[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

 

Email Archive Page 46

 
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: is this joint quiet or what? (obvious explanation in message
Thanks, Chris, for taking on the task of keeping us together!
Kevin
_____
Chris  wrote:
>
> > BTW, I like the fact that the "temporary" has now been removed from
> > our little footer, don't you?
> > --
> > Message sent by the Beautiful Thing Mailing List
>
> Oh dear it has. Now where could it have gone to? If I find it I'll
> put it back, but I'm unlikely to find anything on this desk ;-)
>
> On a more serious note, I don't think the other list is going to be
> back up for a while. So I thought, what the h***, I'll call this The
> Beautiful Thing Mailing List =)
>
> Anyway, I'd better be off. I think I've just been offered a place at
> uni for this year.
>
> Cya
> --
> Chris
--

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 22:54:39 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: is this joint quiet or what? (obvious explanation in message body!!))
Andy,
another friend (hey, Keith!) and I have been "talking" about how dead it
has been around here! Not to wallow in the past but we used to have
"thousands" of e-mails daily with new questions, responses, thoughts,
etc. Now...(<echo chamber> now...now...now...now...) well, you get the
point! - is everyone off to school or do we have fewer people on line?
or is there <gasp> nothing left to talk about regarding BT???
Please, someone respond!!!
Kevin
_____
Andrew  wrote:
>
> Hi all, Andy here again. This is really weird, replying to my own posting.
> I was expecting the worst, being bombarded with hate mail for soiling such
> a lovely group with drunkenness. As it turned out you're all kind-hearted.
> Thanks :)
>
> >A friend of mine said if I get pissed, it will cure the god damned flurgy...
> >(that's common cold or flu) so here we go.../.
> >I think it's working!
>
> Nope! It didn't work. I still feel like crap but trying to make the most of it.
>
> >That reminds me...Does Ste flog off his brother's E's for the money or for
> >his own consumption????
> >
> Thanks for the responses to this question. The ecstacy issue had always
> bugged me from the first time I saw BT.
>
> Sandra wrote:
> >According to the stageplay, Ste never takes drugs because he respects
> >himself too much, on his own words.
>
> To me Ste doesn't seem to be the type of person who would take drugs. I
> mean he comes across as a well spoken, neatly presented lad. He even seems
> out of place in his family when compared with his father and brother.
>
> Hal wrote:
> >Hope you had one there for me, Andy!
>
> Actually I had two for you Hal!
>
> >Dunno whether it's done with his brother's knowledge,
>
> If wearing his brothers joggers is anything to go on, I'd say he knows. :b
> Ste is the original hard luck kid!
>
> >PS Hope the flu clears up quickly!! :)
>
> Nah. It's a lurgy flurgy.
>
> Take care,
> Andy.
>
> --
 
--

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

From: jerry
Subject: Re: is this joint quiet or what? (obvious explanation in message body!!))
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 02:12:38 -0500
At 10:54 PM 9/3/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Andy,
>another friend (hey, Keith!) and I have been "talking" about how dead it
>has been around here! Not to wallow in the past but we used to have
>"thousands" of e-mails daily with new questions, responses, thoughts,
>etc. Now...(<echo chamber> now...now...now...now...) well, you get the
>point! - is everyone off to school or do we have fewer people on line?
>or is there <gasp> nothing left to talk about regarding BT???
>Please, someone respond!!!
>Kevin
>_____
>Andrew  wrote:
>>
>> Hi all, Andy here again. This is really weird, replying to my own posting.
>> I was expecting the worst, being bombarded with hate mail for soiling such
>> a lovely group with drunkenness. As it turned out you're all kind-hearted.
>> Thanks :)
>>
>> >A friend of mine said if I get pissed, it will cure the god damned flurgy...
>> >(that's common cold or flu) so here we go.../.
>> >I think it's working!
>>
>> Nope! It didn't work. I still feel like crap but trying to make the most
of it.
>>
>> >That reminds me...Does Ste flog off his brother's E's for the money or for
>> >his own consumption????
>> >
>> Thanks for the responses to this question. The ecstacy issue had always
>> bugged me from the first time I saw BT.
>>
>> Sandra wrote:
>> >According to the stageplay, Ste never takes drugs because he respects
>> >himself too much, on his own words.
>>
>> To me Ste doesn't seem to be the type of person who would take drugs. I
>> mean he comes across as a well spoken, neatly presented lad. He even seems
>> out of place in his family when compared with his father and brother.
>>
>> Hal wrote:
>> >Hope you had one there for me, Andy!
>>
>> Actually I had two for you Hal!
>>
>> >Dunno whether it's done with his brother's knowledge,
>>
>> If wearing his brothers joggers is anything to go on, I'd say he knows. :b
>> Ste is the original hard luck kid!
>>
>> >PS Hope the flu clears up quickly!! :)
>>
>> Nah. It's a lurgy flurgy.
>>
>> Take care,
>> Andy.
>>
>> --
>
>
>--
>Message sent by the Beautiful Thing Mailing List
>Im new to this but wanted to let you folks know, Ill try to join in on the
conversation. Just sending this to make sure I know what Im Doing.
Jerry
 
--

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 01:53:19 -0700
From: Andrew
Subject: HELLO!
I'm new to this list, and here I make my introductions..
I found out about Beautiful Thing a month or two ago by someone in chat.. I
finally got to rent it last week (finally not rented out) and saw it for
the very first time. And the second time. And the third time. ANd the
fourth time. And the fifth time. I LOVED it. Finally I had to return it
because my rental was up. I found out about the website not long after,
and the chat room, and the newsgroup, and I was enthralled! Amazing. And
now, the e-mail discussion group.
I'm known as Sneeper in the chatroom on DALnet. This really friendly guy
named Jeffo answered #25 questions I had written down about the movie.. He
answered every single one of them.. (ALthough there are a couple I'm
sceptical about.. Such as, Why DOESN'T Ste sleep on the couch the first
night? Why does he have to sleep top-to-tail? I have YET to hear a good
answer for that one) Anyway, the channel is awesome for those of you who
don't hang out there..
Anyway, introductions aside, I can now say HELLO all! Hope you are glad to
see fresh meat here.. hehe
Till the next.
-= Andy =-
--

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 13:56:45 +0200
From: jmcs
Subject: Re: is this joint quiet or what? (obvious explanation in message body!!))
At 22:54 3/09/97 -0400, Kevin wrote:
>Andy,
>another friend (hey, Keith!) and I have been "talking" about how dead it
>has been around here! Not to wallow in the past but we used to have
>"thousands" of e-mails daily with new questions, responses, thoughts,
>etc. Now...(<echo chamber> now...now...now...now...) well, you get the
>point! - is everyone off to school or do we have fewer people on line?
>or is there <gasp> nothing left to talk about regarding BT???
>Please, someone respond!!!
>Kevin
I deeply sorry for neglecting the list. In my defense I must say that
writing a post takes me far longer than it takes you, native English
speakers. But itīs great because my written (and spoken, according to Kent)
English has improved considerably. Not to mention how many slang terms are
now part of my vocabulary!!!
Kevin, about you anguished question about if thereīs nothing left to talk
about regarding BT, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! As many in this list already know, I
talk about BT, and talk, and keep on talking and talking... so donīt worry.
I always find something new or different or I just see it from a different
perspective and I wonder again at the immense quality of such an incredible
movie.
Last night (donīt worry, no earthquake, this time) I was... well, you can
guess what I was doing, when something new struck me full force. I suppose I
already knew it (at least, in my subconscious) but last night it came to my
conscious mind and I just marvelled at how many things, both implicit and
explicit, intentional or unintentional, big and small this movie has. How
many nuances and subtle meanings.
What struck me last night was something so small, so sweetly implied...
Steīs degraded, humiliated and terrorized by his own father and brother.
They torture him and beat him to their heartīs content whenever it suits
them and yet, Jamie asks Steīs permission to caress him.
Iīm just speechless at such tenderness... God, what a beautiful, delicious
film!!
Iīm sorry. I didnīt mean to gush like this. I suddenly felt the need to
share this with you.
 
Take care.
 
Sandra.
 
 
--

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

From: Hal
Subject: Re: Jamie asking Ste permission
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 23:37:27 +0200
>Stes degraded, humiliated and terrorized by his own father and brother.
>They torture him and beat him to their hearts content whenever it suits
>them and yet, Jamie asks Stes permission to caress him.
>Im just speechless at such tenderness... God, what a beautiful, delicious
>film!!
You've obviously put a lot of hard time into thinking about this, Sandra.
And yet you always come up with something this beautiful. Now that I think
about Jamie's asking Ste. I'm rendered even more speechless that I usually
am (and I'm not the blabbermouth of the family). Truly, it makes me marvel.
>Im sorry. I didnt mean to gush like this. I suddenly felt the need to
>share this with you.
Gush all you like. I'm that's what make the BT-mailing list so great. We
are all here because of the feelings that BT evoked in us. We're not
talking about special effects, or budgets and Celebrities. We're talking
about love! And, lest my text starts degenerating into so much goo, I must
say that Love is the driving force behind Beautiful Thing. It is what the
title says! And that's what we like. We need more gushers in the world.
And those gushers that there are, need to share it more with the rest of us,
who don't get the words out as well.
Hal
 
--

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

Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:34:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: JP
Subject: screenplay
Hey BT Fans:
I've got an (new) copy of the Beautiful Thing Screenplay available for anyone
who's having trouble finding it. It cost me $14.00 (US); you can aquire it
for that plus postage. If you are interested, please send me PRIVATE email
at: jperegrin@aol.com. Let me know where you live and I can figure out
postage.
:-) Jay
 
 
--

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 21:07:03 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: is this joint quiet or what? (obvious explanation in message body!!))
Hey Jerry - glad you could join us!!!
Kevin
_____
jerry  wrote:
>
> At 10:54 PM 9/3/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >Andy,
> >another friend (hey, Keith!) and I have been "talking" about how dead it
> >has been around here! Not to wallow in the past but we used to have
> >"thousands" of e-mails daily with new questions, responses, thoughts,
> >etc. Now...(<echo chamber> now...now...now...now...) well, you get the
> >point! - is everyone off to school or do we have fewer people on line?
> >or is there <gasp> nothing left to talk about regarding BT???
> >Please, someone respond!!!
> >Kevin
> >_____
> >Andrew  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all, Andy here again. This is really weird, replying to my own posting.
> >> I was expecting the worst, being bombarded with hate mail for soiling such
> >> a lovely group with drunkenness. As it turned out you're all kind-hearted.
> >> Thanks :)
> >>
> >> >A friend of mine said if I get pissed, it will cure the god damned flurgy...
> >> >(that's common cold or flu) so here we go.../.
> >> >I think it's working!
> >>
> >> Nope! It didn't work. I still feel like crap but trying to make the most
> of it.
> >>
> >> >That reminds me...Does Ste flog off his brother's E's for the money or for
> >> >his own consumption????
> >> >
> >> Thanks for the responses to this question. The ecstacy issue had always
> >> bugged me from the first time I saw BT.
> >>
> >> Sandra wrote:
> >> >According to the stageplay, Ste never takes drugs because he respects
> >> >himself too much, on his own words.
> >>
> >> To me Ste doesn't seem to be the type of person who would take drugs. I
> >> mean he comes across as a well spoken, neatly presented lad. He even seems
> >> out of place in his family when compared with his father and brother.
> >>
> >> Hal wrote:
> >> >Hope you had one there for me, Andy!
> >>
> >> Actually I had two for you Hal!
> >>
> >> >Dunno whether it's done with his brother's knowledge,
> >>
> >> If wearing his brothers joggers is anything to go on, I'd say he knows. :b
> >> Ste is the original hard luck kid!
> >>
> >> >PS Hope the flu clears up quickly!! :)
> >>
> >> Nah. It's a lurgy flurgy.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> Andy.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> >--
> >Message sent by the Beautiful Thing Mailing List
> >Im new to this but wanted to let you folks know, Ill try to join in on the
> conversation. Just sending this to make sure I know what Im Doing.
> Jerry
 
--

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 21:20:45 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: is this joint quiet or what? (obvious explanation in message body!!))
Sandra - THANK YOU!!! I have been waiting for "gushing" from ANYONE for
SO LONG now I thought I'd shrivel up...by the way, your English grammar
is fantastic (my mom was an english teacher and I have been a
grammatical coordinator (spell-check editor) for a couple of MUSH's and
MUX's) and I have rarely (if EVER???) seen anything indicating that you
don't speak English as a primary language! (admit it - you've got a
decoder on your computer that translates all of this for you don't
you!!!) ;) - anyways - about the caress!!! OH MY GOODNESS!!! I LOVED IT
TOO!!! from the very first time I saw it - I cried. I was exactly the
same way the first couple of guys I "dated" - I was always worried about
"what he was thinking", etc. I didn't want anyone to think I was a
sleaze or anything ('though if anyone could have read my
thoughts...well, it's better left unsaid!) Unfortunately, most of the
guys I've ended up with WERE pretty sleazy themselves and...well, it's
tough finding anyone as romantic as oneself!?! So, I've sworn off dating
forever and I'm going to move to a convent (or a monastery) except that
I'm not Catholic...oh, well...{sigh} ;)
Anyways (again), thanks for sharing that moment with us - it was indeed
a Beautiful Thing!
Kevin
_____
 
jmcs wrote:
>
> At 22:54 3/09/97 -0400, Kevin wrote:
> >Andy,
> >another friend (hey, Keith!) and I have been "talking" about how dead it
> >has been around here! Not to wallow in the past but we used to have
> >"thousands" of e-mails daily with new questions, responses, thoughts,
> >etc. Now...(<echo chamber> now...now...now...now...) well, you get the
> >point! - is everyone off to school or do we have fewer people on line?
> >or is there <gasp> nothing left to talk about regarding BT???
> >Please, someone respond!!!
> >Kevin
>
> I deeply sorry for neglecting the list. In my defense I must say that
> writing a post takes me far longer than it takes you, native English
> speakers. But its great because my written (and spoken, according to Kent)
> English has improved considerably. Not to mention how many slang terms are
> now part of my vocabulary!!!
>
> Kevin, about you anguished question about if theres nothing left to talk
> about regarding BT, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! As many in this list already know, I
> talk about BT, and talk, and keep on talking and talking... so dont worry.
> I always find something new or different or I just see it from a different
> perspective and I wonder again at the immense quality of such an incredible
> movie.
>
> Last night (dont worry, no earthquake, this time) I was... well, you can
> guess what I was doing, when something new struck me full force. I suppose I
> already knew it (at least, in my subconscious) but last night it came to my
> conscious mind and I just marvelled at how many things, both implicit and
> explicit, intentional or unintentional, big and small this movie has. How
> many nuances and subtle meanings.
>
> What struck me last night was something so small, so sweetly implied...
>
> Stes degraded, humiliated and terrorized by his own father and brother.
> They torture him and beat him to their hearts content whenever it suits
> them and yet, Jamie asks Stes permission to caress him.
>
> Im just speechless at such tenderness... God, what a beautiful, delicious
> film!!
>
> Im sorry. I didnt mean to gush like this. I suddenly felt the need to
> share this with you.
>
> Take care.
>
> Sandra.
>
 
--

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 23:43:45 -0500
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Thoughts on E, Stumpy and 269
Hal wrote:
> >Gary
> >who is still celebrating his Labor Day weekend up north where he
> >_finally_ (and successfully) came out to his parents.
>
> May I be the first to congratulate you!!!!!!! :))) (but knowing my
> luck
> with speedy replies, I won't)
>
> Hal
>
> PS. Oh, and hope you had a nice Labor Day weekend. I suppose it was,
> considering the "successfully" part!!! - although it's almost the
> *next*
> weekend already!
Thanks, Hal. Maybe it was all those repeated viewings of BT that
helped motivate me. <G> I've been going over the events the weekend in
my mind to the point where I remember the dialogue as well as I remember
all the words in BT.
Gary
 
--

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:32:57 +1000
From: Andrew
Subject: Re: HELLO!
Andrew wrote:
>I'm new to this list, and here I make my introductions..
>
<snip>
>Why DOESN'T Ste sleep on the couch the first
>night? Why does he have to sleep top-to-tail?
>
>Anyway, introductions aside, I can now say HELLO all! Hope you are glad to
>see fresh meat here.. hehe
>
>Till the next.
> -= Andy =-
 
Welcome Andy,
A good question, but hard to answer. In the film I recollect that it was
Sandra's suggestion that they sleep top-to-tail... "You'll have to sleep
top'n'tail with Jamie I'm affraid."
As for chatting, as soon as I figure out this blasted IRC software, I'll be
with ya.
Take care,
Andy (the other one) :)
--

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

Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:34:57 +1000
From: Andrew
Subject: Gay Times
When Jamie is in the store, he swipes a copy of Gay Times. Is that a real
issue of Gay Times or a mock-up. If it's real does anyone know which issue
it is? (number or month??)
As for stealing gay magazines, I've always bought my gay mags. Initially
over the counter, with much embarrassment, but now days get then via
subscription and delivered by mail to a private box number.
Andy
--

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

From: Scott
Subject: Re: Gay Times
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:21:56 +0100
> When Jamie is in the store, he swipes a copy of Gay Times. Is that a real
> issue of Gay Times or a mock-up. If it's real does anyone know which
issue
> it is? (number or month??)
It's a real copy - IIRC it was the current issue when the film was
recorded, but was about 9 months to a year out of date by the date of the
film's release. I *think* it has Holly Johnson (from Frankie Goes To
Hollywood) on the cover.
Scott
(hi to all, by the way)
--

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

From: Scott
Subject: Re: HELLO!
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:24:28 +0100
> >Why DOESN'T Ste sleep on the couch the first
> >night? Why does he have to sleep top-to-tail?
> A good question, but hard to answer. In the film I recollect that it was
> Sandra's suggestion that they sleep top-to-tail... "You'll have to sleep
> top'n'tail with Jamie I'm affraid."
Was it the first night that Ste stayed over that Sandra was watching the
Sound of Music? Maybe she didn't want Ste sleeping on the couch so that she
and her boyfriend (can never remember his name, sorry) could have a
romantic evening in in front of the telly...
Scott
--

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

From: Kent
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:49:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Gay Times
Hi BT friends,
Concerning Andy's comment about buying gay magazines, I've had mine
shipped to my home address, which usually wasn't a problem, except for a
time when the envelope they came in had an annoying tendency to come
unsealed. As both of us tenants in my building pick up the mail, which
is just dropped through a chute in the outer door, I was concerned about
how much they saw. That concern was unfortunately born out once, when
the parents of the teenage girl (!) living downstairs gave to me one
magazine which they found out she had swiped (this was after some
*other* copies had mysteriously not "arrived on schedule"). They must
have been fully aware of the nature of the contents, but the reaction
*I* got was that they were very sorry that my mail had been taken, and
made the daughter apologize! (I forgave her; what else could I do?
There were eyewitnesses! <G>)
On another occasion, the magazine, by this time being mailed in a
dark plastic bag, somehow got attached to the next person's copy. Good
Samaritan that I am, I wanted to simply bring it to the other person's
house, and drop it off for him. Imagine my surprise when I reached the
address, only to find it to be the rectory of a local Catholic Church!
I didn't want to just walk in with it, so I called to find out if the
addressee was really at that location. Sure enough, he (the secrretary
told me) was a retired Monsignor! Well, I eventually spoke to him and
explained that I had this issue, but I hadn't wanted to leave it with
just anyone. He, quite matter-of-factly, said he didn't know what it
could be, and I should just throw whatever it was away. Well, I did,
but as the label showed the suscription ran another ten months, I had to
wonder who he was going to get to throw out the succeeding issues!
Kent
--

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

Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 09:13:23 -0500
From: Keith
Subject: Re: is this joint quiet or what? (obvious explanation in message body!!)) -Reply
 
>>> Kevin wrote:  09/04/97 08:20pm >>>
> - anyways - about the caress!!! OH MY GOODNESS!!! I LOVED IT
>TOO!!! from the very first time I saw it - I cried. I was exactly the
>same way the first couple of guys I "dated" - I was always worried
>about
>"what he was thinking", etc. ... Unfortunately, most of the
>guys I've ended up with WERE pretty sleazy themselves and...well, it's
>tough finding anyone as romantic as oneself!?! So, I've sworn off dating
>forever and I'm going to move to a convent (or a monastery) except that
>I'm not Catholic...oh, well...{sigh} ;)
Two comments:
It never occurred to me that Jamie was (probably) the first person to ask
permission from Ste before initiating physical contact. Never having
been in this kind of a situation (an abusive family life that is) (fortunately)
I can't speak from experience, but I can only imagine the feeling of total
involvement that Ste must have felt. For the first time, someone cared
enough about HIM to ask first. That is Jamie's way of saying "Ste, you
mean more to me than my own feelings/happiness. I would like to be
happy with you, but only if it makes you happy first." Previously, his only
"intimacy" was being abused by his family. They took him for granted, so
he probably assumed they had the "right" to his body (to beat him) And
now here is Jamie, who first asked permission to be intimate, and then is
so in a way that is so unlike any "intimacy" Ste has known before.
Now that Sandra and Kevin have pointed this out, I will look at that entire
scene in a fresh light. That's why I love BT, and this list - every comment
forces me to see more and more in the movie, things that were there all
along, but I never noticed.
And Kevin, Please don't give up on dating - somewhere there is a
wonderful guy out there that is just waiting to meet you. I know we've
gone through this before, but without someone to share your life with,
the evenings can be so lonely...
(And I know this from experience :-( 'Cause I still waiting for Mr. Right to
sweep me off my feet too... And I'm not talking hard marathon sex either,
(though I'm not refusing it ;), but rather just someone to cuddle up with at
night...)
Keith
--

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

Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:41:19 -0400
From: Lady
Subject: Re: HELLO!
Andrew  wrote:
>
> I'm new to this list, and here I make my introductions..
>
etc etc
 
Sneeper! Welcome! Now that I know I don't need a bloody password to
post, things will be much better and I shall post more often.
Anyway..welcome to the mail list and our little chat family. It seems
that this films affect is widespread and still evolving! :)
As for the question about the top to tail..I have no clue. Maybe
because Jamie goes to bed earlier than Sandra, and maybe Sandra was
still going to entertain Tony in the lounge so it would be best for Ste
to share bed with Jamie. On the other night he visits it is more clear
as Sandra and Tony are looking at The Sound of Music. This is what
leads me to believe that Sandra is probably a night owl and was
entertaining Tony in the lounge the first night.
mama_san
--

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

Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:37:45 -0500
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Gay Times
Andrew  wrote:
> When Jamie is in the store, he swipes a copy of Gay Times. Is that a
> real
> issue of Gay Times or a mock-up. If it's real does anyone know which
> issue
> it is? (number or month??)
>
> As for stealing gay magazines, I've always bought my gay mags.
> Initially
> over the counter, with much embarrassment, but now days get then via
> subscription and delivered by mail to a private box number.
>
It's a real issue, but it doesn't contain the "letter" that Ste reads,
of course, nor the ad for the Gloucester. But it does contain the
pictures they were looking at while thumbing through it and it is the
real cover, about the feature article on the origins of the rainbow
flag.
By the way, I own that issue!!! It's June 1994.
Gary
 
 
--

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

Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 20:51:41 -0700
From: Nigel
Subject: Video In Australia ...
Hey everyone,
I have made some progress on finding out about when BT will be available
to buy in Australia ... the latest information is "sometime in 1998".
When I replied that by then most of the people who were likely to
purchase it would have done so from overseas, I was told that that
wouldn't happen because it is illegal !!!
Australian law, supported by the big record/video distributors, and the
US Government, limits so-called "parallel importing" to only the original
copyright owner.
Anyway, thanks for all the e-mail guys (and girls) - I'm now registered
on the mailing list !
Regards,
Nigel
--

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 00:59:33 +0200
From: jmcs
Subject: Just a couple of things
Hello everybody!!
First of all, Andy , welcome to the list!!
In two days itīll be nine months since I first saw BT. What can I say? Iīm
hopeless. I tried seeing Star Trek episodes (I even saw 'Amok Time' three
times in a week), Gary Cooperīs films... but itīs useless, BTīs always in my
thoughts. I canīt say Iīm sorry... :)
Kevin, my egoīs about to explode. Thanks for your compliments about my
English. Iīm improving and I owe it to all of you.
Donīt worry, Iīll keep on gushing!!! And please, donīt move to a convent!!!
Itīs very boring and worst of all, youīd have to get up soooo early!!!
(shudders) Youīll find your 'Destiny' sooner or later, Iīm sure. In the
meantime, watch BT as often as you can. Youīll find him, I know.
 
I left my boys in the middle of their "Hello" conversation and I canīt keep
them waiting so long. BTW, do you remember a conversation we had several
months ago when Jamie asked Sandra "How am I weird?" when Sandra had never
called him weird? In the stageplay she *did* call him weird. I found another
example: when Jamie and Ste are talking in the terrace during the party and
Jamie says: "(...) daddy laid off the fist work or havenīt you burned the
tea lately?" Ste never told Jamie he had burned the tea, at least in the
film. BUT, he does say to Jamie heīs burned the dinner in the stageplay just
before they go to sleep.
 
Take care.
 
Sandra.
 
 
 
--

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

Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 20:53:13 -0700
From: Andrew
Subject: Re: Just a couple of things
>I left my boys in the middle of their "Hello" conversation and I canīt keep
>them waiting so long. BTW, do you remember a conversation we had several
>months ago when Jamie asked Sandra "How am I weird?" when Sandra had never
>called him weird? In the stageplay she *did* call him weird. I found another
>example: when Jamie and Ste are talking in the terrace during the party and
>Jamie says: "(...) daddy laid off the fist work or havenīt you burned the
>tea lately?" Ste never told Jamie he had burned the tea, at least in the
>film. BUT, he does say to Jamie heīs burned the dinner in the stageplay just
>before they go to sleep.
Thanks for the welcome, Sandra! Glad to be here..
It is interesting that in the stageplay she does call him "weird". It
actually changes the meaning of the dialogue.. In the movie, the lines are:
Sandra: You are like me.
Jamie: How am I weird?
Here, Jamie's implication is that Sandra is weird, and thus, if he is like
Sandra, than he must be weird as well. How does the dialogue in the play
goes? If she calls him weird first, then the meaning is completely different.
I did get a chance to thumb through the stage play at A Different Light
Bookstore in West Hollywood and did find the place where Ste tells Jamie
that be burned the tea. I assumed that it was left out of the movie
because we already know Ste turns the tea since we watch him do it. The
point of the lines in the play and the scene in the movie is to tell the
audience that he burned the tea and was beaten for it, not to tell Jamie..
During scene changes of a movie, we assume that they are talking more than
WE see them talk because whole hours are unaccounted for.. And since Jamie
refers to him burning the tea, we must conclude that Ste reveals to Jamie
when and why he gets beaten.
Does this make any sense?
 
 
 
Till the next.
-= Andy =-
--

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

Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 17:28:23 +0200
From: jmcs
Subject: Re: Just a couple of things
At 20:53 5/09/97 -0700, Andy wrote:
>>I left my boys in the middle of their "Hello" conversation and I canīt keep
>>them waiting so long. BTW, do you remember a conversation we had several
>>months ago when Jamie asked Sandra "How am I weird?" when Sandra had never
>>called him weird? In the stageplay she *did* call him weird. I found another
>>example: when Jamie and Ste are talking in the terrace during the party and
>>Jamie says: "(...) daddy laid off the fist work or havenīt you burned the
>>tea lately?" Ste never told Jamie he had burned the tea, at least in the
>>film. BUT, he does say to Jamie heīs burned the dinner in the stageplay just
>>before they go to sleep.
>
>Thanks for the welcome, Sandra! Glad to be here..
Glad youīre here.
>It is interesting that in the stageplay she does call him "weird". It
>actually changes the meaning of the dialogue.. In the movie, the lines are:
>Sandra: You are like me.
>Jamie: How am I weird?
>Here, Jamie's implication is that Sandra is weird, and thus, if he is like
>Sandra, than he must be weird as well. How does the dialogue in the play
>goes? If she calls him weird first, then the meaning is completely different.
Yes, she calls him weird before their fight. The dialogue goes like this:
SANDRA: I AM funny!
JAMIE: Funny in the head.
SANDRA: You spotty little wimp, how dare you say that to me?
TONY: Sandra...
SANDRA (to Jamie) Look at you, butter wouldnīt melt. Iīve got your number
Jamie, and if anyone needs help itīs you. Youīre fuckinī weird.
>I did get a chance to thumb through the stage play at A Different Light
>Bookstore in West Hollywood and did find the place where Ste tells Jamie
>that be burned the tea. I assumed that it was left out of the movie
>because we already know Ste turns the tea since we watch him do it. The
>point of the lines in the play and the scene in the movie is to tell the
>audience that he burned the tea and was beaten for it, not to tell Jamie..
>During scene changes of a movie, we assume that they are talking more than
>WE see them talk because whole hours are unaccounted for.. And since Jamie
>refers to him burning the tea, we must conclude that Ste reveals to Jamie
>when and why he gets beaten.
>
>Does this make any sense?
Indeed it has. Some films are very dense and we donīt need to hear them
saying the actual words to each other to gather they have said them
offscreen. Itīs a very common technique.
Take care.
 
Sandra.
 
 
--

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

From: Kent
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:56:01 -0400
Subject: B/W Slowdance Photo
Hi Everybody!
Can anyone confirm for me when the photo of Jamie and Ste dancing
(the black and white one, shot from a bit overhead, with Scott and Glen
wearing sunglasses) was taken? I mean, does this come from a rehearsal
of the final scene? I ask this not only because Jamie and Ste don't
wear sunglasses in the movie's scene; but, as well, because the
bystanders in the plaza are "standing-by" closer in this photo than they
do during the film. Also, does anyone know of any other candid photos
(pro or amateur) taken during the filming of the movie? Lastly, are
there any outtakes of Beautiful Thing which have ever been shown
anywhere?
Thanks for any information any of you guys (and gals-- Hi Sandra!)
can provide!
Kent
Glad to be part of this list!
--

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 20:31:27 -0400
From: MGB
Subject: Re: B/W Slowdance Photo
Kent wrote:
>
> Hi Everybody!
>
> Can anyone confirm for me when the photo of Jamie and Ste dancing
> (the black and white one, shot from a bit overhead, with Scott and Glen
> wearing sunglasses) was taken? I mean, does this come from a rehearsal
> of the final scene? I ask this not only because Jamie and Ste don't
> wear sunglasses in the movie's scene; but, as well, because the
> bystanders in the plaza are "standing-by" closer in this photo than they
> do during the film. Also, does anyone know of any other candid photos
> (pro or amateur) taken during the filming of the movie? Lastly, are
> there any outtakes of Beautiful Thing which have ever been shown
> anywhere?
>
> Thanks for any information any of you guys (and gals-- Hi Sandra!)
> can provide!
>
> Kent
> Glad to be part of this list!
>
> --
Yes, this is a rehersal shot.
Cheers,
MGB (chichi3)
--

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

Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 20:29:58 -0500
From: Keith
Subject: B/W Slowdance Photo -Reply
Kent,
As far as I know, those pix were taken during the rehearsal. A
similar picture was used on the cover of the CD and the American
movie poster. At first I didn't like the picture with the
sunglasses, but now that I have the poster hanging on my wall, it has
kind of grown on me...and at least ist better than the US video cover
(I mean, how could it be worse?:)
I don't know about any outtakes, though, but it would be neat to see
them!
Keith
--

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

Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 17:26:53 +0100 (BST)
From: "David
 
So, have I missed anything whilst I've been away?
David
--

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

From: Scott
Subject: Re: B/W Slowdance Photo -Reply
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 16:51:58 +0100
> As far as I know, those pix were taken during the rehearsal. A
> similar picture was used on the cover of the CD and the American
> movie poster. At first I didn't like the picture with the
> sunglasses, but now that I have the poster hanging on my wall, it has
> kind of grown on me...and at least ist better than the US video cover
> (I mean, how could it be worse?:)
1. What does the US video cover look like? In the UK, there are two main
publicity shots; one of the back of Jamie and Ste's heads as they look out
over Thamesmead; the other, a group shot of the five main characters
standing around looking vaguely amused.
2. Nearly all publicity shots are taken either from the film stock, or on
separately-mounted shoots geared up to look like the scene that was/is
being/will be filmed. The first option tends to be used more for
effects-geared movies, while the second is actually the most preferable,
particularly since it allows the composition of a particular scene to be
"tweaked" so that it looks particularly good as a still image. It's
unusual, though, for props to be used in the photo when they're not in the
film.
There's a photo on the back cover of my BT script showing J & S lying in
bed with J's arm around Ste. This shot is, again, slightly different to the
film (I noticed this when I was reading the script as I was watching the
film)...
Scott
--

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

Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:55:35 -0400
From: MGB
Subject: Re: B/W Slowdance Photo -Reply
Scott  wrote:
>
> > As far as I know, those pix were taken during the rehearsal. A
> > similar picture was used on the cover of the CD and the American
> > movie poster. At first I didn't like the picture with the
> > sunglasses, but now that I have the poster hanging on my wall, it has
> > kind of grown on me...and at least ist better than the US video cover
> > (I mean, how could it be worse?:)
>
> 1. What does the US video cover look like? In the UK, there are two main
> publicity shots; one of the back of Jamie and Ste's heads as they look out
> over Thamesmead; the other, a group shot of the five main characters
> standing around looking vaguely amused.
>
The US cover has the boys sitting on the bench, but the veiw is altered
to more of a "U.S."-looking city panorama. Dont ask me why the change
though!
MGB aka chichi3
--

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

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 09:13:32 -0500
From: Keith
Subject: Ste vs. Jamie revisited
Hey all,
I just watched BT again last night, and had a few thoughts regarding a
discussion that was going on here a while back regarding whether
Jamie or Ste would be more likely to stay faithful and committed to a
relationship. Some felt Jamie was the more level-headed of the two, and
would be more likely to stay committed.
After watching BT again, I'm beginning to think Ste would be the type to
stay with Jamie once he has mas the committment to.
I realized last night how Jamie is the type that runs with emotions,
letsthem guide him, while Ste is the ever-practical, slower to react, but
stronger to commit type. Jamie tells Ste is not sure if he is scared about
being called gay, but is happy when he is with him (Ste). He is clearly
letting his emotions lead him. Ste, on the other hand, hasn't reached this
point yet. Not until later, when he and Jamie are in Jamie's bedroom the
night Ste brings him the hat. Ste, always the practical one, makes is
clear he has put some thought into where they can go in safety. He
mentions his deaf aunt's place, etc. To me, this shows he has made the
firm committment in his mind to make this work, and now is trying to put
his ideas into effect.
I think part of the reason I feel this way is that I can identify myself in
Ste's behavior. I have never been emotionally head strong like Jamie, but
rather the strong, silent type like Ste. I can see my self acting similar. I
would hang back, waiting till I was certain it was what I wanted; but
once I knew, I would, like Ste, try to work out the details (To all you
spontaneous romantics on the list, I know this sounds so strange, but it's
just the way doing things feels natural to me! :) Once reaching this point,
I know I would have made up my mind to remain committed to the
relationship, and would work to let it grow into a Beautiful Thing ;)
Just my 2 cents worth.
Keith
--

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

From: Hal
Subject: Q - What does Sandra mean?
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:00:54 +0200
Hi all (of the suddenly silent list)
I have wondered about this particular little question since the very first
time I saw BT. It happens in scene 90 (what makes you think I have the
script?), after Jamie told Ste that his mom knows. the dialogue goes
something like this:
SANDRA: Now wipe 'em properly
(STE takes a few hankies and wipes his eyes. Blows his nose.
JAMIE sits down in an armchair. STE is bewildered by the whole
thing.)
STE: Aw f*** me (actual word replaced to protext the innnocent ;) )
SANDRA: Er, we'll have none of that here
Right, I'm going to bed. Five minutes.
STE: Right, Sandra. Night, Sandra, Cheers, Sandra.
SANDRA: Yeah, that's me name, Ste, don't wear it out, eh?
Now, I might be just a bit thick, but I don't understand that bit. In the
movie, the way the camera focuses of them here sort of makes one think that
it's got some important meaning. But I don't get it!!
Does anyone have any ideas?
 
Hal
 
--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:44:12 -0400
From: Eric
Subject: Re: US Video and The Couch
HIya,
Couple things here. Someone noted that the US Video was "Americanized" and
I have to disagree. The picture on the cover is the "bench" shot. Instead
of the colorful solarized background, it was left plain. Whereas that could
be anywhere, nothing was actually changed in the photo that I can tell.
For scans of the US and UK video covers and POsters from the US, UK, France
and Denmark (and more) check out my little BT website:
There are also some magazine articles there.
Now, on to the couch. This is MHO:
Ste didn't sleep on the couch because:
1. It was too small. It's just a two-seater, and he would have had to curl
up to sleep on it.
2. Sandra was entertaining Tony downstairs. Remember, she just got off
work, and wouldn't be ready for sleep yet. She might have wanted to eat
something and/or watch Telly.
3. There's nothing unusual about a couple of boys sharing a bed, especially
"top to toe." Perhaps they were a little old for that, but considering 1 &
2 above, not really stretching a point.
4. Plot wise, it had to happen. If Ste slept on the couch.... we'd have no
story!! I don't think Jonathan Harvey was reaching too far to put them in
bed together. It was plausable, and that's enough.
Again, the above is just my opinion!
-Eric
--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:05:25 -0500
From: Keith
Subject: Ste vs. Jamie revisited
Hey all,
I just watched BT again last night, and had a few thoughts regarding a
discussion that was going on here a while back regarding whether
Jamie or Ste would be more likely to stay faithful and committed to a
relationship. Some felt Jamie was the more level-headed of the two, and
would be more likely to stay committed.
After watching BT again, I'm beginning to think Ste would be the type to
stay with Jamie once he has mas the committment to.
I realized last night how Jamie is the type that runs with emotions,
letsthem guide him, while Ste is the ever-practical, slower to react, but
stronger to commit type. Jamie tells Ste is not sure if he is scared about
being called gay, but is happy when he is with him (Ste). He is clearly
letting his emotions lead him. Ste, on the other hand, hasn't reached this
point yet. Not until later, when he and Jamie are in Jamie's bedroom the
night Ste brings him the hat. Ste, always the practical one, makes is
clear he has put some thought into where they can go in safety. He
mentions his deaf aunt's place, etc. To me, this shows he has made the
firm committment in his mind to make this work, and now is trying to put
his ideas into effect.
I think part of the reason I feel this way is that I can identify myself in
Ste's behavior. I have never been emotionally head strong like Jamie, but
rather the strong, silent type like Ste. I can see my self acting similar. I
would hang back, waiting till I was certain it was what I wanted; but
once I knew, I would, like Ste, try to work out the details (To all you
spontaneous romantics on the list, I know this sounds so strange, but it's
just the way doing things feels natural to me! :) Once reaching this point,
I know I would have made up my mind to remain committed to the
relationship, and would work to let it grow into a Beautiful Thing ;)
Just my 2 cents worth.
Keith
--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:26:50 +0200
From: jmcs
Subject: Where are you?
Hi everybody!
I miss all your posts. So Iīve decided to do something about it and set an
example.
Thereīs 'another' thing about the film I hadnīt noticed but I did today. As
everything related to 'Beautiful Thing', this one is absolutely adorable too:
Jamie and Ste never wear the same school uniform in their scenes together.
Sometimes Jamie wears the red T-shirt and Ste wears the long-sleeved red
sweater or Ste wears the red T-shirt and Jamie the white one...
The ONLY time they wear the same clothes is in the lake scene, when McBride
throws Jamie into the water and Ste recovers Jamieīs ball. Both Jamie and
Ste wear the same clothes unlike their other classmates who either are
shirtless or wear the red T-shirts. I couldnīt help but wondering if this
was made on purpose, to show Jamie and Ste share a much deeper and abiding
harmony and attunement than Ste with any of his other classmates.
I donīt know if Iīm making any sense to you.
 
Are you still out there? I miss you!!!
 
Take care.
 
Sandra.
 
 
--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:27:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: DC
Subject: Re: Ste vs. Jamie revisited
In a message dated 97-09-12 13:18:17 EDT, Keith writes:
<<
After watching BT again, I'm beginning to think Ste would be the type to
stay with Jamie once he has mas the committment to.
>>
I think Keith has a point. I was always struck by Ste hanging out on the
footbridge after the party when Gina came up to him. I think he just needed
space to think things through. If he wanted to prove to himself that he
wasn't gay, or might not be gay, he would have been more likely to go along
with Gina and her friend. Once he was able to accept being gay, and the
possiblity of having a relationship, then he was able to act.
Dirk
 
 
--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:31:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: DC
Subject: Re: Q - What does Sandra mean?
In a message dated 97-09-12 13:20:19 EDT, you write:
<< Right, I'm going to bed. Five minutes.
STE: Right, Sandra. Night, Sandra, Cheers, Sandra.
SANDRA: Yeah, that's me name, Ste, don't wear it out, eh?
Now, I might be just a bit thick, but I don't understand that bit. In the
movie, the way the camera focuses of them here sort of makes one think that
it's got some important meaning. But I don't get it!!
Does anyone have any ideas? >>
Could Sandra be very protective of Jamie at this point? Earlier, in the
bedroom, she seemed to feel that if Jamie had to be involved with someone,
Ste wouldn't be the best person for him "since he hasn't seen life." I think
Sandra cares for Ste deeply in a maternal way, but doesn't want Jamie hurt,
and was concerned about what influence Ste would have on Jamie (perhaps
emotional baggage from an abusive family spilling over?) At any rate, I for
one think Ste would be, and is, good for Jamie!!
Cheers,
Dirk
--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:55:10 -0400
From: ep
Subject: Re: Ste vs. Jamie revisited
At 06:18 AM 9/13/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I think they make a nice couple and would probably stick together if
>given half a chance by all the people around them. They have friendship
>and love -- their connection has almost nothing to do with sex.
 
....that we know of!! But they were sure doing *something* in bed together!
And I'm sure they liked it.
-Eric
--

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

Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:17:18 -0400
From: Kevin
Subject: Re: Ste vs. Jamie revisited
You know - in spite of the fact that everyone sees Ste as the practical
type - it is rather amusing that he doesn't think before shouting at
Jamie AFTER the party. "Get your hands off me!...Get your fucking queer
hands off me!!" What was he thinking at that moment? Probably "Oh my
God, what would everyone else think if they knew I slept with a guy -
they'd think I was a queer! I've got to live up to the macho image that
my dad, brother and all of society have been molding me into for the
past 16 years and hope nobody else efigures it out." Ok, maybe I'm
pushing the point here - but think about it...the comment is definitely
a well thought out comment - though Jamie seems to bounce back pretty
quickly - "figuring out" that Ste is actually in love with him or he
wouldn't have been so mean! Yeah, right. I wasn't that bright at 16 -
when someone was mean to me (especially saying things like that!) I
really thought they hated me - even when I was in love with them - I
didn't realize they were being mean b/c they loved me...I thought they
were being mean b/c they really felt that way (no matter what beautiful
moments we may have spent together.) - So my point is -> I don't know
how serious a commitment Ste can make if he's alwayas gonna be worried
about what other people think about him. Remember when Jamie asks him to
dance at the end of the movie, he's still checking over his shoulder
before he accepts Jamie's hand.
I'm sorry if this sounds so morbid, but unfortunately, life is not
always full of happy endings, and though I was glad it turned out happy
- remember that this is an "urban FAIRYTALE" and after the "happily ever
after", life does go on.
Any comments???
Kevin
_____
 
Keith  wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> I just watched BT again last night, and had a few thoughts regarding a
> discussion that was going on here a while back regarding whether
> Jamie or Ste would be more likely to stay faithful and committed to a
> relationship. Some felt Jamie was the more level-headed of the two, and
> would be more likely to stay committed.
>
> After watching BT again, I'm beginning to think Ste would be the type to
> stay with Jamie once he has mas the committment to.
>
> I realized last night how Jamie is the type that runs with emotions,
> letsthem guide him, while Ste is the ever-practical, slower to react, but
> stronger to commit type. Jamie tells Ste is not sure if he is scared about
> being called gay, but is happy when he is with him (Ste). He is clearly
> letting his emotions lead him. Ste, on the other hand, hasn't reached this
> point yet. Not until later, when he and Jamie are in Jamie's bedroom the
> night Ste brings him the hat. Ste, always the practical one, makes is
> clear he has put some thought into where they can go in safety. He
> mentions his deaf aunt's place, etc. To me, this shows he has made the
> firm committment in his mind to make this work, and now is trying to put
> his ideas into effect.
>
> I think part of the reason I feel this way is that I can identify myself in
> Ste's behavior. I have never been emotionally head strong like Jamie, but
> rather the strong, silent type like Ste. I can see my self acting similar. I
> would hang back, waiting till I was certain it was what I wanted; but
> once I knew, I would, like Ste, try to work out the details (To all you
> spontaneous romantics on the list, I know this sounds so strange, but it's
> just the way doing things feels natural to me! :) Once reaching this point,
> I know I would have made up my mind to remain committed to the
> relationship, and would work to let it grow into a Beautiful Thing ;)
>
> Just my 2 cents worth.
>
> Keith
>
> --
 
--

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

You are visitor #

Last Updated on 01/29/99

This page hosted by GeoCities Get your own Free Home Page

 

1