Randolph Scott and the Left’s Rhetorical Knot
by John Nolte
In the Sunday L.A. Times, Reed Johnson examines the evolution of the portrayal of gay characters on film from 1941’s “The Maltese Falcon” to last year’s “Milk.” In his paragraph covering the gap between “Falcon” and 1980’s “Cruising,” Reed lets this drop:
…Hollywood went back into the closet during the Eisenhower presidency and more or less stayed there until the late 1960s … Coyness and euphemism were the order of the day, with the likes of Rock Hudson and Randolph Scott impersonating big-screen macho men.
What Reed does here is essentially state as fact that Randolph Scott was gay, which is not only unfair and irresponsible, but also an all too typical tactic used by the Left these days. The idea is to boil down something that is at best disputed (as is the case with Scott), or worse, an outright falsehood (Bush lied us into war, Palin attempted to ban books), into a few words and spread them matter-of-factly as though simply true.
In a world of soundbites, these dishonest declarative statements are purposefully built on just a few words in order to become rhetorical knots designed to put our side on defense and off-message because of the difficulty in untying them with just a few words. And in the case of Reed’s unfair assertion regarding Randolph Scott, the statement comes with the added benefit of a counter-punch all set to go. Defending Scott against such charges can only mean one is anti-gay, right?
Well, how about pro-truth and pro-fairness?
The rumors surrounding Scott’s sexuality began in the early 1930s while he and Cary Grant lived together for twelve years in a Malibu home they named, “Bachelor’s Hall.” Both had been married previously and would marry again – Grant, 4 times, Scott just once, from 1944 until his death in 1987.
Grant and Scott are on record unconditionally denying both a romantic relationship between the two of them and any other kind of gay relationship. Books have been written of varying credibility stating otherwise, but to say these claims are hotly disputed would be an understatement.
So other than a respect for truth, what does it matter that Reed and the L.A. Times would attempt to pass off rumors director Budd Boetticher, Scott’s close friend and frequent collaborator, called “Bullshit,” as fact? For starters, Scott’s long dead and unable to defend himself. Secondly, his family survives, and for Reed to assert someone’s beloved father and husband of four decades lived a lie, or at best, lied about who he said he was, borders on cruelty.
Who knows, someday evidence might turn up proving Reed 100% correct. In which case, the only reaction he’ll find surprising from me is my indifference, but for now Reed doesn’t know and therefore shouldn’t insinuate otherwise.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
87 Comments
Well said, sir. Well said.
"In a world of soundbites, these dishonest declarative statements are purposefully built on just a few words in order to become rhetorical knots designed to put our side on defense and off-message because of the difficulty in untying them with just a few words."
Well if you want to be nice about it yeah. Otherwise just do what I do and call them "Liar".
I understand the thing with J. Edgar Hoover is the same sort of situation — rumor spread by someone who hates him, people who don't like his politics find flimsy evidence and then reduce their claims to unquestionable soundbites.
Same thing with Erol Flynn being a Nazi spy. Or any claims of racism. How do you defend that accusation once it's made?
In conversation, I find these scenarios easy to deal with. You simply ask people to back up their claim. They usually make something up or use the exception as the rule. For instance, abortion clinic terrorism has only killed 7 people, but they will tell you that Christian terror is as dangerous as Islamic terror.
In publication, it's not as easy. It's up to bloggers to call journalists to the carpet. I still think Jayson Blair and Dan Rather wouldn't have been caught if not for the medium of the internet.
P.S. I'm not sure I want to ask this, but what homosexuality in the Maltese Falcon?
So many Democratic talking points are predicated on a lie, it's actually helpful. They're easy to dismiss after the first couple of sentences. Hours of reading saved.
It's implied with Peter Lorre's character. An example is the scene where he first meets Humphrey Bogart in his office. He's sitting down, and he turns the handle of his cane to his mouth… People who knew how to read it understood. Hollywood policed itself back then, so references to sex and homosexuality were suggestive, but they were also bold and quite funny.
Andrew:
EXACTLY!
What reality does that guy (ther writer od the Times piece) live in? Elisha Cook Jr was a PUNK. A young, reckless, over-eager punk. Has this revisionistic, post modern moron never heard of such? How in the world does this spell gay to this writer?
And of course the picture was of Humphrey Bogart. Hmm, me thinks this writer has some issues.
"I still think Jayson Blair and Dan Rather wouldn't have been caught if not for the medium of the internet."
No, they wouldn't have.
So far as Randolph Scott's sexuality, it's really nobody's business, is it. Especially a Lefty reporter. I doubt the Jews will ever catch on the anti-Semitism that's flying around today is coming from the Left, and blacks will never catch on that a) Lincoln was a Republican and b) the liberal plantation is what has kept them down these past forty years, I doubt the gays will ever catch on that for most moderates and conservatives, whether an individual is gay or lesbian or not just isn't important. Most of us have gay or lesbian friends or family members, and that the ones always making snide remarks or "outing" someone long dead are always the Lefties.
Of course, the Left knows this. It's the definition of "useful idiot".
He left out Hitchcock's "Rope", where the murderers were homosexuals. In the film noir / Bogart smacking department I would have thought "The Big Sleep" would have been more obvious.
All three of the male villains in "The Maltese Falcon" are gay. Wilmer is Gutman's kept boyfriend. Cairo has a serious case of the hots for Wilmer. Spade is a homophobe who enjoys beating up gays. (Remember the big grin on Bogart's face just before he decks Peter Lorre?) It's more explicit in the original novel, but the subtext is definitely hinted at in the movie.
See my comment above.
The gay subtext in Maltese Falcon can also be found in the way Gutman touches Spade during their inital meeting.
There's much, though, in reed's article worthy of a fisking, but calling him on the Scott issue took priority.
John, one place where your blog post would be relevant is Newsbusters, since they're dedicated to this sort of thing.
He was grinning because Cairo pulled a gun on him in his office, and Cairo was going to pay for the insult. I agree Cairo was gay, but I do not see Wilmer as such. And calling Spade a homophobe based on the movie alone is ludicrous. It may have been more obvious in the book; I have not read it.
They'll appreciate the mention, no doubt. I imagine Brent's working on his own Fisking of this piece as we speak.
So why was there a picture of Bogart with the article and not Peter Lorre or Elisha Cook Jr?
John, The New York Times outed Scott 10 years ago in this review. Any linger doubts I had was erased by the diving board scene (Grant looking Scott up and down in what's obviously a sly in-joke) in My Favorite Wife.
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?_r=2&r...
I read that article when you guys linked to it and that statement surprised me. I looked up Randolph Scott and saw that it was a completely unsubstantiated rumor. But I also read that he was a lifelong, staunch Republican (as was Cary Grant), so I don't doubt that may have played a part in the writer's decision to libel him.
You can disagree as much as you please, but the subtext is right there in the movie. Even John Nolte acknowledges this. I've read the book over a dozen times. (Dashiell Hammett is one of my favorite authors.) Spade IS a homophobe (and incredibly sexist as well) in the book AND in the movie. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you, but it's not open to interpretation. It's there in both versions.
If any Bogart co-star comes off as queer, it's Claude Raines in Casablanca: "…if I were a woman, and I were not around, I should be in love with Rick." Plus he was French.
It's funny you should mention "Casablanca" because that's a case where the gay subtext was in the imagination of the revisionists. Howard Koch in the published version of the screenplay made it clear that neither Rick (Bogart) nor Louis (Rains) were gay. The way he put it was: it's a stretch to think Rick is gay, but how can anyone think a lecherous horndog like Louis is gay?
Lou, I've seen Randolph Scott look a bunch of women up and down in his Westerns, too. I even saw him check out a horse once under the "guise" of purchasing it. And how about him eyeing that nice car in that film with Ralph Bellamy?
Was there anything Randolph Scott wasn't having sex with?
Have you ever thought that maybe Scott and Grant's "in-joke" might have been in making fun of the rumor???
And while I appreciate the NY Times use as a source, I'd like to remind you that I'm a "conservative." Next time just link to something about the moon being made of green cheese.
You go with an in-joke and the venerable Gray Lady, I'm gonna take a good man's word and that of his wife of 43 years.
Gullible, ain't I?
Yep, Growl…the best way to attract African-American voters to the Republican fold is to tell them that they're too stupid to see how great Republicans are?
Hey, I think the outing thing is pretty dumb as well. But since when have Republicans given a whit for gay Americans?
Supposedly the big give away with Gutman and Wilmer is Spades use of the term "gunsel" which does not mean a gunman but instead refers to a kept younger man.
As for Cairo there is the lavender cologne…or was it lilac…?
Yeah right,
We all know the NYT never gets a story wrong.
That's the point Erasmus. Why do Republicans have to care about a person's sexuality or race? Why do we have to throw people into groups to show how we can help them?
A lot of gays and blacks (and other liberal victim groups) predicate their support of liberals or democrats purely on issues for that group. To me that's a little narrow minded. Being gay myself, I don't care about gay marriage or many of the gay issues pushed in Hollywood. Most Americans don't care if someone is or isn't gay. The rest of America pushes back when issues dealing with victim's groups are thrown at them. Would like it if you were constantly being told you weren't a good person because you don't support an issue? Push hard enough and things like gay marriage bans develop. The people were pushed too much!
"Yep, Growl…the best way to attract African-American voters to the Republican fold is to tell them that they're too stupid to see how great Republicans are?"
Not interested in attracting blacks to the Republican fold. I'm not a Republican. Just pointing out the facts.
" But since when have Republicans given a whit for gay Americans?"
Can't answer for Republican, however, what does "giving a whit" have to do with anything?
Most of the subtext was put into movies (of this was keeping real to the book) during the 50s was only noticeable to gays and there friends themselves. The average moviegoer wouldn't notice this unless they new more about the story or the intent of the movie.
Actually, if you dig around into movies from the 20s, 30s, and40s, there are tons of gay content. And it typically was more blatant. The 50s changed American culture big time. Censoring of content by religious groups started to occur on a much larger basis. Also, the explosion of the American family in suburban life created an audience for more "wholesome" entertainment.
P.S. My above statement was not an attack on religious groups and the American family. Everyone has the right to object to book, film, or TV's content. I just don't believe in censorship of content.
The point is that if you look hard enough you can find something to justify nearly any claim. One could probably churn out pages on the significance of the bookshop scene in The Big Sleep (where Bogart puts on glasses, turns up the brim of his hat, and affects a rather uhm… "scholarly" demeanor). Then he goes and has sex with the lady across the way in a vain attempt to reassure himself of his manliness, and on and on and on.
Gunsel is Yiddish for "little thief", the male equivalent of a "gun moll" — both had little to do with actual guns, and more with picking pockets, shoplifting, and other petty theft to earn walking-around money for the gangs they belonged to. Clearly, gunsels are not the thuggish type.
Cairo was most definitely gay – clearly so in the book and heavily suggested in the film. Wilmer is referred to as a gunsel by Spade, but this might be more of an insult or provocation than a statement of fact. Wilmer is, after all, violently repulsed by Cairo's attentions.
As for Guttman, it's even less clear, as he has a daughter (in the book – absent from the film version IIRC).
Once again, read the book. In the first person narration, private eye Philip Marlowe tells the reader he tried to look "as much like a fairy" as he could when he impersonated a "scholar." In other words, it was a deliberate act, an impersonation. Also, hate to break it to you, Marlowe doesn't have sex with the female bookstore clerk in the book.
I'm with you there, never picked up on it either. The atmosphere in the movie is so charged with deception and high stakes, I guess it being charged with homosexual undertones escaped me. It totally escaped my sister too, who is gay and revels in reading gay subtext between male characters even when it doesn't exist; it's like a pastime for her. We joke about her being a bad lesbian all the time, here is another chance for me to tease her, hah. =)
Since we're on the subject of gay subtext and there are so many film experts here, I'd love a question answered for me if possible. My sister took a film class in college, and when they covered Westerns her prof spent time going over the gay subtext in many of the old Westerns (comparing gun sizes, etc.) Can anyone please tell me if there is any truth to that? I dismissed it as a prof possibly stating opinion as fact, but if I'm missing gay subtext in the Maltese Falcon I apparently can't trust my judgment on the subject anymore.
Also, for the longest time I thought Cary Grant was gay because of a book I'd read (can't remember the name); imagine my surprise watching the extras on "An Affair to Remember" several years ago and learning about his unrequited love for Sophia Loren, which infused itself into his performance! And according to Vanity Fair's "experts" Hitchcock was a horndog for Tippi Hedren, and pursued her on his films. I had never ever heard of such a thing before. I'm getting awfully tired of people twisting things just to sell a paper or book, but as long as there is money to be made people will keep doing it until the end of time, alas.
According to the Online Etymological Dictionary the sexual use came first and then the use of the term in the movie moved the interpretation more toward a gun toting sidekick. Apparently it was street slang that Hammett picked up in his private dick days.
No pun intended………. I think it.
I looked about 7 different online dictionaries and etymological sites also.
It appears the use of "gunsel" for the gay kept man reference was part of the original meaning and it did evolve to mean someone who sling guns.
This was probably Hollywoods way of throwing a double meaning word into the mix. The people that new the original meaning picked up on the context, everyone else just thought it would some highfalutin word for gunman.
So, on one hand you say that Americans don't care if someone is or isn't gay, but they don't support gay marriage because even though they don't care if someone is gay they don't want to be "pushed"? Um, ok. So, whenever the bazillion gay jokes and/or condemnations fly around this site about "Milk", that's just Republicans sayinig "I don't really care if you're gay"?
So, were the Civil Rights activists back in the day "pushing" too hard or "throwing their issues" at people? Should they have just waited for society to eventually come around to tolerating them?
No, you don't have to throw people into groups to show you care, but by not even acknowledging that some groups in society might be marginalized in some fashion, you're not exactly throwing off the message "I care".
Frankly, if two gay people get married, it doesn't affect some straight person's marriage one iota. That simple reality makes much of the pushback about gay marriage so nonsensical.
So Sean Penn is gay!
Gee who knew of such a thing…… : )
Good call, John. Damnd good call.
And 'Andrew Price' also makes a damned good call about the real reason why there's snickers about Scott being gay. It's nothing to do with his sexuality but with his politics – Scott wasn't a leftist, he was a conservative, a staunch Republican. And worse, he was a brilliant businessmen who (just like Grant) saved and invested his money to become filthy rich.
what about looney tunes? huh? you really think that was a "carrot" bugs was always lusting after? and daffy duck and his lisping ways? yosemite sam had two "six" shooters and always acted like such a bitch. porky (pork me) pig? foghorn leghorn and his pedophiliac urges towards the young chickenhawk? wile e. and his pursuit of the coltish road runner? elmer fudd was hunting all right.
In the movie, as I'm sure you know, they fade to black, and then come back with everyone fully dressed and finishing their drinks. I just figured they made out a little.
I guess this is just another demonstration of the viability of the 'big lie'. Even if it isn't true – if you repeat it often enough and loudly enough, even if it is demonstratively fabulous – it is eventually accepted by the general public as true.
Are you certain? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language lists the following definition: "A hoodlum or other criminal, especially one who carries a gun."
I've never heard the expression used in any other context.
Never mind…read further down the thread. Live and learn…
About the Maltese Falcon. Spade likeed hitting Cairo because he enjoyed it and Cairo pulled a gun on him. He's just a guy that grew up in a tuff area. Ask some of the kids in South Central. Except instead of a punch they'd shoot him.
As for Randy Scott, Get a clue on some of the history of Hollywood. All real me would now be sexist. All they wanted was to get laid. Think about it you've got all the fame and money. All you need is sex which even today would be extremely easy to get. You would always be on the lookout for the next one.
Sigh. Look at the scene again. If Spade enjoyed hitting Cairo just because Cairo pulled a gun, he would've decked him right away. Instead, he holds Cairo by his lapels and slowly backs him up with a dreamy smile on his face, relishing the thought of punching Cairo because he is obviously gay and that adds to Spade's enjoyment. (Also, the sinister piano music on the soundtrack tells the audience that something kinky is going on.) Spade also enjoys hitting Wilmer for the exact same reason.
As for those who keep insisting they've seen the film dozens of times and didn't pick up on the subtext that's because making the hints so subtle that they went over the head of the average audience member was the only way to get them past the censors.
It's like the gag in "International House" where W.C. Fields lands on a hotel rooftop in Woo Hoo, China in his autogyro. He sticks his head out of the window and says, "Where am I? Kansas City, Kansas, or Kansas City, Missouri?" The effeminate hotel manger played by Franklin Pangborn says, "Woo Hoo!" Fields gives Pangborn a dirty look, takes the carnation out of his lapel and throws it away muttering, "Don't let the posy fool you." That probably went over the heads of a lot of people as well.
Or in "The Road to Hong Kong," Robert Morley makes a speech about how he's going to be the Supreme Ruler of the entire world and Bob Hope turns to Bing Crosby and says, "I think this guy rolls his own." (A reference to marijuana, in case you didn't get it.)
The point is that there was a lot of subtext and in-jokes in Hollywood movies during the Censorship Code. It was a game among filmmakers to see what they could or could not get away with. And part of the fun was seeing how many members of the audience would "get it."
You know whats wrong with the guy saying hey I am not gay and the rest of the world believing him? WHat part of take the poor dude at his word would be a good thing? Good god. How many people's storys are being barfed on for some sort of political agenda? If Randolph Scott said he isn't gay. He isn't. Period. Let it go. Of course this is the Gore Vidalization of things now isn't it? What a boil on the butt humanity Gore Vidal is. GUUHHHHHHHHHHHH Just leave Scott and others alone OK?
Gays seem to think everyone who's good looking is gay. The better looking they are, the more convinced they are of this. So when Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford were married, it was proof they were gay. Back in the 70s they said Rod Stewart, of all people, was gay. In the 90s Ben Affleck and Matt Damon were boyfriends, etc.
Maybe some of them are, who knows? But if you listened to people in Hollywood, everyone has a story that (name your favorite actor/actress) is either gay or had gay sex with someone. (Or worked as a prostitute, that's another common rumor about actresses).
A lot of that is probably wishful thinking on some people's part.
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in reading too much into Westerns. It's a game anyone can do. I had a college teacher who told us that every female character Shakespeare ever wrote was a lesbian. She would hang on individual words as proof, even though the meaning she gave those words were from modern diction and would not have been the meaning at the time.
Thanks Carolyn. I've been thinking about this and I can't think of a single leftist who has been outed after the fact. It always seems to be some hero of the right (Hoover, Lincoln, Scott/Grant, etc.). And when they can't make a gay rumor, they go for the affair that never happened (like Bush Sr.).
Dyan Cannon, Cary Grant's last wife and mother of his only child, emphatically rebuffed any rumour that he was gay. So many gays today love to bring up the closet homosexuality of deceased movie stars. It seems it's just another part of their agenda.
James, I think it's more than that. I think it's political. If the world believes that all these people we like were gay, weeeelll then what's wrong with being gay right? You see the same thing with the desire to claim that the founding fathers were not Christians. If they were deists or atheists, then what's wrong with that. It's a way for an out of favor group to sound more mainstream.
(By the way, I'm not making a judgment on any of these groups, just saying what I think motivates some of this.)
Hmmmm……homosesxuality in the movies. I always liked this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfODSPIYwpQ
How was Lincoln outted? I love Vidal's little stupid assertions on that one. Gore honey just because you are doesn't mean Abe was. Get a clue. As for Hoover..first I ever heard of that little pile of bs. But I think you are right..if the hero is a right winger for some reason he must be deconstructed. Can't wait till they try to deconstruct John Wayne..because you know thats how these cockroaches roll.
I have gotten into more than one argument on the Internet where I asked my opponent to cite the sources for their left-wing ravings. I usually get a link to the Daily Kos.
:/
I did some research about a famour WWI fighter pilot. Apparently because he never had a public girl friend people assumed he was Gay. Ok here is the deal unless you have proof leave the dead alone. All this bs did was deconstruct the man and his country…which was the whole purpose considering his own nation had and still has no will to actually do the man honors he deserves. This whole way of doing history and biography is BS. I'd actually like to know how many historical figures have been designated gay who weren't. How many cultures have been misunderstood because people well like the leftists here and the Vidalization of history didn't look at history through the eyes of the people being studied but rather our eyes.
If three men, a teen-aged boy, an underage girl, and a goat enter into a committed relationship that wouldn't affect my marriage either – but that's hardly a reason for institutionalizing the practice, let alone providing it with societal privileges.
A lot of good points here, but take J.Nolte's point; it's in line with his righteous crusade against the scandalous films that sexualize children. The ongoing effort of these all "artists" and "intellectuals" is to sexualize EVERYTHING. They debase every thing good and human — love, friendship, identity — by converting it into smut. Those are the only ideas that thrive in their narrow, filthy minds.
I see Dashiell Hammett, a man of the left of the left, is coming in for attack. "Homophobic" and "sexist" and no doubt "racist" (though the man supported the NAACP when it was politically risky to do so, in the 1930s). Hammett was a man of the left, who served in both Wars, the latter as a volunteer to the Alieutians with an advanced case of TB. I don't think the man had anything to prove to anyone. In any event he left classic novels and stories that will be loved far after the PC tales of today are forgotten.
As for Hammett's characters (and his own attitudes) towards crooks, they were not positive. After a long time spent chasing them down, after WWI as a Pinkerton detective, Hammett had little regard for them and used slang and language of the time to refer to crooks and con men of various races and orientations.
What is undoubtedly threatning about Falcon, as a film and novel, is the insistence of Spade having to "do something" about his partners death, even if he did not like him much, liked his killer a lot, and stood to lose. Spade in both the film and the book decides his own moral values (ill defined, but he does have them) and independence matter more than Brigid or money. It's a bravura performance by Bogart in the role he was born to play in the adaptation of the novel Hammett was born to write.
That Gutman and Cairo are both subtext gay, and villains is irrelevant as the PC police of the LAT. What the writer is really calling for is a Stalnist revisionism, out of PC orthodoxy. He's likely to be ignored. Maltese Falcon and Hammett were a great movie and writer, respectively. PC is nothing but garbage for the mind, social status mongering.
Betsy Drake, another of Grant's wives, addressed the rumor on a PBS special.
Something along the lines of "I heard the rumor, but thought it odd, since we spent
all our time (bleep)."
My rule is: if someone doesn't come right out and say so- they're not homosexual.
Let's just let everyone alone, how'd that be?
So, using your logic, when a homosexual calls me a "breeder", he has a problem with my sexuality?
Nice to know; up 'till now, I thought they were being snide–now I know that they're heterophobes.
Not to mention Bugs' constant crossdressing and the marriage of Bugs and Elmer Fudd in "The Rabbit of Seville".
I saw the claim about Lincoln for the first time two weeks ago (though the claim apparently is older than that). At one point, Lincoln used to share an apartment and a bed with another male (apparently a typical cost cutting measure of the era). The other guy even wrote somewhere that Lincoln had a good body. Personally, I see this as total garbage, but several historians are pushing the idea.
Gore Vidal gets my goat too, Lola. Big time. That little prancing Queen rewriting history so everyone swishes like him. Oh, puhleese. But what gets me most is that he's got no talent as a writer. To paraphrase P.G. Wodehouse, "If talent were silk, he wouldn't have enough to knit boxer shorts for a flea."
Ya know, Randolph Scott was a stand-up guy in the movies and probably would not have tolerated this kind of hatchet-job, "look-at-me-I'm-getting-famous-by-serving-my-agenda!" defamationism (I can't call it "journalism").
If I were in this butt-monkey's shoes, I'd be worried that some of ol' Randolph's kin might have been raised to feel the same way. Who knows, they might just take time off from riding the trails to come into town and plug his ass with a Colt Dragoon!
'Course, I don't have any issue with that, because I quit having problems with journalicide a L-O-N-G time ago.
MAtter of fact it does. What it does is to destroy the point of marraige which is not "Love".. Granted Love is great when it is part of a marraige and today we would not think of living without it but it is on the whole "a nice to have". It is only in the last two centuries that arranged maraiges were not the norm.
Marraige is about trying to ensure that a child knows and is raised by their biological father and mother. Simply put this is the reality of it.
When you call a bonding between homosexuals a marraige you by nature of your definition forbid him or her from also entering into a "marraige" with one of the opposite sex. This threatens the very homosexuality you pretend to support since it means that the genes of homosexuals will be less likely to transfer to the next generation.
This idea that I cannot rationally explore this unarguable fact of life without having to devle into discussions of homophobia actually concerns me.
Whisky — Ii's hilarious that you accuse me of being Politically Correct and then take my words out of context which is what the PC Police do to make their points. I NEVER said Dashiell Hammett was a sexist or a homophobe, I said that Sam Spade, a fictional character he created, was a sexist and a homophobe. The whole point of "The Maltese Falcon," his greatest novel, is that heroes can be far from perfect. Spade isn't the good guy because he is a paragon of virtue, he is the hero because, even though he acts every bit acts every bit as ruthless as the villains, he isn't (quite) as amoral as they are. He does draw the line SOMEWHERE. But he IS a sexist SOB who treats women as Kleenex. (SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!) In the novel's final chapter, which was significantly left out of the film, Spade's secretary Effie is appalled that he turned Brigit over to the cops, even though she killed his partner Archer. He then resumes his affair with Archer's widow whom he was screwing even when Archer was still alive. Spade (whose very name hints at his sexual prowess) may be more sympathetic in the film, but he is still a bastard. That is not my revisionist interpretation, it is explicit in the novel and has always been there in both the book and the movie.
Imagine the number of utter babes caught in the flytrap that was Grant's and Scott's abode. The best for me, the second best for my bud, and the rest can be left stuck to the paper. Otherwise it's off to work for the day. (Such is the life of most ambitious girls in Hollywood.) That's the simplest explanation. I'll go with it.
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!
The things that got by my parents when I was in front of the TV on Saturday mornings.
Growing up Catholic, I am sure some nun in grade school would have denounced Bugs if there had been a sniff of homosexuality.
Instead we just laughed and laughed and then went outside to play ball and ride our bikes. Of course no girls ever played with us boys (until high school). Hmmmmmm…..maybe it was Bugs that kept us from being interested in girls until we reached puberty.
"Any linger doubts I had was erased by the diving board scene…"
After citing the oracular NY Times, I'm surprised you had any "linger doubts" at all. But then a "diving board scene" clinches it for you? Well, how are we to respond to such rigorous standards of truth-seeking?
But, no matter. It's only a man's reputation in the balance.
Next thing they'll be saying Rock Hudson was gay!
The homely left, primping in history's mirror, so desperate for kissable lips. Our culture's ugly sister, imploring us to put our arms around her. Whining to us that she's been here front and center all along. Tsk, the poor left ! Seeing such a dearth of any worthy icons of its own, as predictable as the morning sun, the left resorts to its one trick, worn threadbare from use: rewiting history.
When Hammett submitted the manuscript of THE MALTESE FALCON to his publishers, they were appalled at his use of many "four-letter" words, which they demanded he take out. He had used the word "gunsel" to describe Wilmer as a homosexual, believing (rightly, it turned out) that the publishers would believe it referred to guns.
Sam Spade refers to Wilmer as a "gunsel". Hammett used that term because to the uninitiated it sounded like something of a gunman, but, in San Francisco in the late 20's when the book was written, it was a slang term for a male prostitute or escort. So, Cairo, Gutman and Wilmer are all homosexuals.
The Left obsesses about Sex and Sexuality; pretends that "homosexuality is great", and then attacks the Right for being homosexual. And this attack is done with a snicker.
Anyway, I keep thinking about what 'homosexuality' really is. There are 2 interesting books by writers born early in the 1900s. Both were upper middle class Brits and attended all boy schools: CS Lewis, his autobio, "Surprised by Joy", and Nicholas Mosley, "Time at War". Lewis talks about the homosexual relationships in his schools, where there were a bunch of young student "tarts", and older student boyfriends. Lewis points out that these relationships lent some warmth to an essentially cold and thuggish atmosphere.
As to Mosley, he too was a Brit public school boy, "At school my friends and I had been, yes, in our attitudes homosexual; though only in one pairing occasionally practicing….When I had gone from public school straight into the army (ie, WWII) this had seemed to be a continuation of a homosexual world in which there are no natural family ties…. when I got home to London in September 1945 I found…. and each of these dances seemed to consist of an enchanted garden of girls; how was it possible I had not noticed girls before?…."
I think with this Lefty fever over race and sexuality, there is little or no place for change or nuance, or an odd liking for, say, hockey. Lefties are by nature completely political animals, and they have managed to carve race and sex and class into one dimensional cartoons.
John,
I've seen Maltese a million times and I never picked up on this — always took their behavior as being "the strangeness" of foreigners. Thanks.
On Scott, I totally agree. It's despicable to tag a dead person with something controversial based on rumor, especially when those who would know best dispute the claim.
I wonder if Reed's attack has anything to do with Scott being a hard-core Republican and a Pro-Reagan guy? (Just a thought, but you never seem to see anyone try to slur leftists.)
"Wilmer is Gutman's kept boyfriend."
I think it's safe to say that Gutfeld is gay, but I thought his kept boyfriend's name was "Renaldo the Flight Attendant", or something like that.
Oh wait…Gutman. Sorry, I got confused.
Still, if you were to bet that Greg Gutfeld is gayer than Randolph Scott, you couldn't lose.
Now I'll have to go back and watch "The Maltese Falcon" all over again. It's tough being mid-50's and naive! But, I went and looked up the word gunsel in my dictionary and it says: "A hoodlum or other criminal, especially one who carries a gun." I have never heard the word used in any other context and I have a hard time believing that a character would use the term. More likely he'd call him "queen" or "fag". Harsh terms in today's polite society, but the norm for the late 30's – early 40's. These were people hardened by the Depression and jaded by the First World War. Using cirmcumlocutions to avoid hurting Wilmer's or Gutman's feelings has a false feel about it. Sorry for the delay, but I had to sign up for this rodeo.
This website is not devoted to books. In the FILM, the female clerk closes the store which leaves the viewer with the indelible impression that they "knocked boots" to use the parlance of our times. In addition, I was merely sighting an example of a scene that someone could run wild with if their objective was to run wild. It was tongue in cheek, if I can say that without you putting some sort of spin on it.
I'm sorry. I must have missed the Big Hollywood website rules that said "Don't mention books here, even if the film (sorry, FILM) in question is based on said book." It's particularly ironic that some people here object to mentioning a book when the subject is "The Maltese Falcon" because, to this day, TMF still holds the record for the most faithful film version of a novel ever. With exception of the last two lines, all of the dialogue is taken straight from the book and there is not one scene in the film that wasn't in the novel.
BTW, "Mr. Thalberg," if a FILM is based on a book, the book is relevant to the discussion here. Grow up.
id love for gays to actually try to out someone whos not a good looking guy. you see they all try to get scott, grant, etc on their side. where are they for ugly dudes?
Except for the fact that it's a review of a movie, and the passage in question is summarizing info FROM the film, not reporting on the part of the Times. So take it up with Mark Rappaport if you like, but it's not the Times' problem.
Totally agreed here!
Becca
Totally agreed here!
[...] Big Hollywood В» Blog Archive В» Randolph Scott and the Left's … Feb 16, 2009 … Tags: cary grant, Los Angeles Times, Randolph Scott, reed johnson ….. This threatens the very homosexuality you pretend to support since it means that the genes of homosexuals … [...]
… [Trackback]…
[...] Informations on that Topic: bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/02/16/randolph-scott-and-the-lefts-rhetorical-knot/ [...]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.