Can someone explain this in Beautiful Thing?
det
Be forewarned that this post contains spoilers for the movie.
If you haven't seen it and don't want a portion of the ending
spoiled do not read on!
I got to see Beautiful Thing this past weekend. I really
enjoyed the movie but there was one part of the ending
I didn't understand. Why did the mother reject her suitor
Tony? I couldn't figure out what it was he'd done to make
her upset.
Eric Teehan
****** Nobody can tell ya there's only one song worth singing. They
may try and sell you cause it hangs them up to see someone like you.
But you've gotta make your own kind of music. Sing your own special
song ... even if nobody else sings along -- Mama Cass ***********
Ken Rudolph
det wrote:
>
> Be forewarned that this post contains spoilers for the movie.
> If you haven't seen it and don't want a portion of the ending
> spoiled do not read on!
>
> I got to see Beautiful Thing this past weekend. I really
> enjoyed the movie but there was one part of the ending
> I didn't understand. Why did the mother reject her suitor
> Tony? I couldn't figure out what it was he'd done to make
> her upset.
>
Actually, I was sort of curious about this, too. The implication seemed
to be that Jamie's mother turned dyke. That is certainly going the
extra mile in accepting one's gay son. Or, more likely, maybe it's just
that she wanted to make a clean start in her new career as bar operator.
And Tony was just superfluous. Either way, the "feel good" ending was
rather weak, I thought.
--Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net)
Bob Boutwell
In article <56u0nr$8...@natasha.rmii.com>, det <d...@rmi.net> wrote:
>
>I got to see Beautiful Thing this past weekend. I really
>enjoyed the movie but there was one part of the ending
>I didn't understand. Why did the mother reject her suitor
>Tony? I couldn't figure out what it was he'd done to make
>her upset.
I don't think there needs to be any deep answer to this. I think she,
like her son, was only acting on her feelings and doing what she thought
would make her happy. Her feelings about Tony aren't discusssed
explicitly in the film, but he did come across to me somewhat as a parody
of what Brits might imagine blonde surfer-boy Californians to be - full
of cliches, trying to be hip, but not much inside. When she got a chance
to move on in life, she left Tony behind.
(Of course, there's always Jamey's (sp?) explanation near the beginning
of the movie that his mother was only interested in Tony because she
didn't like the color of the walls any more, and after Tony the painter
took care of that for her, she would dump him.
--
Bob Boutwell Jamaica Plain, MA bout...@netcom.com
bout...@shore.net
Life is uncertain - eat dessert first.
Richard Ottolini
>In article <56u0nr$8...@natasha.rmii.com>, det <d...@rmi.net> wrote:
>>
>>I got to see Beautiful Thing this past weekend. I really
>>enjoyed the movie but there was one part of the ending
>>I didn't understand. Why did the mother reject her suitor
>>Tony? I couldn't figure out what it was he'd done to make
>>her upset.
I interpreted as a "class" issue, more important in Europe
than the US. The mother was was changing her job and residence
from lower class (blue collar) waitress to middle class business
owner, moving from public housing to her own flat.
Her boyfriend, although fairly emotionally mature, was still blue
collar and unsuitable for her new station in life.
Robert S. Coren
In article <3292BD...@worldnet.att.net>,
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Actually, I was sort of curious about this, too. The implication seemed
>to be that Jamie's mother turned dyke. That is certainly going the
>extra mile in accepting one's gay son.
I *don't* think so. I think she just decided that Tony was kind of a
twerp (I can't really disagree), and that she was tired of him. I note
that she treated him like shit pretty well all through the movie, anyway.
>Or, more likely, maybe it's just
>that she wanted to make a clean start in her new career as bar operator.
>And Tony was just superfluous. Either way, the "feel good" ending was
>rather weak, I thought.
That last scene was clearly a "fantasy sequence" of sorts, and Sandra
dancing with Leah was just part of the dream. It was certainly wildly
improbable.
In fact, although I liked the movie a lot, I felt that Ste (the
beautiful Scott Neal -- please, sir, can I have some more?) got over
his denial quite impossibly fast for someone in his situation.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Life is easy to chronicle, but bewildering to practice."
--E. M. Forster, _A Room With a View_
Matthew Malthouse
In article <56v56c$m...@news.unocal.com>, stg...@sugarland.unocal.COM
(Richard Ottolini) wrote:
} >In article <56u0nr$8...@natasha.rmii.com>, det <d...@rmi.net> wrote:
small spoiler for 'Beautiful Thing'
} >>I got to see Beautiful Thing this past weekend. I really
} >>enjoyed the movie but there was one part of the ending
} >>I didn't understand. Why did the mother reject her suitor
} >>Tony? I couldn't figure out what it was he'd done to make
} >>her upset.
}
} I interpreted as a "class" issue, more important in Europe
} than the US. The mother was was changing her job and residence
} from lower class (blue collar) waitress to middle class business
} owner, moving from public housing to her own flat.
} Her boyfriend, although fairly emotionally mature, was still blue
} collar and unsuitable for her new station in life.
The immage of the boyfriend is counter to this. If anything
he was an upper middle class twat looking for credibility by
association with the lower classes.
Matthew
--
__\/__
/ ^ ^ \
(\| (o)(o) |/)
------------------------oOOOo--oo--oOOOo----------------------------
"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk
The opinions expressed are not those of the Guardian Media Group
-----------------------------------Oooo.----------------------------
.oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
Todd Morman
Spoilers continue, go see the movie:
Robert S. Coren wrote:
>
> In article <3292BD...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, I was sort of curious about this, too. The implication seemed
> >to be that Jamie's mother turned dyke. That is certainly going the
> >extra mile in accepting one's gay son.
>
> I *don't* think so. I think she just decided that Tony was kind of a
> twerp (I can't really disagree), and that she was tired of him. I note
> that she treated him like shit pretty well all through the movie, anyway.
I kind of liked Tony, by the end; the way he takes care of Leah, for
instance, was wonderful. And those little moments where his education shows
through were fun--another way the filmmakers made the characters complex
and believable.
It didn't occur to me to think the mom turns dyke at the end, although
that's possible, I suppose. I agree with both Richard and Bob; mom has been
dreaming of Leaving It All Behind for a while, and she includes Tony in
that, nice as he is. And Jamey did indeed foreshadow it beautifully, when
he and Tony are getting high and he says "Mum's like that. She goes off
things quickly."
Besides, I have to admit to liking the fact that it was the main hetero
relationship that didn't work out at the end, instead of the more typical
celibate/dead/heartbroken homos.
> >And Tony was just superfluous. Either way, the "feel good" ending was
> >rather weak, I thought.
>
> That last scene was clearly a "fantasy sequence" of sorts, and Sandra
> dancing with Leah was just part of the dream. It was certainly wildly
> improbable.
I don't know...I don't think Tony was superfluous; he was perfect as comic
relief in the coming-out-to-mom scene. In fact, I enjoyed all of the
supporting characters, any one of whom could have been the focus of a small
movie like this. Nor am I certain that the feelgood ending was fantasy--no
more than any of the rest of this uplifting little queermyth; I liked the
final scene a lot. Did you notice how *fierce* and protective and defiant
mom was as she watched the neighbors watching? Wonderful.
> In fact, although I liked the movie a lot, I felt that Ste (the
> beautiful Scott Neal -- please, sir, can I have some more?) got over
> his denial quite impossibly fast for someone in his situation.
Impossible? Maybe.
todd more impossibly queer-positive movies please morman
Tom Brady
>>
>> Be forewarned that this post contains spoilers for the movie.
>> If you haven't seen it and don't want a portion of the ending
>> spoiled do not read on!
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Why did the mother reject her suitor
>> Tony? I couldn't figure out what it was he'd done to make
>> her upset.
>to be that Jamie's mother turned dyke. That is certainly going the
>extra mile in accepting one's gay son.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of this interpretation. Seems kinda unlikely.
>Or, more likely, maybe it's just
>that she wanted to make a clean start in her new career as bar operator.
I understood it to be part of the "love 'em, leave 'em" pattern that their
young neighbor warned Tony about (...and got whacked in the head for her
efforts).
>And Tony was just superfluous.
I would disagree, somewhat. He served as an accepting influence at home for
Jamie. But the blue nightgown just wasn't him. Maybe something in red...
>Either way, the "feel good" ending was rather weak, I thought.
I agree strongly. When they came to the end, I was left thinking, "...And then
what?" It seemed a total non sequitur to me - a touch of surrealism in a
reality-based movie. I loved the rest of the movie, though, especially the
coming out scene - brutal, but very true.
-Tom, who knew who in the theater was gay by who laughed at the "chicken"
references by the drag queen in The Gloucester.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Brady Process Engineer, Reichhold Chemicals (800) 448-3482 x7811
Research Triangle Park, NC | Of course I don't speak for Reichhold.
Matthew Malthouse
} Be forewarned that this post contains spoilers for the movie.
} If you haven't seen it and don't want a portion of the ending
} spoiled do not read on!
} I got to see Beautiful Thing this past weekend. I really
} enjoyed the movie but there was one part of the ending
} I didn't understand. Why did the mother reject her suitor
} Tony? I couldn't figure out what it was he'd done to make
} her upset.
He's an air-headed, innefectual, pretentious pratt. You need
more reasons than that?
Personally I didn't think the relationship worked at all from
the start.
Kenneth Ashton Callicott
In article <32947F...@alienskin.com>,
They really should know that by now.
I went to see it again tonight; this time at the local art
theater. It was a really different experience.
Last time, there were seven people in a theater that held
~150, with one motos couple. This time, it was in the
small theater. Every seat was packed, and forty-eight of
the fifty people were without a doubt Family.
I also hadn't realized how much of the dialogue I had
missed before. This made a -huge- difference in
my interpretation of the interpersonal relationships.
>Robert S. Coren wrote:
>> In article <3292BD...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Actually, I was sort of curious about this, too. The implication seemed
>> >to be that Jamie's mother turned dyke. That is certainly going the
>> >extra mile in accepting one's gay son.
>>
>> I *don't* think so. I think she just decided that Tony was kind of a
>> twerp (I can't really disagree), and that she was tired of him. I note
>> that she treated him like shit pretty well all through the movie, anyway.
>
>I kind of liked Tony, by the end; the way he takes care of Leah, for
>instance, was wonderful. And those little moments where his education shows
>through were fun--another way the filmmakers made the characters complex
>and believable.
The dumping of Tony made a lot of sense this time. He paid
a *lot* of attention to Leah from the very beginning. The first
time they are together, Tony stares at her in an obvious manner.
Leah: Pervert.
Tony: I think you'll find that "pervert" is not
a very nice word.
... [Yeah, so the memory's going]
Leah: Your bird. She treats me like I've got "cunt"
written across my forehead.
Tony: You shouldn't use words like "bird."
Tony is *incredibly* shallow (to Sandra: "You shouldn't use
the word "bird." It disempowers you."). During the coming out
scene, he's provides zero emotional support to either Sandra
or Jamie, and in the middle of this family conflict, he abandons
Sandra to take care of Leah. Watch it again--that scene where he
watches Leah sleep isn't tender. It's creepy.
And two examples of things I missed on first viewing. When
Leah's on the ledge and Tony grabs her about the waist, he actually
pushes Sandra away (Sandra: "Nice body language."). And right
before Sandra dumps him, Leah (in reference to going to the bar
with Jamie and Ste) says, "I'm going to find a nice dyke. I've gone
off men since Tony." (Disclaimer: I'm not -positive- the name is
Tony; but I'm fairly certain)
>It didn't occur to me to think the mom turns dyke at the end, although
>that's possible, I suppose.
I think Leah and Sandra are just playing with that, the same way
Leah teased her mother just minutes earlier.
> And Jamey did indeed foreshadow it beautifully, when
>he and Tony are getting high and he says "Mum's like that. She goes off
>things quickly."
I think Jamie may have been trying to scare Tony off with that line,
rather than foreshadow anything. And I think Sandra dumps Tony
when she realizes that he's shallow and that he can't provide her
or Jamie with any sort of emotional support.
>> That last scene was clearly a "fantasy sequence" of sorts, and Sandra
>> dancing with Leah was just part of the dream. It was certainly wildly
>> improbable.
> Nor am I certain that the feelgood ending was fantasy--no
>more than any of the rest of this uplifting little queermyth; I liked the
>final scene a lot. Did you notice how *fierce* and protective and defiant
>mom was as she watched the neighbors watching? Wonderful.
I don't think this was fantasy either, although some of the details--
that guy kind of dancing behind them or the little girl jumping
rope--gave it a slightly surreal quality. I think symbolic
might be a little better: the way Jamie grinned and kept
his eyes closed, the slightly nervous look on Ste's face, that
wonderful defiance of Sandra--who had just made it clear that
she had been fighting for Jamie all his life, even when neither
of them realized why--, and the way Leah just glowed with the
attention.
I thought it was a wonderful way to end the film.
>> In fact, although I liked the movie a lot, I felt that Ste (the
>> beautiful Scott Neal -- please, sir, can I have some more?) got over
>> his denial quite impossibly fast for someone in his situation.
>
>Impossible? Maybe.
I think the speed with which both Sandra and Ste changed attitudes
led to the somewhat afterschool-specialish feeling.
Sandra's converstion made a lot more sense to me this time, though,
and didn't feel forced at all.
Ste's is a little more unrealistic, although there was the
foreshadowing of that scene at the party.
But I can live with that. The rest of the film more than makes
up for any small flaws it might have.
Ken, noting that the "You are Sixteen" song brought howls
of laughter to the theater.
--
Ken Callicott Hopkins Marine Station kac...@leland.stanford.edu
"Seems Foo Foo met up with some bikers at Rico's, and I'm telling you,
if the clown has a natural enemy, it's bikers!"
--Dave Louapre and Dan Sweetman, _A Cotton Candy Autopsy_
Speaker
kac...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kenneth Ashton Callicott) writes:
>I went to see it again tonight; this time at the local art
>theater. It was a really different experience.
I'm going to go catch it again this next weekend I hope.
Have to drive all the way to Dallas - It's not playing in
Oklahoma that I can find.
>I also hadn't realized how much of the dialogue I had
>missed before. This made a -huge- difference in
>my interpretation of the interpersonal relationships.
I bought the screenplay at a bookstore after I saw the
movie. *Lots* of dialogue I missed because I couldn't understand
the accent at first.
>The dumping of Tony made a lot of sense this time. He paid
>a *lot* of attention to Leah from the very beginning. The first
>time they are together, Tony stares at her in an obvious manner.
In the screenplay, Tony is 27 and a sort of yuppie. In
hanging out with her he's trying to be hip and such. He's supposed
to be fairly well educated. Maybe it's just me, but the person
who played Tony to me did not look to be 27. I guess it's all
in the cultural signal difference between the U.S. and England.
>Tony is *incredibly* shallow (to Sandra: "You shouldn't use
>the word "bird." It disempowers you."). During the coming out
>scene, he's provides zero emotional support to either Sandra
>or Jamie, and in the middle of this family conflict, he abandons
>Sandra to take care of Leah. Watch it again--that scene where he
>watches Leah sleep isn't tender. It's creepy.
I read this as Tony trying be to liberal and with it
and help these people to better themselves.
I was supprised Jaymie was as open to Tony during
that secene as he was. Tony didn't seem to be playing a big part
in his life, nor necessairly a significant part in his mothers
other than as sex partner. No long term emotional commitment.
>I don't think this was fantasy either, although some of the details--
>that guy kind of dancing behind them or the little girl jumping
>rope--gave it a slightly surreal quality.
The guy dancing in the background is actually a next
door neighbor of Jaymie's. Remember the scene where the older
woman has been sunbaithing and she walks up and gets a loog at
Tony and then her husband calls her into the flat? That's the
husband who called out. That's the woman who pushed the shopping
cart back at Jaymie in the early part of the movie after he had
skipped school.
>I thought it was a wonderful way to end the film.
Definately!
>I think the speed with which both Sandra and Ste changed attitudes
>led to the somewhat afterschool-specialish feeling.
Sandra, yeah I can see, maybe. But Ste, well, do we
really know how long the interval between sleepovers? Are we talking
the next day, a week, what? To me that makes a difference.
I think Sandra knew about Jaymie being gay but
didn't want to admit it to herself. In the screenplay, when Sandra
and Tony are watching the Sound of Music, it says she's crying. I
don't recall that part of the Sound of Music as being a sad part.
Plus the way she (like a mother) kept on interrupting her son
and his friend as if to keep them from doing anything.
>But I can live with that. The rest of the film more than makes
>up for any small flaws it might have.
No kidding! :-)
The unofficial Beautiful Thing WWW page
http://www.zzapps.demon.co.uk/beautiful-thing/ lists is as coming out
on VHS NTSC video in the U.S. in Paril or May of 1997. You can buy
a copy now in England, but it's PAL. :-|
>Ken, noting that the "You are Sixteen" song brought howls
> of laughter to the theater.
I loved that bit. :-) Good thing I already had the
Sound of Music soundtrack so I didn't have to go find it to buy too.
An recent article on display at the theater I attended (the Inwood
in Dallas) stated that Glen and Scott just turned 18. The actual movie
was shot during five weeks in the Summer of 1995. This means they
were 16 when they made the movie, no? So the song was in a sense
appropriate on two levels.
Also, does the a) youthfull age of the actors, b) the
youthfull age of the characters c) the subject matter and d) the
shot of Ste getting out of Jaymie's bed the next moring (don't
tell me you don't remember that shot :-)) all combine to make
this film, technicall, child pron? :-(
Speaking of the shot I mention above, in the screenplay
there is a scene (maybe this was in the English version but cut
for US release) where the covers blow askew of Ste and Jaymie
and we see they are both nude.
Sorry for the length of the post. I *really* like
this movie. :-)
mwwheatl
--
| Mark Wheatley | http://www.wildstar.net/~mwwheatl/ | mwwh...@wildstar.net |
| "It is no exaggeration to conclude that the Internet has acheived, and |
| continues to acheive, the most participatory marketplace of mass speech |
| that this country -- and indeed the world -- has yet seen." |
Todd Morman
Kenneth Ashton Callicott wrote:
> I also hadn't realized how much of the dialogue I had
> missed before. This made a -huge- difference in
> my interpretation of the interpersonal relationships.
[...]
> The dumping of Tony made a lot of sense this time. He paid
> a *lot* of attention to Leah from the very beginning.
Whoah. I understand the conclusion you're trying to draw, but it just
doesn't work for me at all. Leah flirting with Tony in a bitchy way was
perfectly in sync with her character, and Tony's (relatively) kind and
non-bitchy response was exactly what I'd expect from him. It seems a real
stretch to draw any conclusions about a relationship between them.
[...]
> Tony is *incredibly* shallow (to Sandra: "You shouldn't use
> the word "bird." It disempowers you.").
See now, I thought the brief flashes of some sort of education hinted that
Tony wasn't really as shallow as he was initially made out to be. Just like
Sandra turned out to be a much better mother than she was initially made out
to be.
During the coming out
> scene, he's provides zero emotional support to either Sandra
> or Jamie, and in the middle of this family conflict, he abandons
> Sandra to take care of Leah.
Hmm. You didn't like the guy at all, did you, Kenneth? I'm not sure exactly
what kind of emotional support you think he could have provided to Jamie in
that scene, beyond what he did. The whole thing was a shock to him, too. And
when he tried to offer something to Sandra ("you're fighting him") she blows
up at him unfairly (although understandably, given her emotional state). And
"abandoning" Sandra to take care of Leah? Huh? Leah, who is blitzed out of
her mind and has just been saved from falling off the balcony, is now headed
out into the street. Tony rushes after her. I see no reason to think he's in
love with her, wants to have sex with her, or is abandoning Sandra for her.
He just did what he thought was right in a crisis that struck him as more
urgent than Sandra's.
Besides, it gets him away so Mom, Jamie and Ste can have a little talk by
themselves. I think that his leaving has more to do with that dramatic
function than anything else. :)
Watch it again--that scene where he
> watches Leah sleep isn't tender. It's creepy.
You think he's coming on to her? Or seducing her? Yow. I just don't see it.
> And two examples of things I missed on first viewing. When
> Leah's on the ledge and Tony grabs her about the waist, he actually
> pushes Sandra away (Sandra: "Nice body language.").
Another example of how the film was relatively true to life--a complex,
difficult situation where no one acts perfectly. As I recall, Tony pushes
Sandra away after Sandra tries to pull him away from Leah, who's teetering
on the ledge in red pumps. I think that little bit says as much about
Sandra's inability to see Leah as a person as it does about any violent
tendencies Tony might have (and for which there's zero other evidence).
And right
> before Sandra dumps him, Leah (in reference to going to the bar
> with Jamie and Ste) says, "I'm going to find a nice dyke. I've gone
> off men since Tony." (Disclaimer: I'm not -positive- the name is
> Tony; but I'm fairly certain)
It's just another smiling tease from Leah. This time, though, Sandra seems
to take it better than the others; she's comfortable enough, anyway, to
dance with Leah later. It's neat to think about how the two of them became
such bitter enemies, and wonderful that it was the love between Ste and
Jaime that helped transform them.
I wrote:
> > And Jamey did indeed foreshadow it beautifully, when
> >he and Tony are getting high and he says "Mum's like that. She goes off
> >things quickly."
>
> I think Jamie may have been trying to scare Tony off with that line,
> rather than foreshadow anything.
Jaimes was trying to scare Tony off; the filmmakers were doing the
foreshadowing. Besides, Jaime is very perceptive; there's no reason to think
he wasn't dead on target about his mom and men.
And I think Sandra dumps Tony
> when she realizes that he's shallow and that he can't provide her
> or Jamie with any sort of emotional support.
Tony's definitely shallow, but the film left me with the distinct impression
that he was capable of more emotional support than Sandra was giving him
credit for. I just think Tony was more of the loveable lug type, rather than
the straight dickhead type (Ste's dad and brother filled that role nicely),
and that Sandra, as has been said before, just wanted to be done with him
because he didn't fit into her plans for her new, higher-class life.
> Ken, noting that the "You are Sixteen" song brought howls
> of laughter to the theater.
Which sure helped me breathe again after the tension leading up to it.
todd nice website too thanks Mark morman
Bob Boutwell
In article <57hhnl$l...@cherokee.wildstar.net>,
Speaker <mwwh...@cherokee.wildstar.net> wrote:
> Also, does the a) youthfull age of the actors, b) the
>youthfull age of the characters c) the subject matter and d) the
>shot of Ste getting out of Jaymie's bed the next moring (don't
>tell me you don't remember that shot :-)) all combine to make
>this film, technicall, child pron? :-(
The sexual relationship between Jamie and Ste was obvious but not shown,
and except for seeing Ste's butt as he gets dressed in the morning,
there's no significant nudity. Therefore, I don't see how anyone could
interpret this as child pornography.
> Speaking of the shot I mention above, in the screenplay
>there is a scene (maybe this was in the English version but cut
>for US release) where the covers blow askew of Ste and Jaymie
>and we see they are both nude.
I just saw the movie for the second time today, and the most we get to
see during the bed scene is that while they are sleeping, their bare
chests are revealed. Nothing more. One assumes from the kissing and
Jamie's request that he be allowed to "touch" Ste that sexual activity
took place, but no sexual activity or full nudity is shown.
D Lewis
Speaker <mwwh...@cherokee.wildstar.net> writes:
> An recent article on display at the theater I attended (the Inwood
>in Dallas) stated that Glen and Scott just turned 18. The actual movie
>was shot during five weeks in the Summer of 1995. This means they
>were 16 when they made the movie, no? So the song was in a sense
>appropriate on two levels.
"Beautiful Thing," BTW -- the actor who played Jamie is 15 years old in
real life and the actor who played Ste is 17 -- maybe providing an "in joke"
for the "I am 17 going on 18" line from "The Sound of Music" song. One
thing I thought interesting on the Sony Pictures site was the tidbit that
the previous roles for the actor who played Jamie had been portraying
either a skinhead or a punk -- quite the opposite end of the spectrum
from the sensitive Jamie. In the bio section on Sony Pictures' Web site,
there are no hints at the age of the actor who played Tony (though he does
have Shakespearean roles in his resume -- not surprising, when you consider
the quality of his voice). In the scene where he gives his age as 27, I
thought of the line that was a favorite of Crow on "Mystery Science Theater
3000": "*Twenty-one*? She's over *forty-one*!"
The ending scene left me with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, though I was
half expecting it to be followed by a clip of Lou Sheldon telling the audience
that even though Jamie and Ste think they have a warm, loving relationship,
they'll really never find happiness blah...blah...blah... and the U.S. is on
the road to Sodom and Gomorrah blah...blah...blah...
(You mean there *isn't* a law that every positive report on gay relationships
*has* to be followed with a rebuttal by Lou Sheldon????)
--Dennis
http://people.delphi.com/denlewis