Sign in to follow this  
DownGoesFrazier

A LETTER TO THREE WIVES

201 posts in this topic

Well this member of the audience did NOT feel Catherine shutting out Morris from her life was a mistake. Morris was still after only money. My view is that Catherine had grown and was now ready to find a man that would love her for her character and not her money.

 

I agree that Catherine was socially backward because of how her father treated her and how he viewed her dead mother as a saint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think she's a woman who has been emotionally damaged by an unloving parent

 

Bette Davis in Now, Voyger got over it. Olivia did not. Olivia didn't have the mental ability to get over it, and she didn't have the mental ability to be able to tell that the one guy, the only guy, who gave her attention was only after her money. The Davis character was not mentally **** and didn't have Asperger's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comparison of the women in Now Voyger and The Heiress is interesting. I agree that Davis's character 'got over it' but she still wasn't able to love a man that could truly love her back. Remember she had to settle for the stars instead of the moon! i.e. love the man using his child as proxy.

 

Olivia's character was clearly more damaged as it relates to her bitterness, but being a romantic I always felt that after she had the courage to dump that greedy Moris, that she move forward. Of course maybe that is just wishful thinking and she never found the right man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Sloper's treatment of Catherine is similarly motivated to Judith Anderson's treatment of Fontaine's character in REBECCA. Neither could measure up to a now-deceased woman.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Olivia's character was clearly more damaged as it relates to her bitterness, but being a romantic I always felt that after have the courage to dump that greedy Moris, that she move forward. Of course maybe that is just wishful thinking and she never found the right man.

 

See, I don't read it that way at all. I don't think the end of the movie was the end of their relationship. I think she just taught him a good lesson that night, and knowing him, he tried again and knocked on the door each night until she felt he had changed enough to let him back in.

 

There is no way a woman is going to turn a hunk personified by Montgomery Clift away. You're going to teach him a lesson, bring him to his knees, and keep him so nobody else can have that fine gene pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very surprised by your non-feminist view here. To me it implies that women are shallow creatures and that a man can be a jerkcad but if he is ?hot? the women can?t let go. I don?t find that romantic at all. So instead I would rather believe that Catherine has developed the strength to reject a ?hot? guy that is lacking character and instead she will find a guy that loves her and is of sound character and his hotness will be a secondary factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you glossed over what I said. It is stronger for the woman to jerk the man around who was jerking her around earlier. And since he's hot, why not hold on to him, provided you can make him grovel and understand how the power is going to be played out in the relationship. Most men need an assertive woman to keep up with them. I think at the end of this film she has reached a point where she is asserting herself. She is sexier than she was before, and now they are more evenly matched. Feminism is about the balance of power and a woman turning the tables on abusive male adolescence. She has done that here, and provided that he is willing to tow the line and play the game more equally, then why shouldn't they continue as a couple? They have all this history together and they have gotten the difficult, impossible stuff out of the way. The rest of this relationship is the reward, is the easy part. I speak from experience on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Aspergers, I feel like Crain's earlier characterization as MARGIE bordered on Aspergers very much. She was quietly typecast by Fox as women with odd emotional hang ups. Even her role in PEOPLE WILL TALK seems this way to me.

 

Lynn Redgrave continues the peculiar tradition as GEORGY GIRL. She certainly has emotional handicaps, and not all of them related to her weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catherine Sloper was certainly NOT mentally retrarded or have any mental impairment as you keep claiming. Anyone who can say "I've been taught by Masters" is MORE intelligent than most...... No one was ever going to hurt or take advantage of her again, ever hear of the saying about the mark of intelligence is learning from experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> No one was ever going to hurt or take advantage of her again, ever hear of the saying about the mark of intelligence is learning from experience?

 

Yes, but barring the door, and going upstairs to live as a hermit strongly implies some mental problems. Whereas Charlotte Vale blossomed once she got out of the house and away from her mother, and she did not hate all men and dated several. She would have probably married Jerry if he could have gotten a divorce.

 

Poor Catherine Sloper was just as stupid at the end of the movie as she was at the beginning, and still she had no other handsome young men wanting to marry her. Why? Because she was ****, naive, and stupid.

 

A big problem with Catherine is that she NEVER was able to have a normal relationship with a well-off educated young man, because they didn't want such a woman for a wife. The ONLY men who would have tried to woo her in the future would have been poor men who wanted her money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, not your type....It seems that with her development toward the end of the film, she should have been able to attract a normal man who was not that interested in her money. The film is not clear as to whether she was leaving the house very much. That's really the only way to meet guys, unless she wanted to get involved with the mailman or the plumber.

 

Edited by: finance on Feb 11, 2014 4:54 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. Catherine didn't have Claude Rains to help her. She was a sweet, innocent who was told from day one that she was unattractive, untalented and was probably made to feel that she killed her mother ijn childbirth. Bette had Claude, a man as an advisor and friend before she met Jerry. Catherine didn't have that advantage. She had no experience with any man other than her father who brow beat her. The pain was too deep once Monty hurt her for her to recover. That's not being mentally impaired. That's emotional NOT mental. She wanted to be alone so that no one could ever hurt her again. She understood Monty in the end didn't just want her money, he wanted her love. She had none to give at that point.

 

She had been treated so cruelly, she was "Taught By Masters"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It seems that with her development toward the end of the film, she should have been able to attract a normal man who was not that interested in her money. The film is not clear as to whether she was leaving the house very much. That's really the only way to meet guys,

 

The film makes it clear that NO OTHER handsome young man was interested in Catherine at all. None. Nada. And it wasn't because of her looks, because she was a pretty girl.

 

For another film along similar lines, with a daffy and immature woman, see THE TOY WIFE (1938) with Luise Rainer. She drove her attractive husband bonkers with her extreme stupidity and immaturity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>See, I don't read it that way at all. I don't think the end of the movie was the end of their relationship. I think she just taught him a good lesson that night, and knowing him, he tried again and knocked on the door each night until she felt he had changed enough to let him back in.

 

That's a curious comment. I haven't seen this in awhile so I took a look at the ending. I didn't see that, just me perhaps. I've always had a notion that she may commit suicide. When her maid says "You must finish it," referring to the embroidery, Olivia says, "I must finish it now, for I shall never do another." Later just as Morris arrives we see a close up of her snipping the thread on the embroidery. The thread of life. She has a curious look on her face as she mounts the stairs. Of triumph? Yes. Of a conviction of some sort? Hmm. IMO she kills herself before she lets Morris back into her life. I think that last scene shows that her mind is quite made up.

 

>There is no way a woman is going to turn a hunk personified by Montgomery Clift away. You're going to teach him a lesson, bring him to his knees, and keep him so nobody else can have that fine gene pool.

 

Montgomery is just an actor and as such has nothing to do with the story. Gene pool? This is a story about gene pools? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you'd be incorrect. Her 2 experiences with cruelty came from her father and MONTY! that's what made that line so important. She learned from them. She got her father back when he was dying and she got Monty back when she left him banging on the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wiki, about the original 1880 novel:

 

This makes her a great disappointment to her father. She has inherited an annual income of $10,000 from her late mother's estate and stands to inherit an additional $20,000, annually, from her father's. ($30,000 a year in 1880 would be equivalent to between $600,000 and $1.2 million a year in the U.S. currency of the early twenty-first century.)

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

I wonder if Monte's character was mentally **** too? They were two dumb people trying to work things out and they were both too stupid to know how to do it. :)

 

They loved each other. He needed money and so did she. 1.2 million dollars a year should have been enough for them to both live on. :)

 

Neither one of them knew what to do.

 

She could have had her own money tied up in a trust account where he couldn't get to it, and she could have worked out a deal with him for an allowance.

 

And he was too stupid to marry her even if she had only 400,000 a year (the 10,000 in the movie). I could live quite well on that amount without squandering the money and while making my wife very happy.

 

Seems that neither of them knew anything about investments or business. They were both stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I think she just taught him a good lesson that night, and knowing him, he tried again and knocked on the door each night until she felt he had changed enough to let him back in.

 

You might be right about that. In fact, I think the ending is a flaw in the film, since we are all trying to guess "what happened next" during the next 40 years.

 

Of course he wouldn't give up. But I'm afraid that she never knew how to deal with him or with any man, and she probably would not know how to handle him.

 

His biggest mistake was leaving her with no warning. He should have just backed out of the wedding by saying something like he wasn't good enough for her, instead of just deserting her. That was his big mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he is definitely not going to give up. He has, in a twisted way, committed himself to her. A guy that tangled up on a woman is not going to simply vanish.

 

One thing I am noticing in various comments by posters is that a lot of people often think the final fade out means the end of the story. Not always true. Many film stories extend beyond the closing credits. We just don't see what is to happen next, leaving it to our imaginations.

 

THE HEIRESS has a cliffhanger 'ending.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>THE HEIRESS has a cliffhanger 'ending.'

 

Yes, you are right, and I think we don't have much of a clue as to what will happen to her eventually, but I do agree that he will return to try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me veer this off course back onto the original course; this thread has been moving so fast things are getting buried.....

 

*Well, this part of the thread is just begging for someone to mention that a respected poster here has been campaigning for over a year now to have Linda Darnell as Star of the Month.*

*As I'm sure you guys all know, he's dedicated a thread to this.*

*I'd like to see it too: Come on, TCM,*

 

Thanks misswonderly for the thumbs up. As you well know I have tried to promote the idea of Linda Darnell as a SOTM, and as most names here that either get the honor, or someone advocates for them, she is as deserving as any other classic era star, moreso, imho, than those that have already been featured. TCM in the past has shown a number of her Fox titles, and with those she did elsewhere, there should be no hindrance to getting enough films for a month. Let's hope it happens soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us