MovieChat Forums > Tea and Sympathy (1956) Discussion > The play v. the film

The play v. the film

posted 17 years ago by tkrolak
6 replies | jump to latest

It was inevitable that the play Tea and Sympathy would not reach screens without being changed.

According to Vito Russo's book, The Celluloid Closet, in the play, Tom Lee has done nude swimming with a male teacher at the school who is also thought to be gay. This is another reason for him to be scorned. But just the mention of naked swimming was probably enough to make the stage version controversial at that time. Of course, the more censored Hollywood would not dare to show or even allow a verbal reference to such activity. That was to be expected in the uptight fifties. But the absence of the episode in the movie was another way of removing any doubt that Tom was straight but just not able to prove it to his peers.

As Robert Osborn's guest on TCM said, Deborah Kerr objected strongly to the voice-over in the final scene, when Tom is reading her letter. She and John Kerr had starred in the play. In it's last scene, Laura and Tom are in his room.
Laura unbuttons her blouse as she is saying her famous line "Years from now when you talk about this, and you will, be kind". Then the final curtain descends. But the ending to the movie had to reveal Tom as happily married.

Russo points out a detail that I had missed in the first scene. When Tom is walking among his former tormentors at the ten year class reunion, his wedding ring is the largest one of them. Hooray for Hollywood!

[–] Shearer_Goddard_Russell 17 years ago

Well...yes, as you said, it was to be expected. The plot of the original play was not a secret so I'm sure people picked up on the implied vibes. An even more messed up gays-turned-straight play into movie would be "The Children's Hour," which handles lesbianism fine in the 1961 version- but in 1936, they obviously could not and the movie there DID lose a tremendous amount of its power...

"Just close your eyes...but keep your mind wide open."

[–] tkrolak 17 years ago

....""The Children's Hour," which handles lesbianism fine in the 1961 version...."

When Shirley MacLaine's character of Martha hangs herself because Karen(Audrey Hepburn) rejects her advances, it is not a "fine" handling of lesbianism. As Vito Russo wrote in The Celluloid Closet, it was the first suicide of a lesbian in a movie. Beginning in the 1960s, suicide would be a convenient way to get rid of homosexuals in films.

[–] djebel714 17 years ago

*******************************SPOILER CITY*************************

i simply disagree that hepburn's karen ever 'rejects' maclaine's martha's advances.

martha, at the moment of realization that she forces karen into with her admission of true love, had been spending a whole summer 'praying every night' not to love the other while karen's truly initial reaction to even the IDEA of it existing is actually just a representation for the viewer to project themselves onto. this rejection that you perceived is hidden in plain sight, only in the immediacy of the end of the film rushing headfirst into the core of the story. for the viewer and karen's first spark of reciprocal romantic recognition is buried at the business end of this 1961 film that quite ably DOES handle lesbianism finely.
additionally, i offer 2 points to refute your claim based seemingly in whole on 'the (quite insightful) celluloid closet's' choice of using 'the children's hour's logical choice of an ending, if oft repeated, as the sticking point to prove in that particular era lesbianism in film seemed only 'solvable' by suicide.

let's check them out:

1) helen very clearly tells karen (who is quite possibly realizing she returns the romantic love that has tormented helen for a summer, but is only given that moment, as is the viewer, to BEGIN to discover if it exists in herself) to not touch her, which is respected, but i feel that the question if the love is mutual in its entirety is answered:
2) in karen's final words to helen, quite the opposite of rejection of advances, being (im paraphrasing here): 'im leaving to go anywhere, will you come with me (alone, as james garner's character has confirmed in HIS rejection of karen because of the doubt concerning the two women's sexuality/romantic love)?'

just my rambling lovesick thoughts after viewing 'the children's hour' and somehow idiotically posting in the 'tea and sympathy' board.

so, really, if youre in love(or ever WERE and you realized it while sitting alone, in any dim place, watching a film) with your same sex best friend and have learned all you can from the proper 'reading' of t&s's themes, i URGE you to seek out 'the children's hour' and get choked up in chances missed or pure love destroyed and revel in the misery quite easily found in it.

go ahead, wallow in your own ennui and inexplicable desire to experience some quality schadenfreude. i wont tell.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fordraff 14 years ago

I just finished reading the play and found it very interesting. It certainly deals with bullying, particularly of a [thought-to-be] homosexual. Of course, in the '50s conformity was at an all-time high and fitting in was very important. Tom was an "off horse," as the play calls him, because he liked classical music and wanted to be a singer. The play freely uses terms such as "fairy," "fruit," "queer," and "homosexual," which Hollywood couldn't touch.

In the play, the teacher whom Tom went to the beach with--both were naked while swimming there--was immediately fired, which was very accurate for 1953. No further evidence was needed in the minds of most people to "prove" that the teacher and Tom were homosexuals.

Among the many interesting things in the play is that Laura's husband is very probably a repressed homosexual who married Laura because he wanted to become headmaster of the school, and a headmaster needs a wife. She also tells him she thinks he was "kidded into marrying." In the play, the husband is in his 40s, and Laura is 20 years younger. Her first marriage was to an 18-year-old (she was as young) like Tom, who was killed in WW2. In the play, Laura was given a background as an actress. When Laura tells her husband she is leaving him, she tells her husband, "Did it ever occur to you that you persecuted in Tom the things you fear in yourself [repressed homosexuality]?" The play is worth reading and has not dated as badly as the movie, which is very dated and, yes, laughable today.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

fordraff says > In the play, the teacher whom Tom went to the beach with--both were naked while swimming there--was immediately fired, which was very accurate for 1953.

I hope the same thing would happen today. If any teacher had been swimming in the nude with a student; he/she should be fired. I wonder though if it would happen given the way things have become. These days people seem to 'go along' with all sorts of things just to avoid being labeled intolerant.

No further evidence was needed in the minds of most people to "prove" that the teacher and Tom were homosexuals.

The issue you raise wasn't in the movie but I'm not sure what further evidence you think would be needed. In my opinion, it's never appropriate for a teacher to be naked in the presence of a student so that, if established, is proof enough. It doesn't matter what they were doing or what the teacher or the student's sexuality is, it would be inappropriate.

By the way, I don't know how one would go about 'proving' sexuality. As we know, some people are such proficient liars they can hide their identity and will go to any length, even using others, to carry on their deception.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]