MovieChat Forums > Tea and Sympathy (1956) Discussion > This film was NO breakthrough.

This film was NO breakthrough.


The play Tea and Sympathy premiered on Broadway in 1953. It has never been seen by me, but the story must have some resemblance to the film. Robert Anderson adapted his play to the screen. At the time of the Broadway run, the McCarthy era was raging. A deep fear of Communists, homegrown and abroad, had swept over the land. In that same year, Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, attacked the witchhunting mentality of the era. As those suspected of being Communists or leftwingers were being brought before Congressional committees, the other despised group, homosexuals, were being purged from the government. The widespread perception of them was that they were security risks, vulnerable to blackmail by foreign agents.

They were also considered the enemy because, when the Cold War was at one it's hottest periods, homosexuality was thought to be a threat to the nation's virility. Of course, gay men could be manly. But the media perpetuated image of them hid the truth. Not until 1956 did the movie Tea and Sympathy open. Senator McCarthy had been censured and largely silenced by then. But the intense fear of a world wide revolution led by Moscow remained. When Laura points out to Tom
Lee's roommate that the way he is standing could leave him open to suspicion, her advice could bring to mind the innocent victims of the McCarthy era who, although loyal Americans, were ostracized because of their political views or just by mistake.

That is why the movie Tea and Sympathy only indirectly deals with homosexuality. It is about a boy who fears being labeled as different. But the film doesn't question the fear of homosexuals. The basic idea of the story supports homophobia.

As for the other boys at the boarding school Tom Lee attends, they are, as Laura says, at that difficult age. She says as they enter their manhood these boys wonder how they'll stack up. We can understand that as they are insecure about their masculinity they take out their anxieties on the one person who reminds them of their fears, the only one to whom they can feel superior.

We could take this same view of Tom's supermacho housemaster, Mr. Reynolds.
While seeing the film I thought if anyone in 1956 wondered about him. Here was a man who surrounded himself on the beach with athletic boys, armwrestled and did mountain climbing with them, and greeted his ex-classmate, Mr. Lee, by putting his hands on his shoulders. But, except for one brief exception, he couldn't show affection to his wife.

When Tom meets him at the time of the reunion, Reynolds is shown listening to classical music. This scene is the first indication that the older man has any interest in it. Are we supposed to believe that after Laura left him he rethinks his values, sees that maybe he made a mistake with Tom? But why would classical music necessarily show that Reynolds has softened, become more open minded? The student Tom was the only character whom we had seen playing what is called a "highbrow" record. Being this elitist was alright if Tom had been vindicated as supposedly normal.

reply

Unfortunately, you don't "get" this movie. First of all, it was made at a time when the word "homosexual" was taboo on screen, due to the censorship of the period. It certainly does not promote homophobia, and even with the tacked-on beginning and ending, it succeeds in showing that a sensitive man may not be gay and that a macho man may be using his machismo to cover up his own homosexuality, still relevant messages today. So it is indeed a breakthrough movie for the period and successfully managed to circumvent the censors.

Although I agree with your basic assessment of the political framework of the period, don't forget that gay people in the Soviet Union were also being scapegoated at this time as being symptomatic of decadent capitalism.

reply

grimalkin-2,
We are mostly in agreement about the film of Tea and Sympathy. It is known by me that the word homosexual, and heterosexual for that matter, could not be said in a Hollywood movie then.

That censorship is part of what I meant by the screenplay supporting the basic idea of homophobia. Did Tom Lee's schoolmates harassing him because he didn't fit in with them have to mean that he was gay? That can be the implied message of the film, to many, but not to all. So, he was quiet, liked classical music and was not athletically inclined.

What even more strongly supports my view is at the end. Tom Lee is shown reading a letter from Laura Reynolds which explains that he is happily married. This is like saying don't worry, Tom is normal. If he were different, this attitude says, Laura Reynolds made a man of him in their scene in the woods. By being married and having a family he has conformed to society's expectations. Could the screenwriter have left him as a successful author and without a wife? On the other hand, a gay man could get married and father children. That was more likely to happen then than now.


Even when he was sewing and talking with the women on the beach instead of male bonding with the more sports minded boys he could have just been seeking the company of Laura Reynolds. He could have had a crush on an older woman.


As I mentioned in another post, Deborah Kerr was very opposed to doing the voiceover in the letter in the final scene. The play ended where she unbuttons her blouse in Tom's room and says her famous line that ends "be kind".
Would the movie have been accepted if it ended this way? No, audiences in those days of censorship had to be assured that Tom was as straight as an arrow. Tom,
after all, could have rejected Laura or have been impotent because she was a female.



The Soviet Union would persecute anyone who was viewed as not being useful to it's ideals. It would not be surprising to me that Stalin would have sent homosexuals to slave labor or concentration camps even though Marx and
Lenin wrote nothing about the subject, to my knowledge. Castro's Cuba was equally intolerant.

reply

I think that the problem is that you've been able to 'break through' the play very well, but have been focusing so much on how it compares to the film that you haven't really given yourself a chance to go deeper into the film. Tom gets married, yes, but is he happy and normal? 1950s melodramas, especially Minnelli ones, are known for their open endings in terms of unresolved conflict. Just as in Sirk's Imitation of Life, we know that life with Sara Jane, Suzie, Laura and Steve isn't going to be ideal when they end up all living together in the end, so is it here. When Tom goes to the reunion, no one speaks to him, and at the end of a very detailed vivid and painful flashback, he reads a letter by Laura. This does not mean that he's healthy, happy, and safe with his life now. It's very possible he's cheating on his wife at home with other men. It's possible he's hindering all his feelings and might have turned into an alcoholic, as we saw in the flashback. It's even possible that the marriage was a hoax and that he really is gay.

The play ending is far superior, don't get me wrong, but the idea that melodramas always have an open unresolved ending leads me to believe that there's more to be investigated in Tom's 'perfect marriage.' Therefore, the theme of 'whether Tom is gay or straight does not matter, intolerance is intolernace' still applies and we are still being beat over the head with that theme just as strongly as we are in the play version.

reply

I really can't agree with grim and shaz here. tk nicely sums up the film when he says:

"That is why the movie Tea and Sympathy only indirectly deals with homosexuality. It is about a boy who fears being labeled as different. But the film doesn't question the fear of homosexuals. The basic idea of the story supports homophobia."

Tea and Sympathy *does* promote homophobia in that it certainly supports the whole system that creates and maintains homophobia. Even Laura, the most understanding character in the film, can't envision a world in which the perception of homosexuality is acceptable, much less the reality of homosexuality. She desperately wants to help Tom shake off the spectre of perceived homosexuality, and while she actively advocates for acceptance of boys and men who are different than the stereotypically "macho" guy, she certainly says and does nothing to suggest she believes it would be okay for Tom or anyone else to actually be queer.

As I discussed in my "review" of the film here and in the "Tom might not be gay" thread, not only is Tom NOT queer in Tea and Sympathy, there is NO homosexuality in the film whatsoever -- just the *perception* of homosexuality, and its threat. And Laura desperately wants to save Tom from even that.

Tea and Sympathy is a film in which actual homosexuality doesn't even exist.

Tea and Sympathy was a breakthrough in that it actually dealt with homophobia at all in a 50's movie, but it is in no way a breakthrough in being supportive of queers in any way. It is, wholly, about the status quo, when it comes to queers.

And this talk about the film being about tolerance of queer folk by proxy, by being about "being different" doesn't wash. The film is thoroughly an examination of a very specific form of being different: it is very much about male gender roles and the prices paid (including suffering homophobia) when you don't conform to them.

Matthew

reply

Matthew, my friend, your thoughts are very well put, but I encourage you to personally study the film again, not with the influence of scholarly opinions, or even of the people on this board. Notice the relationship between Tom and his roommate-- not necessarily the moments of tenderness between them but how Tom's reaction to what might be perceived as one is. Pay attention especially to how he reacts with his outside world; for example, the uncomfortable intimacy between him and his father, when he attempts to kiss him on the cheek. Also note that while he never admits his orientation, there are several moments where he gets very close to announcing it. Based on the surrounding dialogue of these moments, I invite you to reexamine your argument. To be honest, I'd be very interested in a rebuttal to see if and why your argument remains where it is. This is a very interesting film, and is intended to be the subject of discussion. :)

reply

shaz,

My interpretation of the film came from watching the film and using my own mind. I didn't cop my ideas from posters here; I had them before I read tk's post. The only thing I can recall having read about the film before seeing it is what Vito Russo had to say about in The Celluloid Closet, and I could sort of barely remember what some of that was when I saw the film. I re-read the applicable passages last night and have already sorta forgotten much of what they had to say -- but I have a vague memory of some of Russo's and my interpretations butting heads a bit.

And, you do realize, *you're* one of the "influences" on this board, yet you say that if I rid myself of such influences, I might see the film as you do!

There are no moments when Tom is about to come out in the film. I really don't see any hint of Tom being attracted at all to his roomie. I really don't think I missed anything on either of these points, but I guess a second viewing could turn up something. And -- going to kiss your dad on the cheek means that you're homosexual? That kinda makes my mind boggle. That was so clearly another sign of him not conforming to the rigid standards of what is "a man" is -- but nothing in the film says that Tom had to be queer in order to kiss his dad on the cheek -- he just didn't give a damn, didn't even *think* about such matters, until someone gave him Hell about it. I hope you're not implying what I think you're implying? (Especially since the dad was neither a nice person nor hot -- heh heh.)

And Tom was totally, totally smitten with Laura throughout -- truly in love with her, as far as "love" went in 1950s movies.

I don't have a DVD player, but I'll get one eventually. So, I'll have to wait until I do get a player, or I miraculously find a VHS tape, or the flick shows up again on TCM, in order to see it again. But, it's a good and interesting enough movie to see at least once again in my life!

Matthew

reply

I've enjoyed reading this board. Just thought you'd all like to know that Warner Archives has finally released this film on DVD-R.

reply

Let me add to this bygone discussion that Vincente Minnelli, the director, was quite homosexual, according to rampant reports. One is that Judy Garland divorced him after coming home to find him in bed with another man. All this adds an interesting undertone to his connection with this film. Actually, one could call it an exercise in self-discipline.


"Believe not what you only wish to believe, but that which truth demands"

reply

the theme of 'whether Tom is gay or straight does not matter, intolerance is intolernace' still applies and we are still being beat over the head with that theme just as strongly as we are in the play version.

YES!









I had the chance to work with Michael Jackson who was as brilliant as they come.
Tommy Mottola

reply

Just read your post and I agree about some of your post. It's not a breakthrough for a husband to treat his wife poorly. But in this case the husband has a different secret exposed on film. One he's hiding. Also, it bravely shows that sensitivity doesn't equal homosexuality, as previously posted. Most of the films of that era dealt with teen rebellion and coming of age. The exposure of what defines a man in the 50's is still current today. The inability or fear to accept what we want is okay even if it separates us from the crowd. It's the first that I recall where a man wanted the same feelings for love making reserved for a woman. Tenderness and passion.


If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

f-t-f;

I'm replying to your post rather than the OP because of the time lag.

This is one of the few dialogues I have found in IMDB message boards that is interesting and civil. Perhaps that is because of the subject matter (it was relevant a the time of the play and the movie, and it still is) and perhaps it is because there is no viable resolution. We have lots of indicators, but no hard evidence.

We can speculate, but the author of play, the director of the movie, and most or all of the principals are dead. So, personal testimony appears unavailable.

The play came out about the time that the McCarthy controversy was climaxing. The 'Tail Gunner's' fame and influence were near their peak, but he was about to be skewered in the Army - McCarthy hearings. However, the little bit of information that I found on the play's author, Robert Anderson, was that his plays were not politically orientated. Of course, that does not mean that he was not influenced or inspired by political events.

That information on Mr. Anderson also reveals that he was married twice but had no children. There is no information that indicates his sexual orientation. Might he have been a closeted gay who married as a cover? Maybe, but we can only guess on circumstantial evidence.

There have been a lot of rumors and claims that the movie's director, Vincent Minnelli, was gay. Once again, there is no unambiguous proof. He was married four or five times with two children, but that doesn't mean that he was not either bisexual or gay and using marriage as a cover. I think there is certainly room for speculation, but I won't claim to know for sure what the answers are.

Like a good painting or a piece of music, there is room in this movie, and I'm sure in the play from which it was derived, for different admirers to see different things.

Personally, I think that Leif Ericson's character was definitely a deeply closeted gay, desperately trying to fool everyone, perhaps himself the most fervently. I do not think that must be reality, but I do think it explains his fear of romantic interaction with his wife and his hostility towards Tom Lee. I further think that Tom Lee is at least bisexual, if not straight. His experience with Deborah Kerr's character appears to have succeeded at helping him accept himself. As you and the OP have pointed out, this is not a clear cut conclusion from the movie, but I would like to believe that someone found some long term happiness out of the events.

Whatever is the intent of the author and the director, I think that the movie does display the struggle that young people may have with understanding and defining their sexuality. It also shows how much tougher it was in the Fifties than it is now.

reply

Thank-you for the history on the period. And your conclusions are on point about our struggles to define who we are. I hope we as society have become more accepting and less judgmental. The scenes where Tom's father bragged about his son and the older woman and the lost of Tom's room mate were very sad.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

reply

Thank you Tkrolak , for opening my eyes to see things that I hadn't seen in the past .. and I should have seen them .. To explain .. I just saw the movie again this morning on TCM .. One of my favorite movies .. I was only one when it was made , so I've always seen it on TV .. but I never thought about the things that you have pointed out .. esp about Mr. Reynolds .. Thanks to you , the next time that I see it , it will be a whole new experience .. peace to ya .. milo .

......


I'd like a chance t' shoot at an educated man once in my life .

reply

Don't let the facts that our government was heavily infiltrated by communists or that communist countries have never been gay-friendly cloud your perceptions.

reply

When Tom meets him at the time of the reunion, Reynolds is shown listening to classical music. This scene is the first indication that the older man has any interest in it.

I noticed that too. There must have been a reason for that scene but I am not sure what it is. It is 10 years later and times have already changed somewhat so perhaps a man is no longer afraid to show an interest in classical music. He probably always liked it. At the beginning, two former classmates are saying....can you believe he came? Towards the end; the young student says Oh...are you the one who wrote the book? He knew what the book was about but he still seemed excited to meet the author.

I took it to mean that in 10 years; male/female roles were not so strictly defined and there was more tolerance.



I had the chance to work with Michael Jackson who was as brilliant as they come.
Tommy Mottola

reply