MovieChat Forums > Beautiful Thing (1996) Discussion > Two puzzling things

Two puzzling things

posted 16 years ago by chris-2945
13 replies | jump to latest

A couple of things puzzle me -

1. Tony tells Jamie that age doesn't matter in one scene, then asks him his age in another.

2. Sandra mocks Leah for liking Mama Cass rather than music of her own generation and thinks she's weird because of it, yet she doesn't seem to have noticed the same trait is embedded more bizarrely and rigoursly in her own teenage son who we see watching a soppy old b/w film, is obviously a fan with a good knowledge of The Sound of Music and she must presumably think he like the music of Elvis Presly as there's a picture of Elvis on his bedroom wall and even if its there because he fancies him rather than liking his music what reason do you think he'd give his mum for it being there...

I'm not sure if I'm missing some points the writer's making here, or whether it's just sloppy. I don't care which, really, because I still love this film!

I've often thought that Jamie is similar to Eddie in The Fruit Machine (another film I love!). Old films, different music to the norm for their generation, the camper one, etc.

[–] maulwurf47906 16 years ago

1. I suppose when he asked Jamie his age, he was just making conversation. Things were clearly awkward between the two, and Tony was just trying to come up with something to say.

2. Well, Jamie does turn off the b/w movie when his mum comes in. It's also possible that when Sandra was making her comment about Leah to Jamie, she was at least partly talking about him.

[–] Paulious78 15 years ago

I not sure if anyone else has picked up on this as well but on the other side of Jamies bed there is a picture of Camp icon Lucille Ball on his wall.

I'll trade with anyone who has a jaccuzzi!!!!

[–] KatrinaW 12 years ago

There are a few photos of Lucy, and I've been trying to see what other pictures are there! Jamie has a cute room, and it fits his personality. It's quite different from Ste's corner of a bedroom he shares with his horrible brother.

[–] Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 15 years ago

At the end, Jamie's Mum got her own pub to manage (I don't recall where). What happened to Ste after they moved?
• Did Mum accept their relationship enough to let him go with them?
— or —
• Did he have to go back to his abusive father and brother? (It seems reasonable to fear that once they found he's gay they'd eventually kill him and claim it was suicide.)

Lacking an answer from the writer, what's your idea?
Any conjectures? opinions?

---
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things,"
Of atoms, stars and nebulæ, of entropy and genes.
---

[–] Blondfashionisto 14 years ago

Speaking as a gay child, my Mum totally accepted me in all respects yet she could be critical of others for the same reasons (i.e. I didn't like or play sports and my Mum was fine with that; BUT, when my niece wanted to play hockey, my Mum was unsupportive and thought it wasn't 'ladylike' - when, it was fine for me to do the opposite).

I think Sandra just liked to pick on Leah...

And, as to what comes after, I believe Sandra lets Ste come with them to the new pub and live. I think she was already thinking along those lines when Ste was crying and talking with Jamie and Sandra.

Christopher

'There’s a name for you ladies, but it’s not used…Outside a kennel! (Crystal Allen)'

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

Sandra's new pub was in Rotherhithe. I think she mentioned it or it was written on the pub brochure Sandra got in the mail, and which she hid for a while.
That's pure conjecture thinking Ste went with them - would like to think he would have, but there was a real possibility he had to go back to staying on with his abusive father and bullying brother. Where else would he have gone? That was it!

[–] Danzence 10 years ago

Realistically, he went back to his father and brother.
But imagine what you want I guess.

I would have reported them to the police to try and get the poor sod out of there.

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

A Police report would have been correct procedure and would happen now, probably.
However this was 18 years ago, supposedly, and many folks back then preferred to sort out their own neighbour problems.

[–] Frumious_Bandersnatch_46 7 years ago

You're right.
I have no clue what the law is in the U.K., now or eighteen years ago.
I'm not really sure what the law is in Los Angeles.

[–] ronfirv 7 years ago

Having read some news reports over many months, in UK, I now have no doubts at all Ste (or even Sandra)would have had every justification in reporting his father and brother for physical and emotional abuse. If taken to Court, Ste would have won his case, hands down. However, unsure if the lad would have had a choice even at 16/17, where to stay, by the Courts and Social Services, even Sandra making an application for Ste to live with her and Jamie.

[–] BillyFisher 10 years ago

They are contradictions, but I don't think it's sloppy writing - it just reveals the characters' own inconsistencies.

- - - - - - - -
www.davidlrattigan.com
www.bedlamjournal.com

[–] stischer47 8 years ago

Only eight years late! IMHO...

1) According to the author, Jamie and Ste were written as characters under the age of 18 (implied in the movie). At that time in England, they would have been considered minors and their actions illegal. The age of consent was later lowered for boys to 16 as it had been for girls.

2) In my opinion, Sandra is like many parents who have no clue about their own children even though they can "pick up" things about other people's children. We all think of Sandra as being this loving, involved mother, but there are a couple of scenes (such as when Jamie accuses her of being an unfit mother and they fight) where she's portrayed as a woman only interested in her own life. She thinks she's done everything she can, but realizes (in the end) she's missed something very important.

[–] ronfirv 8 years ago

Not quite age of consent was very heavily implied in fact - remember the background song when Ste & Jamie were lying in bed,bedroom curtain waving in the wind from Jamie's open window, "Sixteen Going on Seventeen", from the "Sound of Music"? At the time of making this great film, age of consent was still 18.

C'mon, almost all mothers do pick up on their son's sexuality, but prefer to stay quiet until he feels able to confront the matter and make it known to family, (or not).
I think Sandra did care ; sons & mothers do disagree a lot, perhaps not so violently as depicted here. Not unusual in teens too, surely. Under Sandra's circumstances, I felt she had done pretty well by Jamie.
At the end, she realised she would be more open,accepting and broad-minded, forgiving others'peccadilloes. She knew, although Jamie was gay, finally, he was still her son and with it, came her ongoing love, unconditionally.
A selfish woman? No. Look how supportive she was of young Ste, even shouting through the letter-box at his parent & bullying older brother, then allowing Ste to sleep over with Jamie. She cared alright.