Out gay writer/director David Secter’s 1965 gem, “Winter Kept Us Warm,” has just been newly restored and will have a weekend engagement at the Metrograph starting June 21 as part of the cinema’s Pride programing.
The film is a quaint, affectionate romantic drama about two students at the University of Toronto. Peter (Henry Tarvainen) is a shy and unassuming freshman scholarship student from the countryside who arrives in the big city to attend classes in philosophy and English. In the dining hall one night, he is teased by Doug (John Labow), a charismatic upperclassman studying economics. Doug apologizes to Peter later in the library, initiating a close friendship that involves the guys hanging out and going out together. While Doug’s clingy girlfriend Bev (Joy Tepperman) is a bit jealous of Doug’s relationship with Peter, Doug becomes jealous when Peter starts dating Sandra (Janet Amos).
The microbudget black-and-white film implies more gay content than it shows, though Secter does include a fun scene of the guys playing in the snow and a shower scene where Peter asks Doug to wash his back. It was a landmark film at the time, but Secter only made a handful of features after his auspicious directorial debut. In a recent interview, he spoke with Gay City News about making “Winter Kept Us Warm.”
What inspired you to make this film and how difficult was it to make a “gay” movie back in 1965?
We never called it a “gay” movie. The term wasn’t in use at the time. It would have been the kiss of death if we had identified it as a “gay” movie. At the time, there were no movies being made in Canada. You could count the features on the fingers of one hand with digits to spare. I was inspired by French New Wave; I found it much easier to identify more with that type of filmmaking than Hollywood movies I grew up with. I had the chutzpah and bravado that only comes with ignorance. I said I wanted to make a feature film, and I decided to base it on my own experience. I was closeted like everyone else at the time. No one was out and I was identifying as straight, but I was recognizing that I was interested in guys.
The story is initially set up as Peter’s with him arriving, but it is really Doug who takes over the narrative and is the closeted gay man. Can you explain why you featured both characters rather than just making Doug the protagonist? It’s a canny approach in that we like Peter and he is the object of affection, not the subject.
It’s a stunning example of audience peripeteia. Something different is happening on screen than you expect — the surprise that Doug becomes more hung up on Peter. The fellow I had a crush on was 100% straight, and once he recognized that my interest in the relationship was more intimate than he was up for, the relationship was over. It inspired me to think that it was a valid story. When we had to get permission to shoot from the university, some folks realized there was a homoerotic element and several of them were totally against anything like that. Fortunately, there were enough people involved who thought it was a great project to give permission to shoot in various facilities.
What can you say about the queer content, which is more implied than explicit?
When the film came out, it was much better received than we had any right to anticipate.
A lot of the reviews made no reference at all to any homoerotic element. They called it a campus friendship, a rite of passage film. Other critics zoomed right in on it, and today it would be hard for anyone to see it and not recognize the homoerotic element. The zeitgeist of the time was such you could interpret it without that, but I don’t see how. It’s pretty clear what’s going on.
John Labow, who played Doug, claims that he wasn’t aware of Doug’s sexual attraction to Peter. I take that with more than a grain of salt. He knew what I was after, and he was delivering what I was after, and yet, he insisted Doug wasn’t gay; he was just attracted to Peter philosophically and emotionally.
Why was Doug so infatuated with Peter?
I think Peter was certainly flattered getting Doug’s attention, as Doug was a popular guy who moved in circles that Peter was happy to be a part of. If Peter had any homosexual inclination, he would have responded to Doug, but he did not have interest in having the relationship get physical. In the shower, Peter flirts a little bit, but that was as far as he was willing to go. Doug was really unaware of the degree of his sexual attraction, or if he was aware of it, it was too concerning for him to grapple with it. At the end of the movie, Doug recognizes he is a lot more interested in guys. He is able to fool himself that his attraction to Peter is not sexual but more intellectual until the end.
Looking back on the film now, do you view it with affection, or do you wish you had more money or could fix this?
There are obviously flaws that will never be corrected. I cringe at certain scenes, but I felt at the time — and I feel now — considering the resources we had, we made about as good a film as we could. I lucked out with the four leads. I’m thrilled that 60 years later it is still being shown and that Canadian International Pictures did this 4K restoration so it looks and sounds as good as it can. It seems to be finding a new audience, which is very, very rewarding.
“Winter Kept Us Warm” | Directed by David Secter | Opening June 21 at the Metrograph | Distributed by Canadian International Pictures
