30 PLAYS IN 30 DAYS: Play #20 "Tea and Sympathy" by Robert Anderson

 

I have decided for the month of September to read 30 plays in 30 days. It is my belief that, if possible, a play should be read in one sitting to get a better inherent sense of the dramatic arc. Each day, I will write a short post here about the play of the day.

Play #20

Tea and Sympathy by Robert Anderson

When reading Tea and Sympathy today, I couldn't help but feel this successful Broadway play from 1953 (it ran for over 700 performances) is certainly dated. But the fact that the play made me angry and sad also demonstrates what no one can deny--- it is still relevant. It shouldn't have to be--- one wishes it were a relic, something for people of today to look at and say, "Wow, can you believe people used to be like this?"  But it's not. It is still timely in its way. 

Tom goes to a an all-boys private school. He has a huge crush on Laura, a house mother at his dorm, who's marriage to Bill, a real "man's man" who wants to be headmaster someday, is not what she hoped it would be. Right at the beginning, bully Ralph has spread a rumor that Tom and a teacher named Mr. Harris were discovered swimming naked together--- it is not true. Mr. Harris, in his only scene, asks Tom if he told the Dean something had happened, but Tom is completely in the dark. Harris is going away. 

Laura, upset about these rumors that will affect Tom, and have gotten Harris fired without proof, confronts her husband, only to be told that men know when other men are off. And for the rest of the play, Tom is miserable, trying to prove that he is a man, even though his well-meaning roommate Al tells him he needs to cut his hair and "not walk so light". But even Al fails his friend, and, after pressure from his dad, intends to move out of the room. 

Bill, unprofessionally, spreads rumors about Tom, perhaps even jealous of the lad, because his wife has an interest in his well being. 

This play is tough: it is an early example of an American play dealing with sexual orientation, even though Tom is not gay, just sensitive and in love with Laura, who he can't be with. It talks a lot about when it means to be a "man" and criticizes what is known today as toxic masculinity. It criticizes notions that bullying is actually good for young men and helps them grow up. It criticizes the notion that men cannot be sensitive, cannot weep from emotion, cannot be different. These are all pretty impressive traits for a play in 1953. 

It was hard for me to read it at times, as I was called homophobic slurs constantly in high school, and had rumors spread about me being gay. Fortunately, I have always known that being called gay isn't an insult, even if it isn't true. There is nothing wrong with being gay. I would rather be mistaken for gay than be mistaken for being a misogynist, homophobic jerk. And even though the character Tom doesn't have that luxury, I do think the play is trying to send that message. 

The ending of course, which I won't spoil here, is perhaps problematic, but still, much better than I expected it to be. Laura is a great female character, very well rounded, and while not all of her motivations ring true, I imagine she was quite ahead of her time. 

As I wrote above, the play was a big success, directed by Elia Kazan and starring Deborah Kerr, Leif Erickson, Dick York and John Kerr (no relation). The play was then made into a movie in 1956, with Deborah, Leif and John reprising their stage roles.