Randolph Scott and the Left's Rhetorical Knot

In the Sunday L.A. Times, Reed Johnson examines the evolution of the portrayal of gay characters on film from 1941’s “The Maltese Falcon” to last year’s “Milk.” In his paragraph covering the gap between “Falcon” and 1980’s “Cruising,” Reed lets this drop:

…Hollywood went back into the closet during the Eisenhower presidency and more or less stayed there until the late 1960s … Coyness and euphemism were the order of the day, with the likes of Rock Hudson and Randolph Scott impersonating big-screen macho men.

What Reed does here is essentially state as fact that Randolph Scott was gay, which is not only unfair and irresponsible, but also an all too typical tactic used by the Left these days. The idea is to boil down something that is at best disputed (as is the case with Scott), or worse, an outright falsehood (Bush lied us into war, Palin attempted to ban books), into a few words and spread them matter-of-factly as though simply true.

In a world of soundbites, these dishonest declarative statements are purposefully built on just a few words in order to become rhetorical knots designed to put our side on defense and off-message because of the difficulty in untying them with just a few words. And in the case of Reed’s unfair assertion regarding Randolph Scott, the statement comes with the added benefit of a counter-punch all set to go. Defending Scott against such charges can only mean one is anti-gay, right?

Well, how about pro-truth and pro-fairness?

The rumors surrounding Scott’s sexuality began in the early 1930s while he and Cary Grant lived together for twelve years in a Malibu home they named, “Bachelor’s Hall.” Both had been married previously and would marry again – Grant, 4 times, Scott just once, from 1944 until his death in 1987.

Grant and Scott are on record unconditionally denying both a romantic relationship between the two of them and any other kind of gay relationship. Books have been written of varying credibility stating otherwise, but to say these claims are hotly disputed would be an understatement.

So other than a respect for truth, what does it matter that Reed and the L.A. Times would attempt to pass off rumors director Budd Boetticher, Scott’s close friend and frequent collaborator, called “Bullshit,” as fact? For starters, Scott’s long dead and unable to defend himself. Secondly, his family survives, and for Reed to assert someone’s beloved father and husband of four decades lived a lie, or at best, lied about who he said he was, borders on cruelty.

Who knows, someday evidence might turn up proving Reed 100% correct. In which case, the only reaction he’ll find surprising from me is my indifference, but for now Reed doesn’t know and therefore shouldn’t insinuate otherwise.