Fresh on the heels of her stellar performance in "The King and I", Deborah Kerr (as Laura Reynolds) plays the wife of a virile man who runs a dormitory house and coaches at a boys school. She feels sympathy for Tom, as student (played by John Kerr) who is different from the other boys. Though he competes in sports, his true interests are the arts, and he is known to spend time alone listening to classical music.
The story revolves around gender roles. The film uses stereotypes, like the "he-man" and the "sensitive boy" to expose persecution by stereotyping. It is a product of its time in degree only. Conventions in acceptable gender behavior still prevail. And there have always been pockets of society that impose their own rules of conduct on their members. These conspiracies of prejudice depend on bullying to enforce conformity.
The driving force behind such movements is fear of that which is different or not understood. This is a film about homophobia, not homesexuality. John Kerr does a good job portraying Tom, the persecuted teen. He is not unlike most teens; he just doesn't conform to the prevailing "norms". Much is made about the concept of a "regular guy"---a laughable archetype when viewed objectively. It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe in as long as you conform and, thusly, assuage the fears of those around you.
The relationship between Tom and his father is central to the story. Like the coach, Tom's father has been conditioned to expect certain behaviors from himself and others. His disappointment in his son is extremely damaging. It is interesting to compare this film's depiction of the father-son relationship with that in "Rebel Without a Cause". They are different, but in each the dynamics are painful and long-reaching. It is also worth mentioning that Tom is not like Sal Mineo's character in "Rebel", but they have similar psychological repercussions.
The film ends with the reading of a letter. It's an ending that was added to conform to prevailing standards and, as such, adds nothing of value. Better to ignore it and let the film stand on its own merits, without the cowardly addendum.
The story revolves around gender roles. The film uses stereotypes, like the "he-man" and the "sensitive boy" to expose persecution by stereotyping. It is a product of its time in degree only. Conventions in acceptable gender behavior still prevail. And there have always been pockets of society that impose their own rules of conduct on their members. These conspiracies of prejudice depend on bullying to enforce conformity.
The driving force behind such movements is fear of that which is different or not understood. This is a film about homophobia, not homesexuality. John Kerr does a good job portraying Tom, the persecuted teen. He is not unlike most teens; he just doesn't conform to the prevailing "norms". Much is made about the concept of a "regular guy"---a laughable archetype when viewed objectively. It doesn't matter who you are or what you believe in as long as you conform and, thusly, assuage the fears of those around you.
The relationship between Tom and his father is central to the story. Like the coach, Tom's father has been conditioned to expect certain behaviors from himself and others. His disappointment in his son is extremely damaging. It is interesting to compare this film's depiction of the father-son relationship with that in "Rebel Without a Cause". They are different, but in each the dynamics are painful and long-reaching. It is also worth mentioning that Tom is not like Sal Mineo's character in "Rebel", but they have similar psychological repercussions.
The film ends with the reading of a letter. It's an ending that was added to conform to prevailing standards and, as such, adds nothing of value. Better to ignore it and let the film stand on its own merits, without the cowardly addendum.