Sensitive?! A Poet?! What?!
Sebastian was a loathsome creature--apparently a sociopath of sorts. And while it is not plainly established in the film, Williams' play makes it clear that while Sebastian was an intelligent, cultured man, years of self-indulgence and the fawning indulgence of others, particularly that of his mother, had utterly blinded him to the fact that he was actually a rather mediocre poet. In truth, he was a second-rate intellect, more morbidly self-centered than original, a polished and well-oiled superficiality. (The good doctor--a true intellect of the first order--surmises that early on and suspects the mother's motives as well.) Clearly, Sebastian was also a sexual degenerate, so utterly consumed by his sexual obsession that he eventually resorted to preying on the most desperate persons of all--homeless, orphaned or abandoned children. The man was a cretin, the sort I’d bitch-slap on sight.
Sebastian, a narcissist who like his mother was manipulative and devoured the attention he so desperately craved from others was eventually devoured himself--literally. How in the world did you miss Williams’ metaphoric double entendre? LOL! That’s both the film’s central theme and the plot’s indispensable linchpin for crying out loud!
As for the breakdown of the film's logic observed by some. . . . It does break down. But that goes more to the restrictions placed on the films of the time when it came to lurid topics. Otherwise, the film is masterfully crafted. The films' logical problems don't become glaringly apparent until after the credits. The ride to the revelation of the plot's central mystery is riveting. And while the acting is a bit dated by its over-the-top dramatics as compared to today’s more natural, method standards, it still works and will continue to hold up over time. Taylor, just like Betty Davis did, pulls it off.
In William's play we understand that Sebastian had always been attracted to very young men. Sebastian was not really shy; rather, he was a cold, demented soul. Oh, he was clever, even fascinating after a fashion, but he loathed himself for his homosexuality, by the way, and especially loathed the young homosexual men he nevertheless craved. The only person to ever really get close to him was his mother. She was very outgoing, deceptively warm, attractive and rich. She was the sort of woman that homosexuals naturally befriended. She was the sophisticated, witty gal pal. The lure wasn't sexual with her. She was the youthfully interesting, fun, charming female friend who understood and accepted them. Get it? But she got older and so did Sebastian. The young, giddy men that Sebastian preferred did not gravitate toward the old crone anymore and were not physically attracted to the middle-aged Sebastian. Hence, he dumped his mother--also a sociopath--and used his lovely, younger cousin to enflame other passions.
In other words, the older and ailing Sebastian dropped a line rigged with a different sort of lure to entice a different sort of fish . . . a hungry, desperate species, not homosexual by nature this time. This was an entirely different modus operandi with disastrous consequences. That's how Taylor's character "failed him", and that's why Sebastian's mother blamed Taylor's character for his demise, imagining in her dementia that Taylor's character was in part responsible for his murder. Protecting Sebastian's reputation was just one aspect of her desire to destroy the poor girl.
The homosexual lovers of Sebastian's youth were first drawn to a younger, cultured and vivacious woman, Sebastian's mother, who completed him and facilitated his alleged shyness.
In other words, folks, after drawing them in with this new, enticing lure, this was the first time Sebastian threw money at his "lovers", such as they were, as his relations with the street urchins were more akin to molestations--brief, sad and disgusting encounters.
Hence, the plot’s logical problems disappear, and we see that the film is merely hamstrung by the artificial restrictions of its time. In truth, the screen writer and director are counting on the viewers’ familiarity with Williams’ original work. They pushed the envelop as far as they could. A more frank exposition regarding the nature of Sebastian's predilection and the reason he targeted street kids--suddenly, last summer!--in his last European tour would have worked better, but innuendo was the best they could do.
reply
share
dark_frances
15 years ago
I quite agree about the change that occurred by bringing Catherine along instead of the mother - one clue to this was Catherine saying "suddenly, he switched from the evenings to the beach". So his mother must have "operated" in the evenings, which suggests more elegance, less vulgarity, more witty talk, and less raw sexual appeal. Which he must have tried with Catherine too, except that she was a different woman, with a different appeal (seen, maybe, from the episode with the rapist - she must have inspired physical desire more than intellectual fun). After a few failed evenings, Sebastian must have thought that Catherine's appeal would work better exposed in the sunlight...
Words, Mr. Sullivan, are precious things. And they are not to be tempered with!
reply
share
bluemoon1059
15 years ago
Yes. Precisely!
But more to the point, the males his cousin drew were older than Sebastian liked and . . . heterosexual.
The phrase "suddenly, this or that" is used repeatedly throughout the film, just like it is in Williams' original work. The author is alerting one to the different sort of lure the two women constituted, and also something about the lessening appeal of the aging mother and son, which of course also tells one something about the sort of men Sebastian preferred, i.e., young and impressionable, boys really, late teens, early twenties. (Sebastian is more of a homosexual pederast than a pedophile by nature.) With this phrase Williams maintains the plot's tension as he incrementally reveals more and more about the larger mystery and the nature of Sebastian's changing circumstances. In William's play it becomes evident earlier on in the story than it does in the film that Sebastian was a homosexual and apparently a pederast as well. But Sebastian’s sexual inclinations are just one aspect of the story’s mystery. Williams, who was also a homosexual, by the way, could be freer with that information on the stage. Today, a remake of the screen adaptation could readily resolve the apparent logical problems of the original, but why bother? The film’s a masterpiece just the same.
It’s likely that Williams, who had an enduring relationship with one partner for most of his adult life, had encountered homosexuals like Sebastian in real life: sexually obsessed men who preyed on and manipulated the young. Williams apparently felt a certain degree of shame for his own homosexuality, but he especially despised homosexuals like Sebastian. Also, with respect to “Suddenly, Last Summer”, Williams’ sister Rose, who suffered from schizophrenia, was lobotomized. Williams, who suffered frequent and often severe bouts of depression and drug addiction himself, never forgave his parents for that.
To say that Williams’ upbringing and immediate familiar relations were “dysfunctional” would be an understatement. To say they were “odd” would be a kindness.
Williams was a sickly child. He was raised by an abusive, drunken father and a smothering, overindulgent mother. Though the latter did shape and encourage the fine writer he became, Williams, unlike the homosexual character he created was not enamored by his mother's indulgences nor twisted by them, at least not in the same way that the character Sebastian was. Williams was also mercilessly harassed by a bullying, favored brother. He eventually became estranged from all but his beloved sister, his best friend and ally, whom his parents destroyed. Clearly, Williams drew much of the inspiration for his plays and the sort of characters that inhabited them from the eccentricities and tragedies that frequented his family.
Knowing these things about his family, his life and the original work should tell one what Williams thought of Sebastian and his mother. These were not intended to be sympathetic characters in any way, no more than Catherine's mercenary mother and brother are sympathetic characters. The difference is that while the latter are mostly harmless bumpkins, the former are out-and-out monsters--fascinating perhaps, but monsters nonetheless.
We see a lot of this in Williams’ works, i.e., the abusive and often drunken patriarch; the overbearing matriarch; the favored, howbeit, emotionally crippled sibling; and the sweet, yet troubled and utterly doomed female. But In “Suddenly, Last Summer”, Williams provides the latter a savior and allows for a rare reprieve. Finally, there is also the homosexual--either a monster, a harmless, ineffectual sort racked with shame and self-loathing or a combination thereof.
reply
share
mlmerit
15 years ago
Someone finally hit the nail on the head so to speak.
jthompson is correct. Williams young life was no picnic and the understood although somewhat lurid leanings of his work tells a much more dark story of his own childhood.
I for one appreciate his work and the fact that censorship at the time kept it being discussed openly makes this movie even better. Something about the suggestion without the blunt fact gives the subject matter even more appeal.
The twists and turns of the plot make a joy to watch when compared to today's movies.
reply
share
hey_stella_stella
15 years ago
Bluemoon, your analysis is why whenever I'm watching an old film on YouTube, I have to come to IMDb to read intelligent comments. Leave a comment like this on YouTube, and someone will call you filthy names, or at the very least tell you to 'shut up' or mark your comment as spam. I always come here if I want to read the comments of thinking people.
I'm familiar with Williams because I teach 'Streetcar' in a college literature course. Your analysis shows great knowledge of Williams's work, and sensitive insight into the author's tortured soul. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
reply
share
akua-4
11 years ago
I had the same question as the OP and appreciate greatly, this thorough and insightful reply. Thank you!
reply
share
elongmire
15 years ago
Fantastic assessment! Others here would do well to read it, as well as the play. Considering the times, I am amazed at how much of the subject matter was able to be put in this movie at all.
reply
share
sanctuary_thirteen
15 years ago
thank you, cleared that up and positioned this back into my "movies to tell others to see" list.
reply
share
deering24
14 years ago
"Sebastian, a narcissist who like his mother was manipulative and devoured the attention he so desperately craved from others was eventually devoured himself--literally."
Yup. Catherine noted at some point that he and his mother regarded people essentially as disposable consumables, creatures they themselves were superior to. Sebastian is not horrible because he's gay, he's horrible because he sees people as things to prey on. His attitude would be ghastly in anyone, straight or gay.
reply
share
syfymoviebuff
10 years ago
Jesus Christ! Did you have to be so verbose? His mom was the perfect asexual approachable fag-hag and his cousin was her polar opposite, a "hot chick" who only attracted horny heteros. That was his fatal mistake. The heteros never bothered with him when he was with his mum who was a fag-magnet, but with his cousin that's all that came around, and when he used them for sex because they were poor they killed him. End of story. Simple.
I will also add that his mom said he was chaste, so the gay men she attracted to their circle were more for camaraderie and romance (not the same as sex), she knew how to rein her son in from actually have sex with them. But, for the first time when he was with his cousin he was ALSO middle-aged and not able to attract young gay men into his social circle, not under the protection of his mom who knew how to handle his sexuality so that he did not actually act on it, and he resorted to sex with starving straight men for money - probably because he envied the attention they gave to his cousin.
http://tinyurl.com/4skn5qe
reply
share
lydiagaebe-169-197169
9 years ago
This fellow's commentary, although from a few years back is a great analysis of the character's motivations. That's kind of what I was thinking. Now, I need to read the play.
reply
share
wyldeone2
8 years ago
Like others have said that they come to these boards to read the intelligent analysis of older films like this one, so do I. I realize bluemoon1059's post is old but it answers the question of the OP and the same one I had after watching Suddenly Last Summer for the first time last night on a public library DVD. I don't have anything to add other than agreeing that it is a well written and acted movie, regardless of the subject matter, the intriguing dialog kept it moving forward, 9/10.
_____
Books and movies are usually better than real life.
reply
share