SEAN MATHIAS: Speaking His ‘Language’

His loss at expressing his early sexual identity with ease is one reason why playwright-director Sean Mathias jumped at the chance to make “The Lost Language of Cranes� his first screenplay.

The 1986 critically acclaimed book by David Leavitt is the story of a son who tells his mother and father that he is gay, an announcement that compels the father to end his own lie of 20 years. That lie included leaving his wife every Sunday for walks that were actually long visits to New York City’s gay porno theaters.

Mathias, a Welshman who directed a revival of “Bent� at the National Theatre in London in 1989 and staged Chekhov’s “Uncle Vanya� there this year, adapted Leavitt’s novel, which Hollywood wouldn’t touch, for the British Broadcasting Corp. He made a risky change: moving the setting to London from Manhattan, which was almost a central character itself in the book. Leavitt visited London to talk to Mathias about the relocation, and both were pleased with the outcome.

The film, screened at the 1991 London Film Festival and part of an “Out on the Screen� festival in Los Angeles in March, was added by PBS to its “Great Performances� series late in the 1991-92 season. It will air Wednesday during Los Angeles’ gay pride week and in a year of criticism from conservatives about PBS programs with alternative viewpoints.

Mathias talked to Times Staff Writer Bryan Mingle from London about “The Lost Language of Cranes,� which stars Eileen Atkins and Brian Cox as the parents and newcomer Angus MacFadyen and Corey Parker (“thirtysomething�) as young lovers.

How did this film get made? Did you read David Leavitt’s book first or did somebody bring it to you?

It sort of all came slightly about-face in that the BBC approached me and asked if I would be interested in writing a film for them. I have up until now only written for the theater. At one of the meetings a script editor said, “Do you happen to know a book called ‘The Lost Language of Cranes?’ � And I said, “Yes, I know it very well. I love it.� I’d read it when it first came out and I was a great fan. It has some very fascinating things to say about being gay and the process of living lies and living various hypocrisies that have to do with one’s sexuality and with everything in one’s life.

Do you think this film is a rarity, one that deals with gay life and accepting gay life in an honest way?

I think it is a rarity, until now, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to make it. I think one of the things that appealed to me is concentrating on the coming out aspect of the story and to also make the people in the story seem as ordinary as possible, not freakish, to show that the problems of gay people can be as tormented but as ordinary as anyone else’s.

At first glance some people would say this was a “gay� novel made into a “gay� film. What did you see in the story that made you want to adapt it for a wide audience?

I hope it’s important for everyone, but the gay people that it’s important for are the people who are still struggling to come out of the closet with their colleagues at work and with their families, people who would prefer to have their families and their work colleagues know that they’re gay. I think it’s important for them to show that the struggle can be painful but hopefully rewarding. I think it’s also a very important film for the straight community in understanding that part of the agony of accepting you’re gay when you’ve been brought up in what is predominantly a heterosexual society.

I was brought up to be a heterosexual by heterosexuals, and when I realized that I was gay I didn’t understand what it was to be gay because I didn’t have any vocabulary or language around me to encourage me.

What were some of the difficulties in the adaptation?

Obviously in adapting the book I had to leave out a great deal of the complexity of Leavitt’s story, but the thing that seemed to me very central was the comparative ease with which a younger person is able to come out now in a society that at least has some sort of tolerance some of the time, and some sort of vocabulary for gay people.

I understand there is an American version of this film and an English one, and the difference is slight, but why?

I think the difference is mostly just boxer shorts. You can’t show full frontal (nudity) on American television. But apparently there has been some other editing for the television screening (on PBS) and I don’t know exactly what that entails.

You changed the setting of the story from Manhattan to London. Were there any problems?

There was one absolute difficulty which, finally, worked out fine, I think. We do not have those kind of porno cinemas that exist in New York in London.

What do you think about the flap over PBS being accused of having a liberal bias?

I’ve simply heard that they have been worried about showing the film, and worried about the reaction to it.

“The Lost Language of Cranes� airs on “Great Performances� Wednesday at 10 p.m. on KCET and KPBS.