I was mad as can be at Neil's father for not accepting him for who he was, but I was almost as mad at his mother! She just sat aside and let her husband emotionally torture Neil! To Mrs. Perry: Why the h*** didn't you back your kid up?????????
shareThat kind of man probably did all the right material things for a 1950's family and that's what she wanted. Also I think that back then you didn't really disagree with your husband in front of anyone. He was the one in charge.
People didn't think about the psychological damage they may been doing to their children, they were committed to bringing them up just like themselves but with more advantages, if they had the money that is.
And then when they found their only son dead, only then could they soften up and say what they felt.I bet you that afterwards people like this would never cry about it in public and bury their sadness with a stiff upper lip and never discuss their guilt.
I think the war years did that to you.
I don't think she was a traitor but I do think she was scared as hell of her husband, especially with his stringent rules. It was also a sign of the times to adhere to your husband's wishes.
shareAgreed with all the above. She was from that generation where the wife's job was to keep the house in order, and leave the big decisions to the husband. I'm sure she wasn't thrilled with what Mr. Perry was doing, but on some level she believed he was doing what was right for Neil no matter how harshly he was doing it.
Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.
You've got a good point, but still, I wish Neil's mother had been more like someone out of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon.
share[deleted]
I think you are right, but watching it recently I realized something. A lot has happened in my life since I first saw this, and I specifically remember watching it in 1992 when I had to do so for a Business Law class. At that time I was married with no children and saw it with different eyes. I viewed it again last month on an airplane and had a viscerally angry reaction to her. I now have a sixteen year old son. I think I was more angry with her than I was with the father.
shareHope you don't take this as personal rudeness but sometimes feelings come up because you identify so much with some aspects of the story and it triggers bad feelings in yourself. What do you think?? :)
shareYou have to remember that at this time women didn't exactly have rights.
shareDepended on the woman. At the time my Mom was about Neil's age in a small mid-western town. Even had she been a boy she would have been raised very differently. She was on her way to college, although she didn't finish because my Dad graduated and was drafted - they decided to marry before he left for the Army.
At that time, however, my Grandmother worked, held public office and served on the County Fair Board. My Grandma never would have married Neil's Dad, BUT if somehow she had, he never would have treated Neil that way.
Yes,I agree with you.In fact the only point in which she actually outbursts against her master-husband is when they stand upon Neil and she cries ''He's alright!He's alright!''.
shareAnd the father has the guts to silence her. Saying something like "Be quiet" or maybe even "shut up." But I can't recall, even though I watched the movie just now.
I really don't understand people who dislike the mother more than the father. The father is the root cause of all of this. She was being emotionally and unreasonably bullied by the father just as much as Neil was, and it is unfair to say that she was any kind of problem.
"Torture" is a strong word. I'm in my 40s and heard "You have opportunities I never dreamt of!" from my own dad pretty regularly. Sure, it was harsh to have decided Neil's entire career for him, including the college he was going to get into, but Neil had accepted that at the beginning of the film. In the beginning, before Mr. Perry leaves Neil at school, he says "You know how much this means to your mother, right?" That comment could mean that Mrs. Perry could have been just as invested in Neil's success as her husband. I always took his mom as not unsympathetic to Neil, but not indulgent in the way many parents are today, either.
Also, don't confuse parenting back then to what it is today, where it's more of a partnership of equals. It wasn't at all strange that a woman would defer to her husband with decision-making.
In the beginning, before Mr. Perry leaves Neil at school, he says "You know how much this means to your mother, right?"
You have to considerer the 50's mentality. Womens didin't have so much power plus in this case where ther's a strong personality Vs a weak one
shareNeil's father was a control freak, and a domineering and abusive person at a time when that was acceptable - as long as you could provide for your family.
An abusive father who couldn't pay the bills was bad - but more because he couldn't pay the bills. While all the parents at Welton are demanding of their sons, Neil's father goes beyond the norm.
When he tells Neil that Neil is never supposed to contradict him in public, it's pretty clear that what he's really saying is that Neil (or Neil's mom) is never supposed to contradict him EVER. There is a thinly held back air of out of control violence at the idea that a wife or son could ever make him look weak by disagreeing with him or disobeying him.
I'm sure that Neil's mom has been slapped around more than once. The beauty of the portrayal is that the film doesn't have to spend a lot of time developing that aspect of the character - it's pretty clear pretty fast (if it is "one dimensional", at least it's efficient).
His concern is never for Neil, but on how Neil makes HIM look. It's not "I want you to become a doctor so you will be able to take core of yourself and your family", it's "I demand that you become a doctor so that everyone knows that I have provided you the opportunity to become a doctor, and thus have succeeded at fatherhood".
Another example of dad only thinking of himself is when he finds out that Neil is in the play. He makes a big deal out of how it makes him look when he doesn't know that his son is in a play. He says it makes him look like a liar - even though at worst it makes him look like he is unaware of all of his son's activities. He can't admit that the "insult" is to look like he is not in control, but instead says it is about integrity - yet demands that his son violate his own commitments to the cast and crew of the play. You can't be a man of integrity if you teach your children to break their word.
shareI hope she left him afterwards.
shareRemember this was the 1950s. Men made the decisions of the household back then.
shareI grew up trapped in a household with a domineering, abusive control-freak bully of a father even worse than Neil's, but very much of the same character type. My mother was a sweet gentle meek woman who was just as afraid of his temper as my sister and I were. In that kind of situation, attempting to stand up to the abuser usually makes things worse, as most won't hesitate to further abuse the children or even the family pets as extra punishment against their spouse/partner, to 'teach them a lesson' i.e. terrify or blackmail them into not defending themselves or the other victims. 'Now you've argued with me in front of them I have to show the children who's boss, don't make me do this to them again', etc. Or they can even blame the children for 'causing trouble' between them and the other parent. My father would blame us for 'almost ruining his marriage' whenever our mother attempted to stand up for us.
It would be easy to be angry at my mother for not protecting us from our father, but she grew up in a society where divorce was a scandal that would ruin your reputation for the rest of your life, where the woman was ALWAYS blamed for not being a good enough wife, no matter who filed for divorce or what the reason was behind it. Where leaving a man was not only frowned upon but actually unthinkable. It just wasn't what 'good girls' did, and it was considered going against God's will. You'd not only become a pariah but you'd go to hell too!!
It's very easy speaking from a contemporary point of view to say: 'I would get my kids out no matter what' or 'I'd stand up to him', but a lifetime of conditioning is a hard thing to break, especially back when women had far fewer choices and far less protection from the law. It was legal in the USA for a husband to beat and rape his wife until as recently as the 90s! It still is legal in most countries of the world, and in many places the law still awards the man custody of the children AND ownership of all assets including the family home, even if the woman or her family paid for it.
Control freaks are extremely manipulative, and when given the free reign of their own household, their will becomes law, especially when they control the finances. Anyone subject to a control freak over a period of years, topped off with the social obligations of being married to them, would become weakened to fight against them. Not to mention, Neil's father kept a gun in the house, and had a hot temper. I wouldn't want to rile him up. You see news stories all the time about men who shot their wives and children after an argument. I suffered chronic insomnia from the age of 9 because I was afraid our father would get angry one night, come upstairs with a knife and kill us in our beds.
The mirror... it's broken.
Yes, I know. I like it that way. Makes me look the way I feel.