Talk:Farley Granger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] Discussion

I have changed the text about Farley Granger winning a Daytime Emmy for One Life to Live. From what I can tell he was nominated in 1977 for Outstanding Actor in a Daytime Drama Series but lost to Val Dufour. [1]. I have also removed him from the Category:Daytime Emmy Award winners User:Dowew May 29th 2005.

[edit] Homosexual subtexts

The homosexual subtexts of Rope and Strangers on a Train exist only in the minds of the Gay Lobbyists who proliferate throughout Wikipedia.Lestrade 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Read up on it. The original play and book are more explicit than timid 50s Hollywood. The real Leopold and Loeb admitted to the press a sexual relationship. Read SoaT (by lesbian/bisexual Patricia Highsmith) the subtext is unmistakable. Soane 13:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Leopold and Loeb in actual life were not the same as plays, books, or the films Rope and Strangers on a Train. The Wikipedia Gay Lobby looks for a chance to further its agenda and takes advantage of every opportunity.Lestrade 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
Leopold and Loeb were the basis of the Rope plot, but they have nothing to do with Strangers on a Train. Have you watched the films? I don't understand your point in linking Leopold and Loeb to both films. Rossrs 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Agenda furthering or not, these are two bad cases to pick. They scream 'gayness' even in 1950s code. Watch them. Personally I think the whole gay agenda is great. Well done, Farley. Soane 17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Alfred Hitchcock who directed both Rope and Strangers on a Train discussed the "homosexual subtext" of both films, and Granger has also discussed it. Hitchcock was noted for his efforts in getting around censorship, by saying exactly what he wanted to say, but carefully, fully realizing that many people would miss his point, while others would see it and appreciate it. In any case, he let the cat out of the bag by discussing it later, so he was the best judge of this particular question. Having seen both films several times, there are a number of sections of dialogue that reveal this, and in fact in Rope it's quite open. It's presented in a carefully worded, matter-of-fact manner, without particular emphasis, and was designed to go over the heads of most people. This was Hitchcock's little game and some research in any of the more detailed Hitchcock biographies will reveal this if you care enough to do some further reading. In Strangers on a Train it's less obvious because it's in the form of an unrequited and unarticulated fixation of the Robert Walker character on the Farley Granger character. It's more obvious in the book, but it's also in the film. The "homosexual subtext" has also been pretty widely discussed and analysed by film critics/writers outside of Wikipedia. This is not a new or unique comment being made about these two films, nor is it an example of some kind of gay agenda - it's supported by comments made by the people closest to the films - the director, writers and actors. Rossrs 14:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is incumbent on the person who makes a positive assertion to provide proof. If the supposed subtext exists, please prove it by answering the following bracketed questions.
  • Alfred Hitchcock who directed both Rope and Strangers on a Train discussed the "homosexual subtext" of both films, and Granger has also discussed it. [Is it possible to see a written record of these discussions?]
  • … he let the cat out of the bag by discussing it later [Is it possible to see a written record of Hitchcock letting the cat out of the bag during a discussion?]
  • Having seen both films several times, there are a number of sections of dialogue that reveal this, and in fact in Rope it's quite open. It's presented in a carefully worded, matter-of-fact manner, without particular emphasis, and was designed to go over the heads of most people. [Can this particular coded dialogue be indicated or pointed out? Is the secret to the code known, or is it still suspended over almost everyone's head?]
  • This was Hitchcock's little game… . [Did Hitchcock ever tell anyone about his little game, or did someone merely guess that he was playing a little game?]
  • … some research in any of the more detailed Hitchcock biographies will reveal this if you care enough to do some further reading. [Could you name some biographies that support your claims? Are the relevant passages easily found?]
  • In Strangers on a Train it's less obvious because it's in the form of an unrequited and unarticulated fixation of the Robert Walker character on the Farley Granger character.

[If it is less obvious, can it be recognized with any degree of certainty by anyone in the audience?]

  • It's more obvious in the book… . [Can you quote or indicate the relevant passages from the book?]
  • The "homosexual subtext" has also been pretty widely discussed and analysed by film critics/writers outside of Wikipedia. [Can you reference any of these discussions and analyses?]
  • This is not a new or unique comment being made about these two films… . [Where are the other comments that support this claim?]
  • … it's supported by comments made by the people closest to the films - the director, writers and actors. [Where is the public evidence that the director, writers, and actors all support your claim?]Lestrade 18:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
Actually you started this discussion so I believe it is encumbent on you to first provide some evidence that the homosexual subtext exists "only in the minds of the Gay Lobbyists who proliferate throughout Wikipedia". So be fair, offer some compelling evidence that you are stating more than a personal opinion, and I'll respond. You haven't answered the one question I asked, which was "have you watched the films?" Rossrs 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
To say that a subtext exists only in some people's minds is equivalent to saying that a subtext does not exist in the film. Therefore, it is a negative statement (note the word "not"). The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the positive claim that there is a subtext. Proof does not consist of unsupported assertions of alleged conversations, discussions, and analyses, or of supposed little games that are known only to people who are "in the know" or who belong to an "in crowd." Lestrade 12:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I replied, but in the meantime there have been other replies, so I have copied my rather long reply to the bottom of the page, so as not to break the flow. See Reply Rossrs 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points. To call it "subtext" is only to say it isn't stated explicitly in the dialog. The all meaning (dialog, the body language and the 'meaning' of objects) comes from codes shared mentally, all are equally "in people's minds". "Only in people's minds" doesn't mean the meanings are delusions or merely subjective. In fact the subtext (verbal or non-verbal) is just as much "there" as "plain meaning of the words" - it can speak louder and contradict the ostensible meaning (irony is a standard dramatic device). The whole point of the way homosexuality enters the films is that its presence can be denied, "look, he only said", "look, all he did was". Some codes - including verbal ones - are shared more widely than others. Children may not understand all of Shakespeare, many adults, bless them, miss many meanings. Sometimes even for the most informed and open minded person it is difficult to know if a meaning is "there" (actually intended) or not - it becomes a matter of judgment. In the cases of these two films, taken together with the supporting evidence, it is a no-brainer as Katie Couric would say. I would ask Lestrade to assume good faith or do some research. Soane 13:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"The important thing to remember about 'gay influence' in movies" at that time, observed homosexual screenwriter Gavin Lambert, "is that it was obviously never direct. It was all subliminal. It couldn't be direct because the mass audience would say, Hey, no way." Onefortyone 13:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There are several other subtexts in both Rope and Strangers on a Train. "For anyone who cares to notice," the coded signals from the director obviously indicate that there are sensitive, touching, poignant, and sympathetic portrayals of bestiality, incest, and cannibalism. This is all "tacit," of course. The secret message is "implied," but "taken for granted" by the cognoscenti and connoisseurs.Lestrade 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I think you're probably the first person to mention these other "subtexts" and it's interesting that you've chosen this response when there is so much else you could have commented on. So to clarify the situation: you ask for supporting evidence and after several people cite some fairly detailed evidence you completely disregard this and fail to comment about anything that has been provided per your request, and continue to argue about what is contained in the screenplay for Rope against the published comments of the person who wrote the screenplay? Your comment that the subtext exists only in "the minds of the gay lobbyists who proliferate Wikipedia" is completely disproven by the fact that it exists in many other minds and the evidence you requested was provided. Even if you don't have the inclination to look for the books cited, the task has been made very easy for you by the provision of some weblinks. Twice you've avoided answering a fairly basic question - have you seen the films? Was there ever the slightest chance that this was going to be a discussion? Rossrs 00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some clarifications

Here are some sources proving the homosexual subtext of Rope:

  • "For Rope, Hitchcock wanted to tell the story of homosexual killers Brandon and Philip on one set..." See Alfred Hitchcock – The complete Films (2003), p.116.
  • "Granger was perhaps best known for his role in an earlier Hitchcock production, Rope (1948), in which he played David Kentley, Shaw Brandon's homosexual lover..." See Richard H. Millington and Jonathan L. Freedman, Hitchcock's America (1999), p.121.
  • ""Hitchcock never referred to the homosexual relationships in Rope, though he understood it very well. 'It' was just implied and taken for granted." See Charlotte Chandler, It's Only a Movie: Alfred Hitchcock, A Personal Biography (2006), p.170.

Some additional information. In an article on Burt Lancaster, Gerald Peary writes that

Laurents recalls that when Alfred Hitchcock wanted to cast Hollywood's two most famous closeted actors, Cary Grant and Montgomery Clift, as his closeted homosexual criminal leads for Rope (1948), a fictionalization of the Leopold-Loeb murder, they refused. Too close to home? See [2].

In a movie review of Hitchcock's Rope we read:

As originally planned by Hitchcock, the film would have starred Cary Grant in the role of the publisher and Montgomery Clift as Brandon. But the established homosexual relationship between Leopold and Loeb, and the tacit recognition of a similar tie between Hamilton's killers, persuaded the bisexual Grant and the gay Clift to steer clear of the project to avoid long-term commercial repercussions. See [3]

It should also be noted that in his book, Open Secret: Gay Hollywood, David Ehrenstein refers to a number of gay and bisexual star couples such as Montgomery Clift and Jack Larson, Farley Granger and Arthur Laurents, Tab Hunter and Anthony Perkins, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott. Furthermore, here is Granger's lover Arthur Laurents:

I was afraid Farley [Granger] moving in would be announcing I was gay. Whatever people might think, they didn't know. Now they would. But didn't some of me want them to know I was living with a movie star? Cary Grant and Randolph Scott famously lived together as bachelors; to prove it, they double-dated. The comparison got a smile out of Marmor but Farley and I did double-date: his beard was Shelley Winters, mine was Anita Ellis or Geraldine Brooks. Shelley pretended she didn't know; Anita and Gerry knew and didn't care. (Original Story by Arthur Laurents: A Memoir of Broadway and Hollywood, p. 123)

It's no wonder that Hitchcock would have chosen a homosexual actor such as Granger for one of the leading roles in Rope. Onefortyone 13:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

OK, saying a subtext exists only in some people's minds is equivalent to saying that a subtext does not exist - I think I understand what you mean there, but I think that is a little dismissive. It seems to assume that everyone has to recognise the subtext in order for it to exist, and this is precisely what Hitchcock avoided. Not everyone sees the subtext and this was his intention. In any event, you may be misinterpreting why I asked you to offer your opinion first. If you had said that the discussion of homosexual subtext was poorly sourced, I would have agreed, and if you'd said it fitted better in the film articles, than in Grangers, once again I would have agreed. Instead you say a subtext exists only in the mind of Gay Lobbyists - and that I disagree with, particularly because you offer nothing but a bold assertion. In any case, I was not attempting to offer "proof" but was merely commenting based on information that I've gleaned over the years from reading numerous books and articles about film in general. Alright, I'll play. Firstly, I don't own a copy of every book I've ever read, so I'm not planning on going down to the library to dig up supporting documentation for every phrase I've written but I will make a start, and if you are sincerely interested in the topic, you could investigate further. Bearing in mind that you have offered nothing to support your viewpoint that it is only the work of Gay Lobbyists, my incomplete supporting evidence for my comments is as follows:


From Alfred Hitchcock - A Life in Darkness and Light by Patrick McGilligan, Wiley Publishing 2003. ISBN 0-470-86973-9 Rope screenwriter Arthur Laurents quoted: "["Rope"] was to be filmed as a play and I was a playwright, and because its central characters were homosexual and I might be homosexual" (conjecturing why Hitchcock first brought him to the project)

"At Warner Brothers... homosexuality was the unmentionable, known only as "it"....fascinating how Hitchcock made clear to me he wanted "it" in the picture... I knew it had to be self evident but not so evident that the censors of the American Legion would scream. It's there; you have to look for it, but it's there all right".

"obviously another homesexual, probably an ex-lover of Brandon's" - describing Rupert (James Stewart)

"It was very Hitchcock. It tickled him that Farley was playing a homosexual in a movie written by me, another homosexual; that we were lovers; that we had a secret that he knew - the permutations were endless, all titillating to him, not out of malice or a feeling of power but because they added a slightly kinky touch and kink was a quality devoutly to be desired."

McGilligan explains that Montgomery Clift and Cary Grant were initially cast, but according to Laurents "since Grant was at least bisexual and Monty was gay they were scared to death and they wouldn't do it".

McGilligan about John Dall - "Dall was a powerful actor - and a homosexual willing to play it subtly".

Laurents again : "John Dall and Farley Granger played Brandon and Phillip's sexuality truthfully and that took courage".

From the Rope DVD, documentary Rope Unleashed: ("it" is placed in quotation marks in the documentary's subtitles)

Several quotes from Laurents: "What was curious to me was "Rope" is obviously about homosexuals. The word was never mentioned. Not by Hitch. Not by anybody at Warner's where it was filmed. It was referred to as "it". They were going to do a picture about "it" and the actors were "it". The picture was much more successful in Europe because they were used to "it" and we weren't here. (U.S.) And they didn't deny but they didn't discuss that it was based on the Leopold and Loeb case".

"In "Rope" you have a teacher who is supposed to be homosexual, I smile because Hitch wanted Cary Grant for the part, and Montgomery Clift for one of the boys. According to what he told me they both turned it down because they didn't want to be associated with "it". But the intention was that this teacher had influenced these boys with Nietzsche's philosophy, and he also had an affair with one of them."

"What is extraordinary about "Rope" is its treatment of homosexuality. I mean, today it still is one of the most sophisticated movies made on that subject. Probably treats them more as people than anyone else has. Hitchcock certainly knew that and it certainly attracted him. And what he liked was not that they were homosexual, but they were homosexual murderers. If they were just murderers he wouldn't have been interested. If they were just homosexuals he wouldn't have been interested. You gotta have another little twist to it, and that he liked."

These comments are made by the film's screenwriter on the official DVD release of the film, which also features Hitchcock's daughter Patricia Hitchcock O'Connell, who also produced the documentary - obviously a viewpoint endorsed by her or it would not have made it into the documentary.

Strangers on a Train

McGilligan "The homoeroticism that Highsmith hinted at in Bruno's idolisation of Guy would be preserved. Just as he had in Rope, Hitchcock would make Bruno's sexuality a fascinating subtext of the film, for anyone who cared to notice. Whitfield Cook (screenwriter) knew how to code the signals."

Commenting on the original casting of Robert Walker and William Holden - "Granger's casting (replacing Holden) changed a key idea of Hitchcock's. Bruno's homosexuality is implied in the script, but there's no question of Guy's heterosexuality.... If Guy had been portrayed as a man's man like William Holden, Hitchcock believed, Bruno's attraction to him would really make Guy, and audiences, squirm. But as it was, the director had to accept an odd crisscross in the casting: a straight actor (Walker) playing a homosexual, who comes on to a superstraight played by a homosexual, Granger."

Roger Ebert discusses the homosexual subtext of Stangers on a Train in some detail while also referring to the homosexual subtext of Rope here.

So does Ken Mogg, a Hitchcock lecturer, in his article for Senses of Cinema - here

Miscellaneous links discussing Hitchcock's homosexual subtexts in several films, mostly Rope : [4], [5], [6], [[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. This a just a sampling. A google search of "Hitchcock" and "homosexual" shows a large number of hits, most of them unsubstantiated blogs, but some with somewhat more credibility.

None of this is "proof" of a homosexual subtext simply because the subtext is intentionally designed to be taken from either point of view, but it does prove that the homosexual subtext has been discussed well and truly beyond the reach of the "gay lobbyists who proliferate throughout Wikipedia" - to return to your original comment. I think you might at least review or rephrase your original comment. Rossrs 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of article

I can only assume that with all of the comments here and all of the supporting citations that this article was very diligently created by lots of research.

However, when one reads the article it's coming off a LOT like a magazine article (and sounding like it was taken from somewhere else). I'm going to try to make the tone a wee bit more encyclopedic. NickBurns (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)