Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:33:45 -0400 (EDT)

From: John

Subject: Ste straight, 70 -1& the party

Ok, saw the topic(s) and just HAD to join the fun! :)

Is our Ste straight? To quote Whoopi Goldberg "I dunno, it's

like...uh...like uh...sanitary napkins. If it fits...."

The author has given us two characters. One (Jamie), who fits neatly into

the comfortable version of the modern stereotypical homosexual male. The

other (Ste) dosen't seem to fit into that particular classification at all.

I'm not even going to try and insult anyones intelligence by applying sexual

roles here (I don't believe in them anyway). Jamie and Ste are two

different guys. I know gay men who remind me of both. Heck, I'll admit

right now that I'm right along side with Jamie in the stereotype department.

Conversely, I also met a guy who flamed so bright he was almost super nova.

He also happened to be a complete straight (but not narrow ;).) arrow. As

far as a Ste example, I know this guy from the gym I work out at who is

further out of the closet than I am, and he acts just like Ste. The point

I'm kind of dancing around is this... sexual identity, like one or two other

behavioral theories, is still enigmatic at best (HeadDr, Bonni, am I

right?). Why? *Shrug* I don't know. Sometimes the dog just dosen't

salivate when you ring the bell I guess.

Myself, I choose to believe that Ste was gay. I believe that his

character's driving goal was to come out to himself. I believe that he and

Jamie DID make love togeather (the clothes had to come off somehow, they

were both fully dressed before THE kiss.), and I don't think he was

interested in the girl at the party in the slightest (he turned them down

when he was invited up for a "drink").

Maybe (and here is where it gets poetic and metiphysical) true love has the

power to look thorugh all of the political hooplah and claptrap (of both

sides), and all of the man/boy or man/woman gender roles, and actually sees

the person undernieth in all of his/her spiritually naked glory. Maybe,

just maybe this is the fire, that fabled spark that will preserve a

relationship for the eternity allotted to it.

Oh well, it's late (in my time zone at least), and I'm probably only half

aware of just how cheesy what I'm writing sounds. Oh well. C'est la vie.

Questions? Comments? Friendly rapport? Give me an e-mail. Please no

flames, they waste list bandwidth *grin* :).

With respect and love to everyone, I am....

*Pax

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:46:14 -0700 (PDT)

From: MR J J

Subject: Re: Is Ste gay or not...

 

 

Hi!!,

well I went to the Gloucester on the fans meet,it was my first gay pub

as I've not been out long - and I loved it the atmosphere in there was

great -and for me (also being a teenager just coming out) I thought it

was a lot of fun.but there ya go

Joe!

 

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Fontenot  wrote:

>

> Well,

>

> I don't think it matters. If you have some weird idea that just because

> Ste is vaguely "butch" so he can't be gay, well, that's not right. And as for

> Ste not liking the bar, well, I'm gay and HATE queer bars as well. That

> particular line when Ste is crying and declares his hate for the stinking place

> hit just the right chord with me. In case you didn't notice, most of the men

> at the bar were well over 30, some of them in drag, and nearly all of them

> leering at the boys as if to say, "I'm gonna EAT you, little pork chops!" Now

> that's not very much fun for a teenager just coming out, is it? I think the

> public making out is a little overwhelming also, I mean, just GO HOME, will ya?

> The scene at the Gloucester perfectly captured everything I hate about those

> places. Although I usually identify more with Jamie, I'm definitely in synch

> with Ste's hatred of the Gloucester!

>

> David

>

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

From: JOE

Subject: Re: BT errors

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:08:52 -0500

> Hi All,

>

> Sometimes when you see a film, there are all kinds of errors, often

ones of

> continuity. BT has a very LOW content of these. In fact there's

only two

> that I'm sure are (slight) errors.

>

> I don't think there are any obvious ones. Usually (in most films)

these

> involve wardrobe, jewelry, props that appear and reappear -- due to

> intercutting different takes. Perhaps because the film was shot so

quickly,

> there was no time for lots of takes or bad memories about what

props had

> been set where.

>

> Anyone spot any? This is all in fun, mind you.

>

> -Eric

Well, I think the Internet Movie DB mentions one I saw even the first

time in the theater and that's the body mike transmitter under

Jamie's T-shirt when he's fighting with Sandra on the living room

floor.

Gary

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

From: Speaker

Subject: Re: What's Sandra doing?

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:08:19 -0500 (CDT)

And thus spake mesocyclone...

> Okay, so here's my next question: why is she doing it now? What has

> prompted her to start throwing away all of the things Jaime was saving

> for his kids? Just bc he was ditching class? Doesn't seem to be a

> likely motivation to me. Help! What is going on here?

Somebody send this man a screenplay and/or stageplay! :-)

Seriously, having either (or both) of them helps quite a bit.

I think she's doing it because he ditched gym again. I get the

impression he's done it quite a bit.

--

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 14:36:29 EDT

From: RGloff

Subject: Musical Background

Love the Movie, love the Music!!

But there was one thing in two spots of the movie that sort of rubbed me

the wrong way.

That was the volume to the music of "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" and "Make

Your Own Kind of Music".

I thought the scenes were just beautiful, but the loudness of the music

just blew me away!

I personally felt a lower volume in the songs would have added a more

delicate and tender feeling to the scene.

It is petty, but being from a theatrical background, music rounds out a

scene and sets a mood for the viewer.

Was wondering if any other BT Fans noticed this in their viewing?

Ron

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:24:42 +1200

From: Leonard

Subject: Re: Is Ste gay or not...

Todd  wrote:

> I think I'd actually have to disagree with you on this one. I think

> Ste

> is gay and is coming to grips as to what that means. At the party, I

> think Ste didnt' respond to Claires flirting because he just didn't

> get

> it. He was intently interested in Jamie. I don't think he completely

>

> realizes that till after Leah confronts the two of them and he has

> time to

> think about it on the bridge.

>

I have to agree with Todd on this. At the party when Claire is flirting

with Ste, Ste has a look of blankness. Only when he looks at Jamie does

he light up. As to the fact that Ste doesn't like the Glouster, I know

a lot of gay men who don't like bars and clubs, doesn't mean they're not

gay.

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

From: Kenneth

Subject: Re: What's Sandra doing?

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 23:59:14 -0400

I think it may be a hold over from the play. I haven't read the play

script, only the screenplay, and you're right that it really doesn't make

sense. David help us, please.

Ken

> From: mesocyclone

> Subject: Re: What's Sandra doing?

> Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 20.34

>

> Okay, so here's my next question: why is she doing it now? What has

> prompted her to start throwing away all of the things Jaime was saving

> for his kids? Just bc he was ditching class? Doesn't seem to be a

> likely motivation to me. Help! What is going on here?

>

>

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 22:34:52 -0700 (MST)

From: mesocyclone

Subject: Ste hating the Gloucester?

When did this part come in? I don't recall him stating he hated the

place. What part is that in?

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

From: David

Subject: Re: Ste hating the Gloucester?

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:30:24 -0000

Will wrote...

> When did this part come in? I don't recall him stating he hated the

place. What part is that in?

After Leah's little trip, when Ste is sat on Sandra's couch, and Jamie is

fetching the Autumnal Shades...

STE: No I won't

SANDRA: Well, you found the Gloucester

STE: I hate it

SANDRA: Well somewhere else then, shut up

STE: There ain't nowhere else

Scene 90, Beautiful Thing screenplay, Copyright 1996 Jonathan Harvey.

Regards, Davie

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

From: Spank

Subject: Re: Review snipped from Rex Wockner

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:22:14 +1000

Rex Wockner's latest Quote/Unquote column contains this:

"If there were any justice at all at the video store, this sweet

little English movie about gay teenagers would have as big an

audience as Ellen's coming out episode did."

--Entertainment Weekly May 23 on "Beautiful Thing."

Iain

PS: I'm using DALNET Bristol to find the IRC, but can never find anyone. I

know you've all been through this before, but I didn't have mIRC back then.

Also, being in Australia, we share only a few waking hours.

Could some kind and caring soul pass on some info on how to get connected

to Beaut Thing IRC, including perhaps the best times (Greenwich Mean &

I'll convert) so I can join in?

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

From: Spank

Subject: Re: Sandwich /Fry-up question

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:13:22 +1000

A "walloping great" (big) fry-up is a classic, grossly unhealthy, but

ultimately satisfying meal consisting of (for example): fried eggs, fried

bacon, fried sausages, fried onions, fried mushrooms, baked beans and

buttered (not margarined) toast. To be truly authentic, everything must be

fried in dirty lard at a greasy spoon (cafe) before being drowned in half a

bottle of tomato sauce and salt. MMMmmmm, the English sure know how to

satisfy a hangover! Beats the McDonalds' hangover cure hands down! ;-)

Go on, try it!

Iain

> From: Pat

> Subject: Re: Sandwich question

> Date: Friday, 27 June 1997 10:05

> And speaking of sandwiches, what in the world is a walloping great

fry-up?

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:27:17 +0000

From: John

Subject: Re: Musical Background

RGloff wrote:

>

> Love the Movie, love the Music!!

> But there was one thing in two spots of the movie that sort of rubbed me

> the wrong way.

> That was the volume to the music of "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" and "Make

> Your Own Kind of Music".

> I thought the scenes were just beautiful, but the loudness of the music

> just blew me away!

> I personally felt a lower volume in the songs would have added a more

> delicate and tender feeling to the scene.

>

> It is petty, but being from a theatrical background, music rounds out a

> scene and sets a mood for the viewer.

>

> Was wondering if any other BT Fans noticed this in their viewing?

>

> Ron

 

I thought the very same thing when "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" came

on. I too felt it was too loud!! A lower volume there would have been

better in my opinion.

HOWEVER, I think the volume for "Make Your Own Kind of Music" was

perfect. It *needed* to be that loud. The whole point of the movie, the

entire case to be made for the movie's existence, the reason why it's OK

for Jamie and Ste to be in love can be summed up in the words to that

song

Nobody can tell ya, there's only one song worth singin

They may try and sell ya cause it hangs them up to see someone like

you

BUT YOU'VE GOTTA

Make your own kind of music

Sing your own special song

Make your own kind of music

EVEN IF NOBODY ELSE SINGS ALONG

And there you have two young boys racing through the forest exploring

their love for each other ending in a beautiful kiss. That scene in

combination with the song affirm the whole point of the movie, that

their relationship is indeed, a Beautiful Thing.

John

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

From: David

Subject: Re: Email-list (resend of corrupted email) (fwd)

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:41:39 -0000

Hmmm... there's a problem :(

----

From: CARMEN

Date: 27 June 1997 13:17

Subject: Re: Email-list (resend of corrupted email) (fwd)

>Ummmm....there's no diff! ?????

>I don't get it?????

>tory

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 12:32:37 -0400 (EDT)

From: John

Subject: What's Saundra Doing?

Ok, in the play script there is some dialogue between Leah and Jamie...

JAMIE: She's taking it out on the cupboard. Throwin' away everything I was

saving for my kids. Books, toys. I don't want kids.

LEAH: Kids are cunts.

Well there it is guys:). Hope it helps!

*Pax

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:28:12 -0500 (CDT)

From: chakravorty

Subject: Re: Ste hating the Gloucester?

Ste replied that he hated the Gloucester in conversation with Sandra. She

was trying to assure him that he would find a place where he fit in.

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

From: Kenneth

Subject: Re: Ste hating the Gloucester?

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:35:53 -0400

It came in while Sandra and Ste were in the lounge talking after Leah's

drug hallucination.

Ken

> From: mesocyclone

> Subject: Ste hating the Gloucester?

> Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 01.34

>

> When did this part come in? I don't recall him stating he hated the

> place. What part is that in?

>

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:56:51 -0400

From: Eric

Subject: Re: What's Sandra doing?

 

> Somebody send this man a screenplay and/or stageplay! :-)

> Seriously, having either (or both) of them helps quite a bit.

> I think she's doing it because he ditched gym again. I get the

>impression he's done it quite a bit.

I have to echo this. A lot becomes much clearer if one reads the

screenplay. I also recommend the BT Glossary for those not in the UK and

don't get the slang. It was a big help to me!

And Jaime HAS skipped PE regularly:

Sandra: How come every Wednesday without fail you're standing there?

Jaime doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's "bunking off."

-Eric

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:47:06 -0700 (MST)

From: mesocyclone

Subject: Re: Ste hating the Gloucester? (fwd)

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 09:07:29 -0700

From: Dennis

Subject: Re: Ste hating the Gloucester?

mesocyclone wrote:

>

> When did this part come in? I don't recall him stating he hated the

> place. What part is that in?

>

27 june 97

after jamie tells Ste that "she" knows, and later is crying on the

couch,

Ste says he hated the Gloucester. I agree w/whoever said Ste may not be

"gay" per se, but he loves Jamie, who happens to be a male. This is love

in its purest sense, which is a large part of the reason why I think we

all love this movie so much. Has anyone figured out what the Hedy Lamaar

movie Jamie is watching after cutting gym in the beginning?

Dennis

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:07:32 -0400

From: Eric

Subject: Motivations

In discussing the motivation of Sandra in throwing away Jaime's toys, I

think you've hit upon a little problem in the screenplay.

Although I think Jonathan's work is just great, he has left some "holes."

Some things in the script are a little out of left field. I don't think

Jonathan ever thought everything would be majorly scrutinized by a bunch of

fans!

The other motivation that's not very clear is just why Sandra dropped Tony.

Oh yes, there are several little things that he does that irritate her, but

there is no one event that shows us it's coming. I think most viewers were

surprised and saddened by that turn of events.

There are other things that might have been fleshed out a bit better as

well. I don't think we'll ever find the "answers" unless we kidnap Jonathan

some day and insist that he tell us what he was thinking!

I've got the handcuffs! :-)

-Eric

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:42:22 -0400

From: Eric

Subject: Re: Sandwich question

At 08:42 AM 6/26/97 -0400, you wrote:

>Is pastromie and fetachinie (sp?) on rye a real sandwich? Never heard of

>one over here.

>

>Todd

 

Nah, it's not real. Tony was just kidding. That why Sandra seems put out

when he says it. Of course, I'm sure *someone* at sometime has made such a

sandwich!

-Eric

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

From: Spank

Subject: Stonewall Day

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 07:04:39 +1000

HAPPY STONEWALL DAY EVERYONE EVERYWHERE!

NOW GET OUT THERE AND DO IT WITH PRIDE!

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

From: Todd

Subject: RE: Musical Background

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:41:14 -0400

Actually, I thought the music (at that volume) made both those scenes all the

more powerful. In fact, the kiss against the tree is my favorite part of

the film, music and all. My second favorite part is the "Sixteen Going on

Seventeen" sequence. I think the music worked at that volume because, in

both instances, the emotions the boys felt were rather loud. When you're

discovering that the boy you loved from afar just might be gay and just might

love you, you don't feel all tender and delicate. Your mind and heart are

singing at full volume. It's an insane feeling. A lower volume, in my humble

opinion, of course, would have lessened the emotion in both those instances.

Todd

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

From: RGloff

Sent: Friday, June 27, 1997 5:08 p.m.

Subject: Musical Background

Love the Movie, love the Music!!

But there was one thing in two spots of the movie that sort of rubbed me

the wrong way.

That was the volume to the music of "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" and "Make

Your Own Kind of Music".

I thought the scenes were just beautiful, but the loudness of the music

just blew me away!

I personally felt a lower volume in the songs would have added a more

delicate and tender feeling to the scene.

It is petty, but being from a theatrical background, music rounds out a

scene and sets a mood for the viewer.

Was wondering if any other BT Fans noticed this in their viewing?

Ron

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 14:27:03 EDT

From: RGloff

Subject: re: Motivations

Well, about Sandra's motivations for dropping Tony:

Like Jamie said, she needed him to paint the place and with the new pub,

there wasn't any room, relationship-wise, for Tony in her life. She

basically used him to paint the apartment - and what fab colors at that!

Even though we didn't see him physically paint the place, it was stated

when Jamie and Tony were sharing the spliff on the balcony.

And now with the pub, she's ready to move on....

Ron

-------------

Original Text

From: Eric >, on 6/27/97 11:07 AM:

In discussing the motivation of Sandra in throwing away Jaime's toys, I

think you've hit upon a little problem in the screenplay.

Although I think Jonathan's work is just great, he has left some "holes."

Some things in the script are a little out of left field. I don't think

Jonathan ever thought everything would be majorly scrutinized by a bunch of

fans!

The other motivation that's not very clear is just why Sandra dropped Tony.

Oh yes, there are several little things that he does that irritate her, but

there is no one event that shows us it's coming. I think most viewers were

surprised and saddened by that turn of events.

There are other things that might have been fleshed out a bit better as

well. I don't think we'll ever find the "answers" unless we kidnap Jonathan

some day and insist that he tell us what he was thinking!

I've got the handcuffs! :-)

-Eric

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

From: "Me, not you"

Subject: Re: Motivations

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:03:58 -0400

 

 

>

>

> The other motivation that's not very clear is just why Sandra dropped

Tony.

> Oh yes, there are several little things that he does that irritate her,

but

> there is no one event that shows us it's coming. I think most viewers

were

> surprised and saddened by that turn of events.

>

 

 

Easy one. Remember Jamie and Tony on the balcony? "Like that my

mum. Goes off things.... fast." Tony is just another 'victim' of

Saundra's tendency to just become disinterested in things. Just my

opinion.

C.O.

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

From: Jeff

Subject: A Proper Farewell.

Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:23:46 -0600

However much we don't want to see people leave the email list for whatever

reason, we hope you do it correctly. And posting an unsubscribe message to

the list isn't the way to do it.

The address is:

in the body of the email message, type:

leave Beautiful-Thing

Jeff

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:54:46 -0700 (MST)

From: mesocyclone

Subject: Ste hating the Gloucester -- the light comes on!

Oh okay. I thought she said they'd find a place where people

won't hate them. Ste says no we won't, and then Sandra said you found

the Gloucester.

At this point, I always thought Ste said "Naw, he did." (meaning Jaime)

That's where the confusion comes in for me. Well, not any more

anyway. I'm still really curious why Sandra picks that moment in

particualr to throw away all of the thigs Jaime was saving for his kids.

It looks like just an excuse to get them all out on the balcony with

Leah, but I think something better could've been used.

I'm also really curious about Sandra's reaction the night Jaime goes

out to the party. She asks "Where you going?"

"Out with me mates."

"Jaime, you haven't got any mates."

Etc, etc.

This seems to be an incredibly rude thing to say, especially to your

own son. I don't have any kids (only 24), but I personally hope that my

tongue should be struck out if I ever spoke to any child of mine like

that. I would think she'd be happy to see her boy finally had some

friends. But no, she slaps him in the face by reminding him that he's

unpopular. Especially in light of what she says to Tony later in the

balcony, about how she's been fighting for that boy her whole life, I

think this is really out of character. Well, maybe not, but it just

don't seem right, ya know?

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

You are visitor #

Last Updated on 12/11/98