Deborah Kerr's character has to make excuses for cheating on her husband - we, the viewers, must be told that *he* cheated on her first...and that's not all... when she was pregnant with his child! But wait, there's more! The baby died 'cause of him! (Because he was out cheating and getting drunk and didn't get her to the hospital in time or something?
I somewhat agree that the extent of her husband's perfidy may be overkill, but I don't agree that providing some excuse is bad. Showing characters thinking one way about another character, then showing they're wrong provides a twist in the plot development--which is
good writing, not bad.
Didn't she have a telephone to call 911?!
In 1941, "911" would have gotten her nowhere. Its use as an emergency number began in 1968. Possibly she
didn't have a telephone, or was lying prostate on the floor unable to call, or the call (which would have been to the operator) didn't go through.
Why did she need him?
To take her to the hopsital.
It's not really explained adequately.
The filmmakers didn't need to explain the situation to the 1953 audience. They had no way of knowing that their 2010 viewers, used to different technology, would need explanations.
And then the final kicker...she can never have any more children! *gasp!* Now we totally forgive her for sleeping with a zillion soldiers, right?
Forgive? Now you sound like you were alive in the 50's after all. I think the tale of woe was provided to throw a different light on the character, change our understanding of her. I don't see how "forgiveness" relates to how viewers see a character.
Not to mention the lack of explanation (or discernable implied motive) for Montgomery Clift's character not to identify himself at the end, thus being mistaken for an enemy soldier. I mean, really. Contrived death, or what?
Completely disagree with you here. He didn't identify himself because he didn't want to be thrown in the stockade. He wanted to get back to his unit where he felt his sergeant would allow him to help in the emergency and worry about the stockade afterwards. I don't think it would have necessarily occurred to him that he'd be shot.
-----------------
"I've always resisted the notion that knowledge ruined paradise." Prof. Xavier
reply
share
crispy_comments
15 years ago
Oops I didn't do my research on the introduction of 911... I'm so ashamed. ;) (Then again, it proves I wasn't alive back then!) Anyway she could've called a hospital or a friend or *someone* for help if her husband wasn't available. If she *was* lying helpless on the floor, unable to reach the phone, as you suggest, than I repeat my statement that it wasn't really explained adequately.
I said "forgive" sarcastically, to mimic the scandalized attitude of someone from the 1950s (and mock the writers' intentions in piling on the excuses for her cheating to such a ridiculous extent. It was overkill, as you say.)
It seemed to me the writers/filmmakers thought viewers needed to be made to forgive her, so that's why I used that word. Not because I actually believe Deborah Kerr's character needs *my* forgiveness. :P
By the way, I don't think it was much of a "twist" that Kerr had a sympathetic backstory/reasons for cheating on her husband... I found it predictable actually. She's played other similar characters (the Saintly Adulteress type), and considering when it was made the movie would have to provide a reason for her infidelity (unless they wanted to say she was just plain Evil and kill her off at the end to appease the Hayes Code!) So I was expecting an explanation for her actions...just didn't expect it to be so laughably over-the-top and to go on as long as it did.
As for Montgomery Clift's character...better to be thrown in the stockade than shot! You'd think a guy in his position would know what it meant if a sergeant...on guard... was yelling...in the dark... during an enemy attack... "identify yourself!" If it didn't occur to him the guy would take his silence as confirmation that he was the enemy sneaking around... I guess he was just too stupid to live.
reply
share
Prannock
15 years ago
In general, I would agree with Crispy's comments, although the idea of everyone having a phone in 1942(?) seems a bit wild to me. Back in the sunny UK, our family was the first in our street to get one, in 1970. Maybe we were just po´ boys...
I most certainly agree that Clift deserved to get shot for being stupid, or maybe back in those days Hollywood made sure the obvious gays bought the farm. Then again, Burt was kinda obvious too, but he was left doll-less.
As for the excuses for Kerr becoming the "village bicycle", that made me sick and I hate the implication that men can screw around but women can't.
All in all, some iffy bits, mainly time-related, but a good (8/10) movie.
º¬
Be seeing you
reply
share
slofstra
14 years ago
I'm with you Crispy. I thought the same about both those scenes, and without reading your comments first.
Look, Kerr could have done whatever her husband would have had to do to get a doctor, but it was understood in 1953 that she couldn't, because she was a helpless woman. (Or the men would have understood that). And that line, "Of course .. the baby died" is one of the biggest stinkers I've ever heard in a movie.
Second, Prewitt being shot at the end is TOTALLY implausible. He was entirely in possession of his faculties throughout the movie so there's no reason he would have run.
The other major flaw is what happened to the Captain. Him being busted totally dissipated the tension the movie worked so hard to establish. Apparently, in the novel he was promoted, and that would have made more sense given the tone and logic of the movie. I'm sure that was changed because it would be impossible to show, in 1954, that degree of perfidy in the US Army, when we all had Audie Murphy on the brain.
These flaws keep this from being a great movie, and I've never seen it on anyone's list either. Probably one of the worst movies ever to win a mitt full of Oscars. It's not a terrible movie, but it is seriously flawed.
reply
share
michaelbdhcnet
14 years ago
Re: Why didn't she call 911? Well, as previously noted and you acknowledged, the 911 system hadn't been invented yet. Remember, the movie takes place in 1941 and the lost the baby incident takes place 4 or 5 years before that, quite possible that she didn't have a telephone at all.
I do agree though that Prewitt was rather stupid not to obey the sentry, got killed for his stupidity.
reply
share
Prannock
14 years ago
Is 911 the number you call in the States for a free ambulance service?
Curious coincidence, then, with that number. Or maybe there are no free ambulances and that's why she didn't call. Or maybe Bin Laden bombed Hawaii.
I get quite confused after 12 pints.
º¬
Be seeing you
reply
share
indy_go_blue44
13 years ago
Is 911 the number you call in the States for a free ambulance service?
Curious coincidence, then, with that number. Or maybe there are no free ambulances and that's why she didn't call. Or maybe Bin Laden bombed Hawaii.
I get quite confused after 12 pints.
911 is the number for emergency communications in the United States; police, fire, medical. It definitely doesn't mean a free ambulance though! Those busturds charge out the yang for an ambulance ride.
Yes 911 and 9/11/01 were "curious coincidences" as you say. Like 12/7 or 11/22, they don't mean anything until you put 1941 and 1963 behind them.
Don't feel bad, life confuses the hell out of me when I'm sober.
reply
share