Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:16:20 -0400

From: Kevin

Subject: Re: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CHIK!!

Oh, God! - smiles, words of wisdom & encouragement, and she's a Trekkie,

to boot! Is there no end to the surprises that Sandra will bring this

group??? God bless you, Sandra! ;)

Kevin

________

 

> >Sandra,

> >THANK YOU!

> >I'm hitting my 29th b-day this monday and have been going thru

> >depression like you wouldn't believe...your note lust really made me

> >smile.

> >Kevin

> >"I'm happy when I'm with you"

>

> You´re very welcome!! I´m happy it made you smile. That´s what are friends

> for. I truly believe in what I said (it was the trekkie part of me speaking).

> HAPPY BIRTHDAY KEVIN!!!

>

> BTW, it seems it´s everybody´s birthday nowadays. Mine´s next month... :)

>

> Take care.

>

> Sandra.

>

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:03:13 -0400 (EDT)

From: CARMEN

Subject: Re: your mail

 

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Chris  wrote:

> Any of you who use the pine email system, prominent among US

> Universities, have any problems logging on to the newgroup? I didn't.

> I just typed A for 'subscribe' and typed out the name and it came up.

I did, but it was simply a matter of getting my news server to carry

it...and that was easy enough! :-)

I just had to make the request...:-)

tory

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:29:19 -0400

From: Kevin

Subject: Re: Did they or didn't they?: Interesting thread on ne

OK, so how far do you think they went? To be honest with you, my first

time involved nothing more than being naked with the guy - NOTHING

happened - yet I felt like if ANYONE found out, the sky would fall down

- the earth would come to an end - everyone would hate me - it tooks me

years to admit to anyone that I slept with him even though we only

kissed. Maybe this is unusual for most guys - but I did believe that

nothing happened (per se) - at least the first nite!!! But at the party

(Leah mentions that the last time Ste's brother beat up on him was last

Thursday - implying a few days to a week!?), I am thinking by then, they

may have done something which has led to Ste not coming by (outside -

when Jamie expresses his "feelings" for Ste)!?! I don't know - that's

just my naive look at the "sleeping arrangements."

;)

*****************************************************

Subject: Re: old before your rhyme

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 03:33:41 -0700

From: Clem

Mike, you're rad!

 

carbon life form: Mike , on 6/18/97 12:33 PM, said:

 

>"Well, I just make myself open and available

>to the possibility. If I ask someone out and they say, 'But yer old enough

>to be my dad' I correct them: 'No, I'm old enought be your grandad!' They

>seem to like it."

>

>!! :-}

>

>

>Mike

*****************************************************

Subject: Re: Beautiful Things???

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 04:00:21 -0700

From: Clem

Hi Ron,

Don't worry about the tone of the list as it stands now. You are coming

in during a transition--we are convertin' a lot of our talk about the

movie and it's particulars to the newsgroup, alt.movies.beautiful-thing,

and leaving the list for more, as you noticed, "personal mail".

One reason for the change is that the list was getting too over-loaded.

Another is that many of our discussions _were_ quickly starting to vere

into the personal and were addressing issues beyond just the movie. Davie

and the others agreed that the list, by virtue of it's intimate nature,

would serve a better purpose by supporting *just* the personal. The

newsgroup would support the more public cinematic exhalation.

Now, if you really want to experience the history of this list I could

forward you the, let's see, um, one thousand one hundred and sixty-seven

posts I have sitting in my BT mailbox but I suspect you are more patient

than that....trust me, the passion is there, just hang for a bit. :)

 

ciao,

clem

carbon life form: RG, on 6/18/97 10:51 AM, said:

>Just joined the list yesterday and thought that I would be getting info on

>the movie and how people reacted to it, etc.

>It seems that all I'm getting lately is personal mail and don't really

>think that this is what this forum is intended for. Personal mail can

>start here, but should continue through personal EMail.

<snip>

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:39:59 +1200

From: Leonard

Subject: Re: Did they or didn't they?: Interesting thread on new-sgroup

Mike  wrote:

> This was posted to the newsgroup from Kenneth . I know some of

> you

> don't have access to the NG yet so I've cross posted it. I think the

> question it raises is too interesting to be missed by any. What do you

> guys

> think about this??

>

>

> Oh, now HERE'S an interesting thread! If I understand you correctly,

> you're

> assuming that Jamie and Ste DIDN'T have "sex". (I put it in quotes

> because,

> even if they did in some sense of the word, we don't know just how far

> that

> went).

>

>

Mike, you don't have a dirty mind.

Given Ste's reaction in the morning, the way he sneaks out without

waking Jamie, they did it. Two 16 year olds given the chance to

fool-around cannot help themselves, I know I couldn't.

The question is, does it really matter if they did have sex that first

night? The one thing that makes me think they will last is because they

grew to love each other before they had sex.

Just the ramblings of a hopeless romantic.

Love to all

Leonard

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 08:51:54 -0400 (EDT)

From: Todd

Subject: Re: your mail

When movies like BT come out, there are usually two separete releases.

The first is primarly for rentals and then there is a second, general

release. I would guess the price would come down to the $20 area,

hopefully within this year. It's really hard to say, especially since

Sony is the distributer here in the States.

Todd

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Chris  wrote:

> Hi again! BT has been released here in the states for about a month

> now. It is in most video stores. But to order it, it runs about $70 to

> $90. Does anybody know if the US price will fall anytime??? I don't

> want to have to buy a previously viewed copy. Help!

>

> Chris

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:47:36 -0400 (EDT)

From: Todd

Subject: Re: Did they or didn't they?: Interesting thread on ne

I think you have it right Kevin, as to the 'sleeping arrangements'.

Correct me if I'm wrong folks, but the play (and I'm not sure about the

screen play) gave a period of a week or so before the party and they had

been spending nights together frequently. I'd like to think that at the

most, they talked and kissed. I am unsure however if this is true since

they made a point of showing Ste wake up next to Jamie naked.

And as for Jamie wanting to touch Ste, I think Jamie was just being

sentual, not sexual. He wanted to demonstrate his affection for Ste in a

gentle, caring way. Something Ste probably was not used to because of his

home life and it appears that he didn't day before these events.

As for going somewhere else, Ste might just have felt uncomfortable

'hidding' from everyone. Any thoughts on that one?

Todd

On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Kevin wrote:

> OK, so how far do you think they went? To be honest with you, my first

> time involved nothing more than being naked with the guy - NOTHING

> happened - yet I felt like if ANYONE found out, the sky would fall down

> - the earth would come to an end - everyone would hate me - it tooks me

> years to admit to anyone that I slept with him even though we only

> kissed. Maybe this is unusual for most guys - but I did believe that

> nothing happened (per se) - at least the first nite!!! But at the party

> (Leah mentions that the last time Ste's brother beat up on him was last

> Thursday - implying a few days to a week!?), I am thinking by then, they

> may have done something which has led to Ste not coming by (outside -

> when Jamie expresses his "feelings" for Ste)!?! I don't know - that's

> just my naive look at the "sleeping arrangements."

> ;)

>

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:54:40 -0400 (EDT)

From: Eric

Subject: Re:

At 01:04 AM 6/19/97 -0700, you wrote:

>Mike ,

>In reguards to "Did they, or didn't they" (have sex)..

Hi, I'm new to the list, but thought I'd add my 2 cents: I *DO* think that

they had sex. I mean, next morning they were naked, and I think Ste looked

genuinely upset or unhappy about it. If nothing happened, I don't think he

would have felt or reacted that way (or would have been naked!) Also, don't

forget, the massage gave Ste an erection (or did you miss that?).

>"I'm a bit sore" I definately don't think he meant from having sex. I

>think he meant from being hit!

Yes, I agree. From being hit.

>"Can I touch you?" I think he wanted to feel close to Ste because he

>loved him. If he would have wanted to have sex, he would have said "can

>I have sex with you!".. After all, he dosn't really bit his toung when

>he wants to say something to Ste..

I think the "touching" lead to.... more.

>Ok, thats my point of view. I am a hopeless romantic and I choose not

>to see thier love as sexually motivated.

I don't think that because they had sex, that their relationship was

sexually motivated. I think it quite obvious that love came first and

continued! This was not a casual affair for either of them.

Strictly My Humble Opinion, of course.

Best,

(another) Eric

-Eric

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:16:07 -0500

From: Keith

Subject: Did they or didn't they?: Interesting thread on new-sgroup

To me the issue of did they or didn't they became a turning point in the

movie. When I first saw the scene, I was thinking "Yea, there gonna do

it! (At least off camera). But then I thought about it, and the look on Ste's

face when Jamie rubs his back. His is a look of pure contentment,

coupled with sexual excitement. (Hence, his reluctance to turn over) But

I don't think Jamie and Ste were ready to, or wanted a night of

physical love making. Intimate touching, fondling, caressing, yes. Even

orgasm possibly. But I don't think the night would have had the emotional

complexities associated with true long-lasting love. It was their first time

after all. First times are as much about curiosity and exploration as

actual love.

After seeing the scene, and thinking what I just mentioned, I don't

fantasize about them having physical sex all night. I always come back

to the look on Ste's face, and fantasize about that kind of bliss.

Keith

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:22:41 -0700

From: Adam

Subject: Re:

> HI all:)... Sorry to post to the list about a topic that should be

> ideally discussed in the newsgroup, but at this time I don't have

> access to newgroups, but anyway i digress....

I have been thinking alot about the topic of whether or not the actually

slept together or not..i mean had sex. I would have to agreee with the

contigent that it doesn't matter if they did or not. In my ideal dreams

I would hope that they didn't but i remeber being 16 and having raging

hormones, but it seems as though this story is about love, so the idea

of sex, whether or not it happened just isn't the main point. Either

way I believe that they were in love and sex may have happened but again

that's not what the focus is on, i mean if you want to see sex go rent a

porn right? Add me to the list of hopeless romantics....Adam

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:11:07 -0500 (CDT)

From: chakravorty

Subject: Re: Tony's character?

On the character of Tony - I don't think he is dumb or that he lacks

common sense - he exhibits quite uncommon sense in many cases (e.g.,

following Leah out into the busy street). He may lack what we we call in the

U.S. "street smarts"; but that can be acquired. Don't forget too that Tony

is often zonked so some of his behavior may reflect his marijuana induced

state rather than his native intelligence.

The stageplay describes Tony as a former art school student. Don't know how

that fits into the British context. Dave Lister (if you watch Red Dwarf)

also attended art school briefly so I imagine one doesn't have to be

rich or upper class to do so. The stageplay described Tony as "Sandra's

fancy man", which disturbed me somewhat. Am I correct to assume that a

"fancy man" is the male equivalent of a "mistress" or "kept woman", is

Sandra paying for (either in money or in-kind benefits) the pleasure of

Tony's company? That would put a really different slant on things.

But literature is full of "whores with hearts of gold" so even if Tony is

a paid companion, it doens't mean he doesn't have a good side.

The film version of Tony struck me as a charming, delightful romantic

kind of guy - he seems very nurturing and caring, he tries, but

ultimately doesn't succeed in providing Sandra with the kind of balance and

tenderness I for one think she needs.

Is Tony educated? I'd say, yes, at least self-educated. He has intellectual

interests (reference to University show) which are not shared by the

circle he hangs out with at the projects. He does seem to lack an

understanding of working class life; real working class life, not the

Boehmian sort that "starving artists" might enjoy. He doesn't understand

the priorities Sandra puts on work and money because I assume he has

always had enough money - or being an artist he doesn't care about the

workaday world (refer here to scene where Sandra is trying to prepare the

rotation schedule for the bar [in screenplay], she doesn't think Tony is

taking it seriously).

My 2 cents ( you can convert that into its UK equivalent if you like).

PS to the "birthday dude" - happy birthday - and, the one nice thing about

getting older (and perhaps more mature) is that many people begin to see

beauty, charm, cuteness, whatever, in a wider variety of people. For

example, men you wouldn't have looked at twice when you were 20 actually

look more attractive - not because you are desperate or because you have

downsized your expectations, but because you begin to focus on different

attributes - how someone smiles for example.

Take care,

Bonnie

*****************************************************

From: Niall

Subject: RE: newsgroup

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:34:33 +0100

Speaker wrote:

> And thus spake Thom971@aol.com...

> > Same here, Jody..... have sent "suggestions" and emails, but nooooooo.

> > Grrrrrrrr.

>

> Silly question but ever thought about changing to a real ISP? :-)

BT Internet has been carrying the newsgroup from a day or day after Davie

announced it. If somebody else on this list requested it to be added, thank

you. Thank God I use a real ISP.

I also discovered yesterday, much to my surprise, that my work feed (BT, no

dots as it the company trading name, not an abbreviation) carries it as

well, meaning that I can continue to keep up with B.T. (with dots, as it is

an abbreviation of the film name) in work as well as at home. It must have

been added automatically, as there is no way they would add an alt. feed to

something that is supposed to be there for business purposes.

...Niall

(trying to fool the list server security by pretending to be at home when

I'm actually sending from work!)

(only one week and one day till I see B.T. again in the QFT, Belfast, an

arty cinema with seats you could happily die in, and projectionists who

take pride in having Dobly sound perfected!)

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:10:55 +0100

From: jmcs

Subject: Re: Did they or didn't they?: Interesting thread on ne

At 10:47 19/06/97 -0400, you wrote:

>I think you have it right Kevin, as to the 'sleeping arrangements'.

>Correct me if I'm wrong folks, but the play (and I'm not sure about the

>screen play) gave a period of a week or so before the party and they had

>been spending nights together frequently. I'd like to think that at the

>most, they talked and kissed. I am unsure however if this is true since

>they made a point of showing Ste wake up next to Jamie naked.

>

>And as for Jamie wanting to touch Ste, I think Jamie was just being

>sentual, not sexual. He wanted to demonstrate his affection for Ste in a

>gentle, caring way. Something Ste probably was not used to because of his

>home life and it appears that he didn't day before these events.

>

>As for going somewhere else, Ste might just have felt uncomfortable

>'hidding' from everyone. Any thoughts on that one?

>

>Todd

That´s very interesting! I had noticed when Leah says to Ste "Give us an E

or I´ll spread it round where you slept last week". As far as we know, Jamie

and Ste only slept together two nights in a row: the "Hello" night and THE

night. Apparently, the party took place the night after THE night so how can

we explain Leah´s "last week"? To me, they´ve been sleeping together many

nights after Ste´s beatings, just 'top and tailing'. They must have talked a

lot over the years, after all talking is how we get to know each other and

maybe that´s how Jamie fell in love with Ste in the first place. He got to

know him very well.

Just my opinion, of course. Feel free to refute me if you think I´m wrong.

Take care.

 

Sandra.

*****************************************************

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:02:25 -0500

From: Keith

Subject: amazing -Reply

Todd,

I recently joined the list, and was astounded when I came in to work the

next morning, and had 17+ messages (from BT). I love it!!! (I'm waiting for

my boss to wonder why the volume of incoming e-mail has just gone up

so much!) I love reading everything everyone else has to say. We all

have our own ideas and thoughts, but at the same time, have so much in

common (BT, for one). And I can honestly say this is the first time ever I

have had an intelligent on-going conversation centered around what it

means to be gay. (oops, I guess I'm out now!)

Anyway, love hearing from everyone.

Keith

(P.S. Todd, sorry to hear about the unfortunate problems with your

brother and sis-in-law. Mine don't know yet, I guess out of fear of

something like this happening to me as well.)

>>> Todd  06/03/97 08:31am >>>

It totally amazes me when I get up in the morning and have 17 messages,

all

from BT list.

<Jamie>I'm happy when I'm with you.

'Beautiful Thing'

*****************************************************

Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 12:12:23 -0500

From: Kyle

Subject: Re: Laserdisc release

At 11:28 AM 6/3/97 -0400, you wrote:

>Is there any news on the US laserdisc

>release of the movie? I saw it on video

>a few weeks ago and fell in love with

>the movie. I called every laserdisc

>store in the U.S. (practically) and was

>told that Sony was not releasing it. Is

>there an import version available? I

>bought the screenplay through Amzon.com

>and the soundtrack and I've seen the

>picture about 12 times since then.

No laserdisc? <scream of rage>

Kyle

*****************************************************

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 97 20:10 +0100

From: Alfred

Subject: BTBTBTBTBTBT

Hi everybody,

so many great things have already been said about this wonderful movie.

Nevertheless I feel the need do share my feelings. Never before I have seen such

a touching movie. Outstanding actors who are directed carefully through a

scintillating story, But, at my sader days, I feel some kind of a grief when

watching BT. It's only a film, I tell myself then. Yes, and that is exactly the

grief, istn't it.

"Thus have I had thee, as a dream doth flatter,

in sleep a king, but waking no such matter"

Love to everybody

PS: Todd, I agree with you. Glen is oh so cute. Especially when he (or Jamie) is

wearing his glasses.

PPS: Looking forward to seeing you all in Frankfurt.

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:07:02 -0800

To: mavrick

From: Mike

Subject: Re: Did they or didn't they?

At 1:04 AM -0700 6/19/97, Eric wrote:

>Mike ,

>In reguards to "Did they, or didn't they" (have sex).. I don't think

>that matters! I think they author tried very intently to NOT make that

>an issue.

Oh, I agree. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying that whether they

did or didn't play around is important. What I find *interesting* is that I

ASSUMED one thing but then discovered that someone else ASSUMED something

quite different. This came as an awakening, a moment of insight for me. The

screen play allows for this ambiguity of interpretation. THAT'S what I find

interesting. See what I mean??

>I don't think you have a dirty mind though. If your like me,

>you have seen a lot of gay people who have lots of meaningless sex, or

>sometimes meaningful sex, and thus assumed Jamie and Ste had sex.

>When I first figured out I was gay, I wanted very much to just talk

>about being gay. (Not have sex!) I was too scared of that!

Yeah, this is something you and I share. I felt very much the same way.

>So I think

>when Ste talked about oldman Trevor next door, and going to his deaf

>aunts, he meant he didn't want to get caught TALKING about it!

That's how you understand it. I obviously understand it quite differently.

>(ofcourse, he could have meant sex) But it would be much more romantic

>to think they meant talking!

More romantic for you. That's the sense you make of it as that's what you

wanted. For me it was different. It's not a matter of "right" vs. "wrong"

here -- what is interesting is the differences and the fact that the screen

play ALLOWS us to have these different interpretations!

>As to the other questions....

>"I'm a bit sore" I definatly don't think he meant from having sex.

No, no, I don't think he meant that either!

>I think he meant from being hit!

Absolutely!

>"Can I touch you?" I think he wanted to feel close to Ste because he

>loved him. If he would have wanted to have sex, he would have said "can

>I have sex with you!".. After all, he doesn't really bit his toung when

>he wants to say something to Ste..

Here's where we part company a bit. Of course he wants to feel close to him

because he loves him. But that doesn't preclude them being "sexual". Again,

I'm using the word very broadly to mean sensual touching that may have lead

to orgaism. Also, I'm not saying that they DID have "sex" or that whether

or not they did is important in and of itself. What I AM saying is that

that is what I assumed from the way the scene was structured. I find this

ambiguity of interpretation FASCINATING and it has not been discussed on

this list before. Of course Jamie didn't say, "Can I have sex with you." A)

because it was difficult enough just to ask if he could touch him and B)

because that would have eliminated the ambiguity Jonathan obviously wanted.

When I was Jamie's age I didn't ask boys if they wanted to have sex. NO

WAY, man! I might have asked, "can I touch you..." or "do you wanna fool

'round.." one thing hopefully leading to another. ;-)

Jamie brushes Ste's cheek and sensually moves his hand down across Ste's

chest to become lost in the folds of the sheets. (Boing!) Jamie is being

gentle as Ste has told him he is a bit soar. Ste brings his left arm up and

places it behind his head, making himself more available and making more

room for Jamie's body. The camera now discretely pans away from the scene

to the curtains being blown by the hot summer night -- leaving us to

imagine whatever we'd like. Eventually we see them now shirtless and asleep

and, in the morning, nude and cuddled in the spoons position. All this to

the tune of "16 going on 17" and interspersed with shots of Sandra and Tony

who we know to be lovers ("Tony, sort me out"). When Ste wakes up the next

morning, he seems -- what? -- well at least a bit unsettled. He does a

double take.

Now if Johnathan had wanted us to think they had NOT had sex, why show them

nude? Again, my point being it is the very AMBIGUITY of this that is

fascinating. We can read it anyway we like!

>About the confrontation at the party, Ste was scared as hell about being

>discovered! Not because of what he "had done!"

Maybe. Maybe not.

>And last but not least, "Want to come around tonight".. If you remeber,

>it was already evening when that scean took place. Jamie didn't want

>the night to end!! I had those nights! He wanted Ste to be with him.

>To hold him! He didn't say want to sleep togeather tonight.

Yeah, well, if I were Jamie, I'd want him to "come round" all night long --

but I can tell you my intention wouldn't be platonic. At age 16? N o w a

y.

>Ok, thats my point of view. I am a hopeless romantic and I choose not

>to see thier love as sexually motivated.

Hmm. Well I'm a romantic, too, and I don't see their love as "sexually

motivated" either. This was no one night stand. Obviously they really do

care about one another. On the other hand, that doesn't preclude them being

sexual. One CAN have BOTH, I know that for a fact.

>I sometimes wish I could be

>more like that.. (I'm pretty close, but .... well)...

>I am very glad the movie didn't show them having sex. Sex is only a

>small part of being in love. Being in love should be a BIG part of

>having sex, but always isn't the case..

We agree here 100%. One of the things I love about this movie is that it IS

about feelings, not sex.

I think this confusion around sex and love is one of the great mysteries of

human existence. I started to say this confusion is paramount in gay

society but I deleted that. It exists every bit as much in straight

society. THIS is a very BIG issue. One that goes very deep and way beyound

this list.

In my opinion, we (humans of the industrial world) don't understand very

much about either sex or love. I base this on the observation that in more

archaic societies sex is often ritualized and tribal. "Gay" and

"heterosexual" are both concepts of our particular culture. They serve a

purpose as labels -- but the range of human sexuality is far too complex

and diverse to really be contained by them. I identify myself as "gay" (not

bisexual as I do not find both sexes equally attractive) and yet I have had

and may again have sex with a woman. Conversely I know "straight" men

(meaning their preference is for women) who don't consider themselves 'bi'

but who have had sex with men and enjoyed it. Go figure! For me, being

"gay" has more to do with whom I wish to fall in love with than with whom I

have sex.

>This movie makes me want to fall in love all over again!! But it didn't

>make me want to run out and have sex..

Right. That's exactly what I appreciate about this film, too. But, at the

same time, the kissing scene in the park was very passionate, wasn't it? I

mean the movie may not have made me want to run out and have anonymous sex,

but it didn't make me want to run out and fall into a platonic relationship

with a 16 yo, either! What it DID make me want to do is rekindle this kind

of beautiful, youthful PASSION in my loving, ADULT relationship.

I've asked this question before -- to little avail. What do we (on the

list) think love is? When do we know we are in love vs. in heat? How are

love and sex related? Are they ONLY supposed to go together? Do they ONLY

work independently? I'd be interested to hear what folks think about this.

>(Unless ofcourse Jamie is single now!!) :) I had to through that in as

>a little joke!! :)

Yeah, well, I was so much like Jamie at 16 - 17 it breaks my heart. I

actually sorta LOOKED like him and thought I was so unattractive. Duh!

Amazing what growing up can do. Now I'm bald, wrinkly and over weight and,

although I'd like to be in better shape, I actually LIKE myself more now

than I did then. As someone once said, "Youth is waisted on the young."

-- Uh, before I get flamed for that: JK. Okay? :-)

 

Mike

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:32:09 -0700

From: Adam

Subject: Re: Another misplaced brit?

> Hey there peoples, I have been really wanting to add my two cents

> worth to this topic and others and am finally now getting around to

> it.

Ever since watching the movie I have felt a longing to travel to

england, and seeing all the like souls was really nice. My reason

besides after seeing the movie and falling in love with the country, is

that many of my roots come from England, and Scottland too for that fact

and I think it would be neat to travel to england.... I am currently a

college student, taking time off trying to decide what in the heck to

do...so I have been thinking alot about study abroad programs, and other

programs. If anyone knows anything that might help please let me know,

privately instead of to the list, plus I am planning on going over for a

vacation with some friends sometime this Oct so If anyone knows how to

get a really cheap plane ticket please let me know. Well my thoughts

aren't running very smoothly today, since I only got like 2 hours sleep

last night. Anywho... Well hope all is well and having luck finding

their beautiful thing:)Adam

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:28:37 -0700 (PDT)

From: Michael

Subject: Re: Did they?

Hi all-

It's my first time writing, just to let you know.

I've been reading for two days, and have decided to now chime in.

Did they or didn't they?

Whoever said it's ambiguous, right on. They did sleep naked

and were spooning in the morning, but that doesn't mean that

they went "all the way." Also, at the Ste-apologizing-hat scene,

they're reading from Gay Times about how HIV is transmitted,

like they haven't done anything risky yet. Ste is definitely NOT

sore from sex, because he only says that one minute after their

first kiss.

Also, would it be as easy for Ste to say "get your queer hands off

of me" if they had gone further than kissing and getting naked?

Ste's anxiety seems very much like he's unsure: he might like

touching and kissing Jamie, but does he want to have sex? This leads

me to believe that they may have had an orgasm together, but

probably didn't have "sex" (whatever that means).

But I want to reiterate what others have said: why does it matter?

I think that they may not have "had sex" that first night, but they

probably did (or intended to) on some subsequent night. Their conversation

about where they could go seems definitely like they want to have

sex and not worry about noise (I disagree with those that have said

that they were looking for a safe place to talk- they were talking

right there in the bedroom). Still, why does it matter? Sex may or

may not be a part of love, and these boys were clearly in love before

they even possibly had sex. That's really all that matters.

I think that fact: that these were two boys in love- is what makes many

young queer folk interested in this movie. I saw it for the first time

about a week-and-a-half ago, and I haven't been able to get it out of

my mind. I've seen a lot of movies, and a fair number of queer ones,

but no movie has ever affected me like this. Is it just the fact that

there are two young gay boys up on the screen, in love, unapologetically?

A movie that represents me? Heaven forbid! :-) It wasn't just wonderful to

see a boy-meets-boy story, but to see a good one at that.

- Michael

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 08:00:24 -0500

Subject: Re:

From: "Shawn-

Hi Chris,

Limited release movies such as Beautiful Thing start at $90.00 for the

video stores. The price of the movie will be lowered usually in five

months for the consumer at $24.95.

SJ

 

On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 21:03:32 PDT Chris

writes:

>Hi again! BT has been released here in the states for about a month

>now. It is in most video stores. But to order it, it runs about $70

>to

>$90. Does anybody know if the US price will fall anytime??? I don't

>want to have to buy a previously viewed copy. Help!

>

>Chris

>

*****************************************************

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:05:44 -0700 (MST)

From: meso

Subject: Re: your mail

Yes, thehprice for the video wwill come down, probably in bout two to

three months. Usually what the video companies do is release something

on video at around $100. The video stores buy copies and put them out

for rent. People go to the store, find out it's available, and if

they're hard core, slap down money for it, or if they're sensible, they

wait a few months until the price comes down to about $20. I guess they

do it as a marketing ploy, putting it out first and letting everybody

know about it (and making a killing off the video stores), and then

selling it at a reasonable price. I'm just guessing, really. But that's

usually what happens, so fear not, it will come down eventually.

*****************************************************

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page