Clapham Junction (C4)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Cherry Kisses

this was really good

Reply 21

glitterati

Will it repeat? Do you know if you can replay stuff on Sky?

Reply 22

piglet23

BEAKTONGUE

the ending was just so abrupt and left too many things un-answered. like for instance; 14 year old boy who had sex, what happened there, was that guy a kiddy fiddler? what about the gay marriage, did that gay doctor just forget about his husband lying? i'm glad i watched it, but i think two hours just wasn't enough. x

yeah totally agree, although i really enjoyed this there were a few unanswered questions at the end.

felt really sorry for the 14 yr old, he seemed to be besotted with that guy and then his stupid mother (who was sooo annoying) went and spoilt it all, but then we didnt know if he was a peado so could have been a good thing?!

i'd forgotten just how fit paul nicholls is! phwoar can we see more of him on our screens please! and was that really his member that we saw him swinging around?!

Reply 23

jungleman

hey..didnt want to watch it with family yesterday so i watched it just now on 4od. i thought it was alright, but a few weird things about it:
- that scene of paul nicholls waving his **** was so irrelevant...not sure why they decided to put that in?!
- why didnt that waiter just scream for help when he ran out of the toilets instead of running into a bushy area?...stupid or wot?!
- what was up with paul nichols character? didnt really understand his sexuality or his purpose?

but i have to say that the sex scene between the young and old guy was really kind of powerful..especially when they both have tears running down their faces..really good acting. probably the best scene in the drama.

Reply 24

coffeym

I think the Paul Nicholls character was basically a straight guy unable to find a girl for himself (as suggested by his grandmother), so went out to seduce gay guys, only to beat them to a pulp. He then takes on the victim's name in his next encounter as a seudonym. He gets his comeupance later when a similar guy does the same to him.

I personally felt this character was the best in the programme, as several questions about him were left up to the viewer to answer, and of course he provided an examination of homophobia and perhaps even self-consciousness.

But yes, this should have been done as a 2-parter, maybe 1.5 hours each. Too much was left unanswered:
1. What about the civil partnership men? How was the ring explained away?
2. The fate of Paul Nicholls' character
3. The role and indeed the physical condition of the violin boy
4. The mother-son-paedophile story was never properly ended.

I felt it was a bit heavy handed at times though. The gay sex scene between a supposed 14 year old and a 30 year old was hard for me to watch (is that even allowed on TV?).

Reply 25

Opsimathmo

It was just meant to be a 'snapshot' into the lives of people interconnected by homosexuality, not an ongoing saga...

As to the 'violin boy' I thought it quite interesting the way it wasn't actually portrayed as him being gay, the audience was left to decide whether he was just a talented pupil and therefore exposed to those potential 'bullies' throught the window and in the subway thingy, or if he was a representation of someone just starting out on the gay road lol

the 'peado guy' though breaking the law by doing the naughty with a so-called 14 year-old (yeah right, full beard etc!!) was most likely being labelled as peado because some people conflate gay with peadoness...I think it was pretty much him being reluctant to engage with a young dude, because we were given the clue of the boy being the 'active' role i.e. giving him one lol

The civil partnership people was about promiscuity, maybe a judgement on civil partnerships themselves, and the bloke wasn't ignoring it, he was questioning the other dude to see if there was an innocent explanation...We are left to decide if he will keep unhappily quiet or if he will confront.

The psycho formerly of Eastenders fame may well have been a hateful bigot, playing with his willy at the start as someone mentioned because he's just about to go out and prove his manhood by beating up 'pathetic queers' or he may well have been someone unable to come to terms with his own sexuality - I say this because of the whole conversation with his gran about his having no significant other...So again, ambiguous.

I think the best bit was the poignancy of the whole tears and kissing thing, as someone else said too.

Reply 26

squirky

I didn't really understand the tears/sexing thing.

If someone started crying when I gave them one I would be somewhat put off...and myself-esteem would be shot.

I quite liked how the 14 year mother though obviously saw in her son what she hated in society and therefore resented it all...only son syndrome.

I'm not sure whether that guy was a pedophile/pervert or not, cos the 14 year old took on the dominant role throughout.

lol I too didn't understand why the waiter decided instead of running out of the bathroom into the crowded street, or into the underground station next door into solitary woods.

Reply 27

Raylin

My take on a couple of things:

I think it was supposed to leave most of the stories unfinished. The idea was that it was just a snapshot of each of their lives, so the endings were left open to interpretation, with the implication that their lives would go on and continue to contain drama.

As for the guy who beat up gay guys and stole their identity, I thought he probably was gay himself, hence why he had never found a woman. The problem was that he was repulsed by being gay, and repulsed by homosexuality in general, so couldn't allow himself to accept it. By beating up (and killing) gay men, he felt he was making up for this terrible flaw in himself: how could anyone who went around killing gay men possibly be gay himself?

I'd say that the older man definitely was a paedophile, and that's why he 'kept himself to himself'. He was doing his best to avoid putting himself in the position where he might commit a crime or hurt a child again, but the 14-year-old just wouldn't take no for an answer. All the time whilst they were together in the flat, he tried as hard as he could not even to make eye contact, afraid of doing something he knew he shouldn't. Despite this, the boy kept on, and he couldn't do anything about it. I really felt sorry for him, trying so hard to make a life for himself, but having his work ruined by this boy who couldn't take no for an answer. If anyone saw that other program about the paedophile a while back, where he was doing his best to recover, but eventually failing and having no option but to kill himself, it reminded me of that.

yeh good analysis...

Missed it

Will look for it on 4OD though ..

Reply 30

jrhysw

Has no one on hear heard of Queer-Bashing??
That it was the postman guy who looked after his gran was. He was blantantly hetro and any suggestions that he wasnt are daft as he merely chatted up gay men to get alone with them in order to assault them. He is a queer-basher.
A despicable character but very well played.

Reply 31

2026

jrhysw

Living alone with his gran? He has no girlfriend and has trouble getting close to women? He is obsessed with homosexuals?

I think its 'daft' to dismiss suggestions that he may indeed be a homosexual.

Anyway, most of the serious homophobes are gay themselves. Its a self-defence mechanism.

Reply 32

jungleman

im pretty sure he was gay..becuase in that club scene he was eyeing up the waiter...and it looked like a very sexual look to me...

Reply 33

Lush Law

As a gay guy I watched Clapham Junction and was quite pissed off to be honest. C4's Gay Week or whatever it is is supposed to be celebrating the liberation of gay people and homosexuality, yet they put on a show that really does nothing to fend off prejudice that still exists. They had a guy who shagged a 14-year-old, the cottaging...it painted a thoroughly depressing picture of being gay in the UK and frankly I have never taken part in or experienced really anything like Clapham Junction. Load of crap.

Reply 34

Stealth-Mode

(regarding point 1)

the hypothetical existance of an after-life does not neccesitate that a God must exist. Very poor reasoning.

Reply 35

Stealth-Mode

Metropolitan
''1. If God doesn't exist then it means that there is no life after death.
2. I don't want to believe that.
3. Therefore God exists. ''

------ The hypothetical existance of an after-life is not necessarily contingent on the existance of God. Poor reasoning.