Contents:
POT BREAK IS GAY
(Wele to Movi Are Gay, a Pri Month seri where we explore the tentnal, or accintal, ways LGBTQIA+ them, characters, and creativ have shaped cema. I knew "Pot Break" was gay before I ever saw . To be fair, even if I hadn't had the heads up, I would've ught onto the simmerg homoeroticism of "Pot Break" pretty quickly.
It stars a young Keanu Reev (who would star "My Own Private Idaho" two months later, but had already played gay by this pot) and Patrick Swayze (still a few years off om "To Wong Foo, " but already cshed-on by men and women aplenty), both radiatg full movie-star wattage. The movie's excellence is extrible om s homoeroticism. Wh the steroidal mculary of a weightlifter and the spirual ethos of the Dalai Lama, ’s a serly silly o to macho attu and male mararie—and one that tak s guy’s-guy stuff to such extrem, plays like a portra of one man’s stggle to unrstand, and accept, his newfound homoerotic sir.
'POT BREAK' IS GAY
Ls often discsed than Pot Break’s homoerotic unrton is the fact that a chunk of the California-foced film was shot Oregon. Self-fulfillment, y, but a morn film, there would have been more gay sex at the end.
(*He's wrong about this: there is no gay sex the terrible 3D 2015 remake starrg Edgar Rámirez). Pot Break holds up for s astonishg actn sequenc, wh addnal cult appeal for s dumb-but-fun plottg and homoerotic subtext. The "bromance" (whether read as straight or gay) between Bodhi and Johnny Utah has fallen wh the bodi, but more signifintly, has fallen to their pable rol.
Here was a cult, not the makg but one fully formed – a brilliantly ketic, breakneck-paced thriller that both adhered to and subverted genre one level, 's a eply nventnal blockbter wh a glorly dopey, high-ncept pch (FBI rookie filtrat a team of surfg bank robberts) another, 's a femist attack on jad Hollywood clichés that objectifi the male form and skewers the latent homoeroticism actn on another, 's a robt polil satire that potedly has s bad guys m crime disguised as former Amerin prints. The movie plays perfectly well whout such readgs – but the gay subtext is unniable. As to the much discsed homoeroticism, well I n't claim to know if was tentnal or not but is certaly there.