What was the deal over Gable's character?? he wasn't really all that attractive, he was well past his best and he made a living out of capturing baby animals from the wild and selling them to Zoos. Not really an admirable profession if there ever was one, but these ladies go CRAZY over him.
now personally i would much rather have had the anthropologist dude. He was much more attractive and had much better prospects despite his unbearable naivety...!
and lastly WHAT was with all the frightfully over-dramatic crying scenes? do people really cry like that?
Ava Gardiner's blonde/witty remarks really made the film though "hey, a kangaroo" what a line!
I wish I could think of something witty to put here... but I can't.
Well, as a male I can't really speak to how attractive a woman finds Gable versus Sinden, but Sinden's character was really unappealing to me. Gardner was clearly not an educated lady, and yet he uses the Latin scientific names for common animals when talking to her. He has no feel at all for people.
As for both ladies being "crazy" for Gable, both were extremely unhappy with their personal lives going in. Gardner's life has been empty since her boyfriend was killed in the war, as she reveals, and she has just been brutally dumped. Kelly is emotionally corseted and stuck in what appears to be an unsatisfying marriage. The Tennessee Williams line "when a marriage goes on the rocks, the rocks are here"--in the bed--applies, I think. It was pretty obvious. Gable may have been aging, but he at least holds the promise of an "earthy" relationship and he is an Einstein in his understanding of women next to Sinden.
As for Gable capturing animals, the movie was made in 1953, when most people would not have shared your concern. Realistically also, I doubt if legal animal suppliers like Gable ever had any major impact on animal populations. Ivory poachers and the like are the real problem.
I think this movie would have worked better with a younger and more fit male lead. I know that he is "Clark Gable", one of the most iconic sex symbols of the screen, but the fact that he played the same role 20 years earlier indicates to me that this role was intended for someone with a youthful masculine appeal. Crusty old Gable didn't do it for me. I hated seeing these beautiful young women throw themselves at this nasty, sour old man. It's borderline ridiculous.
I don't think the profession really bothered anyone (especially in the 1950's, way pre-PETA). In fact that's the only appeal Gable's character really had to the ladies: he was a rough and tough salt of the earth kind of guy who had a truly "manly" profession and demeanor.
Ava Gardner saved this movie. She made it bearable and even entertaining to watch. Without her, I don't think I would have made it through the whole thing.
Well, you have to understand that this was a time when women were attracted to men. Real honest-to-God testosterone-laden men. Not the little wussies today that live vicariously through some overpaid sports persona, and high-five each other in a bar like it was they who scored points in a completely meaningless sport, but men who went out and did it themselves. It was a different time as evinced by Ava Gardner's character - more than a little soiled - donning a scarf and taking a moment to pray in a church (Catholic women had to have their heads covered in a church back then) and still taking confession when she had the chance.
Whilst today, the men are expected to exude as much estrogen as the women they date, women *used* to be attracted to the manliness of a fellow. As such, Gable's character had that in spades.
Gathering animals for zoos, circuses, etc. at the time was quite an acceptable form of work. Yes, during the shoot that black leopard was indeed really shot and killed on the tree branch, and no one alerted PITA, err, PETA... In fact, young boys played guns, killed Nips and Krauts and Indians on a daily basis as part of play, and still were taught that honor and integrity were far more important that who was going to "win" Survivor and American Idol.
Yeah, those were manly men back in the day. You'd never see them changing a diaper or helping with the housework. And they certainly wouldn't allow their wives to work outside the home. Damn I wish I had one of those 1950's testosterone-laden manly man.
Au contraire. Watch "Penny Serenade" with Cary Grant crying like a baby over the possibility of losing his adopted daughter; of speaking about being up all night with her when she had the colic. Or Rosalind Russell working as the best ace reporter on the paper in "His Girl Friday"...
Sorry, your attitude doesn't wash. Rosie the Riveter came about during the Second World War, and showed women that they can be as viable in the workplace as men. Just because the first three quarters of the century grew men that preferred sex with women doesn't mean that it was all "Me Tarzan, you housewife." Were there inequities? Sure. Still are, but the media hypes them a lot more now, that's all.
I submit, would women and men have a little more of that role-specific attitude today, we'd have far fewer divorces, far fewer single-parent households, and men who take pride in providing for a household, instead of trying to compete...
How PC and free of epithets against the enemy will you or any of us be in the next war, I can't help but wonder? Will you have kind words to say for whomever is responsible for making someone dear to you suffer or die at their hands? Rather than their use of ethnic slur terms, should our parents and grandparents have had warm & fuzzy feelings for enemies who, during WWII at both the battlefields and in the prison camps, tortured, maimed and killed their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers?
Oh, and the offensive terms that Americans (AND American allies such as the British) had applied to the Germans and Japanese were largely dropped after the war ended and during the time the US became friends and allies with her former enemies.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
Donald seemed like a 'man' to me. He was honorable the whole time. And Eloise wasn't soiled. She was a widow who was outspoken due to grief. Linda was more soiled than she.
He was Clark Gable. Period. It doesn't matter how old he was...he was Clark Gable. No other man in Hollywood history could get away with playing the same leading male role 21 years after the first film. He was the King. No one else would have both Ava Gardner and Grace Kelly after him in the SAME movie. Not to mention, Jean Harlow and Mary Astor in the first one. Long live the King! I've just ordered this film and can't wait to see it. I've seen parts of it, but never the whole thing. I'm currently reading a book about Grace Kelly and I'm learning she damn near lost her mind over Gable. Honestly, I don't blame her. I'd have done the same thing.
Actors are mere products of a good writer's imagination
Once again, that thing about stealing animals would not offend the mores of 1953 that are ignorantly applied in your time warp. You see, you fall into the trap of judging yesterday's people, practices and mores by today's evolved standards. I am sure you are utterly disgusted by the fact that Jefferson slept with Sally Hemmings too. As to Gable's attractiveness, well- Gable is a decisive man of action in this character, and the scientist is a bookish wonk, who in all probability was judging the people of 1890 by his advanced ideals and morals of 1953. You see, with that attitude you are never gonna get the girl, and if you do, it will be just one.
Of it's time I guess. I suspect very few films or books over a certain age would survive the culling process if today's sensitivities are retrospectively applied. I'm not claiming the ongoing changes are wrong or not long overdue but I'd hate to filter out all the old stuff.
Also, with thing's evolving so quickly I suspect 'over a certain age' could be as recent as some time last year 😊