Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: finally | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 08:07 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 08:04 am EST 02/16/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - IvyLeagueDropout 10:14 pm EST 02/15/22 | |
|
|
|
| This piece is so welcome, and should open an expansive conversation about art, the era of its creation, the value of looking back trough contemporary eyes. It's become impossible to discuss, particularly in social media, without an escalation of accusations, often resulting in a segue to ad hominem attack. I got into a discussion of Tea and Sympathy about a year ago (not at this site) that created a small firestorm. My simple observations about the play/film's value as a portrait of toxic masculinity -- daring to say that much could be learned from Anderson's accurate portrait of of the Kerr character's husband, memorably played by Leif Erickson on B'way and in the film -- resulted in heated diatribes, especially about "that ending." At one point I was accused of being pro-conversion therapy. (As if anyone today would believe one time in the woods with Deborah Kerr would shift sexual identity. We can observe "that ending" with clear-eyed understanding, and recognize the pressure on the protagonist without accepting Anderson's coda as psychological absolute. Now, we see, too, the rank misogyny in the Hollywood adjustment in Kerr's character, that she's rendered morally tainted. It doesn't negate what we learn from the story before. And in today's society, alas, these issues aren't fully exorcised. What we often fail to accept: audiences are smart. They can look at stories penned in another era and view them through a modern prism. The idea that points of view voiced by characters represent a fixed sociopolitical opinion in the work of art itself insults audiences. We learn, we appreciate cultural growth, the distance we've come. And we also see what hasn't changed. I won't belabor Tea and Sympathy, but its depiction of fetishized masculinity as infused with homoeroticism makes it a striking study today. The Erickson character's obsession with insular male rituals, always excluding women, is probably more fascinating today than in the 50s. But it's true of many stories. We see all that's changed, but also much that's stayed the same (Exhibit A: Florida trying to outlaw any positive mention of LGBTQ+ history in education. It's not far from the world Anderson dramatized in a boarding school.) Mainly, and many disagree, the constant fiddling with others' work invites a bigger, more dangerous issue: who is the decisive arbiter? These fixers are invariably self-appointed, which makes me most nervous. I say, open up the past for examination. What we don't like provides a teachable moment like few others. Note: I went off on Tea and Sympathy, only because we all seem to have individual experiences with pieces that others want to ban or revise. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Does anyone still serve up 'Tea and Sympathy'? | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 04:56 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
| In reply to: re: finally - Delvino 08:04 am EST 02/16/22 | |
|
|
|
| Next year, ''Tea and Sympathy'' turns 70 years old. In 2007, the Keen Company did an Off-Broadway revival of it. Anyone catch it? Does the 1956 movie turn up on TCM? The role of Tom earned John Kerr a Tony and a Golden Globe (for Most Promising Newcomer). As for the play, it's dated nowadays, but in the '50s, it must've been kinda groundbreaking to deal with this topic sympathetically. ''That ending'' wouldn't fly today, but its curtain line still has got to be one of the most quoted ones in Broadway history. |
|
| reply to this message |
| TEA AND SYMPATHY -- the Play vs. the Film (Spoilers, I Guess) | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:05 pm EST 02/18/22 | |
| In reply to: Does anyone still serve up 'Tea and Sympathy'? - WaymanWong 04:56 pm EST 02/17/22 | |
|
|
|
| The original 1953 play is somewhat dated although still relevant, since it openly confronts the topic of sexual orientation among 17-year old boys at a New England prep school. The word "homosexual" is used in the text, which had to be pretty shocking back in '53 and still packs a wallop even today. I saw the '07 Keen production off-Broadway as well as a 2012 staging in Chicago. One of the characters in the play, a teacher named David Harris, is forced to resign over an incident with Tom Lee, a student, involving nudity, which is described but not staged. I saw the film for the first time at a local cinema in 1957 when I was 9 years old. It made a strong impression on me. However, it is considerably tamer than the play. The Harris character is not in the film, and sexual orientation is not discussed. Tom is portrayed as being gentle, shy, interested in music and theatre, and thought to be less masculine than the other guys. Shortly after seeing the film, I went to a local library and checked out the play. I was pretty stunned about what I read because at the time I had never heard of homosexuality. TCM shows the film pretty regularly, multiple times a year, generally whenever they do a retrospective on the careers of either Vincente Minnelli or Deborah Kerr. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.010351 seconds.