MovieChat Forums > Gilda (1946) Discussion > unlikable lead (Johnny)

unlikable lead (Johnny)

posted 14 years ago by Clothes-Off
16 replies | jump to latest

He's such an oily character, I really didn't care what happened to him. Of course if Ballin didn't give him a job, we wouldn't have a movie; but a man that powerful wouldn't hire a man who had just cheated him, no matter how loyal he promised to be.

I certainly didn't care if Rita and he ever got (back) together, any man who would strike a woman is no good, period. A similar character would be played by Richard Widmark in Pickup on South Street. Maybe back then supposedly-charming con men could get away with hitting women, but for me it ruined both movies.

I have no problem with an anti-hero, like in The Postman Always Rings Twice, but Johnny just rubbed me the wrong way from the get-go and never redeemed himself. At least Ballin was who he was at face value.

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

[–] darkfrances (47) 2 years ago

That's interesting and similar to my mid-movie revelation that Johnny is actually a terrible person, and that this is actually a movie about a mad crazy controlling man masquerading as a normal person. That we were supposed to first believe Johnny to be the likeable but unlucky thief, the noir poor schmuck who ends up unwillingly in the middle of a story that's way larger than him. And that Gilda was nothing but a standard femme fatale.

Well, no. Turns out Johnny is very much an actor in his story, but a sick and manipulative one. And Gilda is in fact the poor - erm, Schmuckette, who just tried to have a normal life, safe behind a husband who could ensure her social and emotional - and, to a lesser extent (according to Ballin himself) financial wellbeing. Except she keeps bumping into mad individuals, more specifically madly jealous ones, making her blessing (infinite desirability) also her curse.

I saw the "Put the blame on Mame" song as the core of the story - pretty woman being blamed for all sins perpetrated by the males smitten by her. And her systematic rebellion against the social burkha people were trying to wrap around her.

Of course, the ending is a bit of a mess, and I confess I have simply not paid attention to the Nazi subplot. But I still believe that this movie is much more coherent than most critics say it is.

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 2 years ago

Yeah, I didn't care much for Johnny, either. I thought he was needlessly cruel to Gilda. In fairness, she also was so impulsive and mercurial that she wound up digging herself in pretty deep. She can complain about controlling guys all she wants, but she's the one who married a guy after knowing him for a day. Johnny might be a bit of a sociopath, but Gilda's not really stable, either.

I like your evaluation of the song as it ties in with the themes of the story. Gilda gets caught up in the machinations and manipulations of these guys. Still, as the song points out, sometimes it's Mame doing a little "shim and shake" that brings on some of the tremors in her life...

The movie is coherent enough, but I do believe it has some connectivity issues. It has a plot about gamblers and gangsters, a plot about Nazis and the war, and a plot about a love triangle (which might have its lines going both ways...) but instead of seamlessly weaving them all together, they feel a little disjointed to me. Still, the main focus winds up being the love triangle - which is the smart move; Rita Hayworth is too good to be a secondary plot - and that keeps the story more-or-less on-track, even if it does feel like some elements (especially the war connection) could have been better utilized.