Written under the supervision of doc. Clare Wallace, PhD, M.A., and submitted on 16 January 2015, this essay was part of my total coursework at the Department of Anglophone Literatures and Cultures at Charles University’s Faculty of Arts. The essay is published with the kind permission of the faculty.

Contentious Themes and Censorship in Shelagh Delaney’s A Taste of Honey

While Shelagh Delaney’s 1958 play A Taste of Honey may be somewhat forgotten nowadays by the mainstream public – that is in spite of its 2014 staging at the National Theatre – at the time of its first appearance on stage it drew a lot of attention to itself. The play comments on such varying themes as miscegenation, homosexuality, alcoholism, child neglect and struggles of the lower class, and in that sense it must have seemed rather daring to the contemporary audience who were to some degree still unaccustomed to such scandalous motifs in theatre. The fact that the play was adapted in 1961 into a movie – let alone a movie which won four BAFTA Awards that year including the one for Best British Film – only shows that there was a perceivable shift in the British arts and society regarding what was acceptable in theatre and film. In order to zoom in on the way the play and the film really handle all those contentious topics – mainly the topic of homosexuality –, this essay will take a closer look at how and why Delaney works with them in her dramatic piece, and then compare and contrast it with its movie adaptation.

A Taste of Honey elaborates on a staggering amount of themes which would certainly seem audacious at the time of the play’s release: there is a love story between a black man and a white girl, an out-of-wedlock child, an out gay character, there are not-so-subtle hints of child neglect, a mention of abortion, and the whole plot takes place in a lower class setting in which certain characters drink life fish and speak, curse, and blaspheme using „vocabulary, idiom, and syntax that is freshly colloquial in ways that middle and upper-class English speech is not“ (Oberg, 161). When writing the play, Delaney perhaps felt emboldened by the Act of 1958 which, as Arthur Marwick describes, „made literary quality a defence against prosecutions of obscenity in literature“ (Marwick, 195), so she may have decided to seize the opportunity of finally not being held back by censorship and fill the play to the brim with bold themes which were under– or misrepresented on the English stage.

The problem is that for every two steps forward she seems to make one step back. For instance, she creates a likeable character of a black man who dates the lead female character, but still names him Boy in the text of the play and has him leave her forever after impregnating her. Then she mentions abortion but only once and in passing, never going into any details, never describing the inner turmoil a character might feel, never elaborating on the pros and cons of such procedure, merely calling it „terrible“ (Delaney) and moving on. Even the gay character of Geof is far from perfect.

Delaney decided to include a gay character in the play in order to correct, as Christopher Innes writes in Modern British Drama: The Twentieh Century, „what she perceived as insensitivity in the way [Terrence] Rattigan portrayed homosexuality“ (Innes, 80). Rattigan was a prominent mid century dramatist one of whose dominant motifs was „the theme of disguised personality“ (Innes, 80). A lot of characters in his plays – for instance the lead character in The Deep Blue Sea (1952) or the character of the Major in Separate Tables (1954) – are gay but not overtly so. Perhaps due to the fact that Rattigan wanted (or needed) to avoid „overt confrontation with the values of an average spectator“ (Innes, 81), he made significant use of dramatic codes and hints to make sure that some spectators knew what ailed his characters while others were left in the blissful dark. Innes adds that, „Rattigan’s metaphorical masking was a form of generalisation that had distinct theatrical advantages, adding depth through indirection, and increasing intensity by setting up barriers to direct expression“ (Innes, 80).

As Dan Rabellato argues, „To criticise authors of the period for shirking homosexual representation in their work is inappropriate. For one thing, Lord Chamberlain would not have it“ (Rabellato, 184). Over the course of the 1950’s, though, mainly thanks to the Wolfenden Report, which decriminalized homosexuality, and the influence of the imported American cinematography, which was growing a little more relaxed in these matters thanks to the gradual weakening of the power of the dreaded Code, even the British censorship apparatus grew more open to the idea of depicting homosexuality on stage and in film. Thus what may have been a perfectly functioning necessity for Rattigan felt dated and insincere to Delaney, and therefore she opted to construct a „self-tagging, individual homosexual, conducting himself with honesty, openness, and clarity“ (Rabellato, 216),  she constructed the character of Geof.

Unfortunately, Geof is not the most auspicious depiction of a gay man. Dan Rabellato explains that Geof is just like the rest of gay characters created at this time in theatre, „shorn of [his] subversive performativity – [his] queerness“ (Rabellato, 218). As the Time Magazine hilariously described it, „The homosexual in A Taste of Honey displays valor, humor, ethos, pathos, and a touching reminder that men who become women sometimes become good women“ (Norriega, 33). Since this was the 1950’s one should perhaps not be overly surprised or offended by this blatant conflation of homosexuality with femininity. In any case, by this statement Time perhaps not only points to the fact that Delaney has Geof showering Jo with motherly love rather than erotic one, taking care of her, cooking for her, and buying clothes for the baby, but also alludes to the scene in which Jo tells him, „You’re just like a big sister to me“ (54).

In other words, A Taste of Honey paints Geof with a suspicious amount of stereotypically feminine strokes for a man; and his homosexuality is sidelined not only by the fact that he is the single one gay person in the whole play (he does not have any real romantic interests and never even talks about the subject) but mainly by his insistence and tenacity to become a sort of straight-acting family man, a „lavender“ husband to Jo. Still, the play makes it very clear that Geof is gay, and that was indeed a rather progressive move at the time. It was something new, something unseen, something that only five or ten years prior to that point Lord Chamberlain would not have allowed to appear on stage. In this respect the play deserves praise.

As Robert Shail writes in his book British Film Directors: A Critical Guide, the 1961 movie adaptation of the play was equally remarkable for breaking the same kinds of taboos mentioned above in the film medium – taboos including „a sexual relationship between a white girl and a black man and having an obviously gay character in a sympathetic role“ (Shail, 180). It is therefore apparent that the progress in the world of theatre was essentially mirrored in the film industry. John Trevelyan, Secretary of the Board of the British Board of Film Censors, wrote a letter particularly relevant to this discussion about the changing approaches towards depicting homosexuality both on the stage and in film. The letter was addressed to British screenwriter and playwright Janet Green and in it Trevelyan draws together several aforementioned events and tendencies, both domestic and international, which helped change the social climate in Britain and allowed for such motifs to be displayed:

We have never banned the subject of homosexuality from the screen but we have not until recently had very much censorship trouble with it, partially because American film producers were prevented from dealing with the subject by the inflexible ruling of the Code and because British film producers knew that the subject was not one of general discussion in this country and was one that would probably not be acceptable to British audiences. Recently the situation has changed in this country due on the one hand to the Wolfenden Report, which was followed up by a good deal of free discussion in the press and on radio and television, and on the other hand to the Lord Chamberlain making a public announcement in the press that he was now willing to accept homosexuality as a theme for stage plays. (Robertson, 121)

However, while these lines may seem quite optimistic, Chon Noriega points out that, „film reviewers nonetheless perceived themselves to be writing against the prejudices of their readers. The usual complaint was that audiences would not approve of the ‚real homosexuals‘ depicted“ (Noriega, 34). This may very well be the reason why, even in the film, the character of Geof is the only gay person around, and why the filmmakers do not really draw too much attention to his homosexuality.

It is true that the director Tony Richardson decided to fight censorship by making the character stereotypically effeminate and therefore obviously gay (Shail, 244), introducing him in a shoe shop buying shoes, having him mince his words a little bit, and endowing him with a handful of other laughable stereotypes, but throughout the play Geof never as much as looks at another man, and in that his sexual orientation is made safe and inoffensive. In other words, the censors would not have anything to cut out even if they wanted to.

They certainly would not need to dispose of all the homophobic insults, which are present in the play. Tony Richardson made sure that Jo’s exclamation that she and Geof are both „a couple of degenerates“ (52) as well as all put-downs by Helen and Peter who call Geof „a pansified little freak“ (63), „fruitcake parcel“ (68) and „arty little freak“ (79) were eliminated from the script before the film even started shooting.

This brings us to the differences between A Taste of Honey the play and its film adaptation, and to the topic of censorship. For all the talk about how this movie „made film history by shattering many long-standing taboos regarding the representation of illegitimacy, miscegenation, and homosexuality“ (Shail, 243), the film was in fact made relatively toothless when compared with the edgy source material. While it is true that the main gist of the story remained untouched, so many – very specific – little details were omitted that certain patterns come to surface.

Before we take a closer look at these details and patterns, though, a couple of important questions need to be addressed. First of all, when adapting the play, Shelagh Delaney and Tony Richardson left out a great portion of the original text but that does not necessarily mean that they did so because all of it was either too inappropriate to show on the silver screen, or because they knew that it would not go past the studio or the censors. In fact most of these omissions seem to be merely routine cuts made in order to speed the flow of cinematic narration and reduce the running time of the movie. Some changes were also made because the play underwent a great deal of restructuring when being adapted. Scenes from the play were cut into pieces and rearranged in order to make them shorter and the movie thus more cinematic. For the same reason there were significant changes in the location of the scenes as the movie „opened up“ and „spread out“.

While some changes are relatively unimportant for our discussion because they were the natural side effect of the play being adapted into another medium, others provide much more interesting material for analysis. They are either so specific or they repeat with such consistency that, when noticed, they make one wonder whether the reason they were made truly had to do with the running time or the narrative flow. Without further ado, then, let us take a look at some of these alterations and/or omissions.

First big group of such changes consists of – with one exception – any and all references to religion or lines of dialogue which may have caused uproar in the religious community. Thus Helen’s line „Well, thank God for the divorce courts!“ (41) is missing and so is her admission that „I was married to a Puritan“ (44). Peter in the movie, in line with the aforementioned omissions of all homophobic slurs, does not say to Geof „Well, is anybody coming for a few drinks? You staying with the ladies, Jezebel?“ (66). Furthermore, Helen’s line from the play „Marriage can be hell for a kid“ (41) is cleverly changed in the film to „Marriage can be murder for a kid“ thus delivering it from the dangerously religious level of that statement.

It is not entirely surprising that these references were left on the floor of the editing room for they could be used to spin a story that would label the movie immoral or even blasphemous, and the resulting negative publicity would certainly hurt the film’s box office results. No studio would take that risk so even if Lord Chamberlain was willing to leave those words in the movie and allow the film to be released, the filmmakers themselves would surely be hesitant to use them.

Saying that, it might be interesting to note that the only character in the whole film who ever says anything connected to religion – „Go to hell“ (A Taste of Honey), and „The devil’s own!“ (59 min 26 sec) – is none other than Geof the homosexual. He is also the one to bring up such religiously contentious topic as abortion as evidenced in the following exchange with Jo: „You can get rid of babies before they’re born, you know? / I know, but I think that’s terrible“ (49).  Nevertheless it would certainly be wiser to see this more as an amusing observation rather than a serious statement on the part of Richardson and Delaney’s characterisation of the one gay character in the play.

Another area which was significantly trimmed down in the movie adaptation is the characters‘ drinking habits. In the play in particular Helen is often times seen drinking, talking about drinking or being outright drunk. In the first act she says, „The extent of my credulity always depends on the extent of my alcoholic intake. Eat, drink, and be merry –“ (34). Later on Jo accuses her, „You’ve emptied more bottles down your throat in the last few weeks than I would have thought possible“ (42). Finally, in the second act Helen rejects Jo’s offer of a cup of tea and instead asks, „Have you got anything stronger“ (77)? All of these passages are missing in the film, though. Helen is still seen with an occasional bottle in hand but Delaney’s possible commentary on the connection between lower classes and alcohol is largely lost in the adaptation.

Even the quick exchange between Jo and Geof about beer, whiskey, and gin (51) is missing so apart from the occasional music-hall-inspired scene from a pub, the only person seen under the influence is Peter at the end of the play. At that point he is supposed to appear unlikeable and being drunk and mean is presumably meant to help achieve that goal. Perhaps it was from the fear of making her unlikeable, then, that the character of Helen needed to sober up in the film.

Finally, there was a large amount of details, single words or lines of dialogue, which were rather tellingly altered or omitted – presumably because they might have been perceived as too offensive or controversial to some viewers and therefore potentially hurtful to the critical and financial success of the film. For clarity, let us make a list of them now:

– In the film Helen does not say, „Why, had we run short of cemetery space? Well, I’ve always said we should be used for manure when we’re gone“ (14). It was most probably omitted due to its exceedingly vulgar nature. The same reason may have been behind removing her line, „You’ll find the communal latrine and wash-house at the end of the passage“ (15). In case of Helen’s exclamation, „This whole city smells“ (11), or Peter’s insistence that Helen „blow your nose“ (17), however, it is equally possible that the omission had to do rather with the fact that film as such is a visual medium so certain things are better shown than told.

– Plenty of potentially insulting mentions to foreign nations or ethnic minorities were disposed of in the adaptation. In the beginning of the film Helen does not compare herself to a „gipsy“ (14) as she does in the play. There is also not a single reference to „Sheik Ahmed – that Arabian mystic“ (28) or the „Arabian Knight“ (29). Finally, Geof’s japes towards Jo – „Never mind, it’s not your fault [that you are Irish]“ (72), and, „Now you’re being Irish“ (73). – were for obvious reasons also eliminated.

– When talking about her father with Jo, Helen uses expressions such as „idiot“, „daft“ and „half-wit“ (47 min 8 sec) in the movie, but in the play she goes even further calling him „retarded“ (43). Since this word would be too offensive for such a widely released film, it simply had to be altered.

– Both in the play and in the film Jo tells the Boy that her mother, „Whatever else she might be, she isn’t prejudiced [against colour]“ (23). However, whereas the movie Helen, upon learning that her daughter is expecting a baby with a black man, simply goes outside for a couple of beers, the play Helen has a lot more to say. For example, she recommends Jo to, „Drown it“ (86), and then, when she finds out that Jo’s nurse is black too she says, „Good, perhaps she’ll adopt it. Dear God in heaven“ (86)! Perhaps these lines were omitted because they did not fit the redeeming arch of this character, but even if that was the case, they also deprived the character of an additional layer of ghastliness, as well as a part of her personality.

– Finally, the oddest change of all: For some strange and inexplicable reason, the Boy says in the movie that he comes from „Liverpool“ (23 min 49 sec), whereas in the play he states he is from „Cardiff“ (25).

In conclusion, while Shelagh Delaney’s play A Taste of Honey may be from time to time celebrated as a revolutionary play which presented topics on the British stage no one had dared to present in the same way before we should not disregard all the issues with those themes, their number, their nature, and at times their lack of proper development. We should also be wary of believing the same kind of statements about the film adaptation of the play, which is even less revolutionary and audacious than the original piece of drama. While it is clear that both incarnations of the story have withstood the test of time – as evidenced by the theatre revivals of the play and the fact that the movie was ranked among the British Film Institute’s Top 100 British Films in 1999 – it is vital that we examine them with critical eye instead of blind admiration. The play may have honey in its title but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Bibliography:

Works Cited:

A Taste of Honey. Dir. Tony Richardson. Prod. Tony Richardson. Screenplay Tony Richardson and Shelagh Delaney. British Lion Films, 1961.

Delaney, Shelagh. A Taste of Honey. New York: Grove Press, 1959.

Innes, Christopher. Modern British Drama: The Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Noriega, Chon. „Something Is Missing Here!: Homosexuality and Film Reviews during the Production Code Era, 1934-1962“. Cinema Journal 30.1 (1990).

Obelkevich, James, and Peter Catterall, eds. Understanding Post-War British Society. London: Routledge, 1994.

Oberg, Arthur K. „A Taste of Honey and the Popular Play“. Wisconsin in Contemporary Literature 7.2 (1966).

Rabellato, Dan. 1956 and All That: The Making of Modern British Drama. London: Routledge, 1999.

Robertson, James C. The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action, 1913-1975. London: Routledge, 1989.

Shail, Robert. British Film Directors: A Critical Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.

 

Works Consulted:

Collins, Michael J. „Review: A Taste of Honey by Shelagh Delaney“. Theatre Journal 33.4 (1981).

MacKillop, Ian, and Neil Sinyard, eds. British Cinema of the 1950s: A Celebration. New York: Manchester University Press, 2003.

Summers, Claude J. ed. The Queer Encyclopedia of Film and Television. San Francisco: Cleis Press, 2005.