"The Killing" Gay?

[ichorwhip]

Here's a blog(I liked them the first time when they were called
newsgroups, but you've got to like the pretty new colors) review on
"The Killing":

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/25/064721.php

It seems to be rather routine down to this:

"Nikki Arcane (played memorably by legendary film oddball Timothy
Carey) drops the n-word as a means to get an African-American character
to leave him alone so that he can fire a gun undetected, and Johnny
Clay's partner, Marvin (Jay C. Flippen), not-so-subtly hints that he
and Johnny should "go away" after the heist and spend their loot money
together. I'm surprised that a film that hints at a character's
homosexuality AND uses a racial slur could've been released in that
era, but then again, Kubrick is someone who always pushed boundaries."

There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.

So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

"You have my sympathy, Johnny. You have not yet learned that in this
life you have to be like everyone else. The perfect mediocrity. No
better, no worse. Individuality is a monster and it must be strangled
in its cradle to make our friends feel comfortable. You know, I often
thought that the gangster and the artist are the same in the eyes of
the masses. They are admired and hero-worshiped but there is always
present the underlying wish to see them destroyed at the peak of their
growth."
ichorwhip
"peace is our profession"

[Zip]

He's older and evidently a bit smarter than Johnny.
And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort
of tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

That is just stupid... Marvin and Johnny had a father-son type of
relationship. I believe they even discussed that together.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

I would have to watch it again to be absolutely certain, but I am pretty
sure I remember them discussing this.

-Paul.

[ichorwhip]

Post by Zip

He's older and evidently a bit smarter than Johnny.
And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort
of tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

That is just stupid... Marvin and Johnny had a father-son type of
relationship. I believe they even discussed that together.
Am I remembering incorrectly?

I think so.

Post by Zip
I would have to watch it again to be absolutely certain, but I am pretty
sure I remember them discussing this.
-Paul.

Yes, that's the way I remember it too. In any event, I'm all keyed up
to watch it again for the Nth time. I think the author of the review
prolly sees a little GAY in just about everything.
i
"piop"

[Bill Reid]

Post by Zip

He's older and evidently a bit smarter than Johnny.
And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort
of tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I thought that was a distinct possibility, but Johnny wasn't
"catching" his drift, if you know what I mean...

Post by Zip
That is just stupid... Marvin and Johnny had a father-son type of
relationship. I believe they even discussed that together.
Am I remembering incorrectly?

Yeah, maybe...oh wait, this is the Kubrick group, so definitely...

Post by Zip
I would have to watch it again to be absolutely certain, but I am pretty
sure I remember them discussing this.

Well, that whole scene with them seemed a little gay to me, but it was
50s-style subtle hints rather than the "Will&Grace"-style overt flamery
required to drive the point home into modern numbskulls.

I mean, the old guy was saying stuff like, "Hey, Johnny, wouldn't it be
great if just you and I could go somewhere and be alone together for a
while,
get away from the world." I mean, what's up wid dat? A manly
"dad" would want to watch sports and drink beer with his son and
10 other inebriated knuckleheads, not "be alone together". He practically
started the whole "snails and oysters" speech...

Of course, what was really going on was that he was trying to recruit
Johnny into the Hitler Youth, yeah, that's the ticket, see footnote 187,
he said "How Jew doin', Johnny"...

---
William Ernest Reid

[Matthew Kirkcaldie]

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I watched this the other week, with another Kubrick nut, and we agreed
that there was a definite undercurrent to that scene. Both of us
noticed it independently. But who knows what audiences in 1956 and 2005
see differently?

Cheers, MK.

[Zip]

Post by Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I watched this the other week, with another Kubrick nut, and we agreed
that there was a definite undercurrent to that scene. Both of us
noticed it independently. But who knows what audiences in 1956 and 2005
see differently?

You bring up a very interesting point.

What happens when Cinema is untethered from it's time... Perhaps our changed
social awareness changes the film itself. Or were these interpretations we
make always there?

Is there anyone here who might be of an age to answer that question with
relation to this specific film?

I have to admit that, in watching the film for the first time, having only
seen it twice, I had to "ignore" that interpretation, as it *was* there to
be picked up on... But is it there because it is in the film, or is it there
because I am of an age which is more accepting of homosexuality?

I now feel looking back, as if I *enforced* my chosen interpretation of a
father figure desperately trying to coax his son figure away from the
hassles of their lives so they can get some peace from it all for a while.
But should I have enforced it?

Bizarre... I'm trying to think of other times when my social enviroment has
had an influence on the interpretations I've made of a film from a different
period causing me to enforce an interpretation on the film in order to view
it in a manner I *think* it should be perceived in and I can't think of any
off the top of my head. I'd probably have to be watching a film with this
idea in mind to actually recognise it again.

I wonder if it is so important to artificially tether my interpretations to
my idea of the period the film was made in, or if it is actually more
rewarding to simply experience the film as it appears now...

I hadn't actually realised that my seemingly passive enjoyment of a film
*wasn't* actually passive at all; I was in fact, active in my perception (of
this film at least)... This seems, to me now, a very odd thing.

There is no doubt I watch most films in an open way and take them as they
come to me and as I perceive them in the moment... however this idea of
actively designing my perception of a film based on a wish to immerse myself
in the time of the film itself in order to experience it more genuinely is
certainly intriguing. I wonder if this is something I do more often than I
realise. And when this does happen, am I cheating myself or am I purifying
the film of irrelevant modern social baggage?

Maybe this is all just nonsense.

Probably.

-Paul.

[Winston Castro]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:35:50 +1000, Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I watched this the other week, with another Kubrick nut, and we agreed
that there was a definite undercurrent to that scene. Both of us
noticed it independently. But who knows what audiences in 1956 and 2005
see differently?
Cheers, MK.

If I would be so bold as to go out on a limb, I'd say the "hipper"
audiences of the time, definitely did look for that kind of stuff.
Whilst as the same time, the "middle-america' crowds were somewhat
oblivious to it.

Same way, at the time, the hipster teenagers knew the Coaster's song
Poison Ivy was really about VD.

All part of the fun as one might conclude. These days there are rarely
'subtle references' and things are generally so damn blatant as to be
nauseating. Takes the fun out of guessing.

[Mike Jackson]

Post by Winston Castro
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:35:50 +1000, Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I watched this the other week, with another Kubrick nut, and we agreed
that there was a definite undercurrent to that scene. Both of us
noticed it independently. But who knows what audiences in 1956 and 2005
see differently?
Cheers, MK.

If I would be so bold as to go out on a limb, I'd say the "hipper"
audiences of the time, definitely did look for that kind of stuff.

After all we couldn't watch Dick Cavett the whole other 23 hours a day; we
had to find SOMETHING to keep us occupied.

Post by Winston Castro
Whilst as the same time, the "middle-america' crowds were somewhat
oblivious to it.
Same way, at the time, the hipster teenagers knew the Coaster's song
Poison Ivy was really about VD.

Meh, it was a poor metaphor. After all a shot of penicillin, bang your
golden, poison ivy your slathered in calamine lotion for weeks...

Still it was musically better than Elton's "Saturday Night's Alright For
Fighting" which we all knew was code for anal hamster sex. Right?

Post by Winston Castro
All part of the fun as one might conclude. These days there are rarely
'subtle references' and things are generally so damn blatant as to be
nauseating. Takes the fun out of guessing.

Yeah, it was a sweeter time.

Speaking of which I understand that in a new bio of Paul Lynde, you know
Uncle Arthur on the old "Bewitched" and the original center square on
"Hollywood Squares" - gay as all get out. Amazing that in all those years
middle America never caught on about how faggy he really was.

Ah, good times...

[Wordsmith]

Post by Mike Jackson

Post by Winston Castro
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:35:50 +1000, Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I watched this the other week, with another Kubrick nut, and we agreed
that there was a definite undercurrent to that scene. Both of us
noticed it independently. But who knows what audiences in 1956 and 2005
see differently?
Cheers, MK.

If I would be so bold as to go out on a limb, I'd say the "hipper"
audiences of the time, definitely did look for that kind of stuff.

After all we couldn't watch Dick Cavett the whole other 23 hours a day; we
had to find SOMETHING to keep us occupied.

Post by Winston Castro
Whilst as the same time, the "middle-america' crowds were somewhat
oblivious to it.
Same way, at the time, the hipster teenagers knew the Coaster's song
Poison Ivy was really about VD.

Meh, it was a poor metaphor. After all a shot of penicillin, bang your
golden, poison ivy your slathered in calamine lotion for weeks...
Still it was musically better than Elton's "Saturday Night's Alright For
Fighting" which we all knew was code for anal hamster sex. Right?

Post by Winston Castro
All part of the fun as one might conclude. These days there are rarely
'subtle references' and things are generally so damn blatant as to be
nauseating. Takes the fun out of guessing.

Yeah, it was a sweeter time.
Speaking of which I understand that in a new bio of Paul Lynde, you know
Uncle Arthur on the old "Bewitched" and the original center square on
"Hollywood Squares" - gay as all get out. Amazing that in all those years
middle America never caught on about how faggy he really was.

Dick Sargent, who played the second "Darren", was gay too, I recall.

W : )

[The Man With No Name]

Post by Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I watched this the other week, with another Kubrick nut, and we agreed
that there was a definite undercurrent to that scene. Both of us
noticed it independently. But who knows what audiences in 1956 and 2005
see differently?
Cheers, MK.

Reading that subject-line, I get an amusing mental-image of all these
erudite film-scholars discussing and dissecting some teenage stoner-type's
offhand remark about the film.

(ie. "Dude, that movie was, like, so gay" (maybe I'm overexplaining the
joke, here. But, suffice to say, it makes me smile)

[ichorwhip]

Post by The Man With No Name

Post by Matthew Kirkcaldie

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I watched this the other week, with another Kubrick nut, and we agreed
that there was a definite undercurrent to that scene. Both of us
noticed it independently. But who knows what audiences in 1956 and 2005
see differently?
Cheers, MK.

Reading that subject-line, I get an amusing mental-image of all these
erudite film-scholars discussing and dissecting some teenage stoner-type's
offhand remark about the film.
(ie. "Dude, that movie was, like, so gay" (maybe I'm overexplaining the
joke, here. But, suffice to say, it makes me smile)

I read you, like in this was the gayest thing before nipples on
Batman...
i
"piop"

[s***@gmail.com]

It is so unbelievably gay its actually funny. With Johnny laying on
the bed and the marvin leering at him like that!

This is all supported by other elements and characters: the cuckhold
effeminate husband and Marie Windsor as the greatest fag-hag next to
Liza!

But the first shot of Johnny and Fay cinches the gay subtext: he sits
buckling her belt while she stands there, I believe hes even shaking
his head, like as if hes turning her down more than dressing her après
...

[ichorwhip]

Post by s***@gmail.com
It is so unbelievably gay its actually funny. With Johnny laying on
the bed and the marvin leering at him like that!

C'mon! "Unbelievably gay" is Will and Jack feeding their weiners into
opposite ends of a set of Chinese handcuffs. This Johnny/Marvin thing
is not THAT gay.

Post by s***@gmail.com
This is all supported by other elements and characters: the cuckhold
effeminate husband and Marie Windsor as the greatest fag-hag next to
Liza!

One element, two characters and I'm not so sure that supports the
overall gay theory, care to elaborate?

Post by s***@gmail.com
But the first shot of Johnny and Fay cinches the gay subtext: he sits
buckling her belt while she stands there, I believe hes even shaking
his head, like as if hes turning her down more than dressing her après
...

I'll definitely have to look a bit more closely at that scene and
others. The question boils down to whether or not Kubrick had gay
intent in "The Killing". He certainly featured homosexuality in a lot
of his other films so I guess it shouldn't be too surprising if he
layed some gay into TK.

"It had not been edifying, indeed not, being in this hell hole and
human zoo for two years now, being kicked and tolchocked by brutal
warders, and meeting leering criminals and perverts ready to dribble
all over a lucious young malchick like your story-teller."
ichorwhip
"peace is our profession"

[g***@gmail.com]

It's certainly hard to catch, but there is some homosexual subtext.
This is all layed out pretty nicely in the new Kubrick Archives book,
which is really a wonderful resource for Kubrick fans and worth every
(expensive) penny. According to the article "The Killing" by Gene D.
Phillips published in the Archives book:

"Kubrick wanted to introduce a homosexual subtext into the film in
terms of one of the older conspirators having a crush on the young
leader of the gang. This precipitated a censorship problem....Since
Breen (an industry censor) insisted that the restrictions of the
industry's censorship code be upheld, prohibiting Kubrick from from
depicting homosexuality in any explicit way, Kubrick managed to suggest
a hint of homosexuality in The Killing. He implies that Marvin Unger,
one of the accomplices of Johnny Clay in planning the robbery, has a
covert homosexual attachment to the much younger Johnny. 'There is
nothing I wouldn't do for Johnny,' he says. In fact, Marvin's
participation in the caper seems to be motivated by his need to be near
Johnny, rather than by greed for money.
He even suggests that he and Johnny go off together after the heist,
'and let the old world take a couple of turns,' while they are alone
without and women along, so they can 'have a chance to take stock of
things' on their own. But his invitation is pointedly ignored by
Johnny. As screenwriter Jay Presson Allen says in The Celluloid Closet
[a documentary about homosexuality in films], 'a clever director like
Kubrick could get around the restriction on portraying homosexuality by
hints and suggestions.'"

So that's that. That's Kubrick for ya.

GS George

[ichorwhip]

Post by g***@gmail.com
It's certainly hard to catch, but there is some homosexual subtext.
This is all layed out pretty nicely in the new Kubrick Archives book,
which is really a wonderful resource for Kubrick fans and worth every
(expensive) penny. According to the article "The Killing" by Gene D.
"Kubrick wanted to introduce a homosexual subtext into the film in
terms of one of the older conspirators having a crush on the young
leader of the gang. This precipitated a censorship problem....Since
Breen (an industry censor) insisted that the restrictions of the
industry's censorship code be upheld, prohibiting Kubrick from from
depicting homosexuality in any explicit way, Kubrick managed to suggest
a hint of homosexuality in The Killing. He implies that Marvin Unger,
one of the accomplices of Johnny Clay in planning the robbery, has a
covert homosexual attachment to the much younger Johnny. 'There is
nothing I wouldn't do for Johnny,' he says. In fact, Marvin's
participation in the caper seems to be motivated by his need to be near
Johnny, rather than by greed for money.
He even suggests that he and Johnny go off together after the heist,
'and let the old world take a couple of turns,' while they are alone
without and women along, so they can 'have a chance to take stock of
things' on their own. But his invitation is pointedly ignored by
Johnny. As screenwriter Jay Presson Allen says in The Celluloid Closet
[a documentary about homosexuality in films], 'a clever director like
Kubrick could get around the restriction on portraying homosexuality by
hints and suggestions.'"
So that's that. That's Kubrick for ya.
GS George

Excellent! Well I guess that is that. My "GAYDAR" has never been worth
a crap anyways. Thanks for the info.
i
"piop"

[Winston Castro]

Post by ichorwhip

Post by g***@gmail.com
So that's that. That's Kubrick for ya.
GS George

Excellent! Well I guess that is that. My "GAYDAR" has never been worth
a crap anyways. Thanks for the info.
i
"piop"

Do I have to make another call to your parents Ich and ask them to
put you on the phone?

And tell them you are insistent upon finding gay subtexts in good,
clean, family entertainment films on a family oriented newsgroup
nonetheless?

And you can be sure, the mystery man will be close by when I call. ;-)

[ichorwhip]

Post by Winston Castro

Post by ichorwhip

Post by g***@gmail.com
So that's that. That's Kubrick for ya.
GS George

Excellent! Well I guess that is that. My "GAYDAR" has never been worth
a crap anyways. Thanks for the info.
i
"piop"

Do I have to make another call to your parents Ich and ask them to
put you on the phone?

NOOOOO!!!!! For surely they will make me take those backdoor pills
again and take away my cable modem! I beg of you!

Post by Winston Castro
And tell them you are insistent upon finding gay subtexts in good,
clean, family entertainment films on a family oriented newsgroup
nonetheless?

I'm still having trouble distinguishing between the Gay 1890's and the
GAY 1990's.

Post by Winston Castro
And you can be sure, the mystery man will be close by when I call. ;-)

Please don't! I will even stop puzzling over the "gay old time"
offered by the Flintstones, I swear it!

"Well, I uh... I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the
physical act of love."
ichorwhip
"peace is our profession"

[Boaz]

Post by ichorwhip

Post by g***@gmail.com
It's certainly hard to catch, but there is some homosexual subtext.
This is all layed out pretty nicely in the new Kubrick Archives book,
which is really a wonderful resource for Kubrick fans and worth every
(expensive) penny. According to the article "The Killing" by Gene D.
"Kubrick wanted to introduce a homosexual subtext into the film in
terms of one of the older conspirators having a crush on the young
leader of the gang. This precipitated a censorship problem....Since
Breen (an industry censor) insisted that the restrictions of the
industry's censorship code be upheld, prohibiting Kubrick from from
depicting homosexuality in any explicit way, Kubrick managed to suggest
a hint of homosexuality in The Killing. He implies that Marvin Unger,
one of the accomplices of Johnny Clay in planning the robbery, has a
covert homosexual attachment to the much younger Johnny. 'There is
nothing I wouldn't do for Johnny,' he says. In fact, Marvin's
participation in the caper seems to be motivated by his need to be near
Johnny, rather than by greed for money.
He even suggests that he and Johnny go off together after the heist,
'and let the old world take a couple of turns,' while they are alone
without and women along, so they can 'have a chance to take stock of
things' on their own. But his invitation is pointedly ignored by
Johnny. As screenwriter Jay Presson Allen says in The Celluloid Closet
[a documentary about homosexuality in films], 'a clever director like
Kubrick could get around the restriction on portraying homosexuality by
hints and suggestions.'"
So that's that. That's Kubrick for ya.
GS George

Excellent! Well I guess that is that. My "GAYDAR" has never been worth
a crap anyways. Thanks for the info.
i
"piop"

I'm surprised you didn't catch the gay subtext in the film long ago,
Ich. Even as far back as 1973, in Daniel Devries book on Kubrick,
Devries describes Marvin as an "aging homosexual who has a thing for
Johnny." And it is pretty obvious in Jay C. Flippen's performance. If
you've ever seen this guy in other films (and if you haven't, where the
fuck have you been?) you would see he takes on a different demeanor,
more effeminate, more soft, in "The Killing" than his usual "tough guy"
roles in westerns and the like. His body language, his manner of
speaking, the way he gazes at Hayden, all suggest a gay old man afraid
of getting old and unattractive, clinging to a younger, much tougher,
male as a way of retaining his own youth. Many gay males, as they get
older, take on the characteristics of both Dorian Gray and Count
Dracula, trying every method they can to remain young, if not
"immortal." One of Mishima's rationales for killing himself at age 42
was that he knew that as he got older he would become less attractive
to other gay males, especially the younger ones, which was the choice
of many gays, both young and old. And hanging out with overweight women
is not an option most gay males choose as they get older, despite what
you see in some backstage movies.

My theory is that Kubrick's exposure to gay men and their behavior
reached its apex when he was involved with Ruth. She was a ballet
dancer, and a good number of male dancers are gay, naturally. And
Kubrick did have a good look about him when he was younger, a sort of
delicate good look. This prolly made him attractive to many of the gays
in the dance company, both young and old. And since Hollywood also has
its share of raving queens I'm sure Flippen had a lot to draw upon for
his performance as well.

As for the racist remark from Timothy Carey, I think because Kubrick
had the advantage of making a B-grade movie for UA, there wasn't as
much scrutiny from the front office as there was for the more expensive
A pictures, the ones that would play in more theaters and have much
higher profile stars and would cost more money to market. It's one of
the reasons Sam Fuller tried to stay with B-pictures when he made films
in the '50s. He actually had more freedom to deal with topics of war,
infidelity, racism and the Red Scare, to mention a few favorite topics
of his, than if he'd had more money to spend and with top name actors.

Boaz
("It's times like this that I realize how much I care for you and how
life would be impossibly empty without you.")

[ichorwhip]

Post by Boaz

Post by ichorwhip

Post by g***@gmail.com
It's certainly hard to catch, but there is some homosexual subtext.
This is all layed out pretty nicely in the new Kubrick Archives book,
which is really a wonderful resource for Kubrick fans and worth every
(expensive) penny. According to the article "The Killing" by Gene D.
"Kubrick wanted to introduce a homosexual subtext into the film in
terms of one of the older conspirators having a crush on the young
leader of the gang. This precipitated a censorship problem....Since
Breen (an industry censor) insisted that the restrictions of the
industry's censorship code be upheld, prohibiting Kubrick from from
depicting homosexuality in any explicit way, Kubrick managed to suggest
a hint of homosexuality in The Killing. He implies that Marvin Unger,
one of the accomplices of Johnny Clay in planning the robbery, has a
covert homosexual attachment to the much younger Johnny. 'There is
nothing I wouldn't do for Johnny,' he says. In fact, Marvin's
participation in the caper seems to be motivated by his need to be near
Johnny, rather than by greed for money.
He even suggests that he and Johnny go off together after the heist,
'and let the old world take a couple of turns,' while they are alone
without and women along, so they can 'have a chance to take stock of
things' on their own. But his invitation is pointedly ignored by
Johnny. As screenwriter Jay Presson Allen says in The Celluloid Closet
[a documentary about homosexuality in films], 'a clever director like
Kubrick could get around the restriction on portraying homosexuality by
hints and suggestions.'"
So that's that. That's Kubrick for ya.
GS George

Excellent! Well I guess that is that. My "GAYDAR" has never been worth
a crap anyways. Thanks for the info.
i
"piop"

I'm surprised you didn't catch the gay subtext in the film long ago,
Ich.

Well I guess I was never really looking for it. I repent! ;)

Post by Boaz
Even as far back as 1973, in Daniel Devries book on Kubrick,
Devries describes Marvin as an "aging homosexual who has a thing for
Johnny." And it is pretty obvious in Jay C. Flippen's performance.

Yes, I can see it a lot more clearly now.

Post by Boaz
If you've ever seen this guy in other films (and if you haven't, where the
fuck have you been?) you would see he takes on a different demeanor,
more effeminate, more soft, in "The Killing" than his usual "tough guy"
roles in westerns and the like. His body language, his manner of
speaking, the way he gazes at Hayden, all suggest a gay old man afraid
of getting old and unattractive,

Too late! I guess I really never studied Marvin hard enough while
considering him somewhat of a minor character in the overall scheme of
TK. Of course I should have known better it being Kubrick and whatnot,
even if it was Kubrick's first major feature.

Post by Boaz
clinging to a younger, much tougher, male as a way of retaining his own
youth. Many gay males, as they get older, take on the characteristics of
both Dorian Gray and Count Dracula, trying every method they can to remain > young, if not "immortal." One of Mishima's rationales for killing himself
at age 42 was that he knew that as he got older he would become less
attractive to other gay males, especially the younger ones, which was the
choice of many gays, both young and old. And hanging out with overweight
women is not an option most gay males choose as they get older, despite what
you see in some backstage movies.
My theory is that Kubrick's exposure to gay men and their behavior
reached its apex when he was involved with Ruth. She was a ballet
dancer, and a good number of male dancers are gay, naturally. And
Kubrick did have a good look about him when he was younger, a sort of
delicate good look. This prolly made him attractive to many of the gays
in the dance company, both young and old. And since Hollywood also has
its share of raving queens I'm sure Flippen had a lot to draw upon for
his performance as well.
As for the racist remark from Timothy Carey, I think because Kubrick
had the advantage of making a B-grade movie for UA, there wasn't as
much scrutiny from the front office as there was for the more expensive
A pictures, the ones that would play in more theaters and have much
higher profile stars and would cost more money to market. It's one of
the reasons Sam Fuller tried to stay with B-pictures when he made films
in the '50s. He actually had more freedom to deal with topics of war,
infidelity, racism and the Red Scare, to mention a few favorite topics
of his, than if he'd had more money to spend and with top name actors.
Boaz
("It's times like this that I realize how much I care for you and how
life would be impossibly empty without you.")

Excellent points Boaz, thanks for your input.

"Well, he's a funny kind of a cop."
ichorwhip
"peace is our profession"

[Boaz]

Post by ichorwhip

Post by Boaz
I'm surprised you didn't catch the gay subtext in the film long ago,
Ich.

Well I guess I was never really looking for it. I repent! ;)

Your pennance is to watch this film, and watch it carefully! ;-)

Post by ichorwhip

Post by Boaz
Even as far back as 1973, in Daniel Devries book on Kubrick,
Devries describes Marvin as an "aging homosexual who has a thing for
Johnny." And it is pretty obvious in Jay C. Flippen's performance.

Yes, I can see it a lot more clearly now.

Post by Boaz
If you've ever seen this guy in other films (and if you haven't, where the
fuck have you been?) you would see he takes on a different demeanor,
more effeminate, more soft, in "The Killing" than his usual "tough guy"
roles in westerns and the like. His body language, his manner of
speaking, the way he gazes at Hayden, all suggest a gay old man afraid
of getting old and unattractive,

Too late! I guess I really never studied Marvin hard enough while
considering him somewhat of a minor character in the overall scheme of
TK. Of course I should have known better it being Kubrick and whatnot,
even if it was Kubrick's first major feature.

It is interesting to watch Flippen as Marvin. His body language, his
facial expressions, all suggest an older gay man with this strong
attraction to this tall, strapping butch male Johnny. "Oh, there's
nothing I wouldn't do for Johnny!" Marvin says, his eyes lighting up.
(Who knows? Perhaps Marvin has back issues of Horse lying around his
apartment.) Later on, Marvin is on his bed, saying to Johnny that the
two of them should go off somewhere, alone, once the heist is
completed. A weekend at Fire Island, perhaps? ;-) Or is Marvin
thinking of setting up his own personal Fire Island? Yes, there is that
moment when Marvin says to Johnny that he reminds him of "his kid." Is
he referring to a son, or perhaps some "kid" he once had a a blow-boy?
;-) Is Marvin a peodphile as well as an aging fag? Hmmmm... But the
"kid" reference is just as much a smokescreen as when Antoninus says,
gasping to Spartacus -- after Spartacus has just shoved a sword into
Antoninus' guts -- "I love you, Spartacus, as I would my own faddah."
And then Spartacus says to Antoninus, "I love you, Antoninus, like the
son I will never see." Then he finishes twisting the sword to fillet
Antoninus' intestines. Yeah, right. "I love you as I would my own
father." "I love you like the son I will never see." Sure, guys. You
and your droogs in the gladiatorial army run around Italy in your short
skirts, baring tan, muscular legs, and you want us to believe ALL you
are doing is expressing some quasi-Marxist fraternal affection? Pull
the other one. (And not THAT one in the middle either!) We saw earlier
Crassius drooling over Antoninus in the bath; how many times was
Antoninus passed around before he met these two horn-dogs? ("And what
do you do, Antoninus?" "I'm a singer of songs." "Singer of songs?" "And
I am the Imperial blow-boy of the Tenth Roman Legion.")

Oh, wait, we were talking about Marvin, weren't we? ;-)

Anyway, check out your copy of "The Killing," and see if you don't
notice Marvin making fawn-eyes at Johnny through most of the film.

Boaz
("Kiss me, me boy, for we shall never meet again!")

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by ichorwhip
C'mon! "Unbelievably gay"

OK, well totally, unnervingly so, anybody who ever got hit on by old
creepy `Uncle Lou' waving a five dollar bill would agree.

Post by ichorwhip
is Will and Jack feeding their weiners into
This Johnny/Marvin thing.

The subtle one is the more bizarre, to me.

Post by ichorwhip
One element, two characters and I'm not so sure that supports the
overall gay theory, care to elaborate?

Turning down the girl
The old perv (Marvin) at the bedside
The cuckold hag, her husband is classic
The black parking lot guy-was a little `friendly' for a parking lot
attendant out on the far end, no?
The manager at the two dollar motel makes interesting off color
comments.
The guys at the airport ticket counter are a great pair

[Zip]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by ichorwhip
One element, two characters and I'm not so sure that supports the
overall gay theory, care to elaborate?

Turning down the girl

He has a very nice girlfriend of his own... and the one he turned down was
no more than a skank.

Post by s***@gmail.com
The old perv (Marvin) at the bedside

I'd have to watch again... I am responding to this to tackle some of your
more "stretching" suggestions.... and they *are* stretching!

Post by s***@gmail.com
The cuckold hag, her husband is classic

Can't remember this.

Post by s***@gmail.com
The black parking lot guy-was a little `friendly' for a parking lot
attendant out on the far end, no?

Er... You are grasping here... seriously... the character is bored, then
someone is suddenly nice to him, so he gets over-enthused; there is
*nothing* erotic in any of that.

Of course I am beginning to think you are being facetious. ;o)

Post by s***@gmail.com
The manager at the two dollar motel makes interesting off color
comments.

You'd have to post quotes, as I don't remember anything of that kind.

Post by s***@gmail.com
The guys at the airport ticket counter are a great pair

Out and out fags.

-Paul.

[Your Pal Brian]

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

I think this is from the Playboy interview:

Q: Some critics have detected in HAL's wheedling voice an undertone of
homosexuality. Was that intended?

SK: No. I think it's become something of a parlor game for some people to
read that kind of thing into everything they encounter. HAL was a
"straight" computer.

***

Obviously the parlor game continues, only the world has become much gayer,
as the responses to this thread prove.

I remember in elementary school - early eighties - being assured that
gender roles didn't matter to an enlightened person. Unisex was in,
masculine/feminine was out. Our teachers read us books about men becoming
nurses and women driving fire trucks; we saw TV documentaries about
football players doing ballet; we read old poems and letters from the
eighteenth century where men said "I love you" to each another - and we
were expected to admit there was nothing the least bit gay about any of it.

Now times have changed. With feminism is lying fallow, the gay rights
faction has been pushing the "everybody's a little bit gay" routine in
order to swell the apparent size of their constituency and thus gain
legitimacy. As a result, even the slightest variance from whitebread
gender roles is enough to get someone diagnosed as a raging homo just
waiting to get out. With a degree of scrutiny and suspicion that would
shame any tight-bodiced blue-nosed small-town gossip of a bygone age, the
same poems and letters are now reentered as evidence that their authors
were gay as night, any woman with a toolbelt is automatically a lesbian,
and can you imagine football players doing ballet now? Hell, I read a
recent biography claiming Mark Twain was gay merely because he shared a bed
with another man while traveling out west. Mark Twain!!!

It's kinda creepy that a shift in lefty factions - from feminism to gay
rights - can so utterly change society's mindset like that. Who says they
don't control the culture?

Anyway, Marvin's about as gay as the guy Barry Lyndon kissed on the chops.

Brian

[Mike Jackson]

Post by Your Pal Brian

Post by ichorwhip
There's no question that Carey dropped the N-bomb, but I had never
really considered Marvin as being potentially gay. It's Marvin who
bankrolls Johnny for the heist. He's older and evidently a bit smarter
than Johnny. And if anything I thought he showed a paternal sort of
tenderness for Clay albeit a bit pathetic.
So does anybody think Marvin was just gay?

No, but much later Marvin was a paranoid android.

Post by Your Pal Brian
Q: Some critics have detected in HAL's wheedling voice an undertone of
homosexuality. Was that intended?
SK: No. I think it's become something of a parlor game for some people to
read that kind of thing into everything they encounter. HAL was a
"straight" computer.

But in all fairness - the Macintosh - totally faggy. I mean I use one and
they came in fruity colors - HELLO! Think back, Kubrick even licensed HAL to
Apple to taunt Dave about his homo jealousy of the Macintosh back in January
of 1999. I'd say there's definitely something that Kubrick was telling us
about just how gay HAL really was.

Why if his big red eye had a duct a tear would have come to it just thinking
about how jealous he was of Dave's homo relationship with Frank. And -oh
snap- don't even bother trying to act like you didn't see that one!

Post by Your Pal Brian
Obviously the parlor game continues, only the world has become much gayer,
as the responses to this thread prove.

Oh please! Who was that unmarried guy from like thousands of years ago that
never even had a girlfriend that used to have like a dozen or so other
unmarried guys following him around in the middle east like he was some
kinda god or something? I mean how gay was that? How much gayer could things
get?

And if San Francisco is Sodom, is Oakland Gomorrah? Or is that L.A.?

Post by Your Pal Brian
I remember in elementary school - early eighties - being assured that
gender roles didn't matter to an enlightened person. Unisex was in,
masculine/feminine was out. Our teachers read us books about men becoming
nurses and women driving fire trucks; we saw TV documentaries about
football players doing ballet; we read old poems and letters from the
eighteenth century where men said "I love you" to each another - and we
were expected to admit there was nothing the least bit gay about any of it.

Right! Why are they staring at Ace and Gary like that anyway?

Post by Your Pal Brian
Now times have changed. With feminism is lying fallow, the gay rights
faction has been pushing the "everybody's a little bit gay" routine in
order to swell the apparent size of their constituency and thus gain
legitimacy. As a result, even the slightest variance from whitebread
gender roles is enough to get someone diagnosed as a raging homo just
waiting to get out.

(dropping into Clint Eastwood voice)
Well aren't yah, punk?
(exiting out of Clint Eastwood voice)

Post by Your Pal Brian
With a degree of scrutiny and suspicion that would
shame any tight-bodiced blue-nosed small-town gossip of a bygone age, the
same poems and letters are now reentered as evidence that their authors
were gay as night, any woman with a toolbelt is automatically a lesbian,
and can you imagine football players doing ballet now? Hell, I read a
recent biography claiming Mark Twain was gay merely because he shared a bed
with another man while traveling out west. Mark Twain!!!

Oh Twain was so gaying it up! Didn't you read his memoir of his travels
across Europe "A Tramp Abroad"? The visits to watch German college boys
carve each other up with swords like a bunch of gladiators, the men sleeping
in the same rooms for weeks at a time - why it was as queer as military
service!

Post by Your Pal Brian
It's kinda creepy that a shift in lefty factions - from feminism to gay
rights - can so utterly change society's mindset like that. Who says they
don't control the culture?

Well us leftist gay homo commie bastards hate America so what do you expect?
But uh, go Pat Robertson and that assassination squad for Jesus thing!
Yay for that!

With all the ills in the world right now though it's always comforting to
check back in and find that the most pressing thing to talk about is which
imaginary movie character in a movie may have had a cock in his mouth or up
his ass.

This my friends is why the terrorists hate our freedom.

Post by Your Pal Brian
Anyway, Marvin's about as gay as the guy Barry Lyndon kissed on the chops.
Brian

Say what? I gotta watch Barry Lyndon one more time?

Well, at least it's not like watching the Icecapades again...