ThiefHott Too much of everything

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

dougdoepke Slickly done MGM soaper. As I recall, the movie was much talked about at time of release, no doubt because of its touchy subject matter. Homosexuality was primarily a taboo topic in the straitened 1950's. The question posed is whether Tom's non-masculine traits are traceable to a latent homosexuality. That's what the film's basically about though the word itself is never mentioned. Due to family tradition, Tom's required to attend an upper-class all-boys college. That would be okay, except hyper-masculine behavior is the required norm, and since Tom's basically a sensitive type seemingly uninterested in girls, he's ridiculed and shunned by the other lads as a "sister-boy". The wife of his macho house-supervisor, however, is a sensitive soul herself. She cares about his plight when no one else does. But Laura's not sure how to help, especially when the school environment discourages sensitivity as unmanly. So how will Tom's predicament evolve when so much of his life combines against a non-conformity he seems unable to resist.The story's told in Tom's flashback, so we know that whatever happens, he physically survives. But in what kind of mental state, we don't know until the end. Note how director Minnelli films entirely at an impersonal distance. There are no subjective close-ups. That way story remains uppermost, at the same time personal emotions are minimized. Whether this was the best course remains, I think, debatable.Fortunately, the lead actors, Kerr (Tom) and Kerr (Laura), avoid excess. Thus, the results avoid treacle, the usual pitfall of a movie of this type. However, the boys' boisterous horseplay is spread on with a trowel, an over-exaggeration I guess to better contrast with the withdrawn Tom. But it's not really needed to that distractive degree.Anyway, the story manages considerable human interest as both Tom and Laura try to deal with the travails of a hyper-masculine environment. I like the way Laura is slowly drawn into Tom's kindred soul predicament, and in a way that provides her own self-discovery after years of feminine conformity. Also, catch how subtly impotence is implied when Tom visits bargirl Ellie (Crane). The problem also turns out to be a key plot ingredient.By and large, the taboo elements appear dated. Still, interest is pretty well maintained over the two-hour runtime. That plus a thoughtful upshot makes this MGM production worth catching up with.

frankwiener As a child in the 1950's and then as an adolescent and teenager during the 60's, I have many mixed feelings about the era. I loved the music, many of the movies, the "Golden Age of Television" (which lured me away from despised homework assignments each and every night), the relative safety, especially 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 occasionally or even frequently 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 enslaving circumstances of rigid social conformity is ageless. Although it is obviously a stage adaptation, praise goes to director Vincente Minnelli for so vividly 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, were 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 portrayed a very "unsympathetic", if not nasty, Ellie Martin. Ironically, Edward Andrews depicted Tom's demanding father as anything but manly, perhaps intentionally. Be as I say, Tommy, not as I am. While Tom at first appeared to be the focus of the film, the stories of Laura and Bill Reynolds, the dorm house parents, slowly begin to overshadow Tom's miserable situation. This amounted to 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. Heaven's to Betsy! What's the matter with him? My only criticism is that it ran a bit long and could have been reduced in length without losing its powerful impact.

MartinHafer I have to admire "Tea and Sympathy" because it tackles so many interesting and important issues. Now I am not saying it necessarily does this well in every case, but it sure is a film that can stimulate some conversations between folks who watch the movie.The film begins with a rather awkward young man, Tom (John Kerr) talking with the wife of one of his teachers. Laura Reynolds (Deborah Kerr) is very understanding and likes the guy and spends a lot of time with him. As I watched, this sure set off an alarm within me--this is a VERY dangerous situation. The film's focus is on Tom's being effeminate and sensitive--a 1950s way of saying he was gay. Most of the guys in school dislike and taunt him--and his own father is ashamed that the boy doesn't attain some masculine ideal. Yet, despite this, Mrs. Reynolds cares deeply about the boy--too deeply.Where all this goes is very predictable in many way, but I also feel that the film actually narrowly missed hitting a bullseye. It focused almost exclusively on the young man and never really alluded to why this older woman would eventually be sexually intimate with him. It seemed to say it was an act of love and she did it to help the boy in some convoluted way. However, HER needs were an important part of all this. She was trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who was overcompensating so much that it seemed as if he was gay and certainly not the young man. To me, this is a very important part of the equation and wasn't adequately addressed in the film. Now I am NOT saying it's a bad film--I am just saying that the film seemed to put too much emphasis on the young man when I actually found the wife and her motives much more interesting.Despite this MINOR complaint, I loved that the film dared to focus on what it is to be a man. Sensitivity, not fitting in and how kids scapegoat and mistreat these loners is a wonderful topic that should be talked about much more than it is. I remember lots of nice guys who were horribly mistreated, beaten up and labeled gay as I grew up--simply because they were different. This is something every father SHOULD talk to their boys about--and watching the film with your teens is a pretty good idea.In addition to this minor complaint I have one more. In the original play, the story ended with the sex act. I don't like this because it seemed a bit irresponsible plus it placed too much emphasis on the sex act and not the motivations. I also didn't like the ending MGM slapped on it because it came off as too preachy and long-winded. Again, however, the good stuff greatly outweighed this.Oh, and why is it that practically every film about high school kids in the 50s starred 'kids' who were in their mid-20s or older?

matthewwave-1 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