MovieChat Forums > Deliverance (1972) Discussion > Lewis and Ed (B)romance?

Lewis and Ed (B)romance?

posted 8 years ago by Iggs11
23 replies | jump to latest

Hi. Did anyone else pick up on any romantic undertones between Lewis and Ed? Particularly on the part of Lewis towards Ed. A sort of frustration. When Lewis and Ed were on the canoe together, and Lewis was shooting at fish in the water, he'd asked Ed, "Why do you come out on these trips with me? You've got a great job, a great wife, a great kid. Why do you come out here with me?" It seemed as though Lewis had some sort of resentment towards Ed's "normal" life AND unspoken rejection of what Lewis could otherwise offer him if only Ed would give it a real shot.

And here's what really cinched it for me: the looks they passed each other that very same night while settling down for sleep by the campfire. It was Lewis who had cast a somewhat furtive glance Ed's way, then Ed took pause, began to unbutton his shirt, said some lines about being in the wilderness and away from everything, and then said goodnight to Lewis with what appeared to be a tender and longing, yet resigned, look in his eyes.

Was waiting all throughout the movie afterwards for the story to pick back up on this, but nothing. Not a big deal whether I'm right or wrong, just wanted to know if anyone else caught this. Thanks.

----
Half the trouble in life is caused by pretending there isn't any.

[–] ccr1633 8 years ago

I don't think so. It's just two men who are very different, but have a tight bond and mutual admiration. It seems that a couple of guys hardly have the room to be close friends anymore without suspicion of homosexuality. It's absurd. The threshold of modern gadar is way too low.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ccr1633 8 years ago

There was no indication of them being latent homosexuals in the book either. The whole premise is just dumb. Some people seem to have the agenda of interpreting any male friendship as evidence of homosexuality.

[–] Iggs11 8 years ago

Hi. Thank you both for your responses and points of view. As I mentioned before, I was just curious if I was the only one who had "picked up" on any undertones. I was not trying to push any kind of homosexual agenda at all. It just seems like using belittling words like "dumb" are a bit unnecessary when it was just an innocuous curiosity on my part. Two responses. Two differing opinions. Thank you.

----
Half the trouble in life is caused by pretending there isn't any.

[–] ccr1633 8 years ago

You're right. I apologize. Let me just call the theory unsound. I don't see any evidence for it in the film, unless one interprets every close male friendship as one with homosexual undertones. I just don't subscribe to that. In fact, I think it's rather offensive to men in general, as if they're creatures driven only by sex.

[–] Iggs11 8 years ago

Hi. Thanks. I can understand why you would be offended by such a person as you described who would subscribe to such views. Although, just to any future newcomers to this thread who may be offended and jump to similar conclusions, I don't interpret every close male relationship (in film or in real life) as having sexual undertones. Just two scenes in this particular movie that made me curious about these two characters. You and another member have at least lent some thought to my original post. Thanks.

----
Half the trouble in life is caused by pretending there isn't any.

[–] ccr1633 8 years ago

What's central to the tightness of the relationship between Louis and Ed is each had certain qualities that the other both lacked and admired, even if their banter suggested otherwise. I think Ed admired Louis's rugged individualism and disregard for the conventional trappings of family life and corporate America, whereas Louis, more subtly, admired Ed's ability to succeed and be content in that very world.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12006) 2 years ago

I know you're post is 6 years old and from IMDb. But the guy you're talking to is a raging homophobe. It's just a possibility but he becomes livid at the mere suggestion.

Also, considering that Ed is almost raped by a man in this story, the homosexual current is palpable throughout.

I noticed the sexual undertones as well. But that scares some of these fools.

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. And I will say that as a trans man, I can't really speak to how completely platonic cis male friendships work (I've been surprised that some things are "normal" that seem to me to be romantic or sexual in some way). But I digress.

I'll have to watch that fishing scene again, but I definitely noticed it in the camping scene that night where Ed was drunk and definitely seemed to be looking at Lewis somewhat longingly. Even in the truck at the beginning I thought Ed's looks at Lewis seemed a little romantic. But who knows, maybe that's just a byproduct of Jon Voight's dreaminess back then lol

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12006) 2 years ago

I will say that as a trans man, I can't really speak to how completely platonic cis male friendships work

Well, don't you have platonic friendships with cis men, or other trans men? Same difference, is it not?

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

Well, I guess there are other factors at play for me; being autistic and asexual probably doesn't help as far as how I interpret interactions.
But I don't really know any other trans men in person. And I've had cis-het male friends, some that knew how I was born and others that assumed I was also cis, but I guess it's those times where the latter would say or do something in jest that seemed oddly more than platonic-- slightly flirtatious at the least, outright sexual at the most. But I could never tell if those things were only in jest or if they were actually serious about it.
So it would raise that question of, "Is this how 'normal' cis-het male friendships carry on?" Like, do BFFs do a silly-sexual wink at each other in the store, for example? Or just how graphic do their talks about sex or fantasies go, ya know?
I mean, I'm sure it depends on the person/people, but I've just never really understood the exact boundaries of a completely platonic friendship in that regard. I feel like I'm always so concerned with not wanting to come across as hitting on someone even if I'm merely joking, so it's surprising to me when I see straight guys acting even slightly sexual with another straight guy.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12006) 2 years ago

Okay, I can speak as a queer man who has had close friendships with straight males. The friendship never gets sexual even if you've very close. There's a sense that the non-sexual nature is what keeps it pure. And when I've been close with a straight male, I always end up telling him I'm bisexual. What's odd is that no matter how attractive I might find a guy when I first meet him, when I become close friends with him I lose any sexual desire for him. He becomes sexually neutral.

That being said, I have had friendships with "straight" men who for one reason or another, usually with the help of booze and drugs, I have ended up in bed with. Lol.

I guess I'm saying bromance is usually nonsexual. But there can also be much suppressed bisexuality beneath the surface. But any "straight" male I've ever had sex with, it always ends up ruining the friendship.

Have you already undergone full transition to male? In full respect without going into details, are you at a place in your life where you're stable with your maleness? I mean are there no more doctors in your life? You're done?

You also called Jon Voight "dreamy". Lol. Are you sure you're asexual?

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

Well, I'm "asexual" in that I don't necessarily feel sexual attraction to people, but I do like sex. It's more that I see sex as something fun to do, and people are a means to that end, if that makes sense. Sex is also a nice icebreaker, so sometimes it's helpful to get the bang in before getting to know the person and realizing that they're boring or annoying or what have you. I want the act of sex, not necessarily any other kind of connection with the person whose parts I'm playing with, ya know?
I mean, I can have more of a connection with the person, but generally I don't care for or want that if all I'm after is the act.

But in regards to Jon Voight's dreaminess, while I do think he was good-lookin' back then, he just seems to have a very dreamy, longing gaze in his eyes when he looks at Burt's character in the movie, at least in some scenes. Maybe it's simply admiration, not necessarily love, or maybe it's simply the way his face is physically put together lol

Another thing that I wonder about are the things that are more subtle than joking flirting, but things like even standing or sitting closer than I'd expect another guy to be comfortable with. Or maybe some kind of physical touch that wasn't really even necessary but was done anyway (something innocuous like a hand on the other guy's shoulder as he moves past him or something).
Of course these are all things that I overthink anyway, because that's my brain. Trying to understand "normal" people gets exhausting lol

Anyway, I've been on testosterone for five years and pass as cis when clothed. Still planning on getting top surgery someday to get rid of the little bit that's left there, but no plans for bottom stuff at this point. Although I have heard that instead of swapping these parts for those, they can just add the other parts to my current parts, and that's what I'd want. I just want all of the genitals.

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

And I guess that's the intriguing part to me-- for those cis-het male friendships that are strictly platonic and never get sexual, I guess I wonder where the threshold is, ya know? Like how physically close or flirtatious is "normal" in a friendship like that? Like I said, I know everyone's different, it just surprises me sometimes when little things pop up that make me raise an eyebrow.

100% platonic friendships are awkward for me, though. I'd prefer we bang at least once to solidify the friendship and make things less weird haha

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12006) 2 years ago

Well I can understand how most straight males can have friendships without it ever getting sexual. Because here I am, a queer male, and the thought of having sex with some of my male friends is like "oh yuck". Lol. Though I love them dearly.

It's only if the guy is goodlooking and my "type" is there ever a second thought. But as I said, friendship kills sexual attraction for me. I don't think I could fall in love with a friend. When I pick up a guy it's usually an anonymous quickie. Or if we hit it off and we date, that's sexual and it's going somewhere.

My current partner I met at work, I had my eye on him for months, and we eventually fell in love. Different though I guess because there was a boss/employee relationship and maybe the power imbalance left room for sexuality? Damn, that's bad. 🤣 But there were no hijinks at work.

I'll just confess that I don't understand asexuality in general and your asexuality in particular. And keep in mind I say this with complete respect. You like sex. But you have no sexual attraction to anyone. How does that work? If you'll have sex with either male or female, wouldn't that make you bisexual? It seems you're saying you enjoy sex but you're not attracted to your sexual partner. I'm really having a difficult time understanding how it's possible. Is it just that you have no innate attraction to others?

As far as transgender surgery, it honestly makes me shudder. But of course I'm very cisexual. I can respect that you would only add male parts, and keep the female parts as well. Best of both worlds. They used to call that a hermaphrodite and they were considered sacred by the ancients.

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

I'm honestly not really sure how to explain it, or if "asexual" is even the right word. At first I felt that "pansexual" was the best fit, because I don't care about gender or genitals. But then reading up on asexuality more (as an umbrella term, since some asexuals do enjoy sex), I feel like that one fits better. But, again, I'm not even sure how to word whatever it is that I've got going on lol

Basically, I like sex, but I don't care for people. They're kind of a means to an end, in a way. If I could go down on myself or fuck myself in a way that feels like it does with another person, I'd be set. Sometimes I just want to lick or play with certain parts, not necessarily for the sexual satisfaction of myself or the other person, but just because of the tactile sensations of it. Kind of like how it feels good to squish my toes in mud, ya know? But that I can do on my own; there aren't just cocks and clits on the side of the road to play with (unfortunately...)

I'd love to play with boobs again (it's been a while), because of the squishy squish of them and their jiggles and stuff, but unfortunately I can't just go to the store and buy some. I'd need to first make friends with the owner of them, and that's a pretty huge undertaking as it is, but especially with my social difficulties.

Anyway, I just realized one day while browsing FetLife that I was the only person commenting non-sexual things on sexual pictures, and that got me thinking about it. I appreciate some people's shapes, in an aesthetic way. Not really sure how to explain that one.

I've never had a "type", either. If we click, we click. I'm the opposite of you in the falling-in-love part; for me, any romantic relationship needs to start out as friendship, so that there's that foundation of truth and honesty in our interactions. "Regular friendship" Me is different than "Romantic relationship" Me (as I'm sure it is with everyone), and actual love (either direction) isn't possible if we're both acting.

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

Like I said, it's hard for me to fully wrap my head around all of it, let alone figure out how to word it so that it makes some sense to others lol
The first guy I dated was around 320 lbs when we started hooking up. It just started as friends drinking and banging, and then it went into more of a relationship from there. (That's also how my next relationship started lol).

I do find that personality can determine for me whether or not I find someone attractive, so when it comes to an actual relationship, movie taste is more important than physical appearance.
And some people are objectively attractive, but if their personality is shit, then I'm not into them.
So when it comes to the times where I just need to get laid, I'd rather not drag looks or personality into the mix because they might ruin it; that's where the anonymous sex part comes in handy.

Anyway, on a different note, if a pretty woman in yoga pants walks past me in a parking lot, I'm the only guy not checking out her ass; I'm oblivious. If I do happen to notice her ass, though, and if I decide to stare at it, I'm not thinking sexual thoughts. Most likely I'm just admiring the shape and curves and form.

I'd considered that maybe I'm just gay, but really I only sleep with guys because they're easy.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (12006) 2 years ago

Well thank you. That is perhaps the most understandable description of asexuality I have ever read. I've always had a problem with asexuality being equated with homosexuality and bisexuality as a sexual orientation. I'm still not quite sure the 'A' belongs in LGB+ because the rest of us are alternative orientations towards a gender as a sexual and romantic object. Asexuality seems neutered to me.

But like I said, yours is the first explanation which seems plausible to me as an orientation. It's like gender in terms of eroticism means nothing to you. So while pansexuality conjures up an attraction to a chick with a dick or a guy with a vagina, you don't give a rat's ass about gender to begin with. Pansexuality seems like a bisexual fetish to me.

Can I ask you a question and you seem like a decent person, and not someone I would dismiss as a sociopath. But don't sociopaths have no interest or connection to others on a social level? Is asexuality a form of sexual sociopathy perhaps? Again, not to offend, because you've been very forthright and helped me understand the enigma of asexuality a little better. But how is asexuality not sociopathic?

In terms of sexual attraction, I think most males put the physical before the emotional. I mean I can have sex with a person I don't like as long as their body looks good. Most females seem to be the opposite and need an emotional bond before they're aroused sexually. So I know you identify as male and I respect that. But your attitude towards sex and personality and the fact that sex must proceed from personality, sounds very commonly female to me.

Great discussion here!

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

In response to your last bit, that's not really what I mean, but I'm not sure how to explain it, so bear with me.
So I'm definitely not demisexual, in that I need to have an emotional connection with someone before I can feel sexual feelings/urges for them (I think that's what that is, in a nutshell). Because if I'm wanting sex, then yeah, I could fuck a total stranger and that would be just fine. But if I'm just after dick, I don't really want to deal with personality.
(Ideally, I'd have a handful of sex buddies for when the mood strikes, because I hate the ordeal of trying to find a new lay.)

Since I don't really know how to explain it, here's a real-life example: I met this guy some years ago, and he looked like a fun lay.
(Tidbit here: when this happens, where I meet someone new and want to fuck them, I feel like I act weird and just not at all myself until we finally bang. Once that happens, the ice is broken and the sex is out of the way and I don't have to worry about it, then the friendship can commence.)
Anyway, we hung out once at my place, and I was hoping we'd bang, but he just kept going on and on about how he loves DJing and loves EDM and all that shit. Total boner-killer.
We did finally end up banging at some point, like a year later, but it was only so-so. I'm pretty sure that it would've been better had we banged before I learned how boring/annoying his personality was.
I mean, still the same great cock, but it was sullied a bit by previous conversations.

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

So I definitely don't need to know and vibe with someone's personality in order to fuck them. If I just need sex, then I'd rather be ignorant to their personality so that I'm not inevitably turned off by some trivial thing, if that makes sense.

And the friendship foundation before romantic relationship isn't really an emotional preference or whatever; it's just logical and what makes sense to me, ya know? I can't fall in love with someone I don't truly know, and they can't fall in love with one of my many masks.

Take, for example, farting or picking your nose in front of each other lol Those are things that every human does (whether or not they want to admit it), but when you meet someone with the pretense of dating or whatever, you (most likely) won't do that in front of them, for whatever reason.
But I'm sure you've done those things (and worse) in the company of your best friend, right?
See, with those types of friendships, those little weird things are already out there, so there's no pretending to be something or someone you're not.
To me, that's the kind of level where love can happen. That's not to say that I want it to be that way, it's just that it's the only logical way, in my opinion.

Anyway, that's an interesting question about sociopathy and asexuality. (Obviously I can only answer from my perspective, so we'll see.)
First, though, back to the definition of asexuality real quick. From what I've read, I'm pretty sure that most people who identify as asexuals don't have an interest in sex (as opposed to those like me who like sex but don't necessarily experience sexual attraction). So it's still within the umbrella term, but yeah, I think most don't really care for sex at all.
And I agree with you in that (to me, anyway) it's less of a sexual orientation, and more like the lack of a sexual orientation, ya know? So I think it's in with the LGB+ stuff kind of like how the T is in there for trans folks; it's just all-encompassing.

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

Because of course gender and sexuality aren't the same thing, and they don't determine the other, ya know?

But anyway, back to the sociopath thing lol
So for me personally, I would attribute it more to my autism probably. That's not to say that all asexuals are autistic or sociopathic, of course.
And not experiencing sexual attraction on the physical level is also different from being attracted to or connecting with people on an emotional level.

Personally, it's not that I'm unable to form emotional attachments or something. It's kind of similar to the misconception that people with autism are incapable of feeling emotions or empathy. On the contrary, we often feel or empathize too much, and that can be incredibly overwhelming and exhausting (hence often having few close friends-- it's a lot of work).

If I were looking for a relationship, then yeah, I'd obviously care more about personality and common interests and everything, because those things are more important than physical looks.
However, when I'm just looking to get laid, I'm not really caring about the physical looks, either.

Sorry, I feel like I'm just talking in circles and still not expressing it correctly lol

[–] sunezno (269) 2 years ago

I do want to say, though, that pansexuality isn't a bisexual fetish lol
Pansexuality doesn't just mean, "I like dudes, chicks, and trans people" (because, of course, trans men are men and trans women are women). Most people just think it's another way of saying "bisexual", but it's not that, either.

It's more about being attracted to the person on the inside, regardless of their gender or genitals or physical presentation.
So, yeah, in theory, a pansexual person might be attracted to a trans woman, but not because she's "a chick with a dick", ya know? It's based on personality, not presentation.

I've always understood the difference between bisexual and pansexual as this: bisexual people specifically like men and women. Pansexual people like the person, irrespective of their parts.

[–] spiraleyes (18) a year ago

I absolutely agree that there was some kind of gay attraction between Ed and Lewis. As mentioned before, the campfire scene is so suggestive. He unbuttons his shirt as he is looking at Lewis with such an infatuated expression on his face. That seemed really gay to me.