FredCDobbs Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Although I think her father is rather rude to the girl, I think the character, Catherine Sloper, played by Olivia de Havilland in the movie ?The Heiress? appears to be mentally ****. She?s not just homely, but **** too. Has anyone ever read the book (or play) this is based on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredCDobbs Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 This girl looks like she is in her mid- to late-20s. (Actually she is 33 in real life.) But she is clearly acting like a 12 year old. That?s the real problem why she never got married to anyone. The Montgomery Clift character doesn?t seem too bright either. I don?t really see the point in this film... two dumb people fail to connect and get married. A **** guy fails to marry a **** girl. So what? Doh, am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandykaypax Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 She was emotionally repressed by her domineering father and believed herself to be extremely plain and unattractive. Back in those days, a young woman of wealth had one option that was considered acceptable--make a good marriage. But Catherine was an old maid. It is the story of a woman taking charge of her own destiny for once in her life. SHE will make the choice whether or not to take him back, not her father, or her aunt. The Clift character is obviously just a self-centered fortune-hunter. That's my take on it. Sandy K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyoka1 Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 When I saw "The Heiress" as a kid, I actually thought Olivia would have been better off taking Monty back at the end. You always had the feeling that at least he'd be nice to her, unlike her father. http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredCDobbs Posted April 30, 2006 Author Share Posted April 30, 2006 That?s a valid point. If she wasn?t ****, she could have always controlled her money and how much Monte got. $30,000 a year income in the 1850s or ?60s would be like more than half a million a year now. The income was set up so that the principle could not be gotten to, and the income was from the interest, year after year. Who cared if they spent their income money each year, as long as they were having fun and still getting their income money every year? That?s what we all do anyway, spend our annual income and try to have fun doing it. If Catherine was really smart, she just wouldn?t let Monte go off traveling around squandering the money. What more could a woman want? Half a million a year income, a handsome man, and with her controlling all the money in the family! Lol, women would love that today. And, as a matter of fact, I was dating a lady who inherited almost a million dollars during the time I was dating her. She wanted to get married, but after she inherited all that money, she became bossy and impossible to live with. So I left. The next guy she tried to snare lasted only about 5 years with her and he left too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandykaypax Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 So true, nyoka. I wanted her to go with Monty at the end, too. because at least she'd have some fun. Sandy K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzcutter Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 If she wasn?t ****, she could have always controlled her money and how much Monte got. $30,000 a year income in the 1850s or ?60s would be like more than half a million a year now. The income was set up so that the principle could not be gotten to, and the income was from the interest, year after year.>> Interesting point to raise, as a woman in the 1850s or 1860s, historically and realistically (not Hollywood realism) would she have been able to control her money or would that have been done by men looking out for her best interests, especially since she lived back East where the culture and times were much more traditional than out West? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugarpuss Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 I think that if she did go off with Monty at the end, the whole movie would have been for nothing. Catherine wouldn't have learned a single thing and still would have been the sweet, naive and stupid thing that she started the movie off as. She would have never been happy, because Monty would have kept taking her for a fool, wasting her money and would have left her when it finally ran out. After all, he did like the expensive things in life. I always thought that her finishing the needlepoint at "Z" and declaring that she wouldn't do another needlepoint in her life, as well as giving the ruby cufflinks to Monty meant that she was closing the door on him and that whole chapter of her life. While heading up the stairs with the lantern shining, symbolized a brighter future ahead since she learned her lesson, exacted her revenge and had all the money to boot (it was also a stark contrast to the scene where Monty ditched her and she headed up the stairs, weary, dejected and barely able to walk). If anything, I always imagined that Catherine would have either found a man who did love her, or spent her life alone, traveling around the world. She might have not had a man, but at least she had her dignity and self-respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vecchiolarry Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Hi, I think she was slow and clumsy and gouch and ill at ease in society but not ****. Vengeance takes brains and she got him good by giving him a taste of wealth with the ruby cufflinks and then shutting the door to all the rest. If he keeps the cufflinks, then they wiil always remind him of what could have been. And, if he sells them, then he will waste the money and end up with nothing. Both ways, she wins and he loses. She probably thought long and hard about just how to play him.... Now, that's not ****. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwtwbooklover Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 OH I will have to catch this again when it comes back. I missed it except for the last 30 minutes. AGONY! What I saw I liked. Kudos to de Havallind on her portrayl it was riveting if at first a little hard to take. I mean when I first started watching I thought was is Olivia talking that way?? Well a sheltered life is what she lived and this commanded her actions, thoughts and deeds this wide eyed innocence in dress, demeanor and voice. However like the others have posted when she learned the truth well watch out! I love the line from her Aunt's Question How could you be so cruel- How can I? I've been taught by masters. Also her saying that Morris wanted her money the first time and the 2nd time around he wanted her love well that was to much. I really have got to see this movie all the way through does anyone know when it will come on again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michellej Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 ****??? Don't get where that came from. anyway,I thought she was marvelous as Catherine. She was the Plain jane of all plain Jane's.She wasn't developmentally challenged mentally,sexually she was,with daddy's help. Then becomes Daddy Dearest in the end:Aunt Lavinia,"Catherine,how can you be so cruel?" Catherine,"I was taught by masters." Catherine's mental capacity reached its vengeful climax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakeev Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 The movie was based on Washington Square by Henry James. But by no means was Catherine Sloper ****. Naive, spinster like yeah. But definitely not mentally ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CineSage_jr Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 As I wrote before, the story takes place in the 1840s, not the '50s or '60s. And the idea that Catherine Sloper is **** is, well, ****. It's not even as though Catherine is unattractive (no amount of make-up could ever make Olivia de Havilland look anything less than beautiful, after all). If you're looking for a simple characterization of Catherine, you're missing the point, which is that she had always been made to believe she was inferior by her father, who compared Catherine to her mother in all things, comparisons seen through the prism of Dr Sloper's resentment that Catherine's birth had cost him the life of the wife he adored. If someone is treated as an inferior long enough, she or he begins to see himself or herself as inferior, and it manifests itself in the the individual's actions and carriage. Catherine is like the circus elephant that's been chained to s post early in life; when the chains are removed and replaced by rope -- which the beast can easily break -- the elephant doesn't break it because it thinks it's still bound by the steel shackles. So it is with Catherine. Remember, too, that Henry James's depiction of Catherine's relationship with her father, and her imposed feelings of inferiorty, can also be seen as a metaphor for slavery, which relied on the same kind of planned, enforced degradation to keep blacks in line, and which was still a going concern in James's day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilelmhr Posted May 19, 2006 Share Posted May 19, 2006 Exactly what I was thinking. "****" is way off the mark. She was obviously terribly naive and repressed--and Olivia gets this across beautifully in all of the early scenes. Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts