A disturbing film - Georgy Girl (1966) Discussion

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

'It was only Georgy who was willing to take care of Sara, but only by marrying James.'
--------------------
But is that fair to James if she didn't love him? Or did he know she didn't love him? If not,that makes Georgy just as shallow. She was not obligated to adopt the baby.

reply

[–] beetiesmom 12 years ago

I think maybe both Georgy and James fulfilled their own needs by marrying each other; James must have known what he was getting himself into. He'd known Georgy for most of her life. Jos was stark, raving mad, a complete idiot-boy. I was so delighted that Georgy ditched him. And took the baby to raise. Good for HER!!!

reply

[–] SimplemindedSociety 12 years ago

I'm saying marriage is not supposed to be used for doing $$ business;that devalues marriage.

reply

[–] carolineno 11 years ago

Well for many years that's exactly what marriage was: a business transaction. In countries with arranged marriages, that's pretty much what marriage is. The romantic view we currently embrace is rather new.

reply

[–] SimplemindedSociety 11 years ago

'Well for many years that's exactly what marriage was: a business transaction. In countries with arranged marriages, that's pretty much what marriage is. The romantic view we currently embrace is rather new.'
------------------
I'd like to think we have progressed since 1000 yrs ago. Those same women had no choice in the matter and had to wed,and conceive with a man they didn't care about
Shall we go with the "new" or the old,then? Shall we just tear down every institution that we pride ourselves on? Yes, let's make ourselves as shallow & superficial as we can--society seems to be going that route anyway.

Back to the film, why is it assumed that the finale is meant to be uplifting,and not rooted in pathos?

reply

[–] Sheldonshells 11 years ago

"Those same women had no choice in the matter and had to wed,and conceive with a man they didn't care about."

Usually and for the most part, the men had no choice in the matter either.

reply

[–] thesnowleopard 10 years ago

I'd like to think we have progressed since 1000 yrs ago.

Try fifty years ago, which is about the time this film came out.

Those same women had no choice in the matter and had to wed,and conceive with a man they didn't care about

Marriages were arranged by families (and still are in some parts of the world). The kids being married to each other didn't have much choice. But people often died young back then, and widows and widowers had much more choice later on.

Either way, marriage has been a financial transaction for most of its existence and still is treated that way by the tax man.

Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com

reply

[–] EllisFowler 10 years ago

Marriages were arranged by families (and still are in some parts of the world).

And quite a few of those marriages are successful, at least from what I've seen. I know any number of Indians whose parents arranged their marriages, or whose parents' marriages were arranged. The marriages are not only solid but happy. Conversely, most people I know who married for love have been divorced at least once.

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I'd like to think we have progressed since 1000 yrs ago. Those same women had no choice in the matter and had to wed,and conceive with a man they didn't care about

Shall we go with the "new" or the old,then? Shall we just tear down every institution that we pride ourselves on? Yes, let's make ourselves as shallow & superficial as we can--society seems to be going that route anyway.

Why do people think everything new equates to progress and everything old is considered wrong? That is not always the case. Yes, in some ways we have progressed as a society but in other ways we most certainly have not.

You talk about what women had to do 1000 years ago but in this movie, which is only about fifty years ago, one woman conceives a child with someone she doesn't care about (actually, three kids; two were murdered); and another woman marries a man she doesn't love. Things aren't that much different today. Neither was forced into those situations yet there they are.

You're right, some people (men and women) didn't necessarily have a say in who they married but that was a fact of life. They didn't have much of a say in a lot of what happened in their lives. These days we seem to have a lot of choices but we seem to be making some very odd choices. Is that really better?

I may be wrong but your comments seem to suggest the institution of marriage is somehow better now than it was before. Really, why exactly is that? A lot of people use marriage as another opportunity to throw a party; to get some perks, and to push some agendas. That's an improvement? Some people seem to think as long as everyone goes along with something and we all pretend whatever that something is okay that alone makes it okay. Wrong!

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I'd like to think we have progressed since 1000 yrs ago. Those same women had no choice in the matter and had to wed,and conceive with a man they didn't care about

Shall we go with the "new" or the old,then? Shall we just tear down every institution that we pride ourselves on? Yes, let's make ourselves as shallow & superficial as we can--society seems to be going that route anyway.

Why do people think everything new equates to progress and everything old is considered wrong? That is not always the case. Yes, in some ways we have progressed as a society but in other ways we most certainly have not.

You talk about what women had to do 1000 years ago but in this movie, which is only about fifty years ago, one woman conceives a child with someone she doesn't care about (actually, three kids; two were murdered); and another woman marries a man she doesn't love. Things aren't that much different today. Neither was forced into those situations yet there they are.

You're right, some people (men and women) didn't necessarily have a say in who they married but that was a fact of life. They didn't have much of a say in a lot of what happened in their lives. These days we seem to have a lot of choices but we seem to be making some very odd choices. Is that really better?

I may be wrong but your comments seem to suggest the institution of marriage is somehow better now than it was before. Really, why exactly is that? A lot of people use marriage as another opportunity to throw a party; to get some perks, and to push some agendas. That's an improvement? Some people seem to think as long as everyone goes along with something and we all pretend whatever that something is okay that alone makes it okay. Wrong!

reply

[–] Ironman54 8 years ago

The movie was made 50 years ago (roughly).

reply

[–] Sheldonshells 11 years ago

"The romantic view we currently embrace is rather new."

LOL, you got to be kidding. If anything, marriage is more like a business transaction, that is based on strict conditions, than ever before. Which is probably why over half of them end in divorce (well over half of all new businesses fail too). So much for "romance."

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IcySpoon 11 years ago

Why do you assume Meredith is a "far left liberal"? I'd say she seemed fairly typical of the time and more likely a-political if anything. I think you're projecting your own agenda onto the film, "so typical of a far left liberal who thinks nothing of murdering babies". That's quite a generalization to assume that all woman who have abortions are liberal and don't care about the sad situation they are in. I think it's convenient you found a film that fits your narrow belief that all women in this situation act and feel a certain way.

reply

[–] bgbvette 11 years ago

Because her viewpoints on life are liberal. Take a look at the current political landscape. Her view on life (what's convienent for me) is certainly not conservative.

The murder of children by a other is a horrendous crime. Contraceptives are not reducing unexpected pregnancies as expected. Abortion is still put forth as a viable means of birth control.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

"Because her viewpoints on life are liberal".

Her only "viewpoint" seemed to be callous avoidance of any responsibility or commitment whatsoever. If you think that is common to all liberals, you're pretty bigoted yourself.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 10 days ago

Meredith was simply a callous tart. Georgy makes me think of Bridget Jones!

reply

[–] ewalley1 11 years ago

As a "far left liberal" I'm very offended by your characterization. Many of my devout anti-choice Christian "lefty" friends would be too. Why do you feel the need to politicize a fifty your old movie in today's terms? If you need to put put these characters into today's political slots, Meredith would most accurately be termed "apolitical", in other words completely disinterested in the world around her. There are, however, libertarian overtones to her rejection of societal rules. If I'm not mistaken, libertarians tend to vote with the conservatives, do they not?

reply

[–] guy_in_west_houston 11 years ago

Conservatives proudly call themselves conservative, because that's what we are. It means something - it stands for something. Call a Liberal a liberal, and they're offended. Liberals, who constantly classify people, are offended when they are classified - it's the double standard they live by... "Anti-choice?" you make it sound like a bad thing - call yourself "Anti-Life", but of course, you would take offense to that. I'm not politicizing an old movie, I'm calling a Liberal a liberal. Let me put it terms you'd understand - I'm calling a young White female British unmarried... oh never mind.

reply

[–] ewalley1 11 years ago

Ok. The young woman Meredith in the movie typifies conservative values. She's cold, selfish, manipulative. She's what's wrong in the Western world today. What we need is more good citizens with liberal values.

There. Like it?

I'm proud to be a liberal. What I don't like is seeing the term misused. If you want to characterize the woman in negative ways - please feel free. I agree she's a pretty awful person. But liberal she's not.

Definition: Liberal: progressive, broad-minded, unprejudiced, beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting.

reply

[–] StrandedinLaLaLand 11 years ago

Women of all political backgrounds have premarital sex and/or abortions. These actions aren't telling of anyone's background. To think you can tell a person's background is rather lazy. I have yet to find a conservative who doesn't box people. You just did by assuming that's she is a far-left liberal (not the person ahead of me; I'm referring to West Houston.)

Black men and a whole lot of *beep* white men have had plenty fun adoring my ass JUNGLE JULIA

reply

[–] ewalley1 11 years ago

Strand, I agree. I really don't have a problem with women who have premarital sex and/or abortions. I do have a problem with women who cavalierly have a child then abandon him/her for no good reason. This particular women was exceedingly callus. Georgy on the other hand had her share of premarital sex but was warm-hearted and generous. She was a good person. It's the fashion in some circles these days for some to brand anyone who behaves badly a far-left liberal. I think that's very damaging. If you don't like the behavior, fine, it's a free country and everyone is entitle to an opinion. But, as they say, everyone is not entitle to their own facts, and branding that particular behavior as something political was just wrong.

reply

[–] StrandedinLaLaLand 11 years ago

No disagreement there!! His/her actions were pretty transparent with this post's creation.

Black men and a whole lot of *beep* white men have had plenty fun adoring my ass JUNGLE JULIA

reply

[–] EllisFowler 10 years ago

Well, I'm very far Right and I don't see the need to inject my personal politics into this film. But then, I'm not into posting agendas.

reply

[–] v_anzaldua 8 years ago

Anti-choice IS bad because that takes away a person's means of ensuring that s/he can plan when or whether to have babies. (Yes, birth control can prevent abortion. Look it up!) As for you and ilk standing for something: yes, you do stand for something--like screwing over people who don't have the means to plan their families, get themselves out of poverty, or get the educations they want.

I'm sick of people like you. BTW, I'm a liberal and proud of it!

reply

[–] jennylynmasters 10 years ago

Hear. Hear. If you do not want a baby, use birth control. Unborn babies can feel the doctors killing them and often will move to try to avoid being killed.

reply

[–] OneRichLagunaTick 8 years ago

That has to be the most idiotic thing I have ever read. Fetal pain is a lie that would fit quite nicely in your Fred Flintstone Creationist museum of phony science.
Embryos feel NOTHING. Babies with the rotten luck of having been born to and raised by resentful, immature, callous, selfish and/or psychotic parents--THOSE living, breathing babies, however, feel lots of pain. And I don't see you conservatives doing a whole lot for them once they're born into that living hell. Therefore, you sanctimonious, unsympathetic to the already born, holier than thou cretins need to keep your busybody noses out of other people's personal medical decisions.

It's as simple as this: NOBODY forces anyone to have an abortion. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN ABORTION! Regardless what extraordinary circumstances might prevail other females to decide to terminate her pregnancy, it's STILL HER DECISION TO MAKE without strangers like you inserting themselves into her uterus.

Believe whatever nonsense you want. But Kindly keep your restrictive religious and/or fake scientific gobbledygook out of other adults' PERSONAL decisions. Damn. How hard is that to understand?

reply

[–] lizcarlo87 10 years ago

Meredith was cold and callus towards her baby Sarah. It was sad. It' was good Sarah had Georgy to be her mother.

reply

[–] snagletooth 10 years ago

True, it's not a movie about well-adjusted responsible people and actually good outcomes.......

reply

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I agree. It's a shame how both Meredith and Jos behaved towards baby Sara but it's by no means surprising. They represent a lot of the 'modern' way of thinking. If it feels good, do it; deal with the consequences later. A child and a hangnail aren't seen as any different; both something to be rid of.

Georgy is the only one of the bunch who actually cares for Sara and is willing to make sacrifices for her. She's a bit messed up herself but she loves Sara and will try to do right by her.

reply

[–] Bree_33 9 years ago

That she "destroyed" two previous babies without telling Jos, is so typical of a far left Liberal who thinks nothing of murdering babies.



☁☀☁

------__@
----_`\<,_
___(*)/ (*)____
» nec spe,nec metu •´¯`» Ingmar Bergman’s The Fly: https://i.imgur.com/K8d9NIz.gif

reply

[–] Big G-2 9 years ago

This is first and foremost a comedy, but with a very good antagonist in Charlotte Rampling's "Meredith", who we all agree is a vile individual. Why the need to interject politics into this? What's next? The great white shark in JAWS, should be deemed a good old fashion conservative, because he ain't doing that liberal vegetarian thing?

reply