Is it just me....


...or is there a hint of a homosexual relationship between Hendley (the Scrounger) and Blythe (the Forger)? Or is it just because Hendley has to be Blythe's eyes that he seems particularly solicitous of him, above and beyond the usual?

~~~~~~~~~~

We watched it again tonight and I have to plead temporary insanity. In fact, it took the Hendley character a little while not to curl his lip at Blythe's more fastidious ways. But obviously, he grew on him. Bird hunters don't immediately take to bird watchers.

reply

Nah. These were the days when people weren't so obsessed with gaydar and accepted the reality that heterosexual men can form tight bonds of friendship, and even love one another despite having no physical desires for each other whatsoever.

reply

I'm a big Garner fan. Usually when he's showing a strong bond of friendship, there's more a sense of camaraderie than anything else. I suppose he was trying to portray camaraderie plus protectiveness. It's been a while since I've seen this movie. I ought to give it a go again, since I've just come off a Garner binge: every episode of Maverick, The Rockford Files, and Bret Maverick. (It took weeks.)

reply

I agree. I think Garner's protectiveness originated in their huge differences, with his character Hendley being a traditional man's man and the talkative swindler type that he practically patented in Maverick. Blythe (Donald Pleasence), on the other hand, was a bird watcher, shy, fussy, and pompous in the classic British style. Initially Hendley found him an odd curiosity, not necessarily annoying but kind of a joke, somebody whose company he found dull. As extremely different but basically friendly people often do, eventually they became friends. Once Blythe's blindness started creeping in and he feared being left behind, Hendley, as you said, grew protective of his friend and had their bond of friendship strengthened even further as a result.

reply

I edited my original post since my husband and I watched it tonight. I don't think he found him dull, exactly. I don't think he understood him -- but you described Blythe's character perfectly. He did, on his first raid of food goodies, make sure that his odd roomie managed to have the milk he craved for his tea. And they both played chess, so there's a bond right there. I loved the look Garner gave Pleasence when he called "Checkmate!" on Garner. It was almost like an affront.

I'm a big Garner fan, and his acting ability has been greatly underrated. This character was drawn from his days as the scrounge for his company in the Korean War. Yes, he always sprinkles his roles with some of the characteristic Garner charm, which took far more acting than we'll ever know -- his wife, after his death, said he was the saddest man she'd ever met. If you knew his history of emotional abuse as a child, you could understand why.

But Garner could do some of his best acting by reacting. His first job was on the Court Martial panel of The Caine Mutiny, done as a stage play with Henry Fonda in the lead. He had no lines, so he had to learn to listen and react to keep it fresh.

It was wonderful to run into this, since my husband had been wanting to watch this for some time, and there are few Garner movies I can pass up. And yes, this was more Attenborough's and McQueen's movie than Garners.

reply

He loved Angel.

reply

Its probably not just you, there are a heap of people always looking for a homosexual subtext between film or tv characters. I have never understood the fascination with it tbh. Personally I just see a close friendship and nothing more.

reply

But see, that isn't me. I was reading on Alias Smith and Jones how they obviously were a gay couple. You have to be seeing gays under every rock to go there. No, I think it's because I can't recall another movie where Garner treats a fellow the same way. But it must just be that his character was supposed to feel protective of Blythe because of his blindness.

reply

I never picked this up at all.

reply

Okay. It's me. I need to watch it again, definitely. We own it, and we haven't seen it in a long time, so....

reply

I think these homosexual subtexts do exist in older movies, just not this particular relationship.

reply

Of course such subtexts exist, and I'm usually the first person to shout about them!

I just didn't get one out of that particular relationship, which had zero sexual tension, a lot of caretaking, and a soupcon of pity.

reply

It was actually possible at one time for heterosexual men to be very close friends, care about one another, and even love each other as brothers without any sexual component. Those days are gone.

reply

No, they're not, Lis.

reply

I hope you're right.

reply

Thing is once single men could be friends without nasty minded people drawing the wrong conclusions.

reply

It's not just you, those two have been brought up in arguments about coding and subtext gayness in studio-era films. Quite a few times, too.

And while I'm usually one of the first to scream "GAY SUBTEXT", myself, I really don't see a romantic or sexual bond between those two. Maybe it's because I know so many birdwatchers, they aren't generally big on romantic or sexual bonds.

reply

I watched it again and realized how wrong I was.

reply

You've made me feel so validated!

reply

Someone saying, "No, I was wrong!" IS rather rare on this site. 😉

reply

You made me splutter with laughter like a total dork!

And yeah, senses of humor are also kind of rare on this site.

reply

It’s absolutely there regardless of what anyone else says. 🤣IMO, there’s no reason for such a tight relationship unless there was something romantic. Two closeted men finding each other. Blythe literally kisses Hendley (albeit on the neck) and thanks him for setting him free in his dying words. I also reserve the right to be completely wrong but it struck me very obviously as Hollywood coding in a less tolerant time.

reply