MovieChat Forums > Tea and Sympathy (1956) Discussion > How the film *should have been* made...

How the film should have been made...

posted 12 years ago by MyMovieTVRomance
4 replies | jump to latest

I was reading some of the reviews for this film, and one of them contained some parts that really struck me, so I have pasted the excerpts below:

Tea and Sympathy is a pretty compelling film about the definitions of masculinity and gender role enforcement and homophobia. It's really upsetting to see that homophobia and misogyny and incredible pressure to conform on screen, but it is compelling. Even if Minnelli turned out to be a horrible choice for director.

His avoidance of close-ups reveals him to be, in this case at least, what feels to me like a very selfish director. More than the topic, more than the writing, it's the performances of Kerr and Kerr that make this film. They are constantly having to fight Minnelli's apparent desire to keep them at a visual distance from us. I guess in a way it's a credit to both the stars and Minnelli himself that he could get such strong work from them despite the sparseness of close-ups that the film so desperately needed.

It's as if Minnelli thought that he was -- or should be -- directing a pageant rather than a drama. "Look, I can make even an intimate, human drama great in WIDESCREEN!!!" Except that you can't, Vincent. I don't care about you in Tea and Sympathy, Mr. Minnelli, I care about Tom and Laura. Give me the characters!

I must say that I agree with the above very much, and it got me to thinking how much more successful the film would have been if it were made differently. First of all, the reviewer is right in observing that the film would be more effective with more close-ups. Secondly, as much as I like the color of the film, it would have made more of an impact in B&W. There are some films that would simply do better in B&W, and this is one of them. However, I am on Minnelli's side when it comes to his use of wide-screen. I mean, wide-screen is best for almost any movie worth its cost, because it makes the movie more sleek and beautiful. How can anyone object to that?

But, yes, I think that if this film had been made with the above suggestions, it would probably be a classic that everyone knows, much like "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof".

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] richrol 12 years ago

I found this movie to be a bit of a slog at times and I think the review you cite (thanks for that) may have given some insight into why this was my experience. Last night in his post-movie comments Robert Osborne also brought up the issue of color vs. b/w. I thought Deborah Kerr was fine in the role (of course she was on the whole wonderful actress and lovely to boot) but at times she just came off as a bit too "regal," probably owing in part to the above-stated issues.

[–] MyMovieTVRomance 12 years ago

You're welcome.

I have to admit that I thought this movie dragged a bit at times too, but it also has such moving and tender parts---the scene in the woods when Deborah kisses the boy being chief among them. That scene simply made the movie for me! Ah, I loved it! Forbidden love can be so yummy! And, I confess I'm a sucker for D. Kerr's regality, so I wouldn't have her any other way.

But, yes, I suspect that the film would have benefited from a great deal from being shot differently. Cause it does have all the makings of a classic.

Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize!

[–] Kykuit 12 years ago

In my opinion, the original stage play is far superior to the movie script.

In the play, the event that starts the trouble for "Tom" is an outing he has with a homosexual teacher where they are seen skinny-dipping together. I think that sort of thing would be considered as confirmation of ones sexual preference today.

Once the talk starts after the swim is observed, all of Tom's characteristics become suspicious to the other boys. Rather than protect and support Tom,who is innocent of any sexual behavior with the teacher, the husband as well as Tom's father suspect him as much as his ruthless classmates.

[–] hka-3 9 years ago

In the play, the event that starts the trouble for "Tom" is an outing he has with a homosexual teacher where they are seen skinny-dipping together. I think that sort of thing would be considered as confirmation of ones sexual preference today.

Yes, sadly it's most likely a confirmation of his sexual preference in other people's minds even though engaging in this activity may or may not have been "sexually aimed" toward his teacher. It could've been something he wanted to experience whether it was a male or female in the pool with him. It could've been more about the thrill of himself being naked and/or engaging in the "forbidden" act of skinny-dipping...

To the OP:

It's a pet peeve of mine when directors choose to not get adequate closeups. I almost didn't watch Tea and Sympathy because of that, but decided to because I suspected that this film was really more about idiotic, immature stereotypes than it was about homophobia.

As I always say, a person is homosexual if they prefer to have sex with people of the same sex. That's it. Males are not homosexual because they sew buttons on shirts or don't possess the skill or desire to play rugged sports.

There is a pretty clear definition for homosexuality, however it's a common problem throughout society, not just with people who are deemed homophobic, to believe sexuality is implied in non-sexual activities [and again in the case of the skinny-dipping incident, it's actually possible it wasn't sexual in the way others may conclude it was].

A man who likes sewing and prefers to use finesse while playing tennis may or may not be a homosexual. A woman who likes to use power tools may or may not be homosexual. Those people may or may not like pizza. The point is that none of these characteristics are true indications of people's sexuality.

Mag, Darling, you're being a bore.