sign in sign up
<<
Home , Montgomery Clift

This article was downloaded by: [University of St Andrews] On: 04 April 2013, At: 06:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Popular Film and Television Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjpf20 Man and Boy: Montgomery Clift as a Queer Star in Wild River Elisabetta Girelli a a University of St. Andrews, United Kingdom Version of record first published: 23 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Elisabetta Girelli (2011): Man and Boy: Montgomery Clift as a Queer Star in Wild River , Journal of Popular Film and Television, 39:3, 132-140 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01956051.2011.555795

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

For full terms and conditions of use, see: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions esp. Part II. Intellectual property and access and license types, § 11. (c) Open Access Content The use of Taylor & Francis Open articles and Taylor & Francis Open Select articles for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 132 ManJPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television and Boy: MONTGOMERY CLIFT Queer AS A Star Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013

in Wild River By Elisabetta Girelli

Shown above: A queer wedding: Carol’s passion marries Chuck’s kinship (shown: Montgomery Clift and , Wild Copyright © 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC River, 1960). (color figure available online) DOI: 10.1080/01956051.2011.555795

132 Man and Boy 133

Abstract: Montgomery Clift has been Here to Eternity (dir. , underexplored by film scholars, who 1953); Clift, however, continued to have mostly focused on his early career. Clift continued to make make films into the , and most of This article uses queer theory to exam- films into the 1960s, and those films amply reward the scrutiny ine Clift’s later work, focusing on Wild most of those films amply for textual and subtextual disruptions of River (dir. , 1960); it argues reward the scrutiny for dominant cultural codes. One may hy- that in this film Clift’s narrative role, textual and subtextual pothesize that the critical indifference to performance, and star persona radically disruptions of dominant his later career owes little to the absence challenge normative masculinity and of subversive film material, depending heterosexuality. cultural codes. instead on the dramatic change in Clift’s Queer Star physical image. Keywords: Montgomery Clift, queer, In 1956 Clift suffered a devastating sexuality, star and on his performance and star image and well-publicized car accident, from at the peak of his career. In practice, this which he was to emerge with a differ- crucial scene of Wild River has meant a focus on Clift as a young ent look. Clift’s face had been smashed (dir. Elia Kazan, 1960) and exceptionally beautiful man, which in the crash, and it literally had to be shows the protagonists in turn, with reference to his biography, put together again: as a result, the left Chuck (Montgomery Clift) has helped to critically frame him within side was wired and virtually paralyzed, and Carol (Lee Remick) notions of homoeroticism, spectacle, while his nose and lips changed shape, layingA in the muddy ground, after hav- and sexual ambivalence.1 Steven Cohan losing their perfect proportions. It was ing been assaulted by a gang of thugs. has provided a notable contribution, as- a strangely static, off-kilter face; only Chuck has proved no match for the mob sessing Clift as the first and archetypal his eyes remained expressive, now cast- of hostile men and has been hopelessly “boy-who-is-not-a-man,” an unsettling ing a pained and feverish gaze. Clift’s beaten up; Carol, however, has aggres- figure in the landscape of postwar Hol- body would never recover, immediately sively and fearlessly attacked their en- lywood, which was dominated by “real acquiring a frail and hunched look; back emies and has been knocked down as a men,” but contextualized by a society injuries and a problem with balance result. After a pause in which the couple in which traditional masculinity was al- gave the actor an uncertain posture and look uncertainly at each other, Chuck ready in a crisis (Cohan 301–421). Co- gait. Overnight, Clift shifted from being says quietly, “I wish someday I could han articulates his concept of the “boy- a screamingly beautiful, boyish-looking win maybe one fight,” quickly adding, who-is-not-a-man” by closely linking it man, to a plainer, older, somber ver- his voice warming up, “You were won- to notions of bisexual desire, to Clift’s sion of himself; the most obvious con- derful out there.” Carol replies, “I don’t passive offering of himself to both the sequence of this physical alteration was care if you never win a fight.” Chuck’s male and the female gaze, and to the re- that the star’s days as object of desire, as reaction to these words is to blurt out, sulting denaturalization of established embodiment of male spectacle, were ef- “Marry me. I know, I’ll probably regret gender and sexual roles. Like most fectively over. The vast scholarly indif- it, and sure you’ll regret it, but. . . .” scholars discussing Clift as a subver- ference toward Clift’s subsequent work Carol’s face slowly relaxes into an ex- sive figure, Cohan concentrates on the seems to link alternative sexual and gen- pression of incredulous happiness. This actor’s first film, Red River (dir. How- der configurations to youth, beauty, and ard Hawks, 1948), in which Clift was open erotic display. A case study of Wild

Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 scene is the culmination of the complex, unconventional relationship that has de- memorably cast against , River shows instead how, in his screen veloped between the protagonists; it is and on the iconic A Place in the Sun roles after 1956, Clift radically chal- also a moment in which key factors con- (dir. , 1951), the film lenges normative notions of masculin- stituting Montgomery Clift as a star— that matched Clift with the young and ity and heterosexuality. In other words, his unorthodox masculinity, his sexual beautiful . Interestingly, despite being in his forties and having ambiguity on and off screen, his per- Cohan’s account of Clift as a subversive lost much of his beauty, Clift continues formative emphasis on unuttered feel- “boy” is consistent with Richard Dyer’s to function as a “boy” in opposition to ings and thoughts—all come together description of the “rebel” type of star, “real men” on the screen; his entire ca- in a narrative knot that can be aptly de- under which Clift is included, a type reer, therefore, can be seen as the con- scribed as “queer.” characterized by youth and therefore by tinuous, though varied, articulation of Clift has been fairly neglected by film the equation of subversion with a certain the same disruptive function. To dem- scholars, yet he occupies a crucial posi- age: “[Y]outh is the ideal material term onstrate the above, it is useful to shift tion in film history and in the develop- on which to displace social discontent, the lines of inquiry away from fixed no- ment of screen representations that go since young people always get older tions of and homosexuality against traditional gender and sexual (and “grow up”)” (Dyer, Stars 53). In- and to instead explore the usefulness of identities. Most of the critical attention deed, academic discussions of Clift’s contemporary notions of “queer.” Prior he has received focuses on his early unorthodox image have mostly followed to 1956, Clift’s queerness largely rested films, which catapulted him to stardom, his career up to and including From on the star’s youthful, sexually ambigu- 134 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

Montgomery Clift at the peak of his beauty and fame in A Place in the Sun (dir. George Stevens, 1951).

ous image, and was informed by erotic settlingly available to male and female notably his costars Elizabeth Taylor and, self-display; after the accident, Clift still scrutiny. Clift’s intense performative later on, . The public- communicated sexual ambivalence, but style, his “feminine” sensitivity, and his ity around heterosexual liaisons was not his queer difference was increasingly distinctive emphasis on nonverbal com- simply a result of the treatment Holly-

Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 expressed through social and physical munication through foregrounding his wood imposed on its stars (Waugh 99), deviancy and through on-screen rela- body, created on screen “a desirable boy it was also a reflection of the real inti- tionships based on unorthodox or non- by revealing the ground of his mascu- macy and attraction between Clift and sexual contracts. linity in performativity and bisexuality” these two actresses. Indeed, news of By November 1959, when the shoot- (Cohan 212). Subsequent film roles en- Clift’s relationships with women would ing of Wild River began, Clift was carry- hanced Clift’s ambiguous persona, even drift in and out of the press for the rest ing a large baggage of cultural significa- when plots centered on heterosexual of his career, largely unexplained by tions with him: he had been a star since romances: A Place in the Sun, I Con- Clift himself, even when the women in 1948, and he was inevitably caught in fess (dir. , 1953), and question remained his inseparable com- what Dyer has called “the powerfully, offered alterna- panions for years (notably the singer inescapably present, always-already- tive readings of Clift’s sexual identity2; and the acting coach signifying nature of star images” (Dyer, this aura of ambiguity was informed by ). It is no wonder that Stars 129). Clift’s image had been re- ever-increasing rumors about the star’s the mostly coy journalists of the time plete with ambiguity from the very start. double life. Sensationalist articles tried labeled the star “an enigma.” After the Red River introduces the actor simply to expose Clift’s closeted homosexual dramatic 1956 car accident, Clift was as Wayne’s young foil, but narrative lifestyle, hinting that the star frequented increasingly described in tragic tones, subtext, camera shots, and Clift’s own gay bars and cruising areas; at the same and his “enigmatic” personality would mesmerizing presence establish the time, the mainstream press amply docu- be more and more framed by the notions newcomer as a willing erotic object, un- mented his closeness to various women, of inner torment and self-destruction Man and Boy 135

As Clift’s private life continued to fas- it does have a chronological dimen- The growing visibility cinate, puzzle, and often shock the pub- sion” (Dyer, Stars 63): in Montgomery lic, the star’s films after 1956 showed a Clift’s case, this chronology is punctu- of Clift’s alcoholism, steady drift toward characters who were ated by the impossibility of placing the assorted addictions, and also, in important ways, deviating from star in a neat sexual pigeonhole. In the deteriorating physical the established norm. Roles included words of his main biographer, Patricia and mental condition the frail, outcast Jewish soldier in The Bosworth, Clift “seemed to represent a Young Lions (dir. , new kind of man—a man who refused contributed to the 1958), with Clift strikingly cast against to make judgements on sexual prefer- star’s association with the solid virilities of ence” (Bosworth 153–54). The constant uncomfortable notions and . In (dir. slippage of signifiers and the denial of of deviancy. Vincent Donahue, 1958) Clift is an ide- categorization form the core of contem- alistic journalist who, despite being en- porary queer theory, a critical approach gaged to be married, gives himself for ideally suited to a study of Clift. Cru- sex to a needy, unattractive woman who cially, a queer perspective is suspicious usually ascribed to gay men (Dyer, The writes to his agony column. In Suddenly, of monolithic “gay,” “lesbian,” or even Culture of Queers 113–35 and 162–63; Last Summer (dir. Joseph Mankiewicz, “bisexual” identities, preferring instead Waugh 100). The growing visibility of 1959) Clift plays an edgy neurosurgeon to posit a continuum of noncanonical Clift’s alcoholism, assorted addictions, uncovering a patient’s truth about expe- sexual and societal choices, orientations, and deteriorating physical and mental riences centered on homosexuality and and practices. The concept of “straight condition contributed to the star’s as- cannibalism. queerness” probably constitutes the sociation with uncomfortable notions To assess Clift’s presence in Wild most striking break from the previous of deviancy. Still a bachelor as he ap- River, it is thus necessary to consider the assumptions of lesbian and gay theory, proached his forties, Clift made news ready-made baggage the star brought to opening up multiple spaces of resistance again in September 1959, two months the film: a complex series of overlap- and difference. Notions of queerness are before beginning to work in Wild River: ping significations, held together by a also linked to developments in disabil- unaware of a fire that had broken out at consistent element of sexual and gen- ity studies, as the cultural hegemony of his home, he was surprised by firemen der disruption. As explained by Dyer, a able-bodied heteronormativity rests on in bed with his male lover (Capua 122). star’s image “is a complex totality and specific definitions of beauty, desirabil-

Chuck: “I can’t get enough of you” (shown: Montgomery Clift and Lee Remick, Wild River, 1960). (color figure available online) Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 136 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

ity, and physical and mental harmony. Chuck immediately becomes the target ing possession of his TVA office; he is Lastly, as “queer” contests identities of the locals’ hostility, as his pressing met with the incredulous stares of his and lifestyles traditionally considered for the relocation of Mrs. Garth is ac- all-female staff who, when quizzed by “abnormal,” the process of denaturaliz- companied by his decision of employ- Chuck, admit they had thought “they’d ing sexuality can and should be applied ing black workers at the same pay as send an older man.” The protagonist is to configurations that problematize whites. Harassed and repeatedly beaten thus immediately presented as some- sexuality itself, such as asexuality, celi- up by the town’s thugs, Chuck still per- one who confounds expectations and bacy, and “sleepers” relationships, all of sists in his mission, while beginning an who may not fit conventional notions which disrupt prescriptive patterns of affair with Mrs. Garth’s young widowed of authority and power associated with sexual needs and consumption. granddaughter, Carol. As their relation- the U.S. government; this impression is To apply notions of queerness to a star ship develops, Chuck meets Carol’s fi- soon confirmed by Chuck’s inept fid- such as Clift implies, first of all, con- ancée, Walter (Frank Overton), a timid dling with his chair, which nearly causes sideration of his image as a “complex and well-meaning figure, and the two him to fall on the floor, by his expressed totality” and seeing how sexual ambi- become allies in the struggle against belief that Mrs. Garth may be won over guity and gender disruption constitute the brutal local rednecks. The relation- by a new approach based on dialogue, major traits within this image. Equally, ship between Chuck and Carol pro- and by his reception by Mrs. Garth’s a crucial aspect of Clift’s persona af- vides much of the film’s focus: Carol sons, which follows shortly. As he tries ter the 1956 accident is a marked vis- is shown as being passionately in love to quietly reason with the group of big ible dissonance from his former beauty with Chuck, soon asking him to marry burly men, explaining why the land and from traditional notions of healthy her and take her away with him, with needs to be vacated, one of them effort- masculinity, expressed through the vis- her two children. Chuck, however, takes lessly picks him up and throws him into ible effects of bodily and mental trauma. a decidedly passive role, and although the river. Without showing anger or the Second, the queering of Clift demands a displaying a desire to bond with Carol desire to retaliate, Chuck finally walks close scrutiny of his film roles and per- emotionally and physically, he does not off, frail-looking and soaking wet. The formances to identify patterns of sexual express sexual or romantic passion, nor protagonist is thus singled out as a misfit and gender subversion and to highlight does he try to take her away from Wal- in the masculine system he is meant to how Clift produced models of male ter. The film’s climax sees Chuck vio- belong to: too young to be in charge, too identity that challenged canons of male lently attacked by the gang of thugs, and physically weak to command respect, he normality. Given that, in most of his Carol, in a neat gender reversion, fear- is, however, presented to the audience films, Clift was heterosexually paired, lessly fighting back on Chuck’s behalf. as the locus of reason and moral author- notions of “straight queerness” are par- Only after this does Chuck make his ity, as well as of New Deal progress. A ticularly interesting; this does not at all odd marriage proposal, acknowledging narrative of ambivalence is set in place, deny readings of Clift’s image that iden- doubts but following a strong impulse; whereby Chuck will straddle boundaries tify homosexual or homoerotic subtexts the film ends on a sexually ambiguous, between traditional manhood, with its in his films. On the contrary: multiple yet hopeful note, as the new family flies connotations of maturity and of social sexual directions overlap and coexist away to a life unknown, based on kin- and sexual power, and perceptions of in Clift’s work, producing a range of ship and love. boyhood, linked to innocence and inex- meanings that, in their subversion of Through its narrative and visual texts perience, as much as to erotic ambigu- traditional standards and expectations, and rich subtexts, Wild River builds a ity. This is striking if one considers that Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 can be truly defined as “queer.” complex discourse that belies the al- Clift was thirty-nine in Wild River, and Wild River is set in the 1930s in rural, most biblical clarity of its plot. If, on surely not looking any younger with his racially segregated Tennessee. The nar- one hand, the film is ostensibly about pleasant but tired face, hunched body, rative takes place in the context of the good men fighting evil and harness- and uncertain step; yet, his physical ap- terrible river floods that at the time had ing nature’s power to bring safety and pearance, which ought to have denoted caused widespread fatalities in the area. progress to all, on the other hand, this age, is invested with the tenderness and Clift plays Chuck Glover, an agent of narrative is subordinated to another nar- the newly created Tennessee Valley Au- rative, created by Clift’s problematic thority (TVA), in charge of supervising impersonation of Chuck. Bringing a the opening up of a dam that will pre- deeply subversive quality to his role as The perception of vent more flooding. Before the dam’s government agent, man, and lover, Clift Clift as a “boy” is not gates can be opened, however, the sur- also builds a highly unorthodox relation only a reflection of his rounding area must be cleared and peo- with his female love interest: it is the established star persona, ple relocated; Chuck has been sent there close interplay of these two strands of with the specific task of persuading a meaning that carry the film’s structure but also a direct result stubborn old woman, Mrs. Ella Garth of feeling. of his performance () to allow her house to The film begins with Chuck’s arrival in the film. be demolished and to move elsewhere. at his new job in Tennessee and tak- Man and Boy 137

Man and boy. Montgomery Clift as Chuck Glover in Wild River (1960). (color figure available online)

ambiguity of youth. The perception of while shooting the film: “[D]espite all, tations and functions. Without reveling Clift as a “boy” is not only a reflec- I felt tender toward him. He was just a in erotic self-display, indeed wrapping tion of his established star persona, but boy” (Kazan 600). eroticism in a cover of affection and also a direct result of his performance The queerness expressed by Chuck/ passive acceptance, Chuck/Clift never- in the film: his speech is inflected with Clift is, then, rooted in gender disrup- theless makes himself available to male pauses and hesitations, his eyes are al- tion: although very much an adult and female desire through his relation- ternately wide-open and elusive, and chronologically and by virtue of his job, ships with Walter and Carol. Allied with his movements show both anxiety and he is strongly associated with notions of Walter in a homosocial pact, which desire. Although these boyish connota- the “boy” and effectively feminized by marks them both as different from the tions are best expressed in Clift’s love his dysfunctional masculinity and nar- town’s normative masculinity, Chuck is scenes with Remick, where they inform rative position. Physically vulnerable, able to relate to Carol in a nonposses- Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 Chuck’s unsettling characterization as repeatedly humiliated and hurt by other sive, sexually ambivalent way. Indif- a grown man who is not a “real man,” men, Chuck is also strictly aligned with ferent to institutionalized coupling and they are also crucial in marking the the film’s female subjectivity: his sym- open to modes of connection that defy TVA agent as an outsider, ill-fitted to pathies lie firmly with the two women the “norm” and that are powerfully felt the demands of conventional, straight- protagonists, Carol and Mrs. Garth, de- but undetermined, Chuck is at the center forward masculinity. Clift’s construc- spite the latter’s antagonism to his plans. of a deeply queer discourse. tion of Chuck as different from the other In a key exchange with the old woman, In Wild River, Walter is clearly linked men, by virtue of being more of a boy, just before collapsing drunk at her feet, to Chuck as the only other male misfit: is given expressed acknowledgment in Chuck tells her emphatically: “I know as Carol’s official “fellow” and one of the film, from its first scene at the TVA exactly how you feel.” But Chuck’s the town’s resident males, he is patently, office to later on in the narrative, when boyishness goes much further than this: almost painfully failing to meet expec- a drunken Chuck has fallen asleep on the condition of being not a man con- tations. Although as physically robust the ground, Mrs. Garth observes him tinues to imply an essential sexual am- as any of the locals, Walter is unwill- and comments on how small he looks. biguity, as it did in Clift’s early films ing to fight, and his decision to side Indeed, Kazan (who was fifty years old analyzed by Cohan. This time, however, with Chuck against the thugs is an act when directing Wild River, thus, hardly the star’s ambiguous sexual identity is of moral rather than physical courage. a likely father figure for Clift) remarks very differently articulated, shifting its Scorned by the others for his acceptance on the problems he had with the actor subversion onto a new set of represen- of Chuck’s “theft” of his girlfriend, 138 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

Walter befriends the man who should be is uncertain. In a scene where they are which the full-bloodied Remick tells his rival, and on their first meeting the kissing in the car, Carol tries in vain to him she loves him (Films in Review, two go out drinking. The film’s ellipti- extract a declaration of passion from 356). The New York Herald Tribune, cal narration does not show what hap- Chuck, eventually telling him exasper- specifically commenting on the film’s pens between them, but it presents them ated: “[S] ay you can’t get enough of love scenes, also points to shortcomings at the end of the night, obviously close me. Say it!” Chuck compliantly repeats in Clift’s heterosexual performance: and relaxed together. Later on, in the her words, but in such muted tones as “Clift always seems to me a bit pained, key scene of the fight between Chuck to leave unclear whether he is overcome even under circumstances that would and the locals, Walter first intervenes with desire or simply basking in com- leave most people happy” (Beckley as Chuck’s protector; at the end of the fort. Throughout the film, Clift’s behav- 101). The Reporter wrote, fight, when Chuck and Carol are lying ior toward Remick is physically insis- “[T]he film comes undone with Clift’s on the ground next to each other, Walter tent, but oddly composed at the same performance. . . . His diffident, tenta- casts a desiring gaze toward the couple. time, resulting in a portrayal of strong tive style is the antithesis of the charac- This unspecified longing finds a practi- yet undefined desire. ter he should be playing” (3). Remick, cal expression in Walter’s last gesture: Clift’s idiosyncratic love-making in however, saw that Clift’s interpretation he rescues the bag containing Chuck’s Wild River clearly upsets conventional of Chuck had resulted in a radically belongings, which had been taken and notions of the male lover; indeed, at alternative model of relationship: “[I] thrown away by the thugs, and carefully the time of the film’s release, the actor nsofar as Monty was incapable of being places it by its owner, before leaving the was berated for not being predatory and the dominant partner in a male-female scene with a last yearning look. A homo- “virile” enough, and his impersonation relationship . . . the film showed a very erotic subtext thus underpins Chuck’s of Chuck Glover was perceived as an different kind of relationship than what characterization as a deviant male and unmitigated sexual failure. The first one usually sees” (Kass 80). In light of lover, which is the focus of Clift’s per- person to be unhappy with Clift’s per- Clift’s deeply ambiguous, unorthodox formance in the film. formance was Kazan. The director had performance as Carol’s lover, Chuck’s Chuck is clearly drawn to Carol by initially hoped to get Brando to play the bizarre marriage proposal becomes feelings of affinity and attraction, yet part and felt that Clift’s dreamy, passive especially suggestive: it reads as the he does not think of claiming her for approach to the love story was express- statement of intention of a queer man. himself; instead, he builds with her a ing sexual inadequacy: “[I]n their love Whether Chuck is ultimately a “gay” or relationship counter to dominant gen- scenes she [Remick] was dominant and a “straight queer” man or anything be- der, sexual, and societal structures, pro- Monty seemed sexually uncertain. . . . tween the two is never established and viding a striking example of “straight [I]n one scene Monty, at the instant of not important. Obviously concerned by queerness.” The two meet, become lov- arousal, slumped to the floor. I cursed the impossibility of fulfilling normative ers, get married, and form a family: yet him under my breath as a limp lover” expectations of “the husband,” Chuck all this happens in opposition to estab- (Kazan 599). There is no doubt that is, however, ready to marry someone he lished notions of heterosexual coupling Kazan saw Clift’s behavior as result- has come to cherish: it is a relationship and even of “normality.” Most impor- ing from the “wrong” sexual orienta- where nothing is guaranteed, apart from tantly, Chuck’s sexual identity remains tion: “[H]e was terribly uncertain with the desire of being together. The scene fluid and ambivalent, disrupting the girls—like a homosexual is” (Ciment of their impulsive wedding is fittingly equation between man-woman relation- 134). Reviewers were hardly kinder to unusual: as they are pronounced man Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 ships and conventional heterosexuality. Clift’s style as a lover, seemingly ex- and wife, Carol looks in front of her, The film’s plot rushes the couple pressing indignation on behalf of “real with a beatific expression on her face, along, as they rapidly become very men”: “[Clift’s] incapacities are almost while Chuck gazes intently at Carol, at intimate; the exact nature and con- indecently flagrant in the scenes in once loving and bemused. Once they figuration of their intimacy, however, are married, the new couple do not ex- are constantly called into question by change a kiss: instead, Chuck takes his Clift’s performance. Clift’s behavior as wife by the hand and quietly leads her Carol’s lover is suitably amorous and outside. A close friend of Clift once tender, and, indeed, Judy White argues In light of Clift’s deeply said: “[I]f Monty really liked you—man that much of the film’s power rests on ambiguous, unorthodox or woman—you ultimately went to bed the credibility of this screen romance performance as Carol’s with him” (Bosworth 282). A notion (White 229); if Carol is the one who lover, Chuck’s bizarre of sexual bonding not based on gender initiates their affair, Chuck is soon turn- marriage proposal becomes preferences or on traditional romance ing up at her door again, taking her in and passion, but on whether people his arms and kissing her. Afterward, especially suggestive: it “like” each other, is profoundly queer; however, although Chuck’s behavior reads as the statement of it is also key in understanding Chuck’s remains affectionate and very physi- intention of a queer man. physical and emotional commitment to cal, the extent of its erotic motivation Carol. Man and Boy 139

Clift, thus, brings a strong subver- ing on her own nonsexual lesbian rela- sive quality to Wild River, disrupting tionship, Leslie Raymer argues: “I now established notions of masculinity and refuse to allow myself to measure the [Clift’s] subversion is heterosexuality. Clift’s interpretation value of any of my relationships by such validated through Chuck, of Chuck posits a fluid gender identity male values as how often I “get some’” not only as the film’s and an ambiguous sexual orientation; (108). If, as Adrienne Rich claims, het- protagonist, but also as the fluidity and ambiguity are also in- erosexuality is the instrument of patri- the lover, the object of formed by other elements, inseparable archy (632–60), Wild River constructs the heroine’s passion and from Clift’s persona and performance, a strongly antipatriarchal discourse: it devotion, and the which expand and reinforce the film’s denaturalizes the hetero “norm,” yet it queer discourse. recuperates relationships between the bearer of moral and The relationship between the two sexes by subverting mandatory sexual practical progress. protagonists is complex, presenting “a patterns. One of the ways in which those mesh of gaps, lapses, dissonances and patterns are disrupted is by construct- excesses of meaning,” as in Eve Kosof- ing a male subject whose sex life may sky Sedgwick’s definition of queerness be absent, scarce, or irrelevant. As in jostling and combining with images, (8). As already discussed, a significant all queer configurations, the suggestion still very powerful, from his pre-acci- lapse or dissonance is the suggestion that Chuck may have renounced sex, or dent phase. The suspicion that Chuck that Chuck’s desire for Carol may not be be essentially uninterested in it, remains may have been uninterested in sex adds intensely or primarily sexual. But Clift’s highly ambiguous: a feasible but unut- an extra layer of ambiguity to the film, physical behavior toward Remick, tered intimation, it may denote a tem- placing its protagonist even deeper at which is constantly affectionate yet cool porary or life-long situation; it may be odds with monolithic concepts of the at the same time, contains at least a hint partial or total; but the crucial element male lover; just as importantly, Chuck’s of another possibility: that sex, under- is its nonabsolute value. Lack of sexual possible chastity goes against accepted stood as erotic need and pleasure based action does not automatically turn a notions of “normal” adult development. on genital satisfaction, may scarcely person into a nonsexual being; Chuck’s Clift’s established status as a “boy,” be present in Chuck’s life, or even not possible distance from notions of sexual which was mostly replete with ambigu- present at all. In the arrangement shared prowess, of whatever orientation, coex- ous sexuality, is retained but also twisted by the couple, symbolically ratified by ists with the presence of desire. It is the in Wild River. Clift/Chuck is constantly their low-key wedding, a full-blown sex nature of male desire that, in Wild River, hovering between grown-up desire and life may not be included, or it may be is ultimately queered and queer, being hints of physical innocence, an espe- subordinated to other needs; conversely, undetermined and unclassifiable. cially unsettling combination for a char- Carol’s sexual attraction for Chuck may It is tempting to link Chuck’s hy- acter meant to exude sexual and social perhaps be fulfilled, but not recipro- pothetical lack of sex to Montgom- authority. Indeed, Clift’s “enigmatic” cated. A crucial factor, here, is again ery Clift’s life at the time the film was persona was acquiring, by 1959–60, a Clift’s performance: as Chuck, the star’s made. During the three years after his distinct aura of abnormality, and where physical ambivalence toward Carol is car accident, Clift was still having to once he was perceived as the epitome not countered by open erotic desire for cope with a vast amount of chronic pain of youthful eroticism, there was now a Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 Walter or for any other person. A rea- and was now in the grip of a serious ad- strong connotation of unhealthy devi- sonable implication of Clift’s overall be- diction to prescription drugs. Combined ancy. If Clift’s ambivalent performance havior in the film is that Chuck (and/or with a long history of alcoholism and a was judged unmanly by film critics, the Clift himself) may simply not be inter- plethora of physical ailments, the legacy ever-sententious Kazan went even fur- ested in sex. Notions of asexuality or of of the accident meant that Clift found ther in his assessment: “Monty”s sexu- a “dormant” sexual drive are, of course, sex increasingly difficult: “Monty was ality was that of a child waiting for his radically incompatible with dominant often impotent, and sex became less mother to put her arms around him” representations of masculinity. Like- important to him. His deepest commit- (Kazan 597). It is difficult not to relate wise, orthodox views of loving, inti- ments were emotional rather than sexual Clift’s projection of a deviant masculin- mate commitments between two people, anyway” (Bosworth 342). In the last ten ity and public perceptions of it to the let alone a married heterosexual couple, years of his life, Clift became less and multiple alterations in the actor’s ap- are indissoluble from the presence of less involved in sex: it is notable that pearance and to the publicized notion sexual activity. From a queer perspec- his screen performances also turned less that he was becoming physically and tive, compulsory sex appears as pre- sexual, to a very significant degree, fi- psychologically impaired. Clift’s face scriptive and oppressive as compulsory nally acquiring a clear asexual quality had not simply changed and aged after heterosexuality, being the function of an in his last films. Wild River belongs to a the accident, it had also acquired a look idea of “normality” imbedded in patri- dynamic moment in Clift’s career, when often described as “glazed” by reviewers. archy and heteronormativity. Comment- new facets in the star’s persona were A rare metabolic disorder, spontaneous 140 JPF&T—Journal of Popular Film and Television

hypothyroidism, now caused Clift’s eyes On screen, the uneasy combination of ———. Stars. London: BFI, 1998. Print. to bulge out, while a massive intake of Clift’s unhealthy reputation and undis- Films in Review. “Wild River.” Rev. of Wild puted star status generated ambiguity; it River. June/July 1960: 356. Print. pills and alcohol made his gaze often Hart, Kylo-Patrick R. “Gay Male Spectator- seem vacant. The thyroid condition was matched by his appearance, which ship and the Films of Montgomery Clift.” gave Clift a precarious balance when he uncomfortably twisted his familiar good Popular Culture Review 10.1 (1999): walked, and back and leg pains affected looks, and by the strongly ambivalent 69–82. Print. his posture: “[H]is body took the shape quality of his performance. The result- The Hollywood Reporter. “Wild River.” Rev. of Wild River. 24 May 1960: 3. Print. of a question mark: pelvis pushed out, ing image suggested social, gender, Kass, Judith. The Films of Montgomery shoulders crouched and slouching” (La- sexual, and physical deviancy, challeng- Clift. Secaucus: Citadel Press, 1979. Print. Guardia 181). The difference in appear- ing and subverting established notions Kazan, Elia. A Life. New York: Alfred A. ance between the older Clift and his for- of normality. In Wild River, Clift brings Knopf, 1988. Print. these connotations to the fore: his sub- Kosofsky Sedgwick, Eve. Tendencies. Dur- mer image seemed staggering, as stated ham: Duke UP, 1993. Print. by Kazan: “[H]e was no longer hand- version is validated through Chuck, not LaGuardia, Robert. Monty: A Biography of some, and there was strain everywhere only as the film’s protagonist, but also Montgomery Clift. New York: Primus, in him—even, it seemed, in his effort to as the lover, the object of the heroine’s 1988. Print. stand erect” (597). Likewise, Clift was passion and devotion, and the bearer Lawrence, Amy. The Passion of Montgom- ery Clift. Berkeley: U of California P, becoming increasingly distant from the of moral and practical progress. Both 2010. Print. standards of Hollywood leading men or, “man” and “boy,” Montgomery Clift Mann, Roderick. “Montgomery Clift.” The indeed, from established ideas of male is the master of a powerfully queer dis- Express 16 Aug. 1959: 12–14. Print. desirability; if physical “abnormality” course, confirming and deepening his Raymer, Leslie. “What’s Sex Got To Do earlier disruptive function and emerging With It?” Boston Marriages: Romantic played a vast part in this process, the but Asexual Relationships among Contem- mental anguish that went with it greatly as a truly subversive figure. porary Lesbians. Ed. Esther D. Rothblum contributed to it. A 1959 article, penned and Kathleen A. Brehony. Amherst: U of NOTES by Roderick Mann for The Express, Massachussetts P, 1993. 99–108. Print. 1. A notable and fascinating exception is Rich, Adrienne. “Compulsory Heterosexu- painted a typical representation of Mont- The Passion of Montgomery Clift, by Law- ality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs 5.4 gomery Clift, post-accident: defined rence, which approaches Clift from the point (1980): 632–60. Print. as “talented and tortured,” the star was of view of the cult grown around the star. Waugh, Thomas. The Fruit Machine. Dur- 2. See for example, Cohan 229–37; Hart ham: Duke UP, 2000. Print. described as a frighteningly messed-up 69–82. individual, who during the interview al- White, Judy. “Sympathy for the Devil: Elia Kazan Looks at the Dark Side of Techno- WORKS CITED ternated between crying, swearing, talk- logical Progress in Wild River.” Litera- Beckley, Paul V. “Wild River.” Rev. of Wild ing randomly, and even pretending to be ture Film Quarterly 22.4 (1994): 227–31. River. New York Herald Tribune 2 June Print. deaf (12–14). Similar accounts of Clift’s 1960: 101. Print. psychological distress abounded, aiding Bosworth, Patricia. Montgomery Clift: A Bi- the construction of an unhealthy, exces- ography. New York: Limelight Editions, sive, almost repulsive persona. There 2007. Print. Elisabetta Girelli is a lecturer in Film Stud- Capua, Michelangelo. Montgomery Clift: may have been many film stars who got ies at the University of St. Andrews, United A Biography. Jefferson: McFarland and Kingdom. She is the author of Beauty and drunk at parties, but Clift’s descent into Company, 2002. Print. the Beast: Italianness in British Cinema despair was well beyond the accepted Ciment, Michael. Kazan on Kazan. London: (Bristol: Intellect, 2009) and of various ar- Secker and Warburg, 1974. Print. Downloaded by [University of St Andrews] at 06:28 04 April 2013 limits of masculine dignity: as a story ticles on issues of identity and space in Brit- Cohan, Steven. Masked Men. Bloomington: ish, Italian, and Czech cinema. She is cur- editor at MGM put it, “Monty’s ordeal U of Indiana P, 1997. Print. was so naked it disgusted and frightened rently writing a monograph on Montgomery Dyer, Richard. The Culture of Queers. Lon- Clift as a queer star. a lot of people” (Bosworth 340). don: Routledge, 2002. Print.