Tom Robinson Lee, 17, is new senior at a boy's prep school. He's sensitive and uninterested in the machismo hobbies and interests of his classmates, so they harass him ruthlessly with their toxic masculinity. Only his roommate treats him with some measure of decency, and the coach's wife tries to help him through his pain by offering kindness and affection, instead of her expected role.
This movie explores - in the 1950's societal context- stereotypes of masculinity and how a sensitive man was viewed and treated, with cruel intentions and reducing the harm that was caused, simply by denying that any harm was done.
I find that on a second viewing of Tea and sympathy, its core message of kindness in fighting injustice is important, just as finding the right person, the right ear to listen and actually help. In this movie, the helper is Laura Reynolds, the coach's wife, wonderfully portrayed by Deborah Kerr. Her tender attention as well as compassionate and passionate pleas towards those who cause harm to Tom R. Lee are convincing, poignant and remain relevant even now, though more than 50 years have elapsed since the movie, and anyone who has the kind of machismo issues the characters have here should listen to her and unlearn the lies of stereotypical gender assignments and roles.
Each member of the cast plays their character well, but it is truly a 2-character based storytelling : Deborah Kerr (Laura) and John Kerr (Tom) carry all the emotional aspects from start to end, with style and very convincing. (the two actors aren't related, btw).
They are both very touching and both compelled and captivated me from the start.
Contrary to some reviews I saw online, I like the pacing and character building in tea and sympathy ; it gives some direct messages, and seems to have toned down some aspects that were in the play and would probably have shocked the public back then. For instance, there is only implied homosexuality and bigotry against it in the movie, but they seem clearer in the play - as far as I could read about it.
The machismo parts are mostly hurtful words, name-calling and some physical aspects such as hazing are shown, but none of it is graphic beyond the uneasy atmosphere and the few sporadic moments in which they occur. I'm actually grateful that these parts aren't shown full-blown as they would be in modern days, due to my own sensitivities.
Dialogues are well written, and I assume as true as the original author was allowed (by the studios) to include for the screen version of his own play.
The musical score is actually good, often subdued so not to overtake the dramatic deliveries, which is a positive aspect of the composer and editor alike : to know when to include it.
Cinematography shines a bit less, but does add to the atmosphere of suffocation that Tom is subjected to via harassments, often using very tight angles and shots, up close and personal, alternating with those scenes of personal growth and attempts at freedom in wider shots, an aspect of the movie that I thought about only after this second viewing, as it's one of its rare subtle aspects.
Despite the toned down aspects, this movie should be viewed as part of lgbt-history, and I really recommend it. It actually pushed a couple societal limits for the period, which I'll let you discover.
Comments
Post a Comment