John Singer's suicide seemed pretty abrupt in the movie and completely took me by surprise. Did the book address his reasons and motivation with any more detail? He was always a sounding board for others, but no one seemed to return the courtesy. Is this simplistic observation, or was there more to it?
shareI just finished reading the book, and I haven't seen the movie yet. Do they show his deaf-mute friend, Antonapolous, in the movie? In thie book Singer kills himself shortly after learning of his dear friend's death. I assumed he simply could not fathom living without him. Maybe a simplistic observation as well, but that's what happened in the book.
shareYes, Antonapolous is in the first scene with Singer, and his death obviously weighs heavily on him. It is logical to think that Singer felt truly alone when his kindred spirit died, but it still puzzled me. If the point is that Singer never had a sounding-board for his pain, that point is certainly made – but the ending still seemed pretty abrupt to me.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Whether through a big post or short book, I'm very grateful you took the time to explain what I was missing in the film by having not read the novel.
It never had dawned on me that Singer might be gay, and usually I'm quite good at picking up on those details. In the movie, Singer appears to be almost a Jesus figure, someone who keeps sacrificing himself to meet others' needs but has no apparent needs or desires of his own. I should have been tipped off by the opening scene, where he stops Antonapoulos from hurting himself, that he had more in his mind and his heart than just helping out a friend – that he had real needs and desires of his own, and those feelings made him even more of an outsider than his inability to speak or hear.
This is clearly another case of whitewashing films to appeal to a mainstream audience. A few other examples from the era that come to mind at the moment are "The Children's Hour" and "Tea and Sympathy." Hollywood had a code for gay characters are being shy, sensitive or artistic, and we were supposed to read between the lines – or maybe just ignore the evidence because the studios thought we couldn't handle it.
I enjoyed this movie, but it a lot of it perplexed me, and now I know why. Most of the characters other than Singer seemed severely self-centered and a bit irritating – particularly Mick, though I think this was because of Sondra Locke's limitations as an actress (addressed in other threads on this board).
The way you describe Carson McCullers' book is extremely poignant, and I shall seek it out. I'm particularly moved by how you describe the hole left the the lives of the people who remain after a loved one dies.
Thanks again for your informative and insightful post!
Having just finished reading the book again, I respectfully disagree with the assumption that Singer is in love with Antonapolous. (sp?) He had an extremely co-dependent relationship with him, almost that of a mother and his child. My belief is that he took care of him for so long that once he died, his life seemed meaningless. I have not read her other books, so I wasn't looking for any kind of homosexual theme and therefore did not read it that way.
I just watched the film last night and was utterly disappointed. It seemed like the screenwriter just took broad sketches of the characters and made his own story. Singer was almost like a deity to the characters in the book. They approached and confided in him, and thought he truly understood their loneliness but Singer pretty much had no idea what was going on. I was also disappointed to see Dr. Copeland's beliefs boiled down to "he doesn't like white people." Nothing about how he was trying to "elevate the negro condition," or any talk of Communism. And where is Biff? His perspective as an observer and his individual story were some of the more interesting points in the book.
All of this being said, I know this movie was made in the 60s and I know it was changed for many purposes, but I feel like the people involved just didn't get it and shouldn't have made the movie at all. I would love to see it remade now with a capable director that has a handle on the material.
[deleted]
Just finished the book. It will be the last time I read anything from Oprah's book club (fooled twice). I got the impression that Singer and The Greek were lovers, just in 1940, you could not come out and say "They slept together".
shareIt was an excellent book, much better than the movie. There may have been a homosexual element, but I think it was more that Singer felt very isolated from the rest of the world. As empathic as other people felt he was, he didn't feel that love and understanding flow back to him. Antonapoulos was the only person in the world he felt connected with. The book doesn't go into their history together, which is too bad. It seems that this was the only deaf-mute that Singer ever befriended, so maybe that was the connection.
Everyone in the book is frustrated at what they feel is their one true purpose in life: Singer to take care of Antonapoulos, Mick to be a great musician & composer, Dr. Copeland to help raise the status of black people. He wanted his kids to be professionals and none of them were, he failed.
Really how many deaf mutes were there. It was a lonely isolated world if they didn't have a circle of family and friends. I saw only the movie and didn't read the book. In the movie, Singer doesn't have any family and Spiro was child like. He had disabilities and I think that was what brought them together. Singer wanted to be his caretaker. I never thought homosexuality although it was still covered up in the 60's. Lots changed in the 70's but it was very slow to change until the very late 60's. In the movie there is nothing about anyone owning a gun. That came as a shocker. Earlier in the film the "white" boys pulled a knife but there were no guns.
shareIt was an excellent book, much better than the movie. There may have been a homosexual element, but I think it was more that Singer felt very isolated from the rest of the world. As empathic as other people felt he was, he didn't feel that love and understanding flow back to him. Antonapoulos was the only person in the world he felt connected with. The book doesn't go into their history together, which is too bad. It seems that this was the only deaf-mute that Singer ever befriended, so maybe that was the connection.Interestingly I was able to discern much of this, and what others wrote here, from the film without reading the book -- such as the characteristics and elements of Singer's relationship with Spiros, Singer's isolation from society and Mick focusing on a music career more than anything else. I couldn't imagine her wanting to stray from that goal for anyone in the near future, yet she had family obligations which didn't fit her plans.
Everyone in the book is frustrated at what they feel is their one true purpose in life: Singer to take care of Antonapoulos, Mick to be a great musician & composer, Dr. Copeland to help raise the status of black people. He wanted his kids to be professionals and none of them were, he failed.
In the book (I haven't seen the movie but gather Biff isn't in it) Biff is a character who is very masculine and stoic, but he's also very affectionate and soft. He thinks at one point that he would like to be the mother of his niece and Mick and wonders why men and women are expected to act as they do. Later on, he thinks about how much he loved Mick before she started acting like a woman.
It's a very confusing situation - the gender identity and grown men being in love with childlike people and the nature of love. I personally felt that Singer loved Antonapolus the entrie book, in a true love kind of way, but he had to repress his feelings because of the era.
To people who have read and seen both:
Does the movie show Antonapolus as the soundboard for Singer?
Does it touch at all upon Mick's rape?
I think the main point of all the relationships in the book is that everyone is projecting what they need from a human relationship onto someone who not only won't but actually can't ever betray that idea. So everyone -- not just the main four characters, but everyone he meets -- projects their idea of who they need Singer to be onto Singer. They all think he 'gets' them, because he just listens politely and they get to create his half of the conversation in their heads. Recall the conflicts that arise whenever these ideas are forced to coexist, as when Copeland's Jewish Singer and Blount's Anglo-Irish Singer are set against each other in their argument, or everyone's general discomfort and reluctance to speak to him on the one occasion when they all arrive to see him at the same time, lest 'their' Singer face scrutiny and possible destruction.
Antonapoulos served that same purpose for Singer. Singer would sign to him though there was no real indication that he was actually keeping up with the conversation, play chess 'against' him but move the pieces for both sides, write him letters and convince himself that they would somehow be understood though they were never sent, etc. Even after Antonapoulos was sent away, the few times Singer visited it was clear that Singer's idea of Antonapoulos was more important that anything Antonapoulos actually contributed to the interaction. By every indication, maintaining this relationship was actually quite a chore for Singer in practical terms.
Given this context, the suicide in the book was still abrupt, but it was also foreshadowed by the narrator's commentary on Biff after the death of his wife. The narrator wonders why the death of the beloved isn't more often followed by the suicide of the lover. No answer is given, but the general theme is that the lover is forced to endure for a time just because they're obliged to fulfill their place in the death ritual as the mourner. Then they're able to go on after that obligation is fulfilled because the initial shock of the pain has lessened by then. This is a societal obligation and since Singer was a blank, with many identities written upon him but none to which he contributed, there was nothing preventing him from surrendering.
As to the question of Singer's sexuality, it's hard to imagine that he wasn't gay, but it's equally hard to imagine he had a real, physical relationship with Antonapoulos. It almost would've defeated the purpose. In my mind, Singer was probably closeted even to himself, and never had a sexual relationship of any kind with either sex. There's nothing in the text to contradict opposing views, but it's what I need from him ;)
That is a brilliant analysis, Cantwin (Cantlose with logic like that, either)! Because of the era in which this book was written and this film was made, we can't place too many assumptions on what Singer was (or wasn't), but it shouldn't stop us from imagining what he wanted considering his limitations and challenges. The fact that we must read between the lines makes it all the more limiting to us – but also presents so many more challenges. Thanks very much for your reply.
shareThat is a brilliant analysis. I had not thought of the foreshadowing after Biff's wife died.
shareI haven't read the book, but from the movie Spiros didn't seem to have much of a place in Singer's life after he moved to the hospital. He only visited him twice it seems, and wasn't preparing a home and life for the two of them for when Spiros was released. I found it very puzzling that Singer didn't get a new job after he moved, even though he had a contact, and wasn't looking for a two bedroom apartment, for example.
When the film ended so abruptly and unexpectedly it made me wonder if he always intended to kill himself, once his life changed and he had to move to the new town.