Why was Alec's friend mad?
-
BillyFisher — 16 years ago(July 26, 2009 03:50 PM)
I watched this film as a teenager and (as a then-terrified closeted homosexual) instinctively knew Stephen was gay.
I've never thought there was any intimacy implied between him and Alec, though.
-
stephen-morton — 16 years ago(August 20, 2009 03:09 PM)
I didn't get the impression that Stephen was gay at all, though I suppose since this was Noel Coward there is that possibility. Certainly Alec and Stephen aren't having an affairthat would destroy all sympathy the audience has with Alec; he's not only cheating on his wife, but cheating on Laura as well, at the same time as saying he loves her.
Alec had the key because he specifically borrowed it from Stephen. He had borrowed Stephen's car that day to go out driving with Laura, which is shown onscreen and explained in the voiceover. Stephen gave him the key so that he could take the car back, and told him he wouldn't be home until late. There is no reason this needs to have homosexual connotations.
As to Stephen's anger, that's a little more mysterious. There could be some alternative, ulterior motives that are not explained. However, I think it seems pretty reasonable to assume that Stephen disapproved of Alec's infidelity. This was a different time and place, and the movie continually emphasizes the strict social rules, with both protagonists expressing fear of being caught repeatedly. This is the only time one of them is actually caught, and Stephen's reaction is exactly as they feared: He is irritated and resentful and self-righteous at finding Alec using his apartment as a place for sex behind his back. (Yes, they don't actually have sex, but Stephen doesn't know that.) This interpretation is supported by the way Alec tells him (paraphrase) "I'm sure you think this terribly vulgar and crude, but actually it's nothing of the sort." He is clearly fighting back against Stephen's moral opprobrium.
In a side note, I felt it was a good thing they broke up at the end. It's a shame they never found each other before now, but to run off and leave their spouses and children really would be wrong. Just because you think you've found personal happiness doesn't give you the right to hurt other people like that. Laura's husband was a good man and he deserved better. -
stuffic — 16 years ago(September 29, 2009 08:53 PM)
Whew! When that poster said it was obvious Stephen was gay and he and Alec were having an affair, and then several people concurred that feeling, I thought I was going crazy!!
I didn't think he was gay, just a Brit from the 30s/40s. Almost all of them seemed gay, didn't they?
I thought he was just disapproving of Alec's infidelity, and resented that he was using his apartment for the tryst.
It's possible Stephen was gay, but even so, they weren't having an affair. As the other poster said, he just had a crush on his friend.
I agree with the English poster earlier. I think it's just hard for us Americans, especially in 2009, to picture things being so strict and proper once upon a time.
"I'm not trying to get in the middle of 'crazy'." -
Pharaoh Osmosis — 16 years ago(October 20, 2009 08:35 AM)
"I didn't think he was gay, just a Brit from the 30s/40s. Almost all of them seemed gay, didn't they?"
No, only to USians, especially ones who go on about Brits rather than Englishmen, Scotsmen et al, many such USians still think "Brits" seem "gay", as well as thinking there is something wrong with being homosexual.
"Nothings gonna change my world!" -
McArty — 16 years ago(October 21, 2009 09:50 AM)
I agree with SusanHampson. We must interpret the scene having in account that was England in the 40s, so that would be a normal reaction.
Maybe in today standards seems weird, but things were really different back there. -
neomagic — 16 years ago(February 21, 2010 03:37 PM)
When watching the scene the thought of Steve being gay struck my mind as well. With his mannerism and talking about being a man of the world. Still I didn't see them having an affair or anything. Also I believed him when he said he didn't mind what was going on precisely because he understands love need to hide sometimes.
I think he was sore, because his friend wouldn't trust him and be honest with him. That's how I, being gay, having straight friends, would feel. -
luxmissus — 15 years ago(May 01, 2010 11:23 PM)
Well, I read Stephen as gay for sure. I don't know why he couldn't have been, having been created by Noel Coward and all. If Lean/Coward were anything like Hitchcock then I feel sure there may have purposely been something coded to escape censorship.
OTOH, I had no reason to think the two men were having an affair or that Stephen was jealous. Interesting and arguable take though, IMO. -
PretoriaDZ — 15 years ago(June 25, 2010 02:25 PM)
I think people see what they want to see, depending upon their own leanings. For me, I would agree that I would find it distasteful, the idea of a friend bringing a lover and possibly "using" my bed, especially without asking me first (which I would reject.)
-
lewis-51 — 15 years ago(July 24, 2010 09:23 PM)
I also thought that the friend was homosexual and feeling slightly jilted. I don't think there was ever any relationship between them however. I agree with other posters that we shouldn't read too much 2010 culture and preconceptions into the story, but even allowing for the English culture of 1945, I think the hint of homosexuality was clear.
- henry
-
smoke0 — 15 years ago(August 14, 2010 02:23 PM)
I didn't see any gay subtext, and even though part of the resentment might be a crush on Alec, I think it's a matter of Stephen being annoyed that Alec was going to use his place for an affair that could possibly result in a public scandal.
Revenge is a dish that best goes stale. -
tonygumbrell — 15 years ago(November 27, 2010 10:01 PM)
He's an old fashioned prig. Times have changed, divorce wasn't sanctioned by the church back then and adultry was really frowned upon that class (the middle class). The fact that it was clandestine and involved his friend, in as much as he would have to look the other way, was tantamount to making him an accessory to something sordid. The homosexual angle is barking up the wrong tree, but very modern or current. The idea that there might be repressed homosexuality is open to speculation (Coward was homosexual. I don't know much about Lean.), but speculation here misses the point. I may be the only one, but I at least find the friends adhearance to principle, however sanctimonious, admirable.
-
tonygumbrell — 15 years ago(November 27, 2010 10:24 PM)
A further thought on this scene, which struck me, when I first saw the movie: Is the purpose of the scene, and the haughty distaste, shown by the other doctor (I've always referred to him as "the other doctor") to remind us that this is two stories in one; a love affair, that ends in frustration, and a betrayal of a decent husband by his errant wife (a sordid escapade, as the other doctor might have it)? We aren't forced to chose, but we will likely do so in the course of the movie.
-
Undutchable1939 — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 10:29 AM)
As someone who is old fashioned and who understands the morality and way of life of the 1940s rather well, I simply see the friends 'anger' as common sense.
It is how I would react, it is disappointment in a friend, disgust, etc.
I would react like that if I simply heard one of my friends was having an affair, let alone if he wanted to use my apartment for it.
Civilised decent people do not have affairs, so if your friend does, you are disappointed and upset.
I don't see any kind of gay subtext, even if there was, it has little to do with why he was angry.
How much motivation does one need to be mad with a friend behaving in such a manner? -
philmphile-1 — 14 years ago(February 21, 2012 04:45 PM)
I just watched BRIEF ENCOUNTER again for the first time (not including the Hallmark remake) in forty years. Maybe I'm delusional, but I recall a scene at the hospital not from Ms. Jesson's POV but from Dr. Harvey's when Dr. Lynn offers Alec the key and explains why. I believe Stephen even went as so far as to suggest Alec entertain a lady friend if he wished, but it seemed a code for encouraging homosexual behavior and perhaps Stephen's opportunity to meet new men as well through Alec. Later I read a film critique which substantiated this interpretation.
I also vividly remember Trevor Howard being on a talk show in the '70s reacting to the usual flattery about this film in regard to its scripting. He himself pointed out how he felt Dr. Lynn's change in behavior completely belied the original offer to use the flat; Howard said he saw that as the film's sole flaw.
I sincerely doubt I hallucinated both the film sequence and the interview. -
ao590 — 9 years ago(September 20, 2016 02:06 AM)
Both of those pieces of information are very interesting. I know I'm years late, but do you think Trevor Howard would have identified that as a flaw because he missed the homosexual subtext, or for another reason? On first viewing I was simply surprised by Stephen's overtly prudish behaviour, but a second and third viewing, and this thread, has me convinced of the homosexual angle - which adds so much to the film really.