Welcome back to our queer film retrospective, “A Gay Old Time.” In this week’s column, we revisit 1971’s Sunday Bloody Sunday, a surprisingly open-minded film about a queer love triangle.
One of the goals of this column is highlighting the ways in which the LGBTQ+ community has been underserved and underrepresented in cinema over the years. By revisiting little-seen films that put us and our stories at the center, or discussing more mainstream projects that sidelined or subtly hinted at us, we can track how our community’s portrayal in media has grown, changed, and—in some cases—first started to appear.
The vast majority of examples we are able to focus on concern the L, the G, and (to a more complex degree) the T letters of our alphabet family. The B seems to be a bit more evasive.
It’s rare to find well-delineated bisexual characters throughout early Hollywood history; people whose bisexuality goes beyond mere portrayals of promiscuity, standing in as symbols of debauchery, loose morals, or even plain villainy. Take for example a film we discussed not too long ago, Something For Everyone: Michael York, as deliciously Machiavellian as he was, still used his bisexuality to trick and deceive people for his own personal greed.
Within that context, the 1971 British drama Sunday Bloody Sunday is nothing less than groundbreaking—not just for centering an openly bisexual character at the literal center of a plot at a time where the opposite was the norm. But also for its depiction of polyamory and gay love in an honest, emotional, and often thorny lens.
The Set-Up
Director John Schlesinger’s follow-up to Midnight Cowboy, Sunday Bloody Sunday revolves around three characters in an open love triangle in London: Alex Greville (Glenda Jackson), a middle-aged divorcée who often nannies for a couple in the suburbs. Daniel Hirsh (Peter Finch), a gay Jewish doctor whose overwhelming patients are getting on his last nerve. And the man they are both emotionally and sexually involved with, Bob Elkin (Murray Head), a young Bohemian artist who has a much easier time navigating the relationship than the other two.
The film takes place approximately over one week, where Bob keeps going back and forth between Alex and Daniel. He spends a weekend with Alex looking over the children of their friends…. well, part of the weekend. Bob leaves halfway to go be with Daniel, with whom he is planning a trip to Italy.
For the duration of that week, Alex and Daniel (who are both very aware of the other’s existence and what the common denominator is) fight for the time and affections of Bob, and have to be satisfied with whatever little he is able to give. Both of their individual daily routines are emotionally empty and monotonous, so half a Bob is better than no Bob at all.
The Love Triangle
Although Bob is the person and catalyst that connects everyone, the movie is more of a character study of the two people on the other sides of the love triangle. Not for nothing it was Jackson and Finch that got the Oscar nominations for their performances.
Alex, coming out of a failed marriage and with a childhood scarred by war and abandonment, is seemingly only able to carry on with her life when she’s with Bob. They play house together with children that are not their own; they become the family that her parents were not, and the one she failed to make by herself. At least for a little while (for a single “bloody Sunday,” one might say), she lives in a fantasy life with him. But then the fantasy breaks when Bob leaves to give that same fantasy to someone else.
Much in the same way he gives Alex the family home she lacked and yearns for, Bob gives Daniel the romantic love life that he cannot have. Daniel’s days are full of people coming in and out of his practice, complaining about inexistent problems, refusing to listen to his instructions, and calling him at all hours. He is a ball of frustration and anxiety. But with Bob, he gets lost in sex, art, and Italian lessons.
More Than A F*ckboy
The movie could have easily made Bob just an avatar for the desires and projections of his two lovers, and turn him into yet another bisexual character that uses his sexual guiles for his own pleasure and advancement. And in many ways, Bob is that. But he’s not just that. By showing how he’s unable to fulfill the lives of Alex and Daniel, the movie wisely demonstrates how that’s also incredibly unfulfilling for his own life.
We don’t really see much of Bob’s life outside his relationship with Alex and Daniel, which gives the impression that there isn’t much life there. For as much as he moves between the two, and toys with their expectations and feelings, his own day-to-day is filled by the time he spends with them. We see what Alex and Daniel are like when Bob is not around. It’s not fulfilling, but it is something. Bob doesn’t seem to exist outside this triangle, and that’s weighing down on him.
Passing Bi
By the end of the film, Bob decides to leave for New York and open an art gallery. It’s after he makes this decision that David and Alex actually meet for the first time, and realize they too have to move on. What they thought was giving them freedom was actually keeping all of them trapped.
Sunday Bloody Sunday is a much more introspective and meditative film than what its concept would imply. Yes, there is sexy fun to be enjoyed with the younger man that goes back and forth between his two partners. But the film really is about the realization that half a person is not enough; a bold statement to make at a time with a bisexual character at its center, an identity that had historically been portrayed as only half of something. There’s always been much more to them.
Sunday Bloody Sunday is now streaming on Prime Video, Tubi, and Pluto TV.
Related:
Love, uncoupled: 5 great films—and one TV series—about unconventional queer romances
This Valentine’s Day, look beyond the couple with this list of quote-unquote “nontraditional” queer love stories.
correctio
well I’m a little bit dumber for having read this, my fault really, dunno why I come to this website
bachy
This is actually a terrific film, and the article delivers a good analysis. I liked it because it portrays queer characters embedded in the real world of diverse emotional interactions, and not just relegated to a gay ghetto where everyone is depicted waving gay flags 24/7.
Not sure what you’re complaining about.
Doug
This is one of the best films I’ve ever seen, I have the Criterion blu ray version of it. The kissing scene was quite surprising and shocking when the film was first released, I remember the gasps in the audience when it would happen.
monty clift
The gay kissing scene was the only interesting part of the movie and the main reason anyone watched it in the first place lol. There are plenty of gay representation in films/ shows out there that are better and have nothing to do with flag waving than these sexually wishy-washy outdated (conversion) movies that are a dime a dozen.
Joshooeerr
Is there some rule in fine print somewhere that dictates that the first comment on any article can only be from some bitter moron with absolutely nothing to add to the conversation?
abfab
”The Bitter Moron”. Love that. MC is not someone who should be reviewing film or anything, for that matter. A bore.
dbmcvey
So, correctio, were you the one who said that trans people are an offense to first wave feminists?
ScottOnEarth
Thanks, Jorge. Definitely looks like a movie worth checking out. I appreciate that you discuss movies that I’ve never heard of and end up loving.
Jim
With these actors it’s definitely worth checking out.
And it was ahead of it’s time
But actually it’s a bit of a snooze.
Kangol2
“Ahead of Its time.”
Its = belongs to it
It’s = it is
I otherwise agree with you on the first two points, but disagree on the third. It’s well made and livelier than a snooze-fest.
Jim
LOL Only you can prevent pedantcism
Kangol2
Only you can say thanks and go on about your business.
decampbell
“pedanticism”
LOL Only you can prevent spelling errors.
Rank Amateur
I watched it years ago and remembered thinking it was about ‘old people’ but now that I’m older I might relate to it better. It was scandalous at the time.
JPB
I saw it in my youth and remember crushing on Murray Head, the youngest of the trio involved. Good movie.
Jim
Alas, he didn’t have a really big career.
Though I did see him in Chess in the West End
abfab
Watch just for Glenda.
dbmcvey
Great film, if only for the performances. But, John Schlesinger was a great director! Most of his career is brilliant and revolutionary! I would suggest people watch all his films, including, unfortunately, his last “The Next Best Thing”, which was terrible, but not his fault.
Fahd
Peter Finch, Glenda Jackson, directed by John Schlesinger, ´nuf said. I am a fan of each, and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Also, remarkable for capturing the English 1970 sensibility — the answering service, the travel agent, etc.