|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 27, 2023 21:26:14 GMT
This should have been edited down to 100 minutes. I felt the stuff at the beach in the beginning was a little too long.
The bonfire sequence was also too long but we needed that scene to show the hazing...maybe it could have been tightened with quicker cuts.
What would you suggest? What scenes would you have shortened or cut out?
Good question. I'd have to go back and watch it with editing as a goal, but off the top of my head, the last twenty minutes felt to me like ten minutes of content. Several earlier scenes, too, the opening one, the music room one and the entire Dad visit for the first time sequence of scenes and, yes, the beach scene could have lost 3-5 minute each - and you're quickly down to 100 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 27, 2023 21:27:57 GMT
Thank you for posting it. Not that much really there, or did I miss the right link to click on?
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Aug 27, 2023 21:42:09 GMT
Hmmm. They probably could have cut everything about the dress for the play. Most of us aren't used to all boys schools where the boys have to play women's parts and it just seemed unlikely that someone who was already being teased about being girly would want that part.
I really want to understand Bill more. When they had their last big show down and Laura asked Bill why he didn't show her any affection anymore, he paused in the doorway -- and then left. I wanted to hear the answer!
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 27, 2023 22:06:07 GMT
Hmmm. They probably could have cut everything about the dress for the play. Most of us aren't used to all boys schools where the boys have to play women's parts and it just seemed unlikely that someone who was already being teased about being girly would want that part.
I really want to understand Bill more. When they had their last big show down and Laura asked Bill why he didn't show her any affection anymore, he paused in the doorway -- and then left. I wanted to hear the answer! Good point. The dress felt forced even if, as you note, it did have its place in all boys schools.
Bill is a very interesting character. I think we are supposed to think he understood himself later in that final scene with Tom, as he had clearly lost his school rah-rah spirit (which was part of his macho identity), but where did he really land would be interesting to know. Also, it's ten years later and he's still getting boxes from his former wife who, according to her letter to Tom, left Bill right after she came back from her "moment" with Tom. The timeline seems off.
My take is Bill is closeted gay - maybe even to himself - which is why his marriage became, as D. Kerr said as some point - "passionless."
It might be confirmation bias as it's what I thought going into today's viewing after several prior viewings, but I think one of the points of the movie is that Tom is viewed as gay, but is straight; whereas, Bill is viewed as straight, but is gay. That was also, somewhat, the point of Kerr's exchange with Hickman - where she threatens to create a view that he's gay. What she was saying is that what we view as signaling gay and straight are all social constructs and not real things.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 27, 2023 23:17:37 GMT
Thank you for posting it. Not that much really there, or did I miss the right link to click on? There's a bit more if you click on the Replacements tab. But yes that's mostly it.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 27, 2023 23:19:56 GMT
Hmmm. They probably could have cut everything about the dress for the play. Most of us aren't used to all boys schools where the boys have to play women's parts and it just seemed unlikely that someone who was already being teased about being girly would want that part.
I really want to understand Bill more. When they had their last big show down and Laura asked Bill why he didn't show her any affection anymore, he paused in the doorway -- and then left. I wanted to hear the answer! I agree...we needed a bit more to flesh Bill out as a character. And yes, why would Tom have been heartbroken about his dad forcing him to call and drop out of the play. Considering how abusive everyone had been, I think he'd have been secretly relieved. His angst at having to make that call about bowing out of the production didn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 27, 2023 23:28:10 GMT
Hmmm. They probably could have cut everything about the dress for the play. Most of us aren't used to all boys schools where the boys have to play women's parts and it just seemed unlikely that someone who was already being teased about being girly would want that part.
I really want to understand Bill more. When they had their last big show down and Laura asked Bill why he didn't show her any affection anymore, he paused in the doorway -- and then left. I wanted to hear the answer! Good point. The dress felt forced even if, as you note, it did have its place in all boys schools.
Bill is a very interesting character. I think we are supposed to think he understood himself later in that final scene with Tom, as he had clearly lost his school rah-rah spirit (which was part of his macho identity), but where did he really land would be interesting to know. Also, it's ten years later and he's still getting boxes from his former wife who, according to her letter to Tom, left Bill right after she came back from her "moment" with Tom. The timeline seems off.
My take is Bill is closeted gay - maybe even to himself - which is why his marriage became, as D. Kerr said as some point - "passionless."
It might be confirmation bias as it's what I thought going into today's viewing after several prior viewings, but I think one of the points of the movie is that Tom is viewed as gay, but is straight; whereas, Bill is viewed as straight, but is gay. That was also, somewhat, the point of Kerr's exchange with Hickman - where she threatens to create a view that he's gay. What she was saying is that what we view as signaling gay and straight are all social constructs and not real things. I think the story (the play and film) have conflicted meanings. I bet Robert Anderson who wrote the play and film was basing it on his own experiences when younger, and he probably had conflicted views about homosexuality, especially if he was secretly bisexual.
After watching TEA AND SYMPATHY, I watched a Robert Montgomery precode. And RM just really likes women in his movies. It was kind of refreshing to watch. And it made me think, why was it so easy for some men in the 1930s to be 'straight' while 25 years later, when TEA AND SYMPATHY was made, it was harder for them to be straight? What had happened in society in that period that had made everyone question and redefine masculinity? Did the war have something to do with that? Or was there a greater confusion in the 50s because of a heightened emphasis on consumerism and Eisenhower era prosperity, where people were getting lost and having trouble figuring the most basic things out about themselves?
Flash ahead to the 2020s and we are seeing more and more alternative ways of defining gender, and you have to wonder if people are becoming more enlightened and open about things, or if they are becoming less sure and more confused...
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Aug 28, 2023 11:45:47 GMT
Those are excellent questions, Topbilled. I think WWII did produce a lot of men who forever wore crew cuts and swaggered around telling "smoking car stories." I liked it when Tom asked why a crew-cut made a guy more manly, and I thought of all the long hair arguments still going on with boys and their fathers in the 1970's.
Still there were men like my father, a drill sergeant during the war, who always had longish hair and painted watercolors without fear. Maybe Laura hints at the false masculinity produced by the war when she talks about her young husband who was foolishly brave in order to prove something to the other men.
I'm glad we watched this, there is far more to it than I remembered.
Thanks Fading Fast for all the college movies! Taken together I noticed things I hadn't before, like the comparative wealth of college kids in the past and their scorn for the townies. Ellie and the waitress from the movie who was almost the cause of a shot gun wedding -- sad.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 28, 2023 11:57:40 GMT
Tea and Sympathy from 1956 with John Kerr, Deborah Kerr, Leif Erikson, Darryl Hickman and Edward Andrews
Set in a New England prep school, Tea and Sympathy is surprisingly ahead of its time with its anti-bullying message and its only somewhat palliated look at a married man unable to acknowledge, even to himself, his homosexuality.
Written by Robert Anderson and directed by Vincente Minnelli, Tea and Sympathy belies the generally accepted view today that popular culture in the 1950s was only selling a story of happy heterosexual American families living the good life.
John Kerr plays the prep-school boy who doesn't fit in. He likes poetry, music and solitude, all things which affront the prep school's culture that says "real men" like sports, group activities and do not have too much interest in poetry or music as those are "sissy" things.
Kerr, shunned by most of the boys, forms a bond with the wife, played by Deborah Kerr (no relation), of his housemaster. This relationship, too, is viewed as suspect as why would a "healthy" teenage boy want to hang out with a married middle-aged woman?
Adding to the complexity, D. Kerr's husband, played by Leif Erikson, is a brawny schoolmaster and coach of several varsity teams. He's a "man's man" who buys into the prep school's "macho" culture, while proving his masculinity with feats of strength.
D. Kerr, who lost her first husband, a sensitive young man, in the war, thought Erikson had a similar sensitivity underneath his "manly" exterior. Yet after they married and came to the school, he's been all tough exterior, leaving Kerr feeling lonely.
Another wrinkle is that Erikson and J. Kerr's father, played by Edward Andrews, were former classmates. Andrews purposely placed his boy in Erikson's house as he asked Erikson to "straighten out" his "sensitive" son.
Andrews is narrow minded, but he, as shown in several scenes when he visits his son at school, believes his efforts to "straighten the boy out" are sincerely in his son's best interest. He, like Erikson, is no cardboard villain, but a man who can't see past his bias.
With that set up, we witness the prep-school culture wearing down J. Kerr's confidence to the point where he's questioning his own hetersexuality because he doesn't fit in with the other boys and their false-bravado talk about girls.
Anderson and Minelli smartly keep the story from becoming cliched as J. Kerr's roommate, thoughtfully played by Darryl Hickman, tries to help J. Kerr, but there is so much pressure on Hickman to conform, his own status is threatened by these efforts.
The main story has one early climax around J. Kerr's desperate attempt to prove his masculinity, to himself as much as to the others, with a "townie," but that event goes very wrong and spirals into the movie's denouement.
At the same time, we see Erikson and D. Kerr's marriage buckle as he just wants her to play the part of supporting housemaster's wife to her macho husband, while she wants the sensitive man she thought she married to, at least, reveal himself in private.
What becomes apparent with just a little interpretation is that macho Erikson is probably gay. His physical "romping" with the athletic boys, whose company he prefers to his wife's, and his "passionless" marriage fit a pattern that even 1950s audiences could understand.
It's an impressive storytelling juxtaposition where the "effete" boy is truly heterosexual, while the "macho" coach is, most likely, homosexual. Anderson and Minelli threw a lot in 1950s America's face with this one.
That aforementioned denouement brings both storylines together - no spoilers coming as you want to see this fresh - in a stunning way for a mid-1950s movie.
Tea and Sympathy is a bit too obvious in its writing and its color scheme is mid-century exaggerated. Yet for its day, it surprisingly and aggressively challenges several strong cultural gender norms.
It shows modern viewers that mid-century America wasn't as unaware of these issues - nor was mainstream culture a monolith of conformity - as is often assumed today. And this was a movie; the books of the era, as always, went much further in challenging convention.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 28, 2023 12:08:06 GMT
Those are excellent questions, Topbilled. I think WWII did produce a lot of men who forever wore crew cuts and swaggered around telling "smoking car stories." I liked it when Tom asked why a crew-cut made a guy more manly, and I thought of all the long hair arguments still going on with boys and their fathers in the 1970's. Still there were men like my father, a drill sergeant during the war, who always had longish hair and painted watercolors without fear. Maybe Laura hints at the false masculinity produced by the war when she talks about her young husband who was foolishly brave in order to prove something to the other men.I'm glad we watched this, there is far more to it than I remembered.Thanks Fading Fast for all the college movies! Taken together I noticed things I hadn't before, like the comparative wealth of college kids in the past and their scorn for the townies. Ellie and the waitress from the movie who was almost the cause of a shot gun wedding -- sad. I'm glad you liked them. I was hoping it would be a fun and thought-provoking theme. For me, Marsha Hunt's suicide was the most harrowing and poignant moment in all the movies. The near shot-gun marriage - which you note and which would have ruined two lives - is near the top of the list as well.
You'll notice the "townie" thing popping up in so many movies once you're aware of it. For example, the flip to Ali MacGraw's famous quip about about Ryan O'Neal being a "preppy" is that she is a "townie." I was a townie myself at Rutgers University, but since it was a state school, most of the students were as well-to-do people, by and large, didn't send their kids to a Rutgers.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 28, 2023 14:15:16 GMT
THE AGE OF CONSENT was my favorite in the bunch, followed by THESE GLAMOUR GIRLS. I didn't think SPRING MADNESS came off very well and was expecting more from it.
I pretty much despise TEA AND SYMPATHY which stumbles at nearly every turn with its cringeworthy dialogue and its pretentious examination of sexuality. The "heroine" if we can call her that is nothing more than a stereotypical 50s housewife turned predator who sees a vulnerable 18 year old as easy pickings. For some unknown reason, the film's director (Vincente Minnelli) lenses much of the action in attention-getting turquoise hues. Ultimately, what ends up on screen is an unintentional farce, and I find it shameful that Deborah Kerr's talents were wasted on this sordid she-male sex play.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 28, 2023 16:57:30 GMT
When I first saw the film, I assumed I was too young to understand. Years later I watched again and this time disappointed in a Minnelli film. My impression is that maybe too many concessions were made to what was acceptable to audiences of the day. If Minnelli had made the film a few years later or maybe with an independent producer with guts, I think Minnelli would have made a fine film.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 29, 2023 7:09:04 GMT
It surprised me how much I disliked TEA AND SYMPATHY. I had seen it before, several years ago, and knew it was not a film I was very fond of, for various reasons. But when I watched it again on Sunday, I started to figure out what I really didn't like about it. LOL I think it's healthy to "despise" some films (I know that's a strong word), but it would not be realistic if every film resonated perfectly with every viewer.
I just wanted to say that even my disliking a specific film, doesn't mean I don't appreciate Fading Fast having selected it. Actually, I am grateful he selected this film because I wouldn't have taken the time to re-watch it and figure out what I don't like about it. I do think it's competently made but I don't think the story or its thesis is right. It probably sounds scandalous to say what I am about to say, but despite all the efforts to preserve certain well-known films, I believe there are some of these titles that shouldn't be preserved.
I am not sure if my disdain (a kinder word) is political, religious, or if I just feel as if the thing is created by an amoral mindset. But TEA AND SYMPATHY doesn't sit well with me, and I think it's how the story was initially conceived, not necessarily how MGM brought it to the screen.
Not long ago I watched ACCIDENT (1967) another film that has amoral characters. But for some reason, that film was not so objectionable to me, even though Dirk Bogarde's character does something similarly heinous at the end, taking advantage of a girl he has been to some extent grooming. Perhaps the reason ACCIDENT gets a free pass from me, and TEA AND SYMPATHY does not, is because I think ACCIDENT admits its premise is unsavory and that these people are mostly unhappy and use each other to feel better about themselves. TEA AND SYMPATHY pretends to be an honest expose about unsavory situations when I think it is not very honest about the subject matter it is presenting.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Aug 29, 2023 11:42:54 GMT
It surprised me how much I disliked TEA AND SYMPATHY. I had seen it before, several years ago, and knew it was not a film I was very fond of, for various reasons. But when I watched it again on Sunday, I started to figure out what I really didn't like about it. LOL I think it's healthy to "despise" some films (I know that's a strong word), but it would not be realistic if every film resonated perfectly with every viewer.
I just wanted to say that even my disliking a specific film, doesn't mean I don't appreciate Fading Fast having selected it. Actually, I am grateful he selected this film because I wouldn't have taken the time to re-watch it and figure out what I don't like about it. I do think it's competently made but I don't think the story or its thesis is right. It probably sounds scandalous to say what I am about to say, but despite all the efforts to preserve certain well-known films, I believe there are some of these titles that shouldn't be preserved.
I am not sure if my disdain (a kinder word) is political, religious, or if I just feel as if the thing is created by an amoral mindset. But TEA AND SYMPATHY doesn't sit well with me, and I think it's how the story was initially conceived, not necessarily how MGM brought it to the screen.
Not long ago I watched ACCIDENT (1967) another film that has amoral characters. But for some reason, that film was not so objectionable to me, even though Dirk Bogarde's character does something similarly heinous at the end, taking advantage of a girl he has been to some extent grooming. Perhaps the reason ACCIDENT gets a free pass from me, and TEA AND SYMPATHY does not, its because I think ACCIDENT admits its premise is unsavory and that these people are mostly unhappy and use each other to feel better about themselves. TEA AND SYMPATHY pretends to be an honest expose about unsavory situations when I think it is not very honest about the subject matter it is presenting. I'm glad we watched it because there is so much to talk about and I wouldn't say I despise it, but I agree that it doesn't sit well with me.
I don't go so far as to see Laura as a predator, for that I would have to think she was motivated by lust, but I do think the play is telling us that Laura did a noble thing and I don't agree with that.
Laura believes that she is helping Tom, and I think the audience is supposed to believe that, too. In fact, until fairly recently, there was a conventional wisdom that it was a good thing for an older person to "teach" a much younger one in these matters. Old men in particular were only too eager to see themselves in the role of teacher and society bought into it to some extent. Since then young people have been given much more freedom to be alone with each other and they've quickly discovered that they really didn't need much instruction at all. Tom could have waited a little bit, met a nice girl over summer vacation, and had a sweet innocent initiation without all the guilt and angst.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Aug 29, 2023 11:43:43 GMT
Topbilled, thank you for your nod to the act of selecting the movie. While I'm surprised at your vitriolic reaction to the film, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. I will admit to being surprised at your preservation comment, though. For example, we all know there have been vile racist movies made, but even those, IMO, should be preserved (prioritizing of limit funds for preservation is a separate discussion) for the study of history in general and for the study of film history.
|
|