MovieChat Forums > The Deep (1977) Discussion > Is there a strange 'thing' developing be...

Is there a strange 'thing' developing between Treece and Gail?

posted 19 years ago by hmahendra
7 replies | jump to latest

Watching The Deep every now-and-then (it's one of my all-time favorite movies), I can't help but wonder that there was a sexual 'tension' - or whatever you want to call it, developing between Romer Treece and Gail. The scene(s) below lead me to this observation:

- When Treece and David go out on a night-dive for the first time, Treece asks David: "Are you going to marry that girl of yours?".

- When Treece brings David and Gail back to St. David's (after Gail had been 'violated' by Cloche's men a la 'voodoo style'). The scene that follows David going up to bed, and Gail staying on with Treece. Some meaningful looks were exchanged, and Treece proclaims: "He's alright, that David of yours" as if to stop something from developing further.

Did anyone else notice this? Was it something the film-makers wanted to include in the film, but decided 'the hell with it'?

Any thoughts?

[–] HeartMonger 19 years ago

Hi. I love this film as well. It is one of my all time faves as well. I think what you are referring to is in the book, more detailed.
In the book, there is this double meaning about 'deep.'
David has a deep passion and is drawn to the ocean and the treasure.
Treece is drawn to the couple's naitivity and strong passion (because he was once married, do not know if there is any footage indicating this in the film)
Gail is drawn to Treece (because of his reclusiveness) is a strange way.

I never looked at it as sexual tension. I always thought it was a thinly veiled attempt at what the book had going.
Does that help?

I am considering nothing less than WORLD DOMINATION!

[–] hmahendra 19 years ago

Yes, it does help. Thank you.

I actually saw the film first time back in the early 80's on TV as a kid. I didn't even know there WAS a book upon which the movie was based until about a few years ago.

Anyway, given that I love this movie, I decided to read the book a few years back - and here's the strange thing: I don't remember it much! I won't give away spoilers relating to the ending, but I do remember that it was different from the movie's (I prefer the movie's nice and happy resolution given that this is supposed to be an old-fashioned adventure yarn - about buried treasure at sea no less!)

Also, I seem to remember that Romer Treece in the book is supposed to be some gigantic (like 7' tall!) weirdo. I am SO glad they didn't stick to the book on this - Robert Shaw was just wonderful in the movie. That man had this larger than life 'threatening' quality, mixed with abundant charisma that I'm sure no 7' actor could bring to the role!

[–] TorontoJediMaster 17 years ago

Actually, it's the opposite order. The film was based on Peter Benchley's novel.

In the novel, David is somewhat immature in that he enjoys being macho and taking chances for the thrill of it. Treece sees something of his own reckless youth in him.

In the book, Treece had once crossed paths with drug dealers before. He tried to stop them on his own, and they murdered his wife in retaliation.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] c7c7c7r 16 years ago

I think Treece felt protective toward Gail. Of course, he saw she was attractive, but when he says "He's alright, that David of yours", I think he wants to convey that despite his earlier gruffness, he cares for them as a couple. And he respects Gail; when she gets the mystery of their find, from the historical detective work she does, you can see his appreciation.

[–] Eli_Zardo 15 years ago

Treece in his younger days was reckless and tried to thwart drug dealers (I think it was Cloche himself actually), they killed his wife after addicting her to heroin as retaliation.

When he meets Gail and David all that resurfaces and he tries to guide David in a fatherly way but is also reminded of his long dead wife by Gail. So there is definitely some romantic/sexual tension... but the nature of the characters precludes anything "unseemly".

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]