MovieChat Forums > Georgy Girl (1966) Discussion > Pauline Kael on 'Georgy Girl' -- SPOILER...

Pauline Kael on 'Georgy Girl' -- SPOILERS

posted 18 years ago by jrhpax
8 replies | jump to latest

In her original review of "Georgy Girl" in "Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang" and in her capsule review in the revised edition of "5001 Nights at the Movies," Pauline Kael writes that Georgy has the baby taken away from her.

Did I miss something here? The baby Sara was never taken away from Georgy. In fact, Georgy married the James Mason character partly in order to KEEP Sara and ward off having the baby taken away from her.

Can someone confirm that Kael was wrong and I'm right, or did I miss something?

[–] thisisashootinghat 18 years ago

Yes, I think you even see the baby in the last scene.

[–] tomtac 18 years ago

MY answer is
(1) Kael has it partly right.
(2) You are completely right, technically.

(The way I remember it.)

First of all, she is taking care of the baby though it is not hers -- the baby's father has the legal right to Sarah, and Georgy is living with him. The investigating social worker is told, though, that the arrangement is that he has a job and Georgy is only the live in nanny.

That falls apart when he shows up yelling about how he's quit the job and accidentally strips in front of the social worker. The next scene is the goodbye scene in which Georgy is crying because (if I recall correctly) she sobs "They are going to take Sarah away".

So Kael is partly right, in that having her taken away is something that comes up.

But, in the end, technically, I think YOU are actually right. Because we never see Sarah go into the state's custody, and I don't think it happens.

Instead, immediately after the goodbye scene, with "they're going to take away Sarah", she walks into sight of James Mason's limosine, and he proposes. The millionaire and his bride get official custody and adopt her.

So,
as I said, MY take on it is that
(1) Kael is correct on bringing it up, but has the details wrong.
(2) You are correct, I think. While it's slightly possible the state may have moved quickly and taken the kid temporarily, that really is unlikely. Once the state knew that a very good adoption was in the works, they wouldn't do anything at all.

Good movie.

[–] tedr0113 18 years ago

A lot of critics miss particular details of a movie. Part of it is they've only seen the movie once and keeping every detail straight under deadline pressure must be an onerous task. Another part may be they make presumptions based on what they think should have happened but may not actually have. Memory is a very tricky thing.

[–] BillyFisher 17 years ago

"A lot of critics miss particular details of a movie. Part of it is they've only seen the movie once and keeping every detail straight under deadline pressure must be an onerous task."

Exactly. Moreso in those days, when you'd only ever get one chance to see a movie. Nowadays it's less forgivable.

- - - - - - - -
www.davidlrattigan.blogspot.com
www.dictionaryofhammer.com

[–] Buddy-51 17 years ago

Yes, a prime example is John Simon's review of "A Man for all Seasons." He says that the camera cuts away to a shot of a bird sitting on a tree branch right before Thomas More is beheaded, but that shot actually occurs much earlier in the film.

[–] angelofvic 16 years ago

As usual, Pauline Kael is completely wrong.

. . . . . . . .

[–] jonchopwood 16 years ago

James Mason's character (who is a millionaire when a millionaire was really a millionaire) tells her that she doesn't have to lose the baby (he has come a-courting again -- he loves her), which Lynn Redgrave's performance indicates is what she wants to hear.

At the wedding, her parents (servants to the Mason character) are holding the baby, then after Mason and Georgy (his new bride) get into his Rolls Royce after the pictures are taken on the steps, before they are to drive away to their honeymoon, the baby is passed to her and she cuddles it.

Mason -- in a superb performance matched by Redgrave -- shows his distress, as he sees that the baby is going to be Georgy's main focus.

Then, the Seekers song comes on and underscores what we have seen beautifully played by the two actors: That Georgy, who is full of love, has wanted to be a mother all along. And while the Mason character might not be ideal (he says he is 49 but is probably nearly 10 years older; she is 22), hey -- he's a millionaire.

The thing is Mason, with his beautiful playing, shows us he loves Georgy Girl, in all her eccentricities, and this will include her raising a child not her (or their) own. (He was childless.)

Mason's character married a beautiful woman who was a bitch and an invalid. We realize (through Mason's beauitufl playing) and the script that he has loved Georgy, truly, not as a dirty old man (there is a reference to "Lolita" early oin the film when Mason's character proposes she become his mistress, and of course, Mason played Humbert Humbert). Mason loves Georgy as she is full of love, and he has lacked love in his own marriage.

It's a wonderful ending, and very effective. Georgy is a loving woman, and she will focus on the child, but Mason's character will be happy as he takes care of both of them. But there is a certain sadness, as is true to life, as Georgy has not found romantic love, and the Mason character must share his love with the baby.

-----------------------------------------------
"Why do people always laugh in the wrong places?"
--Clare Quilty

[–] fentress 15 years ago

I don't know this. But just to speculate ... maybe Kael saw the movie at some critics' screening, but the screening version might not have been the final edited version that was eventually shown in theaters. Maybe they experimented with a version where she did have the baby taken away.

I happen to remember Kael's review of Last Tango in Paris. In that review she described a scene that didn't make it into the final cut. However, in that case, she was aware of it and said so.