MovieChat Forums > The Deer Hunter (1979) Discussion > Question about Stan

Question about Stan

posted 12 years ago by faulknerfan123
28 replies | jump to latest

I think that Stan might have been gay. Now hear me out on this. First off, I hate it when people just randomly assume in movie: "Oh, he must have been gay because he was so close with his friend" or stuff like that, but I think that with Stan, there might be a few subtle hints. Now, I'm not sure of this, and if you have a polite rebuttal I'd be happy to hear it, but I'm just sending out my theory here. Please don't be an ass when you reply to me, though. And keep in mind that in a movie, the director intends most of what shows up on the screen. SO I don't think I'm just reaching for stuff here, for the most part.

1: When everyone is preparing for the wedding, Stan arrives with the women, unlike the rest of the guys, who came alone or together.

2: At the church, he's the only one to make his cross. Now, I know that being religious doesn't make you gay, obviously, but the other guys seemed to think it wasn't "manly" to make your cross.

3: At the reception, when the other guy dances with his girlfriend and grabs her ass, he doesn't go for the guy, he punches the girl. Now, maybe this is just to show that Stan in a d!ck, but I thought it might have been to show that he was "blaming" his woman and taking out his anger on her instead, maybe because she's what keeps him "in the closet" and repressed.

4: He always tries to act hyper-masculine around his friends, and always talks about girls he's with or showing off his gun. He also calls Mike a *beep* several times because he's not always getting with girls, especially the kind that Stan sets him up with. Later in the movie we see that this is because the girls Stan hits on are "floozies" and Mike isn't into that kind of girl. But it always seemed to me, in these scenes, that Stan was over-compensating for something, trying to leave no doubt in his friends minds he was heterosexual.

5: This kind of ties into the last point, but also, when they are on the hunting trip near the end, and he's talking with Axel and Axel says something about his girlfriend like "afraid you'll find her out sucking some forest ranger's c*ck?" (not the exact quote obviously) and he just completely goes nut, pointing his gun at him and threatening to shoot him. Now, I understand that some guys just want to protect their girl's "honor", but Stan didn't seem like that kind of guy, and he only dated floozies anyway, so what honor was their to defend? It just seemed to me like he was overcompensating.

Now, to reiterate what I said earlier in the movie, I'm not one of those guys who runs to "he's gay" as an immediate conclusion, and I hate it when people do. These are just some things I noticed during the movie and that I thought about for a while before saying anything. Please don't be an ass when you reply, and yes, I'm a straight male, so this isn't fueled by some need to identify everyone as gay (no offense meant if you found that offensive).

[–] Edward_de_Vere 12 years ago

Stan is just an insecure coward. He probably feels guilty that his friends went off to risk their lives at war while he stayed home, and had to compensate for it with pathetic attempts to act manly and tough, and by ridiculing his friends.

All of the characteristics that you list suggest that Stan is weak and insecure, not that he's necessarily homosexual (there are plenty of weak and insecure straight guys out there too).

[–] faulknerfan123 12 years ago

Thanks for a polite response. Yeah, I see what you're saying. I just thought that perhaps there was something there, it was just a theory. Thanks for answering!

[–] tobedobedo 12 years ago

Stan is just an absolute A** and totally unlikeable character but if people want to claim that a character from The Deer Hunter is gay they can have Stan. Seriously, I don't understand why this needs to be discussed in relationship to this film at all.

[–] faulknerfan123 12 years ago

I agree that Stan is a complete ass but I just think that if it's true it adds another layer to the film. And Edward, I just thought about how John and I think Axel both said that they wished they could have gone to Vietnam or something along those lines to one of the guys the night of the reception. Yet we didn't see them acting out in the way or to the extent that Stan did.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 12 years ago

As an aside, John Cazale was really on his way to being typecast in pathetic loser roles. Stan is what Fredo Corleone would have been if he grew up in a steel mill town instead of as the son of a mafia don.

[–] Darthmauler_megaa 11 years ago

Stan is what Fredo Corleone would have been if he grew up in a steel mill town instead of as the son of a mafia don.

Incidentally, there was an interview at the time where Cazale talks about Stan: "I think he's sobered by '73. But he lacks a certain awareness of the world around him. He misses the deep spiritual reconsideration of the others."

Still, there's a chance Stan might end up better than Fredo. I only really noticed this recently but in the last scene (Um, SPOILER ALERT)...when they all toast to Nick, it looks like Stan decides to toast with the coffee cup instead of the beer glass. Which would be a rather big departure for him. During the whole "God Bless America" song it looks like you can see him fingering the beer glass, until finally moving his hand to the coffee. You have to look close because there's no close up, but ::shrugs:: perhaps there's some hope for Stan after all.

"We never win any ball games...but we sure have some interesting discussions."

[–] tobedobedo 12 years ago

When this movie came out in 1978 believe me the LAST thing on anyone's mind was the sexualities of the three main characters. I feel the interaction between all the characters, those going to war and those were were staying home, is best explained by the draft "lotteries" that were a part of our lives in the 1960's. The US Government would start drawing birthdays from these "bingo tanks" deciding who would go to Viet Nam and who wouldn't. If your birthday came up early in the drawing, you went to Viet Nam. Serious guilt developed between those who went to VietNam and those who didn't. You see this in this film, even though Michael, Nick and Stevie enlisted.It was a very painful time in our history. Please stop adding "gay" to it. We had enough problems of our own. Sit back and enjoy this beautiful film and a wonderful piece of history. The music alone will make you cry like a baby,

[–] Edward_de_Vere 12 years ago

Serious guilt developed between those who went to VietNam and those who didn't. You see this in this film, even though Michael, Nick and Stevie enlisted.

Basically my point about Stan, though his issues and insecurities started well before his friends went off to Vietnam. The fact that they volunteered rather than being drafted only added to the guilt of those who stayed behind, since they're left asking why they didn't do the same (as opposed to luck of the draw in a draft).

[–] faulknerfan123 12 years ago

I'm not trying to diminish the film in any way, just some observations I had. I myself admit that I wasn't sure of them. And I think that this movie is very open to interpretation, that's one of the things I love about it. I think that if you just dismiss that possibility you are diminishing that. Again, I'm not sure that Stan's gay, I don't even fully think that after some of the replies. But I think that the film hints at it, or it could just be hinting that he's weak. I'm not trying to diminish the film. And I believe that Cimino himself is gay? Though I'm definitely not too sure on that, correct me if I'm wrong. So maybe he had something in the movie to reflect that. Like I said, though, I'm not so sure I even believe my own argument. but thanks everyone for being so polite. Usually posts like this end in a verbal fist-fight or something!

[–] tobedobedo 12 years ago

I also appreciate your being so polite in this discussion. I have seen some really bad ones on other boards. I think there are rumors that Michael Cimino is getting a sex change but he denies it. (He went to Michigan State so anything is possible - I am kidding, I attended Ohio State) I just don't understand why this is important and I am really trying to understand why it is as far as the characters go in any movie. The Deer Hunter is a film I love so much because it is personal to me. I grew up in Ohio in the 1960's and met and married my own "Michael from the Deer Hunter" He was a helicopter pilot and is very much like the character of Michael. I understand the negative feelings about the Viet Nam war very well. The Deer Hunter is very kind to the men who went to Viet Nam as compared to other movies at the time.
So here is a question for you. Do you think that John may have been gay? Remember the beginning scene in the bar where John kisses Steve and Stan calls him *beep* Look at his facial expression. Maybe he protests just a little too much? He sings in the choir, cooks and shows his emotions by breaking down in the final breakfast wake for Nick scene. Anyway, I really don't want to care if he is gay or not, that's my point. Hope you have a nice Sunday.

[–] faulknerfan123 12 years ago

Thanks, you too. I mean, I guess maybe it was just the paranoia that people had back then about sexuality. If someone called you a f*ggot then you protested it as much as you could to leave no doubt in everyone's mind. And I think crying after a close friends funeral is normal. What I wonder is did Michael tell them how he died or feed them a sugar-coated version?

[–] tobedobedo 12 years ago

When you watch Michael at Nick's funeral and the breakfast wake he is at peace with himself (trying to look Linda in the eye, touching Nick's casket to say goodbye)I think he feels he did what he could to bring Nick home. You do have a good point. When he was with Steve at the VA hospital he told him Nick was involved with cards in Saigon and that's where the money was coming from. I know he would tell Linda the truth. I am not so sure about Steve though. I don't think he would tell any of the others anything. They would never understand.

[–] faulknerfan123 12 years ago

"They would never understand"

I definitely agree with you there.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] martykel 12 years ago

Stan was simply a jerk. Never had his *hit together, got drunk & hit women, played with guns, chased whores, and fought with his friends. Maybe he was 4F, maybe he was over compensating. The character was essential to the film for contrast. There were a lot of worthless Stans and other cowards back in the day. Many went to Canada.

[–] maxzorindresden 12 years ago

Only one I think might be gay is the bartender , of course that would be a taboo subject to discuss among the friends , they might suspect but it's never talked about.

[–] snookafly2000 11 years ago

I don't know that I think he's gay, but after rewatching it I can see your point of view. Especially the scene in which he goes off on Michael calling him a f*&&ot. Of course Michael also did seem completely indifferent towards women.

[–] hexedd 11 years ago

Faulkner: You make some excellent points and I will certainly be paying more attention to them the next time I watch the movie. I think in the end though Stan is just a loser and a coward. That's why the whole film he is always bringing his pistol with him even when his friends are asking him why he's bringing a useless pistol when they're hunting. The reason Michael calls him out at the beginning of the movie when he forgets his boots is meant to show that he isn't really like the other guys, he just tries to fake it. If he actually was "A man" and liked to hunt like the other guys he would bring all of his equipment. He doesn't really fit in with the rest of them and to make up for his insecurity he is always trying to be a braggart and show he's manly in other ways, like bringing a pistol with him everywhere.

The scene 2/3 of the way in when Michael holds the gun to his head and shoots off a round (having no idea whether the next shot might actually kill Stan) completes the demonstration of Stan's cowardice, because instead of sitting and facing it he cowers and gets nervous. This is the time that Michael really hammers home in the most obvious way that Stan is a coward and needs to keep his mouth shut and stop acting like he's a big shot.

I don't like ostentatious showings of masculinity for no reason, but I loved the scene where Michael held the gun to his head, because if any of my friends were ever callous and stupid enough to point a loaded gun at another friend I'd be tempted to shoot them too lol.

Anyway, thanks for the post, it was very insightful and made a lot of interesting points.

[–] SassyLeo 11 years ago

I think you've got some valid points. Another scene at the bowling alley, when Stan was asking Michael whether the floozie at the bar was good looking, and did Michael think she'd be good in bed? I found that odd. Was he so enamored of Michael's opinion, or did he truly not know because he was gay? Who knows.

[–] maxzorindresden 11 years ago

2: At the church, he's the only one to make his cross. Now, I know that being religious doesn't make you gay, obviously, but the other guys seemed to think it wasn't "manly" to make your cross.

Re : nothing to do with being gay , Mike just thought it was weird seeing him do the cross sign as Stan is hardly someone you'd imagine doing it , with his violent temper and the guns , ironic moment lol

The character of John might've been gay though , I could see that.

[–] MachoManRandySavage 11 years ago

Point 3: I always thought Stan tried to punch the guy but was so drunk he missed. The guy moved and Stan just kept swinging.

I tend to agree with people who think he was just an insecure, gutless, *beep*

He reminds me a bit of the part in Trainspotting when Rents realizes he hates his friends, except for Spud. They're just in the same circle and Rents doesn't even know why...it's just always been that way. Begbie has just started another bar brawl or something and somebody says; "He's a mate, what are you gonna' do?" Eventually Rents, like Mike goes through a sea change and realizes he wants nothing to do with such a person.

[–] sut6432 10 years ago

I don't think that had anything to do with anything in the film...I think this is only brought up because it's the 2010s and people's sexuality is all anyone wants to talk about.

Stan is a drunken prick who doesn't respect women...but to say he is gay is just someone putting their own personal spin on or own interpretation of the film. He clearly has a girl at the wedding, and he gets jealous and angry when she is being groped...and he is attempting to pick up several women throughout the film. I don't see it at all.

[–] Darthmauler_megaa 10 years ago

To be fair, there are some gay men who play the playboy in order to draw attention away from their actual sexuality. But I agree that's clearly not what's happening with Stan. He's just terrified of women rejecting him. That's why the ending of his character arc is that pistol being thrown away. He uses it as false machismo but Michael exposes it as a symbol of his insecurity. The next time we see Stan he's making the effort to help Angela at the funeral and ends up not taking any beer (which likely had been contributing to his prickishness).

"We never win any ball games...but we sure have some interesting discussions."

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

First of all I saw no evidence that Stan is gay. Unfortunately there are many straight men who are unpleasant toward women, who only want to have sex and noting else with them. That doesn't mean they really want to have sex with men, though.

What I did want to talk about is the line of questions why the others in the circle of friends put up with Stan. I think the reason has to do with the background of them. They are shown to be second or third generation descendants of immigrants from Russia. They live in a town greatly influenced by that reality, and really very little else. The town is isolated and insular. Yet the social reality of the older people, who I assume in some cases (the accents being the tip off) literally grew up in Russia, is not really relevant to the younger generations. Given the absence of dealings with the outside world, knowing their experience is not that of the older generations, they seek meaning in their circle of friends, whose experience is similar to their own. While the focus here is on the young men, there is also evidence that the same applies for their female cohorts as well.

The shared experience extends to working in the same place, and the sheer amount of time spent together. In this context people in such a shared experience become as close, even closer, than family members. So I think the others are reluctant to throw Stan over the side as it were. It takes Michael's going to Vietnam, and the perspective that gives him, the brutal reality in particular of Nick's transformation, to render him ultimately annoyed enough at Stan to confront him. But even then it is not to throw him out of the group, or avoid him completely. And as others have pointed out by the film's end Stan has shown some emotional growth. I think that's it.

[–] Darthmauler_megaa 10 years ago

What I did want to talk about is the line of questions why the others in the circle of friends put up with Stan.

The way I see it if they seriously admitted Stan is a screw up, they'd also have to face their own weaknesses. It's easier to just make jokes and move on.

And actually for the sake of drama, I appreciate that the movie doesn't show them kicking Stan out of the group. Obviously it's wrong for a man to hit a woman (I am a woman, btw). But you know what, in real life a guy who hits his girlfriend isn't always instantly shunned by his peers. That doesn't mean they approve of it, but it's hard to face the ugly things inside ourselves and each other. I appreciate a film more when it's honest about such things.

"We never win any ball games...but we sure have some interesting discussions."

[–] jajceboy 10 years ago

Why does everyone always read in homosexual context in these type of films? Must there always be something homosexual with male friendship?
You don't see people going "she/they must be lesbian" with films concerning female friendship.

Stan was just a weak person. There are those kind of men, to. Not everyone is strong, masculine and all that.

[–] bradford-1 9 years ago

It was always my thought that the "guys" in this film grew up together, went to the same church, the same schools, were in and out of one another's homes (although Steve's mother pretends to be angry at them she tolerates their behavior because she's known them since they were boys)and learned to how to shoot/hunt together. Even though Stan is an a%*&#$, they won't throw him out of the circle. Michael was the leader when they were young and still is. Ever notice that we never see the families of any of the guys except for Steve? We do see Linda's father, and he's a drunken monster. I got the feeling he abused her sexually as well as physically. The guys seem to exist without siblings, parents, uncles, et al. Nick mentions his parents once, I think, and that's it.
May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?

[–] IloveMuggy 9 years ago

There is one nice moment with Stan when Steven is babbling incoherently at the bar and Stan removes Steve's beer glass: "No use getting too happy, Buddy." (or something like that).

This scene has always stuck out to me as the only instance where the film makers tried to show that Stan was not a total a-hole.