Book Nook Cafe discussion

What: Group Play Read

Play: Tea and Sympathy

Author: Robert Woodruff Anderson
Robert Woodruff Anderson (born April 28, 1917, New York City – February 9, 2009) was an American playwright, screenwriter, and theater producer.

He was educated at Phillips Exeter Academy, which he later said he found a lonely experience. While there he fell in love with an older woman, an event which later became the basis of the plot of Tea and Sympathy. Anderson also attended Harvard University, where he took an undergraduate as well as a master's degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W...

When: We will begin discussing the play on June 1, 2012

Where: The discussion will take place in this thread.

Spoiler etiquette: If you are giving away a major plot element, please write -spoiler- at the top of your post.

Play Details:
Paperback: 92 pages

Synopsis:
Tea and Sympathy is a 1953 stage play in three acts by Robert Anderson.
A faculty wife risks her marriage to help a troubled teen tormented by his fellow students.

All are welcome to join in the discussion. So request the book from your library or buy a copy and join us for a interesting group read of this classic play. :)

I hope to start reading this tonight.

Here is the original movie trailer from the film. It stars Deborah Kerr.

**** Contains some spoilers
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/29...

I enjoyed the movie trailer.

It's been almost 60 years since the play was written, and kids are still dealing with bullying today. Although there has been an effort to combat bullying in the schools recently, today's kids have it even harder in some ways. With cyberbullying on Facebook and other social sites, a hurtful remark can go viral and reach so many more people.

I agree, Connie. It really seems out of control. I would like to see the movie Bully.

Bully (originally titled The Bully Project) is a 2011 documentary film about bullying in U.S. schools. Directed by Lee Hirsch, the film follows the lives of five students who face bullying on a daily basis. Bully premiered at the 2011 Tribeca Film Festival.[2][3] It was also screened at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival[4] and the LA Film Festival.[5]

Bully had its global premiere at Italy's Ischia Film Festival on July 17, 2011.[6] Bully was acquired by The Weinstein Company immediately after its premiere at Tribeca Film Festival.[7] The film was released in U.S. theaters on March 30, 2012.[8]

YouTube trailer for the movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1g9RV...

I guess i am just going to have to wait until TCM airs this film, as Netflix doesn't own it. (We have no video store here.) Still, the trailer makes it look more fleshed out, whether i like it or not. :-)

As i read the play, my thoughts about today's bullying came to the front, too. I look forward to sharing thoughts on this, as well as some of the things Anderson presented. By that i mean i'm wondering if my conclusions are in line with those of others here.

Regardless, it's well written and i found it rewarding to read. As often happens, seeing the list of actors in the stage play was fun, too. Alan Sues?! I had only thought of him as the "Laugh-In" comic.

deb

I liked the play, and found it to be thought-provoking. I thought the ending was problematic, but won't write more in case someone is still reading it.

Madrano wrote: "I guess i am just going to have to wait until TCM airs this film, as Netflix doesn't own it. (We have no video store here.) Still, the trailer makes it look more fleshed out, whether i like it or n..."

------------

Deb, it might not be out on DVD. My library has a VCR copy or at least they list that they do. I've requested it.

Ah, that may well explain it, Alias. One forgets that all films that were transferred to VCR tapes didn't make the transition to DVD. I can understand it but...darnit!

Connie, i look forward to reading your thoughts. Like you, i've been holding off more comments until more people have read it.

I am about midway. I don't mind spoilers so no need to hold off commenting on my account.

I'll start by stating that the play initially reminded me of The Children's Hour by Lillian Hellman. I suppose the school setting was what started it, followed by the ensuing inferences of scandal. However, it's clear both are stand-alone classics, despite the fact i didn't know this play prior to our discussion here a month or so ago.

As Connie noted upthread, the bullying aspect hits home today as much as the thoughts on homosexuality. And there is plenty to be said about latent sexuality, as well. This last is something which isn't often addressed, particularly when it comes to males, so i liked seeing it somewhat mentioned.

I thought Anderson admirably addressed the issues here but it's difficult to assess today what might have been covert in the play. Is it only today that readers/viewers might question the sexuality of Bill Reynolds, Laura's husband? While i was suspicious, i realize it is part of the society in which we live that led me to wonder. Or is it? Did Anderson want us to examine him & his own undercurrents? Afterall, their wedding was whirlwind...

Deb, I think Anderson did want us to question the sexuality of Bill. He presented a "masculine" face to the world, and was very involved in sports. Tom presented an "effeminate" face to the world, and didn't get involved in sports, which are considered manly pursuits. The irony is that Bill did not seem very sexually attracted to his wife Laura, where Tom was burning with desire for her.

I got the impression that Bill married Laura because he needed a wife to become a housemaster, and be on the track for promotions. He did not know her very long before the wedding. It seemed to be a marriage of two people who were not well suited for each other, a marriage of convenience from Bill's point of view. I don't think that Bill was involved with anyone else, either male or female.

Tom reminded Laura of her first husband who was killed in the war. Laura had more common interests with Tom than she did with Bill, and needed someone with sensitivity.

The last scene where Laura wants to help Tom by seducing him seemed problematic to me. She is the housemother living in school housing. By today's standard's, she should not be having a sexual relationship with Tom. Anderson was very careful to note that Tom had just celebrated his 18th birthday so it would not legally be statutory rape. Would it have been OK to get involved with Tom by the standards in 1953?

Madrano wrote:. Is it only today that readers/viewers might question the sexuality of Bill Reynolds, Laura's husband? While i was suspicious, i realize it is part of the society in which we live that led me to wonder. Or is it? Did Anderson want us to examine him & his own undercurrents?
----------------
I think Anderson absolutely wants us to question Bill's sexuality.

Act III

Laura: Did it ever occur to you that you persecute in Tom, that boy up there, you persecute in him the thing you fear in yourself?

Laura: This was the weakness you cried out for me to save you from, wasn't it - And I have tried. - I have tried. I did try.

Connie wrote:I got the impression that Bill married Laura because he needed a wife to become a housemaster, and be on the track for promotions.
------------
Yes, I think that was one reason. The other he was afraid of his own feeling for men. He thought Laura could "save him" from his own desires.

Act III

Laura: Did it ever occur to you that you persecute in Tom, that boy up there, you persecute in him the thing you fear in yourself?

Laura: This was the weakness you cried out for me to save you from, wasn't it - And I have tried. - I have tried. I did try.

Connie wrote: The irony is that Bill did not seem very sexually attracted to his wife Laura,
-------------

Not only wasn't he attracted to her, but I sensed he was violent. Angry that he wasn't attracted to a women and was forced by society to live a lie.

Act II

Laura: (she backs away from him) I know, you've got to go. But it's just that, I don't know, we don't touch anymore. It's a silly way of putting it but you seem to hold yourself aloof from me. A tension seems to grow between us- and then when we do - touch - it's a violent thing- almost a compulsive thing.

Laura: You don't feel it? Yuo don't feel yourself holding away from me until ti becomes overpowering? There's no growing together anymore- no quiet times just holding hands, the feeling of closeness, like ti was in Italy. Now it's long separations and then this almost brutal coming together, and Oh, Bill, you do see, you do see.

Connie wrote:The last scene where Laura wants to help Tom by seducing him seemed problematic to me. She is the housemother living in school housing. By today's standard's, she should not be having a sexual relationship with Tom. Anderson was very careful to note that Tom had just celebrated his 18th birthday so it would not legally be statutory rape. Would it have been OK to get involved with Tom by the standards in 1953?
----------

I don't know that it was OK for anyone outside of marriage to have sex in 1953. :)

I think the issue today, if a person was 18, would be is the person with whom the 18 year old is with, does this person hold a power position. For example, teacher, boss, priest, or police. I don't know that house mother would be a power position. I think the scandal would be she was a married women. I think that would be the bigger scandal.

What do you think about what Harris did? Even if it was innocent do you still think it was appropriate?

I don't. In this case, unlike Laura, Harris is in a power position as a teacher.

In the play Laura says Harris was encouraging Tom with his music. Maybe he was just a nice guy who was befriending a lonely boy who marched to a different drummer. But something about it still bothers me. Tom was a lonely boy, who wasn't the most worldly of kids and here is a teacher who almost seemed to be "grooming" him as they say. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it still makes me uncomfortable.


Wiki
Child grooming refers to actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, to lower the child's inhibitions in preparation for sexual activity with the child, or exploitation (such as child labour—see trafficking of children).

Child grooming may be used to lure minors into illicit businesses such as child prostitution or the production of child pornography.
for more see link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_gr...

One thing that bothered me about Laura was her constant apologizing. My guess she was a product of her times. I was also annoyed by the way she allowed her self to be marginalized by others. It was sort of like your job is to look pretty and smile. Don't think or use your brain. Again, I she is a product of her times.

Act 1

Bill: (dialing the phone) I wish you'd said something about it earlier. I've already invited some of the scholarship boys up to the Lodge. - I can't disappoint them.

Laura: of course not.

Bill If you'd said something earlier.

Laura: it's my fault.
---------------------------------

Act 1

Al: Excuse me for saying so, but it's easy for you to talk the way you have -you're not involved. You're just a bystander. You're not going to be hurt. Nothings going to happen to you one way or the other - I'm sorry.

Laura: That's a fair criticism, Al. I'm sorry I asked you. as you say, I'm not involved.

In my editon of the play it lists the names of the actors who played the part in the 1953 at the Barrymore Theatre in NY.

I couldn't fit the part of Al with the script.
Al was played by Dick York. The first Darren on Bewithched. I think of him as slender, not the athletic head of the baseball team type of guy.



Some of the other cast members were:
Laura: Deborah Kerr
Lilly: Florida Fribus
Tom Lee: John Kerr
Ralph: Alan Sues
Bill: Leif Erickson
Herb: John McGovern

Here is a picture of Laura and Tom. It's too large for me to post.

http://www.fitweb.or.jp/~johnkerr/gal...

The photo above it from a picture gallery of the actor. There are a few from Tea and sympathy on the page.
http://www.fitweb.or.jp/~johnkerr/gal...

Considering what we know or suspect of Bill Reynolds, isn't it ironic of Tom's father to ask Bill to "make a man of his son".

Interesting factoid about the movie.

'The movie begins and ends with an old French folk song "plaisir d'amour" (English translation :"joys of love")which was reworked as "can't help falling in love" for Elvis Presley.

Here is a youtube of Elvis and the song. Gosh, I love Elvis' voice and this song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V430M...

Here is an "old" Vegas Elvis singing the song on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH9Gw0...

Alias Reader wrote: "Considering what we know or suspect of Bill Reynolds, isn't it ironic of Tom's father to ask Bill to "make a man of his son"."

Connie, you make a good point about the way Anderson has constructed our image of Bill in the play. Still, in the context of a boy's school, i didn't find much of the portrayal as unusual. This is why i asked. The comment Alias shared above illustrates why i felt that way.

However, i must admit that i missed the understanding that Bill "needed" a wife to get the job of housemaster. I thought the words generally meant that he would need a wife if he hoped to attain the higher posts within the administration. Of course one can see why it would be beneficial to have a wife in the house. Heck, she's another employee, just unpaid.

We are looking at things with 21st century eyes and all we've learned since the play was first published. This is why i question so much about Bill. The same with "grooming" and the closing sex scene. And it illustrates why false accusations are so easy to hurl.

A teacher takes a student to the beach & they are labeled. Paying special attention to a student who is clearly not faring well with other students could be grooming but it could also be letting the kid know adults can be a resource. (Not far off from what Laura ends up doing but that bolsters the sexual aspect, doesn't it?)

Some of the things i'd ask is why it was important to Bill that they "finally" got the other teacher. Heck, given my pondering about Bill's own sexuality, i wondered if he & Mr. Harris didn't have a personal history. I also wondered if Harris was a better candidate for promotion until this & Bill's marriage. By that i mean, was he an adversary for promotion, one Bill was relieved to see go or was he really a moral threat to the students?

Alias mentioned the "position of power" we now use to define sexual misconduct today. I agree but i'm not sure if, particularly in '53, Mrs. Reynolds wouldn't have been perceived as one in a powerful position. Not directly but indirectly. If Tom threatened her, she could wield power/words with her DH & the entire administration.

I think what i'm saying is that Anderson performed a masterful job by writing this play as he did. We still have questions and can interpret the words & actions as befits our era &/or sensibilities. Was there anything else Laura could have done? What would have happened if she's just left Bill, with only a "goodbye" for Tom? Is this really for Tom or does she want Bill to figure it out?

deb

And another thing...LOL! I wanted to mention Florida Fribus, the other faculty wife we meet in the play. Would SHE have done this for Tom? Would we still like the play as much if she had? Or is it that Laura is appealing? By this i mean, reverse the actors, with Fribus as Laura. Not as sexy, is it? Is that what we get from the play? I'm not sure.

Re. Fribus. I was surprised to see her in this role. To me she will always be Mrs. Gillis in "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis", a 50s-60s tv sitcom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Many...

deb

Madrano wrote: A teacher takes a student to the beach & they are labeled."
---------
It wasn't just going to the beach. They were naked on the beach.

I can't tell you why that didn't bother me. It just seemed a spontaneous act of "let's go swimming!" Actually, the first time i read that information (i went back later while still reading the play), i wasn't sure it was true or just an exaggeration, the way gossip begins.

Maybe i'm not as prudish as i thought i was? Or already biased? Regardless, this didn't bother as much as perhaps it should have. I mean, it's not like they were in a private place; the teacher at least would have known being seen was likely.

Still, i get your point. And the play agrees. :-) This probably says more about me, that i wouldn't jump to conclusions unless i saw more than that. Taken aback, yes; the leap the school took, nope.

As in our discussion of other scripts, i think what is portrayed onstage might effect interpretations, too. When Harris arrived to talk with Tom, i didn't get the sense we were to believe he was gay, either. Maybe it's another instance of me reading the play differently or not knowing where the play was headed.

It's sorta like the violence Laura mentioned in their lovemaking. I didn't take it to mean true physical violence the way it's meant today. Rather, that she wanted tenderness, which it seems they had initially, but that he's changed & now sees it as a chore he must perform, so just "gets it over with." And it jars her & her sensibilities.

I saw the movie today. It's quite good. Deborah Kerr is excellent in the part. There was something about the way John Kerr plays the part, in scenes where he shows his anguish that reminded me a bit of James Dean.

The scene with Harris and the nude swimming was left out. I guess that was too much for 1956 viewers. It was changed to the facility wives at the beach and Tom joins them. One of the women is sewing and Tom gives her advice on the sewing. Telling her he learned it from his maid back home. She tells him to show her. When he is sewing the other kids see him.

There was one thing that caught my attention when I was watching the movie that I didn't pick up on when I read the book. Tom's mom left him when he was five. He was raised by his maid and his father. He never really felt he had a home or a mom. So when he got to school he decorated his room like one would a home. And he liked to hang around Mrs. Reynolds, maybe initially, because she was the mom he never had. Later, of course, that turned to romantic love.

All in all, it's a movie I would recommend.

I think Anderson wanted to have people leaving the theater with a lot of questions about the characters. It's showing how easy it is for people to jump to conclusions without enough information to know what is true and what is not. The things people do can be interpreted by others in more than one way, and people can get hurt and bullied because of it. I got the impression that Anderson was not happy at Phillips Exeter Academy so probably some of the actions in the play are based on what he observed and experienced there.

(This play reminds me of the play "Doubt" about the priest that was spending a lot of time with a boy. Was he doing it because the boy was poor and a minority, and needed extra encouragement and understanding, or for sexual reasons? People left the theater without an answer, just doubt.)

The other thing the movie brought to my attention was Tom's father. He tells the wife that he, too, was bullied at school, to the point of tears. He also stayed in in room alone.

So how much of the father's own baggage and angst has he projected onto his son?

I agree, Connie. That is what makes this such a great play, imo. I'm so happy we read it.

I agree regarding the play Doubt in connection with this play. Perhaps this was where my questions began?

While i remembered that Tom's mother left when he was young, i didn't make the connection you did, Alias. Good one. This may well have been the first time he saw real women in the role as "mom". Good catch.

There are several websites about the problems arising from filming this play. They are interesting to read, as they explain some of the moral issues films had to face, where Broadway/play venues did not. Some things are subtle, some not so much. Alias, thanks for sharing your viewing experience.

Btw, i wanted to mention that i appreciated the literary illusions in the first act. It wasn't carried further, but that's logical since book larnin' became secondary to all involved. However, i wanted to share that i couldn't find a poem specifically called "The Rose and the Thorn". However, there is an excerpt or part from John Keats. I cannot find which long poem it is from & wonder if this is correct, as it would make for a short book...

Bounded in seed,
Both promises
Light and shade.
The self-same
Stem occupy;
One defensive,
Primed, sharp,
The other soft,
Budding beauty,
The blushing top
Of prickled and
Guarded stalk.

We exist as a
Necessity, an
Imperative that
Nature's decree
Insists upon: We
Are evolution
Perfected, the
Cynosure of life:
A tale of good
And evil in one.

deb in what part of the play is "The Rose and the Thorn
mentioned ?

The play that Tom was supposed to be in is

Wiki
The School for Scandal is a play written by Richard Brinsley Sheridan. It was first performed in London at Drury Lane Theatre on May 8, 1777.


the wiki link gives a synopsis of the play
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scho...

The School for Scandal~~~Richard Brinsley Sheridan
The School for Scandal" is Richard Brinsley Sheridan's classic comedy that pokes fun at London upper class society in the late 1700s. Often referred to as a "comedy of manners," "The School for Scandal" is one Sheridan's most performed plays and a classic of English comedic drama.

Madrano wrote:However, i wanted to share that i couldn't find a poem specifically called "The Rose and the Thorn".
----------------

There are a few old books with that title.

From Amazon:

ROSE AND THORN by KATHERINE LEE BATES (1901)

ROSES AND THORNS. by James Edwin. Kerr (1928)

Roses and thorns, by Mary C. Sloan Woodward (1894)

"The Rose & the Thorn" was mentioned in the first act. It was the book of poetry that Laura wanted. Later, she has two copies, one her husband gets for her. Again, it didn't state who wrote the poem, so i wasn't sure if it was the Keats morsel or if it was supposed to be an imagined book.

deb

Madrano wrote: ""The Rose & the Thorn" was mentioned in the first act. It was the book of poetry that Laura wanted. Later, she has two copies, one her husband gets for her. Again, it didn't state who wrote the poe..."

-------

I've tried to google a few things to get the info but I haven't found anything. :(

Same here. This is why i decided it must be part of a larger poem. My musings are whether theater-goers at the time would have recognized it.

I'm wondering what others who shared in this reading thought of Laura and the actions she took. It seems clear that in the beginning she was doing exactly what would be expected of her "position". This includes encouraging the young men in character building, it seems.

Once things fall apart, she seemed to think she could direct Tom's life, particularly in regards to the town girl, Millie? Effie? I've forgotten. My question, i suppose, is did Laura cross the line and, if so, at what point?

And still i find myself wondering if Florida Fribus had been the lead, would we have been repulsed? What if the female lead weren't beautiful, educated and an ideal wife? Yes, it would have been a different play but would our notions have altered? If so, how?

Forgive me but i do SO enjoy playing with casting!

deb

Madrano wrote: Once things fall apart, she seemed to think she could direct Tom's life, particularly in regards to the town girl, Millie? Effie? I've forgotten. My question, i suppose, is did Laura cross the line and, if so, at what point?
-------------

There is also the angle of her seeing her ex-husband in Tom. He was the same age and also of the same demeanor as Tom.

I absolutely loved the line when they get together at the end.
"Years from now when you talk about this, and you will, be kind."

She was married to such a jerk, I didn't mind her getting together with Tom. He was 18. You can go to war at that age. And back when this was filmed (1950s) many people got married at that age.

I keep forgetting about the fact she saw her late husband in Tom. It is significant, too, imo. Would she have gone to the lengths she did if there wasn't something else to draw her in?

Re. that outstanding last line. For some reason i keep hearing it spoken in Kathleen Turner's voice. Does anyone have any idea why that is so? Is it because she said it in some movie? In my head it's much sexier than when i heard/saw that movie trailer which included the line from Kerr's voice.

deb

Madrano wrote: For some reason i keep hearing it spoken in Kathleen Turner's voice. Does anyone have any idea why that is so? Is it because she said it in some movie? In my head it's much sexier than when i heard/saw that movie trailer which included the line from Kerr's voice.
------------

Maybe this is why we are viewing her actions so differently. I just saw the movie with Deborah Kerr. And she says it almost pleadingly, softly. It's not sexy or domineering like Turner's voice. That would make it creepy.

Interesting how the same lines with different actresses can totally change the dynamic of the play.

I wonder if when Laura reaches out to Tom, she knows she's probably doing it in part because she too is bullied? She hurries to mollify Bill so quickly that I'm not sure she ever stopped to recognize what he is.

I also think Bill knows she wants tenderness and is making their sex life violent because he wants to make it so unpleasant and unfulfilling for her that she will stop seeking it- to let him off the hook so he doesn't have to confront his own conflict. Nothing a bully likes less than a mirror, even a psychological one.

Jennifer wrote: "I wonder if when Laura reaches out to Tom, she knows she's probably doing it in part because she too is bullied? She hurries to mollify Bill so quickly that I'm not sure she ever stopped to recogn..."
---------

Excellent point, Jennifer. I didn't think of that.

Jennifer, this hadn't occurred to me but it makes such sense. The sad part is that, having been married previously, she knows that's not what sex must be like, so he only shows himself to be inept. Good point. Thanks.