I have a theory which states that any goal-directed phenomena can be spuriously assigned a sexual connotation, and what that is depends on your particular interest, so that for a straight man this movie is about a violent truth having to do with what the plot depicts, but a gay man might fantasize about homosexual symbolism he easily projects onto the events, because he does that about symbols generally, given the right thresholds and contexts.
And while the film is not aspiring to be blatantly gay, its gay writer must compensate for asymmetricality of libidinal expression in culture by devising sublime references to gayality which, were cultural polarities reversed, would and should normally have been presented as directly as the heterosexually polarized commonplaces of the plot were, and are in most films, art, and commonplace venues of culture and social experience.
So there is this displacement of what otherwise would have been merely backdrop plot data concerning sexuality of characters, their sexual relationships both actual and potential, and other aspects of libidinal atmosphere/economy. But while it is not a romance, it also cannot directly expose queerality as a normative backdrop either. And because this is due to the pervasive asymmetry between standard vs. queer sexuality in culture and society, there is a resulting intensification in the need to sublimate such displaced aesthetics, and hence a symbolic overdetermination of the film's homo-erotic semiological fecundity.
But it seems that while a straight man can intellectually comprehend these things, he is not properly motivated to initiate any direct and detailed consideration of them, and so I must likewise defer to someone with gayer qualifications on the specifics which this meta-critical outline only abstractly suggests.
reply
share