MovieChat Forums > Fried Green Tomatoes (1992) Discussion > Censoring the lesbian content of the mov...

Censoring the lesbian content of the movie...

posted 16 years ago by tiny0815-1
48 replies | jump to latest

I think that even after they censored the lesbian plot, you can still feel that there's more going on between them than just friendship... First scene that I noticed that, was when Idgie got the honey and Ruth was looking at her in that intense way. That just pretty much nailed it. Then there was this scene when Ruth gave Idgie a kiss on the cheek, Idgie was so in shock, that was also very clarifying. Then Ruth gave birth to Buddy, and Idgie went crazy like she was the father (or other mother) of that child.

I think it's because both, Mary-Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson wanted to show that romantic relationship between those two women, that they just hinted it in some of the scenes so subtle, yet so obvious...

This is really a good movie, and it really doesn't need to have a sex scene in it.
Kudos to Mary-Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson.

[–] mikeclaw 14 years ago

They didn't really *censor* the lesbian details. They just downplayed them. Even if you haven't read the book, I think it's clear in the film that Idgie and Ruth are lovers and life partners. But they don't come out and *say* it - there's no traditional love scene, no one specifically refers to it, etc.

People who are morally opposed to homosexuality, or who are utterly clueless about its existence, don't notice it in this film. But anyone who has his or her eyes open can see it. It's not censored, just downplayed.

[–] screenman 14 years ago

Twenty years ago it probably made sound financial sense to avoid presenting any lesbian hanky-panky. Movies are intended to make money, so the wider the audience appeal - the greater the likely profit. A more explicit display of homosexuality may have appealed to sexually-disoriented females (and a good few voyeurs); but it might well have alienated mainstream audences. As homosexuals amount to fewer than 1% of society, the financial percentages are pretty clear.

However, a generation onwards; society is less censorious. Perhaps a more explicit remake would pass muster. Though I still think the majority of bums on seats would belong to the voyeuristic.

[–] easyguy14215 14 years ago

"Sexually-disoriented" females???? Is that supposed to mean lesbians? That is the most offensive, ignorant, vile term I have ever encountered. Why didn't you just call them f--king dykes? At least that conveys your feelings instead of hiding behind your Family Research Council invented pseudo-scientific *beep* Did they also feed you the less than 1% schtick?? Make them less so they matter less.

[–] screenman 14 years ago

The term I used would certainly include lesbians, though it could extend to any female of ambiguous sexual identity. I was not being specific. However; in what way is it `offensive', `ignorant' or `vile'? To compare my choice of words with the perjorative hyperbole that you employ would be quite absurd.

And please do not presume to make inferences about the state of my feelings; I merely expressed a logical opinion, something you yourself do not appear to possess.

The 1% figure I quote represents the most recent (2010), accurate, and comprehensive survey made by any British government - a government that has been extremely pro-active in the advancement of homosexual rights rather than their marginalisation. So far as I'm aware it has not been challenged by pressure groups. Though it may not be typical of the world in general.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] council24 13 years ago

I have to admit that I'm baffled that this topic even exists. I never read the book, but based on the comments here, it seems pretty clear that these two ladies were lesbians in the book. Fine. But the movie makes it clear that the theme is friendship. I'm not sure why there's this need to try to "read into the movie"??? The film isn't subtle about its theme. And I don't know why the book and the film can't be seen as separate entities?? It just sounds like a lot of people trying to create something out of nothing.

[–] badponymedicine 13 years ago

Actually, I didn't find it to be that clear at all. I clearly saw that it was a down-played lesbian relationship, and the director himself said it was downplayed to gain a wider audience. And I agree that using 'sexually disoriented' is absolutely abhorrent and judgmental.
That said, I'm gonna go dip my fingers in my own honeypot. Except mine is a quart jar purchased from a local beekeeper for $8/quart. Sore throat.

[–] screenman 13 years ago

Oh-deary-me. So a perfectly inoccuous - and moreover, biologically prudent - term like `sexually-disoriented' is not only `offensive, ignorant and vile', but now also `absolutely abhorent and judgemental'.

How the politically-correct like to heap-up their hyperbole! Don't trouble themselves with rational explanations or supportive arguments, mind: just bury those of who's comments they disapprove, in a spoil-heap of reactionary excess.

We see this time and again in the media. Some harmless, well-intentioned speaker expresses a cogent opinion, and suddenly the PC fascists are screaming from the roof-tops. Of course we all know the drill. It was set-down by their Grand-Wizard Josef Goebels - simply intimidate any individual who might possess an idea that is contrary to their own from ever daring to voice it. If they can't win their case by objective discussion, then suppress its discussion altogether.

Well; it doesn't work here.

[–] alucard1-1 13 years ago

I do wish I could have responded to this sooner, but as they say, better late than never, right?

by - screenman on Sat Sep 10 2011 07:04:19

"Oh-deary-me. So a perfectly inoccuous - and moreover, biologically prudent - term like `sexually-disoriented' is not only `offensive, ignorant and vile', but now also `absolutely abhorent and judgemental'."

Uh, yeah it is *at least* judgmental. You are basically saying lesbians are confused about their sexuality. That, to me, is a judgement, and a rather vile one, IMO.

You have every right to express your OPINION that lesbians don't know any better (hence the confusion, I would assume.) But by the same token, we have the right to call you out on your ignorance. Just because you may type well, use complete sentences and for the most part spell correctly, doesn't mean you actually know what you are talking about.

(Hint... run a spell check before you post... inoccuous, abhorent and judgemental should be - innocuous, abhorrent and judgmental, respectively.)

Peace

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Harold_Robbins 13 years ago

I don't feel that the 'Lesbian plot' was censored at all - it's actually treated very matter-of-factly in the novel - the relationship between Idgie and Ruth is never an issue with the townspeople of Whistle Stop - some of them actually picked up on it before the women themselves did.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ZaZeus 12 years ago

They looks they would give to each other, their chemistry together....it was clearly more than best friends. Maybe if the scenarios had been the same, but they were acted differently I could agree that they are just friends.

[–] paulispinel 12 years ago

Yeah right, when I read that the movie wasn't like the book in that matter I was disappointed but then I watched the movie and it was subtle, but it was there indeed. I agree with you about the bee tree scene... in fact, in the book it's said that the exact moment when Ruth knew she loved Idgie was when she gave her the honey jar with a big smile.

------
"I hate you, I hate us both"

[–] rascal67 11 years ago

......then I watched the movie and it was subtle, but it was there indeed.
______________

I read the book a few years after seeing the film several times. I have no issue with the way the film presented the subtle and skilfully executed relationship between Ruth and Idgie. The book isn't exactly that forward about it either—from what I recall—in regards to their relationship. You knew who they were, if you were open up enough to see it.

I recall a part from the book, that I was a bit confused by and this was in regards to Stumps character. He was questioned by Idgie, as to why he didn't appear interested in girls and she asked him if he likes them. Stumps character, suddenly then meets a girl and they look into each others eyes and all is right with him. This appeared as a cop out to me and also a tad biased in it's manner, regarding male homosexuality.

[–] jennygerms21-226-534587 10 years ago

I agree that the relationship seems fairly clear in the movie if you are open to it. The big scenes have already been mentioned on this thread.

A big tip off for me would Idgy's anger at Ruth getting married (didn't go to the wedding or visit for a long time). I've had really good friends and did not react that way when they got married or moved away, don't know many that would over the age of 12 or 13.

Also, it was said by the creators of the movie that the food fight scene was supposed to represent them making love.

The great thing is that in the context of the story, it just doesn't really matter one way or the other. Lovers or not, It's the friendship that shines through and it's great.

[–] seakicreativeservice-934-96321 10 years ago

FGT is one of my "Life List" movies I will adore for the rest of my life, teaching me something along the way. As a gay man, I could not agree more. Though I would have loved to see Idgie's and Ruth's relationship mature,it would have changed the nature of the movie. FGT is comfort food for the soul, warm friends, good people living through extraordinary times. A steamy relationship of any kind would change the movie, a story about friends and what friends will do when times get tough.