Hello everyone, I've only seen the play, not this movie, and it was in high school, so my burgeoning female independence may have skewed my view.
However - I remember a central theme of "It doesn't hurt when someone beats you if you love them enough."
Again, they may have toned this down for the movie, but watching the play I was outraged and swore to never watch it again.
Please tell me if I'm missing the point here...
I figured it was about time someone would tread over this old ground.
You're missing the point here.
See my post dated 2/12/06 under the thread "Well I like it."
By the way, the sentiment about hitting someone and it not hurting originally comes from "Liliom"--it ends the show.
I don't think you are missing the point urinall as I too was always somewhat disturbed by that line. Actually, when Julie delivered that line she looked a little dazed and confused and somewhat far-off as if she was remembering fondly of the times Billy hit her. That's what really disturbed me. This happens when Billy returns to Earth and is talking to his daughter, Louisa. As he tries to give Louisa a star and when she refuses the gift from a stranger he strikes her. William LeMassena, his Heavenly Friend scolds him about the strike and how Billy hasn't changed. At that moment Billy does change and realizes how he hurt everyone that loved him. He sends his message of love, faith, and courage to his daughter at graduation and tells Julie that he really did love her. It's not spoken, but perhaps Julie forgave him at that moment as she joins everyone in singing.
shareI'm not sure what the point is for Hammerstein to tell us that this guy who was a wife beater suddenly changed his ways. That seems pretty false to life, it seems like Molnar's play was more true and open for interpretation. What Hammerstein did with it was to essentially put it into the mold of Gaylord Ravenal from "Show Boat", who's this lovable guy who has all kinds of "good reasons" for abandoning his wife and child. Now I love both "Show Boat" and "Carousel" for their better qualities but this whole aspect of Hammerstein's method has always bothered me and particularly in the case of "Carousel" it simply doesn't ring true. The depiction of the love affair and the fact that Julie stays with him is perfectly real, and he makes sure to have Cousin Nettie comment negatively on Billy Bigelow so we know that he's not trying to say that spousal abuse is simply universally accepted in the universe of the play. But I can't really accept the ease with which Bigelow is supposed to reform himself at the end, and the graduation scene is extremely disappointing. Hammerstein has spent all this time making us feel Bigelow is a certain type of person and then he expects us to suddenly accept that the wife beating was just a behavior and not part of who he really is. That it's just something he can one day decide to stop doing. I just don't see what his point is. He's saying that the enabling woman figure was more admirable than the society types like her friend's family who look down on Bigelow despite having perhaps their own faults. OK.... but again what's the point? I don't admire Julie Jordan I feel sorry for her. But I don't think that's how Hammerstein wanted us to feel.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
It's your point that I don't get. Billy's character does not go through any sudden reformation at the end of this play.
First of all, Billy was never supposed to be very bad to begin with. That's not to say he doesn't have some important flaws. But he isn't a Jigger.
The clear impression is that rather than being a constant physical abuser of Julie, he struck her once. He offers a lame excuse for it, and virtually all the other characters criticize him for it. We are never given to believe that this episode means he does not love Julie.
He goes through two major reformations in the piece, and it is NOT at the end during the graduation. The first comes when Julie tells him she's pregnant and is expressed immediately (to Mrs. Mullin) and during "Soliloquy." The next is during "Louise's Ballet," when Billy sees his own life being repeated (and showing its consequences) through his daughter.
Sure, he slaps Louise's hand, but it's now like a loving kiss or the mild swat a parent might give a disobedient child. And he's still inarticulate and needs Dr. Seldin to talk for him (to Louise) at the graduation. But we already knew he wanted to try to help his daughter avoid his bitter fate. And he finally tells Julie/lets her feel what was always true: he loved her.
Molnar reportedly reacted very favorably to the ending of "Carousel." You have redemption and optimism, which were vital if "Liliom" were to be adapted into a 1945 Broadway musical.
I heartily agree with 'rorysa'. This very adult-themed musical is almost a "musical noir" with it's hard-to-like lead character and sense of impending tragedy from its very start. Puccini and Gershwin both wanted to make operas out of Molnar's LILIOM but he refused them both. After seeing OKLAHOMA! on Broadway, Molnar let it be known that he'd be happy for R+H to musicalize his very downbeat fantasy.He did love the new ending and told them this at the dress rehearsal (most unusual for the author of a classic work which is adapted and changed by others).
In the magnificent 'Soliloquy', we glimpse Billy Bigelow's tender side underneath his childish, arrogant exterior and learn that he himself was 'bullied and bossed around' when young. This is the side that Julie is able to see and love. In the 'If I Loved You' sequence she is really the one who leads him into a more mature relationship than he has known hitherto despite the fact that he treats her at first like one of his "pick ups".She is far more mature emotionally than he, which again is unusual for a musical heroine.(Another exception, Marian the Librarian in THE MUSIC MAN, also played by Shirley Jones).Why don't feminist viewers seem to notice this?
The physical abuse is condemned by many characters in the play and film. Even Billy states that he hit her because "she was right and I was wrong" and is pressed to admit(by the Starkeeper) that he is ashamed of this act and his love for her.His conviction in the penultimate scene occurs when he hears her say to their daughter "It's possible for someone to hit you..hit you hard... And it not hurt at all". She is obviously speaking of emotional pain, not physical.Knowing he was acting out of frustration and anger (at himself for being a poor provider), she did not take offence and forgave him immediately.There is a maternal aspect to her love for Billy and it is akin to a mother forgiving an immature child of striking out at the one he/she loves in a moment of frustration."Love takes no account of a suffered wrong"(1 Cor.13).This realization finally makes Billy ashamed of himself and prompts him to at last tell Julie "I loved you" at the graduation.She never heard this from him in life (ie. "Longing to tell you but afraid and shy,I'd let my golden chances pass me by").To view the film/play as promoting wife-beating is missing the point to a huge degree.One can forgive someone for offending them and still recognize that the offensive act was wrong.Other movies/plays display non-stop emotional abuse (eg. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE,which also contains physical abuse)without showing the offending character repenting and changing and no-one seems to accuse the authors of promoting this treatment of others. Molnar and Hammerstein were crediting their audiences with a level of maturity that few authors display today.
By the way, unlike some others, I believe Pheobe and Henry Ephron improved the libretto of the play by showing Billy in "heaven" from the start and giving the story as a flashback. This gives us more insight into Billy's character and does away with the awkward lines in the play which state that 15 years have passed in moments "up here". In the prologue of the film, Billy still thinks he has had a son and an indeterminate amount of time has passed since his arrival.As a first-time viewer I was intrigued to learn just how he would come to die as the film progressed. I only regret the cutting of 'You're a Queer One Julie Jordan' and 'Blow High, Blow Low', both filmed but shed during previews.
Well said. And if you've read my other posts you know I also think the screenplay was a wonderful improvement.
share"I heartily agree with 'rorysa'. This very adult-themed musical is almost a "musical noir" with it's hard-to-like lead character and sense of impending tragedy from its very start. Puccini and Gershwin both wanted to make operas out of Molnar's LILIOM but he refused them both. After seeing OKLAHOMA! on Broadway, Molnar let it be known that he'd be happy for R+H to musicalize his very downbeat fantasy.He did love the new ending and told them this at the dress rehearsal (most unusual for the author of a classic work which is adapted and changed by others)."
Well, I haven't read or seen the original play. But if he thought Rodgers and Hammerstein were better than Puccini and Gershwin then I just pity his taste, that's all I have to say about that. And just because he liked R&H's ending more than his, if he did, doesn't mean I have to. Maybe he just thought it was better for a musical version.
"In the magnificent 'Soliloquy', we glimpse Billy Bigelow's tender side underneath his childish, arrogant exterior and learn that he himself was 'bullied and bossed around' when young."
That's a viable interpretation but it's not a direct or necessary conclusion, he only states that his son won't be bullied. You could just as easily interpret that line to mean that his son will be just like him, a tough guy. Although it's true that the fact that his daughter experiences various forms of public humiliation, combined with the cyclical imagery, implies that Bigelow might have had a rough time growing up.
"This is the side that Julie is able to see and love."
There's no rational aspect or identifiable trait in Bigelow that you can isolate out and say "this is what Julie loves in Bigelow." Hammerstein has a much more complex view of love than that. "What's the Use of Wondrin?" -- you don't love the good "side" and hate the bad "side", you love the person. So I completely reject that reading.
"In the 'If I Loved You' sequence she is really the one who leads him into a more mature relationship than he has known hitherto despite the fact that he treats her at first like one of his "pick ups".She is far more mature emotionally than he, which again is unusual for a musical heroine.(Another exception, Marian the Librarian in THE MUSIC MAN, also played by Shirley Jones).Why don't feminist viewers seem to notice this?"
Well nobody that I know of really thinks of themselves as a feminist. A feminist reading of the fact that she takes the first verse in "If I Loved You" is interesting. Obviously this song is modeled to some extent on "Make Believe" in the show "Show Boat", and in that case it was the male character Gaylord Ravenal who took the first verse and the initiative so to speak. So Hammerstein is definitely departing from some of the things he had done before. I've never really felt like she was seducing him, and as far as drawing him into a more mature relationship I think it's an equally new thing for both of them. I think that's what the lyrics imply as well as the dialog. I'm a big fan of "The Music Man" as well, and Jones was even better in that film than she was in the two R&H's that she did.
"The physical abuse is condemned by many characters in the play and film. Even Billy states that he hit her because "she was right and I was wrong" and is pressed to admit(by the Starkeeper) that he is ashamed of this act and his love for her.His conviction in the penultimate scene occurs when he hears her say to their daughter "It's possible for someone to hit you..hit you hard... And it not hurt at all". She is obviously speaking of emotional pain, not physical.Knowing he was acting out of frustration and anger (at himself for being a poor provider), she did not take offence and forgave him immediately."
I think you're in the right territory here for sure, and this is actually the element that I find somewhat objectionable. Should she forgive him? Obviously Hammerstein is saying this is the way things are in the real world, and I agree with him, but what I'm never sure of is whether he actually approves, or disapproves, or is just making a comment from a sort of objective perspective. Like this is how love is, take it or leave it.
"To view the film/play as promoting wife-beating is missing the point to a huge degree.One can forgive someone for offending them and still recognize that the offensive act was wrong.Other movies/plays display non-stop emotional abuse (eg. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE,which also contains physical abuse)without showing the offending character repenting and changing and no-one seems to accuse the authors of promoting this treatment of others. Molnar and Hammerstein were crediting their audiences with a level of maturity that few authors display today."
Well honestly I'd like to believe that, I'd like to think that Hammerstein's perspective was somehow more advanced than I've been able to figure out yet. A lot of people are offended by "Show Boat" but I don't really think it's offensive at all if you understand the context of the original play, it was actually very confrontational and progressive. But the thing is that repenting is not a very "mature" theme from most intellectual perspectives. The character that Brando played int he film of "Streetcar" doesn't repent because he's an essentially brutal person in my viewing of the story. The ponit of that one to me in a lot of ways is that the other people are just as bad or worse in their own ways, except maybe the Kim Hunter character. When you have the character "repent" and you have this swelling crescendo of uplifting music, then the audience is going to be left with an impression that you're trying to get us to forgive Bigelow as well, and I'm just not sure that we should. I can understand that Julie Jordan loves him and that she forgives him, but the fact that she forgave him wouldn't change his behavior or who he is.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
"It's your point that I don't get. Billy's character does not go through any sudden reformation at the end of this play.
First of all, Billy was never supposed to be very bad to begin with. That's not to say he doesn't have some important flaws. But he isn't a Jigger."
You're right he's not quite as bad as Jigger, he didn't even want to get a knife. Or maybe you could say he's not as good at being bad as Jigger is, eh? There's a clear difference between them -- Billy is focused, for example he has to remind Jigger that they had a job to do when Jigger is getting distracted with the girl.
"The clear impression is that rather than being a constant physical abuser of Julie, he struck her once. He offers a lame excuse for it, and virtually all the other characters criticize him for it. We are never given to believe that this episode means he does not love Julie."
No of course it doesn't mean he doesn't love her, that's a somewhat romantic way of putting it to my way of thinking. I don't think he only hit her once, I think that implication is only planted there to appease some of the more prudish audience members who simply won't identify with Bigelow if he was depicted as a constant wife abuser. But if he "only hit her once" then it sure seems odd to me how quickly and readily he strikes his daughter as well. And it sure would seem strange how Julie talks about being hit being like being kissed, if she had only been hit once. I'm saying that you're taking an un-necessarily literal interpretation of the play, to assume that because Julie and Bigelow themselves maintain it "only happened once" that Hammerstein means us to assume that this is true. I don't think that's tenable.
"He goes through two major reformations in the piece, and it is NOT at the end during the graduation. The first comes when Julie tells him she's pregnant and is expressed immediately (to Mrs. Mullin) and during "Soliloquy."
I don't think that's a reformation at all, I mean that's the point at which he decides to go in with Jigger on the robbery. His plan at that point is to escape. To San Francisco or "to the skies" as the intended victim ironically shouts. He hasn't "reformed" in my opinion because at that point he's still looking for a way to get out of his situation without having to take any real responsiblity. But I'm not trying to say that the "Soliloquy" itself is meaningless or that it doesn't show something that seems like nobility in his character. The way I would put it is that at this point he has good intentions or he desires good for the people he loves, but he hasn't accepted that there might be a price to pay for reaching the goal he wants to reach. He knows he wants money, but because he doesn't know how to get it he says he will take it.
"The next is during "Louise's Ballet," when Billy sees his own life being repeated (and showing its consequences) through his daughter."
I don't agree just on the basis that nothing happens with Bigelow's character during that scene, any "reformation" occurs after the scene where he hits the daughter in my opinion even though the events in the Ballet clearly set up the realizations that Billy is supposed to be having and that the audience is certainly having.
"Sure, he slaps Louise's hand, but it's now like a loving kiss or the mild swat a parent might give a disobedient child. And he's still inarticulate and needs Dr. Seldin to talk for him (to Louise) at the graduation. But we already knew he wanted to try to help his daughter avoid his bitter fate. And he finally tells Julie/lets her feel what was always true: he loved her."
I think they softened it for the film version. From what I've heard he hits her pretty hard in the original stage version. The whole thing about it being like a "kiss" or a mild swat is Hammerstein's way of making a statement about the unquestioning and powerful nature of love. If I were to interpret it the way you seem to be interpreting it, then it would be a very dull play. The whole thing is supposed to be about Bigelow's violence, not about him being this playful daddie who likes to slap his girl. Hammerstein isn't going to write a play about a guy lightly slapping a disobedient girl. This guy is pretty hard-core, I mean he beats his wife and he tries to rob a guy at knifepoint and then he even slaps his daughter when he returns as the ghost. I'm far beyond thinking that Billy doesn't love them, he definitely loves them but Hammerstein is trying to talk about how love and violence can co-exist. The way you interpret it seems to take that whole dimension away.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
You're right he's not quite as bad as Jigger, he didn't even want to get a knife. Or maybe you could say he's not as good at being bad as Jigger is, eh?
I don't think that's a reformation at all, I mean that's the point at which he decides to go in with Jigger on the robbery. His plan at that point is to escape. To San Francisco or "to the skies" as the intended victim ironically shouts. He hasn't "reformed" in my opinion because at that point he's still looking for a way to get out of his situation without having to take any real responsiblity.
he tries to rob a guy at knifepoint
Billy is focused, for example he has to remind Jigger that they had a job to do when Jigger is getting distracted with the girl.
Other movies/plays display non-stop emotional abuse (eg. A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE,which also contains physical abuse)without showing the offending character repenting and changing and no-one seems to accuse the authors of promoting this treatment of others.
I am just totally against men hitting their wives, even once. Where there is one hit/punch, there usually is another. Rarely do they stop at one. I really hope they do away with that in the new remake.
shareEliminating that from the story would be a significant, politically correct, modernized, and completely unwelcome change. Just one of the resons I don't want a remake.
Pianoteacher's post makes no sense. I assume he or she is also against murder, robbery, and many other things--does he or she want those eliminated from films as well?
I am against any violence at women, too, of course. But I think it´s an actual topic right now and I don´t think to cut it from there would be wise. I am sure they´ll handle it (writer of Finding Neverland writes it). Many women stay with their husbands even when they are beating them and can´t explain why. We don´t have to be able to explain it but it is happening.
I personally can´t wait to see the new movie because I didn´t like acting in this old version too much and Hugh Jackman (maybe with Anne Hathaway?) would definitely change that for me.
You can't eliminate it from the remake. It's the driving force of the story. In fact, Hammerstein toned it down. In the original Hungarian play, it is stated that the male lead habitually beat his wife instead of it being a one-time thing.
MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com
This makes sense. I think Billy was sorry he hit her, even though he wouldn't admit it. I agree with you. I think if Billy had been given another chance to live, he would have been different. My guess is if he could have, he would have told Julie, not to make light of it. That it was NOT okay. Makes me think he was someone who loved his wife dearly, but didn't know how to show it. Most people can love, but showing it is a very different story.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
The guy was a total jerkoff, and Julie and her daughter are better off with him dead. I know, I know, there's nothing more romantic and wonderful than some deadbeat thug slapping his wife and little girl around. I guess I'm just "missing the point."
share