Homophobia in criticism of BF and B&R

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

Gay or not, going from batman returns, to THAT, pfffff...

 

[Tournée d'adieu]

well. I can see that you are not going to take what others have to say as an equal opinion. So Im not going to elaborate any further on anything. I have better things to do than to get into an argument over the gay tones of Schumachers films with someone who doesnt see anytihng wrong with it or even acknowledges it being there. By your last 2 posts directed to me and Kevin, its obvious you only started this topic to argue your gay stance. Take it somewhere else.

He responded to your response. He's debating you. He has convictions and is defending them. You just didn't hear what you wanted to hear. By the way, your post saying that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" and a "choice" is incredibly offensive and ignorant. Also, that's influencing your view of the films just as much if not more than his being gay influences his view. So take your hypocrisy "somewhere else."

No it doesn't. Because whatever I would list, you would find someway to argue against.

Yes, he's debating you. What is it with people here?

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.

I disagree. If you care why, post again and ask. I lost my original responses to this thread so I'm feeling really sapped right now but still wanted to respond.

To Juarez: I think there is gay subtext. The bat-nipples and the butt shots might have justifications that aren't "gay" but they suggest, and that's the key word, SUGGEST, an INTERPRETATION of homosexuality. In other words, someone in queer studies would have a lot to work with. Hence, there is a gay subtext.

But I agree, people are homophobic on these boards and in their criticisms.

Sorry these responses are half-assed. I'm so depressed my original ones were lost...

 

[matthooper]

It's funny, I never identified any gay subtext in BF at all. After reading the thread and seeing people's points, I still don't see it. But, it's pretty obvious that even on a small level, there was in B&R. Even if Schumacher didn't do any of it on purpose, it still crept into the film, that's pretty obvious. You can't really argue with the what you see on screen.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

After all these years - and considering everything that is wrong with BF and B&R...

Gay undertones is the last thing we should be worrying about!!

 

[Mr. Socko]

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!

Bravo, good sir.

 

[Darkseid1]

He responded to your response. He's debating you. He has convictions and is defending them. You just didn't hear what you wanted to hear. By the way, your post saying that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" and a "choice" is incredibly offensive and ignorant. Also, that's influencing your view of the films just as much if not more than his being gay influences his view. So take your hypocrisy "somewhere else."

No it doesn't. Because whatever I would list, you would find someway to argue against.

Yes, he's debating you. What is it with people here?



I disagree. If you care why, post again and ask. I lost my original responses to this thread so I'm feeling really sapped right now but still wanted to respond.

To Juarez: I think there is gay subtext. The bat-nipples and the butt shots might have justifications that aren't "gay" but they suggest, and that's the key word, SUGGEST, an INTERPRETATION of homosexuality. In other words, someone in queer studies would have a lot to work with. Hence, there is a gay subtext.

But I agree, people are homophobic on these boards and in their criticisms.

Sorry these responses are half-assed. I'm so depressed my original ones were lost...

wow. theyre coming out of the woodwork.


poeple are giving their reasons as to why they think there are gay tones in the schumacher films and their labeled homophobic. i didnt read anywhere where any of them said they hated or were afraid of the films because of this. just stating why they saw these certain things.

im curious, if it isnt a lifestyle or choice what is it? its not a lifestyle? theres no such thing as a gay lifestyle? im confused to these arguments.

debating? no. reinterpreting what someone else has said so that you can start fights over a topic that no one really cares to hear about. homosexuality. this is a superhero board. take this crap "somewhere else".

 

[juarez]

wow. theyre coming out of the woodwork.

poeple are giving their reasons as to why they think there are gay tones in the schumacher films and their labeled homophobic. i didnt read anywhere where any of them said they hated or were afraid of the films because of this. just stating why they saw these certain things.

im curious, if it isnt a lifestyle or choice what is it? its not a lifestyle? theres no such thing as a gay lifestyle? im confused to these arguments.

debating? no. reinterpreting what someone else has said so that you can start fights over a topic that no one really cares to hear about. homosexuality. this is a superhero board. take this crap "somewhere else".

No where did I say believing that the Shumacher films have gay overtones indicates homophobia. What I do consider homophobic are some of the comments made about Shumacher and the films, juvenile comments about how pervy Shumacher is and how he "gets off" on filming men's arses. What's also homophobic are some of the generalistic comments made about gay male directors, suggesting that they can't help but include homoerotic subtext/images just because they're gay, - homophobia doesn't just mean hate or fear of homosexuality, it also means the bias and stereotypical beliefs about it.

No being gay is not a lifestyle, just as being heterosexual isn't a lifestyle. They're sexual orientations, as in they're innate. Being a rodeo clown is a lifestyle, as in you choose to live the lifestyle of a rodeo clown. Glad we've cleared that up.

So homosexuality has no place being discussed on a superhero board huh? So when people make comments about how gay the Shumacher films are, they're entirely justified right? Oh I see, it's only something "nobody wants to hear about" when someone questions why the films are gay. Hypocrisy much? Also, you must believe that superheroes and homosexuality are mutually exclusive things right? Well ever hear of gay superheroes such as Midnighter, Apollo, Wiccan, Hulkling, Ultimate Collossus, Northstar, Batwoman etc. etc. not to mention all the lgbt supporting characters in books at the moment? I also guess you missed any debate being held on comics/superhero message boards across the net about the inclusion of lgbt characters in comic books right? Why don't we call a spade a spade, it's YOU who doesn't want to hear about homosexuality on a superhero message board, unless it pertains to something you yourself believe, such as the Shumacher films being gay, so don't elect yourself the speaker for everyone on this issue. If YOU don't like what I've been saying, YOU take your crap somewhere else.

 

[RobC]

I agree, lots of people use insulting language against the films. Personally I don't think it matters if Batman and Robin does have gay subtext, so what? So does Fight Club, Rocky, Troy, and 300, but I still like those movies.

Bottom line for me, who cares if Schumacher is gay? Batman and Robin is a rubbish film much more because of the crappy dialogue, hammy acting and rubbish special effects then a few butt shots.

 

[Techni]

just face it, the batman&robin film is gay. Thats my opinion and i stick with it

 

[Mr.E.Nygma]

I agree, lots of people use insulting language against the films. Personally I don't think it matters if Batman and Robin does have gay subtext, so what? So does Fight Club, Rocky, Troy, and 300, but I still like those movies.

Bottom line for me, who cares if Schumacher is gay? Batman and Robin is a rubbish film much more because of the crappy dialogue, hammy acting and rubbish special effects then a few butt shots.

Apart that I agree with you for your global post here, I don't remember any gay subtext in Rocky?

 

[RobC]

He spends most of the film with his t-shirt off, argues with Mickey but thy secretly respect each other, ditto with Creed.

It's not like an obvious one, I didn't notice it until a lecturer pointed it out. It's about inverting the female gaze theory as put forward by Laura Mulvey. It's used quite a lot in films that you wouldn't expect. Pretty much anytime a leader hero takes his shirt off, it's gay subtext and/or inverted gaze.

Yeah, it shocked me as well...

 

[Doctor Baywatch]

Well, Rocky is a boxing movie and professional boxers don't wear shirts.

But 300, in fact, is gay.
Because they were unnecessarily almost naked.

 

[Mr.E.Nygma]

Oh I get the point of Rocky...the less evident of them all though!

 

[Mr.E.Nygma]

Gay or not, going from batman returns, to THAT, pfffff...

Exactly!

 

[RobC]

Yeah, it's probably not even intended unlike 300, but the way it was explained to me was basically any movie where the lead hero is a manly man, and then shows off some muscles or something has homo-erotic subtext because of the Fraud-style repression of guilt and anger over any feelings we may have towards another male.

It also has to do with a theory put forward by Laura Mulvey called female gaze or something, which is all about women being seen as sexualized objects through scopophilliac (real word) tendencies or something. Basically, you put a babe in a movie so men will watch it.

Alfred Hitchcock famously inverted this in the beginning of Psycho by having her talking but focusing on first the Arizona skyline and then on her boyfriend getting dressed. Of course he reverts straight back to type during the shower sequence.

Man, if my film lecturer read that he'd be *so* proud!

 

[juarez]

just face it, the batman&robin film is gay. Thats my opinion and i stick with it

Great reasoning skills.

 

[juarez]

Yeah, it's probably not even intended unlike 300, but the way it was explained to me was basically any movie where the lead hero is a manly man, and then shows off some muscles or something has homo-erotic subtext because of the Fraud-style repression of guilt and anger over any feelings we may have towards another male.

It also has to do with a theory put forward by Laura Mulvey called female gaze or something, which is all about women being seen as sexualized objects through scopophilliac (real word) tendencies or something. Basically, you put a babe in a movie so men will watch it.

Alfred Hitchcock famously inverted this in the beginning of Psycho by having her talking but focusing on first the Arizona skyline and then on her boyfriend getting dressed. Of course he reverts straight back to type during the shower sequence.

Man, if my film lecturer read that he'd be *so* proud!

Wow I'm getting flashbacks from my media studies uni course. Yeah Laura Mulvey's principal theory was the male gaze and scopophilia (voyeurism). How women are presented on screen as objects for male consumption. And that's inverted in rare examples with the female gaze, which like you mentioned leads to all sorts of fun with gender and queer studies.

 

[I Am The Knight]

But 300, in fact, is gay.
Because they were unnecessarily almost naked.

I think that was just part of their culture.

 

[RobC]

Wow I'm getting flashbacks from my media studies uni course. Yeah Laura Mulvey's principal theory was the male gaze and scopophilia (voyeurism). How women are presented on screen as objects for male consumption. And that's inverted in rare examples with the female gaze, which like you mentioned leads to all sorts of fun with gender and queer studies.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Basically, with these theories you either sexualize women, and are a pervert, or you sexualize men, and are gay.

Good thing that 99% of the world doesn't know about this lol...

 

[The Empire Ape]

I think that was just part of their culture.

i really really doubt they were running around like that. it's a gay fantasy movie, nothing historic

 

[greenfront]

I wrote a review of BF a while back (here it is) and though I'm guilty of bringing Joel Schumaker's sexuality into my review, HE is guilty of bringing his sexuality so blatantly into the movies in the first place.

I have NO problem whatsoever with a gay man directing anything. I happen to love all three of Bryan Singer's comic book movies. And Bryan happened to bring his experiences as a gay man (or experiences of one's he knew) into his movies, too, at least in the "coming out" scene with the family in X2, but the difference between Joel and Bryan is that Bryan actually had something to say about being gay and Joel is just, well, being gay!

And the stereotypical homosexual sensibilities that Joel brought to the table are NOT the only problems with those two sacks of crap. In fact, they're quite minor by comparison with the other problems.

 

[Ion Kenshin]

the age old debate of gayness in movies and comics waves it rainbow flag once again.
Any director who makes a film will no duobt incorporate some facets of their life into their work just the same way writes artists and musicians do no matter what it will end up in there. Those films were campy yes and maybe the fact that Joel is gay did seep into parts of the film but i highly doubt that he woke up and said, "im gay, im directing batman, lets just make it one big shiny glittery costume show...he just went with the vision he saw...some like it..many did not.
With that being said... in reference to the costumes its safe to say that everyone here has picked up and read a comic book. they are chock full of mean and in tight fitting scantilly clad outfits...are these characters gay....are the people who draw them gay? yes and no. dont just label things by the way they look. people need to stop being so hypocritical. female ass is fine but throw in some male ass and the world goes into an uproar. Kill the double standard so many guys think its the hottest thing when two girls hook up but two guys hooking up and we are ready to light the torches...get over it grow up.
And lastly for people who catergorize the characters in the 300 as gay or the visuals as being gay because they had very little clothing on....PICK UP THE DAMN BOOK....the costuming is very much close to if not exactly the way it was in the book....if thats th case then Frank Miller having then dressed like that makes him gay

 

[RobC]

Wait, Singer's gay as well? How do I not know these things?

And um, 300 is not gay, it just has homo-erotic subtext. Ditto with the book.

 

[Ion Kenshin]

And um, 300 is not gay, it just has homo-erotic subtext. Ditto with the book.

Thank you

 

[juarez]

I wrote a review of BF a while back (here it is) and though I'm guilty of bringing Joel Schumaker's sexuality into my review, HE is guilty of bringing his sexuality so blatantly into the movies in the first place.

I have NO problem whatsoever with a gay man directing anything. I happen to love all three of Bryan Singer's comic book movies. And Bryan happened to bring his experiences as a gay man (or experiences of one's he knew) into his movies, too, at least in the "coming out" scene with the family in X2, but the difference between Joel and Bryan is that Bryan actually had something to say about being gay and Joel is just, well, being gay!

And the stereotypical homosexual sensibilities that Joel brought to the table are NOT the only problems with those two sacks of crap. In fact, they're quite minor by comparison with the other problems.

How does Shumacher blatantly bring his sexuality into the films? By stereotypical homosexual sensibilities do you mean camp? Camp is stereotypically associated with homosexuality but it isn't particularly a gay sensibility/aesthetic.