*Spoilers Ahead* At the beginning, it was ridiculous how Tom was CONSTANTLY hanging around Kerr. That's how a child of 4 or 5 would act, not a guy of 17. I don't believe Tom was gay, just a very quiet & sensitive guy with "artsy" pursuits. After all, if he was gay, he would not end up being "happily" married. I couldn't understand how in the world Kerr ever wound up married to her "macho" jerk of a husband. They were so obviously mismatched in personality & temperament, and ... well, EVERYTHING. And Tom's father seemed gay to me, not Tom!!!! I like John Kerr, but I kept thinking about his role in South Pacific as Lt. Cable, the "very sexy man". All in all, I found this film unbelievable on SO many levels.
Lol, I was thinking the same thing. I mean, c'mon, a "pajama bash" where the older boys try to tear off the clothes of the younger ones? And this wasn't gay????
reply share
There's also a line somewhere when someone remarks, without any shred of irony: "Well, if he [Tom] prefers the company of woman, that's his problem."
I think the film does a pretty good job of portraying how twisted and distorted the 1950s idea of masculinity actually was. In the original play, there's a really tense scene in which Laura confronts Bill about his latent homosexuality. Obviously that scene never made it on screen. The Film International writer Christopher Sharret gets it right, I think:
The men of Chilton have difficulties even associating with women, despite braggadocio. The beach party scene is most instructive, as Bill smirks that it’s okay for Tom to stay on the other side (“if he prefers the company of women, that’s his problem”). The idea of asserting masculinity, of showing skills at sports and the like, is associated with contempt for the female. A bunch of the “regular guys” (a term that recurs in the film) crowd into Tom’s room to get a glimpse of women passing by the residence. We don’t see them, but the point is clear: women are a subject for voyeurism, for bragging and belittlement, but not for interaction. As the boys shove their way into the room, Tom is pushed onto his bed and punched about, one boy (Tom McLaughlin, the obnoxious actor of Billy Jack fame) squirting shaving cream onto a photo of Tom’s “old man” (the moment is complicated—the act of minor vandalism is also an assault on the patriarch via an ejaculatory gesture, and an ejaculation as one boy faces another).
The concept of “regular guys” is repeated often, reminding one that these guys are hardly regular, according to the standards they accept. The phrase recurs in the language of Tom’s father Herb, played by Edward Andrews, notable in film history for his snotty, vaguely sinister and effete qualities that typecast him as a nosey fake (he played, for example, George Babbitt in Elmer Gantry). While he is not one of Hollywood’s “evil *beep* he conveyed a sense of the feminine in domesticated males; this sense in turn produces an aspect of roiling resentment, something central to Herb’s relationship to Tom and former classmate Bill. Herb is upset that Tom isn’t aggressive on the tennis court, that his fans are a small group of “fairies,” and, amazingly (to our eyes today) that Tom’s hair is too long. Since the rise of the 50s rock stars, long hair on men became an obsession of the American middle class, with its connotation of femininity, “white trash,” and a general refusal to conform. Herb wants Tom to get a “crew cut,” that military-style hairdo of the postwar years that enjoyed a long run (and has, sadly, returned). This haircut would make Tom one of the “regular guys.” Tom avoids the haircut, and other helpful hints from his father, most of which point to Herb’s defensiveness. When Herb runs into his old pal Bill Reynolds, the two engage in some joshing over the good old days at Chilton. Although the men share a laugh about Herb’s paunch vs. Bill’s hard-body, overcompensated physique, the joke barely masks an aura of tension. It is clear that Herb wants Tom to be his ego ideal, a recreation of himself minus his own defensive, self-conscious qualities (masking that which he is afraid to express) which he projects onto Tom, and the topic nervously shunts aside the bonhomie enjoyed by Bill and Herb. As Bill tells Herb that his son is an “off horse,” Laura listens from the kitchen. In one of many remarkable compositions, we see the two men through the kitchen window as Laura stands in the foreground, the yellow curtains on the window extending the yellow of her dress. The visuals complement the drama: Laura tries to temper the men, even as she is overwhelmed by them.
At the beginning, it was ridiculous how Tom was CONSTANTLY hanging around Kerr. That's how a child of 4 or 5 would act, not a guy of 17.
Wrong! I'm not a guy, but I was the same way at college, hanging around the DEAN OF STUDENTS all the time. And, eventually, she told me basically the same as you are saying here. But, she was wrong too. That's just a cope-out, bringing age into this, because I guess you both can't see beyond the typical life-cycle stereo-types that you know.
I don't believe Tom was gay, just a very quiet & sensitive guy with "artsy" pursuits. After all, if he was gay, he would not end up being "happily" married.
Yes, he would, if he found the right partner---it's called a "lavender marriage" (look it up) and there have been many happy and long-lasting ones suspected or reported to have been such, over the years. And besides, not being *gay* doesn't necessarily mean *straight* either! He could have very well been Bi---with a preference for either sex, depending on who he happened to have feelings for at the time.
I couldn't understand how in the world Kerr ever wound up married to her "macho" jerk of a husband. They were so obviously mismatched in personality & temperament, and ... well, EVERYTHING.
How? Well, the answer to that is simple---empathy. The same reason Laura was able to understand Tom---empathy! She had this uncanny ability to know what they needed and to know whether or not *she* could give it to them. And, Mr. Reynolds loved her for her kind-hearted "feminine" qualities.
The problem comes in when the men in Laura's life start to change (as we all do to a degree). When they change, when their needs change, then her empathy serves to show her that maybe her best won't be good enough then...maybe she can no longer give them what they want. So, that was the first problem---that Mr. Reynolds didn't remain the same kind of man that she had originally empathized with---rendering her stuck in an unhappy marriage. The second problem was that when she needed help, when she needed a little empathy and sympathy herself, he didn't give it to her. But, then again, few people are as kind-hearted and empathetic as she.
And Tom's father seemed gay to me, not Tom!!!!
Well, if there is one thing this movie teaches, it is not to take everything at face-value, to have a little sympathy, and to use a lot more empathy. Then, this story might begin to make a lot more sense to you.
Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize! reply share
Interesting and thoughtful post. Thanks. However, what you call a "life-cycle stereo-type" isn't a stereotype at all. It's a social convention or norm, and every society has them. They are what give the community an identity -- for good or ill. And, as has often been said before, without an identity no society can long endure.
I know plenty of 17 our even 19 year old who acted or acts that way. But maybe it's no longer reflective of Western youths, you guys are very sexualized at a very young age.
"During the Second World War and the subsequent Cold War, Hollywood increasingly depicted gay men and women as sadists, psychopaths, and nefarious, anti-social villains. These depictions were driven by the censorship of the code, which was willing to allow "sexual perversion" if it was depicted in a negative manner, as well as the fact that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness and gay men and women were often harassed by the police."
Have to give credit to the filmmakers who tried to show a different side while contending to Christian fundamentalist groups (mainly Catholic) who we're responsible for the code. Luckily it started to die out by the late 50s to early 60s. If only they thought of a rating system before then then classic films, in many genres, wouldn't have had to go through such massive edits and rewrites.
That's what makes the movie so unintentionally funny all these years later. When it was written, the Motion Picture Code required that Laura suffer because she cheated on her husband, Bill. At the end, we're supposed to believe that she has indeed suffered because she's alone and with no fixed address.
Today my reaction -- and I doubt that I'm unique -- is that Bill is such a boor and an insensitive jerk, Laura is much better off without him even if she has to sleep in the woods and carry all her worldly goods in a stolen grocery cart.
SusanJL says > At the beginning, it was ridiculous how Tom was CONSTANTLY hanging around Kerr. That's how a child of 4 or 5 would act, not a guy of 17.
Tom had a crush on Mrs. Reynolds. That's why he was always so attentive to her and wanted to be around her so often. He appreciated in her the things most young men his age and even her own husband did not appreciate in her. From what we learn of him, as a child, Tom spent a lot of time with older women. That's where he felt the most comfortable.
I don't believe Tom was gay, just a very quiet & sensitive guy with "artsy" pursuits. After all, if he was gay, he would not end up being "happily" married.
Tom wasn't gay but he was very different than his peers and even from other men including his father. Girls his own age probably didn't appeal much to him but as he got older it would have become easier to find a woman who shared his interests.
Being married, even 'happily, isn't what proved he wasn't gay. A lot of gays still try to pass themselves off as straight which infuriates me because the unsuspecting straight person they marry has the right to be married to someone straight. I'm not a fan of anyone using any one else. It's just not right.
I couldn't understand how in the world Kerr ever wound up married to her "macho" jerk of a husband. They were so obviously mismatched in personality & temperament
I felt the same way but I think it was pretty well explained in the movie. She had lost her first husband and was lonely and sad for a while. She had a whirlwind relationship with Bill. He seemed to be everything she wanted but once he got back into his normal life and regular routine he changed. He probably took her for granted and didn't want to come across as weak and sentimental or become some hen-pecked husband catering to his wife's every whim.
And Tom's father seemed gay to me, not Tom!!!!
Yes, the actor did seem to have some mannerisms that seemed very gay. I don't know if the character was meant to be that way but he did sure seem a bit light in the loafers at times.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply share