gay couple? - Children of the Damned (1964) Discussion

[–] amylopan 18 years ago

No, I didn't take it that way at all. They are colleagues. Remember when the sarcastic geneticist flirted with Paul's aunt when they first met her?

reply

[–] nomad-46 17 years ago

Clearly this "gay" connection is in the eye of the beholder. In any event, there have been plenty of male room-mates over the years who've basically come together only to combine their resources to pay the rent and whatnot. I seriously doubt the majority of those are gay!

I mean, if that were the case, then virtually every college student in a segregated dorm would be thought of as being gay...!

That isn't to say that some of them aren't, but clearly the automatic assumption that they are just isn't there.

--
Like sometimes wacky sci-fi continue-the-story projects?
http://www.joshua-wopr.com

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LCShackley 17 years ago

The commentary on the DVD (by the scriptwriter) says that they did everything they could in order NOT to portray them as being gay.

reply

[–] tokyostory2000 16 years ago

As I recall, when then first go to see Paul's mother, they introduce themselves as "a couple of gay scientists," but they just mean cheerful.

reply

[–] Zipper69 15 years ago

Having just watched it on TCM it's not made clear until the girl's phone call (controlled by Paul) that they DO live together - note the lights coming on seperately in two bedrooms safely apart!!

With 21st century eyes, Alan Badel's rather camp and effete manerisms DO seem a little...erm....suspicious, in fact I'd always rather assumed that was his inclination in real life, but I see he was married for some 40 years...heh!

Don't touch that!
Why Not?
It does very bad things...

reply

[–] chauvet97 8 years ago

I have this movie on DVD. I agree Alan Badell plays it very camp. I did not see it in the 1960s but I think his mannerisms and speech, including breakfast with the frying pan, would have made us wonder then. I think he played it that way for fun, with the connivance of the director. I don't think the script intends them to be a gay couple; they just do it to tantalize the audience: are they or aren't they?

reply

[–] Zipper69 8 years ago

I agree chauvet97.

Badel was a regular on British TV and movies for many years and virtually all his parts were very "camp".

As for an earlier poster here claiming 1964 was "too early" to have overtly gay characters, I was living and working in London then and gay lifestyles were already much in evidence, especially in the arts and media.

Come on lads, bags of swank!

reply

[–] kennifer 13 years ago

I assumed they were together. Nothing leads me to believe otherwise.

reply

[–] 35541m 13 years ago

Writer John Briley states in the DVD commentary that it was not his intent that the couple were gay (he doesn't say why he made them live together but I infer it was for dramtic convenience). However, he says that the production team clearly were worried about the implication that they were gay because these are too quite well off mature men who share lodgings and don't have girlfriends. As a result he says their clothes were made different and it was made clear that they slept in different rooms (any overt implication that they were gay would have probably caused serious censorship problems).

When I saw the film recently the first question that came into my mind was whether they were intended to be gay or not. Alan Badel I think certainly plays the material as if Hendry is his boyfriend. Watch his reaction to Hendry about pouring the cup of tea in the child's flat(improvised by him and not in the shooting script) and also when Hendry takes the girl's side against his he seems more like a scorned lover than anything.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dshortt-1 10 years ago

I assumed they were together. Nothing leads me to believe otherwise

I think you've got it backwards. When it comes to movies, we should assume the characters are straight, i.e. heterosexual, unless there is strong evidence that would lead us to believe otherwise ...

This is particularly true of any movie made prior to, say, 2000 (before gay marriage and the gay lifestyle became trendy and fashionable).

reply

[–] utgard14 10 years ago

I assumed they were together. Nothing leads me to believe otherwise.

Neville is flirty as hell with every woman he comes across. Paul's mom, aunt, even the married Indian lady. He was a total horn dog but a straight horn dog.

reply

[–] headnotfound 8 years ago

I have male gay friends that are "flirty." They appreciate female beauty and aren't afraid to make an observation known.

reply

[–] singjohn 9 years ago

Doesn't one of them react with lust when the blonde woman answers the door?

reply

[–] gonemoab 9 years ago

Silly.

Not gay. Just very British.

_____________________
Log Lady lives

reply

[–] Zuider_Zee 8 years ago

Same thing really.

reply

[–] koroxx 8 years ago

Haha, I wondered that too while watching the movie! But 1964 is too early to have a gay couple as lead characters I think

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]