Homophobia in criticism of BF and B&R

[RobC]

Clooney actually frequently says that he 'played Batman gay' not that Schumacher told him too. I think it's clear that whilst there are campy moments in both films that could be construed as 'gay' this is not because Schumacher is gay.

Are we gonna say that Rocky is a really manly film because the director is straight? Because there's hidden homo-erotic subtext in there, ditto with Fight Club and Top Gun. Yet those films are directed by straight men, and targeted at a mainly straight audience.

Just because a director is gay, doesn't mean his films are. Watch Tigerland, a wonderful film which is extremely male orientated and agressive.

Schumacher's intention with Batman And Robin, and to a lesser extenet, Batman Forever was to make a living comic book in the style of the 60's because he and WB saw these books as more kid friendly. If you read these books, and watch the Adam West series you'd realize that this is perfectly in keeping with the style.

Oh, and Jim Carrey made the Riddler campy, not gay, it was a direct homage to Frank Gorshin.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I don't have much to argue here, but a lot of people are really just reciprocating things. If you want to interchange 'neon,' 'flashy Gotham,' and 'flamboyant attire' with 'gay' then this supposed gay-subtext is really all you'll find.

I'm only saying I don't think Schumacher's plan was to create Batman movies to ooze a homosexual agenda into it.

If Batman Forever, with no changes at all, simply had Sam Raimi's name under the 'directed by' credit, would the film still be said to have a gay undertone?

The most I could give you all regarding this is the Riddler. The tiara, the crazy hairdue, whatever it may be. Again, the obsession with Wayne played well with the film and no part of that did I actually think was gay. The performance neither. It simply light-hearted and campy.(I thought Carrey was great though btw)

Peope just take some scenes as 'gay' when it was not the intention, but rather just being ridiculously campy. Extreme example(lol):

Spoiler

Back to my first point, I believe Joel Schumacher's intentions were more to create something lighthearted, campy, and fun, as opposed to homoerotic. Some people just get ridiculous when they start such comments as "Two Face was so gay, you saw the way he giggled and had a purple face!" Those type of accusations just don't hold.

 

[Darkseid1]

problem with this thread is, the topic starter doesnt want to listen to the reasoning as to why poeple think there are "gay" tones in the 2 films. It was started to simply start an obvious biased "fight" on the subject of homosexuality. if the posts were read carefully and understodd as they werent meant to be, it was never said by anyone that schumacher "intentianly" set out to make "gay" batman films. it was stated that due to his being who he is, it was simply brought into the movies because its just his style of doing things.

 

[Darkseid1]

See that just reads to me as "I'd rather just label you as a gay agenda trouble-maker than actually refute your points or reply to the questions you asked me".

no. this just reads as ...you just proved his point.

 

[juarez]

Thanks to you both for your posts, you really get what I'm trying to argue here. I agree, Shumacher was just trying to emulate the campy theatrics of the television show, but it doesn't make the campiness any more gay than the Adam West show just because a gay man directed them. The reason the films fail for me is because Shumacher misunderstood the irony of the t.v show, and while that was actually witty his Batman films are too low-brow wacky.

 

[juarez]

problem with this thread is, the topic starter doesnt want to listen to the reasoning as to why poeple think there are "gay" tones in the 2 films. It was started to simply start an obvious biased "fight" on the subject of homosexuality. if the posts were read carefully and understodd as they werent meant to be, it was never said by anyone that schumacher "intentianly" set out to make "gay" batman films. it was stated that due to his being who he is, it was simply brought into the movies because its just his style of doing things.

Umm no if you actually re-read the posts you'll see I wanted to debate the proposed "gayness" of the films and instead was given a generic "yeah but everyone knows the films are gay!" response instead. Excuse me if I don't kow-tow and consider that reasoned debate. It is YOU who is hung up on me questioning this issue, and you're going out of your way to paint me a gay militant rather than actually give an argument as to why it is you believe the films are "gay". Rather it's YOU who seems to be biased against me discussing homosexuality in respect to these films. In what way have I intended a "fight" on homosexuality? I questioned the thought that because Shumacher is gay it automatically explains the silliness of his Batman films, a pretty bigoted belief in my opinion.

 

[RobC]

Oh man, this is getting intense. Who'd have thought it, a fight on the SHH! boards?

I'm gonna say it again, whilst there are some moments in the film that can be considered 'gay' the same can be said of almost any film. How about in BB when he does all those press ups in front of Alfred? That's not considered gay, because the general tone of the film is not camp.

Bottom line, the films are camp, not gay.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

1. There is a homosexual subtext to the films - Where? Do Batman and Robin get it on any point in the films? Is Bruce Wayne presented as anything other than heterosexual in his interactions with the films' female characters? One could argue that the approach is camp, but camp does not equate gayness, it equates intended or ironic silliness, certainly not a homoerotic subtext.

If Batman and Robin 'got it on' in the film, that would not be subtext, it would be text.

2. Gratuitous male ass shots - Curious, nobody mentions the gratuitous female boob and ass shots of the films, of which there are several. Seemingly nobody can handle equal opportunity gratuitous nudity/sexuality. It's symptomatic of the straight male gaze that rules our culture.

It's ok for women to be sexualised for male consumption, yet men cannot be sexualised in the same manner without it being unwholesome or gay!

But movies directors are predominatly male! Especially directors of action movies. Naturally they sexualise women. If a male director 'sexualises' men, as often as Schumacher does, and presents this within his movie, as often as Schumacher does, and the director is gay, as Schumacher is...you have gay overtones. Then if the director puts nipples on the male characters' costumes, fills his film with swirling neon colours and naked male statues, and shows his main character's ass...you can only miss it if you are both blind and deaf.

So you are admitting that Schumacher's Batman films sexualise men, but you won't accept there's any homosexual vibes there.

Certainly no-one can deny the blantantly over-sexualised Poison Ivy or the slightly lesser Chase Meridian. But Gotham is full of statues of naked men. The films are about the relationships between men. The Gotham Observatory is a huge phallic telescope on the back of a naked male torso - a telescope which fires a white freezing ray. Dick asks Bruce if he hangs out at biker bars.

 

[juarez]

If Batman and Robin 'got it on' in the film, that would not be subtext, it would be text.

But movies directors are predominatly male! Especially directors of action movies. Naturally they sexualise women. If a male director 'sexualises' men, as often as Schumacher does, and presents this within his movie, as often as Schumacher does, and the director is gay, as Schumacher is...you have gay overtones. Then if the director puts nipples on the male characters' costumes, fills his film with swirling neon colours and naked male statues, and shows his main character's ass...you can only miss it if you are both blind and deaf.

So you are admitting that Schumacher's Batman films sexualise men, but you won't accept there's any homosexual vibes there.

Certainly no-one can deny the blantantly over-sexualised Poison Ivy or the slightly lesser Chase Meridian. But Gotham is full of statues of naked men. The films are about the relationships between men. The Gotham Observatory is a huge phallic telescope on the back of a naked male torso - a telescope which fires a white freezing ray. Dick asks Bruce if he hangs out at biker bars.

I've already commented on the nipples and the neon not being part of a "gay vision" so I won't re-hash that again.

As for the naked statues, there's naked male statues in Batman Returns too, are you suggesting that Tim Burton has a homoerotic fascination with statues of naked men? Or because he's straight does that mean he's exempt? Shumacher was following the german expressionist designs of Returns blended in with his more colourful aesthetic, male statues have been with us throughout history and are not a product of a gay gaze.

And as for your interpretation of the Gotham Observatory, well, I think it says more about you reading gay into things more than anything. Ever hear of Freud?

So if a film deals with relationships between men it invites a homosexual subtext? It's fine if you want to argue that, but then you'd have to consider every film that deals with relationships between men, not just ones directed by gay men.

And the biker bar line was in response to Wayne's vast collection of bikes. It's a play on the perceived notion of Wayne's rich playboy image.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Joel Schumacher is gay.

You've already admitted his films sexualize the male characters.

He can't sexualize them from a hetrosexual point of view, now can he?

Because he's not hetrosexual.

It's his film, it's his imagination, and he is gay.

There aren't even any straws for you to clutch at.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

First we must realise that Joel Schumacher is gay - and as a result this is an element of himself that as been incorporated into his movies.

The same way the loner and isolated from the world aspects creep into Burton's movies.

Now i have no problem with his presentation of certain characters sexual orientation or naked male statues...

But those butt-shots were just too much and the way they linger on the screen for a while and Kilmers ass wobbles -- Please, that was forced upon us entirely. It was the moments where, disturbingly, Joel let his sexual fantasies have life on the big screen

 

[Punch]

He can't sexualize them from a hetrosexual point of view, now can he?

Because he's not hetrosexual.

Well, yeah he could. Not saying he did or didn't, but he could.

 

[Mr. Socko]

But movies directors are predominatly male! Especially directors of action movies. Naturally they sexualise women. If a male director 'sexualises' men, as often as Schumacher does, and presents this within his movie, as often as Schumacher does, and the director is gay, as Schumacher is...you have gay overtones. Then if the director puts nipples on the male characters' costumes, fills his film with swirling neon colours and naked male statues, and shows his main character's ass...you can only miss it if you are both blind and deaf.

So you are admitting that Schumacher's Batman films sexualise men, but you won't accept there's any homosexual vibes there.

Certainly no-one can deny the blantantly over-sexualised Poison Ivy or the slightly lesser Chase Meridian. But Gotham is full of statues of naked men. The films are about the relationships between men. The Gotham Observatory is a huge phallic telescope on the back of a naked male torso - a telescope which fires a white freezing ray. Dick asks Bruce if he hangs out at biker bars.

I can see your point on the ass shots, but in the same instance, Bat-girl has them too(Schumacher's point to balance maybe?). Neon in no way equals gay so I'm going to have to just dismiss that one completely. Again, like I said previously, that would be like saying Two Face in BF was gay because he had a half purple face and a cheetah tie. Just not a valid point in any way. You wouldn't say Las Vegas is a predominately gay city because you see neon.

The good ol bat-nipples, don't even know where to start there.
Schumacher has given a reason for them so I honestly can't say he put them there because of his sexuality. If Raimi directed the very same film and given the exact same reason for the nipples, people wouldn't say they're there b/c of the director's sexuality.

I will agree Schumacher made the statues ridiculously big(though I've never made the observatory analogy before) but giant naked statues of males were present in Gotham City before Joel directed any of the films.

I'm trying to work with everyone here, I'm looking at both sides of the argument. But in the end, I've never looked this far into the subject and simply enjoy the movies for what they are.

 

[RobC]

Yeah the statues are a hangover from the Burton set designs, Schumacher said he wanted to mix the worlds, to bring a bit of light into Burton's world or something.

I dunno, we seem to be going round in circles, one person makes a really good point for it not being gay, then someone counters with a good argument for it being gay.

Dunno, I've never personally seen the films as gay, just as camp. Truth be told I only found out Schumacher was gay when this thread started.

Remember though, a lot of these arguments would have nothing to do with Schumacher. Blame the set designer, costume designer, lighting assistant etc...

 

[DeaDheaD]

Jim Carrey's Riddler was the only good thing about Schumacher's Batman........I dont care if he's gay, Gordon's gay or Batman himself is gay........its the fact that under Schumacher Batman went from badass to goofball caught up in a soap opera.........it was poorly written, everything was a pun, there was no depth to any character, and instead of going for better actors (not that they were all bad, but come on, less than half actually fit the characters they were playing) he just went for names........he turned Batman into a Mad TV/SNL sketch that lasted way too long, there is no reason to defend how schumacher handled the Character he was practically handed.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Remember though, a lot of these arguments would have nothing to do with Schumacher. Blame the set designer, costume designer, lighting assistant etc...

A director is involved in all these elements. Schumacher himself is a former window dresser and costume designer, and had a lot of input into the costumes and look of his Batman movies.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I will agree Schumacher made the statues ridiculously big(though I've never made the observatory analogy before) but giant naked statues of males were present in Gotham City before Joel directed any of the films.

I'm trying to work with everyone here, I'm looking at both sides of the argument. But in the end, I've never looked this far into the subject and simply enjoy the movies for what they are.

Yes, no-one is denying Burton had statues of men. It's the combination of this with all the other elements of Schumacher's movie which give them the gay overtones Burton movies don't have.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Jim Carrey's Riddler was the only good thing about Schumacher's Batman........I dont care if he's gay, Gordon's gay or Batman himself is gay........

None of them are gay within the context of the story.

 

[RobC]

Um, look, i'm doing a degree in film and television production, the director has almsot minimal input into things like set design and costume. No doubt Schumacher said he wanted more god-like figures on the suits, and I bet he said he wanted Gotham lighter, but it's upto the other people to interpret those ideas. Seriously, Schumacher would have given them a brief and they would have come to him with like three or four ideas and they would have worked out which one was best.

Directors are more about framing shots and deciding camera movements, working with actors and so forth. Surprising how little input they actually have on films, producers are the big daddies.

 

[ALP]

The big bright city and campy stuff may have been WB's decision.

 

[bethehero7404]

The following is an interview with my 1995 self and 2007 self concerning the Schumacher films:

95: Man, I can't wait for the new Batman.
07: You should see what you do later that really solidifies the liking of Batman Forever.
95: Jim Carrey was a perfect fit for The Riddler. He's so funny in those Ace Ventura films and Dumb and Dumber.
07: He represented the Frank Gorshin chracter well regardless of the gay over tone.
95: Gay overtone?
07: Some people think the riddler is gay.
95: Why?
07: The suit, hair and the obsession with Bruce Wayne.
95: I'd be obsessed with him to, he's rich, handsome and head of a major corporation that his father built. I'd die to be that guy.
07: Me too. Still am.
95: What?
07: Nothing. What do you think about the gay thing?
95: Nothing really. I think that it is the representation of Frank Gorshin's character and I think he has pulled it off nicely from the previews I see. Gorshin grabbed and fondled too. It was just the character, not an undertone.
07: You'll hate the butt shots.
95: What?
07: Nothing. Just watch for some korney stuff in it. You'll not really like that.

AFTER THE SHOWING...

95: Nothing bothered me.
07: It bothers me some.
95: Like?
07: Two-Face.
95: Oh yeah, well that was bad. They killed him off. Why did they do that?
07: Following in Burton's footsteps I guess.
95: I didn't like how he was Joker-esque. They also cut out a lot like the beginning escape and the line from the preview "Bat wants to play, we'll play." The laughing bugged me too. He isn't the Joker.
07: What about the Riddler?
95: Loved it. Best part.
07: You're bias. It's your favorite villain. I think he should have been more like the animated series than Gorshin.
95: I like the Gorshin tribute. Carrey did great. I like that Schumacher brought in the element of Arkham Asylum that Burton didn't do.
07: True, that is one element that has not been discussed that was positive. The only things talked about him now are nipples, bad acting, scripts and how he ruined the franchise.
95: He does more?
07: Unfortunately.
95: Oh.

 

[Darkseid1]

Um, look, i'm doing a degree in film and television production, the director has almsot minimal input into things like set design and costume. No doubt Schumacher said he wanted more god-like figures on the suits, and I bet he said he wanted Gotham lighter, but it's upto the other people to interpret those ideas. Seriously, Schumacher would have given them a brief and they would have come to him with like three or four ideas and they would have worked out which one was best.

Directors are more about framing shots and deciding camera movements, working with actors and so forth. Surprising how little input they actually have on films, producers are the big daddies.

you must have not watched any of the interviews or documentaries on Forever or B&R.

 

[RobC]

Not many of them, but that doesn't change the fact that the director, as a whole, does not have major artistic input into certain things. That's why costume and set designers exist.

Trust me, not all of the blame for BF and B+R lie at Schumachers door.

 

[juarez]

Joel Schumacher is gay.

You've already admitted his films sexualize the male characters.

He can't sexualize them from a hetrosexual point of view, now can he?

Because he's not hetrosexual.

It's his film, it's his imagination, and he is gay.

There aren't even any straws for you to clutch at.

Of course he can sexualise male and female characters from a heterosexual point of view, it's called putting yourself in someone else's shoes and artists have been doing in forever. Just like a straight man like Ang Lee can eroticise the relationship between two men in Brokeback Mountain, and how gay men make straight porn for straight consumption - Joel Shumacher's sexual orientation has nothing to do with male or female ass shots, if anything it's equal opportunity ass-ness. Newsflash, gay men's imaginations are not ruled or defined by their sexualities, are you saying that because Bryan Singer is gay that means the shirtless shots of Wolverine in X-Men are because of his "gay imagination" or if a female director puts female nudity on the screen it means she's a lesbian? Oh and thanks for quoting me in your sig, - you really showed me!

 

[juarez]

Yes, no-one is denying Burton had statues of men. It's the combination of this with all the other elements of Schumacher's movie which give them the gay overtones Burton movies don't have.

Wait, so a naked statue is only gay if it features in a film directed by a gay man?! You can't have it both ways. So gay man + naked statues + neon + both male and female body shots = gay movie, while straight man + naked statues + colourful circus costumes + fetishisation of rubber and latex costumes on men and women = not gay movie. Right.