skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I've finished the book, but I don't know how to react to it quite yet. The blurb on the back says: "They're Britain's 'Wild Ones'-the motorcycle cow-boys who live for fast machines and faster girls.
Who ton-up along the Motorways, terrorising drivers and defying the law. Who experience sex too young, marry unthinkingly and live only for the next kick-whatever or wherever it is.
THE LEATHER BOYS is a savage, brilliantly told novel of these aimless young men and women. It is also the story of Dick and Reggie and the strange, twisted love that developed between them."
Hmm, where do I start with that? I know the book was marketed as sleazy pulp fiction, as that's what was selling at the time, but this blurb really angered me; and for a few reasons. Firstly, it alludes that the characters in the story are British versions of characters from The Wild One (a 1953 Marlon Brando film); then it says that these characters ‘terrorise drivers’ on motorways, yet none of that happens in the book; and the story of Dick and Reggie is the main story of the whole book, so I don’t understand why that is given such little precedence. I’m also upset by the description of their love as strange and twisted, but I realise I’m looking back at it from 2010, and attitudes are very different now.
Okay, the writing isn't as bad as I was expecting. I was expecting it to be a lot more sensationalist, sleazier somehow than it was. The writing focused on telling the reader what a particular character was feeling, “Dick was anxious”, “He was happy here. He liked the friends he had made, or at least he liked Reggie. He was looking forward to going out with Reggie tomorrow”, “Reggie felt lonely and depressed. What a mess life was.” Gillian Freeman obviously hadn’t heard ‘show don’t tell’ when she wrote this book. It’s actually a novella, and only 125 pages long; I read most of it in a few hours. The writing is not great, but there are some lovely stylistic quirks, and the speech is brilliant. The character of Gran especially, she is often hilarious; and old lady’s funny little ways are captured beautifully.
I just didn’t believe the characters: they weren’t developed, and weren’t given the time (both time together, and not many pages) to develop. The film is about Reggie and Dot’s life and their marriage failing, and Pete (Dick in the book) coming into Reggie’s life and turning everything upside down. The book is much more about Dick’s life and Reggie coming into it. In both versions, Dick/Pete is obviously gay; in the book he hasn’t yet accepted it, in the film he has. Freeman’s explanation of what makes a gay man, and how to make a gay story acceptable is to have characters not 'realise' they are gay until they find the right man. Up until he meets Reggie, Pete feels no sexual attraction at all; and when they finally kiss and have sex in Gran's house that's the first time he's ever felt like that. It was obviously written by a straight person, and meant for a straight audience.
All that said, I did enjoy it - but I enjoyed the film more than the book.
I'm having a bit of an old-gay-film fest at the moment; I’ve watched The Leather Boys, A Taste of Honey, and have Pink Narcissus and Derek Jarman’s seminal Sebastian lined up (although I have seen that before).
I only knew about The Leather Boys film because of The Smiths video for Girlfriend in a Coma, and even then didn’t know that it was a classic example of early gay cinema disguised as yet another kitchen sink drama. The book was written in 1961 by Gillian Freeman at the request of her agent and publisher Anthony Blond, who suggested she write about a "Romeo and Romeo in the South London suburbs". She published it as Eliot George (after Mary Ann Evans, who published as George Eliot), possibly to distance herself form such an obvious homosexual work. Unfortunately, I saw the film before I read the book, but I do have a copy of the book which I bought immediately after seeing the film. I know the film and book differ greatly, so this review is just about the film; I’ll review the book separately.
The Leather Boys was one of the first films to violate the Hollywood Production Code (according to Wikipedia), and having read the code, I’m glad it did. It starts innocently enough: a young couple (Reggie, a mechanic and dark-haired Dot, a schoolgirl) get engaged then quickly married, and there is a wonderful sequence where the wedding party all get on a red London double-decker to get to the reception. The couple then go to Butlins on Reggie’s motorbike, and they go to bed on their first night of married life. I have to point out at this point that the title is misleading; many of the boys in the film wear motorbike leathers, but most of the angst and tension of the film occurs when at least one of the main characters is wearing a nice wool jumper, or pyjamas. It’s very British, and I think the title was chosen by Freeman’s publisher in order to sell more books.
The honeymoon doesn’t go according to plan, as it rains solidly for three days (see? Very British!) and Reggie doesn’t want to leave the room, or indeed the bed. They talk idly of having a baby next year, but Dot soon has enough. The next day she goes to the hairdresser and bleaches her hair blonde, Reggie doesn’t like it. They end up arguing and shouting and Reggie ends up staying at his Gran’s house after his Granddad dies, while Dot refuses to move from their bed-sitter. Reggie befriends a blonde young man, who wears leathers and has a powerful motorbike. Pete and Reggie soon become best friends and Reggie persuades Pete to move in with him in Gran’s house as a lodger to give Gran some income. Gran loves Pete, who is cheeky and loving to her, bringing her sweets and kissing her head. Reggie and Pete decide to go on a run to Edinburgh and back with a gang of other bikers from the biker bar they all hang out in. The bar is adorable, when Dot and Reggie arrive at the bar during an early scene, Reggie asks for two cups of tea and the lady replies “eightpence dear.” I wish I could go to that bar.
Dot cheats on Reggie (with Mike Baldwin from Coronation Street) and the relationship goes down the tubes, helped along by Pete. Pete is a very different homosexual from Geoffrey Ingham (A Taste of Honey, 1961). Pete is queeny, repressed and flamboyant, and Geoff is reserved and dignified yet still camp and artistic. Pete is obviously in love with Reggie, which is why he does his best to keep him away from Dot. Reggie has no idea that the man sharing the spare bedroom of his Gran’s house is gay and in love with him. Pete comes up with a way for them to be together, he says they should jump on a boat and sail away to America. I think he sees this as a romantic way for them to be together, and if Reggie agrees then he truly does want to be with Pete. Them sailing away has become, in Pete’s mind, them being together as a couple. Pete never actually states that he is gay, nor does the film ever confirm that he is, yet it is meant to be obvious that the audience know his sexual orientation – and thereby his feelings for and towards Reggie.
I think that Reggie might have let something happen, he’d already asked, in a round-a-bout way, if Pete was gay; this was prompted by Dot’s angry statement “Looked more like a couple o’ queers to me.” So long as both men did not admit anything to each other, then they could have this best friend, brotherly relationship that involved them sleeping in the same bed; looking after each other; sailing away together. Reggie finally decides that he wants to sail away from his life, that he has nothing to stay for, so he informs Pete who promptly packs in his job and they go to buy tickets. Pete tells Reggie to go for a drink in the pub at the docks and wait for him.
This is where Pete and Reggie’s fragile ur-relationship breaks. Reggie is surrounded by the kind of simpering gay man people were used to seeing on the screen in the 60s. Awful queeny stereotypes, all limp wrists and speaking in Polari (old British gay slang from the 50s and 60s) who swarm around Reggie, interested to see Pete’s new ‘companion’. A bald man with a terrible Welsh accent laughs when he sees Pete in biker leathers, and he says “oh, and in that drag!” which implies that Pete does not normally wear biker leathers, but he has been wearing them to be friends with Reggie. Reggie looks to Pete for help, but realises Pete knows these men and accepts a drink of gin off the bald man. Reggie then learns that the ship is going to Cardiff not America, again he questions Pete, but Pete replies that Reggie wanted to leave immediately and that was the first ship to leave.
It all becomes too much for Reggie: the old queens draping themselves on his shoulders, staring at him, a seeming betrayal from his best friend, so he takes his suitcase and leaves the pub. Pete runs after him to try and stop him. Reggie turns to look at Pete; he now knows that Pete is gay, and that he is in love with him. Reggie smiles sadly, and Pete returns the smile. Reggie walks away. It is a terribly sad ending (but homosexuals weren’t allowed happy endings back then), but not hopelessly so. Reggie doesn’t hate Pete; his sad smile is for what could have been, if both he and the world were different. I think Reggie might have been happy with Pete, maybe not forever, and probably not in a sexual way – but his companionship would have been enough. When Pete finally decided to let Reggie into his world, gay pubs, Polari, queens, it was too much for him.
It’s a great film, with some lovely comedic moments, and more than a few tragic moments too. The acting and script are of a high enough standard; but as a queer movie-goer viewing the film now, it seems that there is something missing. I’m sure the studio had a lot to do with how the openly-gay men were portrayed (terrible Welsh accents and all), and how the story ended. I hope the book ends on a happier note, or if I’ll have to re-read E.M. Forster’s Maurice again afterwards.
