Brick wasn't gay. Let it go! - Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) Discussion

[–] !!!deleted!!! (54331192) 10 years ago

Wow, you're very delusional, both with the films plot and the percentage of the gay population! Wake up and smell the coffee.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5085627) 10 years ago

You obviously have issues with gay people, orignisinz, which is why you desperately want Brick to be straight, so you're the one who needs to let it go. Liking a gay or bi character in a play or film won't make you gay or bi. And why would you possibly think that Brick would be gay in the play, but straight in the film, because you want it to be so? The only reason Brick's homosexuality was briefly insinuated and not explored further in the film adaptation is because audiences and censors of the 1950s wouldn't have tolerated further exploration of such a subject on the big screen. (Some neanderthals in the audience would have probably even yelled at the screen, "how can you be a homo when you're married to Liz Taylor?!") Look at how uptight and uncomfortable those such as yourself STILL get at the thought of a gay character in film; well, such feelings were especially magnified, virulent, and prevalent in the Fifties. Even in the film version of "A Streetcar Name Desire," Blanche's young husband, who also killed himself as gay characters were expected to do back then, was euphemistically described as "weak" and "sensitive" when alluding to his sexuality. Just using the word "homosexual" was considered taboo with audiences then.

When Tennessee Williams -- you know, the playwright who CREATED THE CHARACTER OF BRICK -- wrote Cat on A Hot Tin Roof, he did create him as a conflicted, repressed homosexual who did indeed have feelings for Skipper, but was too afraid to confront those feelings, let alone reciprocate and act on them. Brick not only drank because he felt guilty about Skipper's death, but because he never let Skipper know how he really felt about him. And please don't be yet another one of these shortsighted heteros who wrongly believes that if a man is married to a woman, be it in a play, a film or "in real life," then this automatically makes him straight. Hardly, especially back then.

Excluding Cat, I can name off the top of my head at least three other works by Williams that feature a gay character -- Williams was gay too, in case you didn't know -- so who do you think it was in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof? (No, it wasn't "Big Daddy" because he had too much gas to ever enjoy being gay, but here's a hint: he had the bluest eyes one ever saw.) Paul Newman, one of my favorite people ever and someone with whom I had the great privilege of working, would have been the first to tell you that the character of Brick is a tormented, repressed gay man, so what's your problem, originisinz? I think Tennessee Williams and Paul Newman knew a bit more about it than you. And incidentally, if you're a Paul Newman fan and your real problem is that it bothers you that he played a gay character, Paul had a very low opinion of gaycists/homophobes. In fact, he'd use a certain word when referring to such people, but I can't print it here.

Lastly, WHERE do some of you heteros get this "2-3% of the population is gay" figure? Cite your source and make sure it's a reliable one and not some self-serving, extremist sludge such as Faux News. What makes some straights think they're experts on the gay populace? (For that matter, why are some of you so interested in all things gay to begin with?) Are you so worried and afraid that there are more of us than you'd like to think and believe, so therefore by minimizing our number it makes you feel less threatened and more secure about your own sexuality? The real truth of the matter -- and I've done the research, but I won't do yours for you -- is that the percentage of the population that is openly gay is much higher than 2-3% AND if one included the self-loathing closet cases who deny their true nature and continue living a lie, the percentage would be higher still. Don't take my word for it, find out for yourself...if you dare. Being enlightened and informed might not be as painful as you think.

reply

[–] Destinata 10 years ago

Lastly, WHERE do some of you heteros get this "2-3% of the population is gay" figure? Cite your source

The CDC. Good enough for ya? They have to track how behavior affects health.

Just taking a guess from your hysteria at the figures, I assumed you'd be more comfortable hearing it from liberal HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/health-survey-americans-gay_n_5587696.html

BTW, if you really have spent decades in Hollywood, you'd think the number was higher because more gays are drawn to Hollywood. Your perspective is skewed. Sort of like watching the play and seeing the movie. They really are two different things. You can go on all night, and keep revising your post, about how the original this and that, or Tenneesee Williams this and that, or Paul Newman -- who isn't alive to contradict you -- was someone you worked with and told you this and that.

Thank you for all that irrelevant information, but the OP was talking about what made the final print on the celluloid. If you can't understand the difference, then who cares how long you were in Hollywood and how much time you have in retirement to be a blowhard on IMDb? I have a friend from Hollywood, too. Quite successful. So I'm not as impressed as everyone else whom you either cow with that "I've worked with the greats of Hollywood" story, or gain their pity because you have to resort to such arguments to make -- as I say -- irrelevant points.

Who cares? Stick to the issue which is the difference between the movie version and the play. The rest is blah-blah and "Look at me! I used to be somebody!"

Used to. We're so impressed.

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5085627) 10 years ago

I obviously hit a nerve, but who really cares about your irrelevant ranting and raving, little boy/girl. Believe and think what you wish, but again, you don't have a clue. I've wasted enough time on you, so you can stop trying so hard. You're too self-important to see or realize what an annoying and pretentious little bore you really are, and you know next to nothing about film, theatre, and characterization (and even less about Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) so try impressing someone else, perhaps your theatre studies teacher.

And if you had bothered checking the reference I sent to you regarding the percentage of the gay populace, you would have discovered how wrong and inaccurate your sorry sources are, and my career in Hollywood (and New York) has nothing to do with it.

Now go and have another tantrum because yet another poster at imdb wasn't awed and impressed by your rambling pretension. Ambiguity indeed! Count yourself lucky that I'm not your teacher. (You've also been duly reported for being the little homophobe you obviously are. You think you're doing a good job of masking it, but you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.)

reply

[–] Destinata 10 years ago

I always find it interesting that so many people desperately want Brick to be gay in the film adaptation. The fact is that they cut all references to any gay relationship from the script, and the tension between Maggie and Brick is clearly and easily explained by Brick's unhealthy co-dependence on Skipper, the assumed affair, and the suicide guilt. Personally, I don't think the film would have been anywhere near as popular as it was, nor would it be considered a classic today had they portrayed Brick as anything other than a red-blooded heterosexual man. The homosexual population is only 2-3%, and making films for such a tiny niche segment of society rarely results in success. If want to see a gay/bi Brick, go see the play.

There's nothing to say that a lightning rod character in a movie being gay means the movie was "made" for the 2-3% of the population (according to the CDC) that's gay -- anymore than making a movie where the lightning rod character is black ("In the Heat of the Night") means it was "made" for a black audience.

That being said, you're right that when they made the movie they took pains to remove overt homosexual references, and turned Brick be sort of a sulking, brooding man who seemed to blame his wife for all of his problems.

Granted, for those who read/saw the play first, they'd fill in the ambiguities of Brick's issues with the homosexual underscoring of the play. But anyone who came to the movie in the fifties without having seen or read the play would have wondered if he had a sexual dysfunction issue. They made it purposely ambiguous.

You're right that the MOVIE is vastly different than the PLAY -- and it is on purpose. I don't see why people can't understand that movies don't have to be what the original work was, or even intended. They made this one ambiguous for a reason. Read into it what you will, but it doesn't "have to be" anything but a troubled man in a dysfunctional family where the father is dying and they're all scratching and clawing as frantically as a cat on a hot tin roof.

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5085627) 10 years ago

Yet another minimizing homophobe and intellectual-wannabe weighing in, and this one calls himself/herself Destinata.

First of all, you cite the CDC as the source of the "2-3% of the population is gay" figure. This is not only wrong and misleading information but, to put it bluntly, an outright lie. I checked, so you'll have to come up with something better than throwing out the CDC as a source. I will, however, give you one source that is accurate: the 2010 United States Census Bureau. This is only one reliable source, but there are a number of others, many of them right at your fingertips. I have neither the time nor the inclination to cite them all because gaycists and bores generally refuse to bother checking the facts even when they're presented to them and they'll continue to believe whatever suits their prejudices and beliefs, however wrong, ridiculous or inaccurate.

Secondly, you write as if you know what Tennessee Williams and director/screenwriter Richard Brooks and screenwriter James Poe had in mind concerning the film and its characters as they pertain to the play. How, exactly, do you know what they intended? Were you there and did they give you some sort of insider info? Did you know these talented people and did they discuss the "ambiguities" and "deliberateness" with you...or are you simply another film student who tries much too hard to sound film-saavy or perhaps a frustrated critic? Am I getting close? You may talk a good talk, but it's still nothing more than your opinion and your interpretation, so save the assumptions, speculations, and pretentious pontificating about the play, the film, and the characters for your theatre studies class. If you wish to know what the playwright and screenwriters really intended, inform yourself. It isn't any great mystery nor does it involve ambiguity. (I noticed at other threads that you seem to enjoy using this word quite a bit, which in and by itself gives you away. Film and/or theatre students just love overusing the word "ambiguity.") At any rate, once you've learned what the playwright and filmmakers really had in mind -- and again, it's fairly simple and has already been explained -- then come back and weigh in, hopefully with less self-satisfaction and pretension.

"You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides."

Stating inaccuracies and voicing one's bigotry and prejudices and then calling them facts doesn't define a "discussion" and has nothing whatsoever to do with disagreements or two-sidedness.

reply

[–] Destinata 10 years ago

Yet another minimizing homophobe and intellectual-wannabe weighing in, and this one calls himself/herself Destinata.

Not that you're judgmental or anything. 

By the way, for the record, I'm a "she." And you don't know anything about me or my sexuality, so don't assume. I'm not the sort of person who sticks their hand out at parties and says, "Hi, I'm gay Francie from Dubuque!" Leading with your sexuality is lame. I mean, who cares? Are you trying to pick people up? What does your sexuality have to do with your opinions unless you think below the waist? It's like telling us you knew Paul Newman -- and given this is IMDb, and you really seem to have a name-dropping problem, that may or may not be true. That really has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. HOW he played the character only came across as "brooding and conflicted."

Again, this movie is different from the play.

And what's truly pathetic is that I've read the play, seen the play, and the play informs my viewing of the movie. But I can separate that from the finished movie, and it's DIFFERENT FROM THE PLAY.

The OP is saying that some people refuse to see that, and he's obviously right.

You like the five year old census numbers compared to the recent CDC numbers. So they're the "valid" ones. Uh-huh. Well, at least your lack of logic is consistent.

Secondly, you write as if you know what Tennessee Williams and director/screenwriter Richard Brooks and screenwriter James Poe had in mind concerning the film and its characters as they pertained to the play.

I keep trying to remind you that we're talking about the finished product as seen by the average public sitting in the seats in the theater. By your own admission, they took out all the homosexual references in deference to the audiences of the fifties. So what are you left with? I'm not talking about all your supposed insider info, I'm asking what are you left with when you take all the homosexual references out? That seems pretty obvious that was what the OP was referring to -- that the MOVIE was a different thing entirely from the PLAY because of all the alterations. On the one hand you basically admit it, and on the other it does a complete fly-by.

Critics, who were familiar with the play, but knew how to see a movie as SEPARATE from the play -- you apparently can't -- called the movie a muddled mess. I'm trying to be charitable and will call it "ambiguous." They made a compromise that allowed the people who'd read/seen the play to insert the homosexual subtext, and for those who hadn't seen or read it, they could think whatever they wanted to think.

Theoretically you know how movies are made, particularly ones that are heavily edited from the original source. Theoretically you also know WHY they're changed from unambiguous to ambiguous. I'll bet it's too much to ask for that part of your consciousness to kick in right now.

If you wish to know what the playwright and screenwriters really intended, inform yourself.

I studied the PLAY. Now try to wrap your mind around the fact that a movie does not necessarily follow the source material. No, unlike you, I wasn't living in everyone's head who made the movie. Unlike you, I simply watched the finished product, noting what was missing from the original. You know, all the references to homosexuality you've already acknowledged aren't in the finished movie.

And since you can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between the finished movie and the original source material, your comments are irrelevant. You don't even seem to know the topic. Amazingly enough, my little self-involved friend, it has nothing to do with your experience in Hollywood, who you knew, how current your Gay Card is, or all the other irrelevancies you threw into your post.

Please tell us some more about how you used to be a big, important guy in Hollywood, and how we're all supposed to bow down to you as the last word -- when you can't even keep on topic.

You probably driveled on some more, but blowhards bore me.

I'm so glad you used to be someone and can still live in people's heads. You should visit planet Earth sometime. Really, that's how you come across. 

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] airborne3502 10 years ago

This is an interesting thread. I enjoy reading Destinata's posts, because she is intelligent, and always brings her A game.

I had no idea that Brick was a repressed homosexual in the original play. In the film, I saw a brooding, boozing, guy that was fighting with his beautiful, neglected, wife due to the emotional fallout of having just lost his best friend.

This argument reminds me of the ones that take place over the movie Blade Runner. The disagreement is about whether or not the main character, Rick Deckard, (played by Harrison Ford) was a replicant. A replicant is a genetically engineered or artificial being created as an exact replica of a particular human being. The consensus seems to be that in the original theatrical cut, Deckard was human. In the director's cut, Deckard was a replicant. The problem is that director Ridley Scott left "clues" to Deckard being a replicant in both versions. That was what he originally wanted, but Harrison Ford argued that making Deckard a replicant, left the audience with nobody to get behind. With that in mind, it is easy to watch the theatrical cut, and say that Deckard is a replicant. However, most viewers wouldn't have looked for those clues, had they not known the director's original intention.

It's been a long time since I've seen Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. If I was to go back and watch it, are there any "clues" that Brick is indeed a repressed homosexual that made it into the film, (like Deckard's glowing eyes) or are those dots connected by people who have read or seen the original play, and don't see Brick as anything but gay?

Internet courage is such a yawn.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5085627) 10 years ago

You're comparing a character in Blade Runner with a character in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, airborne? Really?

I'm very glad that Destinata has a supporter in you; either that or you have a knight in shining armor complex. She needs all the help she can get right now. Perhaps knowing that you appreciate her comments will make her less tantrum-prone and soothe her wounded ego. She's brooding in film studies class right now, but once she reads your kind and complimentary words, I'm sure she'll feel better and resume her pretentious pontificating on subjects far and wide. (It's evident that she enjoys her comments and observations even more than you do.) And yes, I agree; Destinata has written a number of intelligent-sounding comments. It's just a shame that she doesn't know what she's talking about half the time -- plus it's always discouraging when an otherwise intelligent mind is poisoned and polluted with ignorance and irrational fear concerning a segment of the population.

Again, Tennessee Williams was a playwright. He wrote Cat On a Hot Tin Roof and created the character of Brick. Williams wrote Brick as a repressed gay man. Some say bi, some refuse to believe Brick's gay simply because he's married (as if that's ever meant anything) but Williams wrote him as gay. There aren't any overt, hit-you-over-the-head "clues" in the film that Brick is indeed gay -- his eyes probably won't glow -- and I've already explained the reasons why this is so. There is, however, a particular scene with Brick and Big Daddy and you might want to listen carefully to their interaction and dialogue. If you do ever get the chance to see (or read) the play, which I very much doubt Destinata has, then you can come to your own conclusions, but one thing you must always keep in mind regardless of all the assumptions, speculations and annoying over analysis on the part of those such as Destinata: Brick's CREATOR wrote him as gay. Without the playwright/writer, there wouldn't be any discussions, would there?

reply

[–] airborne3502 10 years ago

You're comparing a character in Blade Runner with a character in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, airborne? Really?

Yes I am. For reasons that I outlined clearly, I asked if there are clues to Brick's sexual orientation in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof because there are clues to Deckard being a replicant in Blade Runner. It's the same argument; is he or isn't he?

This was what I was looking for:

Again, Tennessee Williams was a playwright. He wrote Cat On a Hot Tin Roof and created the character of Brick. Williams wrote Brick as a repressed gay man. Some say bi, some refuse to believe Brick's gay simply because he's married (as if that's ever meant anything) but Williams wrote him as gay. There aren't any overt, hit-you-over-the-head "clues" in the film that Brick is indeed gay -- his eyes probably won't glow -- and I've already explained the reasons why this is so. There is, however, a particular scene with Brick and Big Daddy and you might want to listen carefully to their interaction and dialogue. If you do ever get the chance to see (or read) the play, which I very much doubt Destinata has, then you can come to your own conclusions, but one thing you must always keep in mind regardless of all the assumptions, speculations and annoying over analysis on the part of those such as Destinata: Brick's CREATOR wrote him as gay. Without the playwright/writer, there wouldn't be any discussions, would there?

Destinata wrote an interesting post over on the M*A*S*H board. That was what brought me here.

I'm very glad that Destinata has a supporter in you; either that or you have a knight in shining armor complex. She needs all the help she can get right now. Perhaps knowing that you appreciate her comments will make her less tantrum-prone and soothe her wounded ego. She's brooding in film studies class right now, but once she reads your kind and complimentary words, I'm sure she'll feel better and resume her pretentious pontificating on subjects far and wide. (It's evident that she enjoys her comments and observations even more than you do.) And yes, I agree; Destinata has written a number of intelligent-sounding comments. It's just a shame that she doesn't know what she's talking about half the time -- plus it's always discouraging when an otherwise intelligent mind is poisoned and polluted with ignorance and irrational fear concerning a segment of the population.

I asked a legitimate question, and I didn't really want to get involved in your little spat. I don't really give a rip about your sexual orientation. I could care less if you marry your boyfriend, and adopt twenty Cambodian kids. That said, enjoy ignore. You are not worth talking to.

Internet courage is such a yawn.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5085627) 10 years ago

We both know that even though you claim to have me on "Ignore," you'll still be reading this post, airborne. And of course you wanted to "get in on Destinata's and my little spat" or you wouldn't have written what you did; you know, the part where you complimented her? (aka taking a side). You're not that brilliant or clever, either. Homophobes always gravitate toward each other and stick together, so who do you think you're kidding? And other than mentioning the character of Brick's sexual orientation in my first reply to you, I never mentioned mine, so why are YOU bringing it up? (your last paragraph) Can you answer that, Blade Runner fan? We both know why. Your last paragraph gives away your innate homophobia, just as those who are always stating the inaccurate "2-3% of the population is gay" give away theirs.

Coming to a thread with the subject title this one has is bound to bring out the closet cases as well as the tiresome and boorish homophobes. What's the matter? Hasn't Destinata found you irresistible yet for coming to her rescue? Are you one of these pathetic jerks who seeks out women at the imdb boards?

I did answer your question regarding what to look for in the film as far as Brick's homosexuality is concerned, so what are you talking about now? Have a problem with reading comprehension?

In your first post, you wrote, "I enjoy reading Destinata's posts" (plural) yet in your most recent comment you wrote "Destinata wrote an interesting post (singular) over on the MASH board and that's what brought me here." Which is it? How many of her posts have you read, one or several? If nothing else, I'm sure she'd like to know.

You've also been reported for being the homophobic bore you are, and I'm sure the administrators at imdb will see your last paragraph in the same light. Anyone would, even other Blade Runner fans, and they're not exactly the brightest bulbs. Like Destinata, you're rather transparent and again, not very clever. (And incidentally, I'm not a young man anymore, so there are no foreseeable plans for adoption in my future. And it's "I couldn't care less," not "I could care less." I'm sure that's the one thing on which Destinata and I can agree. One would think a Blade Runner fan would at least know basic English.)

You really should work on not being so prickly and sensitive, airborne; you're worse than most gay men I know.

reply

[–] Destinata 10 years ago

We both know that even though you claim to have me on "Ignore," you'll still be reading this post, airborne.

Oh -- you're one of those posters who thinks he's so fascinating that no one could possibly NOT read your posts! 

I've tried to explain you simply push an agenda rather than dealing with the issue; now Airborne has done the same thing. I imagine you get that a lot. Either that, or people just cut to the chase and don't respond at all. Ever wonder why, after having written the most deathlessly interesting post of all time (just ask you, you'll tell us) all you get are crickets? Because your shallowness and self-centeredness oozes from every sentence.

I glanced through the rest of your rant, and you're quibbling over whether he's read a number or just one of my posts. Then you presume to answer for me -- "I'm sure she'd like to know." Then you play Grammar Nazi. Seriously! Dude, that's pathetic!

I must not be very "transparent," since my overriding point was that you'd already conceded that they'd cut the homosexual subtext out of the movie to placate the audiences of that day. But I took it to its logical conclusion, which I believe was the OP's point -- having done so, they made Brick a completely different character. If you know anything about writing, you'd realize that would have to be the case.

Then you end with this, which is hilarious:

You really should work on not being so prickly and sensitive, airborne; you're worse than most gay men I know.

You really should work on that whole "projection" thing.

To sum up -- everyone agrees that Brick was a repressed homosexual in the play. Everyone agrees that they took the homosexual subtext out of the movie. We are here discussing the movie. Brick's character without the homosexual subtext makes him what? You're arguing that it makes him the same character, and at least two of us are arguing that if you take the homosexuality out of Brick, you've no longer got a homosexual Brick.

Seems pretty obvious, but not to you.

Oh well -- since you have more issues than Time Magazine, I'll leave you to them. It's clear one can't have a real discussion with you. Now comfort your so easily wounded ego by telling yourself that I'm going to read everything you post.

Why should I? It'll 1) miss the point; 2) be about your sexuality and/or 3) your defunct career. I may as well just put in a DVD of "Sweet Bird of Youth" and I won't miss a thing. 

You will probably disagree. That's the nature of discussions -- they have two sides.

reply

[–] orignlsinz 10 years ago

Very well said! You understand perfectly what my original point was. I think it's best to just ignore the other poster, as he clearly has issues. The film and play are two completely different animals; I'm not sure what is so difficult for some people to understand about that. I think Cookie is just so desperate for film Brick to be gay that he does the delusional mental gymnastics required to make it so.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (5085627) 10 years ago

The more important question is this, orignisinz: why are you so desperate for Brick to be straight?

Until you can answer that question, you're not only clueless and irrelevant, but out of your league.

reply

[–] orignlsinz 10 years ago

I'm only stating the facts. It wouldn't matter to me which way they had gone with the film, although I would probably relate less to him if he were gay. However, the fact remains that [in the film] Brick is unambiguously a straight man. End of discussion!

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 9 years ago

"unambiguously a straight man"? Where is the evidence of that? Truth is Brick is a closeted homosexual. Otherwise the film doesn't make sense.

reply

[–] makesmewantoholler 10 years ago

It's possible that Brick was a character who was gay but was it was understated in the movie for obvious reasons.

You may find that in most mainstream movies and television shows, there is at least one character in it that is assumed to be gay or "different". This goes way back.

The only difference today is they're out front with it. There isn't any assuming, the person or the person's character in actuality is gay.

reply

[–] PrometheusTree64 10 years ago

The homosexual population is only 2-3%, and making films for such a tiny niche segment of society rarely results in success.

Ridiculous, biased CDC figures or not.

Even Kinsey said 10% in a decade like the '40s when the culture couldn't handle such a supposedly-large figure... and today, 10% is rightly seen as an old school, low-ball figure.

But you Republicans are still pushing "1 to 2%" ???

Nowadays, roughly 4% of the general population self-identify as "gay" --- so you're saying more than half of those people are falsely claiming to be gay and are really closeted straights?

When, of course, we know that the percentage who publicly identify as "gay" are a fraction of the actual gay population, let alone actively bi.

The fact that the conservatives are still promoting a "tiny niche" percentage outdated even 70 years ago says a lot about their hopeless, hapless, disingenuous take on the world.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA

reply

[–] Trax-3 8 years ago

Even Kinsey said 10% in a decade like the '40s when the culture couldn't handle such a supposedly-large figure... and today, 10% is rightly seen as an old school, low-ball figure.

There is no way in hell it's 10% not to mention more. Kinsey is dated like Freud is dated. The numbers I've seen thrown around are 3-5%. Face it. This is a tiny minority that is talked and argued about way out of proportion.

reply

[–] EJverh 9 years ago

I have no wish to get in the middle of your guys' agenda but will say this: When I first saw this film (about 6 years ago) I had no idea who or how the play was written and I concluded that Brick's possible issue at hand is his latent homosexuality. That's just what I took away from the film, as mere one of possible reasons. And I have no agenda here to push.

reply

[–] hka-3 9 years ago

I had no idea how the play was written, either, and didn't speculate that he was homosexual while watching this screenplay. One poster said people like me "obviously have issues with gay people." I have no problem concluding that characters in other screenplays are homosexual even if their sexual orientation is never specified, so there goes the theory that it's homophobia.

My interpretation regarding this screenplay was that Brick's relationship, or lack thereof, with his father had been a hinderance to him in various ways for a long time. Even problems Brick had which didn't seem related to his father could have been worse or seemed worse because of the effect the relationship with his father had on him. So after Big Daddy had a breakthrough -- and Brick had a breakthrough with his father in the basement -- a cloud seemed to be lifted (which was amazing considering Big Daddy's fate) and Brick and Maggie's rekindled relationship was one of the things which appeared to benefit from the new family circumstances.

Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.

reply

[–] thefabslv 8 years ago

I agree, having only first watched this film very recently. There is a subtlety about it, but the exchanges between Maggie and Brick definitely told me he had a sexual connection to Skipper.

reply

[–] cananny 9 years ago

Hollywood in the fifties had a lot of stuff going on. Big film companies and big stars had to be careful how things seemed ( take rock Hudson for example). I felt that Brick was gay and the movie made hints of it.

reply

[–] Chris12955 9 years ago

They certainly provide enough reasons for him to dislike her and not want to have sex without Skipper being gay. He was angry at her lack of support for his football career, her sleeping with Skipper, her insistance he suck up to his old man, and to top it all of he blames her for his best friend's death. That is a lot right there.

I think people just want to see any person having a deep relationship with a member of the same sex as being gay or bisexual. Sometimes a same sex friendship can be far deeper than the marriage, and those friendships can be major obstacles if the spouse doesn't make room for them. There is nothing sexual about these friendships despite what modern day audiences would like to view them as. A spouse who doesn't accept an intense fandom interest in their partner can also break up a marriage. Are they gay for Star Wars then? Of course not. We all like things and people in different areas and in different ways to differing degrees, and asking us to choose one over the other in ALL things is selfish and not feasible.

reply

[–] renegade916 9 years ago

Destinata, the CDC gathers it's numbers based on those that are actually out demographically and in line with the census. Not taking into account those that may be gay, but mostly quiet about it, those that are closeted, or those that don't know and will never know that they are in fact attracted to the same sex. The actual statistics when all grouped together are anywhere between 5-10%. However, even if the number is indeed only 2-3%, that would mean there are essentially 10 million LGB Americans, and over 200 million worldwide. Making them a very large minority group.

I'm always dragging that horse around...

reply