| |
|
Damn it - I love Withnail and I. I love it. I love it. And I love REG's performance in it (I thought the Hamlet sequence was heart-rendingly good) but he can come across as a bit of an arse in interviews I've read. Still, I don't know the chap...
But I was really posting in reference to the 'tittersome predatory homo stuff'. Argh. This has always been a really problematic area for me in a film that is damn close to perfection in all other respects. The writer, Bruce Robinson, has been pretty frank in saying that events portrayed in the film were all genuine - thus implying that Monty was based strongly on a real person. Is it really a film that's saying 'Eek! Keep the nasty homo away from me!'? I dunno - I tend to think that Marwood (the I in the title) is reacting like that largely because he's been forced into the situation by Withnail and is having trouble letting down Monty without hurting his feelings (or being kicked out into the rain). And unwelcome sexual advances are unwelcome sexual advances no matter who makes them (I've been equally terrifed by a number of women who seemingly operate under the assumption that the fact I'm male means that I must want sex with them and that my actual refusal is in fact just false coyness). Moreover, what starts as a depiction of Monty's scary sexual predation becomes quite different - it's made clear that the only reason he's behaving like that is because Withnail (the shit) told Monty that Marwood would be open to his advances in order to secure the cottage and it's attendant booze for the weekend. Moreover, I always kind of read it that Withnail was also gay, (and the that the fact he was gay wasn't even an issue) and that he was in love with Marwood, but both understood that Marwood could never feel the same way; that the film has its vein of tragic unrequited love (amongst the multitude of other tragic elements). But I may be completely fucking wrong as it's never made explicit and as far as I know Robinson has never commented on this aspect.
In search of more information I consulted some old interviews I remembered reading and ended up with these soundbites in Robinson's idiosyncratic tone - the first (as you'll see) is rather disappointing while the second suggests that he was having trouble with Monty's depiction as well:
'Some ridiculous people have criticised Withnail and I for being homophobic. The producer of that film is homosexual, he's a very good friend of mine, I've known him for twenty-five fucking years, I love the guy. His sexuality is no more imposed on me than my sexuality is imposed on him. Whenever I get a downer on faggots, it's exactly the same downer I get on heterosexuals: "Ooh look at that - I'd like to get my cock up that". "She's pregnant". "Don't matter, get sucked off at the same time". When you get fey homosexuals laying that on you – "Oh darling", you know – I don't fucking like it. I don't give a fuck what your sexuality is. Just don't lay it on me, I don't want to know. I don't want to know what you had for lunch either. That's my problem with homosexuals. I've got three very close friends who are gay, they know I'm not, so that's the end of the argument.'
'"They were just being a gang of cunts for the first couple of weeks," shrugs Robinson. "They wanted Uncle Monty to be an effeminate old homo. Fucking nightmare."'
Bah. Whatever; it's not going to stop me from loving the film, nothing is ever going to be perfect, there will always be elements that you are unhappy with in anything. That's just a basic fucking element of our existences.
Anyone else care to comment? |
|
|
