At least Rogan is still placing a handful of free clips on YouTube.

I used to call close friends of my parents aunts and uncles. It could be that, too.

I’ve been waiting for someone to write the scene-by-scene breakdown I was wanting. Thank you!

The movie cuts off at the end to a 10-minute shot of Chase giving us  the finger.

Here’s an interview in which he answers that question: https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a28519626/michael-gandolfini-the-many-saints-of-newark-tony-soprano-interview/

I thought I read that this movie covers a span of time from the 1960s into the 1970s.

Most artistic people are hard on themselves. I thought “The Witch” was incredible!

Aww, sorry to hear one of my favorite A.V. Club features is ending. But thank you for the ride!

The lack of positive gay representation on-screen over the years creates a desire for it, and many do feel Luca is an allegory to which they can relate. But I also did wonder, for the sake of argument, is the conclusion of this article - your interpretation is real and valid - also welcome when a viewer comes away…

He exists in an in-between state, like Schrodinger's Mobster.

As real as our interpretations might be to us, doesn’t it let the air out a bit from the tires when creators come along and say it wasn’t their intent? I mean, you can choose to live in your own reality, but I’ve felt in those situations like I’m kind of living in denial when I choose to believe one thing after the…

I agree, as long as we don’t attack creators unfairly for not subscribing to our preferred interpretation.

It might actually be better for writers to be more evasive in a case like this and let people have their own interpretations. Especially in a more allegorical tale. The sexuality of characters like Sam and Bucky is probably a bit more set in stone, and I imagine Anthony Mackie would have a decent concept of who his…

Congrats to you and Diana Upham!

Right, I think the best approach, if creators decide to spell everything out, is, “We intended it to be this way, but you if get something else out of it, that’s fine, too.” We just have to be able to see where our emotional connections end and the literal facts of the work begin. Granted, I admit it can be a little…

That is a perfectly valid interpretation!

There’s no question of a need for more and better representation of homosexuality in media. But the central thesis of this article is, “What it means to you is what it means to you, and nobody can touch that.” It’s a nice sentiment, but it begs the question of does that apply to all interpretations of a work,…

If the viewer is interpreting and contextualizing a film in a way that is meaningful to them and reflects their worldview and experience, regardless of creator intent, that’s perfectly fine, is what this article seems to be saying. So how would it be different?

Does this argument mean that the opposite situation is acceptable, where characters intended to be gay, but not directly stated as such by the creators, are then perceived by the viewer as straight? Because I have a feeling it wouldn’t be.

It never clicked with me that he was in Equinox until now, and that was a go-to film back in college.