MovieChat Forums > A Taste of Honey (1962) Discussion > Why does everyone assume that Geoff is g...

Why does everyone assume that Geoff is gay??


Everywhere I look on IMDb.com about this film, including the one plot summary, it is assumed that Geoff is gay, but is that NECESSARILY So?? It is NEVER established in the film that he is actually gay. Although that is one Justifiable INTERPRETATION of the film, it is an Interpretation, an Opinion and NOT a Fact that is clearly established in the film itself. The FACT is that Geoff's sexual orientation in the film is left Ambiguous, and I would argue deliberately so.

Having just viewed the film for the first time, the thought that Geoff is gay never even entered my mind. And I'm a 67-year-old American who "has been around the block" many times, and acquired at least Some "street smarts" along the way.

One theme of the New Wave that I noticed in Continental European films, a theme that I see greatly influence Continental Films for decades to come, is that of casting the main characters as being somewhat "victims of their social environment", as characters that are more "acted upon by others", rather than as "strong initiators of social action" themselves.

This being the first British New Wave film I've viewed, I can nonetheless say that this theme is also quite evident at least here.

Jo is very much a pawn of her environment, insofar as she sees herself permanently damaged by her neglectful mother, and as she deliberately and knowingly had sex with, and got pregnant by a man that she knew was leaving for sea very soon. That she unthinkingly had an affair with a Black man, at a time when racial prejudice was an everyday fact of life for Caucasians in the Western World, is also a sign of her being a pawn of whatever Life was to next offer up to her. Letting her mother back into her life, when she clearly wanted to live alone with Geoff is another sign of her Social Passivity.

As strong willed as the mother superficially appears in the film, she too is very much a pawn of her environment. She takes no deliberate action to establish a stable home for her and her daughter, rather submitting to being kicked out from one apartment after another. She also seems content with any man that Fate serves up for her.

It is in this context that it never even occurred to me that Geoff is gay. He too simply exhibits a great deal of Social Passivity. Jo chooses him. He doesn't choose Jo. He is also passively willing to marry a girl who is carrying a Black baby, simply because Fate coincidentally put her in his life. His "homemaking skills" are also a sign of his Social Passivity in general, symbolizing his willingness to accept the passive woman's role of the time, rather than the strong male role. In America, such Passive heterosexual men are sometimes simply called "pussy whipped", and not gay at all.

Even the way the film ends "in the middle of nowhere", with no firm resolution, is fitting for a film whose main characters can be justifiably characterized as "anti-heroes" much more than "heroes". The film ends on a note where all three main characters seem resigned to accept WHATEVER life throws their way because, after all, they are all merely "victims of their social environment". This resignation to Passive Fate is how the ending to this film reminds me very much of the ending of Jean Paul Sartre's 1944 play "No Exit". ... [email protected].

reply

Having just viewed the film for the first time, the thought that Geoff is gay never even entered my mind.

JoeKulik: I'm assuming you're straight (correct me if I'm wrong), but I'll respond as a gay man. I just watched this film for the second time, and it never occurred to me that Geoff could be straight -- and I first saw this film when I was a teenager. The easiest answer is in the interview with the actor who played him (now in his 70s and interviewed on the Criterion release). He pointed out that the reason it's not specifically stated in the film was because back in the 50s in the UK you could be put in jail for being gay. In fact, when he played the part originally on stage he and the actress who played Jo were anxious at how the audience would react.

But throughout the film we're given clues: (1) when Jo asked Geoff why he was kicked out of his apartment she first asks if he was caught in his room with a girl and he denies it, and then she says or was it a man and he's visibly uncomfortable and says she asks too many questions, then she says he can stay with her if he tells her what they (gay men) do; (2) any time anyone first meets Geoff they react visibly; (3) Jo calls him her "big sister" and is amused when Geoff needs privacy in undressing; (4) I can't remember exactly the dialogue but Geoff says something to Jo early on about not wanting anything to do with women physically.

From two other sources:

Wikipedia: She meets a gay textile design student, Geoffrey Ingham, and invites him to move in with her.

NYT review in 60s: Murray Melvin, who is repeating the role of the homosexual he created in the British play, handles this difficult assignment in muted but effective fashion.

reply

PS I just watched another interview on the Criterion Collection, a theater critic/historian, who said the reason they didn't come out and say Geoff was gay was because of the censorship laws in the 50s; any reference would have been removed by the censorship board. One of the reason the board didn't make changes was that Geoff said he'd marry Jo -- proof to the board that he was willing to change his sexual orientation. At that time the only acknowledged gay characters on stage had to be "perverse" or suicidal or willing to change.

reply

As others have said, the censorship of the time meant the filmmakers couldn't be direct about Geoff. But there are plenty of strong hints and clues throughout the movie.

It helps explain why he and Jo live together as friends, but with zero romantic interest in each other. He does offer to marry her, not because he is in love... but because (1) he is genuinely interested in the baby and providing for Jo; and (2) marriage would conveniently provide both Jo and himself with social cover.

reply

Yes, it's established when he moves into Jo's flat. But obviously he wants to marry Jo because he loved her (like an "older sister"?) and for the baby. FYI homosexuality was illegal back then in England, hence Brian Epstein and many others were in the closet. But this was a film that had interracial relations, a gay, and other things that caused it to be banned in many places.

reply

I can imagine the controversy then. I saw it as a late, late movie in the 90's. I also read the play years ago. Interesting film. The Beatles also had a song with the same title released at the time. I wonder if the film was inspired by the song or vice versa.

reply

The song was written for the 1960 Broadway musical version of the original 1958 play, and versions recorded by many, including The Beatles in 1962.

reply