I both agree and disagree with this.
I mean, it’s about chemistry, that can’t be acted (though I know a fantastic writer on British tv disagrees with the concept of natural chemistry, “That’s just called being a good actor!”), but that’s as true of heterosexual pairing as it is homosexual one. However, you don’t have to have two homosexual actors to get that chemistry between two men - see Donald Faison and Zach Braff in Scrubs or Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki in Supernatural, it’s about just how comfortable the two actors are together, in the same way a heterosexual romantic pairing doesn’t actually need two heterosexual actors; Matt Bomer and Hilarie Burton in White Collar being a brilliant example.
That was disagree. Now onto why I agree; cultural context of 1948
Hitchcock would’ve needed two actors who were actually gay, just to tell a (barely) sub textual story, as the fact that homosexuality would remain illegal in the UK for another 20 years after they made the film (19 after they released it), not to mention the sociological conventions of heterosexual men to not show emotion or be in touch with their feelings (which has now lead to incredibly high male suicide rate) Only men who were actually gay would’ve had the experiences that Hitchcock wanted to convey, of staging each moment between the pair the same way he staged romantic pairings in his other films. The attitudes of “real men don’t cry” coupled with the illegality of homosexuality, to the point were even coming across as “a bit gay” was something to be scared of, ruled out having actor pairings such as the examples mentioned above. Governmental restrictions hinder society.
Those very dangerous and harmful assumptions regarding how heterosexual men should act together remains so institutionalised in society that any friendship were they show any form of actual relationship is immediately seen as being a gay love story, by a depressing amount of the audience, which has always struck me (90’s kid I am) as backwards thinking, and actually veering on homophobic, as it calls back to any men or women in a homosexual relationship never being referred to in a romantic concept “yes, your great uncle Philip and house mate James arn’t in a relationship, they’re just very good friends” - but I feel this is a rant for another time, how racist and homophobic assumptions live today, even in a more liberal society, and still cause just as much harm as they did when they were more blatantly bigoted.
Trivia note; although Rope is seen by many as only being viewed as being about a homosexual pairing in modern critique, the 1929 play of the same name, on which the film is based, stated they are a gay couple. The only reason the film doesnt flatly state it, as the play does, was to sell the film in territories were homosexuality was illegal; a concern film makers still, unfortunately, need to consider if they want to sell their work internationally. That odd disparity, where “art didn’t feature something until I personally noticed it” is surprisingly common. I actually have a gif of Moriarty from Sherlock saved on my iPad purely for the amount of time I see that attitude come up…
