Видео

Why doesn’t this video have more views?? Never subscribed to anyone so fast.

There are some openly gay actors who are setting the screen on fire with their hetero sexual romance these days for example Jonathan Bailey.For lead roles actors should be chosen on the basis of their talent alone and their ability to sell the story to the audiences.

great video essay :))

I wonder if you've seen The Sum of Us (1994) starring a very young Russel Crowe?

Definitely down to see that swimming video next 🤿

Gay white supremacy is a step in a direction for sure. 👍 It’s more palatable that way

Love this video dude!!! I got extremely excited at 12:00 when you say out loud something I have ALWAYS struggled to explain (when I shouldn't) to some people about the nature of my feelings towards some of my male friends

Face it. It happened

I was watchingnthis video and got SO jumpscared at the Red River scene, sometimes i feel like only 2 people uave ever seen that movie. Love monty clift

it just always makes me feel used when they do. like they get to tell our stories and collect their awards and admiration for pretending to be us and then go home to their girlfriends/wives. but we don’t get to do that. and i feel like they play us more than we do. like hollywood finds straight men more attractive than gay men for film. and it could be one of us up there winning the awards and receiving the praise, but no. they give it to yet another straight man. it’s so disheartening.

As a trans and gay 19 year old man I may not have lived the fear and stigma of the AIDS crisis but the movie was really healing for me. From my broken relationship with my parents and my constant pain, I watched the whole movie in tears, not even processing why it was affecting me so much. I see myself so much in Adam, because even if I haven't lived those crisis I've experienced first-hand the consequences of them. The bullying, the assault, the rejection, the fear, not only from others, but from myself too. All the pain, the internalised hate and fear that wouldn't let me exist peacefully, I still struggle with it a lot. For me this movie was healing in ways I can't even start to describe, finally seeing what's going on in my life reflected through someone else's

One component of the "gay cowboy" that doesn't get discussed but I really think matters is the identification with isolated figures. The cowboy archetype is innately a loner, someone who spends their days on the range and rarely interacts with society and doesn't feel like a part of it. "Spaghetti western" cowboy movies of the 1960's often associated the cowboy archetype with rebel outsiders who stand at odds with the social order. That was a key point of identification for me as a young closeted gay kid growing up in the virulently anti-gay 1980's and watching those movies on late-night movies shows. I really couldn't identify with the violence, or even the overt-masculinity of the Man with No Name or the Dirty Dozen, but I could relate to the sense of being hated and outcast by the town for no real reason, other than I just didn't fit in with the accepted framework.

I had a lot more privilege than most gay gen xers. I live in an isolated city in an isolated country( Adelaide, South Australia) and we also had the single best early intervention programs in the world to prevent the spread of hiv/aids. I have only ever had one friend who is hiv +. We had a gay premier during the 70's/80's who overturned a lot of anti gay laws, and he lived openly with his partner. We had free concerts and events all the time in the 80's and 90's, and because the Village People movie bombed everywhere all over the world except for Adelaide, I have been to countless free Village People concerts, they would teach hiv/aids info between songs. It was so much fun. Free condoms were available everywhere, as well as free needle exchanges. I didn't appreciate at the time what my community here in Adelaide had escaped. It is incredibly tragic that this was so preventable everywhere else in the world, but we were in a unique position.

12:33 Actually, no If an interaction is *sexually Charged* on your end, you are by definition atracted to this person. it could be based on their personality alone, but if your brain architecture doesn't support that, *Friendship & Intimacy* will not be driving factors there on your end.

Have you ever Heard about "el sexo de los ángeles"?🤔💁‍♂️

I see Challengers as an intimacy triangle, the three characters are connected and driven by the degrees of intimacy (which can shift into emotional, sexual, fraternal and amourous, according to circunstances) they share with each other, either all three together or in any of the three pairings.

How come do you talk about erasure of bisexual representation in media but just after that diminish the bisexuality in the movie, which presents perfect example of fluidity in sexual and romantic relationships?

I was born in 1978, so I'm on the younger side of Gen X, but even I know what he means.

i truly believe that maaaybe justin kuritzkes intended for patrick to be "cannonically bi", but luca, josh, and mike saw that and cranked the bi subtext to 10

to me patrick's reaction when tashi asked whether him and patrick had something going on at the hotel showed that at least for patrick there was something more than just platonic love that he felt for art

This is so TRUE to its core. Please make more Gay Cowboy tropes. ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

„An intense romantic friendship that escalates beyond platonic actions“ is so scatterbrained I cant believe you thought that sentence makes sense. You don’t seem clear on basic definitions of words.

I wish there was more scene analysis rather than just terminology discussion

i think male close friendships should be celebrated and accepted but the vibes i got from this film were more like tashi being a trophy the two passed around instead of releasing their repressed feelings for one another.. meaning there had to be something more they felt.. the entire film follows the three of them clinging onto this toxic relationship and triangle because they have such a deep attachment and codependence on each other.. i also don't agree that sexual intimacy in friendships shld be normalized? yes thats common in female friendships but thats also why wlw relationships are never taken seriously.. bc straight women will be all flirty w their bsfs and/or queer women without any romantic intent.

You mispronounce the director's name throughout the video... Please get a native Italian speaker to help 😊😊

I really don't like queer coding films. Just show it.

i think this movie could've been more queer, but i still absolutely loved it. the actors did a great job at making each relationship come to life. i find luca's lack of confirmation on wether this movie is queer a bit disappointing, but art and patrick's feelings for another are clear (in my opinion). i see people say "they're jealous because they both want tashi", and some people say "they're jealous because they want to be with each other". i think it's both. these three characters all need each other in a way, with patrick and art being repressed, art and tashi resenting each other, and patrick and tashi egging each other on. without all three of them, their relationship doesn't work. also: while there aren't any sex scenes, to the characters, tennis is like sex.

Nah you see, "good representation" specially of bisexuals is often a fucking terrible watch, this is extremely bi. Luca Guadagnino has said himself "they go back to the hotel together". Also, they kiss? like pretty intensely? are we forgetting that?

i honestly wouldn't say that this film isn't about the characters' sexualities? like their desire for each other and what that means is a pretty big driving point of the film. while yes, media centered around sexuality can and often do portray "coming-of-age" narratives with explicit discussions about identities and terminology and all that, they don't always look like that. sometimes it looks like a parallel between you spitting chewed up gum into your wife's hand before a game, the same as you've done with your best friend so long ago. and like another comment pointed out, i don't think audiences speculating about queer goings on between two male characters in a work of fiction undermines and erases platonic relationships between men lol i mean, are you even really friends if you weren't a little gay for your homies?

Patrick is canonically bi tho

Great video, thanks for your analysis. I always thought the issues of gay characters being played by straight actors was like... Whatever. UNTIL I saw Fellow Travelers. Both leading men, love interests, are gay in real life. The director is gay. So many people involved in it are gay. And it really shows. It's like, I didn't understand what I was missing until I saw it. Compare Fellow Travelers to, say, QAF. I would love to see you do a comparison on the two. When it comes to the intimacy scenes, there is simply no comparison. FT captures gay sex in a powerful, raw, and extremely emotional way that I have NEVER seen done by a straight actor. There is something underlying the simple analysis of "acting" that speaks to a queer epistemology. That queer people experience life differently and that sensibility comes through in our art. I hope this makes sense. Again, I think this debate in general is only useful in as a tool for encouraging dialogue; we don't need to be "right" or "wrong" about this. But the powerful use of intimacy in Fellow Travelers.... It changed me in a way that good queer art changes you. The way that art can change you when you see your own queerness TRULY, honestly reflected in a loving and complex light.

This is NOT a bisexual movie at all. No one in the film is queer or bi. This is a movie about love, desire and competition. Based on the ending " love wins" is the overall theme but the competitive emphasis of the world they're in creates a break between choosing loyalty or love over winning. Men loving each other in a platonic way isn't queer. This examination is made through the lense of how the US views the spectrum of attachment but in so many other countries being attracted to your friend does not equal queer. That "attraction" also has a spectrum and it's not necessarily sexual, it has to do with attachment and surprise men get attached to each other even when they're straight.

If either Patrick or Art were a girl, there would be no question as to whether they have romantic/sexual feelings to each other, and that's why I say they're bisexual. If a boy and a girl who were best friends made out, taught each other how to self-pleasure, etc... then people would be calling anyone who interprets their relationship as strictly platonic to be reaching. I do think that there is a deep platonic foundation to their relationship, but there is also romantic and sexual aspects to their relationship as well.

I disagree on saying the movie doesnt focus on sexuality, i actually think its a important part in the movie. even if patrick and art are not queer (wich i think they are) the movie still shows how patrick uses sexuality as a power toards art, in the way he so casualy explain how he tought art how to self pleasure (while art was clearly not comfortable talking abt the topic), or in the sauna scene were patrick is much more confident and comfortable with his nudity oposed to art who ask him to cover up

I think that the video poses a false dilemma. Either Patrick and Art are bisexual, or they are just close friends. Why is this a false dilemma? Because it assumes that both of them are either one thing or the other. My impression is that Patrick is the only bisexual one. So, basically, the 'triangle' is with Art loving Tashi, who has sexual feelings for Patrick, who is sexually attractred to both. The movie is full of clues. When they first met Tashi, Art says that Patrick has a girlfriend, but he really doesn't care about her at all and he gladly spend all of his free time with Art. There is the Tinder scene. The way he eats a banana while looking at Patrick is kind of suggesting. Finally, he goes full bare in the sauna, literally 'swinging it' in front of Art. Art seems displease, he askes him to cover up and that he is not 'intimidated' by Patrick's penis. But I don't think Patrick was trying to 'intimidate' him, I think he was trying to seduce him!

i feel like challengers represents that you can show sexuality and eroticism without explicit sex, art and patrick didn't need to bang on camera for us to know that there was sexual tension

Labels might be helpful sometimes but we don't need them

Why are people in the comment section so offended lol he didn't claim that it's not a bisexual movie he's just saying that there is much more depth to it than just labeling it a bi or hetero or homosexual or blahblahblah And it's true westerners are much more quick to label someone or behaviors of someone as gay when it involves physical intimacy and such when in asia, it's just a normal interaction between two really close same sex friends. As an asian myself it really seems like straight males in western countries try SO HARD to prove that they are not gay their entire life 😂 So while I think Patrick is definitely bi, he also falls into this ambiguity where he is sexually attracted to Art, but also just really want him as a person and as his best friend, not necessarily aspiring this relationship to be a "thing" between lovers. So I get what the speaker is saying.

In "Cabaret," the protagonist/narrator has a sexual relationship with a man and also with a woman, Sally, who he impregnates.

D.H. Lawrence's novel "Women in Love" -- first published 100 years ago -- explores, in part, the importance of close friendships between straight men. The movie depiction of the novel included an amazing scene of two male friends -- played by Oliver Reed and Alan Bates -- privately wrestling, in the nude, late at night, by firelight, behind doors that were closed and locked. That scene, by any measure, is extremely hot. Ironically, however, Bates -- in real life -- was a closeted homosexual.

Ashley Scarlett, and Rhett

just so you know - the pronunciation is more like guadan-yino and not guadaninyo

I don't usually comment, but I have to disagree with your concern that these close straight friendships have not been allowed. These types of friendships are clearly the majority in the world of film and tv. ex/Fast and the Furious, Abed and Troy from Community, etc... lol. To say that our society does not allow them to be close and caring is repeating a homophobic belief spilled by conservatives who believe that the worst thing they could be called or identified as is gay. And if there is speculation or even confirmation, how does that not allow them to still be close friends? Are romantic partners not still close friends? Furthermore, What does it matter if they are called gay? Why should men care whether they are speculated as gay or bi, or queer? The writers know how the characters identify or even how real life people id themselves, and that should be enough. It is making a mountain of a molehill. The focus should be less on addressing the issue of not "allowing straight male friends to be close" and more on getting rid of any care by society as to its importance. Close male friends are not at risk here. and if they are, you fail to mention that it's not due to speculation of queerness but rather homophobia by the current hegemonic powers at be. Unfortunately, your idea of this "issue" of straight male friends not being able to be "close' is heteronormative and unnecessary and ironically perpetuates ideas of toxic masculinity. Also, you say there can be "incredibly close sexually charged friendships" and have it not be queer. This is a contradiction. By definition, sexually charged implies sexual attraction and desire, and since they are of the same gender experiencing this charged sexuality, it is a direct example of queerness! These close male friendships can exist without being queer, but they cannot exist as nonqueer if they are "sexually charged," as this would directly relate to sexuality and queerness rather than just the closeness of platonic friendship. And that's ok. If all close straight male friendships were considered gay, what does it matter? Does that mean they should stop being close? What makes these friendships harder? People speculating they are queer or the idea that its shameful to be queer at all?

I am currently reading All of Us Strangers. Your video was the impetus and brought back memories of my adolescence as a Gen Xer. Being gay was social suicide at my high school. I think of a few classmates who deserved to be treated better.

It sucks being bi-poly 😔

Not only is this movie very bisexual, it is also extremely polyamorous. All the people who feel "queerbaited" by this film are viewing it through a monogamous lens.

Great video! btw the generation aspect is only viable for the countries that already accepted homosexuality, as an Egyptian and despite being younger my experience with being gay is very close to the characters in the movie, so it's not strictly directed to gen X, world wide it's directed to a lot more.

Bi film of the year, as if they were many films lmao, It was a clearly a love triangle, it was superb, the film was a as bisexual as it can be, also as a bi girl I felt bi panic.. as if it was meant to be intentional, men can be close but the kiss scene on the threesome was very pointy towards gay/bi love and others scenes that were clearly suggestive and intentionally gay.. loved the film, love is intense and it can change your life..

Slight correction: bisexuality does not inherently center the gender binary. The bi in bi refers to two types of attraction: homosexual and heterosexual, not two genders. According to the bisexual manifesto, bi is an attraction to all genders with or without preference. Pansexuality is under the umbrella of bisexuality and simply clarifies that the person w this label does not experience preferences towards any gender.

Thank you for this video, it is very well put together. I deeply appreciated the explanations of bisexuality and bi-erasure rather than just analysing the film.