MovieChat Forums > Billy Budd (1962) Discussion > Claggart's Motivations

Claggart's Motivations

posted 20 years ago by schweinhundt1967
22 replies | jump to latest

I find myself,at times,getting very frustrated over the lack of insight on the part of people who claim that Claggart's desire to destroy Billy is based on some sort of malign and causelss "...desire to destroy goodness."Give me a break!All behavior is motivated,and caused.So,it behoves us to take a closer look at what drives Claggart to hound and persecute this "...pure"sailor.
Sir Winston Churchill was quoted as stating the the 3 traditions of the British Navy were"...Rum,Sodomy,and the Lash!"And,to be perfectly honest,that type of behavior had always existed among seafaring men.Rightly or wrongly,it did create bonds.
Claggart appears to be a classic example of a paranoid personality disorder.Rigid,subservient to authority,and unable to accept his own dark impulses.He's probably caught up in some sort of (unconscious) sexual attraction to Bill,and is unable to deal with it on a concscious level.So,insted of admitting his feelings,he turns them around to a deep(again unconscious)hatred.(This is called reaction-formation.)The he PROJECTS these feelings of hatred onto Billy.And,of course,as we all know,it is imperative to destroy that which we hate.
What really bothers me is Captain Vere.He gets caught up in the letter,rather than the spirit of the law,and allows Billy to be hanged.What a travesty of justice.Quite possible,he's also attracted to Billy,and rather than deal with his feelings,he allows Billy to hang rather than admit an unacceptable attraction.

[–] from_the_damage 19 years ago

I think Claggart was just jealous and paranoid of Billy. Everyone liked Billy and everyone hated Claggart, so if he wanted to Billy could turn everyone against him (not saying he would, just saying Claggart could think that). I don't think any of it has to do with any of the characters being gay.

[–] CassieBrite 19 years ago

"from the damage" is right. This is not an issue of gay repression. Several of my professors have confirmed this when I asked. The novel's writing style is just different than now, especially the lingo. They corrected the Dansker's dialogue in the movie for a modern audience, but Ryan put in those portrayals of Claggart's feelings (wrongly, I believe). Claggart was just a jealous and "naturally depraved" soul. That means he was inherently evil, though he showed the opposite on the outside (this is direct from Melville, Chapter 11). After all, later in the novel, he is described as a snake (parallel to Satan here).

Terrence Stamp is rather marvelous in this film, I might add. What a pleasure to watch such a well-trained actor in his first big role. BB is a great character for redemption and sacrifice parallels in the Bible, too: see Adam in Genesis 3 and Christ in the Gospel of Mark.

I realise that this film is a different entity, but I'm writing a paper on Melville's novel BB right now for Senior Requirement in General Studies, so I felt I might comment.

[–] joehrobertsjr 19 years ago

Get a clue. This isn't Brokeback Mountain. Not every plot to every movie has an underlying homosexual subtext.

[–] schweinhundt1967 19 years ago

For the most part,joehrobertsjr,I agree with you.But not in this particular case.Look up the freudian psychoanalytic interpretation of paranoia,and see as to how it fits tis story to a T.

[–] jg67 18 years ago

"Not every plot to every movie has an underlying homosexual subtext."

Of course not. That would be ridiculous. But in this particular case it would be silly to dismiss that theory out of hand entirely.

"They love me....the men love me, the women love me...... ME, MAHOGANY!"

[–] arizona-philm-phan 19 years ago

I don't think anyone's trying to make a mountain (Brokeback, or otherwise) out of a mole hill, so to speak.

On the other hand, though, I think it's amazing that so many folks seem to believe homosexual feelings/longings and actual behavior wouldn't have been a definite fact of life in situations such as faced by these naval personnel. Months and months and months at sea, under far from enviable conditions and during a time period in history when interactions between male and female, when they could take place, would have been noted for their strong behavioral restrictions (you just didn't freely take a date out to a movie or club, with no one else giving it a thought, did ya?).

Well, you can think you know more than a Winston Churchill if you like; I believe otherwise.

****

[–] krisr1 18 years ago

They said it's a "gay" movie on the Sopranos, so it must be so! ;-)

Actually, I haven't read the book nor seen the movie, but I definitely will now that there is a decent release available. (I love commentaries...)

From what I have read about the book, though, it doesn't seem to indicate Claggart's motivations; later interpretations have suggested them.

So I guess we will never know for sure, unless some writings by Melville on the subject are unearthed at a later time.

[–] TheMemphian 18 years ago

I agree with Churchill and there were many homosexual subtexts going on in Billy Budd. However, I don't see that as part of Claggart's problem with Billy. Billy represents everything good in humanity. The Captain and crew can remember those basic feelings in themselves, but have tempered them threw life experience. They see Billy as a treasure as he melts all of their hardened hearts. Claggart, on the other hand has gone beyond tempering his emotions to complete evil. The evil is what he exsists on. When he begins to feel effected by Billy's charm and the prospect of warming his own heart, he suddenly remembers all of the pain that comes with it. The evil in him quickly responses. I've had brief-term girlfriends like Claggart, emotionally damaged beyond repair. Destroying any hope of happiness before it destroys them.

[–] Bernnard_Black 17 years ago

You have to take into consideration that this book is by Melville, and Melville is big on symbolism. In Moby Dick, the whale symbolizes evil; there's an entire chapter on why the color white is an "evil" color. In Billy Budd, it's simple; Claggert is an evil guy, for what reasons we don't know...we only know it's true. There are some hints that point to this:

Claggert's background. We know he chose the Navy rather than go to prison. We also know that the officers were surprised that such an intelligent guy would choose "such a lowly station". He chose it because it's a position of power and fear, and one where he can induldge in punishing people.

Billy tell's Claggert that no man finds pleasure in cruelty, and Claggert laughs a bit and says "is that so?" Subtext: he disagrees because he himself likes being cruel.

Dansker gives his speech about Claggert's nature, about how he wasn't someone a normal man could understand.

I think it's pretty clear that Claggert is just a mean son of a bitch. Could be plenty of reasons why, but the fact is that he's a bad guy who hates Billy because Billy is everything he isn't. He even smiles when he dies, knowing that he probably took Billy down with him and that he finally managed to drive him to do something that would get him in trouble. No need to over-analyze this story and look for hidden gay subtexts...it's really pretty simple.

[–] bstar56 17 years ago

To anyone who has read the book: were there any references to Claggert or Veer's actions being motivated by sexual attraction/repression at all? Because I really didn't pick up on this after watching the movie whatsoever.

[–] Conspirator_Slash 16 years ago

The homoerotic subtext is there. A lot of analyses say it. Why else did Benjamin Britten, the openly gay composer, turn this into an opera? Not to mention the librettist AND the leading tenor (Britten's lover) were also gay.

Claggart - in the opera - is the kind of Iago, Scarpia and Hagen. A natural born evil, who maybe fears that Billy's goodness could change his hardened heart. And he fears becoming weak. We'll never know his secret, but I'm sure he had the reasons why he became what he is.

God, I need to see this movie, too. Robert Ryan - Deke Thornton from The Wild Bunch - as Claggart? Awww.

[–] ghbbrown-1 15 years ago

Homoeroticism seems to flow through Melville's work like--well, fill in the blank as you see fit. In the book, the spilling of the soup in Billy's mess is nearly impossible to evade as "spilling seed". In the movie, there are too many close-up shots of the men's arses to be accidental, and Claggart seems to be unusually aroused watching men being flogged. No, not BROKEBACK on the seas, but definitely there's a queer sexuality in both the book and the movie. And Terence Stamp's Billy, innocent truth teller, song-bringer and angelic studling is amazing.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

18th/19th Century male companionship allowed for much closer, more intimate relations and feelings than today's society. Men often shared beds and professed love (of a brotherly/comradely sort) for one another in letters; doesn't mean they were sexually attracted to each other, merely that social mores were different (and the idea of homosexuality would not have occurred to most of them).

Given that Billy Budd is set aboard a naval vessel there might be something to a gay reading of the film/book, as homosexuality was not uncommon among sailors in that time period. But neither should we assume that Melville's books project a "gay subtext" because of their representing antiquated notions of camraderie and companionship.

"We're bowling for sinners today!"

[–] Meinster 14 years ago

I agree with Hancock. Undoubtedly, there is an element of homoeroticism in both the novel and the film, but...does anyone really think that there would have been a happy ending if only Claggart and Billy could have hit the sheets?
These days we tend to see sex as the motivation behind all behaviour, but this is not necessarily the case. I hardly think Melville would have written such a complex, allusive work if he simply wanted to describe frustrated desire.

[–] rnw_06 14 years ago

Britten's opera, as one poster has mentioned, is responsible for many of the homoerotic interpretations of this story. I actually like the opera, but Britten put his own spin on what Melville wrote and what is depicted in the 1962 film. There are serious legal and moral issues surrounding Billy's conviction that he didn't care to deal with.

[–] Ironman54 15 years ago

I'm gonna come from left field here...
Robert Ryan (along with Wayne, Mitchum and Bogart) was/is one of my all times favorite alpha male actors.The macho persona was their stock in trade. I really can't imagine the makers of this film, had they interpreted Melvilles story as one that deals with an undercurrent (no pun :-) of homosexuality aboard a Naval ship and the role of Claggert is one of a sadistic man with unresolved/ latent homosexuality 'issues', would pitch the part to Robert Ryan (or Wayne or Micthem). Who would make the phone call ? LOL !! Ryan was a former Marine and a boxing champ while in the Corps.I know, I know - this means nothing in 'private life'/reality but,to date, Ryan had played tough guy characters almost exclusively.Even if Ryan was secretly 'gay', I can't imagine he'd take the chance of destroying his 'product' by accepting such a role.
Look what actors went through back in those days to avoid any hint of being gay - Rock Hudson for example got into a 'sham' marriage to avoid any 'speculation'.
These were not real tolerant times ! It has nothing to do with the actors views on the subject or personal preferences - it has to do with possibly loosing the ability to ever again sell themselves in roles that have been their stock in trade/bread and butter.
The dialogue between BB and Claggart during their 1st meeting alone on deck, could, no doubt, be interpreted several ways and it did have me wondering. How often do you hear Robert Ryan tell another man that he is 'handsome' ? I'm guessing that it was sold to Ryan as 'this was Claggarts way of getting BB in his trust, to get him to expose his 'act'.In other words, he was implying that BB was a gay 'hustler'/gigolo of sorts and that he was warning BB that it wouldn't 'work on him' (as Claggart was not gay). I can't imagine Ryan accepting the role any other way. Unless Ryan let it be known that he was really bored with his 'image' and wanted to branch out, I just can't imagine anyone would think "I've got it ! Call Bob Ryan - he'd be PERFECT !!" (or John Wayne, Robert Mitchum). Which tells me, at the very least, that 2 groups of people - the movie makers and Ryan/publicist/family etc., did not 'read' Claggart as a gay male in any way, shape or form. Doesn't mean they got it right either. I can understand though why others may think this - its more appropriate, given the dialogue and actions in this movie then with some of the other movie threads in which people have speculated same. Now had tony Randell or even Tony Curtis played the role of Claggart, I'd say 'no question about it' LOL !!
Hey,I know both are 'family men'. I just mean they are less of the alpha male/uber macho types :-)
My 2 cents for what its worth !

[–] gary_overman 14 years ago

Claggart did not have to have a reason to hate Billy--he just did. The hate was strong enough to make him destroy Billy.

[–] Conspirator_Slash 14 years ago

I've read in an article that Ryan himself wanted the role. He was almost always playing villains and Claggart is really his Crowning Moment Of Awesome.

Starry Vere, God bless you!

[–] Squeeth2 12 years ago

Without Ryan's portrayal there is no film. As for a gay reading being unjustified, well honestly! If you remade it in a village and cast half of the characters with women actors, you wouldn't have to change much dialogue would you? Srian McKellen could direct it.

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

[–] mikekrit62 9 years ago

Why else did Benjamin Britten, the openly gay composer, turn this into an opera? Not to mention the librettist AND the leading tenor (Britten's lover) were also gay.

Maybe because it's a tragic story that lends itself well to the high drama of an opera?

Or are we to believe that gay people are so narrow-minded that they only want to work on gay-themed projects?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]