Apparently, Edward R. O'Neill didn't like something I wrote. He quoted me as
follows:

> >...And so on. All of which serves to
> > make Shane extremely interesting to
> > the boy, but none of which entails that
> > the boy's interest in Shane was
> > remotely homosexual. I honestly don't
> > think anyone involved in making the
> > film had the slightest intention of
> > hinting at a homosexual interest (and I
> > especially include Jack Schaefer, who
> > wrote the novel).

To which Edward R. O'Neill replied (sarcastically):

> No, of course not. They didn't even
> know about homosexuality then. No one
> did that then because they were all so
> terribly good and noble and pure. They
> made films about eternal themes, not
> epiphenomenal political movements.
> And we are now so terribly debased.

-- Edward, I think you're unfairly attributing a nasty puritanical attitude
to me here. I'm simply trying to say that the compelling narrative(s) of
_Shane_ is liable to sink in confusion and extraneous "noise" if we
interpret the boy's interest in Shane as homosexual. I'm not saying that
homosexuality is nasty or dirty or wrong -- just that the homosexual
interpretation of _Shane_ is misleading.

If someone claimed that _Snow White_ reflects the Irish struggle for
independence (say) I would respond in pretty much the same way. If you're
pushed, you *can* think of it like that, but you're liable to "lose the
 plot" if you do so.

Towards the end of _Shane_, Starrett loads his gun as prepares to meet Ryker
(and Wilson) for the final showdown. We don't know it yet, but Shane is
changing into his buckskin "gunfighter" outfit in the barn. Marian pleads
with her husband not to go, that he'll just get himself killed -- Isn't she
worth that much? -- and so on. Starrett tells her:

"I been thinkin' a lot and -- I know I'm kinda slow sometimes, Marian, but I
see things -- and I know that if -- if anything should happen to me, it'd be
took care of. It'd be took care of better than I could do it myself."

To my sensibilities, this is one of the most affecting lines in the history
of cinema. But it would lose most of its clarity and force if Joey's
interest in Shane were homosexual rather than the interest of a boy in a
"substitute father". The whole "point" of Starrett's sacrifice would be
lost.

Edward R. O'Neill quotes me again:

> > I certainly didn't mean to use the word
> > 'bent' as a codeword for "homosexual".
> > I wasn't at all trying to suggest that the
> > boy had a homosexual crush on Shane,
> > or that Shane was trying to "put him
> > off" by urging him to stay "straight".
> > Quite the opposite --

His response:

> Those who attack others for making any
> such suggestion only display their own
> fears and (quite humorously) end up
> saying the opposite of what they mean
> by defending themselves from
> imputations they dare not make.

-- Actually, I was responding to the following comment from Kevin John:

[Bob Sitton is]
> stating that those virtues
[i.e. strength and straightness]
> are asserted at the end in an attempt to
> deflect the boy's homophilic reverence...
> And are you aware that "bent" is another
> word for "gay?"

-- So I'm not saying the opposite of what I mean -- I'm explicitly denying
what Kevin explicitly asserted.

Edward R. O'Neill quotes me yet again:

> -- I don't think I get "nervous" about it,
[i.e. "male heroes appearing wonderfully
androgynous"]
> but I do avoid John Wayne flicks. I used
> to think it was because he was tall and
> couldn't act, but you've now convinced
> me that the real reason is: I'm turned off
> by all that lipstick! He walks kind of
> funny too.

His response:

> So now one shouldn't like John Wayne
> because he's not masculine enough?

-- Oh dear. I had hoped that my "criticism" of John Wayne on the basis of
his height (above sea level) would have signalled clearly that I was being
frivolous. Kevin's original remark about John Wayne having almost as much
lipstick on as Janet Leigh in _Jet Pilot_ struck me as rather frivolous too.

> This is playing out homophobia as if it's
> a joke. I guess it's funny if the joke isn't
> on you.

-- You seem to be making an assumption about my sexual orientation here, and
I'm not sure I'm too happy about that. Whether I am heterosexual or
homosexual is my own business, isn't it?

But never mind that. There are plenty of funny aspects to heterosexuality,
and most people enjoy laughing at their own and others' sexual lapses of
decorum. To have a similar attitude towards homosexuality is hardly a sign
of
homophobia. You seem to think homosexual humour should not be permitted.
Who's the puritan now?

Jeremy

----- Original Message -----
From: Edward R. O'Neill <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 04:57
Subject: Re: Sitton on Shane


>
> All the points about nuances pointing to homosexuality in relation to
> _Shane_ are on the money, to my mind.
>
> But it helps to distinguish a text in which homosexuality is a
> *signification* from one for which homosexuality is *significant.*  (I do
> this in my own work in queer theory.)
>
> Since _Shane_ is patently about what it means to grow up correctly in the
> 1950's, this has everything to do with anxieties about normalcy, including
> Communism and homosexuality.  Let's not forget that Cold War era anxieties
> was one of the questions that sparked this discussion.
>
> A recent book on Hitchcock and the Cold War (Corber's _In the Name of
> National Security_) nicely makes such connections between the political
> climate, images of masculinity, and homophobia.  They are not out of place
> in relation to _Shane_, either.
>
> This is not an ahistorical way of reading the film from our own historical
> vantage.  Rather, it is quite precisely a way of getting at what's going
on
> historically during the period and through the film.  It's understanding
the
> film as only being about itself (and about 'universal themes') that is an
> impoverished and ahistorical understanding.
>
> To read _Shane_ any other way--i.e., as being about growing up "straight"
> but not "straight"--is quite willful.  The film is patently about
morality,
> and questions of sexuality and the family were not considered separate
from
> moral questions in that period--if indeed they have become separate since.
>
> >...And so on. All of which serves to make Shane
> > extremely interesting to the boy, but none of which entails that the
boy's
> > interest in Shane was remotely homosexual. I honestly don't think anyone
> > involved in making the film had the slightest intention of hinting at a
> > homosexual interest (and I especially include Jack Schaefer, who wrote
the
> > novel).
>
> No, of course not.  They didn't even know about homosexuality then.  No
one
> did that then because they were all so terribly good and noble and pure.
> They made films about eternal themes, not epiphenomenal political
movements.
> And we are now so terribly debased.
>
> > I certainly didn't mean to use the word 'bent' as a codeword for
> >  "homosexual". I wasn't at all trying to suggest that the boy had a
> > homosexual crush on Shane, or that Shane was trying to "put him off" by
> > urging him to stay "straight". Quite the opposite --
>
> Those who attack others for making any such suggestion only display their
> own fears and (quite humorously) end up saying the opposite of what they
> mean by defending themselves from imputations they dare not make.
>
> This anxiety comes out all too patently in exchanges like the following.
>
> > > you don't get nervous about male heroes
> > > appearing wonderfully androgynous, do
> > > you? If so, I'd avoid many a John Wayne
> > > flick.
> >
> > -- I don't think I get "nervous" about it, but I do avoid John Wayne
> flicks.
> > I used to think it was because he was tall and couldn't act, but you've
> now
> > convinced me that the real reason is: I'm turned off by all that
lipstick!
> > He walks kind of funny too.
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> So now one shouldn't like John Wayne because he's not masculine enough?
> Then who is?  (The joke was already made back in _Midnight Cowboy_ and was
> old stuff even then.)
>
> This is playing out homophobia as if it's a joke.  I guess it's funny if
the
> joke isn't on you.
>
> Sincerely,
> Edward R. O'Neill
> Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow
> Bryn Mawr College
>
> P.S.  I suppose we should read the straight Wittgenstein on the
intentional
> fallacy--because the gay one didn't write about it.  And please don't tell
> me I'm "slandering" Wittgenstein by saying what all his students knew and
> know--to do so would only be to expose your own prejudice.
>
>
>
>
>




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%