Just before he mounts the high bar Warwicks smiles up at Philips, and I think later on in the movie they are seen sleeping in the same bed.
Myabe I'm just reading too much into it, but either way I thought that it made a nice touch in the movie.
Yes, I do think Wallace is fond of Phillips, and the fact that they find themselves in bed with each other is a bit of a giveaway. (Fascinating confusion, by the way, between Wallace, the character, and Warwick, the surname of the actor playing the character!)
Such relationships were not uncommon at public schools, though you were leaving yourself open to a certain amount of ribbing among your peers if you made it too obvious. If discovered in bed together by a master or a Whip you could both be in for a lot of trouble.
The degree of chastity, sexual intimacy, and/or emotional involvement concerned would doubtless vary. It would be a mistake to think (as some have done on these boards) that either party was necessarily homosexual, or that such relationships necessarily involved practices illegal in some states of the US. The whole business was a bit more subtle than that, as the film gently suggests.
No doubt about it!
I think this is why Bobby joined the rebels, solely his attachment to Wallace and not any belief in their cause.
I think there's a bit more to it. Yes, I think it's definite that Bobby was attached to Wallace, and that it was reciprocated — I think idgreenwood is downplaying the sexuality of their relationship unnecessarily, perhaps for his own reasons, but the scene where Wallace smiles at Bobby before his gymnastic routine has a definite air of courtship to it. Wallace is clearly pleased Bobby is watching him and clearly showing off in something like the courtship display male birds and animals put on to attract a mate. It's clear they become a couple. (And remember, the first time we see Bobby he's being told off by the sour-faced Whip for "tarting", which sets up our understanding of his sexuality.)
Don't forget, also, that Bobby has his own reasons for rebellion. We're shown clearly how much he's been demeaned and ill-treated by Rowntree and the other Whips, so he has his own type of physical abuse that has given rise to a resentment of authoritarianism probably just as real as for the other Crusaders. He has his own reasons to join the Crusaders, in addition to wanting to be with Wallace.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
The actor died of AIDs in real.time.
shareI thought that it made a nice touch in the movie.
-------------------------------------------
Yes. I did, too. And it's really kind of out of nowhere. I think both young men are very attractive, too. Especially, Warwick. He was gorgeous. So sweet to see them lying in bed together, with the older boy's arm around the younger boy.
I don't think it matters whether they were actually being sexual with one another or not, I think it is more symbolic of the fact that Warwick is rebelling against the system. The movie is an allegory about the counterculture movement, and it's easy to see how having one of the crusaders show homosexual tendencies is a way to show the movie's sympathy for what was happening in real life in 1968. Don't forget, homosexuality was just recently made legal in many places, and it was still considered a mental disorder until the 1970s in the U.S. and elsewhere, so showing sympathy for homosexuality in a movie was considered in and of itself a rebellious act in that time. So the Philips/Warwick relationship is double rebellious, and a case of life imitating art and vice-versa.
shareAlthough I was still a teen in the 60's, some British filmmakers did subtly tackle homosexuality in film. It was only legalised in England in 1967 (for consenting adults in private and both above 21)but not legal in other countries of the UK until much later.
Try Sunday Bloody Sunday (1970) and Victim (Dirk Bogarde).
Yes, it was really beautiful, I thought - one of the few - maybe only - moments of kindness and gentleness in the film - I maybe wrong, but I think they called each other by their first names too, which was unusual in those types of schools - it was all surnames. I don't think it was that they were gay, even (maybe/maybe not) but people reaching some kind of trust and solace in a horrible situation.
share