[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4053 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Is that Dumbledore?

I'm not surprised they're not making him explicitly gay. I mean, by this time, he's presumably not friends with and secretly crushing on Grindelwald. I don't think they should give him a new love interest unless it adds something. I wouldn't want an unnecessary female love interest, so I don't want an unnecessary male one either.

[(Anonymous)]

You don't have to give him a love interest to depict his homosexuality

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Yeah, this.

[(Anonymous)]

Out of interest: how would you do it? I'm guessing male pinup pictures on his wall are out of the question.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious, too. Other than him saying "I'm gay," pretty much everything I can think of involves him showing interest for a guy, which could easily make the other guy seem like a potential love interest...

[(Anonymous)]

You could have him mention a past boyfriend, or have him flirt with someone then leave, or have someone try to set him up with a woman only for him to say "no thanks, not into the ladies". It can be very casual and quick, but still more than subtext.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, in this case there IS a prior love interest between two of the three main characters. That could be addressed as such.

[(Anonymous)]

It's hard to say because a lot of it depends on tone and genre. But I don't think it's ludicrous to have a reference to it or mention of it in conversation, or to talk about the prior relationship with Grindelwald in a way that addresses it, or something like that. Just for instance.

[(Anonymous)]

What you’re describing is implicit, and you don’t know there WON’T be some of that, if not in the next movie, then in the following 3.

All this jumping to the worst possible conclusion is what’s ludicrous.

[(Anonymous)]

Several options I just came up with at the top of my head:

1) Dumbledore interacts with a side character, like a barman or colleague, who makes a casual reference to his love life. He sidesteps the question in a way that reveals his preference to the audience but not to his companion.

2) Dumbledore has one of his mentor-ly discussions with Newt, who is established in film canon to have been in love with a woman named Leta Lestrange, who caused him to be expelled from Hogwarts and is now engaged to his brother. Dumbledore commiserates with Newt over the pain of loving those who betray us in a way that, again, isn't obvious to Newt but reveals to the audience that he is referring to Grindelwald.

And finally, the scene I'd have EXPECTED them to write the moment it was decided these two would be in a movie together:

2) Dumbledore confronts Grindelwald in a tense one-on-one. Grindy makes references to their former relationship and taunts Dumbledore about his past feelings. You can make this as obvious or as subtle as you like.

[(Anonymous)]

Don't you know that if they don't include a hardcore gay sex scene he isn't considered gay on screen. Especially in a movie aimed at children.

Before someone makes an ass of themselves and says anything I am for NO sex of any kind in movies meant for children. Same goes for violence. Implied sexuality and relationships are great but a heavy romance (hetero or gay) is icky in a kids movie.

[(Anonymous)]

Literally no one is asking for a gay sex scene in a kids' movie. Christ. Thanks for continuing to equate homosexuality with NOTHING BUT SEX.

Hundreds upon thousands of kids' movies feature lighthearted hetero romance. Why the fuck would this be so hard with a gay couple?

[(Anonymous)]

What gay couple are you talking about? As far as we know, Dumbledore only had one romantic relationship, and there was nothing light-hearted about it. We’re not even sure it was requited. And it apparently messed him up so badly that he gave up on love. The Grindeldore ship is arguably the most tragic ship of the canon, and we’re about to see that played out slow-build style over 4 movies.

I mean... what exactly do you want from this story?

[(Anonymous)]

Sarcasm really isn't your strong suit is it?

[(Anonymous)]

So... what? Should he talk in a stereotypical effeminate way? Wear tight pants? Go shopping a lot?

If romance doesn't come up, gay people aren't any different from straight people. Sure, you could have a quick scene of him checking out a guy or something, but unless it became A Conversation(TM), it sounds like that's not explicit, which is what the director was talking about.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[jadeile]

This. I have been silently screaming at the screen through all the previous comments like "Okay, but WHAT DO YOU WANT THEN?? Gay people are regular-ass people who just happen to not find the opposite gender attractive, how do you want Dumbledore to be 'explicitly gay, but not saying it or having a romance plot'??"

Like geez, I myself am a Bi-ro Ace and I can't think of any way that I'm broadcasting it during my day-to-day life. I don't walk or talk differently, I don't wear anything that's somehow radically different from heteros (what even), I don't have hobbies that label me somehow, I don't eat magical ace food... So if someone made a movie about me, I can't think of anything that would make it somehow obvious unless it was mentioned in a conversation or there was a romance plot where I, I dunno, couldn't decide between a guy and a lady and then explicitly refused to have sex after I managed to pick one. The only thing that wouldn't feel forced would be if my home had a bunch of subtly placed Ace pride items around, but that's only because it's something I actually have, and I'm the correct generation for it. While in Dumbledore's case... yeah, even if he was the type to share his personal matters with people (lol, as if, dude is the most secretive guy on the planet) he would still most certainly not be talking about his sexuality at that time and age. Cos that would be plain careless and potentially get him murdered.

Point being, if people want to make Dumbledore into a Gay Representation Idol without sacrificing his characterization or ignoring the century the movie is happening, then they need to stop whining for something to magically happen and start PITCHING IDEAS.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Um, you do know that there's fiction by LGBT people discussing the problems of passing published in the 20s and 30s when this movie was set? And not all of it involves an explicit romantic relationship or even a relationship at all? Maybe if fandom and filmmakers would actually read the century of work by gay men about life as gay men we wouldn't be having this problem of how to write Dumbledore.

Personally I find passing exhausting because it means putting up with daily casual homophobia from people around me, and self-censoring because straight masculinity is so fucking fragile when it comes to just about everything. There's an asston of little tells that I'm too old, too tired, and too pissed off about to avoid these days (and passing can take years off your life, so it's like giving up smoking.) Generally I'm happier for that, except when I come here and see fandom secrets going off on how it's not really representation if there's no fucking (or not getting fucked in your case.)

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention the fact that, in the time period we're talking about, being openly gay was actively dangerous. He'd risk imprisonment or worse if he was fopping about with another guy out in public. But making him secretly gay comes with its own set of problematic aspects. They can't win no matter what they do.

[(Anonymous)]

He's a fuckin wizard

[(Anonymous)]

Magic is actually real and there's hundreds of cute little magical creatures running about, but having someone be gay is unrealistic!

[(Anonymous)]

I don’t think he’d be concerned about the danger, but this is Albus “secrets and lies” Dumbledore. I’d be baffled if he casually dropped mentions of his romantic life into conversations.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

exactly this. Rita Skeeter couldn't even get this information out of anyone who ever knew him using memory charms and Veritaserum, why would he just. tell someone casually in the 1940s.

[(Anonymous)]

Because film has never before seen a character who's portrayed as explicitly gay but in the closet...

[(Anonymous)]

But making him secretly gay comes with its own set of problematic aspects

You just assumed that people would take issue with this. How do you know? And even if it is considered problematic, it is way less of a cop-out than sidestepping the issue altogether.

Dumbledore doesn't have to be openly gay in 1920's Europe, fine. I'd even say that would be out of character for him. But he is appearing in a movie where the main villain is a former love interest, and he's going to be associating with close allies (Newt & co) so there is no reason why his sexuality can't be explored in a private context.