MovieChat Forums > Beautiful Thing (1996) Discussion > did the mom + her boyfriend break up?

did the mom + her boyfriend break up?


I kind of assumed that the mom & her boyfriend broke up, but I don't really know why. I know (near the end) he showed up all dressed up and with a flower, saying something like "I can't stay away" or something and commented about the mom looking good dressed up (before they were going to go out). Then she told him he needed to go. Explain, please...I was missing stuff a lot b/c of their accents and the audio wasn't the best, either. Thanks for anyone who can tell me what happened! :)

reply

It's not real clearly articulated. The breakup seems to hinge around the conversation where Tony tells Sandra that she's "fighting" the fact that Jamie's gay, and she responds by saying that she's only ever fought for Jamie, and what has Tony ever had to fight for?

I get the feeling that as Sandra's about to begin her new life, with a good job and an apartment off the estate, she wants to make a fresh start, without a lay-about boyfriend.

reply

I would say yes. Great symbolism--- Tony is being thrown out like the trash.

reply

She realised she needed to get a grip of her life, and also understood that Tony wasn't good for her. He had no sense of responsibility.

**********
They blew up Congress!!! HAHAHA!

reply

[deleted]

I was always a bit baffled by the ending; I mean I understand that she probably wanted a fresh start and things, but I did think he was being quite responsible and genuine when he helped the girl off the side of building (forgotten her name atm). I found it quite a cold way for her to end things with him, but I suppose maybe that's always been the way she's done things; I mean, she's done things cos they've had to be done to move on higher in life. But, yeah, I guess I just warmed to his character in the end.

reply

If you'll recall, during the point in the film where Jamie was smoking a joint with his mother's boyfriend, he told him his mom quickly looses interest in things. His exact words were: My mum goes off things - fast. You won't be laughing when she goes off you." The implication is that his mom likes to get her thrills, but it gets old really fast!

reply

Some folks who posted here are on to something. Maybe the mom is the reason why the kid is queer.


my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

reply

Oh come on, not the old "dominant mother/absent father" argument...

reply

That's what the movie suggests. I don't know how valid this argument is in terms of statistics but I've seen many people in whose case it appears to be true.

my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

reply

I don't think the movie suggests that being gay is "caused" by a dominant mother. I mean, first of all, no respecting gay man (the writer) would want that myth to be a theme of his movie. MOST importantly, though, is Ste. himself. I would hardly say Ste. has a dominant mother, considering he has no mother, and lives with two abusive macho men.

reply

Is Ste gay? Only technically, in that he engages in homosexual activity. Does he have this proclivity? Not necessarily. He lacks love and care in his life, the image of manhood he's being fed or, better, force fed is that of violence, brutality, emotional and intellectual somberness. Being a poor kid doesn't help to get laid either and he finds it hard to relate to shallow querulous teenage girls of poor estates.

my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

reply

Let me get this clear... are you suggesting that Ste only has sex with Jamie because
a) he's being abused by his family, and therefore
b) doesn't know what it means to be a "real" man, furthermore
c) he's poor, and finally
d) the girls in his neighborhood are basically white trash?

reply

If you want to put it this way, it's possible.

my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

reply

No, I don't want to put it this way. However, I do get the impression you want to explain it -- i. e. being gay -- this way.

reply

IMO yes this is one possibility, a behavioural homosexuality so to say.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the term "behavioural homosexuality" is only used by people who believe that being gay is some kind of mental disorder and curable by prayer and/or aversion therapy.

reply

what's this a f^(!ng bigotry pop quiz? cure it any f^(!ng way you want it.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Where's that coming from? I don't think that there's anything TO cure to begin with. People are gay or bisexual or straight or whatever or they aren't. It's no illness, no disorder, no choice, just another personality trait.

From your previous comments I was under the impression that you thought Ste wasn't really gay, but merely misguided - with which I disagree - and from there the discussion went off on a tangent, that's all. No need to "f^(!" anything or anyone.

reply

Again, misguided, I don't know if this is a good term. In a sense. Some people may be conditioned to do a particular thing while other would rebel if offered to do the same. What's the nature of homosexuality? Is it just a personality trait, do you take coffee or tea?

When it comes to Ste it seems he'd do anything or almost just to get out of the emotional prison in which he lives. Misguided he is probably not because he's actually after something in particular i.e. a good thing, a beautiful thing and apart from the gay boy there's no one around to offer anything good.

Me takes pepsi throwback.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Dude, you're full of it. My own family is as normal as you can get. We're middle class. My dad's a farmer, my mother's a housewife. Neither are drunkards or take drugs (they don't even smoke); neither beats us up or are ultra-strict. Despite being relative teetotalers, they had a very good sense of humor and are not averse to having fun for the sake of fun.

Both are equally dominant in different aspects of our childhoods. I have both male and female siblings, and I'm closest to my younger (straight) brother. My childhood was typically male, full of scraped knees, fishing trips, hiking out in the woods with the neighborhood kids, helping dad out with the crops. I've felt loved all my life, and though my family isn't perfect I genuinely love them and would stand by them through anything.

They're Christians, but were not religious. My parents taught us right from wrong, in the only way that matters. The golden rule present in almost all religions of the world: do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. Live life according to what makes you happy, as long as it doesn't cost the happiness of others.

I still turned out gay, so how does it fit with your theory? I've had crushes on men all my life and I didn't come from the miserable background you're suggesting.

I've had girls show interest in me and CAN get laid if I wanted to. But I never did, because while I liked them as people just fine, they didn't interest me romantically or sexually. And I'm not the type to mislead people to "keep up appearances".

The fact that you seem to see more gay people come from broken or dysfunctional families is confirmation bias. You only see those which proves your theory in us being broken people, and discount everything else.

You may want to read about the true "gay-for-pay" guys or those pornstar girls who do "girl on girl" action instead. Those are straight folks who because of economic hardship or simply a need for quick cash, have tackled gay porn because it pays more than being a straight porn star. Did they become gay? No. They still are and will always be straight. Some are married now, including a pretty well-known MMA fighter.

Contrast that with people like Ted Haggard. Even though he lived a good life and had a pretty wife, he still can not change the fact that he likes men, and will always like men. Show me a "cured" gay man, and I'll show you a miserable bast*rd who regularly cheats on his wife with men in out-of-town gay bars.

reply

I'm not a troll and I don't like being provoked

You are a prole hence the truth won't be invoked

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Ah I see. You're one of those people who have been "enlightened" and won't deign to consort with us mere mortals. Call me when you start a church, hmk?

reply

We'll deign to consort with you, peon.

I take your point for confirmation bias. The blame is to be put on journalism and liberal arts which are always after a sensation.

I still think there are different types of homosexuals. There are those who have a genetic/endocrinal predisposition and altering their behaviour is impossible at this point in time. It wasn't confirmed beyound doubt scientifically but this follows from the logic of biology and evolution.

There are others whose homosexuality is 'behavioural'. And they are not all alike, if treated they must be treated on a case by case basis. I wouldn't rely on any existing manual. Is it possible to alter their sexual behaviour? It may be, it may be not. Would any of them commit suicide as a result? Some may.

Your case doesn't prove anything. If anything, being all smug and happy with yourself, you wouldn't want the discussion on the possibility of altering homosexuality to continue and write here at all.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

"Smug and happy"? You think I'm smug and happy at the way we've been treated for thousands of years for something we can not change? And believe me, I've tried. When people like you treat us like evil, abnormal subhumans to be changed if possible, not for what we did, but for what we are, do you think even my family can insulate me from that? Ask yourself, what have gay people ever done to deserve the hatred you people have heaped on us? In a lot of countries in this supposedly modern age, we can and are still being legally executed and no one even stops to ask themselves what we have ever done wrong. Have we killed anyone? Caused wars? No. We are simply evil because we offend your delicate sensibilities and a 4000-year old goatherder's memoirs say so.

Whatever the causes are for homosexuality, we have always existed. In all cultures, in all ages. Human tribal societies untainted by the male-dominated western religions once employed gay people widely as mediators and shamans. It exists not only in humans, but also in the natural world. I hope you won't start telling me that two-spirit people and bonobo apes grew up with an abusive drunkard father and a broken home too.

Even granting evolution, why has the trait persisted if it had no function? We obviously do not choose to reproduce, which is actually our only failing. But does that really justify the way you treat us? What the heck is wrong if we don't have kids anyway? Earth is overpopulated as it is. And heck, if the last people on Earth were a gay man and a gay woman, do you think the human race will die out? No. Sex is a mechanical thing. The one thing that differentiates us from you, is that we can only form romantic attachments with people of our own gender. And what part of that threatens you so much that you actually want to either eradicate or forcefully change us?

The only thing I've learned as I grew up is that this world is a sick and cruel place, not because of us, but because of people like you, insulated by your "normality" and passing judgement on other human beings as if they were merely cattle. Seriously? Some may commit suicide? I suppose you'll label us with numbers, then put us through these "treatments" and then make pie graphs of who survived, and who didn't. Then you'll nod wisely as you examine the failures and go back to your "normal" society for lunch. When you talk about "altering homosexuality" you are delving into well-trodden territory. It's called eugenics. The Nazis tried it too. I suppose you have no idea what a pink triangle is don't you? Or the fact that many weren't even freed like other holocaust victims after WW2 ended? And almost no one remembers them now, except us.

So no, my dear entity of the first person plurals, I'm not bloody smug and happy. Some days, I wish we could actually just throw away the engrained empathy we have acquired through growing up different and just start hitting you back. Maybe a real gay agenda and a real gay mafia, eh? Because beneath even the most flamboyant drag queen is anger you can't even begin to imagine, even with your emo-boy antisocial posturing. You don't know what real anger is until you feel the unreasoning hate of billions of fellow humans burning down your back every single moment of your waking life.

Imagine knowing that fact as a 12-year old. A lot of gay kids already commit suicide because of that alone, and those of us who survive all have our scars. You may be right that we are, in a sense, broken. Broken not by our immediate surroundings growing up, but by society and religion which has damned us from the moment of our birth.

Oh and of course, a thousand groveling licks on your boots for the attention, your glorious highness(es?).

P.S. Also I note the conspicuous absence of bisexuals in your theory. Where do they fit in, eh?

reply

You're not replying to me but rather to yourself or some imaginary opressive heterosexual society.

Your anger is a function of your inner conflict. If anything, it is directed at your heterosexual parents.

I AM too kind corresponding with you here, very few people would, especially homosexuals. You ARE nuts.



my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Ah ad hominems, does this mean you give up already? Awwww. Or was it just tl;dr?

You just gave away what you actually think. You are not actually talking about a "cure" are you? Or the "degrees" or "causes" of homosexuality, but simply expounding on your inner conviction that we are insane and apparently internally conflicted people for reacting the way we do with this apparently "imaginary" oppressive heterosexual society.

We're all nuts, one way or the other. I have my diffuse but ever-present anger, and you have your cold superiority complex and your cynical posing. At least mine proves I'm still human. Yours are just delusions of grandeur, trying to be Yoda, a Renaissance man, and a pompous critic all in one.

Not a troll... orly?

reply

You provoke ad hominems and then complain about them.

You're looking for a cure desperately and hate everyone for not providing you with one.

Yoda, Renaissance, etc. - yawn.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

roflz. I'm desperately looking for a cure, yes. For people like you.

Since you haven't really contributed anything else other than diagnose me with the dreaded disease of peon-hood, I shall leave your highness with your pretend-wisdom and your carefully cultivated apathetic persona. I wish you all the best in convincing the world that you really couldn't care less.

reply

Yeah, they had simpathy for the devil, I'd rather have self-cultivated apathy for it.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Uhuh. Tell me more.

reply

oh should a child be left unwarned
that any song in which he mourned
would be as if he prophesied

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

'Twas brillig and the slithy toves, did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

See? I can make myself look amazingly clever with a few bits of irrelevant poetry too. :D

So how do you really feel about it? Is your choice of Frost a lamentation of your long lost golden days of youthful sarcasm? Back when you were still discovering the joys of highfalutination?

Also, what's your favorite color?

reply

Jabberwock is indeed some amazingly beautiful nonsense.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

reply

Oblivion14, I just had to say that I'm very impressed by the eloquence of your posts and the way you've articulated your experience and explained that of so many other people throughout history. As this information is available and easily accessible to most people in this age of information and technology, I'm frequently surprised by how ignorant some people are willing to continue to be.

For some these are just difficult truths that they don't want to face because that means acknowledging how much pain and abuse has been heaped on the LGBT community by the heterosexual majority for so many generations. But the more people (like yourself) that stand up and tell their story, that live their lives authentically and thereby educate the people around them, and that refuse to let ignorance and misinformation stand unchallenged, the closer we get to an age where orientation is no longer considered a moral issue, is no longer a mysterious aspect of human living that the majority of people only whisper about because it makes them uncomfortable, and is no longer cause for any kind of animosity so that all people, regardless of orientation, can live their lives as it suits them without feeling the need to draw invisible us vs them boundaries between us all.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights. They didn't fall only on deaf ears. Some of us were listening with discernment and appreciation.

reply

Sandra does indeed dump Tony at the end the movie. Jonathan Harvey posted this on facebook recently when a fan asked the same question -

"Sandra dumps Tony because she realises she has taken the eye off the ball and not been there to help her son, so she wants to put all her energies into him for a bit. Also, his behaviour during Leah’s trip has unnerved her and she realises they’re slightly poles apart. But mostly it’s to be there for Jamie".

reply

Yes I was very interested by how unnerved she seemed by his attending to Leah when she was so messed up that night. I found her to be an interesting contradiction of a personality. She could be very brash and insensitive, even toward her own son, but when the chips were down she was steadfast in her loyalty to both him and Ste. And comforted each of them when they were in crisis. Her willingness to just leave Leah to her fate though, even knowing the animosity between them, was so cold, such a disconnect to her own humanity it kind of startled and disappointed me. I got to thinking though that she was pretty overwhelmed with what she had on her own plate so maybe plugging into someone else's problems was just more than she could carry. Which seemed to be at least a part of her decision to break up with Tony. They were an interesting couple, where sometimes she was the more mature one and sometimes he was, each in their own way. And I felt for him that she was so harsh in letting him go. But perhaps she needed to be in order to make it final and a full, undeniable break. And what she most needed at that point was to tend to her son, pursue her career ambitions and see where her journey would take her and who she would decide to be. And she'd realized by then that her journey and Tony's would not follow the same path. Interesting characters all around.

reply

Well said old bean,well said indeed.

reply



I was always a bit baffled by the ending; I mean I understand that she probably wanted a fresh start and things, but I did think he was being quite responsible and genuine when he helped the girl off the side of building (forgotten her name atm). I found it quite a cold way for her to end things with him, but I suppose maybe that's always been the way she's done things; I mean, she's done things cos they've had to be done to move on higher in life. But, yeah, I guess I just warmed to his character in the end.


I agree, this really spoiled the film for me. Why did Tony have to be treated so badly? It made no sense

reply

I took it that he wasn't serious enough for her, especially in her new role as a 'Landlady'. And, I like to think that meant she was going to focus more attention on Jamie now.

‘Six inches is perfectly adequate; more is vulgar!' (Prime of Miss Jean Brodie Re: An open window).

reply

That part is not entirely explained: I suppose Sandra sees Tony being interested in Leah and, together with his lack of sense of responsibility, it's a problem for their relationship.

I'm agree with all your explanations and I was... “disappointed” too, when I saw the scene in which Sandra leaves him! Would be perfect to see the two couples live happily, toward a new better life. But that’s just fiction, of course. In real life maybe I would do the same.

Rather, I'm not agree with the line "without a lay-about boyfriend." Excuse me r13415, what do you mean? Translation seems to mean "an attacker boyfriend" or am I wrong?
Tony is an almost-too-gentle character... or do you mean "idle"?

-----
Mick Travis: When do we live? That's what I want to know.
----
I love London City!

reply

[deleted]

Hey tatyamaretti,

r13415 means "idle", yes. Tony's character is very lazy, ironic, "platitudinous" (as it has been said), and irresponsible. I would also add that he is pretty dumb---not to be mean, though. The dialogues he has with people simply prove that he has no grip on language and social interaction. For example, when he blurts "Anybody seen (that one show)?"..."Me neither...," it is clear that he is out of the loop. He sort of just lazes about and idles away the time.

I thought that when Sandra asked Tony to go away near the end that it was a realization that she wanted change for her family. Tony was just one more dysfunctional element, for his lethargy if nothing else. She tells Tony at one point that he's never had to fight for anything as she has had to do. Sandra in a way ties the character of Ste in with Tony when she tells Jamie that "(Ste) hasn't seen any life." Sandra starts questioning what is important at that moment when Jamie replies: "He's good to me." Perhaps Sandra has realized that she needs to fight for herself and not just for Jamie, because Jamie is growing up. Her uncertainty about letting him go off on his own is emphasized at the end when she is dancing with Leah in support of her son's decision to "come out" to the public. She is dancing there as a sort of protector. The final scene is very important. Sandra recognizes that her son's relationship can only be realized as a spectacle, as with most "homosexual" relationships. The beautiful thing, to me, is that the public no longer matters for the boys at that point.

reply

I always thought that it was because Sandra had an abusive boyfriend in the past and now had issues trusting men and stuff. Or she just finds reasons not to stay with them. Sine jamie mentions at one point something along the lines of "it wasnt so funny when that bloke of yours started beatin on you" or something like that along with how she "goes off things fast" and she could find reason to end it when they were fighting after jamie had come out and stuff :D

reply

"pretty dumb"?

You weren't paying attention. He's one of the smart characters in the movie. Consider the scene you referenced in which they're discussing television shows. He's the only one who wants to talk about a contest show called (something like) "University Challenge" and seems ready to do so. "Me neither" is simply a way of changing the subject, without embarrassing everyone else.

He seems to have explicitly chosen his position in life, realizing that it's not something you can win at. Rather, it's something to be experienced with love. This may be why Sandra claims he's never had to "fight". Unfortunately, rather than realizing fighting is a waste of time, she harshly dumps him. Bad move. He could have been helpful at her pub.

reply

You weren't paying attention. He's one of the smart characters in the movie.


He's educated. That doesn't mean he's smart. Sandra's uneducated. But she's smart. That's why she's offered the pub. Tony asks if anyone saw University Challenge, and nobody had. He went to university. Sandra didn't and the boys don't plan to. Tony isn't cruel or evil. He's just an educated, unambitious guy who likes to "save" less fortunate people. When Sandra tells him he's never had to fight for anything, she means he's never struggled to feed himself, pay rent, etc. She's been struggling all her life.

reply

Boyfriend was a *beep* up and way too nice. Wasnt he like 27 and she 34

reply

Boy did this go off topic in a big way. But back to it...

I wasn't sure what the deal was with Tony at the end. He seemed such a strong player throughout the film and then is dismissed at the end and the reasoning behind his dismissal is kind of vague.

Honestly I thought Tony was cool as hell. Sure he was a dingbat but he was still a caring individual and didn't deserved to be dismissed in such a way.

If you love someone, set them free. If they come back, nobody else wanted them either.

reply

Agreed - brushed away like a mediocre two-night stander!

reply

There is no "mom" in the film.

reply

Now,now....

reply

That's one thing I never liked about this nearly-perfect film. I understand why Sandra couldn't relate to him, as she comes from a major life of constant struggle, in which she can never stop working without the risk of losing her entire existence... Whereas he comes from a life with a silver spoon, in which he doesn't have to fight for anything.

But at the same time, despite the fact that Sandra is unable to relate to him and his experience, nor he to hers, he was a very good guy. He cared for Sandra. He cared for Jamie. He was good to Ste when Ste came over after being abused by his father and brother. He did a good job at the end of saving Leah when she was high off her ass. He does a lot of good things...

So it is kind of saddening that Sandra chooses not to stay with him simply because of how different they are. Realistic? Yes. But this film is such a romantic fairytale that them staying together WOULD have worked.

I don't feel enough for you to cry.

Oh well.

reply