[ Back ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Email Archive Page 11


From: JOE
Date: 5/29/97 12:09AM
Subject: Re: Prolific email?
From: David
Subject: Prolific email?
Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 9:57 AM

Just a brief question:

Since 17th August 1996 I have written 1,118 emails. Am I addicted!?

Perhaps you should just consider yourself "dedicated," Davey. <G>

Gary

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

From: J M
Date: 5/29/97 4:54AM
Subject: Am I missing something again?

Hello Everyone,

Question. I see the Movie cover and CD cover are different in the
UK, vs. Where I am (US) are the songs different on the UK version? I
also saw something about a packaged deal. Video and CD, Can I get that,
and Will I be able to view/listen to it? Thanks for any help!

Jason
--

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

From: Gavin
Date: 5/29/97 5:49AM
Subject: Re: US video cover

At 12:28 5/28/97 -0500, you wrote:
>between the buildings on the US screenplay cover. And the video cover...
>man, you're right Mike, where the heck is that city? Doesn't look like
>London to me. Plus, the reviews at the top, however glowing, are
>distracting.

To be frank, the whole effect just looks cheap. Especially the reviews.

Gav.
From: Charles
Date: 5/29/97 9:06AM
Subject: Re: US video cover

Notice how the video box is ever so vague as to what the story is about?
Is the UK version this ambiguous? When I was finally able to rent it (Only
1 store even carried it after checking with
4 Blockbusters) (I had to flirt w/ the guy working to hold it for me :-) ),
the discription on the rental box was much more descriptive.... I also
found the reviews a bit distracting, but then again, its sad to say, in
America, if there isn't alot of violence, or, a top, known star, then it
might not rent. I'm sure
that the reviews are an attempt to get some to see it, and say, 'Hey, an
"art" film, I think I'll improve myself and rent it'. You've got to
compete somehow with the 50 or so copies of "Beavis and Butthead Do
America" sitting right next to it!

Charlie
----------
> From: Jeff
> Subject: Re: US video cover
> Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 1:28 PM
>
> Funny to see how the CD and video covers have gone through a
metamorphosis
> between the UK and the US. Guess that's marketing. I thought it was bad
> enough when they messed up the bench scene and flipped the council
> buildings, moved them closer to Jamie and Ste and put the goofy rainbow
> between the buildings on the US screenplay cover. And the video cover...
> man, you're right Mike, where the heck is that city? Doesn't look like
> London to me. Plus, the reviews at the top, however glowing, are
> distracting.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----------
> > From: Mike
> > Subject: Re: US video cover
> > Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 5:17 p.m.
> >
> > It ain't the Emerald City but it might as well be. Ain't even London,
> much
> > less Thamesmead. What is WITH these people?
> >
> > >So whats up with the US cover of BT? They completely replaced
> Thamesmead in
> > >the Jamie and Ste bench scene with a different city. What city is it
> > >anyways?
> > >
> > >just a thought,
> > >taiyed
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >

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

From: <Thom
Date: 5/29/97 9:28AM
Subject: re: London Pride 1997 info?

Sorry... this is a little off-topic, buuuuuuuut ....

just discovered that I'll be in London (assuming I find a hotel) at the same
time as Pride 1997 and I'm trying to find info about it (where? schedule?
BT-related events? etc).... so far, "July 5" is all I've found....... if you
have info, perhaps you could email me off-list (unless we all want to
exchange info on our local Pride celebrations).

Thanks,

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

From: <Thom
Date: 5/29/97 9:45AM
Subject: Re: US video cover, etc

In a message dated 97-05-29 05:01:23 EDT, you write:

<< And the video cover... man, you're right Mike, where the heck is that
city? Doesn't look like London to me. Plus, the reviews at the top, however
glowing, are
distracting. >>

I agree, Jeff.....seems like they'd consult us on these design questions...
what kind of marketing strategy would by-pass this ready-made consumer "focus
group"?

..on the other hand, my copy arrived late Tuesday afternoon and it was like
Christmas, birthday, and ... uh.... , well...it was a wonderously happy
moment..

Does anyone know if there are BT posters available? (I just moved to an
apartment/flat and have wall space EVERYwhere.)

Thom

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

From: Keith
Date: 5/29/97 11:43AM
Subject: Re: US video cover -Reply

I guess I must be lucky living where I do. In the Philadelphia area, I've seen several
stores have it for rental (although I didn't check our local Blockbuster). You're right
about Blockbuster, though. If it isn't a $100,000,000 hit, they don't want to carry it.
They also don't carry anything rated NC-17, or too controversial. I guess people
like us aren't intelligent enough to pick our own movies.

Keith

>>> Charles 05/29/97 08:06am >>>
Notice how the video box is ever so vague as to what the story is about?
Is the UK version this ambiguous? When I was finally able to rent it (Only
1 store even carried it after checking with
4 Blockbusters) (I had to flirt w/ the guy working to hold it for me :-) ),
the discription on the rental box was much more descriptive.... I also
found the reviews a bit distracting, but then again, its sad to say, in
America, if there isn't alot of violence, or, a top, known star, then it
might not rent. I'm sure
that the reviews are an attempt to get some to see it, and say, 'Hey, an
"art" film, I think I'll improve myself and rent it'. You've got to
compete somehow with the 50 or so copies of "Beavis and Butthead Do
America" sitting right next to it!

Charlie
----------
> From: Jeff
> Subject: Re: US video cover
> Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 1:28 PM
>
> Funny to see how the CD and video covers have gone through a
metamorphosis
> between the UK and the US. Guess that's marketing. I thought it was bad
> enough when they messed up the bench scene and flipped the council
> buildings, moved them closer to Jamie and Ste and put the goofy rainbow
> between the buildings on the US screenplay cover. And the video cover...
> man, you're right Mike, where the heck is that city? Doesn't look like
> London to me. Plus, the reviews at the top, however glowing, are
> distracting.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----------
> > From: Mike
> > Subject: Re: US video cover
> > Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 5:17 p.m.
> >
> > It ain't the Emerald City but it might as well be. Ain't even London,
> much
> > less Thamesmead. What is WITH these people?
> >
> > >So whats up with the US cover of BT? They completely replaced
> Thamesmead in
> > >the Jamie and Ste bench scene with a different city. What city is it
> > >anyways?
> > >
> > >just a thought,
> > >taiyed
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >

From: David
Date: 5/29/97 11:53AM
Subject: Just got the scoop on Scott's latest project!

I've just been speaking to Andrew Brown, producer of Scott's latest venture, the movie WONDERLAND.

He's very excited about our web site and email list, and is going to send over as much material as we need
about WONDERLAND. Scott played the central character, who goes on a journey to find his father.
Basically, the movie is filmed around Scott, his is the only constant character.

From what I've been told it sounds like Scott did a first rate job, certainly Urban Eye are very excited
about how good he was. We talked about the B.T. web site a bit, and then discussed the potential of
doing a site for WONDERLAND before it's released, so the URL can appear on all the marketing materials.

It looks like this will be a pretty major release - well done Scott!!

Don't forget to get greetings to me if you want them passing on to Scott for his 19th
birthday on June 10th.

Also...

I was talking to Jonathan's agent this morning, and we are looking to see if he has time
to do something neat to for the web site to mark the movie's 1st anniversary. I also
got the low-down on most of what Jonathan is doing or planning, and Hettie too, which
I will add to the site later.

There's even more that I can't reveal yet, I'm drooling in anticipation and the excitement
is almost unbearable!

Regards, Davie

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

From: Mike
Date: 5/29/97 12:05PM
Subject: Re: US video cover

Charles wrote:
<snip>
> You've got to
>compete somehow with the 50 or so copies of "Beavis and Butthead Do
>America" sitting right next to it!
>

I don't disagree with you, Charlie, but I'm not sure that's the most
effective way to do it. Lets face it, the US video cover is just BUTT UGLY
and some of us should tell the people at SONY that we, dyed in the wool BT
fans, think so! Hey, yeah, we're all critics, but for good reason. We want
to see this movie be rented and sold as widely as possible, right? We're on
THEIR side, right?

You want to get a video rented and sold in the US (or anywhere, I'd wager)?
Simple: put two cute guys dancing -- or even just sitting on a bench with
their arms around one another -- on the cover. Make sure it's a clear shot
of em. A little sex appeal wouldn't hurt but obviously shouldn't be the
main hit. I'd notice that. I'd pick it up. I'd turn it over and read the
back. I'd think, hmm, this sounds interesting; two boys fall in love? It's
humorous too? Has a happy ending? I'd rent it -- THEN I'd buy it. And I
KNOW I'm not the only one. I'd especially appreciate it if they'd put some
trailers for GAY RELEVANT films in it. I'd be ecstatic if they'd include,
oh, a URL to the BT site and -- how about a list of the slang words used in
the film with definitions so I'd be to parce the dialect. ETC.

But this "faux brown paper" cover with a ficticious "urbanscape" background
and a "dirty rainbow" just doesn't cut it, period. I might not even SEE the
damn thing and end up with Bevis and Buttf**k by mistake!.

You know what I think? I think SONY is AFRAID to promote this vid. I mean
AFRAID as in slightly homophobic. Afraid of how Maw and Paw Kettle in
Any-Town USA and the rest of the world are going to react to this vid.
That's what I think.

SONY: GET A CLUE! You have in your possession one of the most significant
pieces of cultural history to ever hit the market. Has anyone on your
marketing team even watched this film? Are any of them queer? If not, get
another marekting team! This film is GREAT! Not only is the screenplay,
characters, acting, cinematography, etc., excellent, it deals with a
difficult and tender subject with incredible honesty and sensitivity. Not
only is it a good film in and of itself, but the good it could do our
society in terms "normalizing" our view of gay adolesence is incalculable.
For heaven's sake, PROMOTE BEAUTIFUL THING! Make the cover relevant to the
film!!

I'm looking at the SONY feed back site right now. Here's the URL:
http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/feedback.html and I'm cutting and pasting
that and more into the response field. Go to it ladies and gents, tell'm
what you think! Maybe we'll get some kind a response. And, don't just tell
em once. Keep at it! Kick butt!!


Mike

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

From: Gavin
Date: 5/29/97 1:16PM
Subject: Re: US video cover

There, I've done it. I've gone and been rude to them.

Gav.

At 08:05 5/29/97 -0800, Mike wrote:
>I'm looking at the SONY feed back site right now. Here's the URL:
>http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/feedback.html and I'm cutting and pasting
>that and more into the response field. Go to it ladies and gents, tell'm
>what you think! Maybe we'll get some kind a response. And, don't just tell
>em once. Keep at it! Kick butt!!
From: Keith
Date: 5/29/97 3:47PM
Subject: Sequel -Reply

I admit I agree with Gavin. Much as I enjoyed BT, I feel it is a complete story.
The dance scene at the end is what really makes the movie special. It transforms
the boys' reality into our fantasy. From there, one's imagination ends the story. To
make a sequel would only shatter the fantasy each of us has created. Unless the
sequel dealt with other people, but then why call it a sequel? Just make a different movie.

Keith

(P.S. I've recently joined, and I hope these emails are getting through.)

>>> Gavin 05/29/97 12:42pm >>>
I don't think a sequel's good idea. I think the fact that Jon leaves it
hanging is very important to the idea of the movie being an "urban
fairytale". Jon gives the two boys a year at most before their relationship
breaks up--fair enough. After all, the magic is in that it's the first time
for both boys. What magic will a sequel have?

I know I like to imagine what happens to them afterwards (maybe Sandra takes
Ste with her when they move to the Anchor?), but I also know that I'm always
going to be disappointed with somebody else's version. Nobody tried to
write a sequel to Sleeping Beauty or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (except
to spoof it).

Gav.

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

From: Keith
Date: 5/30/97 8:56AM
Subject: Re: US video cover -Reply -Reply

Joe,

Good point. I hadn't even thought about that.

P.S. I just saw Jeffrey, and it is one funny movie. Also liked My Own Private Idaho.

Keith

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

From: Keith
Date: 5/30/97 9:06AM
Subject: Re: Sequel -Reply

Sandra,

I think you hit it on the head. For a fairy tale to work, you need to believe in it.
Rather than a sequel about Jamie and Ste, how 'bout one dealing with other people,
maybe with Jamie and Ste in it in the background, so to speak?
Keith

>>> <jmcs 05/29/97 06:03pm >>>

Somehow Jamie and Ste got under my skin at first sight and I need to believe
they're gonna last forever. 'And they lived happily ever after', as they say.


From: Keith
Date: 5/30/97 9:51AM
Subject: BT video

Hey everyone,

Anyone in the States having problems finding a store selling BT should try
Movies Unlimited. They have a mail order catalog, plus 3 stores in the
Philadelphia area (the City of Brotherly Love!) I called their 800 number,
and they do stock BT for $ 94.95. Their number is 1-800-4MOVIES.
(That's 1-800-466-8437 for the rest of us) The inventory is phenomenal.
The local store has 21,000 titles in the store, and 35,000 between the 3 stores.
They even have a whole wall of "alternative lifestyles" titles. (hundreds of them!)

Keith

(P.S. No, I don't work for them, it's just I've never seen a selection quite like theirs)

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

From: Keith
Date: 5/30/97 2:13PM
Subject: BT Video Cover (US)

I just went to the video store and took a second look at the box for BT (the
first time I saw it there, I was so happy to find it, that I didn't pay much attention to
the box) - Man, but that is the most butt-ugly box they could possibly invent! I
mean, if you hadn't heard of the movie, and were just browsing, that box would
not attract you in the least. That's a shame too, because a lot of people may not
have heard of BT, but an appealing box cover might open them up to one of the
finest films of recent years.

Keith

From: Chik
Date: 5/30/97 4:07PM
Subject: Re: thanks for feedback

Mike wrote:
>
> Michael, I was just thinking about something. This may not be a problem,
> but I thought I should write to you about it just in case. You are being so
> open and honest it almost scares me. Are you sure it is safe for you to do
> that on the internet? Perhaps I'm being a little over cautious. I don't
> want to alarm you so you don't create wonderful, open things. At the same
> time, I don't want you to get hurt by something, either. I don't know what
> there is to be afraid of -- maybe nothing. But, then again, when I hear
> about conservative political parties like you have in Austria, that
> frightens me a little.
>
> You might also want to think twice about mentioning the names of guys, like
> Matija, that you saw them at a gay club, where they live and all that
> before you ask their permision to do so. I mean, he might feel okay about
> it, but then again he might not. You see what I mean? In a way you have
> "outed" him to the whole world. True, the whole world won't be looking at
> your site, but you have little control over who sees it and who doesn't.
> That might feel uncomfortable to Matija. Perhaps, as a matter of respect,
> you should as him how he feels about it first. What do you think?
>
> Again, I'm just saying this because I tend to be a bit cautious. Maybe that
> isn't the right way to be, I don't know. But, then again, I thought maybe I
> should mention it so you could think about it too. I don't claim to know
> what is right, only how I feel. I think it's great that you've created this
> site and been so open and honest about yourself and your friends. I just
> wouldn't want you to get hurt somehow for doing it. Understand?
>
> Thanks,
>
> M>

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your feedback. I don't think I should be more cautionious
(was that spelled right?). First, I got my page in WestHollywood, which
is only for gay people. And I don't suppose that anyone who's against
gay people would check those out. And even if they do...do you have a
clue how many homepages they have in WestHollywood??? The chance that
they go to my site is as big as.... well, you know.
But I give you right in the second thing you've mentioned...at least
partially. I will remove his address but I don't think I'm outing Matija
by mentioning his name. Again: Everyone visiting my page is supposed to
be gay for himself or at least not a gay-hater. And I think, even if
someone knows Matija, he wouldn't tell it everyone.
But thanks for your feedback, I really appreciated it. Feel free to
criticise me again :)



Michael

From: Chik
Date: 5/30/97 4:28PM
Subject: Looking for advice

Hi everyone,

I really have use for a good advice now. So, please tell me what you
think.
Remember that guy I told you all about??? Matija was his name. I'm not
goint to tell you how I met him and so 'cause, according to the emails I
got, almost all of you (or at least many) have checked out my page.
I found out that he thinks me being sweet but not more. And he no longer
goes with that guy from the disco. The thing that bugs me is that he
'only played' with him, you know. And that made me a bit unsecure about
my next step. What if he plays with me too, then? And according to his
best friend he's not the guy for relationships. I do like him, but I
too, don't wanna be hurt (who does? except SM-guys? :))
I'd be glad if you'd give me your opinion about it.



Michael

P.S. Hope I described the situation rightly; my english is rudimentary
at the best.


From: JOE
Date: 5/30/97 4:44PM
Subject: Re: Sequel

>
> Imagine Jammie and Ste dealing with the manogomy non-manogomy
issue. I have!
>
> Mike

That would be one thing to speculate about. "Out" teens are such a
relatively new phenomenon that it will be interesting to see if gay
guys follow the straight pattern. You know, the boy-girl high school
sweethearts who meet sophomore year, go steady through graduation,
then get engaged at college, married and live "happily ever after."
That does happen. I know several people who are still married to
their high school or college sweethearts.

Gay guys have been known formerly for their promiscuous nature. Could
two high school aged guys remain long-term sweethearts or would
something (testosterone times two perhaps <G>) lead to an early
breakup?

There are a lot of same-sex couple who've been together for years,
but they usually met in adulthood after a long coming-out process.
Sometimes they never really came out except to each other.

Another thing: Jamie and Ste are quite different personalities.
Jamie has the Lucy poster on the wall and knows the cast of The Sound
of Music. And I suspect it isn't just the taunting of schoolmates
that makes him dislike sports. Ste is the more of what we would call
in the US the "All-American boy." Yet, it seems to me that Jamie is
the "dominant" one in the relationship. He is the one who first
professes love for Ste, although I can see Ste's love for Jamie in
his eyes in that scene in the water retrieving the soccer ball.
Jamie seeks out Ste at the party, buys the Gay Times magazine and
suggests the pub visit. Will Jamie eventually come to love sports?
Will Ste start adding Broadway show tunes to his CD collection? <G>
These are fun things to speculate about and, I think, as we do so,
some of us guys may have a chance to reflect on just what our sexual
identity means in the 1990s.

Oh well, just some thoughts.

Gary

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

From: JOE
Date: 5/30/97 4:47PM
Subject: Re: US video cover

> From: Cabaret
> Subject: Re: US video cover
> Date: Thursday, May 29, 1997 7:34 PM
>
> LOL. I just subscribed to this list a couple of days ago and
hadn't checked
> my mail till today, lots of messages waiting, yay! Well, call me
an addict,
> but I was so annoyed at missing BT in theaters here in the US that
I've made
> up for it by watching it an average of once a day since it was
released on
> video here on 20 May. I am absolutely in love with this movie!!
Well, I
> gotta run for now, maybe I'll watch BT for a tenth time. *grin*
:) Ciao!

Welcome to the list, Mason. Things were a bit quiet until the US
video release, but now we're all anxious to talk about it (when we're
not watching it for the umpteenth time, of course. <G>)

Gary

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

From: JOE
Date: 5/30/97 4:58PM
Subject: Re: Sequel -Reply

---
From: David
>As Gavin pointed out, Jonathan himself said he thought Jamie and Ste
wouldn't be together after a >year or so.

Of course, what do we mean by "being together?"
When I was in grad school, I fell in love with a guy named Steve (no,
he was never called "Ste" <G>) and our relationship lasted exactly
six months. Then we became best friends and roommates for another
three years until a job change moved me out of state. After six
months, we were no longer "lovers," but we were in love with each
other. We were both in our twenties, both with "roving eyes," and
this was the 70s before the Plague struck. (Yes, it was a
promiscuous time for everyone. After all, the worst that could happen
to you medically could be treated with a free shot of penicillin at
the local county health dept. We even felt kind of better off that
our straight guy friends because, after all, guys didn't get
pregnant. <G>) Anyway, Steve and I had so much not just in common
but different from each other that we needed each other as friends,
special friends. It was funny when either of us would have someone we
were dating (or, to be honest, "tricking" with) meet the other. They
were convinced we were still a couple and that they were breaking up
our relationship. :)
Perhaps Jamie and Ste will not last as more than "first loves" for
each other, but I suspect that, if handled right, the relationship
will last for some time at some level.

>It strikes me that as they get used to the 'gay scene' Jamie may
well be the one with the wandering >eye, while Ste hangs back.

Bingo! As I said in another post, it's Jamie who is the "arranger."
He knows what he wants and he goes after it. Ste, for all his
"regular guy" manner, is perhaps the one most likely in need
(especially considering his unsupportive home life) of love and
caring and long-term relationship.

Gary


From: "Harry "
Date: 5/30/97 6:43PM
Subject: Sequel

I think Johathan is just being realistic in saying that Jamie & Ste would
stay together for only a year. Most 16 year olds, gay or straight, change
so much that they lose those things in common that keep them together. For
Johathan to offer that comment underscores an issue that I've mentioned
before. I feel BT is only a little bit of a fantasy, maybe a bit of an
exaggeration to convey the feelings of being in love through actions and
dialogue.

However, it is also entirely consistent with the story to imagine them
together. The image that comes to mind is the look that Ste gives Jamie as
they are in the pool. Opposites attract, gay and straight. One partner is
athletic, the other artistic. One outgoing, the other reserved. Ste's
look is protective love, a look that says that he knows that Jamie is
intimidated, out of his element and uncomfortable and he loves him all the
more for it, in part because he can protect him. Out of that
interdependency grows a life long love.

Another element of BT that makes it unique is that it is a sunny gay film.
I get very tired of gay films, made by straights or gays, that emphasize
our tragic life; almost as though we should go into an ally after a gay
film and slit our wrists because gays live a
tragic/violent/depressed/brittle life. I choose to be gay because it makes
me happy. Because I can fall in love with someone of my same sex and feel
ALIVE. That's what we respond to in BT.

So, a BT sequel can show them together, can be sunny, can be uplifting and
joyous. The Attitude article is instructive in that the author, after
spending the afternoon with Glen and Scott, imagines them performing
together over the years, winding up as best buddies and mates in some TV
sitcom. That's who Glen and Scott are and they gave life to Jamie and Ste.
It would be particularly delightful if they were to make a series of Jamie
and Ste films, one every few years, as they grow and mature. Entirely
independent of the rest of their careers. Gosh, that is a lovely thought.
- Harry

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

From: Mike
Date: 5/30/97 7:40PM

Subject: Re: BT Video Cover (US)

At 1:13 PM -0500 5/30/97, Keith wrote:
>I just went to the video store and took a second look at the box for BT
>(the first time I saw it there, I was so happy to find it, that I didn't pay
>much attention to the box) - Man, but that is the most butt-ugly box they
>could possibly invent! I mean, if you hadn't heard of the movie, and were
>just browsing, that box would not attract you in the least. That's a
>shame too, because a lot of people may not have heard of BT, but an
>appealing box cover might open them up to one of the finest films of
>recent years.
>
Right on, Butt UGGLLLLYYYYY is the word.

Let SONY know how much you love this film and why you think it should have
a better presentation: http://www.spe.sony.com/Pictures/feedback.html

Mike

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

From: <J
Date: 5/30/97 8:03PM
Subject: Re: Sequel

OK, here's my scenario:

A. The situation at the end of BT:

1. Sandra has announced she (and Jamie, we assume) are moving to live above
the Anchor. (I have been there, there is a nice big space above the bar,
it's offices now, but could easily be converted into a very nice flat...).

2. Jamie and Ste have been "outed" by Sandra. Sandra isn't exactly happy
with the situation, but makes it clear she will continue to love, protect,
and defend her son. She is a little more abiguous about Ste: "That's my
name Ste, don't wear it out" she says to him.

3. Ste outs himself (and Jamie) to Leah. Leah immediately accepts the new
situation: she clearly wants to keep Ste and Jamie as friends.

4. Leah works hard, in her own oblique manner, to befriend Sandra, and
finally succeeds in the final scene, when Sandra agrees to dance with her.

5. Throughout their relationship Jamie has pursued Ste, Ste has held back,
having to be coaxed each step. In the final scene, just before the picture
fades, he puts his arm more tightly around Jamie, and buries his head in
Jamies' neck. I read this as a final, deep-seated, "I do love you"...then
the end-credit music start: "Move in a little closer, baby".

6. Jamie is bubbling over about his new-found identity: he is not shy about
spilling the beans in front of his mother's best friend, and inviting her to
the Gloucester with them.

7. Ste is still scared to death of his father, and is still lying about what
he is doing.


B. The next installment:

A good story needs to have tension build-up, then a "denuement" where
everything is sorted out, and a winding-up. What's the tension in the new
story?:

1. First, Jamie and Ste are only 16. They aren't legal, and can't live on
their own yet. They could run-away or something, but that's not in
character. So, Jamie will move to the Anchor with Sandra, and Ste will stay
with Ronnie & Trevor. They won't be getting a flat together any time soon...

2. Sandra's star is rising, and Jamie's will rise with it. He's open and
happy about his new found identity. I say he'll go for it, and will quickly
attract and be attracted to other gays. He'll be living above a bar! (Maybe
the Anchor will become a gay bar?) He's gonna make up for lost time. He's
never been popular before, and when popularity hits him, it'll be heady
stuff.

3. Ste will have to stay with Ronnie and Trevor. For his own protection he
will continue to lie to them, to everyone else to some degree or other.
Though the beans were already spilled in the dance scene, he doesn't dare
take on a high profile gay persona around Thamesmead, especially without
Jamie there to encourage him. He will visit Jamie, but these visits take
time and money, and will become more difficult as Trevor (especially), Ronnie
begin to suspect the truth. Ste's only confidant is Leah, who has her own
agenda.

4. Leah wants friendship, and desperately wants to get out of Thamesmead
too. Jamie and Sandra are her ticket out ("one way ticket take me
anywhere"). She has only a little time to make some kind of connection with
them in their new situation stick before she loses them forever. But she's
stuck on Thamesmead unless she can get some work, and she's underaged...

So, what happens?

Jamie and Ste keep their relationship going for several months after the
move, but eventually, helped by his increasing popularity on the gay scene,
Jamie's eyes are turned to other boys. He still loves Ste, but it's a big
world out there, and he's only 16.

Ste conversely becomes increasingly paranoid about being "discovered" by
Ronnie & Trevor, and is increasingly alienated from his "mates" on Thamesmead
(who have heard the dance-scene story) and so becomes more withdrawn and more
of a loner. He secretly clings to Jamie, but can't make it work, doesn't
know how. He's only 16.

Jamie and Ste have in effect switched roles, and so they drift apart, not
intentionally, and not completely apart, but awkwardly, into a fuzzy realm
they don't understand and aren't mature enough to negotiate.

Leah, however, remains their "go-between". Sometimes this helps, sometimes
it f**ks it up. She takes to going to gay clubs with one or the other of
them, then gossips later on about who was with who. But, she is fiercely
loyal to them, and won't be put-off when it comes to their friendship.
Because she and Ste live next to each other, she is closer to Ste than to
Jamie. But she keeps her connection with Sandra going by feeding information
to her about Ste and Jamie's doings, under the guise of continually calling
Sandra to bug her for a job.

Sandra becomes a work-a-holic; running the Anchor isn't as easly as she
thought it would be. She basically gives up men for the time being. She
considers this or that relationship (men _are_ interested in her), but
decides against each one in the end. She keeps up her relationship with her
best friend.

Things finally come to a head when Jamie tells Ste that he's been seeing
other boys. Ste is despondent, and stays out all night, getting pissed and
sleeping over at the house of an older guy he meets at the Gloucester. When
he finally does go home, Ste is confronted by Ronnie, and has to confess to
being gay. The next scene is tastefully only hinted at: Ste is beaten black
and blue, and told to get out for good. It's clear that this is it. He goes
over to Leah's for awhile, but is too scared of Ronnie to stay on Thamesmead.
Leah goes to Sandra, and negotiates for Ste to come and stay with her and
Jamie. So, Ste ends up living with Jamie and Sandra, just as he and Jamie
have broken up!

Hmm, but have they broken up? Or have they become brothers, discovering a
love deeper than they realised was possible before?

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

You are visitor #

Last Updated on 10/10/98

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page