"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:20:56 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote in
::


The movie glides tactfully over his bisexuality, now proven,
though Charles Higham's hastily written and mostly hostile
biography of Hughes ...

Does no one see a possible reason for skepticism within this sentence?
How can anything be "proven" by a "hastily written and mostly hostile"
source?


I agree. Apparently it is Mr. Higham who also speculated that Hughes
succumbed to AIDS, a conclusion I find highly suspect. Without
reading his book, I suppose it's impossible to know his sources for
these allegations.

I found one site that said where he got it, but I cannot find it again. It
looked like a third hand account, at best.

Trying to track it down, Amazon.com's editorial reviews seem to accept
Hughes' bisexuality, while saying that Higham's allegations concerning AIDS
and his sexuality being warped by being abused while a child are
speculative. Washington Post's movie review also claimed disappointment that
the movie did not cover Hughes' bisexuality, heroine addiction, or other
unpleasant aspects of his life (apparently the reviewer only likes movies
that glorify weakness, moral ambiguity and decay; since this reviewer hates
the movie, I will probably like it).

Other reviews on rottentomatoes.com also refer to Hughes' affairs with Cary
Grant and Tyrone Power.

Personally, I am not interested in those aspects of Hughes' life. I am more
interested than ever in seeing the movie, especially since it seems to have
avoided at least the most trashy accounts.