MovieChat Forums > Tea and Sympathy (1956) Discussion > Not Shocking Today

Not Shocking Today

posted 17 years ago by Harold_Robbins
11 replies | jump to latest

Although it's well-acted, the reason the film doesn't hold up well today, or arouse much interest, is because it's quite dated in its outlook - if it were written today, the storyline would likely be resolved quite differently, possibly with the young man realizing that he is, indeed, gay and a "thanks, but no thanks" to the lady who offers to prove otherwise. As I recall, unlike play, the film told the story via flashback, with Tom apparently "straightened out" and looking back on his experiences at the school. Of course, they had to be careful because the Production Code was still very much calling the shots, which made it very difficult for Hollywood to legitimately film "mature" material such as this.

Deborah Kerr, John Kerr and Leif Erickson had played their roles on Broadway (the cast also included future TV stars Alan Sues and Dick York). "The Kerrs" (who were not related, of course) were replaced during the run by Joan Fontaine and Anthony Perkins.

"I don't use a pen: I write with a goose quill dipped in venom!"---W. Lydecker

[–] eden_echo 17 years ago

No, not shocking today but it is interesting to watch how they handled these kinds of issues in films then.

"I promise you, before I die I'll surely come to your doorstep"

[–] twilightfun 17 years ago

elisajones4, I tend to agree with you on that. I mean, I really sat mesmerized by how they'd fix it up -- what I'd find out they did -- from listening to the host commentary on TCM last night. And I was really impressed, though I heard that, in particular, Deborah Kerr wasn't happy with the changes. It's almost laughable to me (no disrespect to her of course) because I see so much magnificence in the subject matter (not truly dated, as there are backwoods parts of this country where people still look down on "different" folks), as well as in the fact she put out one helluva performance -- fit like a glove. Hey, sorry to say it, this guy shed a few tears last night watching this AND The Children's Hour (also excellent).

[–] patchofblue65 17 years ago

This is a general comment. Whenever I read reviews, some one always comments it's dated.Well duh, if the movie was made over 50 years ago I know that it reflects the values and times of the day. Of course it will look at times silly to us now. But to me that's not a valid criticism. If the movie is good it will move you despite its values that are at odds with what we assume today. I only caught the tale end of the movie but I think it was pretty good. And Deborah Kerr is one hot actress!

[–] HarlowMGM 17 years ago

I think I would have preferred Joan Fontaine and Anthony Perkins for the film version.

[–] robbieperrone 15 years ago

Thank you for finally saying what I have wanted to say for ages! Why must people judge old movies by saying they are dated--of course they are. Hopefully you have seen the entire movie by now.

[–] Serizzzzle 15 years ago

I remember the first time I saw this movie was in the fall of 1998. Having grown up in an affluent community in the south, (not the 'backwoods,') I witnessed similar trials and tribulations between the masculine boys and the effeminate boys that I went to school with. Even though the movie was released 42 years earlier, The situation remained the same, if not more forward (substitute 'fag' for 'sister boy,' and there you have it.) This movie was ahead of it's time and I think that MGM was brave to release it.

[–] simplemines 15 years ago

Thank you for finally saying what I have wanted to say for ages! Why must people judge old movies by saying they are dated--of course they are.

I don't agree that old movies are dated. When they deal with human beings, they aren't because no matter what anyone says, human nature does NOT change. All the things people want, what they long for, their virtues and flaws, are exactly the same. That's why we can read ancient greek writers, and shakespeare, and GET what they mean.

A good story is a good story, no matter when it's told.

[–] gorgsharpy 12 years ago

Burton still makes these movies.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

[–] diddymuck 11 years ago

a 17 year old kid getting a slice off of a 38 year old fox like Deborah Kerr? Tis the stuff wet dreams are made from!

[–] ilahilda 10 years ago

So se went cougar on him, I just saw the film today. But was Tom in the woods or something when she found him. Or was it a park?

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

Harold_Robbins says > if it were written today, the storyline would likely be resolved quite differently, possibly with the young man realizing that he is, indeed, gay and a "thanks, but no thanks" to the lady who offers to prove otherwise.

This is ridiculous! The kid wasn't gay in the fifties but today he would be gay. How is that possible? Perhaps what you're saying is a lot of people who really are not gay would have been 'claimed' by the gay community and fallen into a lifestyle that has nothing to do with who they really are.

Today, everything seems to go so a lot of people who may be uncomfortable around the opposite sex assume they are gay. Meanwhile plenty of gay people still hide who they are by marrying unsuspecting straight people so they can carry out their deception.

People want to believe much has changed but it's really not true. The issues some people have because they are different especially when it comes to sexuality has nothing to do with how accepting society may be.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]