[ SECRET POST #3109 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3109 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Sense8]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Gatchaman Crowds]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Blue Beetle]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Metroid]


__________________________________________________



09.
[God, the Devil and Bob]


__________________________________________________



10.
[The Cell (2000)]


__________________________________________________



11.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 015 secrets from Secret Submission Post #444.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

07. http://i.imgur.com/uxRybnc.png?1

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

One of the reasons I don't much care whether or not a creator/artist intended for there to be homoerotic subtext in their work is because I think it can be present even if the creator is unaware of it. SO MANY older films that inspired the current generation of filmmakers have intentional subtext (since there was no way they could be explicit). So even if a creator didn't mean to include it, I think slash-like undertones can be present in modern works simply due to the influence of previous works.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, two of those have intentional subtext and a third is debatable.

[(Anonymous)]

Which ones?

[(Anonymous)]

The gay implications in Rebel and Lawrence are pretty well documented. It seems likely that that's what was intended in Ben Hur too, but some (like Heston) contest it. I never really got any subtext from the Wild Bunch, but I'm willing to be converted.

[(Anonymous)]

It's even weirder than that. William Wyler and Jack Hawkins agreed that Hawkins would play Quintus as Judah's former lover, but they WOULD NOT TELL HESTON that's what they were doing.

This is one of many reasons "authorial intent" simply can't hold any weight, because in most art forms there isn't a singular author. (Yes, including prose. Raymond Carver's prose style was created by Gordon Lish, his editor.)

Postmodernism is like democracy. It's messy, stupid-looking, full of a lot of meaningless rhetoric and total wankbaskets, but it has the single virtue that it WORKS, and it turns out that's the only one that's important.

[liz_marcs]

Bah! Thank you!

For some reason I confused Hawkins and Stephen Boyd, probably because I confused their characters. I corrected by own post below.

[liz_marcs]

Actually, three movies have a definite slashy subtext that was deliberately inserted. All three were featured in the documentary "The Celluloid Closet" (great documentary by the way) about lesbians/gays in movies, the subtext that was sometimes deliberately inserted, as well as blatant depictions of homosexuality onscreen.

(Harvey Feinstein's discussion about why he loved "the sissy" in old Hollywood movies not only was funny as all hell, but also very poignant and made me look at that type of character in a different way.)

The "Celluloid Closet" went into a lot of detail about how director William Wyler and actor Jack Hawkins who played Quintus conspired to create this hidden backstory about how Quintus and Ben-Hur were lovers when they were younger. After Judah Ben-Hur returns to Jerusalem after an absence, Quintus discovers he's still in love with ol' Judah, but Judah is not picking up the signals. Somewhere along the way, love turns to frustration, and then turns to hate.

Anyway, Hawkins, with the active help of Wyler, played every scene with Charlton Heston as if his character and Heston's were lovers, former lovers, or that Quintus was a spurned lover. Even better, neither one of them told Heston what they were doing! They knew that Heston, who was a bit of a homophobe and wouldn't go for it, and they were counting on the fact that Heston's homophobia would totally blind him to what Hawkins was doing.

End result? Certain audience members were able to pick up what they were laying down, so to speak, and were watching a completely different movie than the one that was being marketed.

"Rebel Without a Cause" was a case of unrequited love. The "hidden story" was that Plato, played by Sal Mineo, was confused about his sexuality and had developed a crush on Jim played by James Dean because Jim gave no fucks about society. Pretty straightforward there.

"Lawrence of Arabia" was more like working around the source material and the ghost of T.E. Lawrence himself. There were some things in T.E. Lawrence's books that talked about homosexuality, as well as the fact that Lawrence was raped while he was in captivity. However, the studio went nuts and demanded that none of that was in the film, so the best director David Lean could do was wave vaguely in that direction and hope people picked up on it. It's one of those things that maybe some people did at the time, but it wasn't until later when some missing scenes were restored that people realized what Lean was trying to hint at, but couldn't outright say.

All of the above is kind of from memory, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly accurate.

[(Anonymous)]

Celluloid Closet is a great documentary. And it also made me smile because it made me realize why I, as a wee unaware slash fan in the making, was so completely mesmerized by Quintus and his interactions with Ben Hur in the movie. :)

[(Anonymous)]

very interesting, thanks

[helenadax]

I watched Ben-Hur (again) last Easter and the scene where they're talking about their spears and how good they are at handling them is priceless.

Anyway, I love slashy subtext.

[(Anonymous)]

Enjoy this then; subtext hits hard about 1:30 in: http://www.videodetective.com/movies/the-vikings/393566

[(Anonymous)]

I'd heard about the deliberate subtext in Ben Hur and Lawrence, but Wild Bunch and Rebel are new ones to me. Anyone tell me the story?

[(Anonymous)]

I mostly think that narratives exist independent of their authors after they have been published. Like, yes, it's interesting and can be a point of discussion to know what the author's intentions or background was, but stories exist independently, have a relationship with their viewers/readers, and can freely be interpreted anyway they want. Plus, as far as homoerotic subtext goes, I think it's one of those things that can be hard to completely disprove. Author's intentions in general are, even what they say things mean might not be where they were actually coming from when they wrote it.

Okay, except…

[(Anonymous)]

Creators/writers can also recognize that the subtext exists in things they were influenced by and not include it (they don’t necessarily include every bit of everything that has ever influenced them). Though that doesn’t mean it won’t show up.

A lot of different peoples’ interpretations get thrown into any one production. The writer can have something in there he/she thinks is obvious and none of the production staff realize it until it comes out in an interview. The director can throw in, well, really anything (that long, lingering look might be directed toward another actor or a tennis ball on a stick). And actors can choose to play characters certain ways without telling anyone. Plus, editing can change all kinds of things – including putting subtext where there was none. But whatever makes it into a production doesn't necessarily come through to the entire audience. It's like art, people can take away different things from the same piece and maybe someone else's interpretation will change their perspective, that doesn't mean they were wrong in how they saw it - I mean, it doesn't mean they were right, but it doesn't mean they were wrong. Like I wrote, a lot of different things go into any one production.

[(Anonymous)]

What, no Spartacus?!

[arcadiaego]

Not sure that that's subtext is it??

[arcadiaego]

I think this is a very good point, but I am mainly commenting because you included Lawrence and it's only fitting given Omar Sharif died today. :(