Those who had the good fortune to see Deborah Kerr onstage in the Elia Kazan production of "Tea and Sympathy," will attest to her unforgetable performance. Kerr not only played it on Broadway but also toured with it, a treat for all attendees. Now nearly a half century later, her performance on film, which was very much influenced by her stage style, begins to show a little wear around the edges. It must be difficult to change one's approach after having played a role so successfully night after night. In this case, her inflections, accents, phraseology, pauses, gestures and the like are essentially theatre-based, designed to play to the whole house up to the balcony. In the intimacy of film, this becomes a bit much in the long run, and results in a much more broad, deliberate and stylized Kerr than in any of her other film work. Her character tends to emerge now more as a busy-body, snooper, peeping tom than was ever intended, and certainly it did not come across that way when the film was first released. A landmark film of sorts--for a major studio to tackle a sensitive subject in a major production--"Tea and Sympathy" benefits from a sincerely written script by Robert Anderson, solid direction by Vincent Minnelli and a secure supporting cast. Visually Deborah Kerr is beautiful, and is totally committed to both the play and her role. During her lengthy film career, Kerr certainly contributed a wealth of finely crafted performances.
61 Reviews
An Important Film that provides good historic perspective on the treatment of homosexuality in film.
clio5515 March 2006
"Tea and Sympathy" will offend many forward thinking people, but it is historically important. It provides good perspective for comparing the early twenty-first century to 1956--the time when this movie was made. The film is representative of people's sentiments during the 1950s. I came of age during this time as an effeminate lad who could not even talk with his parents about the stereotyping I experienced in grade or high school. Kids were cruel; so were many adults! Everyone needs a good dose of history, and this film provides it. Students of Gay and Lesbian Studies or film studies need to see this movie. No this is not a happy film, but neither is "Brokeback Mountain," which was set in the 1960s. "Tea and Sympathy" will not thrill anyone who prefers to forget unpleasant eras of history.
Kudos to Deborah Kerr for a marvelous performance.
PWNYCNY10 July 2013
Conformity is a drag, especially when it's imposed on someone. That is the theme of this movie. It's no joke being the target of a smear campaign, especially when the smearing is groundless. Overall, this is a good movie. John Kerr and Deborah Kerr give excellent performances as two persons who discover that they have a lot in common. Metaphors abound in this movie; characters take on sociological meaning. The movie is both subtle and powerful. The movie portrays the kind of repressiveness that can literally drive one to despair. Of course, being based a stage play, the movie itself is also stagy. Nevertheless, the actors succeed in bringing the story to life. Although the story revolves around the relationship between a married woman and a young teenage boy in a boarding school, it is more about the woman and less about the boy who is an instrument through which the woman gets in touch with her own feelings. The movie deals with this storyline in a forthright manner and for that reason alone this movie is worth watching. Kudos to Deborah Kerr for a marvelous performance.
What was kept from the play and what was lost (some spoilers)
JudyKwrites4 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Robert Anderson was not setting out to write a manifesto for the gay rights movement, or for anyone's agenda when he wrote the original play. He has said it's not about homosexuality -- it's about love, and those who are different being persecuted by those obsessed with conformity. The play and the film are more interesting as a deconstruction of traditional gender roles, if we need to look at the political aspect of it. But this is mainly a work about two lonely, literate, gentle people who find each other at a wearisomely macho, conformist boy's prep school. Robert Anderson himself adapted his play into the screenplay, and did a good job of opening it up. Minelli does a beautiful directing job, and the original Broadway cast, reprising their roles, all do fine work. The problem is that the censors at the Hayes Office made them butcher Tea and Sympathy, as badly as with Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. In the original 1954 play, a teacher takes Tom swimming, then the teacher is fired for being gay, and the other students assume Tom is gay and begin throwing around terms like "queer" and "fairy." The Hollywood 1956 film is reduced to implying he's "less than manly" because the other boys see him sewing with the faculty wives. They start calling him "sisterboy." The original play makes clear that the husband of the Deborah Kerr character (played by Leif Erickson in a fine, bravely repellent performance) abets the boys in persecuting Tom because he himself is really gay and in the closet. The film of course cuts her line near the end of the play, which causes the couple to break up: "Did it ever occur to you that you persecute in Tom, that boy up there, you persecute in him the thing you fear in yourself?" The film would be more powerful and less dated and make more sense if Anderson and Minelli had been allowed to leave these things in. But the worst act of Hayes Office butchery does not relate to the issue of homosexuality; it has to do with the fact that the censors felt adultery must never ever seem to be endorsed on-screen. The film is given the framing device of Tom returning to the school at reunion time, and the epilogue, when it gets back to the framing device ... that's rubbish, there for the censors. It has nothing to do with the real story. Wise viewers will switch off after Deborah Kerr's line: "Years from now, when you talk about this, and you will, be kind." That's where the play ends. This was Deborah Kerr's favorite role in all her years of acting, and Laura Reynolds is the character she has said she most identified with. It shows; she does a lovely, heartfelt job. I'd say she and John Kerr (no relation) have fine chemistry. I find the Ellie Martin character a bit over-done; otherwise, the performances are strong. It's interesting that the head bully in the house, Ralph, is played by Tom Laughlin, who went on to make the Billy Jack films. Perhaps he and John Kerr became buddies in the years they worked on Tea and Sympathy in various incarnations; he also plays the pilot who flies Kerr to the island at the beginning of South Pacific. There's a moment in The Trial of Billy Jack (another period piece, from a very different era!) where an Indian wise man is advising Billy Jack about how we are most hostile to the things we fear in ourselves, "as the athletic man mocks the long-haired youth because he doubts his own masculinity." Something like that -- it reflects sixties and seventies arguments about long-haired hippies, but it's also right out of Tea and Sympathy, where the majority look askance at anyone without a crewcut. The macho, self-hating Bill Reynolds character is like the repressed, married dock worker in Last Exit to Brooklyn -- it's startling to find such a character in a film that was actually made right then, back in that era.
Machismo and the Sister-Boy
claudio_carvalho9 April 2019
The seventeen year-old Tom Robinson Lee (John Kerr) lives in a boarding house owned by the headmaster and coach Bill Reynolds (Leif Erickson) and his wife Laura Reynolds (Deborah Kerr). Tom is a sensitive teenager that was raised by his maid since his mother died when he was a child and his estranged father Herb Lee (Edward Andrews) was absent. He likes flowers, tennis, classical music, theater and other intellectual activities while his mates prefer sports and talk about women. One day, his roommate sees Tom with Laura and two women sewing on a button on a shirt on the beach and call him "sister-boy", turning his life upside-down.
"Tea and Sympathy" is a sensitive film based on a stage play. The twenty-five year-old John Kerr performs the role of a teenager questioned of his masculinity by his schoolmates, the headmaster of his school and his own father in a machismo society. Deborah Kerr is excellent as usual in the role of a woman that is neglected by his husband and understands the feelings of Tom Robinson Lee. The color is funny since Laura´s car changes color from green to blue. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Chá e Simpatia" ("Tea and Affection")
"Tea and Sympathy" is a sensitive film based on a stage play. The twenty-five year-old John Kerr performs the role of a teenager questioned of his masculinity by his schoolmates, the headmaster of his school and his own father in a machismo society. Deborah Kerr is excellent as usual in the role of a woman that is neglected by his husband and understands the feelings of Tom Robinson Lee. The color is funny since Laura´s car changes color from green to blue. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "Chá e Simpatia" ("Tea and Affection")
Brilliant
Marie-6222 June 2004
Deborah Kerr has always been one of the best actresses. Her beauty and wit have always gotten her pretty well rounded roles. "Tea and Sympathy" has done something else for her...It has made her a real human that we can all identify with and understand. She captured your attention with her every second on the screen. John Kerr, as Tom Lee, (the main character) is simply in the backdrop, carrying the story along as best he can. Within him we see a ridiculed boy whose over-femininity makes him the joke of his school. Even the teachers seem to gang up on him. Known as "Sister-boy Lee" he tries to 'become' a man, only to let himself down further. He is soon pitied and taken in by Laura Reynolds, the school master's wife, who is told to "Stay out" because she's not really "involved". The truth is she is deeply involved...Her husband is the main reason for this kid's pain. I don't want to spoil the ending for you so I will say this...Vincente Minnelli is a brilliant director. Deborah Kerr is a wonderful actress who's inner beauty matches her physical beauty. John Kerr really shines. This movie is worth seeing. It does skirt the topic of homophobia but it tells the story that we (when we were teens) can all tell, trying to accept who we are and not trying to be what we aren't.
"Years from now when you talk about this--and you will--be kind..."
moonspinner551 October 2008
Robert Anderson adapted his own play for the screen about a sensitive young man ostracized at his boys' school for pursuing interests not typically associated with red-blooded males. Seems he enjoys cooking and sewing, singing folk music, and chatting with the faculty wives, all of which have alienated him from his classmates--as well as his own father!--though not the lonesome wife of the head schoolmaster, who takes a special and heartfelt interest in the lad. As played by John Kerr (reprising his stage performance), the central character is curiously presented without even the slightest hint of affectation; yes, he shows no resistance to playing a female role in the class play (requiring him to wear a flouncy dress), yet the filmmakers want us to see something in this boy which isn't standard, and John Kerr is incredibly, blandly standard (even his walk, which is mocked, is utterly ordinary). Ironically, though the film has a dated viewpoint of masculinity--the opposite of which is practically labeled 'abnormal'--the picture has a large following among gay audiences. Though it's a serious-minded movie, one is apt to hoot in derision at the script's loftier passages. Thankfully, Deborah Kerr also reprises her stage role as Mrs. Reynolds, and she pulls out whatever honesty there is in the dialogue and actually gives it some depth and worth. The theme here is certainly an unusual one for 1956 Hollywood--and even stranger for having Vincente Minnelli direct it, he the subject of much gossip himself--but the production is plush and the story is engrossing despite the soapy undermining. **1/2 from ****
The best way to walk.
dbdumonteil10 February 2005
The movie begins and ends with an old French folk song "plaisir d'amour" (English translation :"joys of love")which was reworked as "can't help falling in love" for Elvis Presley.Since the movie is actually a long flashback,the infinite nostalgia this old chestnut generates fits the movie like a glove.
"Tea and sympathy" might be the best of all Minnelli non-musicals in the fifties/sixties.We even forget that John Kerr (25 at the time) was much too old for this part of an adolescent in search of his sexual identity.John Kerr was the victim of "the cobweb" a couple of years before.His character in "tea and sympathy'" is a relative of the one I mention above as well as of the young hero of "home from the hill" (1960) "Tea and sympathy " was a courageous move for the fifties:it took a lot a nerve to show a boy at the university who refused "normality".What's normality anyway?Is it ,for a man ,swearing or climbing mountains? as luminous Deborah Kerr says.When you're not fond of sports,when you like the ladies' tea and sympathy,when you enjoy music and poetry ,then you are a "sister boy" and maybe even worse...You've got to pay attention to see what heavy things Minnelli was saying at a time it was not that much good to be DIFFERENT.Robert Anderson's play was years ahead and had (or should have had) a deep beneficial influence on mentalities.The scene where one of the "true" boys teaches his unfortunate pal the right way to walk had certainly a strong influence on French director Claude Miller 's "la meilleure façon de marcher"(1975).
But the play (and Minnelli's excellent movie) are often a ruthless portrayal of the "straights" :the young hero's father is a really dumb man -where is his wife by the way? Is she dead? or the perfect housewife?-,a narrow-minded crude character devoid of all the qualities of the heart.The fact that he asks the virile teacher to "make a man of his son" proves his stupidity.This teacher (D.Kerr's husband) ,under a he-man mask actually hides a vulnerability which his sensitive wife feels.He,too , is longing for tenderness,love and affection,but as it's not worthy of a true man,his life will be an unfulfilled one.
Deborah Kerr RULES.She wins over the audience with a mesmerizing performance .It's not only the "sister boy" who falls in love with her.Anyone who sees this wonderful film will too.
NB:in the play,which was sweetened ,Tom is called "Grace" or "Gracie",and the words "queer" and "fairy" are used.
"Tea and sympathy" might be the best of all Minnelli non-musicals in the fifties/sixties.We even forget that John Kerr (25 at the time) was much too old for this part of an adolescent in search of his sexual identity.John Kerr was the victim of "the cobweb" a couple of years before.His character in "tea and sympathy'" is a relative of the one I mention above as well as of the young hero of "home from the hill" (1960) "Tea and sympathy " was a courageous move for the fifties:it took a lot a nerve to show a boy at the university who refused "normality".What's normality anyway?Is it ,for a man ,swearing or climbing mountains? as luminous Deborah Kerr says.When you're not fond of sports,when you like the ladies' tea and sympathy,when you enjoy music and poetry ,then you are a "sister boy" and maybe even worse...You've got to pay attention to see what heavy things Minnelli was saying at a time it was not that much good to be DIFFERENT.Robert Anderson's play was years ahead and had (or should have had) a deep beneficial influence on mentalities.The scene where one of the "true" boys teaches his unfortunate pal the right way to walk had certainly a strong influence on French director Claude Miller 's "la meilleure façon de marcher"(1975).
But the play (and Minnelli's excellent movie) are often a ruthless portrayal of the "straights" :the young hero's father is a really dumb man -where is his wife by the way? Is she dead? or the perfect housewife?-,a narrow-minded crude character devoid of all the qualities of the heart.The fact that he asks the virile teacher to "make a man of his son" proves his stupidity.This teacher (D.Kerr's husband) ,under a he-man mask actually hides a vulnerability which his sensitive wife feels.He,too , is longing for tenderness,love and affection,but as it's not worthy of a true man,his life will be an unfulfilled one.
Deborah Kerr RULES.She wins over the audience with a mesmerizing performance .It's not only the "sister boy" who falls in love with her.Anyone who sees this wonderful film will too.
NB:in the play,which was sweetened ,Tom is called "Grace" or "Gracie",and the words "queer" and "fairy" are used.
Flawed and very dated film, but still insightful
vincentlynch-moonoi24 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The reviews here of this film are either very supportive of the film, or very dismissive of the film. I was pleased to see more that are supportive, but unfortunately there are quite a few people out there that just don't get it.
In age where over a dozen states now have gay marriage, it is virtually impossible for anyone younger than -- well, let's say 50 -- to understand the time which this film depicts. Stonewall was 16 years in the future. The vast majority of gay men were totally closeted. You cannot compare the gay world of 1956 with the gay world of 2013. This film takes place in the era when men were (supposed to be) men. Many people were so dense about gay life that they couldn't conceive of Liberace being gay (and this play came about just as Liberace was coming into our living rooms every week); but few "saw" it...or wanted to see it...or wanted to admit it. So for those of you who want to put down this movie as being unrealistic...it wasn't that unrealistic in the mid-1950s. In fact, for its time, this was a rather daring film, and apparently had difficulties with the motion picture production code.
It's very easy to attribute some of the film's misguidedness to the stereotypes that we see here. But, often stereotypes become so because of a degree of accuracy. The young man depicted in this film is marching to a different drummer, at a time when not many people did. The most interesting question the film brings up -- and doesn't answer -- is whether or not the young man was actually gay. It seems as if he was, or perhaps he was just not ready to take on an active heterosexual life. Perhaps he was closeted. It's ambiguous. The father's attitudes are not that off-base when you consider that the character was born not long after the turn of the last century! Get a little historical perspective. If there is one character here who is outlandish, it's probably Leif Erickson's coach-role...dripping with testosterone, when it really makes him and the other "boys" look too involved with guy-stuff. Deborah Kerr here is so good...as some have pointed out, a little stage-play-ish...but I guess that was to be expected after having played the role on Broadway for so long. In fact, there are some problems with her character...getting overly involved and overly mothering. Personally, I thought John Kerr...well, either he was overacting in some of the most psychological scenes, or he was falling back on the way one has to act on a large stage in a huge theater. Edward Andrews...well, as the father I guess he was supposed to be smarmy...and he certainly was. It was nice to see a more adult Darryl Hickman; for my money, Hickman was the finest of the child actors of the whole era, but as a young adult he wasn't as convincing.
I'm glad I watched this film, but that's not to say that I didn't find it just a bit tedious. It was probably a bit overly long, coming in at over 2 hours. I can't say this was Vincente Minelli's greatest accomplishment as a director. But if you want to get a little historical perspective on the issue of gayness in the old days, this may be as good as anything else out there.
In age where over a dozen states now have gay marriage, it is virtually impossible for anyone younger than -- well, let's say 50 -- to understand the time which this film depicts. Stonewall was 16 years in the future. The vast majority of gay men were totally closeted. You cannot compare the gay world of 1956 with the gay world of 2013. This film takes place in the era when men were (supposed to be) men. Many people were so dense about gay life that they couldn't conceive of Liberace being gay (and this play came about just as Liberace was coming into our living rooms every week); but few "saw" it...or wanted to see it...or wanted to admit it. So for those of you who want to put down this movie as being unrealistic...it wasn't that unrealistic in the mid-1950s. In fact, for its time, this was a rather daring film, and apparently had difficulties with the motion picture production code.
It's very easy to attribute some of the film's misguidedness to the stereotypes that we see here. But, often stereotypes become so because of a degree of accuracy. The young man depicted in this film is marching to a different drummer, at a time when not many people did. The most interesting question the film brings up -- and doesn't answer -- is whether or not the young man was actually gay. It seems as if he was, or perhaps he was just not ready to take on an active heterosexual life. Perhaps he was closeted. It's ambiguous. The father's attitudes are not that off-base when you consider that the character was born not long after the turn of the last century! Get a little historical perspective. If there is one character here who is outlandish, it's probably Leif Erickson's coach-role...dripping with testosterone, when it really makes him and the other "boys" look too involved with guy-stuff. Deborah Kerr here is so good...as some have pointed out, a little stage-play-ish...but I guess that was to be expected after having played the role on Broadway for so long. In fact, there are some problems with her character...getting overly involved and overly mothering. Personally, I thought John Kerr...well, either he was overacting in some of the most psychological scenes, or he was falling back on the way one has to act on a large stage in a huge theater. Edward Andrews...well, as the father I guess he was supposed to be smarmy...and he certainly was. It was nice to see a more adult Darryl Hickman; for my money, Hickman was the finest of the child actors of the whole era, but as a young adult he wasn't as convincing.
I'm glad I watched this film, but that's not to say that I didn't find it just a bit tedious. It was probably a bit overly long, coming in at over 2 hours. I can't say this was Vincente Minelli's greatest accomplishment as a director. But if you want to get a little historical perspective on the issue of gayness in the old days, this may be as good as anything else out there.
Tea and Sympathy is a gay classic
Havan_IronOak6 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I recently watched this classic again. It's probably been 20 years since the first time that I saw it and was curious what IMDb viewers had written about it. I was a bit surprised to see the comments on this film as being objectionable. I don't think that the other reviewer was considering the time. That Tom Lee turned out to be straight despite his less manly habits was the only way that the movie could have been made in those repressed days.
When I first saw this film, I was in the throes of my own coming-out. I loved it and didn't find it objectionable in the least. Here was a movie where someone (other than me) was a loner and different than the popular boys and was the hero of the story. What I had forgotten (or not picked up on at the time) were some of the supporting performances. The supportive room-mate was brave and although he did eventually give way to the pressure, how many folks today would have been as brave?
I also saw the housemaster in a different light. He had always seemed to be a big bully to me, but today I really heard his wife's complaints that they had been married less than a year and that they hardly ever touched anymore. Add that to the way that he seems to spend a lot of time `playing' with bare-chested young men and that he never remarried after his wife left him and one has to wonder if he weren't in a closet of his own.
I think that this movie has stood the test of time better than most and is in no way objectionable although it does describe an objectionable time. Finally Deborah Kerr's final line is one of the great gay line's of all time. Many a gay man has slept with someone and in his mind thought "Years from now when you talk about this - and you will - be kind"
When I first saw this film, I was in the throes of my own coming-out. I loved it and didn't find it objectionable in the least. Here was a movie where someone (other than me) was a loner and different than the popular boys and was the hero of the story. What I had forgotten (or not picked up on at the time) were some of the supporting performances. The supportive room-mate was brave and although he did eventually give way to the pressure, how many folks today would have been as brave?
I also saw the housemaster in a different light. He had always seemed to be a big bully to me, but today I really heard his wife's complaints that they had been married less than a year and that they hardly ever touched anymore. Add that to the way that he seems to spend a lot of time `playing' with bare-chested young men and that he never remarried after his wife left him and one has to wonder if he weren't in a closet of his own.
I think that this movie has stood the test of time better than most and is in no way objectionable although it does describe an objectionable time. Finally Deborah Kerr's final line is one of the great gay line's of all time. Many a gay man has slept with someone and in his mind thought "Years from now when you talk about this - and you will - be kind"
I would have loved to see Perkins and Fontaine do this instead!
deanmorris_nyc31 May 2010
Miss Kerr's cold archness, as always, makes grace Kelly or Maureen O'Hara look like Marlene Dietrich in comparison, and the young Kerr lad is unwatchable. I found the merest hints at the coach's homosexuality incredibly hot and would have loved to see the play's original version here. woof! and I don't think the son's father gets away with a fully str8 Kinsey rating either. do his father and the coach have history? :)
And to Matthew's comment above: "His avoidance of close-ups reveals him to be, in this case at least, what feels to me like a very selfish director. "
Quite simply, Cinemascope is "not kind" to closeups.
And to Matthew's comment above: "His avoidance of close-ups reveals him to be, in this case at least, what feels to me like a very selfish director. "
Quite simply, Cinemascope is "not kind" to closeups.
Rather than analyzing it to death...
MarieGabrielle30 September 2008
This film came to audiences at a rather schizophrenic time, things were changing, but not that much. Roles were assimilated, but not too drastically. People were questioning things, as long as it wasn't radical.
Women were still patronized, there were still clear role boundaries (witness the scene where Tom is knitting and catches derision for spending ten minutes in a sewing circle.) Not sure why that was a crime of the century, but whatever.
Deborah Kerr is tender and memorable as an unhappy wife to the school master at a prep school who realizes her marriage is a sham. She realizes this when she sympathizes with a student and resident at her home, a confused young man who simply is shy and has doubts about his future. There are some nuances regarding sexuality, but in all honesty that was a side-story, from what I inferred.
The message I take away from this film is not simply about ostracism and hatred; Minnelli as director also addresses female emotion, the reasons why Kerr empathizes with the young man, and how he eventually moves on. In the long rung, it is life affirming, although rather opaque in its message.
Discrimination and hatred take many forms, and sometimes the subtler forms are most repellent. Highly recommended. 8/10.
Women were still patronized, there were still clear role boundaries (witness the scene where Tom is knitting and catches derision for spending ten minutes in a sewing circle.) Not sure why that was a crime of the century, but whatever.
Deborah Kerr is tender and memorable as an unhappy wife to the school master at a prep school who realizes her marriage is a sham. She realizes this when she sympathizes with a student and resident at her home, a confused young man who simply is shy and has doubts about his future. There are some nuances regarding sexuality, but in all honesty that was a side-story, from what I inferred.
The message I take away from this film is not simply about ostracism and hatred; Minnelli as director also addresses female emotion, the reasons why Kerr empathizes with the young man, and how he eventually moves on. In the long rung, it is life affirming, although rather opaque in its message.
Discrimination and hatred take many forms, and sometimes the subtler forms are most repellent. Highly recommended. 8/10.
Fearing The Other
atlasmb30 September 2019
Fresh on the heels of her stellar performance in "The King and I", Deborah Kerr (as Laura Reynolds) plays the wife of a virile man who runs a dormitory house and coaches at a boys school. She feels sympathy for Tom, as student (played by John Kerr) who is different from the other boys. Though he competes in sports, his true interests are the arts, and he is known to spend time alone listening to classical music.
The story revolves around gender roles. The film uses stereotypes, like the "he-man" and the "sensitive boy" to expose persecution by stereotyping. It is a product of its time in degree only. Conventions in acceptable gender behavior still prevail. And there have always been pockets of society that impose their own rules of conduct on their members. These conspiracies of prejudice depend on bullying to enforce conformity.
The driving force behind such movements is fear of that which is different or not understood. This is a film about homophobia, not homesexuality. John Kerr does a good job portraying Tom, the persecuted teen. He is not unlike most teens; he just doesn't conform to the prevailing "norms". Much is made about the concept of a "regular guy"---a laughable archetype when viewed objectively. It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe in as long as you conform and, thusly, assuage the fears of those around you.
The relationship between Tom and his father is central to the story. Like the coach, Tom's father has been conditioned to expect certain behaviors from himself and others. His disappointment in his son is extremely damaging. It is interesting to compare this film's depiction of the father-son relationship with that in "Rebel Without a Cause". They are different, but in each the dynamics are painful and long-reaching. It is also worth mentioning that Tom is not like Sal Mineo's character in "Rebel", but they have similar psychological repercussions.
The film ends with the reading of a letter. It's an ending that was added to conform to prevailing standards and, as such, adds nothing of value. Better to ignore it and let the film stand on its own merits, without the cowardly addendum.
The story revolves around gender roles. The film uses stereotypes, like the "he-man" and the "sensitive boy" to expose persecution by stereotyping. It is a product of its time in degree only. Conventions in acceptable gender behavior still prevail. And there have always been pockets of society that impose their own rules of conduct on their members. These conspiracies of prejudice depend on bullying to enforce conformity.
The driving force behind such movements is fear of that which is different or not understood. This is a film about homophobia, not homesexuality. John Kerr does a good job portraying Tom, the persecuted teen. He is not unlike most teens; he just doesn't conform to the prevailing "norms". Much is made about the concept of a "regular guy"---a laughable archetype when viewed objectively. It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe in as long as you conform and, thusly, assuage the fears of those around you.
The relationship between Tom and his father is central to the story. Like the coach, Tom's father has been conditioned to expect certain behaviors from himself and others. His disappointment in his son is extremely damaging. It is interesting to compare this film's depiction of the father-son relationship with that in "Rebel Without a Cause". They are different, but in each the dynamics are painful and long-reaching. It is also worth mentioning that Tom is not like Sal Mineo's character in "Rebel", but they have similar psychological repercussions.
The film ends with the reading of a letter. It's an ending that was added to conform to prevailing standards and, as such, adds nothing of value. Better to ignore it and let the film stand on its own merits, without the cowardly addendum.
A butterfly in a pitcher-plant
Shuggy17 May 2010
I read the play when I was Tom Lee's age and deeply closetted, and it had a devastating effect: "At last someone understands: just because I'm not like the others doesn't mean I'm - heaven forbid - gay." I thought the play was great - liberating, even.
I saw the film (on TV, with distractions) some 25 years after it was made, myself on the brink of coming out, and noted that it was much less clear that it was about homosexuality than the play had been. Tom's sexual orientation had been blurred down to the question of whether he was "a regular guy" or not. Key speeches like Laura's challenge to Bill's sexuality were missing. And Laura's letter at the end seemed just moralistic, and an obvious sop to the censors.
To see the film today, out and proud, and with the benefit of nearly 50 years of hindsight, I find myself agreeing with many of the comments above, both positive and negative. The film is hard to watch because it is so overwrought. That is easier to understand when you know that all three leads are reprising their stage roles. Even so, there is a desperate tension running right through it. With the possible exception of the faculty wives, not a single person in it is comfortable with their sexuality. The guys are, without exception, over-anxious to prove something, and Laura is frustrated. (Ellie Martin at least knows what she wants - a radio that works - and what she wants to pay to get it.) Overlaid on this, nothing can be explicit, everyone talks all the time in circumlocutions. Of course, that was the rule in films of those days, and possibly real life as well. Therein lies a contradiction that can only be resolved from outside the film and in its future, now. The film was trying to liberate people like me (and heterosexual non-conformists) while staying within the confines of a deeply closetted and homophobic film industry.
Should you see this film? As a piece of gay history, perhaps. As a commentary on a homophobic time, it is instructive, both for what it says and doesn't say. As a worthwhile drama that will involve you in its issues, no. Has it anything worthwhile to say, as someone says above, about the importance of love? If you concentrate on Deborah Kerr's performance and her predicament, perhaps, but it's like watching a beautiful butterfly struggling in a pitcher-plant.
I saw the film (on TV, with distractions) some 25 years after it was made, myself on the brink of coming out, and noted that it was much less clear that it was about homosexuality than the play had been. Tom's sexual orientation had been blurred down to the question of whether he was "a regular guy" or not. Key speeches like Laura's challenge to Bill's sexuality were missing. And Laura's letter at the end seemed just moralistic, and an obvious sop to the censors.
To see the film today, out and proud, and with the benefit of nearly 50 years of hindsight, I find myself agreeing with many of the comments above, both positive and negative. The film is hard to watch because it is so overwrought. That is easier to understand when you know that all three leads are reprising their stage roles. Even so, there is a desperate tension running right through it. With the possible exception of the faculty wives, not a single person in it is comfortable with their sexuality. The guys are, without exception, over-anxious to prove something, and Laura is frustrated. (Ellie Martin at least knows what she wants - a radio that works - and what she wants to pay to get it.) Overlaid on this, nothing can be explicit, everyone talks all the time in circumlocutions. Of course, that was the rule in films of those days, and possibly real life as well. Therein lies a contradiction that can only be resolved from outside the film and in its future, now. The film was trying to liberate people like me (and heterosexual non-conformists) while staying within the confines of a deeply closetted and homophobic film industry.
Should you see this film? As a piece of gay history, perhaps. As a commentary on a homophobic time, it is instructive, both for what it says and doesn't say. As a worthwhile drama that will involve you in its issues, no. Has it anything worthwhile to say, as someone says above, about the importance of love? If you concentrate on Deborah Kerr's performance and her predicament, perhaps, but it's like watching a beautiful butterfly struggling in a pitcher-plant.
Tea and Sympathy
matthewwave-117 August 2009
Some of the comments here puzzle me, and really point out how people can see the same film and yet see entirely different films nonetheless.
Yes, Tea and Sympathy addresses homosexuality -- but there isn't a single bit of *actual* homosexuality in the film. It's not about actual homosexuality but about perceived homosexuality... and the fear thereof. It's completely obvious within five minutes that Tom Lee is completely in love with Laura, and there's nothing whatsoever in the film that suggests he might feel romantic or erotic attraction to men... nor is there anything whatsoever in the film that suggests that he's confused about whether or not he likes men (or men and women).
Of course, back in the fifties, most, really all, film language that dealt with homosexuality was coded. Things *stood* for homosexuality, rather than directly displaying it. So, one could be tempted to say that Tom Lee is a coded closet case. But, far too much of the script is explicitly about the external challenge of his being seen as, or feared to be, queer; while absolutely none of it is about an internal struggle with his orientation. He struggles with the perception (his own and others) of his masculinity, but nothing in the film indicates Tom himself might think he's queer.
And, again, his obvious infatuation with Laura permeates the whole film. He doesn't *stalk* her at the beginning because he needs a sympathetic ear...
And when she tries to set him up on a tea date with a girl, there's no sense that she fears Tom is queer, that she must straighten him out. But she *is* horribly concerned that they keep others from thinking it. She even has one line of dialog in which she speaks to him directly of the need to "nip this in the bud" or somesuch. Even in a 1956 film, it wouldn't make any sense to think that this woman would think a tea date would "straighten" Tom out; but it does make sense that she would believe it could be part of repairing his reputation.
The closest the film ever gets to suggesting the potential (much less the actuality) of Tom being queer is when Laura voices fears that Tom being treated "not like a man" could lead him to *become* unsure of himself as a man... If you want to infer she fears he *might* become queer because of this, there's room especially given the overall coding Hollywood demanded of such material, but, again, you've got everything else in the film to work against this interpretation. And it's an interpretation of what Tom *might* be in the future, not what he is in the timeframe of the film itself.
Furthermore, even this is only the perception of another character -- not Tom himself displaying any indication that HE fears he may one day "become" queer.
Tom's conflict revolves around his trying to navigate his way in the world as the *atypical* man he is, find his identity as a man, and be accepted as such... in a world that doesn't want to.
And it's *other* people, not Tom, who clearly (altho thru coded film language) see him as queer, or fear he might be.
And while I understand that Anderson's play was more forceful in suggesting that the housemaster was a repressed homosexual, it's *really* stretch to see it in the film version. The building blocks of the coding are there (yeah, he hangs out with the boys and roughhouses with them, and he neglects his wife), but the film also goes to considerable lengths to paint him as a "typical" man who's lost interest in his marriage once he's claimed his wife. What with that, and the context of a film in which the main character is so clearly painted as a perceived homosexual rather than as an actual one (even in potentiality), the coding is so incredibly watered down that it's really not even there at all, effectively.
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!
Matthew
Yes, Tea and Sympathy addresses homosexuality -- but there isn't a single bit of *actual* homosexuality in the film. It's not about actual homosexuality but about perceived homosexuality... and the fear thereof. It's completely obvious within five minutes that Tom Lee is completely in love with Laura, and there's nothing whatsoever in the film that suggests he might feel romantic or erotic attraction to men... nor is there anything whatsoever in the film that suggests that he's confused about whether or not he likes men (or men and women).
Of course, back in the fifties, most, really all, film language that dealt with homosexuality was coded. Things *stood* for homosexuality, rather than directly displaying it. So, one could be tempted to say that Tom Lee is a coded closet case. But, far too much of the script is explicitly about the external challenge of his being seen as, or feared to be, queer; while absolutely none of it is about an internal struggle with his orientation. He struggles with the perception (his own and others) of his masculinity, but nothing in the film indicates Tom himself might think he's queer.
And, again, his obvious infatuation with Laura permeates the whole film. He doesn't *stalk* her at the beginning because he needs a sympathetic ear...
And when she tries to set him up on a tea date with a girl, there's no sense that she fears Tom is queer, that she must straighten him out. But she *is* horribly concerned that they keep others from thinking it. She even has one line of dialog in which she speaks to him directly of the need to "nip this in the bud" or somesuch. Even in a 1956 film, it wouldn't make any sense to think that this woman would think a tea date would "straighten" Tom out; but it does make sense that she would believe it could be part of repairing his reputation.
The closest the film ever gets to suggesting the potential (much less the actuality) of Tom being queer is when Laura voices fears that Tom being treated "not like a man" could lead him to *become* unsure of himself as a man... If you want to infer she fears he *might* become queer because of this, there's room especially given the overall coding Hollywood demanded of such material, but, again, you've got everything else in the film to work against this interpretation. And it's an interpretation of what Tom *might* be in the future, not what he is in the timeframe of the film itself.
Furthermore, even this is only the perception of another character -- not Tom himself displaying any indication that HE fears he may one day "become" queer.
Tom's conflict revolves around his trying to navigate his way in the world as the *atypical* man he is, find his identity as a man, and be accepted as such... in a world that doesn't want to.
And it's *other* people, not Tom, who clearly (altho thru coded film language) see him as queer, or fear he might be.
And while I understand that Anderson's play was more forceful in suggesting that the housemaster was a repressed homosexual, it's *really* stretch to see it in the film version. The building blocks of the coding are there (yeah, he hangs out with the boys and roughhouses with them, and he neglects his wife), but the film also goes to considerable lengths to paint him as a "typical" man who's lost interest in his marriage once he's claimed his wife. What with that, and the context of a film in which the main character is so clearly painted as a perceived homosexual rather than as an actual one (even in potentiality), the coding is so incredibly watered down that it's really not even there at all, effectively.
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!
Matthew
A statement on homophobia and the closet, still topical today
rgcustomer1 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The story can be interpreted in multiple ways, and that is exactly the nature of the closet. Knowing that, the best interpretation becomes clear.
Understanding this film today is a bit easier, because we have so many examples all around us of the effects of homophobia/transphobia, and the false protection of the closet.
From Larry Craig to Ted Haggard to Roy Ashburn to Jim McGreevy, the papers are full of a parade of "opposite-married" homosexuals, who thought that love or at least marriage or having children would suppress their natural desires, and the public's knowledge of them. Most of these men are also publicly anti-gay until being exposed as hypocrites.
And similarly from Jaheem Herrera to Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover to Eric Mohat to Tyler Clementi to Seth Walsh to Asher Brown, and on and on, the obituaries are filled with younger kids now bullied to suicide for being, or for appearing to be, gay or trans. The openness around homosexuality has also made it easier to become a target.
My interpretation of the film is that a neglected wife (married to a closet case herself) feels a predatory "cougar" attraction to a vulnerable young gay man not liked by many other people. Like everyone else in the film, she probably believes she can change him, and have a fling for herself at the same time. She loves him, but she also uses him. After they kiss, everything else is just glossed over, and we are left to fill in the details with our imaginations, and some narration.
Although the scandal with Laura helped him (better to be "the other man" than gay, right?) and although Tom marries (a woman) to end the suspicion around him, he doesn't live a happy life. We never really see him with any woman after that. Like Bill, he remains alone, because he's never permitted to embrace his true desires.
Interestingly, his name is Tom Robinson Lee. Tom Robinson is also the name of the bisexual singer of "Glad to be Gay".
Understanding this film today is a bit easier, because we have so many examples all around us of the effects of homophobia/transphobia, and the false protection of the closet.
From Larry Craig to Ted Haggard to Roy Ashburn to Jim McGreevy, the papers are full of a parade of "opposite-married" homosexuals, who thought that love or at least marriage or having children would suppress their natural desires, and the public's knowledge of them. Most of these men are also publicly anti-gay until being exposed as hypocrites.
And similarly from Jaheem Herrera to Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover to Eric Mohat to Tyler Clementi to Seth Walsh to Asher Brown, and on and on, the obituaries are filled with younger kids now bullied to suicide for being, or for appearing to be, gay or trans. The openness around homosexuality has also made it easier to become a target.
My interpretation of the film is that a neglected wife (married to a closet case herself) feels a predatory "cougar" attraction to a vulnerable young gay man not liked by many other people. Like everyone else in the film, she probably believes she can change him, and have a fling for herself at the same time. She loves him, but she also uses him. After they kiss, everything else is just glossed over, and we are left to fill in the details with our imaginations, and some narration.
Although the scandal with Laura helped him (better to be "the other man" than gay, right?) and although Tom marries (a woman) to end the suspicion around him, he doesn't live a happy life. We never really see him with any woman after that. Like Bill, he remains alone, because he's never permitted to embrace his true desires.
Interestingly, his name is Tom Robinson Lee. Tom Robinson is also the name of the bisexual singer of "Glad to be Gay".
What Makes a Man a Man?
frankwiener28 June 2017
Having experienced the 1950's as a child and then the 60's as an adolescent and a teenager, I have many mixed feelings about the era. I loved the music, many of the movies, the "Golden Age of Television", the relative safety for a kid, and the uncomplicated simplicity of the times. What I don't miss, however, are the oppressive, narrow-minded stereotyping and the stifling social conformity that were so prevalent during that period. So what if you enjoyed your own company and wanted to listen to phonograph records by yourself or, on impulse, even hopped the Number 8 bus to downtown Elizabeth, New Jersey where there were no fewer than four different movie theaters on the same block from which to choose, a really big deal at the time.
I didn't find this movie dated at all. Not only does it offer a glimpse of what life was like in the 1950's, which should have some historical significance to younger folks today, but its message regarding the stifling conditions of rigid social conformity is ageless. Although it is obviously a stage adaptation, praise goes to director Vincente Minnelli for so ably bringing it to the wide screen. The three leads, Deborah Kerr, John Kerr (no relation), and Leif Erickson, who all revived their original Broadway roles, are exceptional. I also loved the scene when Al (Daryl Hickman), Tom's socially pressured roommate, attempts to provide Tom with tips on how to appear more manly to the world. Norma Crane, who wonderfully played Golde in the film version of "Fiddler on the Roof", perfectly portrays the very cruel town harlot, Ellie Martin. Ironically, Edward Andrews depicts Tom's demanding father as anything but manly, perhaps intentionally. Be as I say, Tommy, not as I am.
While Tom at first appears to be the focus of the film, the stories of Laura and Bill Reynolds, his dorm house parents, slowly begin to overshadow Tom's miserable situation. This represents some excellent work by screenplay writer Robert Anderson, who also wrote first-rate scripts for "The Nun's Story", "The Sand Pebbles, and "I Never Sang For My Father." And what is Bill Reynolds doing at the end of the movie? Listening to phonograph records by himself. What's the matter with him? My only criticism is that it runs a bit long and could have been reduced in length without losing its powerful impact.
I didn't find this movie dated at all. Not only does it offer a glimpse of what life was like in the 1950's, which should have some historical significance to younger folks today, but its message regarding the stifling conditions of rigid social conformity is ageless. Although it is obviously a stage adaptation, praise goes to director Vincente Minnelli for so ably bringing it to the wide screen. The three leads, Deborah Kerr, John Kerr (no relation), and Leif Erickson, who all revived their original Broadway roles, are exceptional. I also loved the scene when Al (Daryl Hickman), Tom's socially pressured roommate, attempts to provide Tom with tips on how to appear more manly to the world. Norma Crane, who wonderfully played Golde in the film version of "Fiddler on the Roof", perfectly portrays the very cruel town harlot, Ellie Martin. Ironically, Edward Andrews depicts Tom's demanding father as anything but manly, perhaps intentionally. Be as I say, Tommy, not as I am.
While Tom at first appears to be the focus of the film, the stories of Laura and Bill Reynolds, his dorm house parents, slowly begin to overshadow Tom's miserable situation. This represents some excellent work by screenplay writer Robert Anderson, who also wrote first-rate scripts for "The Nun's Story", "The Sand Pebbles, and "I Never Sang For My Father." And what is Bill Reynolds doing at the end of the movie? Listening to phonograph records by himself. What's the matter with him? My only criticism is that it runs a bit long and could have been reduced in length without losing its powerful impact.
A WOMAN FOR ALL SEASONS...!
masonfisk15 May 2019
Deborah Kerr & John Kerr (thank God no relation!) play dorm matron & troubled student in this topically minded soaper from 1956 directed by Vincent Minnelli. A reunion is under away at an all boys college when some of attendees remark upon the arrival of one of their own in questioning asides as to why he'd come back. During the next 2 hours or so, we find out this student was the object of ridicule & derision since he was a resolute contrarian, never participating in any typically male modes of interest, a member of the acting club & would rather spend time w/the older woman who lived below than w/girls his own age. Labelled a 'sister boy' this not so thinly veiled attack on homosexuality couldn't have come at a momentous time in the 50's when a sea change was burbling under the surface for this kind of material to see the light of cinematic day. Based on a play (the film suffers a bit from its lack of dramatic camera angles preferring to have the film feel statically shot on sets), this drama still hits the right notes of shameful masculinity of a bygone era, where a father is proud of his son for being boorish towards women (in an episode in the film's latter half) rather than accept him for what he is. Look for future Billy Jack star Tom Laughlin, Disney's perennial lead Dean Jones & Darryl Hickman (The Many Loves of Dobey Gillis) as the troubled youth's fellow classmates.
Dated but, in a way, a classic of gay cinema
preppy-317 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS!!!!!
Tom Lee (John Kerr) is an outcast at his boarding school. He stays away from the other guys, hates sports, loves poetry, knows how to sew and garden, walks funny and wants to be a--GASP--folk singer!!! The other boys torment him and call him "Sister Boy Lee". His roommate Al (Darryl Hickman) tries to help but it doesn't work. Kind, beautiful Laura Reynolds (Deborah Kerr) wife of the sports coach reaches out to him and "cures" him of his shyness. It seems he isn't gay--just shy and sensitive and needs love to have sex--which he gets from Kerr.
Some gay men find this objectionable and might be angered that the gay theme is never mentioned--he's just shy and sensitive. I don't find it offensive at all. Consider when this was made--1956. They couldn't have a portrayal of a gay youth--the Hayes Code was still in effect and it would have been cut out. Look what they did with "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" of the same era--all the gay sex references were censored. So you have to accept it for what era it was made in and what Hollywood was allowed to show. It's a good thing director Vincente Minnelli was bisexual--he handled it very tastefully. Actually I found all the talk that carefully skirted the subject kind of funny--it was so obviously talking about a gay stereotype and all the attempts to deny it were kind of amusing.
The film is beautifully shot in wide screen and bright, brilliant color. Everybody and everything looks great. There's a nice music score and the script moves at a good pace--it never seems slow or stagy. Deborah Kerr is just fantastic as Laura Reynolds--easily one of her best performances. She's sensitive, strong and understanding. Just great. Unfortunately John Kerr (no relation) was lousy as Tom. He's supposed to be shy and sensitive--he comes across as sullen and obnoxious--it's easy to see why the guys hate him. And he says everything in the same annoying monotone voice! I really didn't care for him. Kerr carries the movie. Also Darryl Hickman has an amusing sequence when he tries to teach Tom how to be more like a man.
Never dull, interesting, well-done--just don't take it as a serious study of gay men. Definitely a period piece--but a very good one. Recommended.
"When you talk about this AND you will...be kind."
Tom Lee (John Kerr) is an outcast at his boarding school. He stays away from the other guys, hates sports, loves poetry, knows how to sew and garden, walks funny and wants to be a--GASP--folk singer!!! The other boys torment him and call him "Sister Boy Lee". His roommate Al (Darryl Hickman) tries to help but it doesn't work. Kind, beautiful Laura Reynolds (Deborah Kerr) wife of the sports coach reaches out to him and "cures" him of his shyness. It seems he isn't gay--just shy and sensitive and needs love to have sex--which he gets from Kerr.
Some gay men find this objectionable and might be angered that the gay theme is never mentioned--he's just shy and sensitive. I don't find it offensive at all. Consider when this was made--1956. They couldn't have a portrayal of a gay youth--the Hayes Code was still in effect and it would have been cut out. Look what they did with "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" of the same era--all the gay sex references were censored. So you have to accept it for what era it was made in and what Hollywood was allowed to show. It's a good thing director Vincente Minnelli was bisexual--he handled it very tastefully. Actually I found all the talk that carefully skirted the subject kind of funny--it was so obviously talking about a gay stereotype and all the attempts to deny it were kind of amusing.
The film is beautifully shot in wide screen and bright, brilliant color. Everybody and everything looks great. There's a nice music score and the script moves at a good pace--it never seems slow or stagy. Deborah Kerr is just fantastic as Laura Reynolds--easily one of her best performances. She's sensitive, strong and understanding. Just great. Unfortunately John Kerr (no relation) was lousy as Tom. He's supposed to be shy and sensitive--he comes across as sullen and obnoxious--it's easy to see why the guys hate him. And he says everything in the same annoying monotone voice! I really didn't care for him. Kerr carries the movie. Also Darryl Hickman has an amusing sequence when he tries to teach Tom how to be more like a man.
Never dull, interesting, well-done--just don't take it as a serious study of gay men. Definitely a period piece--but a very good one. Recommended.
"When you talk about this AND you will...be kind."
tea and sympathy
mossgrymk22 October 2021
Despite the best efforts of Vincente Minnelli and cinematographer John Altin (not since Sirk have the repressive 50s looked so lovely) this film is more a theatrical than a cinematic experience as it has very little flow but, rather, seems to lurch from one histrionic scene to another, fueled mostly by the power of Robert Anderson's dialogue than by the acting, pacing or editing. Not that Anderson's screenplay, seen from the vantage point of gay marriage and LGBTQ, is all that enlightened when you get right down to it. The ending, with its implication that the cure for fear of homosexuality is a tryst with a loving, sexy, older woman, is one that could be embraced today by Mike Pence or Tulsi Gabbard. And, of course, the greater implication behind this, namely that homosexuality is a shadowy, insidious deviation from the norm that must be guarded against even if it comes courtesy of unjust accusation, is at breathtaking variance with the whole toleration message that permeates the film. I realize that this thing was made in 1956, not 1996, and that you could not push the gay envelope too far, especially in an era when gay meant insouciant, but it doesn't mean I have to like it or this stiff as hell movie. C plus. PS...Best performance by far is by an actor I've not seen too much, Leif Ericson, as the closet case husband of Deborah Kerr's house mistress. With his burly, bluff, pipe smoking alternating with mountain climbing manner he channels the hellishness of the John O'Hara, he-man 50s much more effectively than the too melodramatic Kerrs, Debby and John, to say nothing of the even more over the top Darryl Hickman and Norma Crane.
Tea with lemon, please! No sugar.
jotix10031 August 2005
Robert Anderson's "Tea and Sympathy" was a hit on the New York stage. Its subject matter was a shock to many people at the time, but alas, on second viewing, this film seems a bit dated. Of course, one has to put oneself back in the fifties, when the play opened on Broadway, it almost seems a daring attempt to speak about homosexuality back then. If you haven't seen the film, please stop reading now.
Vincente Minelli made the best of the adaptation by playwright Anderson for the screen. In fact, most of the perception about Tom's homosexuality seems to be center stage, but no one really focuses on the one that really is and is trying to hide the fact: Bill Reynolds!
We realize at the end of the film that Tom was a mixed up young man, rather than a gay man coming to terms with his feelings. In fact, if one watches closely, Tom seems to be terribly attracted by Laura, but he is too shy to do, or say anything that will make him be seen differently by her. Also, Laura confronts Bill toward the end of the film and confesses the way she feels about Tom, and what she almost did the night before in order for the young man to have a real sexual experience, which occurs later on.
While "Tea and Sympathy" concentrates on the lonely Tom, it presents us a masculine Bill, who confesses he had gone through the same things Tom is experiencing now, at one time in his life, but who in reality is hiding his own homosexuality from everyone. Bill is the most dangerous individual because he will probably prey on the young men under his care and force them into satisfying his own gay urges, as has been seen in the case of Catholic priests abusing children. It is also revealing that in the last scene when Tom finds him at home, he is listening to the classical music Tom loved and Laura is has divorced him.
Deborah Kerr, having played Laura on stage, brings her own interpretation of the role, which in a way works. Also the same could be said of John Kerr, who originated the role of Tom. The only thing is that one doesn't see strong chemistry between the co-starring Kerrs, in our humble opinion.
Leif Erickson gives a subtle reading on Bill Reynolds. While he is not the center of the story, he looms large in the background because we realize that instead of asking the guys under him to behave he seems to be enjoying that someone else is being ridiculed as a sissy. Edward Andrews, Daryl Hickman and Norma Crane are seen in supporting roles.
Being dated aside, the film shows how America dealt with this subject in that era.
Vincente Minelli made the best of the adaptation by playwright Anderson for the screen. In fact, most of the perception about Tom's homosexuality seems to be center stage, but no one really focuses on the one that really is and is trying to hide the fact: Bill Reynolds!
We realize at the end of the film that Tom was a mixed up young man, rather than a gay man coming to terms with his feelings. In fact, if one watches closely, Tom seems to be terribly attracted by Laura, but he is too shy to do, or say anything that will make him be seen differently by her. Also, Laura confronts Bill toward the end of the film and confesses the way she feels about Tom, and what she almost did the night before in order for the young man to have a real sexual experience, which occurs later on.
While "Tea and Sympathy" concentrates on the lonely Tom, it presents us a masculine Bill, who confesses he had gone through the same things Tom is experiencing now, at one time in his life, but who in reality is hiding his own homosexuality from everyone. Bill is the most dangerous individual because he will probably prey on the young men under his care and force them into satisfying his own gay urges, as has been seen in the case of Catholic priests abusing children. It is also revealing that in the last scene when Tom finds him at home, he is listening to the classical music Tom loved and Laura is has divorced him.
Deborah Kerr, having played Laura on stage, brings her own interpretation of the role, which in a way works. Also the same could be said of John Kerr, who originated the role of Tom. The only thing is that one doesn't see strong chemistry between the co-starring Kerrs, in our humble opinion.
Leif Erickson gives a subtle reading on Bill Reynolds. While he is not the center of the story, he looms large in the background because we realize that instead of asking the guys under him to behave he seems to be enjoying that someone else is being ridiculed as a sissy. Edward Andrews, Daryl Hickman and Norma Crane are seen in supporting roles.
Being dated aside, the film shows how America dealt with this subject in that era.
Kerr Crash
writers_reign27 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Time has been less than kind to this movie which must appear as something of a cross between satire and parody to an audience today. In 1953 on Broadway Robert Anderson's play - featuring the three principals from the film, Deborah Kerr, John Kerr and Leif Ericson - was a sensitive treatment of a still sensitive subject and even in 1956 Anderson was forced to sanitize his screen adaptation; in the play Tom albeit naively has been swimming in the nude with a Music teacher who subsequently lost his job, a much sounder - though still slightly suspect - basis for marking him queer, and his nickname was 'Grace', based on nothing more sinister than his favourable comments about a Grace Moore movie. Here, Anderson substitutes the slightly bizarre 'Sister Boy' for Grace. Perhaps the worst sin of all is the framing device whereby Tom attends a Class Reunion as a grown man and then thinks back to his time as a tormented schoolboy, but worse is to come; in the play Anderson came up with one of the all-time Great curtain lines: In a mixture of compassion, admiration and a need to make Tom realise that he is NOT gay she offers herself to him with the lines 'years from now, when you talk about this ... and you will, be kind'. Minnelli includes both scene and line - albeit switching the location from indoors to outdoors - but then instead of FADE OUT he returns to the present with Tom calling in to see Kerr's house-master husband who gives him a letter that Laura has mailed from wherever she is. The letter serves to tell us that Tom is now married (so he CAN'T be gay, right) and has written a book about his time at the school and his relationship with Laura. Totally unnecessary and making what once must have been a half-decent film even more risible.
Jessamyn West's Book Title Was Wrong: "Love Really Is What You Think"
encroisade22 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Here we are in 2008, and the pendulum of sexual misunderstanding has swung both ways now, in a few generations. Once, homosexuality was despised. Now, increasingly, homosexuality is advocated as an enlightened preference. Propagating the human species is not a priority in what is perceived as an era of over-population. Besides, we have test tube babies today, and cloning people is probably already being practiced behind closed laboratory doors.
What has remained the same in the past 40 years, however, is that people regard sex, in whatever form it takes, as the main priority of life. The pharmacies can't keep enough Viagra on the shelves.
"Tea and Sympathy," is only 'dated' for those people who don't realize that both the play, and the film, deal with the subject of love. Love is not sex. Sex is not love. You can have love without sex. You can have sex without love.
Perhaps, in some future era of civilization, if we don't blow ourselves up first, the time will come when caring so much for another person that you are willing to sacrifice your future for him, or for her, is more than a Quixotic fantasy. Actually, this has been the cultural ideal on and off for centuries. Ancient Greece and Rome glorified sex and demeaned marriage, as our role models seem to do; and their orgy palaces fell into ruins in the dust of time. Later, in the Middle Ages, the troubadours sang of romantic, idealized love. By the 1600's, as the incredible book "Don Quixote" humorously demonstrates, chivalry was already dead, a laughing-stock, totally divorced from reality. In Victorian and Edwardian England, sexuality became schizophrenic - incredible debauchery existed side-by-side with the kind of love story personified in the lives of Robert and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, on Wimpole Street.
The two World Wars of the 20th-century despoiled and degraded many lives, on a wide scale never before seen in history. The film goddesses of the Silver Screen could play a whore one week, and a nun the next. Schizophrenia continued to reign, alive-and-well.
But now, we are immersed in a pornographic dream.
From that standpoint, of course "Tea and Sympathy" is dated. Some commentators here on the film even go so far as to entirely make up scenes which never occur in the movie, right out of the whole cloth of their own fantasies. No, in the last scene Laura never unbuttons her cardigan; and Tom never fondles her breast. More proof that people claim to see things that don't exist simply because they expect to see them. Even 'eyewitnesses' to major news events often don't really know what they're talking about.
If this is a cult film for homosexuals, it is because they see what they want to see in the movie, and not what exists. Clearly, Tom Lee is smitten with Laura long before the film starts, just as his first love was a blond schoolteacher when he was only twelve. Laura's line to his roommate: "Maybe Tom is deeply in love" could only apply to Tom's feelings toward herself.
What is to be learned from Maxwell Anderson's sensitive writing, as well as from Tennessee Williams' best work, is that love is the main thing, and that we choose those whom we love because they meet our psychological and emotional needs, and many times we are not even consciously aware what those needs really are. Reynolds, for example, although he was certainly ambivalent in his sexuality, still truly wanted a good woman to be his wife, which is why he married Laura and fully loved her in his own way; but he also needed patient help right from the start, whereas Laura was slow to realize his dilemma and, being admittedly a selfish woman at times, nursed her own hurts as their relationship deteriorated, quite apart from Tom's involvement at all. Her husband ended up a broken man, not because he was a frustrated, repressed homosexual, but because he had failed the love of his life and couldn't trust himself not to do the same again with another mate.
In "Tea and Sympathy", and in reactions to the film for the past decades, we see how the norms of society can entrap all of us, at both ends of the spectrum.
What has remained the same in the past 40 years, however, is that people regard sex, in whatever form it takes, as the main priority of life. The pharmacies can't keep enough Viagra on the shelves.
"Tea and Sympathy," is only 'dated' for those people who don't realize that both the play, and the film, deal with the subject of love. Love is not sex. Sex is not love. You can have love without sex. You can have sex without love.
Perhaps, in some future era of civilization, if we don't blow ourselves up first, the time will come when caring so much for another person that you are willing to sacrifice your future for him, or for her, is more than a Quixotic fantasy. Actually, this has been the cultural ideal on and off for centuries. Ancient Greece and Rome glorified sex and demeaned marriage, as our role models seem to do; and their orgy palaces fell into ruins in the dust of time. Later, in the Middle Ages, the troubadours sang of romantic, idealized love. By the 1600's, as the incredible book "Don Quixote" humorously demonstrates, chivalry was already dead, a laughing-stock, totally divorced from reality. In Victorian and Edwardian England, sexuality became schizophrenic - incredible debauchery existed side-by-side with the kind of love story personified in the lives of Robert and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, on Wimpole Street.
The two World Wars of the 20th-century despoiled and degraded many lives, on a wide scale never before seen in history. The film goddesses of the Silver Screen could play a whore one week, and a nun the next. Schizophrenia continued to reign, alive-and-well.
But now, we are immersed in a pornographic dream.
From that standpoint, of course "Tea and Sympathy" is dated. Some commentators here on the film even go so far as to entirely make up scenes which never occur in the movie, right out of the whole cloth of their own fantasies. No, in the last scene Laura never unbuttons her cardigan; and Tom never fondles her breast. More proof that people claim to see things that don't exist simply because they expect to see them. Even 'eyewitnesses' to major news events often don't really know what they're talking about.
If this is a cult film for homosexuals, it is because they see what they want to see in the movie, and not what exists. Clearly, Tom Lee is smitten with Laura long before the film starts, just as his first love was a blond schoolteacher when he was only twelve. Laura's line to his roommate: "Maybe Tom is deeply in love" could only apply to Tom's feelings toward herself.
What is to be learned from Maxwell Anderson's sensitive writing, as well as from Tennessee Williams' best work, is that love is the main thing, and that we choose those whom we love because they meet our psychological and emotional needs, and many times we are not even consciously aware what those needs really are. Reynolds, for example, although he was certainly ambivalent in his sexuality, still truly wanted a good woman to be his wife, which is why he married Laura and fully loved her in his own way; but he also needed patient help right from the start, whereas Laura was slow to realize his dilemma and, being admittedly a selfish woman at times, nursed her own hurts as their relationship deteriorated, quite apart from Tom's involvement at all. Her husband ended up a broken man, not because he was a frustrated, repressed homosexual, but because he had failed the love of his life and couldn't trust himself not to do the same again with another mate.
In "Tea and Sympathy", and in reactions to the film for the past decades, we see how the norms of society can entrap all of us, at both ends of the spectrum.
A Movie With Attitudes That Reflect The Mid 1950s
Mike_Yike10 July 2023
I watched Tea and Sympathy recently on TCM. I knew nothing about it other than it got pretty good reviews. The plot's location was a boarding school for young men. The story focused on one student, Tom, who had effeminate mannerisms and interests, or so it was perceived by the other characters in the movie. The result was a sensitive young man ridiculed by the other students and adults. Throughout the film, the general goal by all the characters, was to transform Tom into a young man with more masculine traits. The boarding house resident houseparents, a married couple played by Deborah Kerr and Lief Erickson, had two different philosophies on how to go about changing Tom into a more conventional young man. The Kerr character believed the best approach was sympathy and compassion, the Erickson philosophy was a more "tough love" approach.
If Tea and Sympathy were made 30 years later than it was, the plot would have been radically different. Tom would have been gay rather than an effeminate heterosexual. The plotline would have been about changing the mindset of the other characters into the philosophy that no two humans are alike, and those differences need not be vanquished but rather they should be respected.
So, anyway, for me, Tea and Sympathy's significance was as a trip back into bygone mid 20th century social sentiments as opposed to that of a valued social statement. Not a bad movie, but not what it once was intended to be.
If Tea and Sympathy were made 30 years later than it was, the plot would have been radically different. Tom would have been gay rather than an effeminate heterosexual. The plotline would have been about changing the mindset of the other characters into the philosophy that no two humans are alike, and those differences need not be vanquished but rather they should be respected.
So, anyway, for me, Tea and Sympathy's significance was as a trip back into bygone mid 20th century social sentiments as opposed to that of a valued social statement. Not a bad movie, but not what it once was intended to be.
Shouldn't Vincente Minelli be faulted for bad direction?
Robert-4826 June 2007
It's Minelli's fault that the production seems stagy. The staginess reminds me of Meet Me in St. Louis, which, like this film, suffered from irrational energy. Especially bad are the boys racing though the house and everywhere else, like a school of fish. Minelli was a bad choice for a movie that required tender intimate moments and delicacy with a difficult subject. John Kerr was fine in South Pacific, but in this movie his flat voice is unattractive, and he's afraid of exhibiting effeminate mannerisms. Deborah Kerr is absolutely beautiful, but a more earthy actress would have been a better choice. Overall, this film is full of weaknesses.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
