From: "Anthony"
Subject: Re: Intro and Request
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:58:27 -0500

Hi Jan, (and Gary and listers),

What a fantastic email!
I just want to let you know, Jan, how beautifully you phrased what I, and
so
many people, have felt about Beautiful Thing. Your comments are perhaps
the
best portrayal of the BT phenomenon that I've ever read.
Like yourself, the "Fairy Tale Factor" is what appeals to me most
about
this screenplay. While there arecertainly many "gay-oriented" films and
novels, BT is, as you so aptly
explained, refreshingly different in the sense that it is centered around
true love. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. We are not subjected to
the
trite, apologist gay drama that we are so used to reading and seeing.
Stereotypes are completely broken down and we are shown, for a precious 90
minutes (alas, too short!), a simple love story that appeals to all.
I think you said it best when you said you "cherish what the movie
says
about the possibility of gay love." That is it, really. Although I was
comfortable with who I am before I saw this film, BT further strengthened
my
convictions that gay love need not be the difficult melodrama that it is
often portrayed as being. The love that Jamie and Ste share is idyllic
and
it is what we are strive for -- gay or straight.
So many of my non-BT-viewing friends are wondering if I've gone
completely mad, as I constantly talk about the film and have gone to
Thamesmead just to visit the film site, like many of us have done. I have
often tried to express in words, although I know in feeling, exactly why
this film has had this effect on me and other viewers.
As Gary explained in his email to us, the thesis of his paper is about how
BT has formed a community both within cyberspace and everyday life. It
is,
for me at least, this sense of community that has been such a positive
influence on me. This film, of course, has brought many of us together to
think about our feelings -- both outwardly and introspectively -- and it
has
cultivated many new friendships. Most importantly for me, however, is
that
this film has utterly destroyed any semblance of shame, doubt, or
misapprehensions I might have felt about my sexuality. I think it might
be
safely said that this is why most of us could think about nothing else but
the film for days or weeks after seeing it. For people who were comfortable

with their feelings beforehand, this film was an affirmation of what true
love can be. For those people who were somewhat uncomfortable with coming
out to family or themselves, this film was such a breath of fresh air that
has helped us understand that gay love, like all love, can be beautiful
and
those feelings of doubt and uncertainty are overshadowed by our newly
found
acceptance of ourselves.

Best of luck with your presentation, Gary and please let us know how
things
go!
Cheers,
Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan
Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 3:04 PM
Subject: BT

>Gary (and listers),
>
>Your work sounds interesting, what a great way to make a living (I know,
>you still have to grade papers and deal with crazy students)!
>
>I have only been on the BT-list for a few days, so I don't know much
about
>the people on it, nor its lovely stories. I will try to relate my
comments
>to your thesis idea #1.
>
>< How BT affected some folks either coming out or dealing with being out
>
>
>I have kind of racked my brain on this one for some time. I am a
>relatively well-adjusted queer, aged 39 (really), and have been in a
>relationship for 10 years with a lovely man that I love very much. I am
>also 'out' to my family, friends, and somewhat at work. So...it really
did
>not move me to be more 'out' than I already am, although I must say that
it
>me feel even more proud to be out or gay.
>
>Yet, BT did move me profoundly. I kept thinking about it for weeks
>afterward, and have seen it on video many times. So what is the big deal
>with this movie, why did I run to the Internet to find more about it,
like
>a teenage girl with a Leo DiCaprio crush? I could probably (surprisingly)
>go on for pages about this subject, but in deference to your project I
will
>limit my musings to 1 main fascination: The Fairy Tale Factor.
>
>Like other gay men, I have seen any number of 'gay' films but have never
>seen a film that captures the 'ideal' of love better than this film. It
>seems that we, as gay men, have relatively little fiction to hang our
>romantic longings on - those films that have preceded have usually ended
>up either in tragedy, or have little or no relevance to my rather
>'ordinary' life. Here are two kids who fall in love the way I wish I
could
>have when I was their age - that is the crux - they are two relatively
>'normal' guys who simply are attracted to another guy. They are neither
>disco predators nor upper-crust angst mongers. So, strangely, Jamie and
>Ste are characters that somehow 'ring true', yet they also (on a more
lofty
>plane) remind me of Romeo and Juliet - they exist for each other merely
>because they *love* each other, despite the peer and adult forces
>propelling them apart. This is what makes their characters heroic and
>powerful, they endure and flourish despite their environment. I cherish
>what the movie says about the possibility of gay love - that it is, as
>Martha would say, 'a good thing' - simple, pure, natural, affirming,
>uplifting. So much of what we read and watch seems to be nothing more
than
>an Advocate issue rehash - AIDS, discrimination, sexual freedom. This
>movie lends me a hopeful, and yes, for one and a half hours, a fairy tale
>view of life.
>
>I think there are probably many more factors that make this movie special
>to me, (Jamie's coming out to his mother, or the pang of wishing I hadn't
>'wasted' my teens and early twenties on dead-end relationships with
women),
>but I will stop here. If it is at all possible, I would love to see your
>work when you are finished. As I am writing this to the list as sort of
an
>introduction, I have no problem with your using it or my name. Take care
>and good luck with your project.
>
>Jan

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

From: "Kent ."
Subject: Re: BT (Gary, Jan)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:19:48 PST

On Fri, 27 Mar, Jan  wrote:

>Gary (and listers),

>I have only been on the BT-list for a few days, so I don't know much
about
>the people on it, nor its lovely stories. I will try to relate my
comments
>to your thesis idea #1.

Well, then, welcome to the list of worldwide Beautiful Thing fans, Jan!

And thanks for a very nice post introducing yourself to us all. Nice
ta meetcha!

>I will
>limit my musings to 1 main fascination: The Fairy Tale Factor.

This factor is what makes it magical for me, too, Jan.

>Here are two kids who fall in love the way I wish I could
>have when I was their age - that is the crux - they are two relatively
>'normal' guys who simply are attracted to another guy.

I totally agree with the fact that this movie is the only one where
young gay male love is celebrated in the way that so many of us wish
had
been part of our own teen years-- even to have been able to go dancing
or dating, (whether or not the result had been our finding the love of
our lives as a result).

>This
>movie lends me a hopeful, and yes, for one and a half hours, a fairy
tale
>view of life.

And we all need to believe in the possibility of a story ending "Happily

Ever After"!!

>If it is at all possible, I would love to see your
>work when you are finished.

I second that-- maybe you could post it somehow/where for us all to see
and enjoy, Gary? Also, I (for one) will be interested in the reaction
of your audience; please keep us filled in, OK?

Kent

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:22:05 +1100
From: Andy
Subject: BT Fan Fiction site updated

Hi listers,

The BT-Stories Fan Fiction Archive has just been updated with 5 new files.
For those new around here, another list known as BT-Stories Mailing List
is
where to find what the creative types among us are doing. The stories that
appear on the list are then archived on a web page for everyone to read.
We've had some brave new writers join us recently and the stories are of a
high standard.

The new files are:

The Saga Continues - Part 1
The Saga Continues - Part 2
Fish Out Of Water - Part 1
Fish Out Of Water - Part 2
Fingers Of Love

A few stats:

Stories on file: 22
Visitor hits: 395
Guestbook entries: 5

And the all important URL:

Take care and happy reading,
Andy.
*****************************************************

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 14:07:36 -0600
From: Gary
Subject: Re: Intro and Request

You guys are just terrific! Keep the responses coming. I've blocked
this entire free weekend (finally, a free weekend and the temperature is
around 80 degrees and the sun in shining) for organizing the paper.
You've so far given me some opening quotes and a lot of material to
support the points of the paper.

And, yes, I will post the final version. In fact, I can post an
attachment in Microsoft Word format if that's OK. I know we don't allow
file attachments on this list, but this would be quite short, since it's
a 200 word proposal. Or, if I can figure out the right cut-and-paste
routine, I can post it in the text of a note. 

For now, thanks to those who've responded. Now I've got to dig into that
e-mail archive. It's rare than doing an academic research paper can
actually be fun. But, hey, this is a project about BT, so how could it
not be fun? :)

Gary
--

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 18:58:10 -0800
From: Jean
Subject: re: did they

Michael, aka Gilligan, your most recent post is refreshingly forthright.
Some people are quite invested in the did/didn't debate. It seems to be an
emotional consideration for some. Some don't care and some might even
oscillate.

There needn't be a conflict between believing that they did or believing
that the lovely breeze that came in through the window and billowed the
curtain also blew all their clothes off during the night. (I hear those
Southmere breezes can be quite capricious!) But I suppose debate persists.

I mean no disrespect to either author or director, but I do consider each
individual's experience of the play and film to be indisputable whether
they're in the nothing-below-the-waist camp or otherwise. Imagination is
fluid and probably proves a singular construct to be pretty darn leaky
about the seams most of the time!!

I certainly don't hesitate to explore the dimensions offered me by my own
did/didn't opinion. And yet I remain as interested in the ways this story
actually reaches into hearts and changes lives in a very beautiful way as
I
am in the sexual consanguinity (mmmmmmm!) between the main characters.

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

From: "Kent ."
Subject: Re: Did they or didn't they?
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 19:50:49 PST

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Michael wrote:

>Hello again
>
>As a director I get to interpret the script in the way I believe
upholds
>the essence of what the writer is trying to tell his audience. Because
I
>have contact with Jonathan I am therefore able to consult with him on
the
>themes and actions of the story. Many people on this list have debated
>whether Jamie and Ste had sex in the Peppermint Foot Lotion scene.
>
>Logic, biology, personal experience and reality says they did. I agree
with
>that and I'm sorry to ruin the romance for some people but Jonathan
agrees
>too.

Michael, thank you for providing a definitive answer (insofar as it
relates to the author's perspective-- and they are first and foremost
his creations, after all!) to the question about which I emailed you.
As I wrote you, the film as a work of art is subject to the various
interpretations of the viewer, who brings his/her own perspectives and
indeed, his/her own personal experiences to bear on the issue of "Did
They or Didn't They". The movie becomes "our" Beautiful Thing since
we
have taken it into our own hearts. I am glad, for the sense of
"historical accuracy" if nothing else, to know that Jonathan Harvey
intended *his* Jamie and Ste to be understood as having had sex that
Night (it certainly deserves the capital letter)! But I, for one,
don't feel that knowing sex is presumed to have occurred between Jamie
and Ste ruins the romance-- *at all*. It is *because of* love
(especially Jamie's for Ste) that they find themselves drawn so
intimately together in the first place (the whole of the Peppermint
Foot
Lotion scene is-- to me-- a touchingly nuanced view of unadulterated
love and tenderness); that love and palpable affection (which is what
*is* wisely chosen to be shown onscreen) is what makes them "lovers",
sex is their expression of that love (and at its best, isn't that what
it is for us all)? I mean, there is nothing in Beautiful Thing that
resembles gonadal hormones rampaging, nor mere physical urges being
satisfied. The operative component of Jamie and Ste's relationship is
the desire their *hearts* (not their groins) have for each other; the
fact that this intimate need is manifested sexually makes their sexual
experience not the ruin of romance, but (IMO) the *celebration* of
romance. 

>One of the many beautiful things about BT is that it leaves so much
for
the
>audience to intellectualise. Many plays and films are explicit in their
>treatment of sexuality whereas BT asks its audiences "why do you need
to
>see it to believe it?"

As for me, I neither needed nor wanted to see more explicit sex than
was
shown, but I always believed it was there, and that it had happened.

>Please feel free to ask me anything else you cannot understand in the
>film/play. If I don't already know, I'd be happy to ask Jonathan.
>
>Cheers
>MICHAEL

Michael, thank you for that most generous offer! In the time I have
been on this list (and in posts I have seen from the former Mailing
list), while many questions arise as to "why did this happen", we have
not before had any conduit to the one source (Mr. Harvey) who would
really know. Now we do. (I have had *my* most Burning Question
answered, so I leave it to others to decide to take you up on that
offer
or not!)

Kent
gratefully! 

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

From: "Michael
Subject: I worked it out
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:10:18 +1000

I worked out the IRC business.

I'll be on the IRC site on and off between 8.00pm and midnight (today
tonight (Monday 30 March 1998; Sydney time is GMT+10.00) only if someone
exciting joins me there!

Cheers
MICHAEL

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 22:43:10 +1000
From: Andy
Subject: Re: I worked it out

>I worked out the IRC business.
>
>I'll be on the IRC site on and off between 8.00pm and midnight (today
>tonight (Monday 30 March 1998; Sydney time is GMT+10.00) only if someone
>exciting joins me there!
>
>Cheers
>MICHAEL

You found the irc channel on dalnet? Hey this is neat!

I find the best time to be in the mornings (aust time) around 8 or 9 am,
particularly on Saturday morning. I haven't encounted anyone on the
channel
in the evenings here.

I was on and off for a short while but as of now 1040pm our 'wires', so to
speak, hadn't crossed!

Andy.

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

From: Donald
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:43:48 EST
Subject: Re: I worked it out

I can not figure out the IRC thing. I have downloaded the stuff that
supposedly allows me to go on, but for some reason my brain capacities do
not
allow me to figure out how to operate it--so, if any of you can offer your
infinite amount of wisdom on the intriguing piece of technology, please
do.

Thanks,
-D-

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

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:56:23 -0500
From: "Keith
Subject: Email archive

Hey all,

I am trying something, passed it along to theStories list first for their
comments, etc., and
now want to share it with the main list.
There has been some interest (I think) in some kind of archive of the past
emails, much
like Andy's stories archive, so I have begun assembling an archive of the
old emails
from the BT list. I have ordered the archive more or less in sequential
order. Right now
I have the emails going back to March 27, 1997. If anyone has older
emails than that, and
would not mind sharing them with me, I will incorporate them into the
archive. Let me know! 

I will say I found myself bringing back fond
memories reading through the old emails, many from people no longer with
the list
(for example who remembers Chik?)

A few comments:

For security/privacy - all email addresses, last names, and personal web
addresses have
been removed.

No other editing has been done - the text is as it was sent - typos and
all.

The messages are simply grouped by date/time received. There are far too
many messages
to try to organize it by thread.

There is a main index page, though right now it only links to each
individual page of
emails. As time permits, this will be enhanced with info like each emails
sender, and the
subject. This will be hyperlinked to the message pages. For now it's
just a message page.

This is a "no frills" archive - I simply don't have the time to add
graphics, etc.

I know some kind of search engine would be nice, but my web/java skills
are not there, and
on free web space like geocities, you are very limited to what you can do,
so it
probably wouldn't work anyway.

I don't know how much space will be required, and if I have enough.

Anyway, that said, you can go to www.geocities.com/westhollywood/1159/archi
dx.html

Let me know what you guys think! (either personally, or to the BTlist.)
Thanks!

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

From: "Gilligan"
Subject: Did they or didn't they?
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 10:50:04 -0400

Hello again

As a director I get to interpret the script in the way I believe upholds
the essence of what the writer is trying to tell his audience. Because I
have contact with Jonathan I am therefore able to consult with him on the
themes and actions of the story. Many people on this list have debated
whether Jamie and Ste had sex in the Peppermint Foot Lotion scene.

Logic, biology, personal experience and reality says they did. I agree
with
that and I'm sorry to ruin the romance for some people but Jonathan agrees
too.

One of the many beautiful things about BT is that it leaves so much for
the
audience to intellectualise. Many plays and films are explicit in their
treatment of sexuality whereas BT asks its audiences "why do you need to
see it to believe it?"

That is why people of all ages and sexual persuasions are able to fall in
love with BT. We had some terribly homophobic people who saw the play at
the encouragement of cast and crew members who knew those people.

The board operator's boss, a self-confessed gay basher (in his past) and
typical red neck homophobe, loved the play and was relieved that sex
wasn't
shown. Consequently, he has just hired a gay man to work for him.

It is the sexual act between two men that deters and sickens many people.
This play focuses on love acceptance which is what we all want from the
broader community. I for one don't particularly want people to know what I
do in bed because it is none of their business. At the end of the day my
friends/family/colleagues know I love to fuck guys but they have accepted
me because I have proven that I am just another guy who experiences the
same emotions and hardships they do.

Please feel free to ask me anything else you cannot understand in the
film/play. If I don't already know, I'd be happy to ask Jonathan.

Cheers
MICHAEL

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

From: "Paul
Subject: I don't understand ...
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 18:13:43 +0100

Whilst everyone's talking all deep and meaningful stuff about the movie,
I'd like to ask a stupid little thing that bothers me?

At the end of Sandra's job interview, she gives a piece of paper to the
male after he says "You'll hear soon princess". What is it?

Whilst Beautiful Thing was very moving and . . . well, beautiful, it's
also extremely funny in parts! Lines like "That's easy. The one with the
biggest tits of course" and Jamie: "That'll be the 'phone" Sandra: "Well
it wouldn't be the bloody hoover bag would it".

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

From: "Gilligan"
Subject: IRC
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 16:36:28 -0400

Hi listers

I have made numerous attempts at getting onto the beautiful thing IRC chat
in the hops of chatting live with people such as yourselves in the name of
continued research. But I can't find it anymore. Are there certain times
when the chatroom isn't operational? Or is there a particular Dalnet
service that I need to use? Help!

Cheers
MICHAEL

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

From: Amicus
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:09:42 -0800
Subject: SEX

Jamie & Ste did NOT have sex! They made love! Tho' the technique may be
the same they are clean two different things!

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

From: "Michael
Subject: Re: SEX
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:43:30 +1000

Point taken David.

Only I don't necessarily believe Jamie and Ste are in love at that point
(if at any point). They are both in search of physical comfort but to say
they are making love at then is a little too much to expect from 15/16yos.
So, I maintain that on "that night" Jamie and Ste have "sex".

Cheers
MICHAEL

----------
: From: David
: Subject: SEX
: Date: Tuesday, 31 March 1998 8:09
:
: Jamie & Ste did NOT have sex! They made love! Tho' the technique may be
: the same they are clean two different things!
:
:

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

From: "Jeff
Subject: Re: I don't understand ...
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 01:25:11 -0600

Wow, this very question was brought up about this time last year on the
original BT email list. 

There are never stupid questions, luv. Only stupid answers. Except when
it comes to anything BT. Then all answers are important.

Last year's debate included the possiblity she was handing him a bribe.
Alas, thankfully, the screenplay tells us, "SANDRA hands him a box of
matches." 

Back to lurking mode.

Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul
Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 2:39 p.m.
Subject: I don't understand ...


Whilst everyone's talking all deep and meaningful stuff about the
movie, I'd like to ask a stupid little thing that bothers me?

At the end of Sandra's job interview, she gives a piece of paper to
the male after he says "You'll hear soon princess". What is it?

Whilst Beautiful Thing was very moving and . . . well, beautiful, it's
also extremely funny in parts! Lines like "That's easy. The one with the
biggest tits of course" and Jamie: "That'll be the 'phone" Sandra: "Well
it wouldn't be the bloody hoover bag would it".

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

From: "Kent ."
Subject: SEX vs. LOVE
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 03:01:17 PST

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Michael wrote:

>Only I don't necessarily believe Jamie and Ste are in love at that
point
>(if at any point). They are both in search of physical comfort but to
say
>they are making love at then is a little too much to expect from
15/16yos.
>So, I maintain that on "that night" Jamie and Ste have "sex".
>
>Cheers
>MICHAEL

Hi, Michael!

I think one point where the movie may diverge from the play is how the
audience is given many reasons to feel that Jamie and Ste are
experiencing love-- a love with the potentoiasl to be abiding. We see
numerous glances between them, from the first scene onwards, that say
so
much more than "I am looking to you, and at you, as someone who can
provide me with physical comfort". Also, just to briefly mention an
observation made by Sandra to this list a number of months ago, it is
far from insignificant that, in bed, Jamie first *asks* Ste if he can
touch him-- knowing full weell how much this person has had people take
advantage of the "right" to harm his body without permisiion-- and with
impunity. Sandra-- pitch in here-- this is *your* topic for sure!
Also, regarding the ability of 15/16 year olds to be in love-- just how
old *were* Romeo amd Juliet, anyway? <G>

Kent
P.S. Hannes, you are very very welcome, I am sure!

Re

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:00:47 +0100
From: Terry
Subject: Hello

Hello!

I have just subscribed to the Beautiful Thing Mail List. I am a 33 year
old bus driver living in Brighton which is about 50 miles south of
London on south coast of England. I have lived with my boyfriend Ray for
seven years. My hobbies include Amateur Radio, computing and driving old
buses.

Here is a little background about how I "found" a Beautiful Thing.

I saw the last 20 minutes of BT for the first time just before Christmas
1997.

It moved me enough to get the video to see the rest of the film. I saw
it on the "big screen" last Sunday at the Duke of York cinema here in
Brighton. It's much better in the cinema than on the telly. I now own
the soundtrack and the screenplay.

I can identify with Jamie being a loner and Ste's domestic violence.
Seeing Ste's bruises brought back really bad memories of my father's
beatings. I wanted to find someone to love at Jamie and Ste's age but
couldn't living on a council estate in Croydon (South London).

Beautiful Thing has changed my life.

Regards,

Tez.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:43:36 -0500
From: "Keith
Subject: Re: Hello

Terry,

A big hearty welcome to the list! It's always great to see a new face, so
to speak!

I'm so sorry to hear you've had some bad experiences in the past, but it's
good to know
you've found love now, and I think you'll find that the people on this
list, and Beautiful Thing
itself will only help that love grow. Like you, I too wish I had found
love when I was
younger; when all my friends were out dating, I would sit home praying to
be "normal" Well
it didn't work, and only recently I've been able to start to be happy with
who I am, and
now hope someone else out there feels the same about me, enough to spend
the rest of
our lives together.

So once again, Welcome!

Keith

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 08:26:38 -0600
From: Jan
Subject: Re: SEX

Michael,

The great sex vs. love debate!! I'll have to do my BT stage-play
homework,
perhaps Jamie and Ste are not as prominently love-struck. But I can't
believe the way that they look at each other in the scene in the woods
after they break off kissing is mere physical comfort. The last scene of
the movie is similarly swoony. I guess I'd have to agree that perhaps
15/16 year olds have less living to base their deep and abiding feelings
on, but in some senses theirs is that dizzy, 'everything is OK because I
love this person and he loves me' kind of love that, while it may lack
depth, certainly is sincere and earnest, maybe more 'pure'.

JAN

At 10:43 AM 3/31/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Point taken David.
>
>Only I don't necessarily believe Jamie and Ste are in love at that point
>(if at any point). They are both in search of physical comfort but to say
>they are making love at then is a little too much to expect from
15/16yos.
>So, I maintain that on "that night" Jamie and Ste have "sex".
>
>Cheers
>MICHAEL

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

From: "Neil
Subject: RE: SEX
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:44:23 +0100
Hi All,

I agree, certainly by the woods scene Jamie and Ste appear to be in love
or
certainly discovering that they are in love. The bedroom scene portrays
to
me an air of innocence, of purity. They are escaping the world that binds
their hands and living for themselves. Certainly they have sex that night
in
Jamie's bedroom, perhaps discovering each other. Maybe its during that
night they "fall in love"? Later in the film, does Ste not spend the money
that Sandra gives to him (for the one he loves)on Jamie?

Any thoughts?

Neil
London, UK

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Jan
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: SEX

Michael,

The great sex vs. love debate!! I'll have to do my BT stage-play
homework,
perhaps Jamie and Ste are not as prominently love-struck. But I can't
believe the way that they look at each other in the scene in the woods
after they break off kissing is mere physical comfort. The last scene of
the movie is similarly swoony. I guess I'd have to agree that perhaps
15/16 year olds have less living to base their deep and abiding feelings
on, but in some senses theirs is that dizzy, 'everything is OK because I
love this person and he loves me' kind of love that, while it may lack
depth, certainly is sincere and earnest, maybe more 'pure'.

JAN

At 10:43 AM 3/31/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Point taken David.
>
>Only I don't necessarily believe Jamie and Ste are in love at that point
>(if at any point). They are both in search of physical comfort but to say
>they are making love at then is a little too much to expect from
15/16yos.
>So, I maintain that on "that night" Jamie and Ste have "sex".
>
>Cheers
>MICHAEL

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 98 11:04:38 MET
From: Hannes
Subject: Re: Email archive

Hi!

I have archived every email I have received from the BT list since
I
rejoined 14 Jan 1998. It amounts to about 370 emails. Where do
I
send it to? ;)


Hannes (aka Hal)
______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: Email archive
Date: 3/30/98 10:47 PM

Hey all,

I am trying something, passed it along to theStories list first for
their
comments, etc., and
now want to share it with the main list.
There has been some interest (I think) in some kind of archive of the
past
emails, much
like Andy's stories archive, so I have begun assembling an archive of the
old
emails
from the BT list. I have ordered the archive more or less in sequential
order.
Right now
I have the emails going back to March 27, 1997. If anyone has older
emails than
that, and
would not mind sharing them with me, I will incorporate them into the
archive.
Let me know!

I will say I found myself bringing back fond
memories reading through the old emails, many from people no longer with
the
list
(for example who remembers Chik?)

A few comments:

For security/privacy - all email addresses, last names, and personal
web
addresses have
been removed.

No other editing has been done - the text is as it was sent - typos and
all.

The messages are simply grouped by date/time received. There are far too
many
messages
to try to organize it by thread.

There is a main index page, though right now it only links to each
individual
page of
emails. As time permits, this will be enhanced with info like each
emails
sender, and the
subject. This will be hyperlinked to the message pages. For now it's
just a
message page.

This is a "no frills" archive - I simply don't have the time to add
graphics,
etc.

I know some kind of search engine would be nice, but my web/java skills
are not
there, and
on free web space like geocities, you are very limited to what you can do,
so it
probably wouldn't work anyway.

I don't know how much space will be required, and if I have enough.

Anyway, that said, you can go to
www.geocities.com/westhollywood/1159/archidx.html

Let me know what you guys think! (either personally, or to the BTlist.)
Thanks!

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:06:17 -0500
From: "Keith
Subject: Re: SEX

Hey all,

My two nickels worth.

The issue of did they/didn't they will probably never be settled to
everyone's satisfaction,
even with Michael's/Jonathan's input - I mean even when we create
characters and
stories, we (the author) never do quite fully know all the actions of our
characters -
that's what makes them such good characters - they take on lives of their
own, and
therefore are entitled to their privacy and shared moments. Fortunately,
I think thinking of
it this way leaves just enough ambiguity for people of different mind sets
to maintain the
beliefs they are comfortable with.

Personally I believe, and have previously voiced the opinion that
*something* did happen
that night, though to what degree this *something* was is again, vague. I
guess I'm
partially speaking from personal experience, but I say that at that age,
and in those
circumstances it would be hard to be that close and intimate and not be
physical.
I guess it also has to do with your definition of *sex*. For instance, if
having an
orgasm meant having sex, then I would have to say yes they did. At the
same time though, I can't (and won't) picture Jamie and Ste in what
amounts to a marathon
session of physical lovemaking, much like in some um er <blush> porno
movie.

I think it would be more like an exploration of each other - both
emotionally and physically.
Maybe more like a mutual kind of thing (you touch me, and I'll touch you).
And maybe
just based on contact, but not (more blushing) penetration. To me, it
could (and would)
still be considered sex, even if they only did touching, rubbing, groping,
feeling, etc.

The key here is that they loved each other (or as some have pointed out)
due to their
age, and relative immaturity/inexperience, felt they loved each other (at
that age I think
it amounts to the same thing) If that expression of love contained
certain physical acts
or not, is in some ways not so important, only that the emotional bond was
there. Keep in
mind too, that love/sex for the first time is often looked at very
differently later. At the time
it seems like the strongest, most passionate thing there is, but often
later we realize it is
more of a hormonal thing. Now I'm not saying that Jamie and Ste don't
really love each
other, only that there is more going on in their minds than simple love
(whatever that is)

Keith

>>> Jan > 03/31/98 09:26AM >>>

Michael,

The great sex vs. love debate!! I'll have to do my BT stage-play
homework,
perhaps Jamie and Ste are not as prominently love-struck. But I can't
believe the way that they look at each other in the scene in the woods
after they break off kissing is mere physical comfort. The last scene of
the movie is similarly swoony. I guess I'd have to agree that perhaps
15/16 year olds have less living to base their deep and abiding feelings
on, but in some senses theirs is that dizzy, 'everything is OK because I
love this person and he loves me' kind of love that, while it may lack
depth, certainly is sincere and earnest, maybe more 'pure'.

JAN

At 10:43 AM 3/31/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Point taken David.
>
>Only I don't necessarily believe Jamie and Ste are in love at that point
>(if at any point). They are both in search of physical comfort but to say
>they are making love at then is a little too much to expect from
15/16yos.
>So, I maintain that on "that night" Jamie and Ste have "sex".
>
>Cheers
>MICHAEL

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 98 11:08:10 MET
From: Hannes
Subject: Re: I don't understand ...

I do suppose I'll be among a hundred replies to this one, but
Sandra
gave him a packet of matches, if memory serves... It in the
script
(and the play (T h a n k y o o u KENT!)), but I don't have it
handy
at the mo'..

Hannes

______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: I don't understand ...
Date: 3/30/98 10:53 PM

Whilst everyone's talking all deep and meaningful stuff about the movie,
I'd
like to ask a stupid little thing that bothers me?

At the end of Sandra's job interview, she gives a piece of paper to the
male
after he says "You'll hear soon princess". What is it?

Whilst Beautiful Thing was very moving and . . . well, beautiful, it's
also
extremely funny in parts! Lines like "That's easy. The one with the
biggest tits
of course" and Jamie: "That'll be the 'phone" Sandra: "Well it wouldn't be
the
bloody hoover bag would it".

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 98 11:08:47 MET
From: Hannes
Subject: Re: SEX

Amen! :)

Hannes

______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
_____
Subject: SEX
Date: 3/31/98 3:47 AM

Jamie & Ste did NOT have sex! They made love! Tho' the technique may be
the same they are clean two different things!

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:21:11 +0100
From: Kenny
Subject: Sunflowers

Hi Folks

Does anyone know what the sunflowers represent in BT. There is a
'sunflower' theme throught the film, but I can't see what it means.
Sandra has sunflowers on her kitchen window and curtains, Keah has one
in her hair when Tony pulls up beside her in his van, Jamie has a
dancing sunflower in his room, and Tony has a sunflower in his hand when
Sandra tells him it's over. Anyone have any ideas what this represents?

See ya

--
Kenny

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:26:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric
Subject: Re: I don't understand ...

At 11:08 AM 3/31/98 MET, you wrote:
> I do suppose I'll be among a hundred replies to this one, but
Sandra
> gave him a packet of matches, if memory serves... It in the
script
> (and the play (T h a n k y o o u KENT!)), but I don't have it
handy
> at the mo'..
>
> Hannes

Althought the screenplay does indeed indicate that Sandra hands Rodney
some
matches, she is "matchless" in the play. That scene, and for that matter
Rodney himself, do not appear in the play.

-Eric

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

From: Tea1
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:58:06 EST
Subject: Re: SEX vs. LOVE

Hey Kent I like your response!!! Very good. I hold that Ste and Jamie made
L-
O-V-E!

Bert

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

From: DCR
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:22:11 EST
Subject: Re: SEX vs. LOVE

In a message dated 98-03-31 14:08:11 EST, Sandra writes:

<<
Well, as many people know, I'm very 'touchy' :) about this particular
subject. If we take as a basis that BT is a fairy tale, the thought
of
Jamie and Ste not being completely and absolutely in love with each
other,
not living happily ever after and theirs not being 'True Love' is just
ridiculous. >>

Sandra,

I enthusiastically support your theory -- but I'm afraid I have to agree
with
Michael on the Sex v. Making Love at this point. But only for this
reason: I
think Ste is too uncertain of his feelings to be able to intentionally
"Make
Love" with Jamie until he comes by with the gift of the hat. I certainly
do
believe that the kissing scene in the woods leads to a wonderful,
passionate
instance of lovemaking. 

Cheers,
Dirk

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

From: jmcs
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:50:32 +0000
Subject: Re: SEX vs. LOVE

> >Only I don't necessarily believe Jamie and Ste are in love at that
> point
> >(if at any point). They are both in search of physical comfort but
to
> say
> >they are making love at then is a little too much to expect from
> 15/16yos.
> >So, I maintain that on "that night" Jamie and Ste have "sex".
> >
> >Cheers
> >MICHAEL
>
> Hi, Michael!
>
> I think one point where the movie may diverge from the play is how
the
> audience is given many reasons to feel that Jamie and Ste are
> experiencing love-- a love with the potentoiasl to be abiding. We
see
> numerous glances between them, from the first scene onwards, that say
so
> much more than "I am looking to you, and at you, as someone who can
> provide me with physical comfort". Also, just to briefly mention an
> observation made by Sandra to this list a number of months ago, it is
> far from insignificant that, in bed, Jamie first *asks* Ste if he can
> touch him-- knowing full weell how much this person has had people
take
> advantage of the "right" to harm his body without permisiion-- and
with
> impunity. Sandra-- pitch in here-- this is *your* topic for sure!
> Also, regarding the ability of 15/16 year olds to be in love-- just
how
> old *were* Romeo amd Juliet, anyway? <G>
>
> Kent
> P.S. Hannes, you are very very welcome, I am sure!

Hi everybody!

Well, as many people know, I'm very 'touchy' :) about this particular
subject. If we take as a basis that BT is a fairy tale, the thought of
Jamie and Ste not being completely and absolutely in love with each
other,
not living happily ever after and theirs not being 'True Love' is just
ridiculous. Or maybe recently the term 'fairy tale' took on a new
meaning
I'm unaware of. (It would be no wonder, really.)

I suppose it has a lot to do with our image of how the ideal couple and
the ideal relationship would be. If even after what the film shows,
you
want to believe Jamie and Ste are in lust with each other and not in
love
with each other, that all those shy and longing glances meant: "Gosh,
he makes me so hard!!! How much I want to f*** him!!" that's fine with
me. Or, if you want to believe that two 16 year old boys are perfectly
capable of falling honestly and deeply in love with each other, that
they
made love instead of having sex, that despite their youth they can make
their relationship work, and that they indeed live happily ever after,
that's also fine with me. Each to his/her own taste. But please count
me
on the second category.

Oh Kent, if my memory serves me right, Romeo and Juliet were 14 years old.

Take care.

Sandra.

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

From: mermatt
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:55:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Sunflowers

Sunflowers are traditionally a symbol of hope and happiness -- in the
same line with the rainbow that also appears in the movie. MATT

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 16:27:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric
Subject: Re: SEX vs. LOVE

At 08:50 PM 3/31/98 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>> >Only I don't necessarily believe Jamie and Ste are in love at that
>> point
>> >(if at any point). They are both in search of physical comfort but
to
>> say
>> >they are making love at then is a little too much to expect from
>> 15/16yos.
>> >So, I maintain that on "that night" Jamie and Ste have "sex".
>> >
>> >Cheers
>> >MICHAEL

HI everyone,

Don't forget that Michael is primarily (I think) talking about the play.
It
is quite different in many ways from the film, so comparing the two is
difficult. On the screen, a little look or glance can be very meaningful,
but the same thing on the stage can be lost. The film has HUGE amounts of
subtext in the closeups of Jamie and Ste, that could never play on the
stage. The film is in many ways a re-think of the play, and a natural
progression in it's evolution. They are really very different from each
other even though the basic story and themes remain the same.

Best,

Eric

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

Subject: Re: SEX vs. LOVE
From: robinson
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:48:01 EST

I think the play is more than anything, about making a connection;the
exhileration of realizing that you are not the only "freak" in the world.
I think Jamie and Ste are automatically in love with each other because
they supply each other that. I think most of us can remember being 15 and
that need for connection; gay or strait. Perhaps Jamie and Ste shared
what we call puppy love, but that puppy love meant just as much to us
then as more complex love means to us now. The question of their having
sex always seemed somewhat irrelevant to me. However, since we are
speculating and since I tend to lean to the fairytale, I hope to God that
they did. When I was 15, I would have loved to know that there were
others like me and that I could be loved in every way. Physically and
Emotionally. The nice thing about this movie is that it never tells us,
so we can have it whatever way we want it. Just because the author
believes that they did, does not make it cardinal law that they did. I'd
like to think that he left it ambiguous so that the movie can be personal
to each of us. Perhaps this is why we all can connect to it. We make of
it what we need it to be.

Mark

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

From: "Michael
Subject: Re: SEX vs. LOVE
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:29:14 +1000

Hi guys and dolls

Well, this certainly sparked some debate!

My point is that "to make love" is too strong a term when we are talking
about their first sexual encounter. Dirk is correct in saying Ste is too
emotionally and physically fragile to be in a position to make "love".

Jamie asks if Ste fancies Sally from Coronation Street. Ste says he hasn't
given it much thought. Why hasn't Ste given this much thought? Because he
is being beaten black and blue and his thoughts are consumed with when
he's
going to be beaten next. Ste also thinks he's ugly, as he mentions in the
same scene (this relates to the film and the play). This suggests that St
has given very little thought to his sexuality because it is a physical
action and he is unsure about all things physical.

So on that first night, as Kieth says, they probably explore, kiss, rub
etc. which I am satisfied qualifies as sex.

However I do believe that by the end of the film, they are experiencing
"teenage love" with all its glorious and innocent overtones. It is
something many people experience in their lives and when you're that age,
it does feel like love and in some cases it may very well be the real
thing.

Also, the play and film do not differ greatly on this subject. If
anything,
the play probably provides more detail about their relationship and in my
production at least there's plenty of glances between Jamie and Ste that
spell "attraction".

Another thing, the use of the term "An Urban Fairytale" was invented by a
PR agency prior to the play's West End season. The producers were keen to
attract a broad audience but it is also, obviously, a play on words.

I also like what Mark says about BT allowing its audience to imagine their
own scenarios and eventuations. Some peoples' are very realistic points of
view, others prefer the "fairytale", others base events on their own
experiences. This is indeed the beauty of this beautiful thing.

My explanations are therefore no more valid than anyone elses on this list
- it is just my interpretation (which just happens to be a lot like the
author's).

Debating these things is good though. I had a friend study BT for his
Masters. You discover once you've analysed the text a thousand times,
there
are many, many interesting subtexts and possibilities in the story.

Cheers
MICHAEL

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

From: "Michael
Subject: IRC Chat
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 09:33:42 +1000

I will be on the IRC chat this week as per the following (Sydney time is
GMT +10):

9.00am Thursday 2 April
9.00am Friday 3 April
9.00am Monday 6 April
9.00am Tuesday 7 April

An especially good time for me, though, is after 7.00pm weeknights. If
anyone would like to hook up and discuss some aspects of the story which I
am studying for the play, email me and let me know.

Cheers
MICHAEL

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 18:38:06 -0500
From: "Keith
Subject: Re: I don't understand ...

Hey all,

I think some of the funniest moments/lines in Beautiful Thing are due to
probably the most overlooked character in the movie - Tony.

I love the scene where he asks Jamie to go play ball, but when Jamie says
no, he
is all to quick to say "No, me neither" like a sudden weight of having to
actually
do something physical was lifted. Or when he sums it all up with
"What's age? Age is just .. just a number" or "I think we should move
towards
, getting away from all that, right?" (like he has to check with someone
else
on his own opinion first?) I mean great stuff! that makes the little
quiet
moments so special.

Keith

>>> "Paul  03/30/98 12:13PM >>>

Whilst Beautiful Thing was very moving and . . . well, beautiful, it's
also extremely funny in parts! Lines like "That's easy. The one with the
biggest tits of course" and Jamie: "That'll be the 'phone" Sandra: "Well
it wouldn't be the bloody hoover bag would it".

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:49:19 -0500
From: "Keith
Subject: One from the vault

Hey all,

One of the joys of putting this archive together is getting to read/reread
all the
old emails. This one below really struck a chord about what BT has done
to
each of us in our own ways. I almost cried reading this message, and felt
it
would be good to reshare it with the list.

Keith

>From: Manuel
>Subject: Introduction to myself
>Date: Tuesday, May 06, 1997 12:25 AM
>
>Hi there!
>
>I already subscribed to the list many weeks ago and enjoyed reading all
>the messages.
>But now there seem to be less members and therefore less going on...
>To stop the downswing I decided to write my first message... and here it
>is...
>
> ( After writing the rest of this mail I realized that it got
rather
>long,
> although there would be so much more to write about...
> Sorry for that... nontheless I hope some of you will read it)
>
>
>Actually I already described my reactions to Beautiful Thing in a mail
>to the BT-feedback side.
>But whatever happened, it had not been published.
>
>My name is Manuel. I am 22 years old and gay. But I did not come out
>yet. Or shall I say, I had no chance to come out yet? Let me, please,
>describe in detail.
>
>Until a year ago I lived in a very small village. There, of course, was
>no chance to come out without getting isolated. Then I moved to Vienna
>(attending university) and although I know there are some gay groups in
>town, it seems rather difficult to me to find some "gay contact".
>The problem is that I do not know any other gay people (all of my
>friends are straight) and I cannot overcome myself to visit any gay pub
>alone. (Visiting a pub alone?... without knowing anybody in there?...
>"deceiving" all of my friends?... I know that this sounds really silly
>(it even does to me), but on the other hand I am just too
>chicken-hearted... am I not?).
>
>In the last week of January I saw BT for the first time. After the movie
>I did not know what to think and what to do. I was filled with
>enthusiasm, wanted to laugh and cry at the same time. It was the first
>gay movie I saw and I really loved it... I loved Beautiful Thing, I
>loved Jamie, I loved Ste, I loved BEING GAY.
>
>But at the same time I was sad because I knew that there was no person I
>could tell about my feelings...
>I wanted to watch BT again and again.. everything seemed so easy to do..
>why couldn't it happen to me?.. OK, it's just a movie, but (as one of
>you said some time ago) it is NO fantasy... it could happen... and I
>got to know that some of you manage it to be as happy (and lucky?) as
>Jamie and Ste...why is it so difficult to me?...
>
>When I returned home I sat down and wrote a little poem (for the first
>time in my life; for those of you speaking German: you can read it at
>the end of the mail). I know that it is not that good, but hey, it was
>my first and it only took me a few minutes (intuition?).
>
>A few days later (the "Beautiful Spirits" had not yet left me) I
>couldn't do but one thing: I took my best straight friend to BT. He
>liked the movie (not "loved" it, like me) but had still no suspicion
>concerning me. So I told him I was gay. Well, he tolerated it, and what
>is more important, accepted it.
>Now there is at least one person who knows about my feelings (or parts
>of them).
>
>... and he is still the only one. I am still afraid of coming out
>"officially" because there is nobody who really stands behind me. If
>there only would be a gay friend to talk with... a person to go through
>thick and thin... someone to share joys and sorrows with... if there
>only would be a Ste for me, then I would love to go out and tell
>everybody that I am GAY and that I love being GAY...
>
>But... there is nobody... and so it makes no sense to me to come out.
>
>Nontheless, I do not give up hoping and I am still waiting for my
>BEAUTIFUL THING.
>
>Enough for today.
>Thank you for listening to me. Maybe it is possible to hear some
>reactions of you.
>
>Love, Manuel.
>
>PS: A kind of poem (in German).
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Beautiful Thing.
>
> Alles scheint so schwierig.
> Im Film war es noch leicht;
> Und wenn nicht leicht, dann doch zumindest mF6glich.
> Eins und eins ist zwei. Egal, woher und wer der eine,
> egal, warum und wie der andere.
> Mann und Frau, Frau und Mann, Frau und Frau -
>
> - Mann und Mann.
>
> Alles scheint so schwierig.
> FFCr mich klingt es zwar leicht und echt,
> doch was bin ich denn schon?
> Wer bin ich denn?
> Bin ich denn wer, so wie ich bin?
>
> Alles scheint so schwierig.
> Doch alles was ich will,
> ist jemand, der bei mir ist;
> jemand, der mich liebt,
> jemand, den ich liebe.
> Ist das so viel verlangt?
> Ist das zu viel verlangt?
> Ist das unmF6glich zu erreichen?
>
> Nicht unmF6glich, wie ich weiDF.
> UnmF6glich nur fFCr mich.
>
> Was fehlt, ist Mut.
> Der Mut in mir, hervorzutreten
> aus dem Schatten meiner selbst.
> Mich nicht mehr zu verstellen,
> offen zu sagen, wer ich bin.
> Denn ich weiDF ja doch, wer ich bin;
> daDF ich jemand bin.
> Doch das lE4DFt man mich nicht wirklich sein.
>
> Alles scheint so schwierig.
> Im Film war es noch leicht.
> ( Ich liebe diesen Film.)
> Doch nach dem Film ist alles wieder schwierig.
>
> Beautiful Thing ?
*****************************************************

From: "Michael
Subject: Re: I don't understand ... Tony
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 10:58:03 +1000

Tony is a great character and also a clever devise employed by the writer.
BT is not meant to be a sad story and the audience should never get too
vlue/sad/teary or whatever.

Tony is often used to break those moments. Such as immediately after the
"coming out" scene, Tony enters Jamie's bedroom and says thing like "I get
the picture" and "and she knows this."

All of a sudden you're laughing after a very tender and emotional scene.

Remembering audience reactions to Tony at the cinema and in the theatre,
many audience members laughed whenever he moved or opened his mouth.

Cheers
MICHAEL

----------
From: Keith
Subject: Re: I don't understand ...
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 1998 9:38

Hey all,

I think some of the funniest moments/lines in Beautiful Thing are due to
probably the most overlooked character in the movie - Tony.

I love the scene where he asks Jamie to go play ball, but when Jamie says
no, he
is all to quick to say "No, me neither" like a sudden weight of having to
actually
do something physical was lifted. Or when he sums it all up with
"What's age? Age is just .. just a number" or "I think we should move
towards
, getting away from all that, right?" (like he has to check with someone
else
on his own opinion first?) I mean great stuff! that makes the little
quiet
moments so special.

Keith

>>> "Paul > 03/30/98 12:13PM >>>

Whilst Beautiful Thing was very moving and . . . well, beautiful, it's
also
extremely funny in parts! Lines like "That's easy. The one with the
biggest
tits of course" and Jamie: "That'll be the 'phone" Sandra: "Well it
wouldn't be the bloody hoover bag would it".

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

From: jmcs
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 02:28:38 +0000
Subject: Re: Intro and Request
Priority: normal

Hi Gary and all!!

A little late, I know but as they say, it's better late than never. I
hope it's not too late already.

This may be a new approach to your thesis, what BT means to heterosexuals

or, at least, to a particular heterosexual woman. In my case, it was a
completely unexpected surprise. I wasn't prepared at all for the
impact
BT would bring to my life. I was studying English Literature at the
University and while studying Lord Byron, the homosexuality subject
came
up. That lead to our teacher telling us to either read or watch the
film
and then make a 5-page study about it. What started (for me) as another

homework (albeit a very imaginative homework) and a grade to think
about,
it became a complete joy and a state of mind I'll never come out of.
Very
few films (if any, at least to this extent) have managed to affect me
so
much and have also managed to bring so much joy and positiveness to my
life. I still can't explain why it has affected me so much. I just
know
that after watching it, my life will never be the same. It was as if
suddenly everything was new and positive, not gloomy and dark. I saw
rainbows everywhere, instead of always expecting the worst out of life.

The happiness and the overwhelming sincerity of the film flooded me and
in
a few hours all I wanted to do was talking about such an incredible
movie.
I'm still the same person I was, but there's something inside me now
that
makes me smile more often, as if I could see the light at the end of
the
tunnel. Oh, I just don't know! It HAS changed my life, because after
I
joined this list I met the greatest bunch of people ever joined
together,
I know I've made lifelong friendships here. If that's not changing
your
life, you tell me what it is. I can't pinpoint the source, maybe I
never
will, maybe it was inside me all along and it just needed the right
motivation to come out. Maybe that's what BT has done to all of us: it
has touched something all of us already had deep inside (a different
thing
for any of us) and has made it grow and bloom, something that has
shaken
us out of our personal shell, private pain, state of mind or whatever
and
once we've recognized the change in us, there's no turning back. BT
has
shown us a new way, a new light, and we're carrying that light in our
hearts wherever we go. Certainly, such is my case. Happiness is
possible, True Love is possible, people can change after all, there's
still hope for us... all we need is to do our bit.

I wish I could be more specific, but I'm speaking from the bottom of my
heart. BT is a light in the darkness, a simplicity and a honesty, an
innocence and a joy so contagious that you can't help but respond to it.

You just HAVE to. To me, Beautiful Thing is a state of mind. A hope,
a
smile, a promise, something to strive for and once we've got it, revel
in
it.

Feel free to use my name, Gary. I'm very proud of being a small part
of
such a Beautiful Thing.

Jan and Terry, welcome to the list. You'll never be alone anymore.
Beautiful Thing is not just in you, it IS you.

Take care.

Sandra.

*****************************************************
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 98 08:43:06 MET
From: Hannes
Subject: RE: I don't understand ...

Ah, yes, you are correct! Thank you for pointing that oneout to me!
Hannes

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: I don't understand ...

At 11:08 AM 3/31/98 MET, you wrote:
> I do suppose I'll be among a hundred replies to this one, but
Sandra
> gave him a packet of matches, if memory serves... It in the
script
> (and the play (T h a n k y o o u KENT!)), but I don't have it
handy
> at the mo'..
>
> Hannes

Althought the screenplay does indeed indicate that Sandra hands Rodney
some
matches, she is "matchless" in the play. That scene, and for that matter
Rodney himself, do not appear in the play.

-Eric

The following is an attached File item from cc:Mail. It contains
information that had to be encoded to ensure successful transmission
through various mail systems. To decode the file use the UUDECODE
program.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 15:51:11 +0200
From: Andre
Subject: Welcome!
Precedence: bulk

Hiya peeps!

Thanx to Kent and Sandra, who on-line were discussing the future of the
mailing list, I learned about the problems of the older list.
We then decided, on-line, that it would be an wise decision to transfer
the list to someplace else, since Chris obviously lacks the time right now
to solve these problems. I would like to thank Chris for his efforts, and
hope that he will remain ADMIN for the list even though it has been
transferred to another system.

As the problems mentioned above have persisted for quite some time, I
would like to know if any of you people would like a resubmission of the
last couple of messages, since it's conceivable that not everyone on the
list got the last messages.

What I would like each and everyone of you to do is send the last message
you have on your system to

to enable me to make an inventory of who got which message last.

Also this would give me an opportunity to check if the list is really
alive, i.e. that everyone gets the mail submitted to this new list.

So please oblige me, and send your last received message on the OLD list

Please don't send the message to the new list, as we might create several
duplicates that way...

thanx

BT

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:15:10 +0200
From: Andre
Subject: Admin Notice
Precedence: bulk

Hiya Folks!

In case you might wonder about this email suddenly appearing on your
system, we have transferred most of you from the old Beautiful Thing
mailing list ) to this list  due to
the fact that the old list does not appear to be functional anymore. As
plans were already underway to make the transfer, we thought we'd do it
manually to prevent you from going thru the motions....

If for some reason you don't want to be on this list, please accept my
apologies for putting you on it in the first place.
You might notice some asterisks (*) in weird places in this message. This
is to prevent majordomo from processing what he thinks is a command. You
will need to replace the * with another character. This looks a bit
clumsy, but believe me, it's neccesarry.

To uns*bscribe, send a message to

this message will be immediately processed by majordomo, and your removal
will be effectuated immediately.

To obtain a list of ppl who are on this list, again, send a message to

and put in the BODY (not the header) of the message:

wh* btlist

(replace the * with an o !!!)

Once again you will get an instantaneous reply.

If you have any questions regarding this list, send an email to

to submit a message to the list just send it to

To filter your messages yo might wanna include in your
filters, majordomo does not add any text to the messages, just like the
old list did.

Many greetings and once again happy writing!

BT

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

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 10:34:42 -0400
From: Eric
Subject: Hurray!!
Thank you Andre, for getting the list back up. I was going through
withdrawal!

Altho, Scott's "Sex Scandal" did perk things up a bit!

And for those of you who haven't seen me on irc lately... I'll be back!

-Eric

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

From: BTfan
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:43:41 -0400
Subject: Anybody *not* here?
Precedence: bulk

Hello!

I hope we can help each other find our way back to the list,
particularly those names not presently subscribed. I was able to
furnish a number of names to Andre based on saved posts, but as the
storage on my WebTV account is limited (Matt I. and David A. know
*exactly* what I mean! :)), I am sure I did not have a complete list of
maillister's (and I had never gotten a printout as we can get--
instantly! cool!-- with this list of all current subscribers, so I
don't know everybody who was on it).

So, if you know of anyone not re-subscribed, especially if it is someone
you email with, please let them know about re-joining the Beautiful
Thing Mailing List! 

I am going to post a note about this list to the BT/Davie Guestbook, for
those who might find their way there (and which of us did not, at one
time or another? :))

Lastly, how have we all been getting our BT "fix" the last month or so,
with no list to occupy our online time? <G> (For me, I have been on the
[new] bt-stories list, which is generally pretty active-- if subject to
the vagaries and bugs of automated list-dom! :))

Kent
wishing Long Life and good Cyber-health to BT Mailing List Rel. 3.0!

P.S. I hope Chris is able to be back in the swing of things soon--
we've missed ya, Mr. Administrator!
/

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