Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul.R.S
Not so much. And "fad" is an inappropriate descriptor. By definition, a "fad" comes and goes. You/some may not like it/them, but all of the critical approaches you mention are here to stay for any/all interested in critical/cultural studies to have in their "toolbox."
|
Precisely.
I think the reason you see so much of it is because while gay writers, directors, and actors have been part of the Hollywood landscape since the beginning, it's only a fairly recent occurrence where such themes don't have to be hidden in subtext. They've always been there, but since they had to be "hidden" it can be tough to determine what was and was not intentional, vs. what can be interpreted on the screen.
I mean, look at an obvious example of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. In the play, it's pretty much spelled out that Brick was gay. But I have no doubt that most of middle-America who went to see Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman in the film just thought Brick was distraught about his "buddy" dying. When you have a film where the undisputed intention was to portray a closeted gay man, it's not hard to see why when it actually was subtext folks have to dig a bit deep to find it.
Then there is also "who's intention was it?" as so many folks have their hands in the making of a motion picture. Sal Mineo was clearly making go-go-eyes at James Dean - but was that the actor, or something in the text? Personally, in that case, I think it's both - but it's going to be left to interpretation.
Another example from a film on the total other end of the spectrum is Nightmare on Elm Street 2. For years, many fans railed against any suggestion of such. Now, though, there is a really nice and frank discussion of this in the Never Sleep Again documentary and the folks who made the picture have discussed it elsewhere as well. Basically, the actor was gay, played it gay, the writer wrote it as gay, even the prop guys seemed in on it, everyone but the director who to this day says he had no clue. So if we go by the director, it wasn't his intention, but everyone else on the film seemed to know and intend for it.
It's a complex topic with many layers, but in the end - it's up to the viewer. If people don't see it that way, it's totally their own interpretation and they don't have to see it. If others do, or identify themes, it doesn't mean someone else has to change their interpretation. You should hear folks who scream bloody murder when someone points out what can be interpreted as gay-themes in He-man, of all things - personally, I think like many cartoon characters he was a-sexual, but a strong argument can be made for an overly muscled man who wears nothing but a fur loin cloth and a chest accessory (which provides no armor protection) with a lack of female desire (at most he blushes and tries to escape when a female hits on him) who's best friends are a cat and two females (Teela and Sorceress). Is that looking too deeply into it? Probably. But...it's there, if one wants to see it that way.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
This film would have come out right around the time the single that got them 'noticed' in the states also came out, but before it was really noticed in the US (that single being 'Oh Yeah', featured rather dramatically in 'Ferris Beuler's Day Off' which came out the year after 'Enemy Mine').
Linear Mode
