Did anyone else get the feeling Frank had been molesting Ho-Jon? I can't recall any undisputible proof of it on screen, but I think it was subtley suggested. Remember how Ho-Jon would avoid Frank as much as possible? Remember how he would make any excuse to leave the Swamp as soon as Frank entered?
Anyone? Anyone?
Absolutely not. Don't forget this movie was produced in 1970. Inserting an underlying theme of pederasty would never pass the strict Hollywood censors. More, the American movie-goers of the time would have been largely disgusted. The intent of the movie was to discredit narrow-minded, religious hyprocite types like Frank Burns, not turn him into some kind of sex freak. That was not the intent of the movie.
shareJust because it was the 1970s doesn't mean that pederasty wouldn't have been slipped in. Even movies from the 40s have themes of homosexuality, pedophilia, and so on that just means the censors didn't realize it.
That being said no I don't think Ho-Jon was abused or anything... possible though but I didn't pick up on any strange scenes with them. The only one was when Ho-jon leaves after getting the porn magazine but that was just humor that he was going to "learn to read."
I think Ho-Jon was the one stealing the bottle of drugs that was being announced on the intercom though.
http://malaeducation.blogspot.com/
You're using the term pederasty incorrectly.
No he isn't. He is using it correctly (though I may disagree with his opinion vis-a-vis the movie).
Pederasty - sexual relations between two males, esp. when one of them is a minor.
Ho-Jon was a minor, and the question was "was Ho-Joh sexually abused by Frank". The only question might be, was Ho-Jon a minor? I think he was, because it is only later that he is seen being tested for mandatory service, which is something men do in many countries when they become of age - right when they become of age. However, Ho-Jon does not have to be a technically have to be minor for the term "pederasty" to be correct, just that he appears as such to others.
Most people consider any sexual contact between an adult and a person who is underage as "sexual abuse", which would still be termed "pederasty" if it were between two males.
Bottom line, the guy is right, he used it correctly.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
"Don't forget this movie was produced in 1970. Inserting an underlying theme of pederasty would never pass the strict Hollywood censors. "
Utter stupidity. Films were far more free in 1970 to express difficult material than in the over commercialized 21st Century. There were no censors in 1970. There are far too many censors (of the commercial variety) Today.
<< Absolutely not. Don't forget this movie was produced in 1970. Inserting an underlying theme of pederasty would never pass the strict Hollywood censors. >>
What? The censors got dilluted around the same time the sudio system broke up. It switched to a ratings system....no one told you you HAD to cut things out or there was no release, clike in the old days....what was in there just effected the final rating, and some movies chose to go out without a rating at all.
But back to the OP, I did get a weird feeling from the first scene, with the young innocent reading the Bible to the guy in bed. There's a creepy feeling to that, especially knowing how vulnerable young natives were to the troops, and how eager they were to trade anything for a better life.
But, I don't think that's really what's intended in the story. It just feels that way in the one scene.
Don't forget this movie was produced in 1970. Inserting an underlying theme of pederasty would never pass the strict Hollywood censors.
"My brain rebelled, and insisted on applying logic where it was not welcome."share
"Don't forget this movie was produced in 1970. Inserting an underlying theme of pederasty would never pass the strict Hollywood censors."
This may be the most poorly informed statement I've ever seen on imdb, and that's saying something. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Yes, the OP must be confusing 1970 with 1940 or '50.
The OP also has a dirty mind.
All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
Ho Jon is a subservient Korean, it would be normal for him to avoid all eye contact with his superiors, this is a cultural thing, nothing to do with sex. During the Second World War, the Japanese would execute prisoners who looked them in the eye. Burns is many things but he is not a pedophile. Ho Jon is young and pretty but he is also innocent - remember he is also presented with some reading material by Duke.
The point you raise is interesting though because it shows that there is still a lack of understanding of Pacific Rim cultures. One reason wars are lost is that the 'enemy', let alone the 'friend' is not understood and many do not want to become 'westernzed'.
Regards
Wow. This really comes out of left field. I didn't see even the suggestion of sexual impropriety between Frank and Ho-Jon. I think Ho-Jon would avoid Frank whenever possible because Frank was portrayed as a generally unpleasant person that most people would choose to avoid. And as noted Ho-Jon's avoidance of eye contact relates to cultural upbringing and the fact that he is basically a servant to older American officers. A lack of eye contact under those circumstances is hardly surprising. I wouldn't read anything more than that into it.
"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."
[deleted]
Making Frank Burns a pedophile who sexually abused Ho-Jon would be a bit of overkill, don't you think? He already represents everything Hawkeye and Duke hate about the military and life in general, so I don't think it's necessary for him to be guilty of every other evil that can be heaped onto him.
hkfilmnews.blogspot.com
porfle.blogspot.com
HE HAD IT COMING. Prancing around all smooth, half naked, he was bagging for it!
now back to reality. WHAT A STUPID POST. Maybe one day you'll get a triple digit IQ..maybe...hey if your parents get a divorce are they still considered brother and sister? just wondering.
I'm watching this now, and I don't know if Burns went as far as abusing Ho-Jon, but I definitely got the sense from Burns' expression when we first see him that he was getting a sexual thrill out of hearing Ho-Jon read the Bible. Maybe he was grooming him. I'll also admit that I may be prejudiced by the recent media obsession with hyper-religious idiots who turn out to be abusing boys, but I did immediately feel there was something perverted implied here.
shareShort answer to OP's question: No.
Burns' interaction with Ho-Jon seems affectionate if paternalistic, something he sees as his Christian duty (he's instructing Ho-Jon in the Bible and also teaching him English) and quite commendable in its own right. Later we find he disapproves of Hawkeye and Duke teaching Ho-Jon how to serve drinks, which given Ho-Jon's minority is understandable.
The odd thing about Burns is he is introduced as a Godly and considerate man. It's only after Hawkeye and Duke openly mock his religion and get him kicked out of their tent (which was Burns' tent before they arrived) that we are given a real reason to dislike Burns, when he callously and wrongly blames Boone for killing a patient. Before then, it seems he's merely not cool and hence worthy of a hip audience's contempt somehow. I suspect Ring Lardner Jr.'s script did more to establish Burns' dislikeability early, but Altman wanted to spend more time with his principal characters.
We aren't supposed to like Frank with Ho-Jon because of its imperialistic Western overtones, yet is it any better to have him fix you alcoholic drinks and pay him off with decadent Western pornography? It's a confused movie in that and other ways.
I agree. The grooming thing - maybe, maybe not, but the hipsters don't treat him like an equal either. The most humane thing anyone does is try to keep him from being drafted into the ROK army, and this fails.
"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."