Zero, I completely agree with you, and I came here tonight to mention that very scene. That scene is so filled with symbolism, and I don't know how anyone could deny it. It's not just sexually symbolic (even though it is about the most sexual symbol I could imagine for a lesbian love story), but also shows how Idgie enchanted Ruth with her boldness and bravery. And Idgie was aiming to do just that: enchant and charm Ruth. This is not the way that two good friends would behave together. The way that Ruth stares at Idgie during that scene is not the way that a woman would look at her best friend. I am a woman, and I have never gazed at my best friend in amazement and enchantment like that.
I know there are quite a few people on this board who are convinced that these two women were just friends, but I'm sorry, even forgetting about the book completely, the movie implies strongly that they were in love. Yes, they obviously started out as good friends, but it blossomed into more. And what's wrong with that? As someone else mentioned, that is the way most close relationships or marriages begin: with friendship.
One of the many reasons why I think this is such a wonderful movie is that the lesbian theme is done tastefully and realistically, especially considering the setting of the relationship. Two lovers, even if they had been a man and a woman, in that time period and town would have been forced to be discrete about their feelings for each other lest every person in town find out about their goings-on. Gay lovers would have been even more quiet, and when I watch this movie, I imagine that there is plenty we do not see between them that took place in private. And I like that. I, for one, get so sick of seeing lesbianism exploited for titillation in mainstream movies and television shows, where the women are often in sexual situations for the enjoyment of men who are either on screen or sitting in the theater. Here is a movie where two women were in love and also the best of friends, and there were no gratuitous sexual scenes or girl-girl tongue fights thrown in for ratings. Imagine that. Anyway, the love that they clearly felt for each other made Ruth's death all the more tragic and poignant to me.
One more point I have to address is that so many people here seem to be hung up on the issue of Ruth getting married even though she was in love with Idgie, and Idgie (assuming she is Ninny - a whole other subject, and if you don't assume that, then forget all this) went on to marry later in life. It's been my experience that many, if not most, adults are capable of experiencing feelings for both sexes. And many gay people occasionally fall in love with a person of the opposite sex. Sexuality is rarely black and white; and it's quite possible that Idgie went on to fall in love with a man after Ruth's death, and that Ruth was only ever attracted to one woman in her life. I think that the point of the movie, whether or not you believe they were lovers, is that these two women were "soul mates" and cared more about each other than they could ever care about anyone else. I personally believe that they were in love and that neither of them worried about the fact that they were both women. They just loved each other.
reply
share
hunozthtiluvu
14 years ago
Wow, that's a very thoughtful comment, thedeeperwell, you just read my mind.
Let's all agree that these two are INDEED friends...who are in love at the same time. By claiming they are lovers is not to deny their friendship, if we believe in Plato, love is a more intense form of friendship (instead of Nietzsche, who thinks they are two completely different things).
I don't intend to be offensive, but I have to defend my opinions.
reply
share
jjjunob
14 years ago
If there's no overt physical affection shown on screen, then some people will DENY DENY DENY that it could possibly be a romantic relationship. But if some physical affection IS shown, then people--no doubt many of the same people--will complain that it's just horrible and unnecessary and a leftist plot to further 'the gay agenda' blah blah blah.
The above applies only to same-sex couples, of course. You could tell the same story in the same way with a heterosexual couple and no one would think to deny that it was a romantic relationship or complain that showing them kissing (for example) is offensive.
The bottom line, IMO: These are, of course, fictional characters, and we can only 'know' what is shown on screen (leaving aside any additional details we may know from the book, in this case). It's silly for anyone to insist that they know for a fact what did or did not happen. But even if you want to believe that Idgie and Ruth never so much as shook hands, it is clearly and repeatedly indicated that there is more to the relationship than even the most intense 'best friends forever.' To add just one more example to the many already cited: Do you swear to never speak to your best friend again because she gets married??? Of course not.
reply
share
kayekaye-1
14 years ago
The food fight scene in the cafe kitchen between Idgie and Ruth is a substitute for a love/sex scene. It was deliberately added to the script to show - in a subtle, roundabout sort of way - their physical connection and love.
When morning comes twice a day or not at all
reply
share
Jockey1
14 years ago
"One of the many reasons why I think this is such a wonderful movie is that the lesbian theme is done tastefully and realistically, especially considering the setting of the relationship. Two lovers, even if they had been a man and a woman, in that time period and town would have been forced to be discrete about their feelings for each other lest every person in town find out about their goings-on. Gay lovers would have been even more quiet, and when I watch this movie, I imagine that there is plenty we do not see between them that took place in private. And I like that. I, for one, get so sick of seeing lesbianism exploited for titillation in mainstream movies and television shows, where the women are often in sexual situations for the enjoyment of men who are either on screen or sitting in the theater. Here is a movie where two women were in love and also the best of friends, and there were no gratuitous sexual scenes or girl-girl tongue fights thrown in for ratings. Imagine that. Anyway, the love that they clearly felt for each other made Ruth's death all the more tragic and poignant to me."
I agree with this. I watched this film for the first time when I was about 13/14ish, and to be completely honest, it just never crossed my mind that the two main characters were lovers. Probably because I was too young to consider it. In fact I never considered it at all until I read the book years later. But I think thats a good thing, the best films will always work on several levels. I could watch this film in my teenage innocence, and enjoy a film about two special friendships. I could then watch it when I was older and with a bit more knowledge and life experience and enjoy it in a different way.
At the end of the day, there is no right or wrong way to portray love on screen, some choose one way and do it to perfection, others another way and it feels wrong. Lucas for example captures unrequited teenage love to perfection because its understated. Dont Look Now uses a very graphic sex scene which when I watched it felt a little bit gratuitous, but given the reasons, I can understand why it is in there...though titilation always plays a part I think. By not making this an overtly lesbian film, it has avoided a lot of the controversy and publicity it would otherwise have attracted. It can therefore be enjoyed for its story and its content. It can be enjoyed by everybody however they wish to see Idgie and Ruth's relationship.
reply
share