Sepiatone Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Concerning *Portrait of Jennie.* I stayed up until 4:30 in the morning watching this melodrama and recieved NO closure! WAS Jennie an apparition? A figment of a delusional artist? Was she Ethel Barrymore? HELP ME, please! Sepiatone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepiatone Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share Posted February 11, 2012 Sorry, that should have read, "A figment of a delusional artist's imagination". Sepiatone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredCDobbs Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I think the whole film was a fantasy. Seems that only he and the audience "saw" Jennie. So, I suppose she was more "real" than Harvey but less "real" than Singleton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fedya Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I think it's supposed to be ambiguous. If I'm not mistaken, isn't the whole story in the movie a sort of explanation of what may or may not have happened to inspire Eben to paint the portrait., told more or less as a flashback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanceroten Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I saw this for the first time in 06. Watched again today. As much as I like Joseph Cotton, this is one film I just don't dig at all. More than likely a case of me just not "getting it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredCDobbs Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Next time you see the movie, pay attention to the babbling narrator at the very beginning. He talks about time and space and this and that, meaning the movie is a kind of fantasy. Sort of like two parallel universes coming together now and then. (whatever that means, I'm not sure). Anyway, Jennie and Cotten should have gotten married at the end. Then everyone would be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesJazGuitar Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 While in many ways you are joking here Fred, I also believe you are on target as it relates to what Jennie really was. More real than Harvey!!! I just love that. That is exactly it! Anyone looking for something more concrete than that should just avoid the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazorX Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I was a little disappointed in this one as well. I found the lack of curiosity on the part of Cotten's character to be a little strange. I first heard of this film about 25 years ago. I was working a part-time job during college and one of my older co-workers mentioned that it was his favorite film. He said it had never been released on VHS (this was before DVDs hit the market) and was very rarely shown on televsion. Months later I happened to spot it in the TV listings on WTBS and I remember how excited he was as he called his wife to ask her to record it. I didn't watch it myself but I always think about my co-worker when I hear the name of this film. I DVR'd it the other day and just watched it this afternoon. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, either. I don't expect I'll ever watch it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieProfessor Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 {font:Arial}Jennie was definitely a ghost. Or, if you really want to get technical in a weird way, you could say she was an apparition straight out of “The Twilight Zone.” Anyway, writer Robert Nathan’s original story was in some respects “dreamlike,” as if the artist hero of the tale, stepped into a past world long gone, at times lost in a different dimension beyond his current reality. The persistence of the artist to solve the mystery of Jennie, leads him down a pathway of compassion and eventually falling in love with her. But, call it fate or a power from beyond human logic, there will be an intervention with the storm at the lighthouse that will result in the final rupture needed to free Jennie’s lost soul. The portrait will in the end signify his love, also giving him back sense towards understanding his creative process that will glow with virtuous meaning. {font} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazorX Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 {font:Arial}*Jennie was definitely a ghost. Or, if you really want to get technical in a weird way, you could say she was an apparition straight out of “The Twilight Zone.”* Or she might have been a time-traveler. There was that one line by the narrator about the past and future always being with us, along side of the present. Sort of sounds like a parallel universe or something. {font} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieProfessor Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 > {quote:title=RazorX you wrote:}{quote}{font:Arial} Sort of sounds like a parallel universe or something. {font} I can go along with that idea too. B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepiatone Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 The twist that makes it more mysterious is both the scarf left behind and the old newspaper. Plus, if that sort of thing happened to me, I'd head for some kind of shrink. Or start keeping a window opened when using them oil paints. I was also annoyed with the butchered adaptation of Debussy in the score. Sepiatone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markfp2 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I've always thought of it as a romanitic ghost story. As it happens, PORTRAIT OF JENNY is my wife's favorite classic film. She recommends reading the book. I'm not sure if it's still in print, but it should be available in most libraries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts