MovieChat Forums > In & Out (1997) Discussion > Am I the only one who felt totally betra...

Am I the only one who felt totally betrayed by the last part?

posted 16 years ago by malachiX2000
44 replies | jump to latest

I liked this movie for the first hour or so.

The idea seemed to be to poke fun at homophobia, gay stereo-types, and typical small-town views of what a man should be. The point seemed to be that gay individuals are more than their stereotypes and one can be a perfectly heterosexual guy even if you do speak well, teach English, and are a bit neat (the Barbra Streisand thing is pushing it though...)

What I hated is that the last act totally invalidated the rest of the film. The second Kline's character decides he's gay, essentially says to the audience, "all the silly stereotypes, stuff like Bob Newhard asking him to 'walk for [him]' were right." It felt like such a betrayal of what the earlier parts had been going for.

Worse than that, the film just stopped being funny at that point. Part of what makes a good comedy is having a main character you can identify with who's put into crazy and frustrating circumstances. When we believe Kline is just a bit of a prissy guy who's now gotten outed by a former student, even though he's not gay, right before his wedding; it's really funny. You feel for him because he's not acting any different but now everyone else is treating him differently. When we find out he is gay, it's not really possible to identify with him. You start asking, "how the hell could he not have known at that age?" or "why should I feel bad for him when they were all right?"

I think this film really would have been a classic had it not been for the lousy final act. Shame.

[–] joedogboy68 11 years ago

I really enjoy the movie, but also feel that it starts to fall short right at that moment.

I think it would have been far better for him to call off the wedding prior to the ceremony, due to confusion, and try to figure out whether or not he is gay. This would not be as villainous as stranding his bride at the altar. It would also be very realistic about how people grapple with defining their sexuality, especially int he face of outside pressure.

He could have still been fired, and still faced persecution, but the film could have let us each make up our own mind about what his final decision would be.

The "spartacus" scene at the graduation could have been much clearer as well, with the audience members sticking much more to "If being a nice persona nd smart makes him gay, then I must be gay too", instead of simply "If he's gay, them I'm gay, too".

These changes would have given the film both a stronger pro- acceptance message, and also made the character more realistic and engaging.

[–] SforSmile 11 years ago

He has always been gay hence he never had sex with his fiancee, you just didn't get the movie at all

"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman

[–] chris109 10 years ago

Just because he never slept with his fiancee that means he was gay? What kind of logic is that? He obviously came from a Christian upbringing and some people still believe in no sex before marriage. But, I guess, nowadays, if you don't sleep with each other then you must be gay.

And how is it that Tom Selleck's character somehow knew he was gay. Was his gaydar on?

[–] SforSmile 10 years ago

He obviously never had the sexual desire to sleep with her,
Christians who want to wait with sex till marriage either fail miserably or marry as early as possible, he on the other hand wanted to postpone the wedding for like forever.

And how is it that Tom Selleck's character somehow knew he was gay. Was his gaydar on?

How does a girl know you want to **** her? it's in your eyes, bro

"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman

[–] blindvias-071407 10 years ago

I agree the first part was great, and then it went off the tracks and just bumped along. The cast was great. I really enjoyed Debbie Reynolds and Bob Newhart. There were many clever moments. But the story just didn't make enough sense after a point. Why was Brackett at the graduation when he'd been fired? Would an entire auditorium in bumfuq Indiana stand up and support a gay man like that? Would a Hollywood heartthrob have the hots for a former high school teacher? The story got fairly thin as it came in for a landing.

[–] Ariane1998 10 years ago

I must admit that I get tired of all the movies where someone decides not to marry someone during their wedding ceremony.

However, Howard has been in complete denial about being gay for his whole life. He must have known that he was attracted to men. Why didn't he sleep with his fiancee for three whole years? He lives in a very small town in Indiana and he probably feels that he wouldn't be accepted being gay -- and he does get fired, after all.

Oops! You caught me!

[–] jondoe888 10 years ago

He didn't decide he was gay. No one realistically does that. He REALIZED he was gay. I doubt if it had ever crossed his mind before. But once he was confronted with that kiss - he questioned his true feelings.
Did he decide too quickly? Maybe. It's a 2 hr comedy, and he had a wedding deadline.
I wasn't disappointed with anything in the movie. And last I checked - I'm straight.

[–] Carmengirl 9 years ago

I get your point and I do think they over play the stereotypes with Kline's character a bit and it is a film done with pretty broad strokes. But then again it was made in the mid 90s. But then again Kline's character fits the stereotype for sure, but then his friends are also shown to love Barbra Streisand and none of them are supposed to be gay. One of his friends is even a hair stylist and also likes Barbra Streisand and I'm pretty sure he's not gay and I'm not sure what gay stereotypes Tom Selleck's character is supposed to exhibit, but he is also gay. So I do think film does at least attempt to suggest that not everyone fits the stereotypes. It's possible to be straight and like Streisand.

[–] AtheistRevolution 9 years ago

He was just in denial like Catholics and Republicans.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] nasha_writer 8 years ago

You know what this reminds me of?

Any Frasier fans in the audience? Remember the second season episode "The Matchmaker" where Fraiser is trying to hook his new station manager up with Daphne....but (and because of Roz) the manager (Tom) thinks he's gay and proceeds to hit on him?

That episode did better what the movie tried to do. Fraiser is a cultured, well spoken, well read, somewhat fussy, clean man....and that episode isn't the first time someone thought he was gay. But...he was and declares he's straight, therefore washing away all the silly stereotypes.

The stereotypes by the way were awesomely absent from that episode because they played Tom as just a normal guy who yeah, was gay...but you couldn't tell from the outside. That was left for station talent Gil Chesterton lol.

But yeah, had they played it more like that, I think the movie would of gone better in the last act.

[–] venusthrow 8 years ago

To answer your question, no i did not feel betrayed but then again I don't think I took it more for than a comedy that was aimed at middle america and not necessarily known for its accuracy.

I first watched this when it came out and have rewatched it over the years. It is a movie with some very funny moments with some very decent acting. I don't remember the mainstream movies in the late 90's being known for their accuracy especially with how the LGBT community was reflected in the entertainment industry. Don't get me wrong there were some great LGBT movies in the 90's that seemed to be more authentic, but I don't think they were as popular as this movie.

That being said I never personally had an issue with identifying with the main character. Maybe not identifying but understanding. Self Denial is a very strong emotion and you can see why he would hide it if immediately after outing himself he is fired from his job. Also the silly antics from the 1st half of the movie didn't undermine me feeling bad for him because ultimately so what. They are stereotypes and there are reasons there are stereotypes, but it doesn't mean that he should suddenly be fired or ostracized for it. I really liked that even with the stereotypes, even with the the outing at the wedding, etc, the community still really loved the main character. You could tell they were still not quite comfortable with the idea of men being attracted to men, but they got over it somewhat because of who the main character was.