How wonderful. This show is going to be massive, and they're ensuring a hit by not having any homo activity mentioned in it. Typical.
New 'DaVinci' Series Will Whitewash His Homosexuality
|by Anonymous||reply 153||06/12/2013|
That's ok, the gays won't put up a fuss about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/22/2013|
The article contradicts your link, OP. the interviewer mentions several instances of "gayness" in the first few episodes alone, and the creator says they are not shying away from anything.
Did you not even read your own link? The fuck?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/22/2013|
Ironic that a website (AFTERELTON) that has STRAIGHT-washed its entire content to appeal to fangurls and fraus could even consider condemning someone else from doing the same!
As for the Da Vinci show itself, the creator himself couldn't even bring himself to use the word "gay" in the interview... he's trying to downplay the straight-washing so that gay people will still watch it.
And as for the fraus on here who complain about being called "fraus" and being "picked on", After-Elton is the perfect example of why most gay guys on here don't want DL to be overrun and taken over by women... just look at AfterElton.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/22/2013|
r2, Goyer danced around the question. The promos have Da Vinci fucking a woman. They're totally erasing the homosexuality. Other reviewers are already calling them out. It's on Starz for Christ's sake! There was no need to censor this. They're continuing to closet Leonardo, as someone put it on IMDB.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/23/2013|
Sounds just like that J. Edgar movie.
People are still scared to mention homosexuality even today.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/23/2013|
If it's as good as Sparticus, it will be a hit
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/23/2013|
There is no clear evidence that Da Vinci was homosexual.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/23/2013|
we should see Leonardo meticulously studying the male form
every inch of it
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/23/2013|
Well, as long as he's also fucking men during the series, it should be fine. (although its kinda shitty that the promo only shows him and a woman) Da Vinci definitely was not straight, but we don't know if he was bisexual or gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/23/2013|
he was arrested for sodomy, I believe.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/23/2013|
Did any men in Florence during the 1400's not have sex with other men?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/23/2013|
[quote]There is no clear evidence that Da Vinci was homosexual.
There is no clear evidence that he could be considered straight. Thus we'll begin with the gay label until we find concrete evidence that would indicate he may not be gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/23/2013|
The only historical document concerning Leonardo's sexual life is an accusation of sodomy made in 1476, while he was still at the workshop of Verrocchio.
Florentine court records show that on April 9, 1476, an anonymous denunciation was left in the tamburo (letter box) in the Palazzo della Signoria (town hall) accusing a young goldsmith and male prostitute, Jacopo Saltarelli (sometimes referred to as an artist's model) of being "party to many wretched affairs and consents to please those persons who request such wickedness of him". The denunciation accused four people of sodomizing Saltarelli: Leonardo da Vinci, Baccino, a tailor; Bartolomeo di Pasquino and Leonardo Tornabuoni, a member of the aristocratic Tornabuoni family. Saltarelli's name was known to the authorities because another man had been convicted of sodomy with him earlier the same year. Charges against the five were dismissed on the condition that no further accusations appear in the tamburo. The same accusation did in fact appear on June 7 but charges were again dismissed. The charges were dismissed because the accusations did not meet the legal requirement for prosecution: all accusations of sodomy had to be signed which this one was not. (Such accusations could be made secretly, but not anonymously.) There is speculation that since the family of one of the accused, Leonardo Tornabuoni, was associated with Lorenzo de' Medici, the family exerted its influence to secure the dismissal. Sodomy was theoretically an extremely serious offense, carrying the death penalty, but its very seriousness made it equally difficult to prove. False denunciations were quite common at that time especially via anonymous reports by one's enemies, and such may have been the case here. Sodomy was also an offence for which punishment was very seldom handed down in contemporary Florence, where homosexuality was sufficiently widespread and tolerated to make the word Florenzer (Florentine) a slangword for homosexual in Germany.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/23/2013|
R13 The accusation of sodomy was an accusation of gang rape. It was not something that could necessarily define the 5 men raping the boy as homosexual.
The series would be much more interesting if it explored sexuality in that city during that time. As I posted above: Did any men in Florence during the 1400's not have sex with other men?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/23/2013|
There were plenty of rumors and charges again many of the great artists of the time in Florence.
Boticelli, Verrocchio, Michelangelo are just a few of them. It seems to have been a period dominated by gay artists. In the north Duerer was probably gay. too.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/23/2013|
Lorenzo di Credi, possibly Perugino.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/23/2013|
[quote]As I posted above: Did any men in Florence during the 1400's not have sex with other men?
This is probably the book to read on the subject.
[quote]"Using the city's rich judicial records, especially those of the Office of the Night, a magistracy set up to root out sodomy, Rocke shows that between 1432 and 1502 perhaps 17,000 men - or one in two in a total population of about 40,000 - came to the attention of civil authorities for homosexual acts."
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/23/2013|
It's like they take a dump over the historic legend's lecacy and place a little Indiana Jones hat on the turd and call it a show and we are supposed to eat it all up.
We are all trained to eat and consume shit.
What's next, Jeanne D'Arc as high kicking pole stripper touring through France to solve crimes in the name of God?
Oscar Wilde in Murder, He Wrote so Eloquently?
Icarus sailing with his wings to Berlin to kill Hitler?
But it's all good, you see, because it has super cool special effects! Yay! *two thumbs up*
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/23/2013|
How could DaVinci NOT be gay? Haven't you seen his work? How could an interviewer not question that there are very specific details in the fab artists' work that one would likely not see from a straight man?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||03/23/2013|
Wiki is lying. There was lots of evidence of DaVinci's gayness.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/23/2013|
R17 Thanks for posting that.
"between 1432 and 1502 perhaps 17,000 men - or one in two in a total population of about 40,000 - came to the attention of civil authorities for homosexual acts."
One in two of all men. And that is just what "came to the attention of civil authorities".
R19 In what work? And what details? Do tell.
R20 Specifics please. Thanks in advance.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||03/23/2013|
mere accusations are not evidence, especially when you can't trace the source and crossexamine them.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/23/2013|
Most of Davinci's personal sketches were of nude male, and not female, models.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/23/2013|
I made up my mind as soon as I saw the scene of a woman writhing on top of him.
Punch and delete. I'll watch reruns of Spartacus.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/23/2013|
R23 DaVinci was an anatomist. He was a pioneer anatomist. Those "personal" sketches were his notebooks studying the musculature and skeletal structure of the human body. They are not erotic, they do not idealize the human form. In fact most of them have a grotesque quality.
He sketched women instead of men? And that's indicative of homosexuality? Do you know anything about the Renaissance? And social mores for women at the time?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||03/24/2013|
Don't you mean DiCaprio?
|by Anonymous||reply 26||03/24/2013|
Correction: I wrote "He sketched women instead of men?"... I meant to write: "He sketched men instead of women?"
|by Anonymous||reply 27||03/24/2013|
I'm sure Madonna And The Rocks with its huge phallic rocks was a huge pisstake by him. I bet the pretty boys in the studio were rolling on the floor. It's like all those hidden cocks in his and Michaelangelo's drawings. Earthy joking everywhere. Yet they're rarely ever mentioned by scholars -- you would think they're fucking blind or neuters.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||03/24/2013|
Best true joke: The Renaissance began when a bunch of gay guys got together and one said: " Hey: let's do paintings of really HAWT muscly guys and SELL 'EM TO THE CHURCHES!"
|by Anonymous||reply 29||03/24/2013|
R28 Right, THIS is the evidence that DaVinci must have been gay...
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/24/2013|
Kinky stinky, r30
|by Anonymous||reply 31||03/24/2013|
I believe Da Vinci was a lover of men. The interesting thing is that most denials of that include the charges against him in Florence, the presence of homoeroticism in his work, and the fact that there is no evidence at all of relationships with women. It seems that little evidence is needed to declare him heterosexual, but no evidence would be enough to declare him homosexual.
As per usual.
Still not watching this contrivance.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||03/24/2013|
DaVinci was a total pussyhound of the Rennaissance!
DaVinci loved Da Ladies, and we loved him right back!
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/24/2013|
I wish I knew what r30 was trying to share with us....
|by Anonymous||reply 34||03/24/2013|
He was arrested for sodomy. He was gay. It's confirmed.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||03/24/2013|
There is not one mention of Leonardo fucking a woman. There is however clear mention of him fucking around with men, thus this series is insulting.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||03/24/2013|
This is really causing a backlash with the gay community. Starz is coming off homophobic in their support of this.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||03/24/2013|
Starz is not homophobic per se. They are not in the business of correcting heterosexual assumptions or preferences. There are not enough consumers to assure them that a gay Da Vinci would sell. It does seem short sighted on their part not to realize this portrayal would be challenged.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||03/24/2013|
Please, how many straight men create muscular male idols that eroticize for centuries?
|by Anonymous||reply 39||03/24/2013|
People who draw nudes expect them to be viewed erotically. Human nature has not changed since 1500 and if it has, it is up to you to prove it. Geez, the infantilization of people who want to desexualize history is mind-blowing. Don't you understand that you weren't taught any of this as a child because sexuality wasn't considered a "fit" topic according to modern American prudery, and that real history is not to be found in books children read?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/24/2013|
Total pussyhound big Medici supporter.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||03/24/2013|
[quote]This is really causing a backlash with the gay community.
2 percent of the country -- who cares?
|by Anonymous||reply 42||03/24/2013|
R25, Freud wrote that DaVinci was a "passive homosexual." This view is supported by Art historian Clark.
IMHO DaVinci would not have created what he did if he were 100% straight. Also there were always desperate girls forced to work as prostitutes who would have been happy to pose nude for a talented artist rather than starve.
Andersen, Wayne. Freud, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Vulture's Tail. New York: Other Press, 2001. Clark, Lord Kenneth. Leonardo da Vinci. New York: Penguin Books, 1989. Freud, Sigmund. Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood . Translated by Alan Tyson with an introduction by Brian Farrel London: Penguin Books, 1962. Rocke, Michael. Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||03/24/2013|
[quote]Those "personal" sketches were his notebooks studying the musculature and skeletal structure of the human body. They are not erotic, they do not idealize the human form. In fact most of them have a grotesque quality.
He was also using the cadavers of executed criminals as his study subjects for his anatomical drawings. I assume they didn't hang women back in those days, because a few of his drawings of women get a whole lot wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||03/24/2013|
R43 wrote: "IMHO DaVinci would not have created what he did if he were 100% straight."
See post: R17
As far as "created what he did"... he never painted the nude male.
He did do anatomical sketches of musculature and skeletal structure. I guess the artists of anatomy books during the ensuing centuries were gay too? Have you ever seen old anatomy books? All of the illustrations are of men.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||03/24/2013|
DaVinci was gay, gay, gay. I'm surprised that we're even arguing about this in 2013.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||03/24/2013|
"Da Vinci" is not Leonardo's last name. He had no last name because he was the bastard son of a rich guy who would not let him use his name. So people just referred to him as "Leonardo from Vinci" which in Italian is Leonardo da Vinci. He should be referred to as Leonardo. Not as "from Vinci."
|by Anonymous||reply 47||03/24/2013|
We all know that, R47. No need to get Asperger's - it's convenient and more poetic that way.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||03/24/2013|
I think they're white washing his Italienness. The clip I saw had an guy with an English accent playing him.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||03/24/2013|
Again, no evidence he was gay. If it was it would be in the Wikipedia, complete with sources.
So unless you can PROVE he was gay, shut up about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||03/24/2013|
[quote]Again, no evidence he was gay. If it was it would be in the Wikipedia, complete with sources.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||03/24/2013|
Look at the nerve of R50, a straight male, coming to tell us to shut up.
Have at him, boys.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||03/24/2013|
I'm so sick of straights dictating who is gay! If Leo was a mass murdering artist, he would be gay. Since, he was a respectable artist, he's straight.
We all know he was gay. Gay, gay, gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||03/24/2013|
Okay now , what about Shakespeare?
|by Anonymous||reply 54||03/24/2013|
And Cleopatra was black.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||03/24/2013|
*Dante puts the sodomites in hell in Cantos 15 and 15 of "The Inferno." Read the cantos--sodomy was a persistent and common problem long before Leonardo.
By the way, sodomy meant both oral and anal sex. Years ago, in grad school, I studied Dante with a scholar of medieval lit who argued that based on research he had done oral sex was very, very common--and often married men were the passive reciepients of it. I'm trying to remember the work. Let me hunt around.
*You realize of course that twink love was accepted, right? By today's standards, the interest in teenage boys would horrify most people. The worst offenders?
Members of the Church. The more things change...
|by Anonymous||reply 56||03/24/2013|
R50, Sorry but this straight girl will never believe Leonardo was totally straight. Did you google him and start reading? Tons of evidence, and not all are circumstantial. So how come as famous as he became he avoided marriage and kids? Was that really the norm in those days?
|by Anonymous||reply 57||03/24/2013|
R57 Again: was any man in Florence during the 1400s "straight" (as modern American gay men use the term)?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||03/24/2013|
r50 is actually hilarious (and sad) for 2 reasons:
1) Thinking Wiki is the be all end all of knowledge which is funny and scary at the same time.
2) The fact that there are fanturds even for someone who lived 500 years ago and those fanturds have a strong interest in him not being gay like that makes a difference to them in what concerns his enormous contribution to humanity. Maybe it does make a difference to those who don't want to admit how much gay men did contribute.
Deal assholes! Many of the great artists and scientists were homos or at least bi.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||03/24/2013|
R58, I guess it depends on your definition of "gay." I've heard of the term "heteroflexible."
|by Anonymous||reply 60||03/24/2013|
Only a blind fool would look at Da Vinci's St John The Baptist and not know. Everything is there is that single painting. You don't need to know about Salai or anything else. And of course, in todays terms, which likes to draw strict lines of demarcation, he and Michaelangelo were't only homosexual but paederastic as well. Salai arrived when he was - what was it -- 9 yrs or something? Well, it's the heat there, isn't it. Sets them off, as my teacher would say with a curled lip.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||03/26/2013|
Leonardo was gay, period. Even historian Will Durant, who didn't care for homosexuals, said so back in 1953. STARZ is trying to appeal to the horny straight boys and girls who are the bulk of its audience. Not surprisingly, the actor who plays Leonardo is much better-looking than the real Leonardo ever was.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||04/12/2013|
He wasn't gay. Perhaps, bisexual, but not gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||04/14/2013|
Kill the straight interloper at R63.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||04/14/2013|
Whatever Leonardo's sexuality he was certainly not "gay" in the way we are gay today. The idea that he would have considered himself as "gay" or identified as gay is crap. And, there is no evidence of his sexuality in any direction, even accusations of sodomy in 15th-century Florence don't mean much. What do you want modern-day representations of him to show? Him walking around like a mincing minnie? Shots of his gaze lingering over the muscled bodies of local peasant boys?
|by Anonymous||reply 65||04/14/2013|
exactly, r65. there are some delusional dudes here who want to project their personal agenda on history and mainstream entertainment. thankfully, people are not buying it.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||04/14/2013|
"there are some delusional dudes here who want to project their personal agenda on history and mainstream entertainment."
Irony much, homophobes?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||04/14/2013|
Gay means attracted to the same sex. Doesn't matter if there were no gay pride parades or leather bars in 1500. Leonardo was attracted to men, he was gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||04/14/2013|
R66 probably is a homophobe, but I'm not and I'm still wondering what it meant to be "gay" in late-15th-century Florence or early 16th-century-Rome. Leonardo wasn't "gay" in the same way that he wasn't "straight".
|by Anonymous||reply 69||04/14/2013|
It's fascinating to come to a gay gossip board and see posts by people so self-loathing that they vehemently argue that Leonardo wasn't gay. There's plenty of evidence of same sex attraction and NONE of opposite sex attraction. Even historians who are somewhat homophobic in some respects agree that Leonardo was gay.
The posts to the contrary on this thread are highly revealing and incredibly shameful.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||04/14/2013|
Well, firstly r68, how do you know who Leonardo was attracted to? He may have been attracted to men, he may also have been attracted to women. You have no idea who he was attracted to and it's very arrogant of you to assume you do. Secondly, in 15th-century Florence "gay" did not mean being attracted to the same sex.
In any case, regardless of who Leonardo was attracted to, I'm wondering how you demand his sexuality be projected on screen. Do you want fabricated encounters with men? Since aside from the sodomy accusation - which almost every male of any significance had made against him - we have no evidence for anything related to his sexual activity. What is it you want to see? Like, give a description of some kind of scene you want.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||04/14/2013|
R70, what is this plenty of evidence? Please, because no one is giving it.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||04/14/2013|
"Do you want fabricated encounters with men?"
Do you want fabricated encounters with women? It's 2013, breeder - you can't make heterosexist assumptions anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||04/14/2013|
No you fucking moron at r73, I never said any such thing. I've never at any point said Leonardo was "heterosexual" (to use a modern term).
But, I notice you can't answer the question - what is the evidence for Leonardo having had same-sex relationships? Given that we know almost nothing about his sexuality how then is Leonardo's sexuality (since this is a television demand) to be projected on screen for a 21st-century audience?
R70 claims any gay person who doesn't scream out "Leonardo was GAY!" is self-loathing. Actually, I think it's more a sign of insecurity with one's gayness that we, or some of us, have to claim certain historical figures as gay in exactly the same way we are and then get really outraged if someone else points out it might not be as simple as that.
And, then there's complete ignorance of history being displayed here - cultural and social history as well as art history.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||04/14/2013|
"No you fucking"
Learn how to punctuate properly, dear. You're spiraling now, and we gays have no use for bellicose Santorum acolytes.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||04/14/2013|
R74 Go f yourself. You're not gay. Heterosexuals pushed gay people into secrecy, now today we have heterosexuals who try to shout us down for proof. There is enough proof to show Leonardo was gay. I want to see video and DNA proof all these historical heterosexual figures were heterosexual.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||04/14/2013|
Didn't Leonardo bring a beautiful young boy with him to France? Everytime I see an ad for that show I laugh my head off. The chick in it has huge trout lips. How Medici.....
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/14/2013|
R76 In Florence in the 1500s the average man engaged in man-on-man sex. Now, THAT would be interesting to explore. That is the real issue here.
Bur exactly where Leonardo was on the sliding scale of sexuality.... no one knows.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||04/14/2013|
R76, you're amazing! You have the skill, just through the power of your laptop screen, to be able to tell that someone who's been dead for 500 years and with whom you have never had any interaction with is gay and that someone contemporary with you, who in everyday life is gay and wastes too much time on a gay gossip board as a regular activity is actually, in your cyber world of infallible knowledge, not gay!
So, again, what is your evidence that Leonardo was - to use the 20th-century term that he would not have understood - gay? Or is your tactic now to say "gays were pushed into secrecy by heterosexuals so it's unreasonable to ask us for facts or evidence" as a way of wriggling out of having to produce any evidence?
R78 is right, a more "accurate" way of presenting Leonardo's 15th-century sexuality in a 21st-century representation is to put it in the context of his world. Instead of trying to present clear-cut "gay" or "straight" figures show this rich complexity, place Leonardo within it but don't necessarily put "put a figure" on him, so to speak.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/14/2013|
The only historical document concerning Leonardo's sexual life is an accusation of sodomy made in 1476, while he was still at the workshop of Verrocchio. Florentine court records show that on April 9, 1476, an anonymous denunciation was left in the tamburo (letter box) in the Palazzo della Signoria (town hall) accusing a young goldsmith and male prostitute, Jacopo Saltarelli (sometimes referred to as an artist's model) of being "party to many wretched affairs and consents to please those persons who request such wickedness of him". The denunciation accused four people of sodomizing Saltarelli: Leonardo da Vinci, Baccino, a tailor; Bartolomeo di Pasquino and Leonardo Tornabuoni, a member of the aristocratic Tornabuoni family.
Saltarelli's name was known to the authorities because another man had been convicted of sodomy with him earlier the same year. Charges against the five were dismissed on the condition that no further accusations appear in the tamburo. The same accusation did in fact appear on June 7 but charges were again dismissed.
The charges were dismissed because the accusations did not meet the legal requirement for prosecution: all accusations of sodomy had to be signed which this one was not. (Such accusations could be made secretly, but not anonymously.) There is speculation that since the family of one of the accused, Leonardo Tornabuoni, was associated with Lorenzo de' Medici, the family exerted its influence to secure the dismissal.
Leonardo wrote in one of his notebooks:
"The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions."
Heterosexual intercourse repulsed him.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||04/15/2013|
This show is just horrendous, and the "he wasn't gay" and having him sleep with women in it is just maddening. The guy had to closet himself, and in 2013, they're continuing to do that. Nolan is an asshole! I hope this shit gets cancelled.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||04/15/2013|
R80 wins it for the gays. This Starz series is straightwashing DaVinci.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||04/15/2013|
I loved the show, everything about it is amazing and the guy that plays Leonardo is beautiful.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||04/15/2013|
It's often visually interesting, but that's the best that can be said of it.
Yet another example of historical drama/biography using the tagline of The Tudors:
"The Tudors were the rock stars of their day!"
"DaVinci was the rock star of his day!"
|by Anonymous||reply 84||04/15/2013|
Riley is awful, muttering inaudibly (everyone else on the series can be heard).
Apart from the fantasy elements, the show presents a completely unpersuasive Maestro.
But Greg Chillin is sex on a stick.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||04/15/2013|
you have unusual taste, r85
|by Anonymous||reply 86||04/15/2013|
The show is ridiculous...silly hair for the time, english accents...bad just bad.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||04/15/2013|
But everyone in Sparticus had eithr Australian or English accents and you liked them.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||04/15/2013|
I find it more historically inaccurate that DaVinci is wearing a 1970s-style leather jacket.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||04/15/2013|
Sodomy was theoretically an extremely serious offense, carrying the death penalty, but its very seriousness made it equally difficult to prove. False denunciations were quite common at that time especially via anonymous reports by one's enemies, and such may have been the case here.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||04/15/2013|
Where's the proof that he was 100% heterosexual?
|by Anonymous||reply 91||04/15/2013|
Do you think it's a coincidence that DaVinci's apprentice has been cast with one of the least attractive boys ever to be allowed on television?
They know what they're doing.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||04/15/2013|
Oh, and of course it's the cartoonish villain who is into boys, and holds a knife to their throat no less...
|by Anonymous||reply 93||04/15/2013|
Did anybody see that Leonardo Live broadcast from the National Gallery in London that showed in theaters a while back? It did say that, according to most experts, Leonardo Da Vinci is widely believed to have been homosexual.
If the show is indeed whitewashing Da Vinci's homosexuality, that's a shame (though I did read that the creators have said they will explore the gay aspect too). Because there's so much material in his life to make for compelling storytelling. He was an illegitimate child who came to possess one of the most brilliant artistic and scientific minds in history. Apparently, he was also extremely good-looking in his youth. Some people do have it all...
|by Anonymous||reply 94||04/15/2013|
Cleopatra was a Ptolemy, a Greek; she was not "Black."
|by Anonymous||reply 95||04/15/2013|
No one's claimed he was 100% heterosexual, r91.
And, no, r80 doesn't "win" it. The phrase "The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions" is not a direct quotation from Leonardo. It's an English translation of the German as used by Freud, who took it from the German translation of an Italian book written on Leonardo several centuries after his death. It's not an English translation of a direct quotation by Leonardo. And, by the way, accordign to this, Leonardo associated "pretty faces and sensuous dispositions" with the "act of procreation", which suggests he may have found women pretty and sensuous. Freud claims (in the online English translation I found) that this shows Leonardo was "frigid".
In this same essay on Leonardo by Freud, he also claimed that Leonardo was a "passive homosexual" on account of a childhood memory Leonardo wrote about in which a vulture struck him. Except, the German translation Freud used was wrong and in the actual medieval Tuscan Italian, Leonardo didn't write about a vulture but about another bird, the kite (I got all this from Wikipedia too, just as r80 did). Moreover, the original Leonardo source is never cited. So, be careful when claiming that Leonardo said "The act of procreation and anything that has any relation to it is so disgusting that human beings would soon die out if there were no pretty faces and sensuous dispositions".
Since the only documented "evidence" for Leonardo being "exclusively gay" is the sodomy charge (which would make around 75% of males in Florence at the time sodomites) I guess those complaining about this tv series want to see a scene where Leonardo is involved in a gang bang?
There is a lot to complain about in this series, though, which seems very facile.
(At the link are the supposed complete notebooks of Leonardo in English translation. The phrase "The act of procreation..." doesn't appear.)
|by Anonymous||reply 96||04/15/2013|
Why would it be made up?
I could see why it would have been censored or removed in a new "complete" English translation, much as Dürer's comments on Lucian and "handome landsknechts" were removed from "official" compilations of his writings.
|by Anonymous||reply 97||04/15/2013|
That's all I need to know.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||04/15/2013|
Leonardo was straight! And I'm the broad who can prove it.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||04/16/2013|
I lost all interest in watching with this news.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||04/16/2013|
So...the movie changed the fact he was gay, then added a predatory gay character who holds a knife to a boy's throat? Why aren't people protesting this?
|by Anonymous||reply 101||04/16/2013|
There was an interview with the main actor in the paper yesterday, and he talked about tackling Da Vinci's "ambiguous" sexuality and implies he has sex scenes with other men.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||04/17/2013|
"How could DaVinci NOT be gay? Haven't you seen his work? How could an interviewer not question that there are very specific details in the fab artists' work that one would likely not see from a straight man?"
You are judging "straight" and "gay" by 21st century standards.
The show shows him being flirted with by a guy in episode 1 and being very complimentary about his body as he speaks with a friend - the hotter than hell Greg Chilllin - who says that he (Chillin's character) likes both men and women.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||04/17/2013|
Are there roles for lovers Agron and Nasir in this? Maybe do some magic time traveling and cross over to this show to continue their 'journey?'
|by Anonymous||reply 104||04/17/2013|
I'm surprised GLAAD has not protested this. Starz must have promised them access to stars in return for staying quiet.
The first episode was actually pretty well done but I'm disturbed they're minimizing such an important part of gay history. Granted we don't know all the details of his sexual orientation, but this portrait doesn't feel right.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||04/17/2013|
GLAAD thinks you are hysterical and delusional, R105.
|by Anonymous||reply 106||04/17/2013|
Watching it now on STARZ ON DEMAND.
It starts off a little shaky and confusing with too many beautiful dark-haired men to tell apart. But it's gaining on me. Lots of lovely bared hairy chests!
They've carefully dirtied up Leonardo's fingernails for the closeups but, of course, his teeth are gleemingly bright whaite and straight.
And Hugh Bonneville (Downton's Lord Grantham) is indeed fully nude in the first moments...not bad, I must say, though we never see his nude front from the nipples on down.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||04/17/2013|
Finally caught it. Meh.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||04/18/2013|
Anyone else finding this series really dull? It really needs Agron and Nasir!
|by Anonymous||reply 109||04/20/2013|
"You are judging 'straight' and 'gay' by 21st century standards."
Yes, she was. And you're arguing semantics. You're falling all over yourself in your rush to fill the role of apologist, and you're every bit as far off the mark as those you're arguing with so contrarily.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||05/04/2013|
Today Leonardo would be a jailbird: not only because of Salai, who ended up inheriting half his estate, but for stoking his fantasies with stuff like this...
|by Anonymous||reply 111||05/04/2013|
I'm trying to give this show a chance, but after last night's episode it seems like they're making Leonardo straight and the sodomy accusation a false charge concocted by his enemies.
DL historians-- is this accurate? I thought the evidence pointed to Leonardo being gay.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||05/04/2013|
[quote]You are judging "straight" and "gay" by 21st century standards.
STFU, Uncle Tom!
|by Anonymous||reply 113||05/04/2013|
[quote]You are judging "straight" and "gay" by 21st century standards.
WTF does that even mean?
It's a 21st century show, and they, in the 21st century, have chosen to make him straight. Regardless of terminology, Da Vinci was gay, and was arrested for it. He did not sleep with women. They changed his sexuality to sell the show. Straight, Gay, Bisexuality have always existed, regardless of what they termed them as during the time period.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||05/04/2013|
To be entirely fair r114, we know he slept with men, but we don't have any evidence that says he did not also sleep with women.
He is definitely queer, but we cannot categorically say that he is on the bisexual or gay end of the spectrum because we simply don't know which of the two he fit under.
Sleeping with women wasnt exactly an arrestable offensive.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||05/04/2013|
Nasty rethug-sponsored anti-gay shit!
|by Anonymous||reply 116||05/04/2013|
"but we don't have any evidence that says he did not also sleep with women."
LOL!! And yet you are the same sort of self loathing queen who will insist that NO ONE is gay unless there's definitive proof.
DaVinci was not interested in women dear. This series is incredibly homophobic. No surprise given that Goyer wrote it, a supreme homophobe if ever there was one.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||05/05/2013|
At least we saw a brief second of full frontal male nudity this week...
|by Anonymous||reply 118||05/05/2013|
Just another reason to hate stupid, useless fraus: Gay storylines and characters (and in this case, actual historical figures) straight-washed to mass-appeal to them and make it all about THEM and make them feel special/sexy.
Oh yeah that Da Vinci, he was a real pussyhound.
|by Anonymous||reply 119||05/05/2013|
r119, you have some issues, dude.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||05/06/2013|
Says ugly frau R120.
Fuck off breeder.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||05/06/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 122||05/09/2013|
In last week's episode, Leonardo kissed his twinky boy friend, then went back to a fully-naked sex scene with his haus frau.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||05/14/2013|
Nasty homophobic shit
|by Anonymous||reply 124||05/14/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 125||05/14/2013|
r119 sounds like a loon. crazy crazy!
|by Anonymous||reply 126||05/14/2013|
R126...you sound like a cunt. Don't you have a "50 Shades of Grey" knock-off book to be reading?
|by Anonymous||reply 127||05/14/2013|
dude, man up, r127
|by Anonymous||reply 128||05/14/2013|
Right now the top thread is titled "Eating Pussy". That tells you all you need to know - pussy is the height of fascination for all men. Why are you throwing shade at Leonardo?
|by Anonymous||reply 129||05/14/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 130||05/15/2013|
R128...I am a man, cunt. You need to get lost, breeder.
|by Anonymous||reply 131||05/15/2013|
R119 Do you have any idea how many millions of girls and women would rather watch a gay-themed show than one with a straight-washed main character? Gay-themed mangas sell better than hentai for straight guys. The people who created this show didn't do their research or they would have realised what a marketing force homoerotism is. If you want to blame this on anyone, blame it on a homophobic straight minority, dumb producers and American christian "values" groups that are giving tv networks a hard time over anything gay-themed.
|by Anonymous||reply 132||05/15/2013|
r131, so you are a man who uses the "c-word" to insult another man? you are very strange, man.
|by Anonymous||reply 133||05/15/2013|
This show plays fast and loose with the facts. Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon never visited Florence. And while Isabella was a prude, her husband was more of a libertine (he was also the King of Sicily).
|by Anonymous||reply 134||05/15/2013|
R133...be quiet frau.
|by Anonymous||reply 135||05/15/2013|
Last week's show played fast and loose with history, with Leonardo and his pals visiting Wallachia and meeting Vlad Tepes, aka Dracula.
|by Anonymous||reply 136||05/20/2013|
Did anyone see the latest episode, with the Duke of Urbino waggling his huge wang in front of the camera? Holy crap!! That thing was big, especially next to the hot Medici dude he was naked with.
|by Anonymous||reply 137||05/20/2013|
Haven't seen that yet, R137... at what point in the show was it? Beginning? End?
|by Anonymous||reply 138||05/20/2013|
1) I don't think they've "whitewashed" his homosexuality given they've shown him kissing another man, rather romantically, and indicated he did indeed pay for men to have sex with.
2) That huge wang was clearly a prosthetic. However, the small one on the other guy looked pretty real.
|by Anonymous||reply 139||05/20/2013|
The show is complete garbage.
|by Anonymous||reply 140||05/21/2013|
The show is complete garbage but actor Tom Riley (Leonardo) is hot as fuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 141||05/21/2013|
The real Leonardo could only dream of looking as HOT as Tom Riley.
|by Anonymous||reply 142||05/21/2013|
It's campy, good fun. Like Xena or some of those other 90s syndicated shows with Kevin Sorbo. Except it's done by the BBC so it's ever so slightly higher brow. I'm not sure why you guys are so angry without even watching it.
|by Anonymous||reply 143||05/27/2013|
I watched it and the Liberace movie this weekend. It supplied the camp Liberace didn't. I liked it.
|by Anonymous||reply 144||05/27/2013|
I hate camp
|by Anonymous||reply 145||05/28/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 146||06/03/2013|
Even the Assassin's Creed games portrayed Da Vinci as gay... I thought it was common knowledge.
|by Anonymous||reply 147||06/03/2013|
Why are you blaming Americans, r132? Is this not a production of the BBC?
|by Anonymous||reply 148||06/03/2013|
"BBC Worldwide Productions is based in Los Angeles and develops and produces scripted and non-scripted programs for U.S. cable and broadcast networks, as well as digital platforms. The team works with producers and rights holders in the BBC, the UK’s independent production community, and talent in the U.S. to develop new programming and reformats."
|by Anonymous||reply 149||06/03/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 150||06/03/2013|
They're not ignoring the gay aspects completely as evident by the picture I have linked.
|by Anonymous||reply 151||06/03/2013|
Did Michelangelo suck cock or was he the suckee? Was he an anal bottom or a top?
|by Anonymous||reply 152||06/03/2013|
That's not fair, R151. Leonardo gave his boy toy a chaste kiss before getting down and dirty with his mistress.
|by Anonymous||reply 153||06/12/2013|