The Transporter is Originally a Gay Character

I realize this is a dead thread but id like to say for posterity. First of all for those saying the director was being political. He was speaking about subverting the heterosexual male gaze that is omnipresent in action movies, that is a cinema commentary. Also get over it, cinema is often inherently political
Secondly for those acting like hes trying to retcon the character, he directed the first movie as well, so that’s completely moot. Thirdly, for those saying it doesnt matter, then immediately commenting that there are practically no gay action heroes, thats the exact point the director was making, congratulations. Fourth, someone who is bisexual is often considered “gay” or “queer” (mostly due to homophobia) so his statement or his heterosexuality in the first film is not at all contradictory to this statement. Yall scrambling like d**n fools because its hard to process that an action protagonist is gay. That was literally the entire point. You bit the onion.

I hope this means Billy Eichner can eventually get to play The Transporter. Because that is The Transporter I've always wanted.

All this talk about gay, bisexual etc…

I mean, OBVIOUSLY, The Transporter should be trans, no?

This is a non-sequitur.

If that's the point, it's not a very good one, because as noted throughout the thread already it doesn't really develop or change the character. It's just biographical background. In the context of being a stereotypical action hero it's kind of like learning what his favorite color is.

One of the most valuable things about diversity is that it brings different perspectives to bear on things. This is ruined if it's just "exactly the same, but while being X." Particularly when X is something not readily apparent.

But he's not homophobic, right? So it'd be kind of weird for him to say "gay" when he meant "bisexual," as if he doesn't know the term or something.

I care about being held in contempt as homophobic and ignorant as an implication of genre. I care about politics ruining writing, a pattern we've seen before. I care that Hollywood despises some demographics and calls it "progress." But no, I don't care that some character in a film I've long forgotten may or may not be gay.

Every character Statham plays is basically himself.

Running away from his own self.

__________________

Agreed. The implication is insulting.

I’ve written elsewhere that a gay James Bond would make perfect sense to me, given that he went to public school and whatnot, according to the books. But with most other established male actions heroes it would be out of place or likely heavy-handed.

I agree mostly with this. But I would offer one little counterpoint: I do think that watching a film with a fact about a character in mind can provide a different type of framing for what you are seeing.

Now, this is something that exists in the space between the film itself and the viewer, but I think that if you watched a movie like The Transporter with the "fact" that the character is gay, it might change how you read certain scenes.

To give another example, it would be like imagining watching Jeanne Dielman, but with the "fact" that she is not a person but an android. It's something that is not textual and it's not even the intention of the filmmaker. But I guarantee you that you would have a different, and possibly very interesting viewing, with this in mind.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but as viewers we bring certain framing to a film. We assume that characters are straight (which is statistically a reasonable assumption), we assume characters went to school, we assume characters grew up in a household, etc.

Now, I think that it's kind of posturing to take a character that has no queer text (and arguably maybe even no queer subtext, I haven't seen The Transporter in a very long time) and later go "And he was gay!". That feels like trying to be progressive and groundbreaking without having to do any of the heavy lifting involved.

But I never object to watching a film and thinking "What if . . .". There was a fun fan theory floating around about The Descent a little while ago that I don't think is super supported by the film itself, but gives an interesting lens through which to view the movie.

Oh yeah, this can definitely be true. I think it probably isn't for The Transporter, from my memory, but something can rise above meaningless biographical detail without being overt in the film itself.

For example, you could have a coming-of-age high school story about a boy and a girl with no overt suggestion that either of them were actually gay, but once you hear that they are suddenly all the things you took to be hallmarks of simple sexual inexperience or nervousness suddenly read as actual ambivalence. Or pressure.

And, as you allude to, there's a lot of fun headcanon out there that has little to no chance of being part of the creator's intent but is still amusing to consider.

I don’t know. I think the problem is that this becomes a slippery slope and the fact of (or potential for) a child seeing a gay Cinderella/trans James Bond/whatever it may be becomes reason enough for the story to go in that direction, which to me sounds just horrible and depressing. It likely makes sense for child development but not for the story.

There’s always another lens through which to view things, and I personally always champion learning the context around the film to get a deeper understanding of it. For example, I was shocked to learn that Justin Benson’s mother killed herself while they were making The Endless, it did inform my reading of the film.

But I do think that characters’ sexuality is a different kettle of fish entirely, as it should be fully in the director’s power to decide that, in my opinion, and fan theories impacting on that (E.g. the Marvel Loki situation) is a recipe for disaster, as it’s inconsistent with the original authorial vision and intent, and, as such, muddies things up.

The bottom line is, the postmodern and metamodern turns taught everyone to churn out feminist readings of Don Quixote and queer analyses of Hitchcock, but I’ve always wondered how useful that is, to what extent is that actually in any way relevant to what the original was trying to say? It’s a bit like my personal version of ‘Is it kind? Is it necessary?’.

He is a lesbian who identifies as a man, so he is both gay (lesbian) and not gay (since he is a man who is attracted to women).

I need to take a minute to get my head around that 🤣

Scchrodinger's sexuality.

"...if I may offer to you a riddle."

But what I'm talking about isn't about the text of a film itself. I'm saying that there's nothing wrong (and even something fun and interesting) in watching a film with a particular lens. In the case of The Transporter you don't have any text (that I remember) that implies he is gay. But if you watched the film with that in mind, it could give some of the sequences a different flavor.

That said, I'm also not opposed to movies that ask "What if?". There's always a tension between a character and the circumstances around them. Changing personal facts about a character also creates new and different tensions. There have been so many versions of Cinderella at this point, why not a gay Cinderella? People who aren't into it can just . . . not watch it.

The personal circumstances of a person who made a piece of art can definitely be an example of one way we bring framing to a film.

But in the case of The Transporter, it's being asserted by the person who directed the film.

Again, though, it's just a question of lenses. There is a lot of queer subtext in certain Hitchcock films! And whether they are abundantly present or totally absent, you can always look at how a work regards women.

I think the thing is this: it doesn't have to be relevant to what the original was trying to say. I think that there is value in trying to understand the intent behind a work of art, but there is also value in approaching art and asking what it can give you that is interesting to you as a viewer. If someone wants to imagine (as their own personal framing) that a character is gay or chooses a female character as the focal point for their reading of a film, who cares?

I mean, there are people who obsessively chronicle movies via the weapons in them, or the cars (have you seen some of these sites about cars in movies?). It's not a lens that interests me, but it also doesn't harm how I choose to interact with films.

Sure. We all bring our subconscious readings to things and it’s probably a positive.

Hmm, it’s up to the viewer, naturally. As it should be. But to me it’s a bit like going to a seafood bar on the beach and ordering a burger. One is free to do that, sure, but it seems a tad irrational, and the burger will likely be crap, and the place specialises in seafood.

I think it’s a bit different. I’m obsessed with music. I Shazam every single soundtrack I hear, in fact I watch quite a few subpar films till the end because I enjoy the soundtrack and will have a few new songs/artists to add to my collection after the credits roll. But that’s just something I do (I also Shazam all the good music in restaurants), it has no bearing whatsoever on the film itself, as far as I can tell. A film could have still been great even if it was full of Justin Bieber. Then again, I acknowledge that it could just be me striving for a degree of objectivity/neutrality in approaching art.

I know a few people who have a way of approaching films from a specific angle, usually the same one (e.g. one hates Breaking Bad, A Beautiful Mind and Ozark because they all feature ‘bossy women’). I think it’s natural that we humans sometimes think like that, but it also seems so reductive and rather disrespectful to the work itself. I feel like it’s something to seek to fight in oneself, instead of celebrating it.

But when it comes to sexuality in particular, a history of queercoding has tuned viewers into finding and interpreting subtext. I don't think it's irrational to watch a movie and think about the main character being gay, even if there isn't a ton of overt evidence to support that reading. I don't see how it diminishes one's enjoyment of the film. I don't even think it's irrational. You're still getting (let's continue to use The Transporter) an action film. You're still getting the thrilling sequences. But if it's more fun for you to imagine that he's a gay character, I don't see how that lessens the viewing experience. And it doesn't force anyone else's hand. I can watch a movie and imagine that a character has some hidden attribute, and it doesn't mean that anyone else has to do the same thing.

But if someone wrote reviews of movies that mainly focused on the soundtrack, don't you think that's perfectly valid?

And further, suppose you watch a movie and say "Wow, this movie was really elevated by this song! The choice of that particular track really added meaning to that scene!". But then later you find out that the song was a last minute choice because they couldn't get the rights to the song they wanted and the replacement song just fit the rhythm of the scene. In that case (and I've heard stories like that on a few director commentaries), the choice of the song wasn't really part of the director's intent. Does that mean that the music-loving reviewer was wrong in their reaction? I don't think so.

I think that however a movie hits your brain and however you choose to interpret a film is valid. It's just that if you want a single other person to buy into your point of view, you have to be able to back your reading up with something. At that point, it's up to others how much they are willing to go along with your viewpoint.

Fair enough. I feel like it’s a bit of a fan-behaviour type thing as with fanfiction, where one mentally adds background/backstory which obviously can’t change the work/film, but informs one’s interaction with it going forward. On a rational level, there obviously isn’t anything wrong with that, and again, we are all free to do that, but I feel like it’s a bit like people who watched the last shot of Breaking Bad and decided that to them, with the subtext that they’ve chosen to imbue that ending with, . This is, indeed, perfectly valid if that’s what floats your boat, but this goes so explicitly against the authorial intent/the ‘point’ of the show, which is that . There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with reading things in whatever way you wish, but I feel like there comes a point when the person doing so is kidding oneself and very much ‘missing the point’ of the story.

I do acknowledge that this doesn’t apply to characters’ sexuality as much, as there are relatively few films where someone’s heterosexuality is that critical for the overarching message. With things like Top Gun, though (or other obvious old action films), I feel like even though the volleyball scene has been interpreted in a very homoerotic way, most people understand that that kind of testosterone-laden environment would be uncomfortable to navigate for a homosexual protagonist, so it would affect my suspension of disbelief (and hence enjoyment from watching the film) that the protagonist would choose to put himself in that situation/environment knowing it’s likely quite homophobic etc.

In short, I’m not sure that action films in particular (as that was the original topic) are fertile ground for that kind of speculation.

This is really interesting. I’ve never thought of it like that, but yeah, can’t argue with that one, and exactly that has happened to me a few times where I really liked a song that wasn’t meant to be there.

Anyway, as usual, there’s degrees of things. Maybe I’ll try reading a few of my favourite action characters as gay for a few days and see what happens.

I think it's quite the opposite. A lot of people who are gay experience having to navigate situations where they have to hide their sexuality because of the environment. It goes back to what I said earlier about tension and how you connect with what you're seeing. If you are gay, then seeing a man engage in a situation with homoerotic overtones but where, you know, no one gets punched because of it, could be vicariously thrilling.

I actually know (as an acquaintance, not a friend) a gay fighter pilot, and I get the impression he is not out to his colleagues. I do not know if he has ever participated in topless sand volleyball.

I think the main thing is that intentionally "reframing" can be an interesting way to watch a film (or read a book, or whatever). It can either be a fun thought experiment or a way to bridge your own personal experience to a character.

Operationally, I think a bisexual Bond would make more sense--Bond often uses his sexuality as a tool. Bisexuality is, so to speak, a multi-tool. They flirted with this idea in Skyfall.



As for vanilla-gay Bond, I think that would probably work best for a period-Bond (1950s and 60s). An additional secret to keep. An explanation for the detachment from women and the seeming death wish in the field. Psychological leverage for his enemies and his handlers.



I think fans would rebel against the idea, however, and I doubt that filmmakers would really finesse it in a way I would find pleasing.



Better to make a new character who happens to be gay or Bi or whatever. Also, I am not quite comfortable with the idea of "gay" as a leading character trait (when you really get to know another person you do not think of them as primarily Asian, or gay, or whatever). Don't make the film a pride parade or a sermon. Just have a character who plausibly kicks ass, who has a personality, and happens to be into dudes and keep on trucking with the story.