

I figured in the novel Fron Here to Eternity was the same. That it was mentioned in one paragraph that Maggio grew up poor, wasn't a bad looking guy and wasn't above exploiting that. Just for money. Not attraction.

I've got this book on my Christmas wish list. And even knowing Maggios story from here I don't expect any gay scenes. Like I said before, I don't think what he did made him gay. It makes him sympathetic because a straight man having to hustle because of poverty.

That is the impression I get here. Feel free to inform me otherwise...if you've read the book.

reply

[–] Uvtha 10 years ago

There aren't any sex scenes or anything (unlike in The Thin Red Line), but it talks plenty about how many of the soldiers regularly pimp themselves to gay men like it's just a natural unfortunate element of soldiering. They also talk about beating up gay men too. There's a brief scene where Maggio takes Prewitt on a "date" with two of them, and at some point another character in an inner monologue laments that he enjoyed having sex with men.

Maggio isn't gay, he like all the rest (excluding the guy who admits he enjoys it) just does it for money, though he seems not not mind the practice all that much, and has a regular guy he goes to who he speaks generally fondly. None of the major characters are homosexual as far as I can tell certainly not Prew or Warden.

I really just meant that they don't beat around the bush about it, and it comes up fairly often. It's in no way "reading into it", it's made quite clear what they the situation is.

It's a really good book though if you don't mind minimal plot. Probably one of my favorites. You'll enjoy it! :D

reply

[–] brockmeeks 10 years ago

See, I wouldn't have expected it go on past the neighborhood. I can't believe it was common place for the Army men and Maggio made a regular thing of it.

If the people who gate the movie because Sinatra plays Maggio only knew.

Why were Maggio and Prew on the "date"? Seems like whole point of the hustle is cash.

I'm guessing the guy who enjoyed it didn't make the mvie? 

Edit: The gay bashing fits in perfectly. All these men seething with rage at having to rely on extra money by doing something they really didn't enjoy.

As a gay guy I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around it all.

reply

[–] Uvtha 10 years ago

Yeah it is presented as a common thing soldiers do, either to "roll" the gay men or charge them for sex, or in "The Thin Red Line" some of the soldiers had sex with each other because men need sex, and there were no women around, but didn't consider it homosexual and still ragged on/were afraid of being seen as the supposed company "homos".
There's a neat part in FHTE where Friday (I think it was) tells the story of meeting a gay man in San Fransisco and a mystical experience he had listening to Django Reinhardt records with the man, as well as many other passing references suggesting the practice is not just this outfit or just Hawaii.

There's also a part where the army is investigating the reported homosexual activities Maggio, and Bloom (the guy who admits to liking it) and others get called in for questioning.

As for the date, as I recall Maggio's guy had a friend who was looking to meet a soldier as well, so he offered to take them out to a nice restaurant for steaks/booze and Maggio talked Prewitt who was very hesitant into joining him. After they meet up at the restaurant the guy takes them all back to his home where Prewitt is very hostile toward the men about their lifestyle, and Maggio gets drunk and upset and runs off shouting, and being afraid that the MPs would come to his house the man urges Prew to go get a handle on Maggio, to which Prew responds by demanding money from the guy to do it. I think the ruckus is what lands Maggio in the stockade. It's an interesting scene.

As for the guy who likes it, Bloom, I think in the movie he got combined with the character Galovich. Bloom was one of the thick headed boxers giving Prew the treatment and was the guy who instigates the fight with and is eventually bested by Prew while the company watches. Prewitt also fights with Galovich in the book but its a different situation, and he's depicted as an older guy who is exceptionally stupid. He's not one of the boxers, just a random low level officer.
So he was basically in the movie, they just gave his parts and traits to the character Galovich.

Also be sure you get the uncensored version. They cut out a lot of the swearing and more explicit references to homosexuality in the initial publication.

I honestly don't know what Jones felt about homosexuality. The gay men portrayed are sort of pervy but I also got a fairly sympathetic vibe. Like it was just another form of the ever present "hunger" of men. I dunno. It's interesting view of attitudes of the period though.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Uvtha 10 years ago

Seems more apropos in this case that uptight straight people are ignoring quite blatant and intentional inclusion of homosexuality in film/literature.

If you can read From Here to Eternity, or Jones' work in general and tell me that hes not 100% obviously including homosexuality up to and including gay sex, then I would have to question your literacy level.

It's not imagined. It's there.

In the movie, not so much, but the book that was the movies source material... no question.

reply

[–] Rapturegal 9 years ago

In the movie, not so much,....

In the movie, NOT AT ALL.

Homosexual sex is nowhere to be found in FHTE except in the imaginations of those who desperately want to see perversion placed on an equal footing with normal, God-given desires.

Sorry, but this lifestyle never has been and never will be anything but a conscious choice by some troubled human beings to address their problems by rebelling against nature. Hiding behind the amoral, politically correct whims of pop-culture will never change that.

And the dead shall be raised incorruptible,and we shall be changed.~1 Corinthians 15:52

reply

[–] Uvtha 9 years ago

Yes, that's what I meant by "not so much". Regardless of how you personally feel about it, my point was that while the movie didn't include any of the homosexual elements, those elements were absolutely part of the book, which leads people to insinuate in subtext what was explicit in book the movie was based on, as well as other books by the author.

I don't think there was any subtext of that sort, certainly not between Prew and Warden, as there was nothing romantic or sexual about their relationship. Any subtext would have probably centered on Bloom or Maggio, and I didn't see any myself, not because it wasn't there in the source material, but because they chose to leave it out.

reply

[–] pocomarc 8 years ago

GARBAGE.

reply