I shall post it here 'cause I'm feeling guilty spamming so much at @diary. And also too lazy to translate it into Russian right now.
Choice comments from
here (a discussion of some minor issues concerning Rithie's "Holmes" and the notion of homosociality in general). Just a slasher's perpective.
But no way was the film playing it gay. It was a little tongue-in-cheek homoerotic, yes, and all the better for it, but it was really just the sort of bickering old-married-couple relationship you inevitably get when two people live together.That's my greatest problem - never can differ between serious homoerotic hints and plain jokes. I'm afraid we won't have much to stand on were we to discard the latter.
We are much more prurient than even the Victorians and perversely prudish.So very true: it goes the same way, really, the stronger the pressure the stronger the reaction - the third law of Newton, if memory serves.
A gay man reading this will happily run with the idea of a gay homes/watson pairing. On the other hand a straight fellow (like myself) associates the realtionship with my own (platonic!) relationships with my male friends. Oh, if only it were that simple.
Some people take their obsessive interest in a particular piece of fiction to the same level as a fundamentalist bible class.Indeed. And there's nothing wrong with that!
People who think Holmes and Watson are gay probably also think Frodo and Sam were gay just because one was devoted to the other, and because they had tender words for each other. It's a sick kind of masculinity that sees some kind of sexual repression in these characters. Men can be deeply in love with each other without being gay: It happens during war, it happens in life. It's got nothing to do with sexuality, it's just a particular type of male friendship that entirely excludes women, just as women can have a particular type of friendship that entirely excludes men. No comments - weeping with hysterical laughter.
Any time a film has two men who love each other, are very close friends, there will always be talk that they are homosexuals. I never get the feeling that this comes [not??]
from someone who reads sex into a situation where it is just not there, but from someone whose agenda is to air some wishful thinking about how it could be there - or even should be there.Oh yes baby! That's what we do exactly! Isn't 'agenda' a beautiful word?
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
severnaya_metel