The critics are not misunderstanding the homoeroticism in some cinema; rather, Feeney misunderstands homosexuality. Actually, for a moment I read Feeney's beautiful piece as an essay on the (meta-)irony of homoerotic ironies in mainstream cinema: so precisely does he nail the fundamental sublimity of the homosexual experience as "the delight of seeing one's rare magnificance in someone else." But the spell was broken with his assumption that the root of homosexuality is the desire to couple with a member of one's own sex.

Frankly - and as is well-understood, but not spoken of unironically in good liberal company - the gay male's desire to couple - frequently, compulsively - with other men is all too sadly prevalent, and evident. Astonishingly, beautifully, Feeney offers us the explaination: the reduction to practice of "an elaborate, informal, borderline inscrutable code of masculine status." Matt, can you forward me your phone number? I'm sure that I'd enjoy the company.

But, really, the homosexual experience and sensibility are not - and never have been - merely fonts for ironic interpretations of a glorious and complete heterosexual world. Pity that a man as insightful and intelligent as Feeney does not grasp this.