homosexual overtones??

Jus saw the movie last night...

Damn, did think about it that way...It's true "he wasn't married and he did have kids"

I remember my woman asking me why?

As if I would know..

There is no indication that Gillespie is gay. The vast majority of single men are straight.

If the filmmakers actually intended the character to be gay there would have been other much more substantial "hints" in the film.

Not to mention that in 1966 this would have GUARANTEED this movie to be an instant flop - in fact, you probably would never have known it was even made unless you happened to read about it on some trivia web site.
The movie was 'daring' enough just tackling the issue of race relations in America. When Tibbs slapped Endicott, that was a BIG deal and not only in Endicotts world.

Ironman, you are spot on and you're right that these moronic topics appear on almost every board. It's really sad that anybody anywhere would take them seriously. (There are people who actually believe that Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street are gay - i kid you not.) Years ago environmentalists said that the real danger of pollution would eventually result in a lowering of IQs among the population. I'm beginning to think they were right.

By the way, if anyone wants to know the real reason for this scene, Norman Jewison discussed it in an interview on TCM once. He said that Poitier and Steiger told him that they needed a scene together to help the characters make the transition from outright antagonists to the point they could (almost) be friends at the end. So they wrote that scene on the spot. (I guess it's a good thing it never occurred to them people years later would somehow inexplicably read a homosexual subtext into it.)

That kind of thing is not uncommon where actors make points about their characters needing better resolution. While filming Braking Away, Barbara Barrie mentioned that she had no scene where just she and Dennis Christopher had a moment together, a true mother / son discussion. So they wrote on the spot the passport scene, where she tells him about having a passport but never getting the opportunity to use it. It's a scene you would have thought would have been in the script all along. (But now that I think about it, one can read a sexual tension in that scene, betraying an underlying incestuous relationship between the two. .. I wonder if anybody has already brought that idea up on that movie's discussion board?)




--------
Keeping people straight since 1968. No need to thank me - I already know you're grateful.

I fail to see how the Original Poster's question is proof positive that the "left-wing conspiracy to convert YOUR precious children to the swinging gay lifestyle" is working. The poster simply posed a question. Many people born in the generation after ours are more open-minded-especially concerning homosexuality. They realize that one is born homosexual-not converted. They are not uncomfortable exploring these themes in film or literature. Your response is an over-reaction. I didn't notice any homosexual undertones during that scene however, I understand how someone might interpret the scene that way. I was raised to be open-minded, to seek to understand -especially before I judge. If you're uncomfortable with the thread and it bothers you so much then why continue to read-move on. When you see other people making similar comments on other threads why do you continue to read if it bothers you so much? Some people like to get riled up, I guess-out of habit or boredom. Life's too short. Move on.

Cheers

C'mon. Some just go a little overboard once they know of the gay subtext that did in fact exist in a lot of films from this era. It wasn't just the Hays Code either, because the necessity to avoid this subject extended beyond that. Society at large just wasn't having it, it was box-office poison.

What we are seeing from today's films is the ability to finally be direct with gay subject-matter. It was the homophobic right that made it necessary to use subtext in prior decades, and it is only because they've relaxed that stance that we can now be direct. Wanting to tell stories of non-straights is hardly an attempt to convert, and to see it as an attack like that is the very definition of homophobia.

I don't think this film, nor The Defiant Ones, were attempting to tackle gay subject-matter. Both films had their hands full with exploring race-relations. People need to understand, gay subject-matter, while it was explored occasionally, would mostly fall on deaf ears with audiences in 1967. Just having some intense moments of male friendship, or the absence of wife/kids, is not nearly enough to interpret intended gay subtext in those times. Films that do are going to have a much more substantial collection of clues.

A good example would be Cat on the Hot Tin Roof.

I did think that the lines and the looks on their faces during "Don't you get lonely?" and "No lonelier than you." hinted at homosexuality (on the part of the police chief).

Then again, I just watched 'Midnight Cowboy' before this which has overt homosexual overtones. :p

*snork* I saw the movie tonight for the first time and during the scene in Gillespie's home, my first thought was "Out there in IMDB land is some confused soul who will ask if there are homosexual overtones to this scene of two lonely men admitting the loneliness of law enforcement." And I was not disappointed.

Dear Lord, I need a life!