NitrateVille.com

AFAIK the question first came up in the '90s, whether or not there is a gay subtext in Ben-Hur (1959) or not. I believe the idea was that Stephen Boyd was to act as if the two had had a relationship when they were young and now it had turned sour as one rejected the other. Gore Vidal claimed it was there in the background. Heston denied every inch of it.

I'm curious what the people here think. Is this an accepted theory or just unfounded gossip?
FYI I'm voting for "I don't know" myself.

What do you think? Is there an implicit homosexual relationship between Ben-Hur and Messala, or is that just imaginary/projection/confirmation bias?

Any time two individuals of the same sex have a close relationship, some member of the gay community will claim the relationship is a sexual one. Is this the only sort of close relationship that is conceivable? Such assertions speak poorly of gay people.

Bob

Didn't Vidal always say it was written/implied and had a great time because Heston didn't get it at all?

bo blipton wrote:Any time two individuals of the same sex have a close relationship, some member of the gay community will claim the relationship is a sexual one. Is this the only sort of close relationship that is conceivable? Such assertions speak poorly of gay people.

Bob

So vote then.
I just want to see who buys the story and who doesn't want to see.

What you say may be true, as it may also be unfair for nonstereotypical gays. It is also unfair to bisexuals and transvestites if they get lumped together with them (and in the worst case also with child molesters). But all the same, you can't tell me that Mr. Humhpries (from Are you being served?) or Lieutenant Grüber (from Allo Allo) were straight. There must be some gays somewhere, otherwise we'd have to invent them, as the quote goes.
Disclaimer: I don't really care about sexuality. But I think the power of suggestion is in general much bigger than that of simply showing or saying things straight (no pun intended). At the same time it's hard to tell if any supposed subtext is not just in the eye of the beholder.

I had never thought about this question until it was discussed online (or perhaps on the video supplemental features). Messala is never seen socializing with a woman - his companions are always other soldiers or his subordinate Drusus. Ben-Hur not only develops a romantic relationship with Esther, he is shown in Rome with a babe on his arm. I think it's creditable that Messala acted as a spurned lover, although one can surmise that it was an unrequited, obsessive love, and that the two had only shared friendship in the past.

There's also a question of just how much Vidal actually contributed to the screenplay, and his remarks may have been no more than puffing. I've read that Christopher Fry was responsible for fine tuning the screenplay to modify the dialogue so that it had a florid, classical sound.

The poll doesn't have enough choices. As I put it together, it's not that they were lovers; it's that Messala was at this present time in the film attracted to Ben-Hur, was trying to get something started (with someone who was oblivious because not into that), and didn't succeed. Yes, I agree with ClayKing's post (spurned lover/only friendship in the past), which came as I started writing this posting.

Spiny Norman wrote:

bo blipton wrote:Any time two individuals of the same sex have a close relationship, some member of the gay community will claim the relationship is a sexual one. Is this the only sort of close relationship that is conceivable? Such assertions speak poorly of gay people.

Bob

So vote then.
I just want to see who buys the story and who doesn't want to see.

What you say may be true, as it may also be unfair for nonstereotypical gays. It is also unfair to bisexuals and transvestites if they get lumped together with them (and in the worst case also with child molesters). But all the same, you can't tell me that Mr. Humhpries (from Are you being served?) or Lieutenant Grüber (from Allo Allo) were straight. There must be some gays somewhere, otherwise we'd have to invent them, as the quote goes.
Disclaimer: I don't really care about sexuality. But I think the power of suggestion is in general much bigger than that of simply showing or saying things straight (no pun intended). At the same time it's hard to tell if any supposed subtext is not just in the eye of the beholder.

I might vote if there were a category that reflected my opinion, which is I don't give a rat's ass.

Bob

The movie with the obvious gay subtext, it seems to me, is Harvey. Think of it-- Elwood has a partner whom the rest of his family pretends not to see. And he can only really come out to himself by being perpetually tipsy. Finally, in a dramatic twist which obviously inspired Tennessee Williams in Suddenly Last Summer, they plan to put Elwood into a mental institution, no doubt with lobotomization the ultimate goal. Only by forcing the doctor to realize his own repressed nature is Elwood able to make the case for his open sexuality— a powerfully radical message for the play's era.

ClayKing wrote:I had never thought about this question until it was discussed online (or perhaps on the video supplemental features). Messala is never seen socializing with a woman - his companions are always other soldiers or his subordinate Drusus. Ben-Hur not only develops a romantic relationship with Esther, he is shown in Rome with a babe on his arm. I think it's creditable that Messala acted as a spurned lover, although one can surmise that it was an unrequited, obsessive love, and that the two had only shared friendship in the past.

Yes, although villains are often done that way.

ClayKing wrote:There's also a question of just how much Vidal actually contributed to the screenplay, and his remarks may have been no more than puffing. I've read that Christopher Fry was responsible for fine tuning the screenplay to modify the dialogue so that it had a florid, classical sound.

I don't know that either. Wikipedia says he had some hand in it, more than charlton heston suggested. But that's wikipedia, I don't assume it's irreproachable. Anyway, who wrote it is a different matter.

odinthor wrote:The poll doesn't have enough choices. As I put it together, it's not that they were lovers; it's that Messala was at this present time in the film attracted to Ben-Hur, was trying to get something started (with someone who was oblivious because not into that), and didn't succeed. Yes, I agree with ClayKing's post (spurned lover/only friendship in the past), which came as I started writing this posting.

Good point, but it's too late now. Anyway, perhaps it's just as easy to keep the choices simple, between either "it's nonsense" or "there was something going on at some level". I think there is only 1 gay interpretation of the film, and that's the one you just said.

bo blipton wrote:I might vote if there were a category that reflected my opinion, which is I don't give a rat's ass.

Bob

You know what frantically trying to remain skeptical, neutral and desinterested really says about you, don't you?

Mike Gebert wrote:The movie with the obvious gay subtext, it seems to me, is Harvey. Think of it-- Elwood has a partner whom the rest of his family pretends not to see. And he can only really come out to himself by being perpetually tipsy. Finally, in a dramatic twist which obviously inspired Tennessee Williams in Suddenly Last Summer, they plan to put Elwood into a mental institution, no doubt with lobotomization the ultimate goal. Only by forcing the doctor to realize his own repressed nature is Elwood able to make the case for his open sexuality— a powerfully radical message for the play's era.

Again, that is the trouble. This could be a valid point of view - or you could be taking the piss out of it. I have two more examples of dubious film interpretations if anyone's interested.

OK, I voted as if the choices were (1) There's a gay subtext of some sort; (2) There is no gay subtext of any sort; (3) I dunno.

And, yes, by all means, let's hear your two other examples of dubious film interpretations (but perhaps in another thread or two...?). That's why we're here: To ponder and discuss things.

boblipton wrote:Any time two individuals of the same sex have a close relationship, some member of the gay community will claim the relationship is a sexual one. Is this the only sort of close relationship that is conceivable?

Bob

To those who who'd make 'boyfriends" of pals Grant & Scott, or Lincoln & his law partner, the answer is a resounding YES!

odinthor wrote:OK, I voted as if the choices were (1) There's a gay subtext of some sort; (2) There is no gay subtext of any sort; (3) I dunno.

And, yes, by all means, let's hear your two other examples of dubious film interpretations (but perhaps in another thread or two...?). That's why we're here: To ponder and discuss things.

Yes, that's pretty much what I meant. Did I make the poll options too confusing? I suppose I could still edit them but it wouldn't be fair.

Other, (more) doubtful subtexts: 1) star wars (1977) being about fear of premature ejaculation (and the hand chopping no doubt goes back to fear of punishment for masturbation) and 2) the smurfs being poisonous communist propaganda. I was never sure if the author of the latter was serious or not.

"Over the years I have told the funny story of how I wrote a love scene for Ben-Hur and Messala [played by Stephen Boyd] and how only the actor playing Messala was told what the scene was about because, according to director [William] Wyler, 'Chuck will fall apart.'" - Gore Vidal

Make of it what you will. I was watching it again the other night on TCM. To me, the scene is obviously written that way and it is equally obvious Boyd plays it that way. In the context of the film, we can't know if there was a physical aspect to the relationship but the dialogue and Boyd's performance seem to show that if there wasn't, he wishes there was and/or still hopes for one. Look at the way Wyler shot the opening of the scene. Look at the lighting...heck, even Rosza's music sounds like it was written for a love scene.

Messala: After all these years, still close.
Judah: In every way.

http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/1982 ... ssala.html

Watching Colonel Lew Wallace's pictures, it's hard to imagine that he would be thinking in a homosexual relation between these two intimate friends, or not? well, who knows?, but back to the Roman Days this kind of affection wouldn't be repressed sexually speaking. I suppose that cultivated people like Gore Vidal just updated the story for historical accuracy as much as the Hays Code permited. Definitely, it is difficult to tell a story having the Roman Empire as a background with the restrictions imposed by the Puritans that still were present in 1959!

Interesting: 4-4-4, all options at 33%. It seems there really is no consensus.

Lostintime wrote:Watching Colonel Lew Wallace's pictures, it's hard to imagine that he would be thinking in a homosexual relation between these two intimate friends, or not? well, who knows?, but back to the Roman Days this kind of affection wouldn't be repressed sexually speaking. I suppose that cultivated people like Gore Vidal just updated the story for historical accuracy as much as the Hays Code permited.

General Lew Wallace was a devout Christian who'd have considered it slanderous to impute homosexual conduct between his main characters. The immense popularity of Ben Hur during his lifetime was not merely the result of its being an exciting historical epic, but rather "A Tale of The Christ." Romans were certainly more tolerant of homosexuality than Christians, but they weren't Greeks, either, & somewhere in his Confessions, Marcus Aurelius speaks with pride of the suppression of pederasty by his father, Antoninus Pius. And Judah was of course the product of a culture viewing homosexuality as an abomination. Not "historical accuracy," but salacious sensationalism was Vidal's aim.

In the Vidal version, for what it's worth in terms of truthiness, the issue arises because Wyler thinks there's no reason for melodrama-villain Messala to hate Judah so much, and he wants a better psychological explanation than Wallace provided. So no, it isn't in the book!

Stating the obvious here, but we know better than to expect films to be historically accurate, or true to the book. Except perhaps that up to a point the prechristian setting could be used as an excuse for sexual deviance, "when in the Roman Empire, do as the Romans do".

The OTHER gay subtext involves Heston and Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins), who never struck me as being particularly fatherly or avuncular.

I have a feeling this might have been a little "director's trick" to get Stephen Boyd to dial up his performance a bit.

Boyd can be a little on the restrained side when you compare him to Heston - the director might have planted that idea with Boyd to get him to emote a little more during his performance.

You can see there's something going on there - Boyd just locks his eyes on Heston on just about every scene they're in while Heston is a little more "stand off-ish". Even if Boyd's character is "straight", the acting between the two gets the point across that he's wanting to continue their friendship, while Heston's character has moved on.

Spiny Norman »
What do you think?

Are you Gay?

coolcatdaddy wrote:Boyd can be a little on the restrained side when you compare him to Heston - the director might have planted that idea with Boyd to get him to emote a little more during his performance.

And then there was .... The Oscar ...

Gloria Rampage wrote:

Spiny Norman »
What do you think?

Are you Gay?

Who cares? Does it matter at all?

entredeuxguerres wrote: And Judah was of course the product of a culture viewing homosexuality as an abomination. Not "historical accuracy," but salacious sensationalism was Vidal's aim.

Why does this imply a lack of historical accuracy ? Even today there are seriously repressive societies around the world yet gay people continue to exist and struggle. If anything, this explains Judah's reluctance to re-ignite something he explored earlier but had difficulty processing because of his culture.

This of course is based on the Vidal/ Wyler interpretation since I would agree the novel is not ambiguous on the subject.

" Who cares? Does it matter at all ? "

That should be the answer for this whole thread.

Scoundrel wrote:" Who cares? Does it matter at all ? "

That should be the answer for this whole thread.

It's gossip, true, but it's also about the meaning of film, so this is the place for it. Did you read the whole thread?

My response to this question would be yes, there is such a subtext, if you are looking for it.

didi-5 wrote:yes, there is such a subtext, if you are looking for it.

That's just it, you've hit the nail on the head of course. This thing you just said (called cognitive bias) can make you find most things. In this case it can't effectively be disproven.

Late addition, I recently re-watched the 1959 Ben-Hur, and I think that if they had wanted to suggest it, then that is what it would look like. Not sure they could have done more (cf., the snails and oysters bit in Spartacus was after all not there when it hit the cinemas either).
(I resist the temptation to joke about ramming speed or the pointy end of Messala's chariot.)

Excuse me, naysayers, but the film is called Ben (Her), is it not? I have been so told by many, many people. Am I wrong???