Film Review
This version of Robert Anderson's play (which the playwright himself
adapted for the screen) has often been criticised for its mealy-mouthed
treatment of its central theme, a young man coming to terms with
his homosexuality. At the time, the Hollywood Code precluded any
direct references to homosexuality, but Anderson does a good pretty job
of putting up unmarked signposts whose meaning is, to an intelligent
spectator at least, blatantly obvious. Although the original play
was much more daring, offering the explosive combination of a sexually
frustrated married woman and an obviously gay teenager, the film is
still pretty risqué for its era and ought to be considered something
of a landmark in gay cinema. Let us not forget that Vincente
Minnelli himself had homosexual leanings, and this is perhaps reflected
in the sensitivity with which he handles a delicate subject.
What could so easily have been a limp melodrama is given considerable
emotional power through the performances of its three leading actors -
Deborah Kerr, John Kerr (no relation) and Leif Erickson - who had made
the original play a great success on Broadway. John Kerr
would rarely be as good as he is in this film, although the other Kerr,
Deborah, almost steals the show (as usual) through her combination of
grace, charisma and ability to convey the deepest of emotions with the
subtlest of gestures. Erickson is just as well cast as the macho
housemaster who is so certain of his masculinity that (a) he will not
let his wife come anywhere near him and (b) he'd rather spend his
leisure time in the company of bare-chested young men than sit on the
beach with his pretty wife. (Is it me or does virtually every
male character in this film fail to ring true as a red-bloodied
heterosexual?)
Mindful of Hollwood's pretty rigorous self-censorship, screenwriter
Robert Anderson underplays the gay subtext and ingeniously creates the
illusion that this is merely a film about one's right to assert one's
individuality. Of course, today's sophisticated audience will see
through the subterfuge in a split-second, and it is doubtful whether
the audience who saw the film in the mid-50s were taken in for much
longer than that.
Today, the most moving aspect of the film is not that the leading male
character is (obviously) a homosexual, but that the leading female
character (Deborah Kerr) cannot help herself from falling in love with
him, thereby destroying her marriage, disgracing her husband, and
making the object of her affection so confused that he ends up getting
married and starts reproducing at an alarming rate. The film
appears to be saying something quite bizarre: a
frustrated middle-aged housewife poses a much greater threat
to society than a confused homosexual (or three).
The clinching proof that Deborah Kerr's character is the villain of the
piece and a true menace to the civilised world comes at the end of the
film, when she subjects us to the most sanctimoniously self-pitying
lament you can imagine. It is a sign of how much things have changed in half a
century that parts of this film are now laugh-out-loud hilarious when
they were presumbaly intended to be little more than mildly ironic when
first seen (e.g. Mr Lee's reaction when he learns that his son will be
wearing a frilly dress in the school play).
Whilst
Tea and Sympathy now evokes a
very different reaction to the one it
originally aroused, it still manages to get across a valid moral
point in a cogent and wryly amusing fashion. The film has, by the very nature
of its subject, dated considerably, but it remains an engaging and
entertaining piece of social commentary, although it is much, much
funnier today, thankfully because society has grown up a bit.
© James Travers 2010
The above content is owned by filmsdefrance.com and must not be copied.
Next Vincente Minnelli film:
Gigi (1958)
Film Synopsis
A school reunion provides Tom Lee with the pretext for revisiting the
New England prep school which had had such a marked effect on his
life. In his old room, he casts his mind back ten years to when,
a nervous and solitary 17-year-old, he had his first experience of
love. The object of his interest was Laura, the wife of his
housemaster, Bill Reynolds. Mrs Reynolds saw it was one of her
duties to provide the boys in her house with tea and sympathy, and Tom
seemed to be more in need of sympathy than most. She detests the
way in which Tom is teased by the other boys, just because he is
different. He has no interest in rough sports; he would rather
listen to music or write poetry. He doesn't even object to
playing a female part in the school play. Whereas Tom's peers
regard him as a sissy, Laura finds him sensitive and kind-hearted, a
pleasant contrast to her boorish self-absorbed husband.
Tom's father is offended by the way that the other boys treat Tom and
naturally blames his son. Determined that Tom should make more of
an effort to assert his masculinity, Mr Lee forbids him to appear
in the school play and insists that he gets himself a
crew-cut. On the advice of his roommate, Tom decides to
visit a local prostitute. This certainly changes his reputation,
but not quite in the way he had envisaged...
© James Travers
The above content is owned by filmsdefrance.com and must not be copied.