attack


WHY did the natives attack Sebastian?

reply

Someone will inevitably add to this but he was basically having sex with the natives and giving them food and/or money to do it.

I also want to add that I believe the natives realized he was moving on soon and wanted vengance for his act of brutality. He basically was raping all of them, and desperate people go to desperate measure to attain what they need.... So since they realised this guy is gonna leave soon and will more than likely never be coming back they acted as they did.

This movie was truly sad, but deep. Im kinda suprised this movie isnt more famous than it is, great cast, good acting and a fascinating and truly moving piece of cinema.

reply

Thanks. That fits everything that happened. I didn't put it together.

reply

Do you really think that ? Raping them ??? So the vengeance ??? I dont see it.

In fact, I dont like the film/play ending. Maybe only if it was all in Catharine's head or her re-interpretation of the true story (look for the skeletons in the vision)... But film ultimately play it hard as the truth.

reply

There is nothing suggesting that anyone was raped in the film. But he was definatly buying sex from the locals. The killing is a cermonial gay bashing, miss Holly describing the place as a an old temple, a site of human sacrifice. By killing him they will "purify" the men who had sold sex to him and get their revenge.

What I don't get is why they eat him. Queer bashing usually contains major violence and even sexual violence (compare with Mathew Shepard and Brandon Teena). But eating?

reply

The attack wasn't "gay bashing" in my opinion. Most of the attackers were probably youths that he had purchased sexual favors from. They attacked him because he was leaving them behind without food and money after using them (they were used to his generous contributions and thought that it would last, and when the contributions were about to run dry, they killed him - the cannibalism is symbolic of their poverty and hunger).

reply

The attack wasn't "gay bashing" in my opinion. Most of the attackers were probably youths that he had purchased sexual favors from. They attacked him because he was leaving them behind without food and money after using them (they were used to his generous contributions and thought that it would last, and when the contributions were about to run dry, they killed him - the cannibalism is symbolic of their poverty and hunger).

I also think so. Not an act of revenge, not gay bashing, but simply reaching out and trying to take what they needed. And I am thinking of a slightly different explanation of the cannibalism - when the kids and young men are trying to reach Sebastian through that fence and are screaming "bread bread", what they actually mean is "take us, and then feed us". I believe that they wanted him to have sex with them, since it would bring them food. Initially Sebastian may have gone along with this mutual satisfaction of needs, and besides maybe it wasn't just sex, but all sorts of services those poor creatures could provide. But eventually the crowd got too big, and he must have gotten weary, and stopped the exchange. They were coming after him to force their services on him, so that they could have his money. And the culmination of this resulted into the cannibalistic scene. It wasn't out of spite, it was out of a hysterical desperation... Or maybe it was spite too (that he had left them, not that he had "raped" them), since they do drive him to that crumbled temple, or simply a blind desire to take everything they could... It reminded me of the ending from The Perfume much more than of a lynching mob.

But whatever the "social" cause of the cannibalistic attack was, Sebastian still ended up as an offering to that very vicious god he loathed. And it was all done by the book - with (distorted) festivities, (grotesque) music, and a very convincing (and horrifying) immolation.

Words, Mr. Sullivan, are precious things. And they are not to be tempered with!

reply

There is nothing suggesting that anyone was raped in the film.
Catherine was raped the summer before she left with Sebastian (remember that line about driving out into the woods with the strange man?), contributing to her mentally unstable condition.

What you see is nothing. I got a Balinese dancing girl tattooed across my chest.

reply

It's one thing to be gay bashed but eaten? The cannibalism thing is in the play? It doesn't make sense to me.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It'a an insult that the writers associated Homosexuality with Cannibalism. I still don't understand that they added Cannibalism to the plot.

reply

[deleted]

Oh please go ahead. I have no life, share your thoughts. Homosexuality and Cannibalism are two different things. Do u understand that. So, for both to linked is deifinitely an insult to Gays and Lesbians.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

no offence to anyone but if he was taking advantage of these poor natives by underminding them and using their poverty so that he could get "off", he deserved what happened to him. It is a form of rape, lets say the rape of innocence. I own this video and the first few times I watched it, the whole homosexuality thing didnt come across to me at all. I didnt even know that it was in the story untill I read about it online. I dont understand how gays and lezbeins think that we must accept them within ourselves. As a human being I have a right to think and feel whatever I like. TO each his own. To thine own self be true. Where as a person has a right to be gay if they choose, others have a right to not like it. I myself thought at one point that I might be gay, tried it out and was very very unhappy. My experiences were so bad that now I teeter on the bring of homophobia because of my own experiences and I have that right to think as I choose. We are all victims of the world around us in someway. Gays and lezbeins seem to think that they are the only ones that are oppressed in this world. But to me it seems that we are all opressed unless you are filthy rich and can afford not to be. To be honest I really think that what people do in the bedroom is noones buisness and I would rather not know about it in any case.

reply

Honey, you're not "teetering" on the brink of anything; you're over the edge and wallowing in it!


"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

reply

Would it be less of an insult to associate cannibalism with heterosexuality? Jeez people calm down, your lifestyle is popular enough in contemporary society now that a few characters with such extreme violent tendencies won't confuse the rest of the world to think all homosexuals are like that.

reply

I've never read or seen the play, but I love Tennessee Williams' works, and have seen many movies based on his works. I suppose I enjoy him because of the symbolism and unusual subjects for the time, as well as the way he delves so deeply into human behavior.

My comment is, in the movie, which I just saw again for the 100th time the other day, Cathy (Liz Taylor), didn't say her cousin was literally eaten...she says, while under the truth serum, after she ran to him, or what was left of him, after the natives' attack, "It looked like they had devoured him!" I took this to mean that the attack on Sebastian was mutilation and of course, death.

reply

Remember the turtles and the flesh-eating birds?

The painting of St. Sebastian on the wall of the garconierre, a beautiful man, martyred.

"Sebastian who was gentle and kind saw something not gentle, not kind in the universe."

"Blonds were next on the menu. He'd say, 'That one is appetizing,' or, 'That one is delicious looking.'"

Sebastian was a victim of his own self-loathing. Sebastian was gay but he was also a user, luring, abusing, and "eating" his victims for his own pleasures. The boys (notice no girls in the gang) drive Sebastian, ignoring the money he throws at them.

This isn't for things, it's for retribution. Sebastian, who loved beauty, was himself terrible. And he knew it. The boys were the birds of the Galopagas. Sebastian was the innocent turtle. They drove Sebastian to the mountain, banging pots and pans like they were driving an evil spirit out of their midst. I don't necessarily think he was eaten, Catherine only says that he appeared eaten, torn parts of him away. In 1950s censor-speak, that means he was castrated. The mob of boys ripped off Sebastian's genitals, destroying the instrument that caused them so much pain and humiliation.

The image is one of martyrdom. Sebastian, the poet, the connoiseur, had a dark side; something to hide. He was gay and being gay wasn't allowed in the world. He became a martyr for all gay men who want only peace and beauty and love and paid for it with their lives, paid to a cruel world who only thinks of gay people as evil perverts.

reply

Well, I agree with the previous poster to a point .... He described men in terms of items on a menu; they were objects to him. In fact, people were objects to him and his mother, to be used and then cast aside when they were through with them. They'd eat them up and spit them out. He and his mother lived in a world of their own making, where they sought only art and beauty, and reality was filled only with ugliness.

Yes, Sebastian was the turtle and the boys were the birds, but I don't think you could have called him innocent. However his flesh was ripped from him like the birds ripped the flesh of the turtles. Catherine does say that he was eaten; they tore pieces of his flesh from his body and stuffed it into their gobbling mouths. Rather a disturbing image, don't you think?

I don't think he was a martyr; he was dark and inhuman inside, which had nothing to do with being gay or not. He cared nothing for other people, not even for his mother, and looked at humanity at large as the unwashed masses. Not only was he cold and unfeeling, he could not accept his own sexuality; however, he also could not deny himself sexual pleasure, which he sought in a covert manner. Since he was hiding his sexuality, he did not pursue men at home; he would abstain from sex until summer, when he would travel with his mother to other countries. Sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual, was not something that Sebastian or his mother was comfortable with. Sex was unclean to them and did not belong in the pure, clean world of the artist.

Sebastian and his mother were cannibals in their own way, feeding on others. The boys’ cannibalism is retribution, paying Sebastian back for using and abusing them, for eating them up and spitting them out.

Is it possible that surrounded by the overwhelming evidence of his sexuality, which was repugnant to him, and the despicable methods he employed so he could have sex with these young boys, that he gives himself up to death? Sebastian does everything wrong; he does not follow Catherine's advice to go back into the restaurant and instead runs up and up to a ruined temple where his victims' ancestors practiced ritual sacrifices. He knows death is waiting for him up there but he can no longer be in the world after being faced with the truth of his life. In turn, this truth about Sebastian also destroys his mother.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with synergy for the most part, but some of the older posts on here are disturbing. Kimpunk, honey, I think you think your post was insightful and reasonable but in fact it was as homophobic as your current life. Sorry you hate yourself so much and not all gay people care for you to know what goes on in their bedrooms and frankly, I guess we know more about what has happened in yours than we ever got in the movie.

I stayed up too late last night watching this movie and was not happy with the ending either. As I drifted to sleep I wondered, why did they kill him when they killed and him and why did they kill him the way they killed him?

I get that he was on the down low so to speak, but Catherine mentions waiting for him outside the bathhouses, which would not be there if he was the only man in town and are surely the place most of his "activity" took place. But what is the connection between Catherine and Violet being bait? If money was all he needed to get these men then why bring Catherine and dress her up in a see though bathing suit???? And I really can't believe noted gay Gore Vidal would insinuate that Liz Taylor in a bathing suit is the path to sex for a gay guy? Makes no sense.

Also, when Catherine was swimming, the men who came around were men and did not look like the starving mass of younger men who later mobbed him at the cafe. The only thing I can think is that Sebastion went after someone too young and there was a backlash. In Catherine's recollection she says they were not quite boys, not quite men, something like that...

I buy that Catherine might have gotten it wrong and they did not actually "eat" him but did tear at him and castrate him. If the mob was so hungry that they would eat his flesh then why stop at a bite or two and why not eat her too.

I don't know. Some of the writing and acting in the movie is great but overall I was left confused and a little put off. Whatever the message was, it wa obviously so fouled up by the censors that it wasn't ver clear.

reply

The boys Sebastian was trolling for weren't gay. They were just poor, and he exploited that for sex. So using her as bait for them made perfect sense.

I don't think Kimpunk is homophobic. He just doesn't like homosexuality. After being open enough to actually try it. Not the same.

The reason he was killed how/when he was killed is discussed in other posts above. He was leaving after exploiting the boys, and they were angry at him.

reply

They drove Sebastian to the mountain, banging pots and pans like they were driving an evil spirit out of their midst. I don't necessarily think he was eaten, Catherine only says that he appeared eaten, torn parts of him away. In 1950s censor-speak, that means he was castrated. The mob of boys ripped off Sebastian's genitals, destroying the instrument that caused them so much pain and humiliation.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I came away with. Thank you for putting it more eloquently than I could. :]

reply

No, she actually says that it looked like they put his flesh into "their gobbling mouths." The cannibalism does occur; it is a deliberate metaphor.

Williams drew from his family and his own life. Many consider the part of Sebastian to be autobiographical. I would say this refers to his own self-loathing and not being at peace socially with his homosexuality.

I did a little research on Williams and found this:
Tennessee was close to his sister, Rose, who had perhaps the greatest influence on him. She was a slim beauty who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and spent most of her adult life in mental hospitals. After various unsuccessful attempts at therapy, she became paranoid. Her parents eventually allowed a prefrontal lobotomy in an effort to treat her. The operation, performed in 1943, in Washington, D.C., went badly, and Rose remained incapacitated for the rest of her life.

Very sad. This is why mental illness is discussed often in his plays and why lobotomy is a theme in this play. His parents, by the way, allowed this to happen to Rose without telling Williams first; he was tortured by guilt after th is occurred. (Very much like the Kennedys: without anyone else's knowledge, Joe Kennedy approved a lobotomy on one of his daughters that was born with mild retardation. Her operation went very badly also and she remained incapaciated for the rest of her life.)

And I found this:
http://www.gatewayno.com/culture/TWilliams.html
For his next three plays, Orpheus Descending (1957, a revised version of Battle of Angels; filmed as The Fugitive Kind, 1960), Suddenly, Last Summer (1958; film, 1960), and Sweet Bird of Youth (1959; film, 1961), Williams borrowed elements of the ancient myth of Orpheus and Eurydice to create violent modern plots involving murder, cannibalism, and emasculation.

Interestingly enough, I found a study guide for the play.
http://www.trinityrep.com/education/study_guides/study_guides.php

Read the study guide; it's rather interesting. It does address the question of whether Sebastian's death was martrydom or atonement. A director of the play says it is atonement for his guilt (see page 17), which is what I got out of the play also.

Another point in the study guide is that Williams believed that the very essence of life is cannibalistic, that man devours man in a metaphorical sense (see page 19 for more on this.) Hence the heavy symbolism.

Another thing, someone in an earlier post mentioned bathhouses. Catherine is the one who mentioned it, but she was not referring to gay bathhouses. Public bathhouses have been around for centuries, but gay bathhouses have only been around since the late 19th century. Catherine would not really have been aware of gay bathhouses (back in the 30s, this would not have been discussed with her); she is referring to straight bathhouses, meant for bathing.

reply

Ah, okay. I must not have caught Elizabeth Taylor mentioning that. There was kind of a lot of information all at once at the conclusion of the film. I really want to see it again.

Interesting stuff on Williams. That story about his sister is horribly tragic.

reply

I know, isn't it horrible? He based many of his plays on his sister's life, including The Glass Menagerie. There's a lot on the internet about his family, especially as he portrayed them in many of his plays.

That line about gobbling mouths is almost thrown away (makes you wonder if they wanted to downplay it.) It comes slightly after her main description of his murder. If I remember correctly, she's sobbing and on her knees when she says that line.

reply

[deleted]

<<That line about gobbling mouths is almost thrown away (makes you wonder if they wanted to downplay it.) It comes slightly after her main description of his murder. If I remember correctly, she's sobbing and on her knees when she says that line>>

"AS IF he had been devoured. AS IF they had torn his skin away with their hands and stuffed it into their gobbling mouths..." All of Catherine's lines are about what it looked like, not what actually happened.

reply