|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Feb 13, 2023 21:23:24 GMT
I "zeroed in" on the observation because it is one I see often and I think it is too easily tossed around anymore.
I noticed you attached four qualifiers to it, too. "Some of the buddy bonding ...slightly ... vibes" and "at first" so I wonder how real even you think it is. I get the feeling you were reading into the relationship your own prejuduces, just as you're reading an attack into my having noticed it.
And it wasn't the only thing in the review I disagree with, I just felt it was the most significant and I didn't want to come off as, ironically, combative.
In another thread I said that Bette Davis seemed like she was in love with one of her costars. And FadingFast said next time he would look at the film again to see if he agreed with my reading of it. He was very respectful even if he didn't share my initial interpretation.
Nowhere in your comment did you suggest you were willing to re-watch THE DELICATE DELINQUENT to see if there could be a queer subtext, which indicates your possible ignorance and your unwillingness to look at films in a way that doesn't support your heteronormal viewpoint, which would seem very narrow to me.
I want the reviews we post to encourage people to seek out the films and (re)watch them for different reasons. No form of homophobia is acceptable. And I am strongly opposed to prejudicial conservative viewpoints that seek to eradicate other viable viewpoints.
If you suspect me of trying to silence your point of view, am I unreasonable to think you are trying to silence mine?
It isn't up to me to rewatch the movie. You brought up the homoerotic possibility and as the reviewer it is your responsibility to support your point.
See my review of Vinyl and tell me if you think I demand only "heteronormal" readings.
You are overreacting. To disagree with you is not to eradicate you. |
|
|
|
Post by Newbie on Feb 13, 2023 21:58:02 GMT
Trust me, I don't easily toss these observations around. You did zero in on that comment, which seemed to me as if you're homophobic and want movies and readings of scenes in movies to remain heteronormal. If true, then you may be trying to push people into the closet and silence liberal points of view, which is not what this message board is about.
In another thread I said that Bette Davis seemed like she was in love with one of her costars. And FadingFast said next time he would look at the film again to see if he agreed with my reading of it. He was very respectful even if he didn't share my initial interpretation.
Nowhere in your comment did you suggest you were willing to re-watch THE DELICATE DELINQUENT to see if there could be a queer subtext, which indicates your possible ignorance and your unwillingness to look at films in a way that doesn't support your heteronormal viewpoint, which would seem very narrow to me.
I want the reviews we post to encourage people to seek out the films and (re)watch them for different reasons. No form of homophobia is acceptable. And I am strongly opposed to prejudicial conservative viewpoints that seek to eradicate other viable viewpoints. This seems harsh, TopBilled. Tossing around labels such as "homophobic" and accusations about "trying to push people into the closet" is unfair, IMO. I didn't read what LuckyDan wrote as hateful. He just disagreed with you. What I liked about reading the old TCM forum was the different takes everyone had on certain movies and actors. Certainly people should be allowed to have different opinions here and express them intelligently. Otherwise you may find that you have no one left to argue with. 😢 We appreciate that you created this forum and I think it has been a pleasant place to visit and post. Maybe give LuckyDan the benefit of the doubt. 😊😊🙏🙏 |
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Feb 13, 2023 22:05:53 GMT
Trust me, I don't easily toss these observations around. You did zero in on that comment, which seemed to me as if you're homophobic and want movies and readings of scenes in movies to remain heteronormal. Maybe give LuckyDan the benefit of the doubt. 😊😊🙏🙏 |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Feb 14, 2023 0:29:10 GMT
Cautiously, I'm jumping in here and will probably flub this. My mother (and old newsreels confirm) men would walk down the street with arms around their shoulders as comrades. I attributed this to WWII patriotic comradery. But my grandfather told a story about him and his pals and said they would walk down the sidewalk arms around shoulders. I enquired more and found out women would walk arm in arm. My point #1 is in our current era people do tend to see any touching as sexual, though this was not always true. Point #2 is caution how we interpret words. Here's a potentially hazardous example: niggardly-nope doesn't derive from Negro, hasn't a proper use in relation to race and if you use the word correctly, you will be attacked. I know my comments are not direct to the point, I don't want to appear to take sides or seem to correct anyone, only offering food for thought. P.S. though I used the word comrade, I'm not a communist  |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Feb 14, 2023 2:23:54 GMT
Sadly the topic of any subtext goes off the rail, yet again. Note there are TWO very different things to keep in mind:
1) did the creators of the work intent for such subtext?
2) does a viewer see subtext in what they are viewing?
Note that when it comes to #1: Unless there is some documented evidence from the actual creators, it is silly and misguided to speculate. I.e. to assume what these creators where thinking or not thinking at the time.
Note that when it comes to #2: what each of us sees or not sees with regards to subtext is 100% subjective to the individual.
As for The Delicate Delinquent: Please re-read the above posts; people are mixing #1 and #2. E.g. someone states #1 and someone counters with #2.
As for my own POV: well #1 I have none and again, I believe it is silly and misguided to have a POV with regards to the creators intentions.
As for #2: When I viewed the film recently I got a vibe, but again, that does NOT mean that was the intentions of the creators.
|
|
|
|
Post by Newbie on Feb 14, 2023 3:40:26 GMT
Sadly the topic of any subtext goes off the rail, yet again. Note there are TWO very different things to keep in mind: 1) did the creators of the work intent for such subtext? 2) does a viewer see subtext in what they are viewing? Note that when it comes to #1: Unless there is some documented evidence from the actual creators, it is silly and misguided to speculate. I.e. to assume what these creators where thinking or not thinking at the time. Note that when it comes to #2: what each of us sees or not sees with regards to subtext is 100% subjective to the individual. As for The Delicate Delinquent: Please re-read the above posts; people are mixing #1 and #2. E.g. someone states #1 and someone counters with #2. As for my own POV: well #1 I have none and again, I believe it is silly and misguided to have a POV with regards to the creators intentions. As for #2: When I viewed the film recently I got a vibe, but again, that does NOT mean that was the intentions of the creators. I'm not sure that I agree with you about #2. I think subtext is written in the script. Imposing modern views on sixty or seventy year old movies is something else. www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-subtext-learn-the-definition-and-role-of-subtext-in-writing-plus-5-tips-to-better-incorporate-subtext-in-your-work |
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Feb 14, 2023 14:07:29 GMT
Sadly the topic of any subtext goes off the rail, yet again.
If you go back and read my first post, I began with an allusion to Jerry Falwell's once having said that one of the Teletubbies was gay. Falwell was ridiculed, but if the same observation were offered today, by someone not known to be a straight, white, conservative man, it would pass unnoticed, or be met with some whisker-stroking and a thoughtful, "Perhaps."
I did not intend to be rude (and I don't believe I was) and I did not expect my comment to be welcome, but neither did I expect to be personally psycho-politically analyzed and found defective.
I have since read other online reviews of this movie to see how prevalent Topbilled's observation of "slightly homoerotic vibes" is. I found Topbilled's review on IMBd, written last year and reposted here verbatim, and one other, written years ago. (I want to say 2010, about the time the same sex marriage debates were going on and about when observations like these started becoming common.) I also found another site that I forget the name of where two or three others mentioned it, and one not in a favorable light, who called McGavin's character a groomer.
Then I found a scene on You Tube from the film where Jerry imitates either a gossipy female chatting on the phone, or a gay man. A gay man might notice it and call it gay subtext. Someone who thinks effeminate males are funny might take it as Jerry imitating them for a laugh. Most today might scoff and call it a sign of those stone age homophobic times. Watch to the 1 minute mark and decide for yourself.
Whatever you say, Harriet
McGavin plays his character to be fatherly with Lewis's, sometimes to the point of talking to him like a child. Jerry often acts childlike, so maybe that accounts for Darren's reactions to him, and maybe that has something to do with the vibe some are getting, but we have to guess, don't we? Because none of the "homoerotic vibe" reviews point to a particular bit of dialogue, or gesture, or expression, to support their premise. That would be helpful, I think, when we write about extra-textual vibes we get from old movies, and it might have avoided yesterday's unpleasantness.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 14, 2023 15:09:54 GMT
There is too much to unpack in recent posts on the thread. I am busy writing other content, so I will not go through each post and unpack it all, because that would be time-consuming not to mention exhausting.
I will say that I still feel LuckyDan's views are incredibly homophobic. It is a fact that he zeroed in on the homoerotic reading of the film. All he had to do was say 'I don't see that when I watch the film, but I will look at it again and reconsider whether it might be there.'
He also seems ignorant in saying that a gay person would read a gay subtext, when I think a straight person is just as capable of reading a gay subtext, and a gay person is just as capable of reading a straight subtext. And he's not even considering bisexual representations and other aspects of LBTQ+ culture that might seep into classic film, probably because as a conservative he wants to silence those other viewpoints that don't conform with a heteronormal reading. A lot of homophobic loathing is coming across in his comments.
He says there was unpleasantness but he's the one who was creating the unpleasantness. He's the one that was going through someone else's posts and highlighting parts he wanted to quarrel with, and he's the one who had the audacity to tell others how to watch and how to review films. Sorry Dan, it doesn't work that way and your attempts to quash a reading of queer subtext has failed massively.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 14, 2023 15:20:10 GMT
Sadly the topic of any subtext goes off the rail, yet again. Note there are TWO very different things to keep in mind: 1) did the creators of the work intent for such subtext? 2) does a viewer see subtext in what they are viewing? Note that when it comes to #1: Unless there is some documented evidence from the actual creators, it is silly and misguided to speculate. I.e. to assume what these creators where thinking or not thinking at the time. Note that when it comes to #2: what each of us sees or not sees with regards to subtext is 100% subjective to the individual. As for The Delicate Delinquent: Please re-read the above posts; people are mixing #1 and #2. E.g. someone states #1 and someone counters with #2. As for my own POV: well #1 I have none and again, I believe it is silly and misguided to have a POV with regards to the creators intentions. As for #2: When I viewed the film recently I got a vibe, but again, that does NOT mean that was the intentions of the creators. I'm not sure that I agree with you about #2. I think subtext is written in the script. Imposing modern views on sixty or seventy year old movies is something else. www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-subtext-learn-the-definition-and-role-of-subtext-in-writing-plus-5-tips-to-better-incorporate-subtext-in-your-work
Some writers, and I mean specifically black writers, queer writers, feminist writers and communist-sympathizing writers, were still working in a white heteronormal patriarchal and capitalistic industry so they could not directly place all intended subtext into their scripts without risk of being blacklisted or facing unemployment...they had to suggest these things with the basic scenarios, trust the director to carry the implications further and hope that the casting lent itself to what they were implying. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Feb 14, 2023 16:38:01 GMT
All he had to do was say 'I don't see that when I watch the film, but I will look at it again and reconsider whether it might be there.'
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Feb 14, 2023 17:02:34 GMT
Sadly the topic of any subtext goes off the rail, yet again. Note there are TWO very different things to keep in mind: 1) did the creators of the work intent for such subtext? 2) does a viewer see subtext in what they are viewing? Note that when it comes to #1: Unless there is some documented evidence from the actual creators, it is silly and misguided to speculate. I.e. to assume what these creators where thinking or not thinking at the time. Note that when it comes to #2: what each of us sees or not sees with regards to subtext is 100% subjective to the individual. As for The Delicate Delinquent: Please re-read the above posts; people are mixing #1 and #2. E.g. someone states #1 and someone counters with #2. As for my own POV: well #1 I have none and again, I believe it is silly and misguided to have a POV with regards to the creators intentions. As for #2: When I viewed the film recently I got a vibe, but again, that does NOT mean that was the intentions of the creators. I'm not sure that I agree with you about #2. I think subtext is written in the script. Imposing modern views on sixty or seventy year old movies is something else. www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-subtext-learn-the-definition-and-role-of-subtext-in-writing-plus-5-tips-to-better-incorporate-subtext-in-your-work I believe you misunderstood my point about #2: of course subtext can be written in the script (which would be #1; the creator intentionally placed subtext in the script), but that doesn't change my point about #2: a viewer may or may not pick-up on said-subtext. I said "what each of us sees or not sees". I did not say "what is there or not there". Thus imposing modern views and one's life experience is what #2 is all about. Which is why I would never call out someone with "are you blind, that subtext is THERE,,, if you can't see it something is wrong with YOU". (which is why I said "sadly" since that is what often happens when people debate subtext relate to a culturally sensitive topic). |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Feb 14, 2023 17:25:39 GMT
Sadly the topic of any subtext goes off the rail, yet again.
I'm well aware of that which is why I tried to avoid the topic of gay subtext and instead focus on subtext generally. Over 12 years ago at the TCM forum, I got into a very similar discussion, pushing a narrative very similar to the one you are now, and it caused TB and I to avoid each other for about a year. I was trying to avoid you experiencing what I did (E.g. a personal attack), but clearly that failed. My overall point is that when debating if there is subtext or not, one should not fault others for not "framing" the context \ subtext in the same way. One should not imply something is wrong with someone who doesn't "fame" the context \ subtext in the same way. It appears both TB and you agree on one thing here: subtext is not subjective on behalf of the viewer: I.e. It is there or not. Of course maybe I'm being silly and misguided by trying to be too much like Switzerland. |
|
|
|
Post by Lucky Dan on Feb 14, 2023 18:13:36 GMT
Lucky I didn't say anything about the dirty knife
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 14, 2023 20:09:11 GMT
The problem yesterday, James, wasn't whether subtext generally exists. The problem was gay subtext.
I'm well aware of that which is why I tried to avoid the topic of gay subtext and instead focus on subtext generally. Over 12 years ago at the TCM forum, I got into a very similar discussion, pushing a narrative very similar to the one you are now, and it caused TB and I to avoid each other for about a year. I was trying to avoid you experiencing what I did (E.g. a personal attack), but clearly that failed. My overall point is that when debating if there is subtext or not, one should not fault others for not "framing" the context \ subtext in the same way. One should not imply something is wrong with someone who doesn't "fame" the context \ subtext in the same way. It appears both TB and you agree on one thing here: subtext is not subjective on behalf of the viewer: I.e. It is there or not. Of course maybe I'm being silly and misguided by trying to be too much like Switzerland.
For the record, I do not think subtext is subjective or even objective. Instead, I think it is either conscious or unconscious...and in both cases may even be subliminal. Also, sometimes the author (director or actor) is not aware of his/her own full subtext, which is why film studies rage on for years long after some Hollywood artists are dead! |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 19, 2023 9:10:27 GMT
This neglected film is from 1934.
Be on time
ONE HOUR LATE was produced by Paramount in late 1934. It features the well-known Helen Twelvetrees and Conrad Nagel, with the lesser known Joe Morrison in what would be his first starring role.
Joe Morrison had already done a smaller part in a W.C. Fields picture, but this was his chance to shine. A wonderful singer, the studio probably thought he’d become another Bing Crosby. He does have a good screen presence, and Paramount put him in four more pictures over the next year. But for some reason, he did not become very popular. After his contract ended, he never worked at any other studios and faded from view.
In fact there is very little biographical information about Morrison online, though his profile on the IMDb says he had studied to be a priest. Maybe he went back to a religious life after his short-lived career in Hollywood.
The initial scenes of ONE HOUR LATE introduce us to Twelvetrees’ character. She is a single secretary that lives in a chaotic household with her sister, brother-in-law and their rambunctious kids. We see Twelvetrees running late for work. On her way out the door, she announces that she’s received another marriage proposal from her coworker and steady beau, played by Morrison.
The crux of the story involves a triangle that develops between them and Twelvetrees’ boss (Nagel). The script plays up the huge contrast that exists between this refined executive and his worker bees. Twelvetrees endears herself to the boss, which Morrison dislikes.
Morrison also happens to sing on the side, but he is his own worst enemy when he loses his temper and barges into the boss’s office to get a few things straight. Despite antagonizing Nagel, Morrison does not get fired right away. Nagel leaves that task to a persnickety office manager (Charles Sellon). There are other various employees, and each one has their own distinct personality.
In addition to the main triangle, there are two additional triangles that occur. When Twelvetrees rejects Morrison, he proposes to another secretary (Arline Judge) who says yes. Meanwhile, the boss’ wife (Gail Patrick) is having her own affair with a guy on the side (Ray Milland, at the beginning of his long association with Paramount).
Though these developments seem quite serious, there is a lot of humorous dialogue. And there are four scenes where Morrison gets to sing, so some of this is rather light entertainment.
The most dramatic part involves a group of people stuck inside an elevator. The situation allows Morrison to be the hero, when he performs a daring stunt to rescue them. Twelvetrees realizes how much she loves the lug and decides to marry him after all. But first she breaks the news gently to her boss in a very nicely played amusing scene.
|
|
