 |
|
3.1.11.1 Questions and labels.
** Who seemed like a "queer mob"?
Bert Rieper declared that the Marriage Guidance Council seemed like a "queer
mob" when Juliet told him of her mother's involvement. Bert did not think the Council
was composed of homosexuals. The word "queer" did not have that connotation at
the time and place shown in "Heavenly Creatures." It was a common slang term
which could be used in reasonably polite company, as Bert used it, meaning
"unusual" with an associated negative value judgement attached.
"Queer" was also used as a verb, meaning to make inoperable or to break just
enough to make something useless. In real life, Pauline used the word quite liberally in
her diary entries, meaning "strange" or "unusual" by it. Jackson
omitted Pauline's asides of "s'queer" and "queerly" in the quotes used
in the voicover, possibly because they would have generated snickering in modern
audiences. And possibly as a 'significant clue' to his conclusions about the girls'
relationship.
** Who was bothered by Pauline & Juliet's
relationship?
Concerns over the 'intensity' of Pauline and Juliet's friendship escalated
throughout the film. By the second half of the film, all adults in the girls' immediate
families were preoccupied with labelling the girls' relationship and with separating them,
with the possible exception of Hilda Hulme. The final North American release version of
the film has less extreme and explicit concerns voiced by the characters than those
featured in an early draft of the screenplay (Heavenly Creatures, Draft #5, February 7,
1993, Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Beverly
Hills, CA.)
** Did anyone else worry about the relationship?
Glamuzina and Laurie state the following (p. 72): "By late 1953, the Riepers
in particular had become very concerned about Pauline. According to one of the teachers,
the school [CGHS] had contacted both the Riepers and the Hulmes sometime in 1953 regarding
the 'unhealthy' relationship between the two girls and to say that the school 'didn't like
their association'. The teacher said that Hilda Hulme replied that 'she wasn't prepared to
interfere in her daughter's friendships...'" [G&L] [note: This must have been
before May 21, 1953. jp] Miss Stewart was a family friend from the 1920s. A story that
surfaced recently is that Miss Stewart consulted with my mother re the two girls. My
mother had processed three girls through adolescence, so that was not unusual. [mc] The
early draft of "Heavenly Creatures" mentioned above (see 3.1.25) has Hilda Hulme
say the exact line quoted by G&L. It also has several more scenes which didn't make it
to the final release version in which the girls' relationship is discussed explicitly by
the central characters. [lfr] The final North American release version of "Heavenly
Creatures" has no characters outside of Dr Bennett, the Hulmes and the Riepers
voicing concern about the girls' relationship. This is too bad, because in real life other
members of the public did take note of the girls' relationship. Nailing down the extent of
public notice, and public pressure, is a very important point to understanding the case
and this aspect may not have been treated faithfully in "Heavenly Creatures."
[jp]
** Why was labelling the relationship so
important?
This is a very complex question. The motives for pursuing the issue were different
for each character in "Heavenly Creatures." Broadly speaking, the families were
responding in part to intense social and even legal pressures to conform to rigid social
norms of conduct. We are told, indirectly, that Christchurch had a particularly
conservative, 'more-British-than- thou' social structure in the opening stock footage. The
girls were blithely, innocently and quite publicly ignoring the norms of their community.
This behaviour was bound to generate unwanted public attention for both families,
especially for the Hulmes who were a very prominent family, socially. Remember, this was a
small, close community in which chins would wag at the slightest provocation. Sometimes
spontaneously, too, with no provocation. But the parents were also reacting, within the
norms of the time and place, to what they perceived to be a mentally unhealthy situation.
It could be argued that much of the parents' reaction was generated by a genuine concern
for the health and happiness of the girls, even if it may seem misguided or ill-informed
to modern eyes. Labelling and understanding the girls' relationship was seen as a
necessary step to dealing with it. With provisos attached (see below).
** Who first openly raised the spectre of
homosexuality?
Henry Hulme did, in his elliptical, cunning, quietly aggressive conversation with
the Riepers in their living room. Henry Hulme was careful to phrase his comments in such a
way as to imply that Pauline was forming an unhealthy attachment to Juliet. The
cinematography and soundtrack during this scene are particularly ominous and effective.
** What was Honora's immediate reaction?
After Dr Hulme said that Pauline was forming an "unwholesome" attachment
to Juliet, Honora jumped into the conversation with: "What's she done?!" This is
an important line. Honora gets Dr Hulme's drift immediately, and even leaps ahead of his
thinking. This is a clear statement from Jackson that Honora knew about lesbianism and she
clearly didn't approve of it.
** Was an accusation of homosexuality a big deal
then?
Absolutely. This was a very serious charge, carrying with it wide-ranging
repercussions. One strength of the book by Glamuzina & Laurie (see 7.7) is their
discussion of this issue in depth.
** Were Honora's reactions extreme?
Honora's reactions to Dr Hulme's talk and to Dr Bennett's 'diagnosis' would not
have been considered extreme at the time. My mother probably would have reacted in the
same way if she thought one of her kids was homosexual--and would probably still react in
the same way. Then, people seemed to think there was something both morally and mentally
wrong with you if you were that way inclined.
** What social consequences awaited an accused
lesbian?
According to the social norms of the time and place, being publicly labelled a
practicing lesbian would have brought discrimination, scandal and social ruin upon a woman
and her family, because societal expectations for women were so narrowly defined. There
would have been profound public revulsion, ostracism and social condemnation of the woman.
(The public reaction to the crime gives plenty of evidence of this kind of reaction,
though it isn't shown in the film.) Both families were well aware of this, though
consequences would have been quite different for the well-placed Hulmes and the
working-class Riepers. Socially, the Hulmes had the most to lose from such an accusation.
Dr Hulme had the most to lose, professionally, from the scandal such an accusation would
bring. However, the Riepers probably would have been intimidated by social pressure to a
greater extent than the Hulmes would have been.
** What legal repercussions awaited a 'proven'
lesbian?
Homosexuality was officially classified at the time as a mental disorder. It could
be used to deny applications for visas or immigration to most countries, including the US
(it is still a question asked of immigrants to the US, for which the penalty for a false
answer is deportation)--hence the escape to Hollywood could have been aborted legally by
the American INS. A positive 'diagnosis' could also have been used in custody arguments in
the Hulme's impending divorce, for example. G&L state that sexual practices of
lesbians weren't illegal in 1954, though some practices of gay males were until quite
recently. In 1961 it became illegal in NZ for a woman over the age of 21 to have sex with
a girl under the age of 16. Being labelled a lesbian could affect employment, especially
in the Armed Forces (where it was cause for dismissal), the public service, in terms of
security clearances, jobs that required bonding, jobs that involved teaching or
supervising children etc.
** What medical repercussions were there?
Glamuzina and Laurie detail scholarly research and they also document anecdotal
evidence that women who thought they might have been lesbians, or who had been accused, in
the New Zealand of the 50s, could face medical treatments of various kinds if
convinced/coerced into it. Even if treatment wasn't followed through, an 'accused' woman
would have had to face very confusing and damaging accusations, doubts and fears no matter
if she were lesbian or not.
** What was known about homosexuality by common
folk?
For most people, there was simply no 'official' information on this topic. It was
not a subject which could be looked up casually in the local library, for example.
Consequently, information (and misinformation) was passed along by word of mouth, or not
at all. Quite apart from the general social etc opprobrium, is the fact that it was
probably never officially mentioned. Films, books etc with homosexual/lesbian themes were
banned, and indeed PYP and JMH would not have had any accurate information about such
things, and no way to see their relationship in a wider context. G&L have a very good
chapter on this aspect of the case. In his Forward to "Daughters of Heaven" by
Michaelanne Forster, Elric Hooper wrote: "I was a first year student at Canterbury
College at the time (of the murder). I remember leaning against a green corrugated iron
fence, balancing my bike, and exchanging wonder with someone equally ill-informed about
life. I heard the word 'lesbian' for the first time."
** Was there a gulf between adult and adolescent
sophistication?
Although Christchurch adults knew little about homosexuality at the time,
adolescents tended to know even less, about all aspects of human sexuality. Most
adolescents were far less well informed about many, many things than is the case now. The
enormous amount that is learned about life in general as a teenager is learned at an
accelerated rate, and earlier, with all the media information we get now. I would be very
surprised if the girls really, knowingly, had a lesbian relationship.
** Did CGHS girls talk about lesbianism at
school?
I do not recall any talk about lesbianism at school (CGHS '46-'50 incl.). There was
a teacher at St Margaret's with mannish haircut and manners, and we laughed at that, the
way children do. That is my only memory. [mc] Believe it or not, I didn't know a thing
about the murder until years later, and the kinds of issues raised in the trial would have
been kept well out of hearing range in my family. Girls from Rangi Ruru (a private girls
school) used to say it was a 'lesbians training school,' but I didn't really know what a
lesbian was until I was an adult. My mother (bless her heart) refused to tell me! People
were just so prudish back then (early 60s). I was in University before I met anyone who
admitted they were homosexual. [maw]
** What lesbian stereotypes were
commonly-believed in '54?
If the topic was raised, these things might have been mentioned: * Predatory
lesbians seduced budding young girls. * Straight girls could be turned into lesbians by
being seduced, especially if they were impressionable or naive. * Predatory lesbians could
sometimes be identified by their overly-masculine traits. * Lesbians had high libidos and
powerful sex-drives. When sexually frustrated they could be violent or murderous and they
were more likely to be criminals. * Homosexuality was a mental illness or defect. Dr
Bennett says of Pauline: "She'll probably grow out of it. And if not, well, medical
science is progressing in leaps and bounds. There could be a cure any day." *
Homosexuality was 'unnatural,' 'perverted,' 'evil,' 'sinful' (still believed by many) but
also, apparently, irresistable to the naive. * It was a phase passed through by some girls
in adolescence. * Homosexuality was dangerous. It undermined the stability of society. *
Lesbians were created by close, smothering attention of their mothers. * Lesbians were men
trapped in women's bodies. * Lesbians hated men. * Lesbians could be 'cured' through
medical intervention and converted back into heterosexuals.
** Did the "Parker Hulme" case have any
lasting repercussions at CGHS in real life?
The only thing I knew that was odd at the school in the early 60s, and I didn't
understand it until I saw the film, was that girls in one class who got too friendly were
put into different classes the next year. I must have been so naive, then. [note: G&L
mention in several places this kind of vigilance, both private and 'institutional,' over
girls and their friendships in the years following the case. jp]
