![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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.
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
[If it is less obvious, can it be recognized with any degree of certainty by anyone in the audience?]
Here are some sources proving the homosexual subtext of Rope:
Some additional information. In an article on Burt Lancaster, Gerald Peary writes that
In a movie review of Hitchcock's Rope we read:
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:
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)
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)
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)
Good article but it needs breaking up into wikified sections, detailing career, personal life, filmography etc. Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
He's categorized as both gay and bisexual. Which is it? BlackGhost2280 ( talk) 04:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
From everything I've read he was gay Jared Stine ( talk) 21:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Farley Granger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article should use the word "queer" instead of saying "both actors were gay" because Granger is not gay, he is bisexual. |
Last edited at 01:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Farley Granger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Farley Granger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Although Granger served in the United States Navy during the World War II era, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he served overseas in a war zone during the war. Accordingly, Category:American military personnel of World War II was removed from the article. Semper Fi FieldMarine ( talk) 10:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why an apparently automated reversion of my edit was done by Materialscientist. "Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Farley Granger—because it did not appear constructive." My edit changed the characterization of Harry Langdon from "unemployment benefits recipient" to "comedian". Langdon is known for being a vaudeville and film comedian, not for being an "unemployment benefits recipient." What gives? 68.134.232.137 ( talk) 14:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Materialscientist: Can we get your input on this? DonIago ( talk) 20:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
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.
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
[If it is less obvious, can it be recognized with any degree of certainty by anyone in the audience?]
Here are some sources proving the homosexual subtext of Rope:
Some additional information. In an article on Burt Lancaster, Gerald Peary writes that
In a movie review of Hitchcock's Rope we read:
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:
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)
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)
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)
Good article but it needs breaking up into wikified sections, detailing career, personal life, filmography etc. Gymnophoria ( talk) 13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
He's categorized as both gay and bisexual. Which is it? BlackGhost2280 ( talk) 04:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
From everything I've read he was gay Jared Stine ( talk) 21:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Farley Granger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article should use the word "queer" instead of saying "both actors were gay" because Granger is not gay, he is bisexual. |
Last edited at 01:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Farley Granger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Farley Granger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Although Granger served in the United States Navy during the World War II era, no reliable sources found as of yet state that he served overseas in a war zone during the war. Accordingly, Category:American military personnel of World War II was removed from the article. Semper Fi FieldMarine ( talk) 10:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why an apparently automated reversion of my edit was done by Materialscientist. "Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Farley Granger—because it did not appear constructive." My edit changed the characterization of Harry Langdon from "unemployment benefits recipient" to "comedian". Langdon is known for being a vaudeville and film comedian, not for being an "unemployment benefits recipient." What gives? 68.134.232.137 ( talk) 14:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Materialscientist: Can we get your input on this? DonIago ( talk) 20:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)