Andrew Sullivan and Harry Chotiner are declaring “300” a gay movie. That is, that it’s subtext is one of gay male relationships. The draw links between the modern buddy-movie and 300 by saying;


"300" celebrates the male bonding that is found in most war and sports movies. What gives those films their homosexual subtext is less the sweating, shirtless males working together for victory. Rather it's the unstated assumption that unlike the men, none of the women in these men's lives will ever really grasp this singularly important, defining experience. Whatever these men and their future wives share, the women will just never "get it." However, in war and sports films, the men still hunger for a life of normalcy- settling down and raising a family with their female soulmate. But that fantasy of living happily ever after with your true love has little emotional resonance in contemporary buddy films and romances: think The Break Up, Failure to Launch, Old School, Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, American Pie.


That a shared experience can harden and temper a relationship is normal and common to any bonds of friendship or love. Men in combat have a bond that no one else will ever understand. They weren’t there, they didn’t face death together and don’t know what they are feeling. That applies equally to other men as well as women. I’ve met combat veterans and they have experiences that I’ve never had and likely, never will. I don’t know what combat is like and don’t pretend to. These men have a bond with their fellow soldiers that they don’t even share with other men in the armed forces. Their shared experience was unique to them and binds them. That doesn’t make them, in any way, gay. To say so it an absurd form of projection that only someone with an agenda could foment.

When I was first married, hanging out with the guys changed. They were all single and I was not. Going out for them meant…looking for women. I was done looking for women. I found one and kept her. The whole thing was rather amusing given that I was out of the game. They all eventually got married and then going out with the guys changed again. Now none of use were looking for women. As such, we changed the venues we went to. Less likely to go to some random bar and hang out all night. More likely to go do something or see live music or what have you.

Fast forward a few years and things changed again. Now I have kids and my friends don’t. There is no more hanging out with the guys because I don’t have the time and when I do, I’m too damn tired. My friends don’t understand what’s taking up all my time and are kind of annoyed that I’m never around. I would call them on a Saturday at 11:00 AM and wake them from a sound sleep. (People with children are invited to laugh heartily.) That was so far from my world it may as well have been Mars. On the odd time we did go out, I was crashing by 10:00. They thought I had been replaced by a pod person from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Who is this guy that he’s falling asleep by 10?

A few years later, they catch up and now we all understand each other again. If we do go out, we’re leaving earlier and home much earlier. My frequent refrain is that now I go to bed when I used to go out and I get up when I used to come home.

More:


It wasn't always so. In '50's and '60's films, the emotional relationship that men craved was with a woman.


In large parts, that’s due to the tumult of the 1960’s and the redefinition of gender roles. Things were very neat and orderly in the 50’s and early 60’s. Men went to the office and women stayed home to raise the kids. Lines between men and women were bright and clear. That doesn’t mean that men did not seek the friendship and company (platonically) of other men. After the social revolution of the late 60’s the chessboard was upended. Since then, it’s become perhaps less clear where those lines are. Men’s relationship to other men has not changed. Quite the opposite. It’s the one thing that has remained static. Men want and need things from other men than they do from women. Even their wives. The same is true of women. Take a man to a craft fair. If he’s not bored stiff he’s among the rarest of the specimen. How many women enjoy hunting? Granted these are stereotypical examples but in my world, they ring true.

I’ve written before about the death of philos, the fraternal love between men. Largely it was killed by people who wrote the articles referenced above. Men will not put themselves out emotionally if it means they might be labeled as gay. Does that make them homophobic? Not in my view. Rather, they have a hard enough time being understood and adding that as a question mark makes things very complicated. Much more so than necessary.

Continuing:


In terms of what seemed important in a relationship: understanding, companionship, support, nurturing, fun, shared priorities- men could provide this better than women. Moreover, the existentially bedrock experiences of life were about guys and their own fathers and sons. The emotional logic of contemporary buddy films is that guys would be so much happier if they shared their lives with guys. It's not that men are commitment phobic. They're phobic about being intimate with women when the best of life's experiences are those shared with other guys. In these films, women are valued primarily as sexual partners and status symbols.


The author is confusing philos and eros. Not to get too pointy headed but there’s a problem with English here. The word “love” is overly broad. Loving a song, a pet, a child, a parent and a spouse are all very different kinds of love. Using the word in an unqualified fashion gives rise to logical leaps that aren’t there.

Philos is the love one has for a brother or friend. Fraternal love. You love that person but not in any physical fashion. Seeking understanding, companionship, support etc. is not “gay”. It’s just friendship or brotherhood. Eros is the physical component. It is not divorced from emotional intimacy it simply is a fundamentally different form of love.

The authors ignore one immutable truth of life. Women are more complicated than men. Period, the end. They are all but impervious to logic. They have the innate need to dissect any statement related to matters of the heart with Talmudic precision. If you’ve ever heard a post-first date rundown with by a woman you know what I’m talking about. They’ll start with the entire backstory of how she met the guy and continue with James Mitchner level of detail until the very moment the story started. Whereas a man can recap a date as follows:

Man: How was your date with whatshername?
Man 2: Good.
Man: You get any?
Man 2: Not yet.

That’s all you need to know. It tells you he thinks she’s (reasonably) attractive, wishes to see her again and they had a good time. Had the final answer been “No” instead of “Not yet”. You would know that he had no intention of calling her again and wasn’t interested.

Back to the article:


Women often have a more valued role in sports and war films. In "300," the Spartan queen is not only gorgeous and a fabulous lover, but she also strongly supports the values of her husband and the Spartan men. But in contemporary buddy films and romances, the woman often wants to come between a guy and his friends. Her desire to domesticate and tame is not new. But her desire to separate him from his most important emotional ties seems especially damning. The revealing exceptions are the Minnie Drivers in films like Good Will Hunting, where the woman both respects the relationships between male friends and is herself "one of the guys."

In most war and sport films, the defining battle or game is something only guys can share. But there's still the longing for heterosexually living happily ever after. But in a wide array of buddy and romance movies- it's clear that these guys would be happier living with other guys. Heterosexually driven to be with women, their sexuality becomes a curse.


No, no, no. Completely wrong. The woman comes between the guy and her friends not because of what she does but because of what she is and what she represents. She’s adulthood. She’s maturity and growing up. She’s responsibility and the dull grind of working, paying the mortgage and so on. It’s not her fault. The guys represent the carefree days of youth (often college) when we answered to no one, had no one depending on us and unmitigated freedom to do whatever we wanted with our time. Peter Pan syndrome is alive and well. I think we all get it from time to time. Who hasn’t had an escapist fantasy on a bad day. The one where you just get in the car and drive or hop on a plane to somewhere with steel drums and colored drinks with umbrellas in them?

Further, she’s not trying to supplant those emotional bonds. She can’t. They are a role she cannot (and should not) fill. Men and women need friendships in kind. There are things that only men will understand. No amount of being around them will ever help any female make sense of it. Likewise, women have those same things. ‘Twas always thus and always thus will be.

Comments

Paul Smith Jr. said…
Your point about men and women analyzing a first date is very true. Years ago, I was set up with a friend of a friend and we went on a double date together. After the date, my friend and I had the following conversation:

Him: "You like her?"
Me: "Yeah."
Him: "You want to see her again?"
Me; "Yeah."

Meanwhile, the girl and my friend's fiancee had a three hour conversation about the date and whether or not she wanted to see me again. The date had barely lasted three hours!

Popular posts from this blog

So....the autism thing

For Gerard