The most homoerotic movie moments ever!

In "homoeroticism" one will rarely see two guys actually touching in a gay way. Even in the two "gay" films in the above links ("Brokeback Mountain" and "Philedelphia") actual gay scenes are rare,

I think I see where you're coming from now... That said though, I still think my examples fit the bill. While there is plenty of sex in Showgirls, for example, there is very little actual contact between the two actresses...mostly just tension or caresses, no actual sex between the two.

You seem to feel that "gay" only means guy-on-guy...not sure why that is...

I personally have no issue with it, whether it's guys or gals. I know plenty of gay, bi folks, including immediate family members of both myself and my wife. Just that seeing two guys together on screen, in that way, holds no appeal for me... Two gals together? Sure...double standard? Yes...but it is what it is... That said though, I'll certainly support folks' rights to be with whomever they want to be with....

And as for not seeing it on screen...well, I always have the choice of simply not going, now don't I? It certainly shouldn't impact what anyone else wants to see....

The Hunger (1983)

www.imdb.com...

The beautiful Catherine Deneuve plays a vampire in this cult classic. She has some scenes with Susan Sarandon that I am surprised have not been mentioned here.

Chocolat (1988)

www.imdb.com...

Jean-Claude Adelin is in a frontal nude shower scene that is slightly homoerotic.

Most of the movies that feature these types of films are international or indie flicks. Not many Hollywood movies delve into this subject as the box office revenue is not very big.

Also want to add:

Transamerica (2005) The skinnydipping scene between Kevin Zegers and Grant Monohon can be considered homoerotic also.

Monster (2003) has several scenes between Christina Ricci and Charlize Theron.

The Rose has a scene with Bette Midler and another actress (it has been a while since I saw that one).

reply to post by MR BOB

I am gay, unfortunately its not infectious (lol).
I'm not sure "fantasising" is the right word. I think it started like that, with Roman-styled period pieces that were very physical, but the availability of openly sexual gay material since the 1970s probably provided for those aspects in other genres.
It's almost a kind of sadness that male-male happiness is not possible in "this world" and is displaced on some futurity, or perhaps a nostalgia (this applies especially to the films where characters die).
The whole notion that men always die tragically in gay or homoerotic material has been much criticized by some gay commentators as stereotyping.

I suppose thinking of being in a war movie is different to wanting to be in a war itself. Nevertheless, the homosocial nature of propaganda material has been noted (especially amongst the Nazis). The line between anti-war film and pro-war stances is often quite fine. However the material is viewed, the safety-net of the war genre is that the relationships will end, either through death or a return to civilian society.

Perhaps women have a greater feel for the erotic and romantic, which is why a lot of the main male-material ("Interview with the Vampire", "Brokeback Mountain") was written by female authors. And let's not forget Leni Riefenstahl.



[edit on 19-5-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by Gazrok

I never said anything didn't fit the bill, and thanks for your scenes!
I was just explaining my position a bit more, however it's just as valid as everybody else's, since there are no general rules or definitions to define "homoerotic".
(As long as people don't link to sex-scenes or nude stuff that falls outside the "erotic" and ATS rules.)
I'm pondering the propaganda potential and how it functions. I mean if straight guys (who seem to form the target market) feel no emotion during such (war) film, then what's the point? Perhaps the Greek philosophers were correct when they said that tragedy cleansed the viewer from rebellious thoughts through catharthis. I suppose to create tragedy one must first invoke some kind of love between the characters.
Lesbian material is just as valid, although I'm not so familiar with it and appreciate the posts! Not to get into arguments on terminology, when I say "gay" from my male experience, it is simply for the sake of brevity.

I suppose in modern academia this kind of look at homoreticism would fall under "Queer studies", which goes beyond terms like gay/lesbian, gay/straight, men/women as definitions. It would go beyond boundaries of "gay and lesbian" authors and literature to same-sex moments and relationships in general.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 19-5-2010 by halfoldman]

A bit of Thanatos and Eros in modern film?
"Boys on the side" and "Gods and monsters".

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

For some initial thoery, see Vito Russo's: "The Celluloid Closet" (available as a book or documentary) en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 19-5-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


It would seem that "same-sex" would be a pretty PC term to use....

I do see what you're saying though. I haven't seen a lot of films with same-sex male scenes in them, but I can imagine that most of the time it involves either tragedy or comedy vs. any attempt at realistic portrayal (though from previews alone, it would seem that maybe Brokeback Mountain did so?).

Thing is though...studios are out to make a buck, so if a movie won't appeal to the masses, there you go, which is why most of these films would be more indie generated, etc. (especially in America, which lets face it, still has some very Puritanical values...or likes to think it does...)

Actually I just remembered:



I recollect watching that movie and feeling slightly uncomfortable.

Here are some oldies but goodies in the homoerotic department:

The Sign of the Cross (1932)

www.imdb.com...

Claudia Colbert as the Empress Poppaea not only bathes nude in a milk bath, but has a few moments with some ladies in this movie. It is very mild now, but the movie was pulled from release and kept in the vaults for quite some time to appease censors of the time. TCM shows this classic every once in a while now, uncut and uncensored.

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

www.imdb.com...

Another vampire movie, this time Dracula's daughter likes to have young women pose for her before she drinks their blood. Very subtle, but quite erotic for its time.

This subject is also hard to really pin down. What is a homoerotic image? To some, it is full frontal male nudity or any locker room or shower room scene. That is too vague for some (like me) who view those images as innocent for the most part. Although some of these images can be used for a homoerotic scene, too many people want to make them all that way.

The older movies tend to really have the actual images, as the Hayes Code and other censorship boards were very strict on this subject especially. Directors had to find ways to show what they mean by not showing too much. Dracula's Daughter is one of those movies where the lead character's lesbianism is told, but very subtly. The director was able to get away with it, as vampires do not care what sex their victims are, just like most people do not care what sex their hamburgers were.

This is an interesting subject to really delve into.

reply to post by Gazrok

Gay and lesbian film would certainly be more indie, or shown at specific gay movie festivals. But homoerotic material could occur across the spectrum, and since it comes from a sublinimal level, it is material that traditionally wasn't supposed to be recognized as such. Even recognizing something as "homoerotic" is a bit of a taboo act. "Gay and lesbian" film was OK, since it was safely packaged and labelled. However, the homoerotic is problematic, since in infers that some viewers and auteurs know something conspirational and insiduous, which most people miss. And in the US the homosexual was the "enemy within" in Cold War parlance - not just the "pinko" under the sink, but the "red under the bed". It's still an issue for straight guys that tell a gay joke today - one of the guys listening might "bat for the other team" and hold it against you. As a wide cultural anxiety, unlike the obviousness of race, one is never sure where the gay hides.
One trope in war movie is the person in command who tortures a soldier underneath him, because he cannot "possess" him. This subtext was crucial to Ben-Hur, as the contributing writer Gore Vidal later admitted. Without this subtext Massala's hatred and relentless persecution of Judah makes little sense.
In comedy one is usually faced with gender inversion and camp send-ups. "Camp" is itself a gay sensibility that reduces to comedy anything that takes itself too seriously (and camp satire is usually a form of praise).
However, only looking for the homoerotic in the obvious and admitted will no longer give us a semblance there-of.
If straight people can watch "The Titanic" (a very erotic, romantic heterosexual adventure) they might get the same feeling towards the ending then some gays and lesbians get in "Thelma and Louise" or war movies.
I just feel that if I didn't point out homoeroticism in some modern movies then part of the gay experience will be lost, and its full spectrum misunderstood. That's what our lives entail - constant attraction that the majority finds "repulsive". But if they look through our eyes perhaps they will find what touches us is not repulsive at all.

But yeah, the gay scene has only been on the cultural surface over 3 decades, and many of the definitions and pc terms need to be reworked.



[edit on 19-5-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by kidflash2008

Arguably, vampires have traditionally been portrayed as at least bisexual, and the Thanatos and Eros theme is also crucial to the vampire mythology.
Interesting, thanks for bringing this up, and some other posts - pity one cannot s&f here.

Thelma and Louise prepare to "bounce" (at least we all hoped they would).

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 19-5-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


Some points:

1. It is interesting to note how some situations are played for their gay meanings for a crude laugh in most PG-13 comedies now. Rear nudity is used (by an over weight or ugly actor) to get a laugh from the young male audience. The Adam Sandler comedy on two men who get "married" relied on that one joke, and was successful.

2. It used to be gay themed American movies avoided any nudity or explicit sex so as to not be confused to be porn. The international movies were OK with using such things, but not American independents until the 1990s.

3. Innocent scenes that are done in Europe featuring casual nudity would not go well over in the US, as they would fear gay meanings. I have seen many a foreign/international movie that had casual nudity in shower or sauna scenes. While that is what people wear in those places (nothing), it would almost always get some kind of comment in the USA if they were to be realistic like that. I would take my boys to the gym, and even though the locker room stuff was innocent, it would be thought of as homoeroticism if there was a movie about it.

4. The older movies more or less dealt with women and homoeroticism as that subject would be easier to "hide". Again, add vampires and other movie monsters to the mix and they can get away with much more. I also think part of their intent was to sell more tickets as men would state: Did you see how Dracula's Daughter reacted to the women? You have to see that one!

Speaking of movies, anything Larry Clark does can be chalked up as homoerotic, even if it is not his intent.

www.imdb.com...

reply to post by kidflash2008

Let's assume that eroticism is linked more to romanticism - an attraction of the spirit, or "love" - than the physical.
Well, there's an old debate which is very biologically deterministic (and therefore, I find, problematic) that the male brain is only excited by porn, while the female brain leans more towards the erotic atmosphere.
I'm not sure this argument concering sexuality is the over-riding element here. Shower scenes and lockers can be erotic, but since the 1970s this leans toward porn, and movies don't deal with it as such. When they do it is to work with an erotic atmosphere, or often such scenes are linked with male-rape and violence (such as "History American X"). There are also rape scenes in straight contexts, but for me that's not homoeroticism, or any kind of eroticism.
Nudity is not really erotic in itself, often quite the opposite. In fact, I think that puritanical societies make the "hidden" erotic, and draw undue attention to certain body parts, particularly the opposite sex, with censorship. That is why open "porn" is sexual but never erotic.
But one could say that "porn" is private, but same-sex attraction as camaraderie, love, expectation and sacrifice is a public matter that defines gender identies and relations (even political manipulation).
I've also seen many a locker room, but I can't say they've left any lasting impression, unlike much of the material here. I also can't say that I've been turned on or expected that in any way - but I have felt something profoundly human in every post and link.
You raise some great points (what do others think?), but the glue that holds us together as humans is not just violence, rape and overt sex. lt is also mostly caring, tenderness and love... darn me, that was hard to admit.

(And I suppose, film is a genre with its own codes and readings, so we should never read our reality by its language.)



[edit on 19-5-2010 by halfoldman]

One could say that Oliver Reed and Alan Bates' nude wrestling scene in "Women in love" (1969) was the first and last physically homoerotic nude scene in mainstream cinema. But like all things British at the time it was considered arty and in vogue - and it was the depicted heterosexuality that caused most of the controversy. Strange to think that the book and (boring) movie almost defined an era in the 1960s, when it was written in 1920! (I think.) en.wikipedia.org...
I have some pics that are quite censored, but it's still a risky scene. Strange though how these actors had such a physique, even while they were heavy drinkers and photoshop hadn't been invented.
Next thing it was gay liberation, androgenous glam rock and the decline of the "physique pictorials" in favour of open porn.
For a moment it seemed like the sexual revolution was coming full circle ... but only for a moment, and most people remained blissfully unaware.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by halfoldman]

I suppose after "Cabaret" and "The Rocky Horror Picture show" nothing would be the same. Who can forget Dr Frankenfurter's sardonic creation of 1950's homoeroticism - indeed, and quite literally: "In just seven days, he could make you a man ma-a-a-an".

[edit on 21-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Gosh, I can't believe I forgot The Talented Mr. Ripley. That was a fairly mainstream movie jam packed with homoeroticism.

Can't find much on youtube expect for fan videos set to music, but here's the trailer.

Taking homoeroticism to new heights. Or lows, depending on your perspective.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 21-5-2010 by whaaa]

reply to post by Duzey

Guy Ritchie's "Rocknrolla" (2008).
Everyone who's seen the movie knows the "gay admission" car scene. One of the sexiest and funniest contemporary scenes, without any sex whatsoever (it only has some swearing).
Despite the gritty, "normal" men portrayed, Ritchie's timing seemed rather forced to include something like this, since Madonna's brother had accused him of being a major homophobe.
Nevertheless...memorable.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by halfoldman]