bansi4 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Regarding the movie "The Heiress" (1949) do you think Catherine Sloper played so beautifully by Olivia de Havilland make the right decision by locking Morris (Montgomery Clift) out of her life? Or would it have been better for her to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loliteblue Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Better than being a rich lonely spinister that's a sad ending to any body's life movie or not. Catherine should have given Morris a chance dispite his faults of wanting her money. His companionship, a husband,someone to share her life with instead of being alone. Besides all the men entering her life after Morris may want the same thing her money! Catherine wouldn't have her pick of men anymore she's no longer a spring chicken!....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellabluegrl Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I think Catherine did the right thing. I think by the time Morris came back she had already gone through the "loved and lost" thing in her mind and heart. He came back for her money, not her, and I think that if she would have married him every day she had to look at him would be a constant reminder of a love that never really was. An open wound if you will. Plus the fact he showed what kind of man he was. If he was willing to do what he did to her, what else was he capable of? Affairs, spending all of her money, treating her poorly? A man like that isn't one I'd like to have around for the long haul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellabluegrl Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Oh, and I forgot to say that I don't believe you NEED a man (or woman) in your life to be happy. ESPECIALLY if your only choice is a piece of s*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
path40a Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 stella, I couldn't agree with you more! I think that there are many social problems in our society today because women (the final arbitor!) settle for less. This leads men to behave worse and worse. Women who have settled for a man, any man, knowing full well his character defects and then BREEDING MORE of them have foisted untold numbers of problems on society. I believe that "our" standards collectively have been lowered too far for this (and obviously other) reason(s). I understand being lonely (believe me!), but I think the Heiress's father was RIGHT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicsfan1119 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I don't know about the "breeding more" (of them) thing that Path mentions (grin), but I'm on the side of Catherine locking that morally corrupt cad out of her life forever. I was never as lonely in my entire life as I was in a marriage with a man very similar to him. And Olivia's acting really was outstanding in that movie, wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bansi4 Posted December 10, 2003 Author Share Posted December 10, 2003 Stella if ever an Oscar was deserved it was the one that Olivia de Havilland won as Best Actress for her flawless performance in "The Heiress". She also won the Golden Globe award and the New York Film Critics award. The National Board of Review must have had a bug up their butt since they listed "no choice" for Best Actress that year although they chose Ralph Richardson who played her father as Best Actor. They did however list "The Heiress" at #4 in their top ten films of 1949. Go figure. Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellabluegrl Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 It sure was a flawless performance Mongo. She did an outstanding job. And as you said, that Oscar was well deserved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinemetal Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 The important character developments Catherine learns at the end of the film are assertiveness and defiance, two traits she had lacked throughout much of the story. In spiting both her father and Morris, she may have doomed herself to a lonely existence in Washington Square, but she has finally managed to carve out an identity all her own, not one that is lived in the shadow of a dominating male. In that respect, she is far better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minnow1967 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I think by the end of the movie Catherine does not really care so much for the Montgomery Clift character anymore. He comes back and I think she thinks "yea, here you are, and I don't really give a rats **** if you stay or go, and I am so happy and pleasantly surprised at my own lack of interest and I think your little moustache looks foppish and dumb". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alix1929 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 By the end of the movie, I think that the attraction was still there, but the chance at revenge was too sweet. The look on her face as she ascends the staircase, listening to him beat on the door, was smug and satisfied. I also think the little moustache was "foppish and dumb." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts