Why is 'the last word' important to King Brian? - Darby O'Gill and the Little People (1960) Discussion

[–] DannyJane 18 years ago

I don't think it was anything "magical". I think the little king was making sure his subliminal message had been received. And just maybe taking advantage of the opportunity spend a little time with the very pretty Katie in her sleep--with Darby's blessing no less.

reply

[–] davismargaret 18 years ago

SPOILER CAUTION

King Brian is going to do his best to get those two together. I think it's not so important that she "have the last word" as that King Brian know what that last word is, to incorporate it in his Little People influences--and notice that in the very next scene, Michael asks her several times whether she likes him even a little, and against all reason she replies no. That hard-to-get attitude is part of what makes Michael fall for her, and his turning down of her kiss based on those "no's" is what makes her fall for him.

reply

[–] davismargaret 18 years ago

SPOILER CAUTION

King Brian is going to do his best to get those two together. I think it's not so important that she "have the last word" as that King Brian know what that last word is, to incorporate it in his Little People influences--and notice that in the very next scene, Michael asks her several times whether she likes him even a little, and against all reason she replies no. That hard-to-get attitude is part of what makes Michael fall for her, and his turning down of her kiss based on those "no's" is what makes her fall for him.

reply

[–] thirdfrog 18 years ago

Thanks for the explanation, davismargaret. That helps a lot, and makes a lot of sense. The courtship of Michael and Katie definitely seemed to be based on, and perhaps even dependent on, an exchange of mock rejections. Strangely enough, it seems that the actress who portrayed Katie (Janet Munro) preferred the "hard-to-get" method of courtship in some of her other movie roles as well. There may be some spoilers for the movies that I will mention here. In "Swiss Family Robinson", she is courted by two brothers and falls for the one who displays the least amount of interest in her. In "Third Man on the Mountain", she ingores a man who is actively courting her and falls for the lead actor who does not even compliment her. In "The Day the Earth Caught Fire", she is amazingly subjected to about a half-hour's worth of pickup lines from the leading actor and falls for him immediately after he pretends to reject her.

reply

[–] DannyJane 17 years ago

I think that was a common thread throughout the 50s and early 60s because "nice girls didn't". If you were hard to get it was because you were choosy and if you subsequently relented it meant that the man was somehow "worthy". It led to a lot of mixed up and confused relationships.

reply

[–] thirdfrog 17 years ago

That is interesting, DannyJane. Thanks for the replies. There is a a tactic in negotiating called "The Withdrawn Offer" (the phrase may have been originated by the business author Roger Dawson but I am not sure) where the seller withdraws the initial offer from the buyer in order to increase the buyer's interest. Basically, the seller pretends to not want to sell to the buyer anymore. It seems that the "Withdrawn Offer" tactic worked really well on both Katie and Michael. Both parties used it (by feigning disinterest), and both parties "fell" for it. It may be sort of chilling to view their courtship in the terms of a negotiation, but in some ways, it seemed like a negotiation.

But there might be a flaw to the "negotiation" theory, because there may be a bit of a compulsive or unconscious element to it as well. When Katie and Michael were having a heated argument (Katie angrily denied loving him: "Me?!! Love you?!!") that even led to blows (Katie striking Michael across the face) it seemed to serve as part of the courtship as well, but not deliberately or consciously. In the aftermath, Michael said "I like a lively girl" and her loud rejection and physical attack only served to enhance his attraction. When Katie was in the midst of those arguments, it really didn't seem like she was consciously trying to play hard to get. Can being "hard to get" really be a conscious romantic strategy when it still is in effect when she loses her temper? Was Katie "playing" hard to get, or was she just compulsively hard to get? Was it significant that she said "no" to King Brian in her sleep, as if to confirm that this dynamic was occurring at the subconscious level, and outside of her conscious control? Maybe this is why Darby preferred keeping company with the Little People after his spouse passed away (but Little People are literally hard to get in their own way; can the chase for the elusive Leprechaun be a metaphor for human courtship, with its obscure rules, limited granting of wishes, and elusive targets?).

reply

[–] DannyJane 17 years ago

There are serious flaws in the "negotiation theory" of courtship. For starters it leads to the masculine belief that "No means Yes" which can be dangerous for both parties. It leaves both parties unsure of where they stand and uncertain how to progress. For all of that, it was the means by which men and women dealt with each other for very many centuries, in very many cultures.

As for Katie's violent reaction to Michael--it comes at a time when she has just found out (through Sheilagh Sugrue's machinations) that he is taking over her father's position and that she has to move from the only home she has ever known. The fault for this lies at Darby's door for not being honest with her at the outset, but at this point of the story Katie doesn't know that. Having read Lord Fitzpatrick's postcard she believes that Michael has deceived her and her father both, so she's justifiably enraged. Remember, Katie is very protective of Darby. She is at least as protective of him as he is of her. There is no "playing" hard to get here, any attraction she may have felt toward Michael is lost in her fury. And for his part, Michael makes the mistake of grabbing for her at a time when her emotions are running out of control. From Katie's point of view she's defending herself, her father and the life they have lived together since she was a baby. That doesn't justify the violent way she lashes out, but it does explain it as well as the near tragedy that follows.

As to Darby's fondness for keeping company with the Little People, well there are many possible reasons. First, of course, is Darby's desire for gold. This is a character flaw that is mitigated by the fact that he doesn't want it for himself, but to make a better life for Katie. This is probably why the leprechauns in general--and King Brian specifically--put up with him. He might sometimes pose a problem for them but he poses no actual threat as, for example, Pony would. King Brian especially tolerates Darby because Darby provides a great deal of entertainment. But over all, I think the two of them actually enjoy each other's company.

reply

[–] thirdfrog 17 years ago

Thanks for the detailed explanation, DannyJane. If you ever write a book about this, I will buy it. It is amazing that most of these events are occurring probably in the last 10 minutes of the film.

reply

[–] ph75006 10 years ago

Great reply and insightful analysis.

reply

[–] firstRainbowRose 17 years ago

There's a very simple answer. If you think about it, Katie actually doesn't get the last word. In traditional Folk lore there's about three ways to beat one of them. 1 - capture them 2 - I don't remember, 3 - HAVE THE LAST WORD. When Katie woke up, she had been the last person to say something. So he returned to give her the "courtesy" of the last word, but in fact did so only to keep his powers. When she replied that her last word is no, he instantly says something else, and then leaves to make sure he's said the last thing, and can keep his powers.

(If you want to read a great series that goes into a lot of detail about this type of thing, check out "The Ill Made Mute" by Cicile Darthorn-Hart (sp?). Great trilogy. She does overe discribe things sometimes, but other than that, amazing.)

reply

[–] thirdfrog 17 years ago

To firstRainbowRose:
Thanks a lot for the answer. I was hoping that there was some leprechaun lore associated with King Brian's statement. It seems like an unusual bit of dialogue for a screenplay writer to put into a movie without some traditional basis for it. Contemporary Disney movies try so hard to be understandable that we may never see a family movie as mysterious as Darby O'Gill from Disney ever again. If a leprechaun's power is taken away by the last word, then that is probably the closest thing to a definite answer that we'll get about a leprechaun movie.
Sometimes I wonder if the movie was unintentionally prophetic. Television and DVD's have made "little people" literally real. People, on average, spend multiple hours every day watch little representations of people. If you bring a tape measure to your television screen or monitor, the heights of the people displayed on it are roughly similar to that of a leprechaun. The average newscaster or actor, when displayed on the screen, is about a foot tall. Darby O'Gill spending a night in a leprechaun cave resembles the average TV watcher, staying up late to absorb information that might not help them in the "real" world. At least Darby is able to take his leprechaun stories and to bond with his neighbors in a tavern the next day, which may be an underlying motive of TV watching as well. I don't think people would spend time watching little people unless they felt that in some way, it would help them later in their dealings with big people. Unfortunately, many choose the company of little people over big people, and Kate's statement that Darby had "great games with them" after the death of his wife seemed a bit sad. Aside from King Brian raising a empty mug from inside his captor's sack in the tavern in front of witnesses (and King Brian's conversations with Michael and Kate in their sleep), the movie does not provide any proof that the little people are not purely visions (or delusions) of Darby alone.

reply

[–] DannyJane 15 years ago

But those moments are enough.

reply