[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

 

Email Archive Page 43

 
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 09:39:25 -0500 (CDT)
From: chakravorty
Subject: Re: First time feeling Love
i Mike I think the discussion of age DOES have something to do with BT -
BT focuses on first time young love, but that doesn't mean that first time
love (or love of different sorts) are peculiar to youth - first love
isn't necessarily the best love. Our Sandra has probably been in "love"
many times, Tony is in love and look what happened to him. Doesn't mean
it is the end of the line for any of them. True as we age some people
will have reactions to us that we don't want but we will (if we get with
the program) have positive reactions to people we wouldn't have
previously looked at twice.
Two cents from another one of the over 40 crowd.

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

From: "Me, not you"
Subject: Re: Beautiful Thing
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 23:51:40 -0400
 
 
 
"....my ball back?" Jamie says (I really haven't a clue as to
what he really says. It's sounds to me like "garble garble my ball
back?")
 
 
=======================
 
 
 
He says "Oh get us my ball back?!"
 
Just FYI :)
 
cfo

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

Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 21:41:55 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Like, DUH!
Someone just pointed out that what I thought was a private email went to
the whole list. GeBOING!
It's okay, actually. I'd decided to post this to the list anyway. I managed
to get my hands on a VHS converted PAL copy of the BT vid and take a few
stills off of it for everyone. I'm afraid the quality isn't very good as
the PAL had been digitized to VHS and then redigitized to remove the stills
-- but at least the images are in box-top foremat. :-)
So, if you haven't already done so check'm out at
Hey, Sony, don't get uptight about the copyrights, okay? We wanna share
this film with the world -- and make you rich in the process, all right?
 
Mike

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

From: Robert
Subject: Cheers
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 18:39:56 WETDST
 
 
Hi there,
I'm still going through all those mails. I was in Sweden and Russia and
boy did I come back to a full mail box!
It seems to be true that 30 is some sort of cut off age. The association
I belong to here in France has an age limit ( 18-30) It is a shame I think.
Some people on the list seem to think that this age is cool (30 that is) -
any age is cool. It is strange that some young people want to be older
and older people younger- the grass seems to be always green on the
other side.
As Tony said 'What is age?- age is just a number.'
I was personally very scared about getting 'old'. I haven't had a
boyfriend yet (I'm 27) and so I found it bit shocking this many
associations have this age limit. I felt so strange being with younger
people who are probably on their 8th- 9th boyfriend and are now looking
for a particular 'type' .
I've got over that now- with of the help of all of you. I haven't really got to
talk about things much since coming out (a few years ago). It is good
reading the mails as some of you do all the talking for me.
Cheers
Love
Robert

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

From: Kenneth
Subject: Re: Beautiful Thing
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 09:23:16 -0400
>From the screen play:
Give us me ball back.
This is an example of Street Grammar.
----------
> From: Me, not you
> Subject: Re: Beautiful Thing
> Date: Saturday, July 05, 1997 23.51
>
>
>
>
> "....my ball back?" Jamie says (I really haven't a clue as to
> what he really says. It's sounds to me like "garble garble my ball
> back?")
>
>
>
> =======================
>
>
>
>
> He says "Oh get us my ball back?!"
>
>
> Just FYI :)
>
>
> cfo

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 13:47:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: HeadDr
Subject: Age
Well, I kinda started a debate that wasn't meant to. I am 30 -- YES!!
But, I made a comment that it was old. I was only joking when I said this.
And, apparently, I offended some people by saying this. I truely sorry and
did not mean to do that. I will admit that when I first turned 30 it was
kinda a shock but I got over it. However, something did not change with the
number, and that is I still have the personality of a 23 year old. Like
Tony said, "Age is just number"!!! And that is what it is to me. I have
to admit that I have developed some special friendships from this list and
enjoy very immensely reading each email from everyone. It shows me that we
defy the sterotypical heterosexual images that are bestoyed on us by them.
We are well rounded, highly sensitive, intelligent, insightful... well you
get the point!!
Again, apologizing for digressing and offending
Jim

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 01:11:18 +0200
From: jmcs
Subject: Still like the first time.
Hello all,
This is another of my looong posts, so be warned!
I just saw THE film for the umpteenth+1 time, only this time I saw it along
with a friend.
She was really curious about the movie, especially because I haven´t stopped
talking about it for the last seven months.
She came round yesterday and she couldn´t help but notice the Attitude
picture I have on my bedroom wall (guess which one), so she asked me to
watch the film to check out for herself if the movie was worth my
'obsession' (in her words) or if it was 'Much ado about nothing' (also her
words).
What can I say? I´ve created a monster.
By the time of the 'Peppermint foot lotion' scene, she had fallen completely
under the 'Beautiful Thing Spell', as I call it. She was almost crying and
she asked me to rewind the scene to see it again. As for myself, I had
gooseflesh, as usual. But even after all these months, I still had a big
surprise in store. By the second viewing, my friend was so captivated by the
scene that when she saw Jamie rubbing the lotion onto Ste´s back, she said:
"Oh my God! He´s loving him with his hands!" And in that moment, I saw the
light. "No" I said, "He´s making love to him with his hands."
The rest of the film was surprise after surprise. Even better than the first
time.
When it ended, my friend said she knew now why I was so crazy about it.
Because she was 'enchanted' too!
After that, we spent almost two hours dissecting the movie.
She studied psychology a few months before becoming a pedagogue, so she
tried to psychoanalize Ste. (!)
As far as she could remember, she said Ste had the "shedidntknowwhich
syndrome". It´s something ill-treated people suffer. A complete denial of
their beatings, even if front of the people that already know about it; they
pretend everything is 'pucker' and normal.
Psychologically, Ste´s symptoms were of a very low self-esteem and even
self-hatred (in the worst cases the victims are convinced they deserve the
beatings they´re receiving), hence Ste´s: 'I´m ugly', when in fact he´s a
very beautiful young man (this indicates Ste already has a distorted vision
of himself), an increasing inferiority complex and Lord only knows what
else. She also was pretty sure Ste´s beatings came from his early years (5-6
years old or even younger).
But Ste´s also very brave (out of necessity) and he dreams of a better life.
My friend pointed out something I had overlooked that she thinks extremely
important about Ste´s willpower and courage: the bathroom scene, when he
sees Jamie watching him, his immediate reaction is covering his bruises,
embarrassed that Jamie is aware of a weakness he considers so shameful. But
a few hours later, after being beaten once again, Ste´s completely broken in
front of Jamie. But he´s not ashamed anymore, he´s gone beyond that by now
and he shows of his own free will his bruise to Jamie, he lets Jamie see
what´s been done to him. And Jamie´s reaction is the BEST. He doesn´t look
away disgusted, he looks the bruise head-on and grimaces in empathic pain
with his friend´s suffering. He shares Ste´s pain.
According to my friend, the whole scene is a healing session for Ste. Jamie
does everything right. From the swig of Coke to the kiss. He gives Ste his
self-esteem back, his worth: "You´re a good swimmer", "You ain´t ugly".
(Ste´s "You´re on your own when you´re swimming" is also VERY revealing.)
Jamie´s not repelled by Ste´s bruises but he touches them, he caresses them,
he LOVES them. He wants to be close to Ste when Ste´s most disgusted with
himself.
She was really shaken when she saw how Jamie was caressing Ste´s chest
bruise. She said everything was perfect. Even the fact that they were naked
in bed was right. Close contact, skin to skin was exactly what Ste needed;
warmth, sharing, closeness, feeling like a human being again.
We were talking about only that scene about an hour. It was a whole new
world for me. I had a glipse at Ste´s psyche and I find him even more
admirable because of it.
When the movie was over we saw the 'peppermint foot lotion' scene two more
times.
Ah, just one more thing about Ste´s recovery: my friend was CONVINCED (she
was that adamant) that Jamie´s love and almost worshipping would cure Ste.
BUT, he would imperatively need to be removed from that vicious environment.
The only way possible is that Sandra and Jamie take him with them. Ste´s
emotionally attached to Jamie now and he wouldn´t make it without him. As a
victim of mental and physical abuse (similar to rape victims) Ste will need
Jamie´s loyalty, support and love to recover.
Judging from the last scene where Ste´s not afraid of dancing in front of
everyone to show his love for Jamie, he´s on the right track.
We talked a lot more, but essentially, that´s all.
I found it very revealing.
 
Take care.
 
Sandra.

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

From: JOE
Subject: Re: Age
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 17:06:04 -0500
>
> Well, I kinda started a debate that wasn't meant to. I am 30 --
YES!!
> But, I made a comment that it was old. I was only joking when I
said this.
> And, apparently, I offended some people by saying this. I truely
sorry and
> did not mean to do that. I will admit that when I first turned 30
it was
> kinda a shock but I got over it. However, something did not
change with the
> number, and that is I still have the personality of a 23 year old.
Like
> Tony said, "Age is just number"!!! And that is what it is to me.
 
Yeah, age is an issue through society - gay and straight - but things
are changing and gay society will have to change along with it.
When I was in my teens, it was unheard of for someone in their 50s,
or maybe 40s, to engage in any more physical activity than maybe a
game of tennis or golf. These days, there are marathons for people
in their 60s!. I have a faculty colleague who regular runs in races
I know _I_ wouldn't finish. <G>
Secondly, I'm a baby boomer and we really never have grown up. We
still listen today either to the music of our younger years or to
current music that has the same spirit. Three years ago I went to
see Def Leppard in concert in Memphis and the age range of the
audience was from pre-teen to early 50s. When I was a kid, we always
rejected the music of our elders.
As to the gay community, there are changes too. Despite the ravages
of AIDS, there are still a lot of us who came out _before_ 1980 who
are still around and just a couple of decades or less from legal
retirement age. We're as young thinking as our straight boomer
counterparts and we also came of age during the time of social
protest (Vietnam, Civil Rights, etc.) and we still have that spirit.
I could see many people not only my age but a lot older actively
involved in Pride weekend in Atlanta. Stonewall was in 1969 and,
though I didn't know about it until later that year (it initially
didn't make news outside of New York City), I came out just a few
weeks after it happened - on July 4 - Independence Day - in fact.
One final thing (tying this somehow to BT <G>) - Most of the guys I
know who come close to being "boyfriends" are 15 to 20 years younger
than me because (a) being a little dude, I don't look my age and (b)
teaching college and being around 18 to 22 year olds all day keeps
you younger and (c) I see to hook up with guys who are
chronologically younger but who admit they have always felt "older"
than they are.
Gay culture is going to have to come to grips with these changes.
The members of Pansy Division, a queer punk group popular with teens,
consists of three guys - two of whom will soon hit 40 and one who
will soon be 30. Yet fans don't see them as "old."
If we can learn some common sense about sexual behavior and be more
open to relationships, there are going to be an awful lot of "aging"
gays over the next few years and the notion that 30 is the end of
life will have to pass away.
BT was about teenagers, but it was really about all us gay guys
whatever our age. I think that's because it was about _relationships_
and not just hormonal attraction. It is that desire for and
appreciation of real relationships that will sustain us in the years
to come as we _all_ get older.
Gary

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 17:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JP
Subject: Comparing US Video Release to Film Release
Hi BT Listers!
While watching the US video release a 2nd time I became increasingly annoyed
at the problems that were introduced while "reformatting" the movie "to fit
your television set", (as it says on the video's box). These include faces
and bodies half or totally off-screen during important scenes, less obvious
but neverless important visuals disappearing (like 269 - Sandra & Jamie's
apt number in scene 72), and "introduced" camera movements (to take in both
characters). It also appears that the soundtrack was re-mixed, perhaps to
bring out the dialog, but to the detriment of the background music, which
virtually disappears in important scenes like those in the bedroom . In
addition, there is one section (#33 Int. Jamie's Bedroom. Night) where frames
are dropped altogether, creating a jump, just as Jamie turns off the light.
The UK/PAL edition was released in original format. I have a copy and have
watched it several times. The perception of US marketers, aparently, is that
US audiences prefer their screen to be filled with the picture, rather than
to see the film as the director and cinematographer originally designed.
Therefore, most videos are reformatted in the US, at lease for initial
release. Eventually most films with any merit are released in "letterbox"
editions, on Laserdisc if not on VHS..
BTListers: we need to convince Sony Classics to release a widescreen edition
in the US!. A "deluxe" version, with additional footage, glossy pictures,
etc, would be great too, no? I'm sure that no true BT fan will be satisfied
with the reformatted version in the US. And, lots of people are going to
rent this version thinking that that's the way it is, not realising what
they've missed!
For the record, and to help make a case for an "orignial" version release in
the US, I've started to compile a list of variances between the orginal and
US release version, scene by scene. I've used the screenplay's scene
numbering to identify the scenes in my list.
If you want, those of you who have seen the US release, please review my list
and send have any comments or additions that I may have missed to this list
or to me .
Davie has told me he'll put up a page on the Website with differences between
various versions listed, as soon as its ready...
:o) jay
I have used "formatted" for the "formatted for your TV" version, and
"letterbox" for the original version. The scene numbers are from Methuen's
1996 version of the screenplay.
The List:
1. Box: Photo of the boy's on the bench, looking out over Thamesmead, is
"doctored": background is not Thamesmead as in original photo, but some other
American looking city skyline. Was this necessary? What's that point?
2. Movie jumps from "formatted" to "letterbox" during Titles only, then back
to "formatted". This is disconcerting, not to mention disappointing (when it
goes back to "formatted", that is).
3. Scene 33. Several frames dropped, resulting in "jump" in picture, just
after Jamie says "I'll turn off the light".
4. Scene 33. Background music too quiet, charming effect lost...
6. Scene 35. One interviewer completely off screen, even though speaking.
7. Scene ... Tony's face cut in half, while speaking...

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

From: David
Subject: Re: Age
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 01:13:50 -0000
Jim was one about age...
>Well, I kinda started a debate that wasn't meant to. I am 30 --
YES!!
> But, I made a comment that it was old. I was only joking when I said
this.
I certainly never saw your comments in any way as 'age-ist' Jim! I turned
32 June 1st last, looking forward now to 40, and I have to say although I
wonder if I'll finally have matured by then, I very much doubt it.
Age is what you make of it: While it seems most of us leave our prime
physical beauty behind us as we proceed into our thirties, our inner
beauty, experience, and depth of love increases, and it is these which will
carry us through to the sunset of our lives.
I know when I'm with a person I know to be older, I can sit for hours
listening to them talk about their views, things they've seen and done, and
love finding out what caused them to develop the way they did.
Regards, Davie

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 01:30:55 +0200
From: jmcs
Subject: Re: Age
At 13:47 6/07/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, I kinda started a debate that wasn't meant to. I am 30 -- YES!!
> But, I made a comment that it was old. I was only joking when I said this.
> And, apparently, I offended some people by saying this. I truely sorry and
>did not mean to do that. I will admit that when I first turned 30 it was
>kinda a shock but I got over it. However, something did not change with the
>number, and that is I still have the personality of a 23 year old. Like
>Tony said, "Age is just number"!!! And that is what it is to me. I have
>to admit that I have developed some special friendships from this list and
>enjoy very immensely reading each email from everyone. It shows me that we
>defy the sterotypical heterosexual images that are bestoyed on us by them.
> We are well rounded, highly sensitive, intelligent, insightful... well you
>get the point!!
>
>Again, apologizing for digressing and offending
>
>Jim
I don´t know about everyone else, but I wasn´t offended at all about 'age'.
I´ll be 25 in a week and I´m delighted. As my grandma said: "That´s a good
sign. If you don´t have birthdays it means you´re dead!"
I´m also heterosexual but what certainly I´m not is stereotypical.
STEREOTYPICAL, MOI? God forbid!!!! :))
Love ya, fellas.
 
Sandra.

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 21:00:32 +0000
From: John
Subject: Re: Age
Age isn't the only thing the gay community has hang ups about- we
also have hang ups about "looks". It seems many guys want somebody who
is perfect and buff and while there certainly is an undeniable appeal to
a gorgeous body and face- it's not everything. Lots of guys won't even
give a second look if the "profile" is "correct". I remember in college
I was sitting in class and there were two guys who struck me- one was
very good looking, the other- well...not so good looking- he had
wretched teeth, gray hair (at the ripe old age of twenty!), kind of
short, and had thick glasses. The good looking one had the most
perfectly toned body- not too much, not too little- a veritable stud- he
looked like Ste actually. The first week in school I stared and
stared at the good looking one with longing eyes..."Wow," I'd swoon,
"I really like him." I decided I'd get to know him a little. He was
nice alright- but you know- he just didn't do it for me at all. His
lovely exterior just didn't stir me in any meaningful way.
One day I had a happenstance conversation with the, well... not so
good looking one, and found we had an enormous amount in common. Before
you knew it, I couldn't even see the "good looking one" anymore. It was
as though he wasn't even there. I totally fell in love with "John"-
everything about him drove me crazy! I thought there was nobody who
looked better. To me, he was the best looking guy in the world, and to
my credit I thought, I was the only one who could see it.
Alas, we never did get together. He was wayyyyyy too brainwashed to
ever accept himself as gay. I never totally did get over him. The sad
part is that I know I'll never know anyone quite like him again. I just
hope I find a guy someday that can make me feel like he did- you know,
like not wanting to be anywhere else in the world even if he's just
sitting next to you asleep. I miss that. I miss that overwhelming
singular vision of him, when we were together.
"Beautiful Thing" reminded me of the way things might have been- indeed
could have been if only.....It was a beautiful story and I got a lot out
of it- obviously, I'm here aren't I?! But I also got something else- it
has allowed me to grieve a little- to grieve for what I might have had
with John if he weren't so... but that's all over now.
Well, so much for that. The point I was trying to make is that if I
was so hung up on looks, I might never have gotten to know him at all.
And while it didn't end up the way I had wanted, hoped, or dreamed, I
think I'm better off for having known him (that little wretch!).
I just hope that someday, I find someone who is as "ugly" as John
was.
Cheers
John

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 23:14:19 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: Like, DUH!
Wow, Mike - the slideshow summed up the whole movie - thanks, it was
great (can you get a sound clip of Mama Cass' "Make Your Own Kind of
Music" to go along with it???) - Just wondering! - The pictures really
aren't all that bad - I'm makeing them my new screen saver and
wall-paper - one of these days I'll figure out how this font program of
mine works and have a working BT Theme (at least for myself and others
if it doesn't break any copyright laws!?!) <:-( ("egad, Sally!")
Kevin
_____
Mike  wrote:
>
> Someone just pointed out that what I thought was a private email went to
> the whole list. GeBOING!
>
> It's okay, actually. I'd decided to post this to the list anyway. I managed
> to get my hands on a VHS converted PAL copy of the BT vid and take a few
> stills off of it for everyone. I'm afraid the quality isn't very good as
> the PAL had been digitized to VHS and then redigitized to remove the stills
> -- but at least the images are in box-top foremat. :-)
>
> So, if you haven't already done so check'm out at
>
> Hey, Sony, don't get uptight about the copyrights, okay? We wanna share
> this film with the world -- and make you rich in the process, all right?
>
> Mike

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 23:42:04 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: Still like the first time.
Sandra,
(excerpt from your post below)
> According to my friend, the whole scene is a healing session for Ste. Jamie
> does everything right. From the swig of Coke to the kiss. He gives Ste his
> self-esteem back, his worth: "Youre a good swimmer", "You aint ugly".
> (Stes "Youre on your own when youre swimming" is also VERY revealing.)
> Jamies not repelled by Stes bruises but he touches them, he caresses them,
> he LOVES them. He wants to be close to Ste when Stes most disgusted with
> himself.
You didn't mention Jamie's reaction to Ste's line "You're on your
own..." - I remember well how the thought of being near the guy I liked
was overwhelming - I couldn't get enough of him and if he liked me too,
I would be in 7th heaven! But to hear a guy say he'd rather be by
himself, would crush me! I would try all the harder to make him like me.
(Boy it took alot of messed up relationships (esp my last one - 6 years
ago) for me to figure out what was wrong with that scenario!) - I was
impressed that Jamie didn't pursue Ste (per se) - he actually encouraged
Ste -> "You're a good swimmer" (true, it is said before Ste's line) -
but he doesn't add "I could join you if you like...", etc. He (Jamie) is
in his room alone (reading the Gay Times) while Ste is out with his
mates. Jamie doesn't seem at all put out by that - he doesn't show us
that he's jealous of Ste (or the guys he's hanging out with) - nothing!
All we see is a guy who is genuinely concerned for a friend - who later
turns out to be more than "just friends".
My 2 cents.
Kevin

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 22:51:21 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: First time feeling Love
Ditto, Ken - I just turned 29 and it's not as bad as I thought it was
going to be - I'm waiting for next year, though - maybe the crisis will
hit when I'm 30!!! (LOL) ;)
Kevin
_____
Kenneth  wrote:
>
> Golly, I am next in line. I am 29...Oh, boy.
>
> ----------
> > From: John
> > Subject: Re: First time feeling Love
> > Date: Thursday, July 03, 1997 18.11
> >
> > <<>From the first scene on, Ste and Jamie are both sneaking glances at
> > each
> > other. I know that Im old (30 yrs) but I remember being incredible
> > attracted to a particular guy and would sneak glances at every
> > opportunity.>>
> >
> > <<I know that Im old (30 yrs)>>
> >
> > Thirty is old?????????????
> >
> > When did it become a tacky gay stereotypical refrain to refer to any
> > guy under thirty as "old"?? (even one's own self!)
> >
> > I find that very disturbing!!!
> >
> > You are NOT old!!! (not there 's anything wrong with being old!!
> > You're just NOT, that's all)
> >
> > John

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 22:41:53 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: Ste gay or not
Cute, Eric - very funny! ;) - but you could be right!?! ;)
Kevin
_____
Eric  wrote:
>
> At 07:24 AM 7/3/97 +0200, you wrote:
> >Yo everybody - this is my first contribution to debate on Beautiful
> >Thing, so be gentle with me!
> >
> >Anyway, I think the kiss is a "beautiful thing", but what makes it for
> >me is when the two of them part for a moment and Ste smiles. What's
> >in that smile? Probably a mixture of things -
>
> Gee, I thought it was Scott thinking "Cor! Wait til me mates see me doin'
> THIS in a movie!"
>
> Just kidding!
>
> -Eric

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 21:59:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: HeadDr
Subject: Re: Age
Davie,
Thanks for your support... And I totally agree with your views..
Jim
 
PS. - You should have seen some of the mail I got!!! heheheheheheheh

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

From: Spank
Subject: Continuity Jump
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 18:42:29 +1000
Hi BTers once again,
I 've just managed to prize myself away from the computer screen long
enough to watch BT on video and I am puzzled.
In the scene in which Ste goes to the boxing with his father & brother, the
three are seen play-fighting each other and WALLOP the scene cuts to Ste &
Jamie back at the Gangell's flat. It all seems a bit of a leap as if
something has been left out. Is this continuity leap also in UK & USA
prints or is it peculiar to Aussie prints?
When I last saw BT at the cinema the leap made me think the projectionist
had skipped a reel it was so unusual. Anyway, it's left me curious.
Iain

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 22:15:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jason
Subject: Re: Comparing US Video Release to Film Release
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 JP wrote:
>
> BTListers: we need to convince Sony Classics to release a widescreen edition
> in the US!. A "deluxe" version, with additional footage, glossy pictures,
> etc, would be great too, no? I'm sure that no true BT fan will be satisfied
> with the reformatted version in the US. And, lots of people are going to
> rent this version thinking that that's the way it is, not realising what
> they've missed!
I whole-heartedly agree!! But in addition to the VHS Special Edition, I
would like to see a Laserdisc made available. I was truly amazed to find
out that this movie was not going to be released on disc. Is Sony waiting
to see if DVD hits? Anyone know what the story is on BT's absence from
the laserdisc racks?
______________________________________________________________________________
Jason

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 22:46:25 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: Sandra
Awww, I thought it was sweet! ;)
Kevin
_____
Gavin  wrote:
>
> At 15:50 7/3/97 -0000, David  wrote:
> >He was sat at the desk typing to other BTers on IRC, I was stood behind him
> >with my hands on his shoulders. He sang the song to me, and oh!, in such a
> >sweet voice that it brought tears to my eyes.
>
> Go on! Embarass me in front of everyone else! >-P LOL
>
> Gav.
>

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 01:09:36 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Still like the first time (Sandra)
At 1:11 AM +0200 7/7/97, jmcs wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>This is another of my looong posts, so be warned!
>
>I just saw THE film for the umpteenth+1 time, only this time I saw it along
>with a friend.
><snip>
>She studied psychology a few months before becoming a pedagogue, so she
>tried to psychoanalize Ste. (!)
<snip>
>Psychologically, Ste´s symptoms were of a very low self-esteem and even
>self-hatred (in the worst cases the victims are convinced they deserve the
>beatings they´re receiving), hence Ste´s: 'I´m ugly', when in fact he´s a
>very beautiful young man (this indicates Ste already has a distorted vision
>of himself), an increasing inferiority complex and Lord only knows what
>else. She also was pretty sure Ste´s beatings came from his early years (5-6
>years old or even younger).
>But Ste´s also very brave (out of necessity) and he dreams of a better life.
>My friend pointed out something I had overlooked that she thinks extremely
>important about Ste´s willpower and courage: the bathroom scene, when he
>sees Jamie watching him, his immediate reaction is covering his bruises,
>embarrassed that Jamie is aware of a weakness he considers so shameful. But
>a few hours later, after being beaten once again, Ste´s completely broken in
>front of Jamie. But he´s not ashamed anymore, he´s gone beyond that by now
>and he shows of his own free will his bruise to Jamie, he lets Jamie see
>what´s been done to him. And Jamie´s reaction is the BEST. He doesn´t look
>away disgusted, he looks the bruise head-on and grimaces in empathic pain
>with his friend´s suffering. He shares Ste´s pain.
>According to my friend, the whole scene is a healing session for Ste. Jamie
>does everything right. From the swig of Coke to the kiss. He gives Ste his
>self-esteem back, his worth: "You´re a good swimmer", "You ain´t ugly".
>(Ste´s "You´re on your own when you´re swimming" is also VERY revealing.)
>Jamie´s not repelled by Ste´s bruises but he touches them, he caresses them,
>he LOVES them. He wants to be close to Ste when Ste´s most disgusted with
>himself.
>She was really shaken when she saw how Jamie was caressing Ste´s chest
>bruise. She said everything was perfect. Even the fact that they were naked
>in bed was right. Close contact, skin to skin was exactly what Ste needed;
>warmth, sharing, closeness, feeling like a human being again.
I'm not a psychologist but lord knows I've been in therapy long enough to
have graduated as one by now. I think your friend is quite right about all
this. Ste is an abused child "They think I'm a piece a shit" and Jamie IS
empathetic -- able to share Ste's pain. Jamie is giving Ste the thing he
needs most: loving, careing attention. That's what we all need to give
oneanother.
>Ah, just one more thing about Ste´s recovery: my friend was CONVINCED (she
>was that adamant) that Jamie´s love and almost worshipping would cure Ste.
>BUT, he would imperatively need to be removed from that vicious environment.
>The only way possible is that Sandra and Jamie take him with them. Ste´s
>emotionally attached to Jamie now and he wouldn´t make it without him. As a
>victim of mental and physical abuse (similar to rape victims) Ste will need
>Jamie´s loyalty, support and love to recover.
>Judging from the last scene where Ste´s not afraid of dancing in front of
>everyone to show his love for Jamie, he´s on the right track.
>
>We talked a lot more, but essentially, that´s all.
>I found it very revealing.
>
Excelent post, Sandra! Obviously a great conversation with your friend.
 
 
Mike

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 23:28:30 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: Cheers
Robert - Join the club! - I am 29 and no boyfriend either - but I know
now that I don't NEED one - it took me years to get over that, I ALWAYS
found my identity in the guys (and sometimes women) I was with -
especially those I dated - but since I hadn't come out at that point, I
couldn't shout to the world, "THIS IS THE MAN I LOVE!!!" - so instead, I
wrote about it in my journals (over 10 years worth of hiding - b/c I
wasn't happy being myself) - now that I am coming to grips with being
gay, I'd love to have a boyfriend - or even a good male friend that I
can spend time with - but b/c we enjoy each others company, not b/c I
can't live without one. I suppose that's why I love this group so much -
I have a number of guy friends that I can talk to and who talk to me -
we don't have to touch each other (physically) or anything, but we are
still developing a very deep link between each other. And who knows?
I've heard of straight couples meeting (and marrying!?!) because they
met over e-mail - who knows where this will lead us? At least we know
what we all have in common and we're not afraid to share ourselves.
We've got the start of a Beautiful Thing right here on the net (eat your
hearts out Ste & Jamie) ;) Anyways, my whole point is that age (like
fine wine) has a way of making one a lot better - more experience (not
just sexually) - sometimes more commitment - usually more open-minded
and accepting of others different than ourselves, and the ability to
appreciate the differences - as we've said so often, BT is not a movie
about sex, and I don't believe our lives are about sex, either. (not
that there's anything wrong with sex!!!) - but to me, Jamie and Ste
personify the relationship most people want at 17 or 18 - but can't
really appreciate til they are 27 or 28 (or 37,38,47,48,etc) It's too
bad we weren't born with our eyes inside our heads, maybe then we could
learn to love with our hearts and not ours eyes.
Kevin
_____
Robert  wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I'm still going through all those mails. I was in Sweden and Russia and
> boy did I come back to a full mail box!
> It seems to be true that 30 is some sort of cut off age. The association
> I belong to here in France has an age limit ( 18-30) It is a shame I think.
> Some people on the list seem to think that this age is cool (30 that is) -
> any age is cool. It is strange that some young people want to be older
> and older people younger- the grass seems to be always green on the
> other side.
> As Tony said 'What is age?- age is just a number.'
>
> I was personally very scared about getting 'old'. I haven't had a
> boyfriend yet (I'm 27) and so I found it bit shocking this many
> associations have this age limit. I felt so strange being with younger
> people who are probably on their 8th- 9th boyfriend and are now looking
> for a particular 'type' .
>
> I've got over that now- with of the help of all of you. I haven't really got to
> talk about things much since coming out (a few years ago). It is good
> reading the mails as some of you do all the talking for me.
>
> Cheers
>
> Love
>
> Robert

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 01:00:00 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Age (Sandra, Jim)
At 1:30 AM +0200 7/7/97, jmcs wrote:
>At 13:47 6/07/97 -0400, (Jim) wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>Again, apologizing for digressing and offending
>>
>>Jim
>
>I don´t know about everyone else, but I wasn´t offended at all about 'age'.
>I´ll be 25 in a week and I´m delighted. As my grandma said: "That´s a good
>sign. If you don´t have birthdays it means you´re dead!"
>I´m also heterosexual but what certainly I´m not is stereotypical.
>STEREOTYPICAL, MOI? God forbid!!!! :))
>
>Love ya, fellas.
>
>
>Sandra.
>
>
I wasn't offended either and I'm way over the hill. But, of course, there
are always more hills to climb! MW>
Mike

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 08:42:05 -0400
From: Eric
Subject: Re: Like, DUH!
 
>It's okay, actually. I'd decided to post this to the list anyway. I managed
>to get my hands on a VHS converted PAL copy of the BT vid and take a few
>stills off of it for everyone. I'm afraid the quality isn't very good as
>the PAL had been digitized to VHS and then redigitized to remove the stills
>-- but at least the images are in box-top foremat. :-)
 
Hey, thanks Mike...... but aren't there just a *couple* of missing pictures
of Ste? ;-)
-Eric

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 10:57:22 -0500
From: Keith
Subject: Re: Cheers -Reply
Kevin (and Robert),
I guess I'm in the 29+ club too...
Seriously though, I think the issue isn't being "old" or not "needing" a
boyfriend, or being "scared". At least for me, the frustrating part is
realizing I'm thirty and have basically wasted the last 10+ years
emotionally because of coming to grips with my sexuality. Sure teen
romances can be short lived, or shallow, or only sexual in nature, etc.
but it still is part of the dating game. But when all my straight friends
were out "learning the ropes", I was sitting on the sidelines, to afraid to
find a boyfriend, and not interested in a girlfriend. Hell, dating a girl for
the first time is scary enough - what's it supposed to be like when your
mate is another man? Sure, now I've matured more (though not too
much!) and look at dating differently, and look for different thing in a mate,
but I know it still would have been nice to played the game with everyone
else.
Hanging around with close guy friends was always a one-sided affair. I
could pretend/imagine what it would be like to be dating this person or
that person, but the other person probably looked at me just as a friend.
(Especially if they were straight). Eventually the pretending gets old. It
would have been so nice to have been able to approach another man
with the intent of a relationship, and not just as a friend back then. But
the fear of being called "queer" by your friends (who would probably
stop being so (at least that is the perception at that age and level of
maturity)) is very great. So the net result is the loss of 10+ years of
potential dating/relationships.
Keith
P.S. Kevin, I'll marry you!
Seriously though, you said it beautifully. I feel the deep link you
mentioned with others on this list.
 
>>> Kevin 07/06/97 10:28pm >>>
Robert - Join the club! - I am 29 and no boyfriend either...

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 10:54:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pede
Subject: Re: Cheers
Well all you folks 29 or around that age and single, email me:). I am 23
almost 24 but i love guys in that age range. I think that they are mature
and settled (most).
I think that Beautiful Thing is a great romantic movie with two nice young
guys, but dont let discourage you! I think romance gets better the older you
get.
seth

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 10:04:15 -0500
From: JOE
Subject: Re: Continuity Jump
Spank  wrote:
>
> Hi BTers once again,
>
> I 've just managed to prize myself away from the computer screen long
> enough to watch BT on video and I am puzzled.
>
> In the scene in which Ste goes to the boxing with his father & brother, the
> three are seen play-fighting each other and WALLOP the scene cuts to Ste &
> Jamie back at the Gangell's flat. It all seems a bit of a leap as if
> something has been left out. Is this continuity leap also in UK & USA
> prints or is it peculiar to Aussie prints?
>
> When I last saw BT at the cinema the leap made me think the projectionist
> had skipped a reel it was so unusual. Anyway, it's left me curious.
>
It's in the script. In several cases, the screenplay has the audio from
the next scene begin in a previous scene. Ste's first line begins while
the underground (parking area) scene is still showing. Later, Leah's
line about wishing she could move away begins while we are still
watching Sandra and Jamie walk away from the new pub.
Gary
> LIKES INCLUDE: Diane Arbus, Syd Barrett, Beat writers, Beautiful Thing,
> Brando in Streetcar, Bill Brandt, Nick Cave, Funkadelic, Hammer Horror,
> Eartha Kitt, Nico, Camille Paglia, prepuces, Psychedelic Psounds, Siamese
> cats, Signorile, Surrealist painters, the Velvet Underground, Warhol's
> factory madness and Ralph Wiggum.
Had to comment. I met Michaelangelo Signorile during Pride in Atlanta.
Got him to autograph my copy of "Coming OUt to Yourself." Great guy.
And cute. :)
--

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 08:25:55 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Cheers
At 11:28 PM -0400 7/6/97, Kevin wrote:
><snip>It's too
>bad we weren't born with our eyes inside our heads, maybe then we could
>learn to love with our hearts and not ours eyes.
>
You are so right. But be gentle with us AND yourself. We're PROGRAMED to be
that way, you know?
Many people say we live in a materialist society. I disagree. We live in an
IMAGIST society -- especially now, with the advent of electronic and
digital media. What I'm pointing to here is that we are constantly being
bombarded, primarily through our sense of sight but also through our sense
of hearing, with "slick" images of THE LOOK that you gotta have if you're
going to be "kewl". This is late Twentieth century Capitalism, folks.
Yes, of course hormones play a part, but this part is gets exaggerated all
out of proportion by our society.
Imagine how different you and I would be had we grown up in a society where
the only voices we ever heard eminated from bodies actually in our
presence. Where all the music, artifacts, clothing -- in short, all the
work -- was done directly by hand. A society in which the quality of our
being was more important than "the look". Obviously we are a long way from
that and there is no going back.
But imagine what it's like to sit in a circle with twenty to forty other
gay men and speak your truth from your heart -- and be heard. What it's
like to listen to others from your heart -- and be acknowledged for that.
This is what happens in "Heart Circles". And, of course, it takes
considerable work (i.e., deconditioning) on everyone's part to get to THAT
level of safety, honesty and intimacy. But when it happens it can be a very
powerful and healing experience for everyone.
Mike

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 09:31:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Todd
Subject: Re: Continuity Jump
I think the leap was for impact. You are supposed to infur what happened.
I like that about the movie. You get the idea what is going on without
having to actually see the 'beatings'. You know he got smacked about
without actually having to see it.
Todd
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Spank  wrote:
> Hi BTers once again,
>
> I 've just managed to prize myself away from the computer screen long
> enough to watch BT on video and I am puzzled.
>
> In the scene in which Ste goes to the boxing with his father & brother, the
> three are seen play-fighting each other and WALLOP the scene cuts to Ste &
> Jamie back at the Gangell's flat. It all seems a bit of a leap as if
> something has been left out. Is this continuity leap also in UK & USA
> prints or is it peculiar to Aussie prints?
>
> When I last saw BT at the cinema the leap made me think the projectionist
> had skipped a reel it was so unusual. Anyway, it's left me curious.
>
> Iain

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 08:09:01 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Continuity Jump
At 6:42 PM +1000 7/6/97, Spank wrote:
>Hi BTers once again,
>
>I 've just managed to prize myself away from the computer screen long
>enough to watch BT on video and I am puzzled.
>
>In the scene in which Ste goes to the boxing with his father & brother, the
>three are seen play-fighting each other and WALLOP the scene cuts to Ste &
>Jamie back at the Gangell's flat. It all seems a bit of a leap as if
>something has been left out. Is this continuity leap also in UK & USA
>prints or is it peculiar to Aussie prints?
>
SM,
Not only is it in the US print, it's in the film. However, if you notice,
the voice over, Ste saying to Jamie in his bedroom: "They think I'm a piece
of shit" begins just a second or two BEFORE the actual cut to that scene.
This tells me it is intentional. Hattie apparently did not want to dwell on
the violence. The same kind of cut happens when Ste is being beaten up by
Trebor the first time. I agree, they do seem a bit abrupt and not handled
well (although, not being a cinematographer or editor, I wouldn't know what
to suggest as an alternative).
 
Mike

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 09:05:52 -0400
From: Eric
Subject: Re: Comparing US Video Release to Film Release
 
>
>BTListers: we need to convince Sony Classics to release a widescreen edition
>in the US!. A "deluxe" version, with additional footage, glossy pictures,
>etc, would be great too, no? I'm sure that no true BT fan will be satisfied
>with the reformatted version in the US. And, lots of people are going to
>rent this version thinking that that's the way it is, not realising what
>they've missed!
I would be happy to sign THAT petition! And Davie.... How about a "blooper"
reel for next October???????
 
>3. Scene 33. Several frames dropped, resulting in "jump" in picture, just
>after Jamie says "I'll turn off the light".
Actually, this error is not what it appears to be. Look closely and you'll
see that frames were not dropped. The image has just shifted to the left.
What happened, is a "pan & scan" error. To take a widescreen movie and make
is "fit your screen" a computer system is used to try to follow the main
images (not always successfully -- sometimes impossible). In this case, the
sudden change in light (the light being turned off) caused the computer to
get confused and shift it's focus to another spot. This should have been
corrected manually, but wasn't. So although no frames were dropped, the
result is like a bad edit, and very annoying.
I WANT A LETTERBOXED LASER VERSION!
And as for the sound... this is interesting. I have played my copy on
several different VCR's and it depends on the system what I hear. On some
systems, everything comes thru loud and clear: Sandra when she calls to the
boys about the Sound of Music, and all the background incidental music.
Other systems, those same sounds are faint and very hard to hear. I think
the problem is the stereo. Some things are only on one track, and are thus
very muted when played monaurally. In stereo, everything is heard clearly.
At least this is what I THINK is going on, as I can't account for the
difference any other way.
-Eric

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 09:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: davis
Subject: Re: Continuity Jump
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Spank wrote:
> In the scene in which Ste goes to the boxing with his father & brother, the
> three are seen play-fighting each other and WALLOP the scene cuts to Ste &
> Jamie back at the Gangell's flat. It all seems a bit of a leap as if
> something has been left out. Is this continuity leap also in UK & USA
> prints or is it peculiar to Aussie prints?
I'm almost positive this is intentional. Ste wasn't involved in the play
fighting...his father and Trevor were (I never could figure out why the
hell he decided to walk straight between the two of them). After Trevor
hits Ste and Ste pushes him back, it doesn't take a lot to figure out
what happens next. To show Ste getting pounded would have been
distracting and completely unnecessary. You can see everything in Ste's
face, words and actions in the next scene.
Later all,
Chris

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 12:32:58 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Like, DUH!
At 8:42 AM -0400 7/7/97, Eric wrote:
>Hey, thanks Mike...... but aren't there just a *couple* of missing pictures
>of Ste? ;-)
>
>-Eric
Yeah, you know it! :-) I thought about it. The friend who helped me edit
out those stills kept asking me why I didn't want one of those shots. Such
a cute bumm! But I really respect the way Hattie had the camera deal with
this little tease. You see Ste's butt and then it pains up to the bruises.
Ouch. So much for the tease -- empathy is introduced along with a whole
range of other emotions. This, in my mind, is one of the bits of genius in
this film. So, anyway, I didn't out take one of those shots as it would no
longer be in that context. Know what I mean?
Mike

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 13:23:20 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
At 11:48 AM -0400 7/7/97, C.B. wrote:
>Unsubscribe please.
To leave the BT list, address your email to: FTlist@zzapps.demon.co.uk
With the line
leave Beautiful-Thing
In the BODY of your mesage.
 
Mike

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

From: persona
Subject: Re: Comparing US Video Release to Film Release
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 97 20:57:09 GMT
On 06 Jul 97, Beautiful Thing email list wrote:
>Hi BT Listers!
>PAL edition was released in original format. I have a copy and have
>watched it several times. The perception of US marketers, aparently, is that
>US audiences prefer their screen to be filled with the picture, rather than
>to see the film as the director and cinematographer originally designed.
That's an interesting point, as the UK market only seems to recently have
decided
that widescreen pictures, in "Letterbox" format are not a _bad thing_. But it's
only
really take off over here when the Wide-Screen format TV's are lower-priced...
>BTListers: we need to convince Sony Classics to release a widescreen edition
>in the US!. A "deluxe" version, with additional footage, glossy pictures,
>etc, would be great too, no? I'm sure that no true BT fan will be satisfied
>with the reformatted version in the US. And, lots of people are going to
>rent this version thinking that that's the way it is, not realising what
>they've missed!
Great idea, but I wonder if it would have much effect, knowing Sony's reputation
as being mainly financially motivated. It's a shame the PAL version won't work -
I'm not surprised some people would resort to pirating the UK release - not that
I'd
advocate that myself...
David
PS: I Wonder what the chances really are of a sequel...?

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 15:48:52 +0200 (METDST)
From: Mark
Subject: Re:Continuity Jump
Hi Iain. The way I view it is that Ste and family begin play-fighting,
but it then turns to the real thing between Ste and Trevor. We're
spared seeing the actual beating, but can deduce it from the bruises
we see being treated with peppermint foot lotion later!
Ste ought to know better than get involved in play-fighting - someone
nearly always loses their temper and it ends up being the real thing.
I speak from bitter experience!
Cheers everybody,
Mark
In the scene in which Ste goes to the boxing with his father & brother, the
three are seen play-fighting each other and WALLOP the scene cuts to Ste &
Jamie back at the Gangell's flat. It all seems a bit of a leap as if
something has been left out. Is this continuity leap also in UK & USA
prints or is it peculiar to Aussie prints?

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 12:32:58 -0800
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Like, DUH!
At 8:42 AM -0400 7/7/97, Eric  wrote:
>Hey, thanks Mike...... but aren't there just a *couple* of missing pictures
>of Ste? ;-)
>
>-Eric
Yeah, you know it! :-) I thought about it. The friend who helped me edit
out those stills kept asking me why I didn't want one of those shots. Such
a cute bumm! But I really respect the way Hattie had the camera deal with
this little tease. You see Ste's butt and then it pains up to the bruises.
Ouch. So much for the tease -- empathy is introduced along with a whole
range of other emotions. This, in my mind, is one of the bits of genius in
this film. So, anyway, I didn't out take one of those shots as it would no
longer be in that context. Know what I mean?
Mike

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 14:27:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Francis
Subject: Re: Comparing US Video Release to Film Release
At 10:15 PM 7/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 6 Jul 1997 JP wrote:
>>
>> BTListers: we need to convince Sony Classics to release a widescreen edition
>> in the US!. A "deluxe" version, with additional footage, glossy pictures,
>> etc, would be great too, no? I'm sure that no true BT fan will be satisfied
>> with the reformatted version in the US. And, lots of people are going to
>> rent this version thinking that that's the way it is, not realising what
>> they've missed!
>
>I whole-heartedly agree!! But in addition to the VHS Special Edition, I
>would like to see a Laserdisc made available. I was truly amazed to find
>out that this movie was not going to be released on disc. Is Sony waiting
>to see if DVD hits? Anyone know what the story is on BT's absence from
>the laserdisc racks?
I think we should e-mail Columbia Tri-Star Home Video and ask them to
release a LD version of BT. I don't know why they're taking so long. If we
want a deluxe special edition on LD, how about asking Criterion/Voyager to
release one? They make the best special edition LDs.
Francis

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

From: persona
Subject: Re: Comparing US Video Release to Film Release
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 97 20:57:09 GMT
On 06 Jul 97, Beautiful Thing email list wrote:
>Hi BT Listers!
>PAL edition was released in original format. I have a copy and have
>watched it several times. The perception of US marketers, aparently, is that
>US audiences prefer their screen to be filled with the picture, rather than
>to see the film as the director and cinematographer originally designed.
That's an interesting point, as the UK market only seems to recently have
decided
that widescreen pictures, in "Letterbox" format are not a _bad thing_. But it's
only
really take off over here when the Wide-Screen format TV's are lower-priced...
>BTListers: we need to convince Sony Classics to release a widescreen edition
>in the US!. A "deluxe" version, with additional footage, glossy pictures,
>etc, would be great too, no? I'm sure that no true BT fan will be satisfied
>with the reformatted version in the US. And, lots of people are going to
>rent this version thinking that that's the way it is, not realising what
>they've missed!
Great idea, but I wonder if it would have much effect, knowing Sony's reputation
as being mainly financially motivated. It's a shame the PAL version won't work -
I'm not surprised some people would resort to pirating the UK release - not that
I'd
advocate that myself...
David
PS: I Wonder what the chances really are of a sequel...?

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 20:57:15 +0000
From: John
Subject: Re: Cheers -Reply
Keith  wrote:
>
> Kevin (and Robert),
>
> I guess I'm in the 29+ club too...
>
> Seriously though, I think the issue isn't being "old" or not "needing" a
> boyfriend, or being "scared". At least for me, the frustrating part is
> realizing I'm thirty and have basically wasted the last 10+ years
> emotionally because of coming to grips with my sexuality. Sure teen
> romances can be short lived, or shallow, or only sexual in nature, etc.
> but it still is part of the dating game. But when all my straight friends
> were out "learning the ropes", I was sitting on the sidelines, to afraid to
> find a boyfriend, and not interested in a girlfriend. Hell, dating a girl for
> the first time is scary enough - what's it supposed to be like when your
> mate is another man? Sure, now I've matured more (though not too
> much!) and look at dating differently, and look for different thing in a mate,
> but I know it still would have been nice to played the game with everyone
> else.
> Hanging around with close guy friends was always a one-sided affair. I
> could pretend/imagine what it would be like to be dating this person or
> that person, but the other person probably looked at me just as a friend.
> (Especially if they were straight). Eventually the pretending gets old. It
> would have been so nice to have been able to approach another man
> with the intent of a relationship, and not just as a friend back then. But
> the fear of being called "queer" by your friends (who would probably
> stop being so (at least that is the perception at that age and level of
> maturity)) is very great. So the net result is the loss of 10+ years of
> potential dating/relationships.
>
> Keith
>
> P.S. Kevin, I'll marry you!
> Seriously though, you said it beautifully. I feel the deep link you
> mentioned with others on this list.
>
> >>> Kevin  07/06/97 10:28pm >>>
> Robert - Join the club! - I am 29 and no boyfriend either...
Dear Keith,
Wow! You definately said that beautifully. And your not the only
one believe me. I'm 32 and went through the very same thing! I could
have easily written every word you wrote.
I can't tell you how reassuring it is to read what you had to say.
If any other thoughts cross your mind, feel free to express them. I'd
love to hear from more guys who have shared some of the same life
experience (or eh..hmm.. lack of it) as we have.
John

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

Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 21:20:15 -0400
From: Eric
Subject: Re: Like, DUH!
I didn't out take one of those shots as it would no
>longer be in that context. Know what I mean?
I know what you mean, Mike! :-)
-Eric

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

You are visitor #

Last Updated on 01/29/99

This page hosted by GeoCities Get your own Free Home Page

1