Cecil, gay?
he seemed like such a homo, for those who have read the book, is this mentioned?
shareIf Cecil were gay he wouldn't be consciously aware of it. But had the right guy at the right time and place put the make on him, he probably would have been seducible, although afterwards he might've gone into kvetch session over it until the next time he could be lured. He had a lot of sex appeal just as he was physically despite that fussy personality.
shareHere we go again on gay topics.....boy, you really need to get a life.
shareHey grooby, didn't you notice that "gay" was the theme of this thread? And you right here in the thick of it too, aren't you?
share[deleted]
Attn: groobader
Your reply to me was: ""Theme"? No you just don't get it peabrain. It YOU, turd."
The "It YOU, turd." part, what are you trying to say? Where did you learn to speak English? Is it your mothertongue? If so, it's hard to believe.
Where are you from? All your posts are full of incoherent language.
Here we go again....*sigh*! Get a life Chopsdickhead.
No need to be angry and posting more bulls$$ting comments.
Not that I should bother, since you start off by exposing your ignorance with the word 'homo', and this thread has so clearly degenerated, but the point is it doesn't really matter whether he is or isn't. His behavior and style was the fashion of the time, this includes a repression of his sexuality to the point where he was more 'asexual' than gay or straight. It's always possible that he was, because E.M. Forster was and may have been trying to express himself through Cecil - the whole issue about how he could never truly know a woman, etc. - It was known in Forster's later years that he was gay, but he for example didn't allow his novel about the subject, "Maurice" to be published until after he died because he was so repressed about it.
When I think about it, the whole story is perhaps a disguise. Imagine Lucy is EM Forster, George represents living life truthfully - Forster's homosexuality -and Cecil represents the lifestyle society demands - straight, stiff upper lip, strict behaviour, and so on. It's about Lucy breaking free from marrying who she should marry (though it's also about fulfilling Charlotte's life, but that's a different thread), but really it's about not bothering with the passionless relations society chooses for you, but choosing the one for yourself. Perhaps EM Forster wrote it to come out of his shell in *some* way and live the life he truly wanted.
Anyway, instead of asking the question here, perhaps you should actually read the book? And read Maurice, too. You'll be better off for it.
-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...
A major theme in Forster's works is the internal struggle between appetite and reason; indeed, this is a theme that resonates through most Modernist literature. In both book and film, Cecil and George correspond to each of these, and Lucy - the heroine - must choose. In the end, Lucy shuns reason and succumbs to her appetite. By giving in to appetite - and by marrying down, as it were - Lucy shatters class boundaries and contributes to the overall destruction of traditional society and the birth of our contemporary values. Cecil is effete, sterile, and unappealing to young Lucy; in this respect, Cecil and old world culture are exposed as being unable to continue to survive and thrive in post-Victorian England. Indeed, homosexual characterization is often used to heighten these qualities of sterility in the source material. They have been highlighted earlier in the thread, so no need to repeat them. In the end, what matters is not whether or not Cecil is gay, but only that he is not a viable suitor for Lucy.
shareFor clarification, since the book was published before WWI, are you saying this book somehow predicted that old world culture would not survive such a dramatic event?
-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...
Oops. That's what I get for typing late at night. I meant post-Victorian England; one word changes the whole reading of my entry. Forster is great, but I wouldn't say he's a clairvoyant. :) I see this novel as one that begins to express Modernist aesthetics before the movement takes hold after the war.
share
No problem. Have you ever listened to the writer's commentary on the DVD of Gosford Park? It discusses the change of the class system after WWII (as opposed to the 1st World War, in fact). I have to agree with that assessment that WWI did not necessarily make much of a lasting change, unless one accepts the concept that WWII was only a continuation of WWI. Don't you think?
-----------
To be driven by lovers- A king might envy us...
Yes! The commentary on that disk is very illuminating. I would tend to agree with you that WWI did not wholly bring about a cultural shift; it did mark a tendency toward indulgence in excess in the younger generations. There's a decent book written on Jazz Age London, "Bright Young Things," that looks at this. It's not as well written as I would like, but it's a worthy read.
shareI think that Cecil is intended to be gay. There is no reason whatsoever to defend the case that he is NOT gay. Homosexual men make up a sizable percentage of the population. Why should Cecil not be gay?
If Cecil is gay, this explains a number of the examples that people here have pointed out. Being gay is considerably more normal than being truly disinterested in the beautiful, sexually desirable young woman that you are engaged to.
But at the date of the book, many people were completely unaware that such a condition as homosexuality existed. Men who found themselves aroused by the sight or close presence of other males rather than women were very distressed because it was "unnatural". Men who "did unnatural things" with other men were gaoled for it.
"great minds think differently"
ami_fee68,
What a great post! I think you've got it! I had not seen that well into it, tho I was of the same opinion. Seeing Lucy and the others in the way you suggested makes the story come together so cohesively--I wish I had had an English teacher like you in school. I never see these things until someone else brings them up. Now I must read these books. TY.
mandyjam,
Why, if Cecil were meant to be gay, would he never give any overt sign of being attracted to another male? The swimming scene in the pond is the perfect opportunity. The guys running about without their clothing in full abandon of the inhibitions, and Cecil only comes upon the scene in the company of his fiance and her mother, and never even looks twice at the guys, so shocked is he. Yet the parson strips everything off and joins in the fun, obviously (to me) excited by the chance to play with attractive naked guys. Cecil could have wandered onto the scene alone and joined in, but the writer denied him that.
People assume "bad kisser" means gay, but it does not. Cecil has no sexuality. People like that live on today. They love themselves but never let anyone else into their world. They never open themselves to any sexuality, it becomes an obligation when they marry, but nev er an intimacy or an enjoyment. Cecil had a fiance that invited him to open up, but he could not. He didn't look at her very attractive younger brother--he truly seemed to love Lucy. He just was not open sexually. It was the way he was raised, the culture at the time. No job, no sensuality in marriage--yet brothels and prostitution in London were at an all time high. If one needed a release, that is where one went. Nothing suggests he was gay. Even though the opportunities for attraction were all around him.
A thumping bore!
shareFirst, about Mr. Beebe. As he was played by Simon Callow, who was gay, the commentor may have just presumed he was playing the character gay. I didn't see that at all. Too many Americans cannot seem to realize that the "refined" British way of behaving strikes us as rather effeminate in a man, yet it has nothing to do with sexuality. From watching how Mr. Callow played Mr. Beebe, I also had the impression he had the hots for Lucy. After watching her play Beethoven for the first time, he had such a languid feel about him, as if he had just had sex.
As for Mr. Vyse, again I am thinking of the film, not the book, I think the question whether he was gay or not is a false distinction. The society of that time did not recognize homosexuality. I am not saying there were not homosexuals (of course there were), only that someone as much a conformist as Cecil would never ever consider that. Now, as to how he reconciles that with his actual orientation, again I would say the question would not come up in his mind. The point about Victorian society made in this film was that they were horribly repressed ESPECIALLY about sex. This is why Lucy has to actually go to Italy (where the coach driver and his "sister" exemplify the fact that Italians were not similiarly repressed) to get in touch with her passion. Cecil has been brought up not to think of himself as a sexual being. When George says, "he doesn't know what a woman is", I take that to mean not only that he doesn't understand how women differ from men psychologically, emotionally, and otherwise, but, more to the point, that he wouldn't have a clue what to do with a woman in bed - look how absolutely clumsy his attempt to kiss her is and how can't wait to get out of the situation once it founders. My take is that Victorian repression have so stunted Cecil's development, that he is not even sexually mature in the psychological and emotional sense. He could be homosexual or heterosexual - we'll never know, and neither will he. For the purposes of this story, it doesn't make a difference.
Again, as with Mr. Beebe, it is Cecil's super refined behavior which suggests to a modern American viewer that he is gay, not his actual orientation.
[deleted]
You have to consider that E.M. Forster was gay. Then you have to consider the times. Up until 1861, homosexual acts would land you in jail. In the Victorian era that "fear hangover" still kept many a man in the closet. Also, we have to take look at the reality of Cecil's life. He was a wealthy man and he would have been pressed to marry to secure the fortunes of the family in terms of inheritance. While I have not read the book yet (have the movie as one one of my top 3 favs), it is not an uncommon theme of the time that, when written about in 1901, would have been an understood experience in life and perhaps Forster never minded to give the details, rules and laws of such circumstances of the time. It was a given understanding. Not so today.
For Freddy to say that Mr. Beebe considered Cecil better off "detached" says MORE about his understanding of the man's nature. Ergo, sexuality. I think he was gay and he knew Cecil was in the closet. Mr. Beebe had the luxury of a life in the Clergy. Cecil did not. He had to marry to please his mother. Pay close attention to his relationship to her. Note the ERA. He's putting on a show for her, living up to her ideal, her very Victorian ideal that came from the times when homosexuality was considered an abomination. Forster knows this. He understands the strains of this and in his story he is part of the fabric of his characters, that great internal conflict between who we is and what he needs to be in order to survive the whims of society. He paints this dynamic very subtly so that the audience, perhaps more distracted by George. And I think that Forster really lived vicariously through him as well, especially just unabashedly taking a kiss from Lucy. I can only imagine the desire to be yourself, so scream out to the world "I AM!" and take to the passions that one need keep repressed due to social constraints. It's maddening to say that least. And that is why we LOVE Forster. He shows us how we don't seize life and how live keeps us from connecting to that part of us that is pure desire, love and passion.
I think that Mr. Beebe was not infatuated with Lucy as much as he projected upon her the kind of tethered passion perhaps Beebe's had in his own life. He was a pastor and if he indeed was gay him self, there are those who love to live vicariously through the lives of others who appear to have "all the freedoms". But Lucy did not...not really. She was expected to marry. And when a proposal came along, a lady had to consider her well being seriously. Mr. Beebe, KNEW George Emerson, remember. He met him in Florence. He may have even considered a Lucy as she was in Florence to be her true nature, exploring... Back IN England, Lucy was brought back to earth and confined by the rules of her station. Lucy was following her head, not her heart, and you can thank the Victorian era for that. Lucy was in love with the idea of love and didn't really know passion. Mr. Beebe's knew she had it in her through her playing of the piano. Imagine being so repressed as to play the piano as your only "outlet of passion" to the point it made you "peevish"?
Cecil, I believe was gay. Forster perhaps chose to keep you guessing. Perhaps he didn't want Cecil to own it publicly or even consciously know it or put an awareness to it. It was safer for him. I think that Cecil was infatuated with the idea of Lucy and how she would work into picture of the perfect life he was trying to facade to his mother. Lucy was... as was stated "regarded no more than a painting or a pretty picture." And if a man was heterosexual, he would not have the need for such masquerading at the turn of the century. Many men married to keep up appearances. It's not a new or novel action. Marriage was still a matter of arrangements, securing wealth, fruition of a blood line and so on... Survival in its own peculiar way.
Just a quick comment to espritdemuse - I believe homosexual acts would land you in jail in Britain until 1967, not 1861. Note the post-1861 fates of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing, the later suffering criminal sanctions in the 1950s.
shareI loved your post. I don't necessarily agree with you on every point, but the fact I can't dispute many of your conclusions says a lot. I don't think Cecil is gay. I do think Mr. Beebe is gay, and I think it is THAT element that gives him the insight to feel for Lucy and the life of restrictions and inhibitions she is marrying into. I don't think it's because Beebe knows Cecil is gay (although I cannot dispute your conclusion with any specific facts). He knows Cecil is frigid. He has probably experienced loving proper Victorian gentlemen himself, and feels for Lucy and the life she'd lead with the unresponsive Cecil.
Because homosexual behavior was so outlawed and repressed in that time, I think the author was carefully describing Beebe to the readers/audience. Hence the extra scenes on the subject. It's his way of educating people on why Beebe knows about sexual repression.
Here is my take on the pond scene--I had not seen it before, and watched it without preconceptions or trying to analyze it.... First, it's Freddy and George who first jump into the water without clothing. We know Freddy has been doing this his entire life. It's an exhuberant kid thing--we aren't to draw more from it. George loves Freddy's sister, Freddy is awfully young to actually have a sexual encounter, so I believe this is the author's signal that it's innocent. George joins him--because George is the one who would fit into the family. It's another way we learn George would be the perfect mate for Lucy. She swam in the pond as long as she could, and we can see her back at the pond one day with her husband, maybe some kids, leaping about uninhibitedly. It's the happiness she has waiting for her if she makes the right decision. And it shows how George will fit right into her family in a way Cecil could not. When Cecil watched Lucy and her siblings tussling outdoors in play, he never took notice of the siblings (I guess another reason to think he isn't gay--Freddy is too cute not to appreciate)--Cecil sees only his fiance. But not in a sexual sense, tho you can see his attraction. His mind takes over and he starts talking about raising their children with this zest for life, yet with the right education... with her mother. He pulls the scene right back into proper Victorian family-raising, fitting in...
Back to the pond....I was not even thinking about anyone being gay, but the way Beebe looks at the younger men...there was lust in his heart! ;) He could not get his clothing off quickly enough once invited. He went for the water fight, and the physical horsing around--no inhibitions. He understands this family, and their comparative love for fun. But he was getting a sexual thrill as well.
And when Cecil, Lucy and her mom arrived at the pond, he was guilty, not just hiding his body from the women's view/ shocked sensibilities, but trying to hide his face in the water/reeds, as well. That displayed an element of guilt. Not that he was trying to seduce the guys into a homesexual affair there in the open, but he was enjoying it too much, in the wrong sense? Beebe just got few--if any--opportunities to engage in sexual encounters in Victorian England, and if he could be included in any fun that may happen, that might lead to sex or just be titillatingtly sexy...he was thrilled to be there! He threw off those clothes and jumped in the water, and right back out again, to chase the others around on dry land, spanking each other or whatever they were doing...
As for the soaking and worse of their clothes, I saw it as their reckless and uninhibited willingness to throw off their class strictures--clothing always was used to identify people's place in society, from Britain to France to the Middle East to India. It showed what we knew of the younger men--a new generation who gave no thought to class or social restriction and rules. And Beebe shared that libertine attitude because his homosexuality separated him from society's stringent rules, and while he did not originate the fun, he was gladly pulled into it, and was not angry or regretful when it became less fleeting with the clothes wet and ruined.
We also learned more about Cecil from the pond scene. He was not brought into the action with the guys who threw off their inhibitions just to have fun on a hot summer day. He wouldn't, they He arrived with the women, on his arm and in front of him--his fiance and her mother...so appropriate...and so led. Once there, Cecil is suitably shocked! He is only concerned for the women's sensibilities--he steps up to protect them.
Significantly, there is not so much as a sideways glance of longing, neither childish envy (wishing he too could play in the water--a feeling most men probably would feel), nor sexual attraction (and this is the place to telegraph that emotion to the audience). I feel if Cecil were gay, we would have seen at least a sideways glance toward a nude male, or to a place between 2 of them, to signify a potential encounter as opposed to a specific attraction toward one of these men. Instead Cecil is all about duty as a Victorian gentlemen. The author's way of reminding us he is too shackled by Victorian society to feel anything but his social obligation....lest anyone read more into the encounter...whether sexual between adult men (and nothing need be done or said, their relationships could have remained unchanged, but a single look could have allerted us to his sexual desires if he had any!) or an innocent play as tho between 5 year olds (but Cecil lacks even the emotional freedom to feel the wish to have fun). Cecil's prim and proper clothing remains unaltered. As does his place in Victorian society.
I did not analyze this scene when I saw it, these feelings were my 1st impressions. I really felt Beebe was like someone who was never included but was very attracted to these guys. His sexuality seemed overt--it was HE who was chasing the younger guys once they were out of the water. Not easy to trade roles....he went from "Wow, I get a chance to play!" to a bit of a lecher chasing the guys, tho interrupted quickly. Cecil's total lack of participation was a definite purposeful element, and the clothing destruction was a separate element...a statement on class identification and crumbling.
I never saw Beebe as romantically attracted to Lucy. And he LIKED Lucy. Her playing of Beethoven became freer as she loosened up in Italy--we saw her hair do a Beethoven thing itself in one scene! Cracked me up! I was afraid blindness would follow... But Beebe loved and more, he respected that side of Lucy. And wanted it to be nurtured, not repressed. He knew men like Cecil, that could not love anyone. If you have ever loved someone incapable of sensuality, you will recognize that in Cecil. His heart thought it loved, but it did not even feel. He would not even allow his lips to FEEL Lucy's lips in a kiss. When she responded to his touch, he jumped away, frightened. And never worked up the courage to try again. Beebe must have fallen in love with a Cecil or 2 in his life. He did not want Lucy to lose that passion she showed at the piano... We saw how repressed Maggie Smith's character was...the passive aggressive anger. That was what Lucy could become...her cousin was a mirror into the future...
Re Cecil and Lucy, I don't see him as gay, but I agree he saw her as part of a masquerade...he had to pretend he was "all that." He had to fake sexual attraction toward his fiance/soon-to-be-wife---he was too repressed to feel anything for anyone. Men of that era set records at the brothels because they could not integrate a healthy sexual passion into their marriages. Gays are not non-sexual--even married to women (tho painful for them both), Cecil is non-sexual. Different. And he is very insecure. He looks everywhere for validation...he tells her mother his elaborate plans for raising their children...she's unimpressed...he tells men how he is not planning to hold a job...not getting that they are not impressed in his lack of any interests besides having to earn a living. He is proud of the era's practice of not requiring men of class to work for a living, but he carries it too far by not being learned at all. He has nothing to excite his physical or mental passions! And no one respects him...a cold empty fish, nothing but a pricy ticket to the upper class. He feels the lack of response from those with whom he talks, and it makes him uneasy. He hopes Lucy, whom the world loves, will bring that approval with her that he cannot earn on his own. And he hoped it was in the way her family were raised, planning to follow the same rules with their own children, to imbue(?) them with the passion he lacked. So in that sense she could provide the masquerade for a happy life he did not have.
you're a homo. takes one to know one and care
share