dcswirl

My thoughts exactly.

Giantrobo

I don't know about that but I know in the FOTR commentary Ian McKellan does talk about one or two suggestions he made to Jackson concerning Frodo and Sam's relationship. Listen to Ian talk about it on the disk when Frodo wakes in Rivendell.......

LiquidSky

Merry and Pippin seemed very close in the final film.

I'm a gay guy and my best friend is a gay guy. We have had a very close relationship for 20 years now and NO romance/sex. So, it is possible for two men to be very close and not be romantically involved.

PixyJunket

Bingo..

chanster

Then I guess a whole lot of people have issues with it, because this discussion has occurred after almost all of the films...and not just on this board...

DodgingCars

Aren't they cousins? I guess they do live in a rural area though.. so thay may be ok.

The Antipodean

You said it, I didn't.

Cusm

I saw some homoeroticism when I was RotK, but only because of this damn thread. If I had not seen/read this thread the thought would not even occured to me. I feel the book(s) were written during another era, and that the movie is true to the orignal intent of the book.

LiquidSky

Perhaps written in an era in which there were no homosexuals?

DeputyDave

It is a well known fact that "those types" were invented in a laboratory at Berkley in 1957.

Lara Means

Iron_Giant

Sam understood the importance of the mission, that is why he so devoted to Frodo. And war bonds men together, my dad still talks about and goes to see the men that he flew with in WWII.

Five Cent Deposit

Yeah, people clearly are missing the entire point that the story is trying to make...

what's goofy is that it's mainly men who see a big flashing "GAY" sign over Frodo and Sam's heads. I wonder what the reaction would be if the characters were written and performed exactly the same, but female. The shots of Samantha cradling a broken-down Frida wouldn't seem odd to nearly as many people.

I'm not saying that I don't see *why* others would have the reaction they do, but I just don't have the same reaction. As far as it being *sad*, well, I dunno. I've long since stopped feeling saddened by the way some of my friends can't hear the way I feel about them without making a big show of raising their eyebrows and saying "Nooott that there's anything wrong with that!" or some other BS. If affection makes some people uncomfortable, hey, I'm not really interested in changing it. It's just amusing watching people try to defuse their own tension sometimes.

If Sam and Frodo were brothers (or father and son, or basically ANY relationship other than "just" friends) I think a lot more people would allow themselves to be moved by the depth of their love for each other. It's like you can only graduate directly to the level of "longtime companions" (wink, wink) from the level of "cool buds".

silentbob007

I simply do not understand how anyone can read "homoeroticism" into Sam and Frodo's relationship. Do the two love each other? Yes ... in a battle stress/friendship sort of way, not in a I want to sex your hobbit-self up kind of way. If you want to talk about male bonding, that is one thing, but the term homoeroticism strictly includes sexual actions and/or desires.

This type of argument perfectly represents that trap that modernist/post-modernist/humanist critics throw people into. In their eyes, there is no difference in interpretation allowed. Either you see blatant homosexuality between Frodo and Sam, or you are an incredibly ignorant bigot who is trying to repress your own feelings.

LiquidSky

Well, I was born in California.

DeputyDave

It's Alive!

Philip Reuben

You're ignoring a useful and relevant word: Subtext.

There is homoerotic subtext between Frodo and Sam, between Merry and Pippin, hell, even between Legolas and Gimli (ew). It doesn't mean you're wrong not to notice it; it doesn't mean you're wrong to notice it. It doesn't mean it's intentional; it doesn't mean it's not intentional. It doesn't mean the characters actually are gay; it doesn't mean the characters are not gay.

wlmowery

I would have to strongly disagree with this post. Subtext is defined as "The underlying personality of a dramatic character as implied or indicated by a script or text and interpreted by an actor in performance." Implication requires more than a guess and most have some supporting evidence in the text. There is NO supporting evidence in the text for any sexual relationship between the male members of the fellowship. In fact, I suggest just the opposite as it is quite clear that at least Aragorn and Sam have heterosexual yearnings. It is impossible to really discuss Legolas and Gimli as neither has much of an interaction with relevant potential heterosexual partners of the same race (though Gimli does appear lovestruck with Galadriel).

Subtext does not spring from the either. It requires some causal connection to evidence within the text. Nor do I believe that any of the character actors interpreted their characters in that manner. It is merely an unfortunate example of our culture's inability to accept loving relationships which are not of a sexual or familial basis.

gcribbs

you believe there is a subtext.

I guess we have come so far in human relations that men still can not have close relationships with other men without being considered homosexual.

We are so enlightened

There is more to relationships between people than sex.

Of course since I do not see it I am either naive or stupid or repressed i guess

I guess we need to wait another generation or two till men can express love and caring for another man without having homosexual thoughts

Philip Reuben

Yes. To me it is really obvious... it gave me urges to write Merry/Pippin slash. It was wrong of me to try and claim that it is there, but it certainly is there in the minds of many huge numbers of people, and I don't necessarily think these people are delusional.

It's not that people think the characters actually are gay. I'm not sure I've explained this very well.

If anything, I agree that it's a reflection of the way society views relationships between men. The types of relationships displayed in Lord of the Rings are closer than the male friendships generally seen in society today and accepted as platonic. People notice this, and see the identifying factors of it as evidence that the relationships aren't platonic.

I think it's silly to say that Tolkien and/or Peter Jackson actually intended that the characters are gay. That simply isn't the case. But at the same time, I think society's standards justify the belief in evidence that the relationships are more than platonic. Does this make sense?

I have neither said nor implied this. You're entitled to not see it.

Five Cent Deposit

Wait, so *every* pair of best friends or companions is open to this interpretation?

Please. For one thing, how is it that people can accept and believe in (for 3 hours, at least) the existence of Hobbits and Elves and Dwarves, but can't believe that said creatures could possibly develop a non-homosexual bond that *might* just be deeper than your average friendship among Middle Americans?

The other thing is that I really don't see Tolkien intentionally subtextualizing gay romance between every friggin character. It's preposterous. Even modern novels by "out" authors that are aimed at the "out" crowd don't make every single character gay. And to imagine that an author as measured and precise as Tolkien could unwittiingly put in such subtext is even more absurd.

Cusm

No, just a time when the gay was contained, and people did not have to fear it at every turn.


I was actually trying to add something, and another damn otter has to sneak into the thread.

Philip Reuben

Pretty much. You'll find slash fans for almost every popular book, movie or TV series, and most of them will be able to give you plenty of evidence that they believe supports their interpretation of the characters.

People are free to believe that or not believe it.

[quote]The other thing is that I really don't see Tolkien intentionally subtextualizing gay romance between every friggin character. It's preposterous. Even modern novels by "out" authors that are aimed at the "out" crowd don't make every single character gay.[/quite]

I agree.

I completely disagree.

Honestly... this is a matter of opinion. It's okay if you don't see homoerotic undertones to any of the male friendships in LOTR. It's also okay if some people do see them in some of these friendships, and in fact think they are blindingly obvious.

Supermallet

So that makes it...true? A persuasive argument is sometimes just talk. There's a critical theory, by a scholar of African American studies, which says that Jay Gatsby of The Great Gatsby is black. Having read the article, I found that he didn't have much to support his argument. However, the writing is at times persuasive. You almost want to believe it. But Jay Gatsby isn't black. Just because you see something there doesn't mean it's actually there.

And really, don't you think the act of writing slash in and of itself lowers the credibility of anyone who would then try to seriously argue character dynamics?

Borst

wow it must be sad to not have any friends of the same sex that you love and would do anything for or die for because you don't want others to think that it's gay