Blog #5 - "I Love You Too": Sexual Warfare & Homoeroticism in Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity

“ ‘I Love You Too’: Sexual Warfare & Homoeroticism in Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity’ ” is an illuminating examination of what scholars and critics alike may refer to as a cinematic masterpiece. Or perhaps as the French would reply, a “pièce de résistance.” The author of the article, Brian Gallagher, treats Wilder’s and Cain’s Double Indemnity as such, and does well to layout details in support of his provocative and indicting interpretations on male-male and male-female relationships, albeit fetishistically.

The gravitas to which Gallagher (and perhaps other analysts) explores the undertones, overtones and subversiveness of Double Indemnity, and their relevance thereof, feels, as a singular opinion, exceedingly over-analytical and overreaching. However, Gallagher is an expert in finding meaning in the minutiae, which aides in the understanding of the hypothesized intentions of James Cain and Billy Wilder, in particular, the layers of the Walter-Phyllis/Walter-Keyes relationship and how it derives its power.

The former relationship, which is at the forefront of the novel and is a slice of the triangle in the film, claims broad insights into the turmoil and the eventual inevitability of mutual destruction present in all heterosexual relationships, which are “...generally noisome and often lethal,” notes Gallagher. Despite this damning vision, the article is apt at pointing out the difference between Cain’s Walter and Wilder’s Walter. Gallagher states of Cain’s Walter, “...[he] is not overly disturbed by Phyllis’s displaced sexuality, for her real importance to him is functional.” Cain’s Walter is attracted to her on a physical level, but his aims are meant to be financially gratifying and not sexual, at least, not completely. On the other hand, Wilder’s Walter is driven nearly exclusively by his submission to sexual desire, “Much of his voice-over commentary implied that he was impelled by a physical desire for Phyllis which he could not control.” These observations by Gallagher contrast the separate incarnations of Walter and accentuate how much the film relies upon the striking looks of Barbara Stanwyck to incite lust within Walter, compelling him to commit nefarious acts, all with the promise of sexual fulfillment.

The contrast between the two variants of Walter seems to imply the male submissiveness to sexual desire, the film being the more culpable agent. The film also suggests, as pointed out by Gallagher, that “women are duplicitous, vulgar, and untrustworthy.” Both of these proposed theories are blasphemous, especially with respect to women, as it reduces them to merely creatures of havoc. In observation, both Cain’s Phyllis and Wilder’s Phyllis are beautiful seductresses bent on achieving their ambitions; however, the portrayal of Phyllis in the novel consists at least of more than one dimension.

The relationship between Keyes and Walter may be in contention; nevertheless, most would probably conclude that Walter and Keyes have a deep sense of trust, one that goes beyond their professional collaboration. Gallagher notes, “Keyes is very much the solicitous ‘father,’ concerned about his ‘son’s’ future and hoping to pass on wisdom, position, and function to him.” The role of fatherhood is apparent in the exchanges between Walter and Keyes, a screen pairing that is given a great degree of focus considering its sporadic and quite limited nature. This was a strong addition by Wilder, highlighting Keyes’ disposition in the novel as possibly equally fastidious but generally unpleasant.

Gallagher then proceeds to theorize on the relationship between Keyes and Walter, the essence of which is a claim of homoeroticism. “The sexual undercurrent in the Walter-Keyes relationship is established in the very first scene between them when a grinning Walter replies mockingly ‘I love you too’...then performs the ritual gesture of lighting Keyes’ large, cheap (and clearly phallic) cigar...” Gallagher applies “sexual” in his definition, a word that is misplaced and egregious in its implications. The Oxford dictionary defines homoeroticism, a phrase used by Gallagher in his title, as “concerning or arousing sexual desire centered on a person of the same sex.” The continued use of this phrase by critics and analysts proposes that some are threatened by the display of same sex affection, the propensity of which is male. In this sense, the use of the phrase homoeroticism conveys that affection and or tenderness of any degree delivered by a man to another man is tantamount to a sexual impulse, as any emotion resembling love is a strike against male bravado.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.