Was he gay or what? - Powder (1995) Discussion

[–] MoreThanEternity 19 years ago

When I first saw this scene I did think it was out of place, so I tried to figure out why the director would put it in the movie. Then I remembered Powder saying how no one realizes how beautiful they are. I didn't see it as a sexual scene at all, just Powder admiring beauty.

reply

[–] jackson53h 18 years ago

The reason Powder watched that guy in the shower was because he had so much hair & Powder was amazed with or jealous of it.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Chessclubkillah 18 years ago

Powder, as a neutral being, saw the male body as something to observe. Hair, normality, and design as one.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slug_of_misfortune 17 years ago

I don't actually think it has anything to do with being gay OR hair and jelousy. I think it might be more to do with how he said people don't know how beautiful they are. When he said that he wasn't just refering to the girl.

"I peed in the gene pool"

reply

[–] minia 17 years ago

Jeff Goldblum scene seemed to suggest his desire to have a parental figure who loved him and wasn't afraid of him... I thought the scene was endearing...

As for the Zane scene, he really just longed to be normal... That's all...

As for the red-head, he REALLY liked her and the moment they shared... Otherwise he wouldn't have cared if she thought he was ugly...

reply

[–] joni46231 17 years ago

"When I first saw this scene I did think it was out of place, so I tried to figure out why the director would put it in the movie. Then I remembered Powder saying how no one realizes how beautiful they are. I didn't see it as a sexual scene at all, just Powder admiring beauty." ~MoreThanEternity

Exactly!!! Very well put, I concur wholeheartedly.

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.

reply

[–] cwilson-46 17 years ago

Coaster10 - you really are dumb.

If you would of listen to the conversation between him and Jeff Goldblum - Powder told him no one ever held his hand or even touched him or hugged him before. That' what Jeff was doing - giving him what every human being needs - to be touched/loved/wanted. And the guy in the gym - that was not lust. It was envy - he wanted to have a normal body with hair and color and shape (muscles) that's all. If no one out there understands who this person is (Powder) - we are all in trouble.

reply

[–] mrtraska 14 years ago

The first thought I had when I saw the 'touch' scene with Jeff Goldblum was how much it reminded me of the horrible loneliness of AIDS patients: their greatest hurt is that nobody wants to touch them, as if they were lepers and they could make someone else ill by touch (false, of course). It's a very particular and painful kind of loneliness, and Goldblum's character saw that in Jeremy -- and, as an adult to a child, wanted to abate that loneliness for just a moment.

reply

[–] jtpaladin 17 years ago

Yes, Powder was straight and the only reason he was looking at the other guy was because he wanted to have hair like the other guy and look more like other people.

--------------------------------------
America put the "fun" back into "Fundamentalism".

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jtpaladin 17 years ago

Powder was falling in love with the cute red-headed girl so I don't think he was a homosexual.

--------------------------------------
America put the "fun" back into "Fundamentalism".

reply

[–] dijitalnomad 17 years ago

You know, a lot of renaissance artists sculpted or painted the nude male form. In this film, you have to look at the character, Powder, a genius, artist, raised outside society, and use that as the context. I think he WAS admiring the form of the body, and the color, the hair. But, it was more a sensual kind of thing, and sex or gender didn't, I think, have anything to do with it.

reply

[–] guely55 17 years ago

A lot of renaissance artist (Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Raphael, to name the three greatest) were homosexual. Just a fact.

reply

[–] joni46231 16 years ago

Guely55, from where do you gain your information on the sexuality of the Great Masters?

Leonardo kept his personal life secret, if you're going by the opinion of Freud, he thought man's basic motivation was that he wanted to have sexual relations with his own MOTHER, so of course he'd know ALL about sexual preferences, right?

Michelangelo... he studied anatomy on corpses, perhaps he was a gay necrophile?

Raphael is reputed to be quite the lady's man... having had many affairs...

They weren't gay, not that there's anything wrong with that... I guess we all just believe what we WANT to believe, huh?

I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me.

reply

[–] guely55 16 years ago

Studying and reading as anybody else. Freud? I've said nothing about Freud. Why do you think so? By the way,Freud is much more then the Oedypus complex. Anyway if you don't believe it and you wanna know find it out by yourself. You sound too "smart" for me doing your homework.

reply

[–] gothix99 17 years ago

Well said! It is truly amazing the conclusions people will automatically jump to instead of using some common sense or attempting to understand something. I absolutely love the sensitivity in this film and feel it was beautifully made.

reply

[–] Jane2005 17 years ago

>>I absolutely love the sensitivity in this film and feel it was beautifully made. <<

I agree. I remember seeing this movie in the theater and never picked up on any homo-erotic themes. I believe the character of Powder was suppose to just be appreciating the world around him (people with hair, for example) as an advanced human being. The scene with Jeff Goldblum was simply about the need of humans to be touched and loved.

This time when I watched it, though, I definitely picked up on homo-erotic themes. I never knew the writer/director was a pedophile, but now it makes sense. The scene with Jeff Goldblum made me uncomfortable.

In that hat, Sean Patrick Flannery resembled Michael Jackson - a lot (white skin, thin).

I still don't think that's what Powder was suppose to be in the movie, but the writer/director's view of the world definitely influenced the film.

Was he paying homage to Michael Jackson? Suggesting that he's just a man of great intelligence and vision who has been misunderstood by the world?

-Jane

reply

[–] lauriellen 17 years ago

In terms of the boy Powder watched in the locker room, it could have gone either way -- looking at a boy's body who has hair or feeling desire -- or some of both. He's supposed to be evolved, so maybe he has feelings for both sexes.

I think your first inclination was right about the scene with Jeff Goldblum. His character was obviously stricken with sadness that Powder had gone so long without touch. There was as much innocence in that touch as there was in the simple kiss with the girl.

The writer/director being a pedophile wouldn't likely have much bearing IMO, since pedophiles aren't particularly interested in people of the age of Powder and his classmates. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children, not teenagers.

And homoerotic doesn't equate to pedophilia anymore than heteroerotic (is that a word???) does.

reply

[–] Jane2005 17 years ago

>>Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children, not teenagers. <<

Actually, anyone interested in sexual activity with a person under the age of consent could be considered a pedophile (unfortunately this could also mean two 17 year olds, for example).

The average age and sex of a victim of non-familial molestation is 13 and female (though it certainly can range from newborn to age of consent). Pedophiles are indeed interested in teenagers.

>>The writer/director being a pedophile wouldn't likely have much bearing IMO, since pedophiles aren't particularly interested in people of the age of Powder and his classmates.<<

I don't think any director could avoid personally influencing a creative piece of work such as a film.

The scene between Powder and Jeff Goldblum could be construed as being influenced by the director's personal view on life. Teacher/student relationships offer ideal environments for grooming and attachment, and young people with unstable or non-existent home lives are most at risk.

-Jane

reply

[–] Marilynpogo 14 years ago

">>Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children, not teenagers. <<

Actually, anyone interested in sexual activity with a person under the age of consent could be considered a pedophile (unfortunately this could also mean two 17 year olds, for example).

The average age and sex of a victim of non-familial molestation is 13 and female (though it certainly can range from newborn to age of consent). Pedophiles are indeed interested in teenagers.

>>The writer/director being a pedophile wouldn't likely have much bearing IMO, since pedophiles aren't particularly interested in people of the age of Powder and his classmates.<<

I don't think any director could avoid personally influencing a creative piece of work such as a film.

The scene between Powder and Jeff Goldblum could be construed as being influenced by the director's personal view on life. Teacher/student relationships offer ideal environments for grooming and attachment, and young people with unstable or non-existent home lives are most at risk.

-Jane "

it bothers me you were never corrected. Look it up when pedophile is used in reference to victims generally (13-17) is incorrect. Search hebephilia" or "ephebophilia". Educate yourself next time.

"(unfortunately this could also mean two 17 year olds, for example)"
come on again generally speaking the victim is 5 years younger. General guideline of course and not a law
17-12, 16-11 so on and so on. Two 17 years old doing what they do are NOT pedophiles.

----------------------------------------

Don't correct people if you're wrong.

reply

[–] wqxyzcj 9 years ago

You are wrong.

Pedophiles are ADULTS (or close to) attracted to the children up to the ages of ten or eleven. Hebephiles are ADULTS (or close to) attracted to the children in early to mid teens, ephebophiles are ADULTS attracted to the children in late teens.

Also, that only applies to attraction... a state of mind, not actions. Once somebody molests (MOLESTS) an underage person, he/she is a child molester, regardless of the age... but not a pedophile if the person is like fifteen.

Do you actually think that two seventeen year old kids having consensual sex are pedophiles?

reply

[–] O-Face 9 years ago

You know people have sex with underaged teen by accident.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ashdre 15 years ago

I didn't take the Jeff Goldblum scene as homoerotic at all. That scene to me seemed more like a guardian-child bond, because although Goldblum's character wasn't his guardian, he provided him with the one thing Powder desired from his guardian's: touch.

reply

[–] MrMoneyMotivated-1 17 years ago

you're gay

reply

[–] JackDnCoke 17 years ago

I feel sorry for all of you. Ya'll think sexuality and choice played ANY part in ANY of it. He never looked at any male or female indifferently. He was unique and NOONE changed that. He didn't "like/love" ANY males or females. He admired what they had. A real life. He just wanted to be NORMAL. He didn't fall in love with what people had, he envied what they had. Noramlity. He just wanted to be normal and be accepted. He just wanted to be normal, just like EVERYONE ELSE.

reply

[–] CrystalRocks 17 years ago

You say that condescendingly, as if no one else on this board has already said that same exact thing.

reply

[–] mpaige90 17 years ago

lol.good one.

anyways, my view on it:

He was into the girl, im sure he wasnt thinking about screwing her but he liked that she tried to understand him and how she didnt judge him, he was romantically interested in her, that was obvious.

I believe the reason he was staring at that guy was because,well he never really saw what other people looked like without their clothes, he was intrigued, thats all.

http://www.Myspace.com/m_a_r_l_3_3

reply

[–] sirkyru 17 years ago

i agree the guy was physically fit i mean the human body no matter what is a work of art i check both genders out but it doesnt make me bi we're all made to apreciate each other

reply

[–] theforsaken15 16 years ago

No. It was quite evident when they 'zoomed up in the guys arm pits', he was noticing that 'he' had hair, and he didn't. That kinda stuff.

As for Jeff Goldblum 'touching' powder, that wasn't some kind of gay pedo thing, and it might help to actually 'listen' to the dialogue, and you'd 'understand'.

Just remember, Powder was 'lonely', even his grandparents who 'loved him' were afraid to 'touch him' (not in a gay/pedo way, though the way the actors said it, It does give that vibe!)

reply