Gay-Friendly Blu-rays (1 Viewer)

[Jason_V]

Thanks for the recommendation, Jay. Pit Stop has been in the queue and you guys are making me feel a lot better about putting it there.

"The Deep End" is coming out on Blu-ray soon. I recommend it very highly.

Tilda Swinton is amazing.

Anyone seen it?

I reviewed the original DVD back in the day (it's been a long time). I remember being underwhelmed, but I can't remember for the life of me why.

So...based on you guys gushing about it, Mysterious Skin finally came in the mail today. First, lemme say I feel like I need to take a shower after watching it. Second, I was really hoping beyond hope that what I *knew* was going to happen wasn't going to happen. There's just an icky feeling to the entire movie, particuarly the first quarter or so. Bill Sage (Coach) played that character to perfection in my mind: kinda sketchy, kinda upstanding, kinda respectable...but when you hear something bad about them, you nod your head as if it doesn't come as any shock.

The whole alien abduction subplot and Mary Lynn Rajskub...eh. I get why it was there, but does it honestly fool anyone into thinking Neil and Brian aren't connected by Coach? The one thing that subplot does is provide relief when Neil's story becomes too hard to watch. For some reason, the fact Brian doesn't end up as a hustler getting beat up and experienced what Neil does makes his story "better" or, maybe more accurately, easier to watch.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, as always, thumbs up. Brady Corbet as Brian has the harder part, I think, since it's not as flashy. The fact they both pull off what they're trying to do is a minor miracle.

 

[Will Krupp]

Second, I was really hoping beyond hope that what I *knew* was going to happen wasn't going to happen.

It's interesting that you mention that Jason, because I had that same reaction as the story was rushing towards its end.

Spoiler

I was convinced that JGL was going to come to a dark end and I was desperately hoping that I was wrong, even though I was pretty sure I wasn't.When he's brutally attacked I was almost physically sick because I had really come to care about this kid and I knew he wasn't going to make it out alive.I was SO thrilled to be wrong that I can't even explain it. The fact that he winds up among people who love him and with an almost hopeful future was, I thought, a wonderfully unexpected twist.

Now, mind you I haven't seen this movie in YEARS and it's probably time for a second look (if, no other reason than to make sure I actually READ the ending correctly) so now is as good a time as any.

JGL is, as usual, superb (and very easy on the eyes) but the whole thing is really beautifully acted from what I recall. I think I might actually pop for this!

 

[mackjay]

It's interesting that you mention that Jason, because I had that same reaction as the story was rushing towards its end.

Spoiler

I was convinced that JGL was going to come to a dark end and I was desperately hoping that I was wrong, even though I was pretty sure I wasn't.When he's brutally attacked I was almost physically sick because I had really come to care about this kid and I knew he wasn't going to make it out alive.I was SO thrilled to be wrong that I can't even explain it. The fact that he winds up among people who love him and with an almost hopeful future was, I thought, a wonderfully unexpected twist.

Now, mind you I haven't seen this movie in YEARS and it's probably time for a second look (if, no other reason than to make sure I actually READ the ending correctly) so now is as good a time as any.

JGL is, as usual, superb (and very easy on the eyes) but the whole thing is really beautifully acted from what I recall. I think I might actually pop for this!

Mysterious Skin was the rare movie I went to see twice in a theater, I thought it was that good. JGL was a revelation. I hadn't paid much attention to him on the sitcom. After this film I was an instant fan (50/50, 500 Days of Summer and Don Jon, highly recommended), He also sings (in French sometimes) and he's sexy as hell too

 

[Jason_V]

It's interesting that you mention that Jason, because I had that same reaction as the story was rushing towards its end.

In some ways, Neil (JGL) demanded a dark end. Based on where he's been, experienced and his life. No father, an MIA mother, people who take advantage of him. That beating scene was almost too much for me because, like you said, it was brutal. It just snowballed out of control. He had chances to leave and I think Neil thought about bolting, but he didn't care about his safety. He blamed himself for a lot of what happened even though it wasn't his fault.

I didn't quite get the hopeful future at the end, but close. He's on his way to healing. He has someone he can theoretically rely on (Brian), he has a friend who he's going to open up to (Preston), the secrets are in the open and Coach is long gone.

(The massage scene got me, too. They never come out and say what's actually going on. I was mentally telling him to run away, though it showed maturity to understand how to be safe and not discount this man out of fear. I don't know if I could be that mature, honestly.)

To remove myself emotionally from what was going on, I focused on JGL and really wanted to feed him some good food. He's terribly skinny in this movie.

 

[Will Krupp]

I focused on JGL and really wanted to feed him some good food.

There's a dirty joke in there just busting to get out but I hope you all admire my RESTRAINT!

What you mentioned about the ending is exactly why I want to see it again

Spoiler

because I think it appears SO VERY hopeful because of what I assumed the alternative would be. I was SURE he was going to die during the attack that to see him land on a somewhat solid footing perhaps unnaturally heightened my feelings of relief and ...happiness (?)

I definitely need to revisit this, thanks to you all for putting it on my radar again!

 

[Jason_V]

Welcome Will! And I was hoping someone would catch the dirty joke... This is what I do best!

 

[Mark-W]

In some ways, Neil (JGL) demanded a dark end. Based on where he's been, experienced and his life. No father, an MIA mother, people who take advantage of him. That beating scene was almost too much for me because, like you said, it was brutal. It just snowballed out of control. He had chances to leave and I think Neil thought about bolting, but he didn't care about his safety. He blamed himself for a lot of what happened even though it wasn't his fault.

I didn't quite get the hopeful future at the end, but close. He's on his way to healing. He has someone he can theoretically rely on (Brian), he has a friend who he's going to open up to (Preston), the secrets are in the open and Coach is long gone.

(The massage scene got me, too. They never come out and say what's actually going on. I was mentally telling him to run away, though it showed maturity to understand how to be safe and not discount this man out of fear. I don't know if I could be that mature, honestly.)

To remove myself emotionally from what was going on, I focused on JGL and really wanted to feed him some good food. He's terribly skinny in this movie.

My reaction to this movie was much like my reaction to Schindler's List: a very good film I never want to see again. I am not able to remove myself emotionally, so these kinds of films can wreck me for days. If I want to see JGL in a LGBT-centric film, I watch him in Latter Days, which he is great in, if only for the few minutes.

 

[Jason_V]

Apparently, I like to torture myself. Tonight's Netflix movie was We Were Here. It dawned on me about 10 minutes in I had seen this doc about AIDS in San Francisco before. But I needed a good cry and watched the whole thing.

There were two parts in particular that just killed me. The first, where one of the men interviewed explains the rapid succession of his friends and lover dying, and second, a 20-second sequence showcasing a newspaper that printed the picture and names of the people who died from AIDS.

My one word review: devastating.

 

[Mark-W]

David,

Based on your recommendation, I put The Big Combo Blu-ray on my wish list on Amazon and watched the price for a several weeks.

I finally pulled the trigger and ordered it. I watched it today and very much enjoyed it.

Knowing someone in the film is LGBT does not spoil anything, but it was fun trying to figure it out as I was watching.

The Blu-ray looked good to me. There were a few shots, the most notable being one early in the film with the detective and his supervisor, where there is a drop in picture quality, clearly coming from a more-generations-away dupe, and there were a few shots with noticeable dust and specs, but overall I though the picture quality was excellent.

The Blu-ray is bare-bones, with just a main menu with start and chapter selection options.

I'm glad I purchased it. Thanks, again!

I think I saw House of Bamboo several years ago, but I will have to check it out again at some point this summer. Right now I am busy getting my fill of cheesy goodness with the Ishiro Honda directed Godzilla films. (All but the first are so cheesy that I need crackers while watching.) Also, there is something not quite straight about the big lizard god.

For what it's worth, two significant and well-done films noir, The Big Combo and House of Bamboo, clearly have gay overtones, that are key to the resolution of the plots. The Sam Fuller western Forty Guns does as well in terms of the Barbara Stanwyck character. Only The Big Combo is available on BD.

 

[Will Krupp]

there is something not quite straight about the big lizard god.

Oh dear, now I'm afraid "you know who" will be back to bitch at us for try to "co-opt" Godzilla!

 

[DisneySwan1990]

With the film's 10th Anniversary on Nov 12, when is Liam Neeson's Kinsey gonna be released on Blu by Fox? Anyone?

 

[Mark-W]

I thought I would take a moment to post a link to RAH's thoughts on the Blu-ray of Double Indemnity.



Much earlier in this thread, I posted these comments about why this film is appropriate for inclusion in this thread:

Billy Wilder stated in an interview that Double Indemnity is a love story between the two men, that Walter Neff and Barton Keyes were purposely "too close," and that the film represents post-war anxiety about male same-sex bonding. For those looking for evidence of that in the film itself, here are the final lines of Double Indemnity:
Walter Neff: "Know why you couldn't figure this one, Keyes? I'll tell ya.
'Cause the guy you were looking for was too close. Right across the desk from ya".
Barton Keyes: "Closer than that, Walter."
Walter Neff: "I love you, too. "

Film buffs who research Double Indemnity will want to know why those characters are the way they are. Why does Walter Neff have pictures of shirtless men on the walls in his apartment? They are boxers, yes, but they are also pictures of shirtless physically fit men. Billy Wilder knew exactly what he was doing.


This goes back to a paper I wrote for one of my film classes. One of our required texts mentioned how the war had not only allowed women to join the workforce in ways outside of previously "acceptable" professions (e.g. nurses and school teachers), but men developed intensely close relationships with other men outside of their primary family units. Some have speculated in these relationships becoming "too close." Also, the modern gay-rights movement is often linked to men who met during the war and then started organizing themselves and moving to known enclaves like NY city's Christopher Street.

One professor, a heterosexual for the record, wrote in the margins of my paper, "Yes, this is a love story between the men."

While perusing Amazon just recently, I came upon the following about to be released photography book that at least tangentially is related to this:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/3836547961/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pd_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3TM03T5QUMEA8&coliid=IV0MOSHGZ40TJ

Book Description:
Off guard: Young World War II allied soldiers laid bare Every harrowing day for a serviceman during World War II was potentially his last. To help bolster troops against the horrors of combat, commanders encouraged them to form tight “buddy” relationships for emotional support. Many war buddies, together every moment, and depending on each other to survive, formed intimate friendships. When they weren’t fighting side by side, they relaxed together, discharging tension in boisterous—sometimes naked—play. The full extent of nude horseplay among men during World War II can’t be known, as cameras were rare and film hard to process, but some men did document this unprecedented male bonding in small, anonymous photos mostly kept hidden away until their deaths. Los Angeles photographer Michael Stokes has spent years searching out these photos and building an archive of over 500 images. His collection includes soldiers and sailors from Australia, England, France, Italy, Poland, Russia, and the USA, cavorting on the sand in the South Pacific, shivering in the snow of Eastern Europe, posing solo in the barracks, and in great happy groups just about everywhere. These images show men barely out of boyhood, at their physical peak, responding to the reality of battle by living each day to the fullest—a side of the war never before made public. The introduction is by Scotty Bowers, an 89-year-old ex-Marine and author of Full Service, the best-selling memoir of his sexual exploits in Hollywood, and how the war forever altered his attitudes about gay and straight, just as these photos may alter our attitudes about World War II and war buddies.

Back to the Double Indemnity's Blu-ray, on one of the two commentary tracks, Lem Dobbs and Nick Redman reference the same sex love between Keyes and Neff and state that they believe the sexual aspect of Keys and Neff's relationship is overblown.

That could certainly be true.

At this point I am personally more inclined to believe the film has more to do with the anxiety around same-sex bonding than homosexuality in its most base form. I also think that the production code along with Wilder's proclivity for repeatedly representing quasi-gay male relationships on screen, as exemplified by Double Indemnity, Some Like It Hot, and The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, creates a deliberate layer sexual ambiguity in these characters.

Great stuff that will likely never be agreed upon.

Cheers!

Mark

 

[Johnny Angell]

Even though it's not on blu-ray, I hope I can ask a question about Rope. It just watched my DVD of it last night, than I watched the making-of doc on the DVD. In it, the screenwriter, Arthur Laurents, claimed that the two main characters were gay. He talked at it on length and he felt it was very clear they were gay.

I have to admit I'm often very slow to pick up on things like this. Believe it or not, I had to have it pointed out to me that the Olivier character in Spartacus was coming on the Tony Curtis when he talked about oysters, or was it snails? That was decades ago and I'd like to think I'd pick up on it now if I were to see the movie for the first time.

In Philip and Brandon (in Rope) we have two characters who want to kill someone for the thrill of it and because they are "superior." They've known each others for years and are clearly good friends. I just don't get from the dialogue or their behavior to each other that they are obviously gay.

I can think of only one thing that would lead me to consider they are gay: there is no mention that either has a girlfriend.

Laurents also mentioned that Rupert (James Stewart) is also gay in the play, but that once Stewart was cast that went out the window.

I'm not opposed to them being gay, I'm just not picking up on it. What makes it so obvious? I'm also curious as to whether this film was or is considered to be anti-gay? Would this movie, depicting two gay men as evil incarnate, have angered the gay community? You make this movie today and maybe it's a movie whose villains happen to be gay, but back than was it an attack on gays?

 

[mackjay]

I'm not opposed to them being gay, I'm just not picking up on it. What makes it so obvious? I'm also curious as to whether this film was or is considered to be anti-gay? Would this movie, depicting two gay men as evil incarnate, have angered the gay community? You make this movie today and maybe it's a movie whose villains happen to be gay, but back than was it an attack on gays?

I always thought that they are seen as obviously gay, in a fairly subtle way (they are clearly seen by everyone as a couple). And it does bother me a bit that their sexuality is used to reinforce their "perversion" as "intellectual murderers".

 

[TravisR]

Even though it's not on blu-ray, I hope I can ask a question about Rope. It just watched my DVD of it last night, than I watched the making-of doc on the DVD. In it, the screenwriter, Arthur Laurents, claimed that the two main characters were gay. He talked at it on length and he felt it was very clear they were gay.

I have to admit I'm often very slow to pick up on things like this.

I've always thought that a lot of that came from the killers in Rope being thrill killers like Leopold and Loeb who were (or were rumored to be) gay.

Also, Rope is available on Blu-ray as part of the Hitchcock set.

 

[Jason_V]

We just watched Rope last year but I don't remember the specifics of the relationship, but something did clue me in, so to speak, before reading about the movie. If, back in the day, two guys lived together with no romantic female relationships and they fit a bunch of stereotypes, one would have to infer they are gay.

I wouldn't think it's anti-gay, honestly. As long as the movie is done well and with respect, you can have "evil" gay characters and not have a problem. That's the same criteria I use for any bad guy in any movie. Do it well, and I'm not going to argue. Make it cheap, stupid or offensive...then you lose me as a viewer.

 

[Will Krupp]

I'm not opposed to them being gay

How BIG of you!








(just giving you a hard time)

 

[Mark-W]

Even though it's not on blu-ray, I hope I can ask a question about Rope. It just watched my DVD of it last night, than I watched the making-of doc on the DVD. In it, the screenwriter, Arthur Laurents, claimed that the two main characters were gay. He talked at it on length and he felt it was very clear they were gay.

I have to admit I'm often very slow to pick up on things like this. Believe it or not, I had to have it pointed out to me that the Olivier character in Spartacus was coming on the Tony Curtis when he talked about oysters, or was it snails? That was decades ago and I'd like to think I'd pick up on it now if I were to see the movie for the first time.

In Philip and Brandon (in Rope) we have two characters who want to kill someone for the thrill of it and because they are "superior." They've known each others for years and are clearly good friends. I just don't get from the dialogue or their behavior to each other that they are obviously gay.

I can think of only one thing that would lead me to consider they are gay: there is no mention that either has a girlfriend.

Laurents also mentioned that Rupert (James Stewart) is also gay in the play, but that once Stewart was cast that went out the window.

I'm not opposed to them being gay, I'm just not picking up on it. What makes it so obvious? I'm also curious as to whether this film was or is considered to be anti-gay? Would this movie, depicting two gay men as evil incarnate, have angered the gay community? You make this movie today and maybe it's a movie whose villains happen to be gay, but back than was it an attack on gays?

Laurents, who also wrote The Way We Were, which is based on his same-sex relationship with a WASP (He switched the gender of his proxy and it became Streisand.), reports what you say about Stewart. (James Stewart was a great actor but he had about as much sexual heat as turnip.) Hitchcock wanted Cary Grant to be the former professor in Rope. With that casting, Hitchock would have three actors who were all confirmed gay or (allegedly) bisexual in the lead roles and it *might* produce some on-screen chemistry that might suggest the professor had been more than a mentor to the two killers.

As an aside, Laurents and Farley Granger were lovers during the film's shooting. Hitchcock and Alma reportedly invited them out to dinner as a couple more than once.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I always thought that they are seen as obviously gay, in a fairly subtle way (they are clearly seen by everyone as a couple). And it does bother me a bit that their sexuality is used to reinforce their "perversion" as "intellectual murderers".

Ok, that obviously combined with subtle does make me do a double take. He said wha?

Your latter comment about their perversion Is what concerns me. If movies are equal opportunity employers of villains of all persuasions, then I don't see a problem. But in a day when being gay can't be presented openly, you have to wonder about the movie's attitude. But then the screenwriter (see Mark's comment) is gay.

We just watched Rope last year but I don't remember the specifics of the relationship, but something did clue me in, so to speak, before reading about the movie. If, back in the day, two guys lived together with no romantic female relationships and they fit a bunch of stereotypes, one would have to infer they are gay.

I wouldn't think it's anti-gay, honestly. As long as the movie is done well and with respect, you can have "evil" gay characters and not have a problem. That's the same criteria I use for any bad guy in any movie. Do it well, and I'm not going to argue. Make it cheap, stupid or offensive...then you lose me as a viewer.

I remember back in the 60's in high school the most athletic woman in the class was buzzed about as being gay. Fit a stereotype I guess.

How BIG of you!








(just giving you a hard time)

That was me paraphrasing Seinfeld's "Not that there's anything wrong with that." I did want to make it clear I wasn't resisting the idea, just not getting it.

Laurents, who also wrote The Way We Were, which is based on his same-sex relationship with a WASP (He switched the gender of his proxy and it became Streisand.), reports what you say about Stewart. (James Stewart was a great actor but he had about as much sexual heat as turnip.) Hitchcock wanted Cary Grant to be the former professor in Rope. With that casting, Hitchock would have three actors who were all confirmed gay or (allegedly) bisexual in the lead roles and it *might* allow some on-screen chemistry that might suggest the professor had been more than a mentor to the two killers.
Laurents and Farley Granger were lovers during the film's shooting. Hitchcock and Alma reportedly invited them out to dinner as a couple more than once.

Do you remember the scene in the Big Bang Theory where Penny and Raj come out of the bedroom in various states of undress? Penny is mortified and says "It's not what it looks like." Sheldon asks in all sincerity "What does it look like?" I'm starting to think I'm Sheldon when it comes to observing gay references in film. I wonder what else this lack of observation extends to?

 

[mackjay]

Ok, that obviously combined with subtle does make me do a double take. He said wha?

Your latter comment about their perversion Is what concerns me. If movies are equal opportunity employers of villains of all persuasions, then I don't see a problem. But in a day when being gay can't be presented openly, you have to wonder about the movie's attitude. But then the screenwriter (see Mark's comment) is gay.

Well, I think something can be obvious to some and still be subtle. But that may be a "sublte" distinction....
Ok good point about the screenwriter. Perhaps a gay writer would not want to use a characters homosexuality to reinforce a character's vilainy. Still I have always read their sexuality in the film (ie, their being viewed very clearly and unquestionably as a couple by all other characters) as an example of their 'otherness', and by implication (again perhaps only my personal perception) their evil.