in her money? please! i need the cleared up!
Pirates Of the Caribbean 3- The movie that will change the World. Dec. 4 2007
Yes.
R.I.P Heath Ledger
The TRUE T~O's
R&R<3, S.I.R., P.E.A.C.E,[I.T.Y]
Yeah, he was a golddigger but, in his own way, he liked her.
It's suggested that he might have been happy with her and she might have been happy with him had they married and started a family.
He's not a bad man, just a little shallow and greedy, and, as he says, her money for his company is "a fair trade".
He might have made a good husband and she a good wife.
At least in my reading.
stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com
stopsylvia.com
I totally agree with this, and I am glad someone made the statement. I think the father is the utter villain, and not Morris Townsend. Aunt Elizabeth was the wise one. When she said "where did Morris Townsend fall down?" And she also mentioned that since Dr Sloper thought Catherine was stupid, plain and lacking in social graces KNOWING that she would be his sole heir, why shouldn't she have some happiness with it, even if she has to buy it..
Also, Townsend was right when he said "Would you have loved me without my attributes? It was a fair exchange." Again, Aunt Elizabeth was right to state that there was nothing to suggest that he wouldn't have made a fine husband. He tried to start into business to keep Catherine in wealth--knowing he was the problem for her being disinherited.
I think he loved her and wanted her money....just like she loved him and desired him because of his (Oh!) beauty. I didn't see her nearly faint over Doctor Ludlow.
Absolutely. Morris' golddigging was pretty bad but not as bad as Sloper's abuse of Catherine.
The estate and inheritance would have ended with her anyway. It's not as though Sloper had other children or grandchildren to worry about. There's no one to pass the money onto anyhow. Let Catherine use it to make a marriage.
Morris isn't the greatest guy in the world but compared to other men, he isn't so bad.
stopjohnofgod.blogspot.com
stopsylvia.com
Exactly, juxtapose70. Both Catherine and Morris were each bringing their best attributes to the marriage, why not have a go at it? They certainly wouldn't have been the first couple to first be attracted because one has money. After all, wasn't that the basis of Catherine's cousin Marian Almond's (played by Jennifer Garner) wedding?
Plus one of Dr. Sloper's sisters pointed out that he was the poor one in the marriage to HIS wife. So he was being a huge hypocrite by looking down his nose at Morris for wanting to marry someone with money.
No two persons ever watch the same movie.share
Wrong on two points, Devans: Morris DID love Catherine, and Dr. Sloper loved HIS wife when he married her too. It's made clear Morris preferred for Catherine to have money and assumed that Dr. Sloper enjoyed that factor about his wife too, but both Morris and Dr. Sloper did love the women they chose.
share"I didn't see her nearly faint over Doctor Ludlow"
That's because she wasn't in love with him. Catherine loved Morris enough to have loved him without his good looks; that's why she waited a whole year to return to him, otherwise she could have picked any number of European beauties. He was a little shallow and overtime became too concerned with money and the pride that came with it, which is why he said the dumb and stupid "Would you want me without my looks?" line. He preferred her to have money, but did love her as she was, which was why he was genuinely mad about her father's constant threats of disinheriting her. In the end, his pride got the better of him and he put his determination to have a career over her heart.
<< Yeah, he was a golddigger but, in his own way, he liked her. It's suggested that he might have been happy with her and she might have been happy with him had they married and started a family. He's not a bad man, just a little shallow and greedy, and, as he says, her money for his company is "a fair trade". He might have made a good husband and she a good wife. At least in my reading. >>
I agree. I think their marriage would have been fine if there hadn't been a hold-up about the money.
I would like to point out how society (then AND now) finds it more awkward for a man to be with a woman for her wealth than the other way around. For some reason, we are still raised with the idea of a man needing to have the power of wealth (bread-winner role), and the woman being the center of home and family (as if that's all we're capable of). I think despite our current time period of the "independent woman", the old fashioned "sexist" ideals still permeate our psyche. I wonder why unemployed men are considered "losers", and such a thing is far more acceptable of women??? That kinda puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
Yes; Morris was only interested in her money.
There *were* a few times when I saw empathy of sorts from him toward Catherine -- I wouldn't call it 'love', though: 1) When she was telling him that her father was taking her to Europe and she was begging Morris to wait for her. You see a glimpse of empathetic awareness, maybe even some tenderness, in his face right before he tells her to go with her father to Europe and buy her wedding dress while there (but also after checking the bottom of what looks like a silver box on a table before she enters the room ;) and, 2) When he is leaving her *for good* and he tells her that he is not good enough for her. But then, as the now de-masked Morris, he goes off without looking back while she is splayed out behind the departing carriage, in the mud and rain, crying for him. He certainly had no cares for her well-being at that point (in addition to his leaving like a coward).
I have read the book, I love both The Heiress and Washington Square, and I have got to admit that I remain conflicted about what would have been the best result for Catherine. Her father seems like an utter ass (more so in Washington Square than in The Heiress, although he has his moments in the latter, too), but one cannot fault him totally for looking after a daughter's future interests; plus, men can sniff out less-than-desirable men often better than women can (and visa versa with women and other women). Dr. Sloper was not blinded by Morris' wit, charm or looks (although he seemed a bit jealous of him at times).
If it had been a 'fair trade', and Catherine had been aware of that, I shudder to think what may have become of her had Morris frittered away all of her money (e.g.,through reckless spending, vices such as gambling/drinking it away, and/or on other women). If he had caused her to become 'poor', wouldn't he have left her because she would no longer be able to hold up her end of the deal (plus, she would have been older and probably more attached to him at that point, and maybe even with children)? Not so the other way around, because although most of what HE would have brought to the union was good looks and charm, I doubt she would have left him if he would have lost either.
I also do not know what the laws of the day were then concerning how much control he would have had over her finances once married. If husbands in thoses days gained and retained full control no matter whose money it was initially, then she would have been left to his whim, which could have easily resulted in what I have already mentioned (and what her father feared could happen).
However, as one poster wrote, and as Catherine's Aunt stated, there was nothing (at least nothing absolutely substantial) that pointed toward him necessarily being a 'bad' husband. I don't know if I agree with that, though. If he is chasing after Catherine's money and being dishonest with her throughout the 'courtship', then his moral character IS in question, which could portend other questionable acts by him in future. He did have a history of frittering away his own money, so what might prevent him from doing the same with hers? More so in The Heiress, Doctor Sloper points out to Morris' sister that Morris betters himself while not doing much for her and his nephews (other than some tutoring) -- one example he points to is that Morris affords himself the finest silk gloves while his sister's gloves are not much better than cheap, worn cloth, yet he is essentially living 'off' of her.
But, all that being said, in the back of my heart, I still root for Catherine having a chance with Morris. She loves him so dearly and needs him so much, and, by gosh, Ben Chaplin is a darn handsome and charming young man.
So, the conflict continues...... no matter how many times I re-view either movie :)
A final point: A viewer should not miss the understated point in both movies that Catherine is alot like her father in many ways -- probably why he has the kind of animosity he has toward her at times -- that often happens with parents/children who are much like each other, if the parent wishes he/she had better qualities (see how Dr. Sloper always talks so glowingly of his dead wife and all her qualities -- qualities that he obviously does not have, nor does Catherine). In fact, it is Catherine's obstinance toward the end that cinches Morris' decision to finally leave -- she will not bow to her father once she decided that he 'despised' her; she would not ask him for anything at that point, including his money. So, don't be too hard on Doctor Sloper while being the opposite with Catherine: those too were different versions/genders of quite a bit of the same person, although it took a bit longer and a bit more experience for it to come to the fore with Catherine.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
I think he did liker, or love her in his way ... but he only loved her with her money. And it wasn't even that. Even if her father had left her with no inheritance, Catherine was still pretty well off, something people seem to be forgetting. She still had 10.000 a year but he didn't want that. He felt that his "attributes" were worth far more then that so in a way, while he would probably have been kind to her, he wouldn't have made a "loving husband", or the kind that she desired.
ask the spokesperson, I don't have a brain
Denise and Lore, I think you're both very wrong. It was always painfully easy to tell when Morris was being shallow, and the passion he showed to Catherine wasn't shallow at all. Considering how he acted towards her father's baiting, I think he had way too much pride to just chase a woman for her money. He never pretended Catherine was a striking beauty or a charming wit, but only spoke of her goodness and, indeed, of her true attributes. The fact that he finally left to WORK cinches the fact for me that he never loved her for her money. He PREFERRED for her to have her money, but it was his pride, his belief that he "wasn't good enough for her" the way he was and his determination to win hard cash of his own merit that took him away.
"It is Catherine's obstinance toward the end that cinches Morris' decision to finally leave -- she will not bow to her father once she decided that he 'despised' her; she would not ask him for anything at that point, including his money. So, don't be too hard on Doctor Sloper while being the opposite with Catherine: those too were different versions/genders of quite a bit of the same person, although it took a bit longer and a bit more experience for it to come to the fore with Catherine"
Good grief, I couldn't disagree more! In her softness, Catherine was NOTHING like her father: she was emotional, warm, loyal, and utterly dependent on the feelings of her loved one. I think her initial lack of self-reliance and independent strength was what exasperated her calm, more coolly-feeling father. He wanted her to have more self-respect (as he told Elizabeth later) and more strength of mind; what he didn't plan was for her to develop these things through defiance of him! Her determination sealing Morris's decision to leave? Utter nonsense. She threw away all dignity and promised to beg her father in the end, but it had no effect on him. Unless to repel him further, because he didn't WANT her father's pity or "mercy" money and never did! The more bull-headed her father got, the more stubborn Morris became to be his equal, and he and Catherine were both ready to marry near the end, right after her return; even Catherine's father had resigned himself to it. The problem was Lavinia's well-intended meddling, convincing Morris that Catherine just wouldn't be well-off enough without harder work from him (utter bull) and his pride to make money of his own and to give her the financial support he THOUGHT she required.
Nice analysis whitespirit26.
On general principal, I hate chick flicks. But I've watched every movie version of Washington Square by Henry James and like each one in it's own way. Although the my favorite version is The Heiress 1949 with Montgomery Clift.
No two persons ever watch the same movie.share
Thank you! :) Yes, this is definitely above chick films.
share"He never pretended Catherine was a striking beauty or a charming wit, but only spoke of her goodness and, indeed, of her true attributes."
I think Morris spoke of these qualities to appear sincere. If he had spoken of qualities she did not possess, his motives would have been more obvious. He makes the mistake once when speaking of her being 'delightful' to her father, which her father resoundingly rebuffs and disbelieves.
"The fact that he finally left to WORK cinches the fact for me that he never loved her for her money."
When he first has a job, he says that he now has equal footing with Catherine's father. It is quite possible that the job was something to impress the father, until after the wedding, when he could have just chucked it in.
When he leaves, supposedly to 'buy cotton', we don't know if that is what he truly is going to do. That could just have been an excuse he used as a reason to leave town.
"He PREFERED for her to have her money, but it was his pride, his belief that he "wasn't good enough for her" the way he was and his determination to win hard cash of his own merit that took him away."
Then why leave as cruelly as he did? If the job 'made him good enough', he had one. He did not have to jilt her. Unless you mean that he felt he was not 'good enough' in other ways??
Let's not forget his yelling at her about what was so wrong with wanting her WITH her money, that it would be a 'fair exchange'.
"The problem was Lavinia's well-intended meddling, convincing Morris that Catherine just wouldn't be well-off enough without harder work from him (utter bull) and his pride to make money of his own and to give her the financial support he THOUGHT she required."
I don't understand this? When Lavinia and Morris meet to talk, SHE tells him that Catherine would still have $10,000 a year if disinherited and HE is the one who says that Catherine is 'used to more.'
Morris left after Catherine refused to yield.
Also, in the novel, Morris is not an ambitious man.
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
"I don't understand this? When Lavinia and Morris meet to talk, SHE tells him that Catherine would still have $10,000 a year if disinherited and HE is the one who says that Catherine is 'used to more.'"
Um, yeah, until a year later when she encourages him to leave and make more money. Did you miss this? And the shoutout that resulted between Lavinia and Catherine?
"When he first has a job, he says that he now has equal footing with Catherine's father. It is quite possible that the job was something to impress the father, until after the wedding, when he could have just chucked it in"
If nothing else, he had way too much pride to do such a stupid thing. He wasn't an IDLE man by any means and he would not either hurt Catherine or shame himself before her father that way; even if he didn't love her, he wouldn't have acted so. Besides that, his angry pride at her father's insistence about money speaks volumes.
"If he had spoken of qualities she did not possess, his motives would have been more obvious. He makes the mistake once when speaking of her being 'delightful' to her father, which her father resoundingly rebuffs and disbelieves"
What are you saying, that it's a "fact" that she wasn't delightful? Morris found her so and her father didn't, plain and simple. She wasn't the nervous creature around him that she was to her father.
"Then why leave as cruelly as he did? If the job 'made him good enough', he had one. He did not have to jilt her. Unless you mean that he felt he was not 'good enough' in other ways??"
Yes obviously, I just explained that. He became hardened and almost obsessed with his need to feel equal with her father after he discovered that having a job alone was NOT enough. Her father had hardened his heart a long time ago.
to you or anyone else claiming that morris "only" loved catherine for her wealth, i say the evidence shows otherwise. he loved her enough not have her live out her days in relative poverty (or at least not move down the socioeconomic hierarchy), and he loved her enough, in the end, not to force her to abandon her father. in essence, he loved her enough not to marry her in the end. he could have been very, very comfortable with her 10,000 a year (in 30 years that would equal the 300,000 from which her father disinherited her of).
did morris show initial interest and later persistence because of her wealth? yes. and as the movie and other posters have said, she is guilty of a similar crime, except instead of wealth it was beauty which initially drove her. both are equally superficial, but nevertheless undeniable attractive, attributes.
more importantly, as the lady tells albert finney, if you care so much about your daughter's welfare, and you are willing to use your wealth to ensure her material happiness, what is so wrong with using your wealth to ensure her marital happiness. there is NO evidence that he would have been a bad husband. he never cheated on her (one year is a long time). it was her father who genuinely thought little of his daughter. he had trouble seeing anyone other than a lonely old widower ever marrying her.
bottom line - morris saw more than just money in catherine. her father saw nothing more than a dumb, ugly, socially awkward girl. no decent human being could ever tell his daughter than she wasn't worth the death of her mother. what foul words did morris ever have for her? did he only love her for her money? no. he loved her, in essence, because she loved him. and damn it if the money didn't hurt.
the irony is that in the end she lost her wealth (relatively speaking) and he lost his looks (to age, relatively speaking - thought the movie does a poor job in this respect).
Throughout this film, there are subtle hints to the true character of Morris Townsend. He is first thought a foreigner by Dr. Sloper on first sight because of his European-style form of clothing -- he is a wolf in disguise and not content to be an American in dress. Second, he makes the outright claim to the father at their first official dinner telling the father that he is not seeking a fortune, just an honest income through a job which he hopes Dr. Sloper will use his connections to direct him. He is however without skill or any plan, but wants others to do the leg work for him the same way he has found Catherine a willing victim. This is enormously familiar for a first meeting with the woman's father and one that shows him to be lacking ambition. Third, he is terse with his sister at the wedding of Jennifer Gardner's character, when the sister mistakes the very pretty younger cousin for Catherine. He glowers at his sister as if to intonate that she has made a mess of all his work. Fourth, Townsend tells Dr. Sloper that Catherine is so honest and true and lives in a world where everyone has the best of intentions this clues us that he knows and understands just how much he has already manipulated her to his charms. His vanity he informs, needs an audience, and he wants to join the honest world that Catherine inhabits. While Catherine is a weak minded dimwitted young woman to Dr. Sloper, Morris recognizes that he's found his sugar-momma and she's taken his bait hook, line, and sinker. Fifth, Morris invites a meeting with Aunt Lavinia in a disreputable low-class setting where not only will they not be discovered, but it is an insult to the status and class of a widow of her social standing. The couple having sex behind the gauze curtain while Aunt Lavinia discusses the honest character of Catherine is an insult to this revelation by Morris, who had he more character, would never have placed Lavinia in such a disgusting atmosphere.
Catherine is beguiled by Morris Townsend. Dr. Sloper is not. Morris describes himself as a mercinary. He forces Catherine to choose between her father and Morris, whose manipulation of Catherine over the point of money is ungentlemanly and without scrupples. Catherine is never self-aware nor wholly confident and she begs Morris to wait for her to return from Europe, and not he begging her to wait. He knows she will not give him up. She is without self-respect having never had to think about it, and she can not understand how she has been manipulated according to the standards of social propriety through Morris. In the end, Morris tells Catherine that he wanted her for her $30K, not $10K which for him was a fair exchange for his good looks and two years of his youth in pursuit of her. Subtlety was always wasted on Catherine. She never was able to pick up on the clues literally rained down on her.
-- If Ewan McGregor were a lollipop I'd be a diabetic strumpet --
AZINDN ^
Wow! What a great and well-thought out post! Very impressive :)
I do think there are a few potential corrections or clarifications that can be made:
Lavignia was the one who picked out the disgusting meeting place (Morris asks her during their meeting why she had picked it out and she says something like she had heard it was good for matters 'clandestine'). However, I do think that Morris, had he been more of a gentleman and had more consideration for Lavignia, would have insisted on a more appropriate meeting place. Also, he seemed to know his way around that place, which should give some of his supporters pause as to how and where he chooses to spend his free time?
Also (going from memory here), I don't think that Morris describes himself as a 'mercenary' but fears that Catherine's father thinks that he is (?)
In any event, I think that some posters engage in wishful thinking that Morris is a better person than he is and that Dr. Sloper is more evil and vile than he is a protective father (although he clearly too has his faults -- don't we all?) I, too, initially tried to find ways to interpret Morris' behavior in a better light (I truly would have liked Catherine to have had a good, loving and secure life with him), but I just can't get around how he presented and how he acted when push came to shove, so to speak.
I don't believe that a man with 'pride' or substance would have beguiled a young heiress that he purported to love in this manner. A gentleman with pride and who truly loved her would have: 1) tried to gain better economic security before 'knocking on her door', so to speak; 2) would not have placed her in such a miserable gutwrenching situation between her and her father; 3) would not have moved so fast on her, gaining promises from her in a way that would possibly shield him from her father's disapproval and surely to displease any protective parent; 4) would not have treated her as he did when he left her. I think that some people are mistaking ego and greed for pride.
Whether Dr. Sloper 'hardened Morris’ heart', as another poster has written (which I think is a dubious claim) or not, he left as a cad. He definitely did NOT treat Catherine as a lady, as someone he loved, or as someone he cared about -- yes, leave your dearest practically suicidal, dripping wet and face forward in the mud and horsepucky behind your carriage as you flee like the coward that you are. No one caused him to act like that: that WAS the true Morris.
I also used to have harder feelings toward Dr. Sloper. However, now I view him more as acting like the 'adult' and as a parent. Not all of his presentations were the best, but that doesn't discount that a good part of his motivation had to do with protecting Catherine AND her money.
I also think that we get hints along the way as to how Catherine is and/or becomes more like her father. Her father calls her 'stubborn' (as he can be), she refuses to allow Morris to try to convince her father that he is now worthy after he has gotten his job (I think someone would have to be blind not to realize that her stubbornness here was what ultimately unmasked Morris), and she stubbornly refuses to yield to another chance at what appears could be a good marriage or to even at least try to assuage her father while he is dying with a hope that she may marry someone more respectable and kind. For gawd's sakes, the man is dying: would it have been that difficult to give him a little peace of mind before he died?
So....Yes, Dr. Sloper is not perfect, but I don't think he is quite as mean as some others do. I think that he married someone who had many qualities he did not possess, and which Catherine also did not possess, and because he saw so much of himself in Catherine (e.g., social awkwardness, stubbornness, lack of subtlety, etc.) and that he detested in himself, that, although he loved her, he detested the parts of himself he saw in Catherine. However, this would not cause him not to want to protect her anymore than it would cause him not to want to protect himself throughout life.
It is conceivable that Dr. Sloper was a less 'brittle' man prior to the agonies he suffered when he lost his infant son and after his wife died, as Catherine was less 'brittle' before Morris caused HER heartache. I would think that both changed after they each experienced their own particular life’s heartache. Both Dr. Sloper and Catherine are quite a bit alike. If Catherine had at some point married someone like John Ludlowe and had a daughter, and a Morris would have come into her daughter's life, I wonder how SHE would have reacted, if she truly loved her daughter?
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
Please. Sloper wasn't acting like a protective father; I don't think he was evil, but he sure as hell didn't have much affection for Catherine. He wished for her a more simple, passionless life than the one she wanted with Morris and this displeased him as well as Morris's low state. Don't you remember her aunt's words, expressing surprise that Sloper seemed to think Morris was too good for her? Obviously he wanted to protect Catherine from bad choices, but I think he also had expectations for her and considered her vision of love with Morris too lofty for them.
"A gentleman with pride and who truly loved her would have: 1) tried to gain better economic security before 'knocking on her door', so to speak"
He'd traveled a good deal and always managed to make ends meet; he was clearly a hard worker and had he been a wolf, I think he would have tried harder to fool her father.
"2) would not have placed her in such a miserable gutwrenching situation between her and her father"
He tried his best to please her father, but ultimately his pride did peter out.
"3) would not have moved so fast on her, gaining promises from her in a way that would possibly shield him from her father's disapproval and surely to displease any protective parent"
Again, I think he was frank and honest in all his moves, probably to a fault.
"4) would not have treated her as he did when he left her"
This was a mixture of pride and greed; when Morris determined what he wanted, he did indeed act in a cowardly way. I think he did wish for them to have more as a couple, and to once and for all to banish her father's patronization of him. When Catherine didn't comply with this, he discovered she was no longer a constant pleasing piece of pie and basically dumped any hope of her, just as her father did.
"She stubbornly refuses to yield to another chance at what appears could be a good marriage or to even at least try to assuage her father while he is dying with a hope that she may marry someone more respectable and kind. For gawd's sakes, the man is dying: would it have been that difficult to give him a little peace of mind before he died?"
Because she learned the hard way that she can't please her father without sacrificing a huge part of herself. So why bother? Her father had by that point injured her to a point of a certain level of numbness, just like Morris: she resolved to put both men's regard behind her and move on to what best suited HER.
whitespirit26^
I realize that this message board is specifically about the interpretation of this classic in the movie 'Washington Square', but two questions:
1) Have you seen the earlier version? The movie 'The Heiress'?
2) Have you read the book?
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
No, I have not done either.
sharewhitespirit26^
You might find doing both interesting, given your interest in the characters and storytelling in Washington Square :)
I usually loathe remakes of movies, but I think both The Heiress and Washington Square (the remake) are excellent in their own rights.
You can catch The Heiress on youtube, if you're interested and don't want to spend time and money on the VHS/DVD. The Heiress is dated and in B&W, but I like classic film, love the dialogue (there are some bits of dialogue you will recognize that are used verbatim in WS) and the interpretation of the characters (although I never could 'get' Monty Clift like I can Ben Chaplin), and there are some minor emphases that are not in Washington Square (the opposite is true, also, regarding some emphases that WS has that TH does not).
The book is a fairly quick read and, like the movies, does leave some ambiguity but it also has some background information about some of the characters that the movies leave more to interpretation. Also interesting is that in the copy of the book that I have is a prologue that tells how the author (Henry James) came to write the book and what the story was originally based on. Also, it explains some of what was going on back in those days, such as about the up-and-coming middle class -- people who were actually working for a living and could no longer live merely as transplanted aristocracy, and this helps cement, in my mind at least, what is going on with, and expected of, Morris (there is a very brief treatment alluding to this in WS that one might not catch if not knowing to look for it --when Catherine goes to the engagement party where she meets Morris for the first time; you can overhear Arthur talking about buying a house and then in a few years selling it and buying a better house, etc., thus 'moving up', and this type of 'yuppy-dom' of those days is explained in the bio-history of the novel). Morris, however, fresh from his trips abroad, was more 'old world' and wanted that life of leisure, but unfortunately the world was changing in America and more was expected of young men (or, at least, for those who did not already have established family fortunes). Even for those who DID have family wealth, a person who married into it thinking that the world would be their oyster could soon find out that the wealth very often was 'tied up' and not so readily accessible (this is how these families kept their wealth) and, although they certainly could live a good life, it did not mean that they would be allowed to spend as they pleased. This happens to this day. If you have ever seen the docudrama "Our Mother's Murder" which frequently airs on Lifetime, and read the true story behind that movie, you find out that this still goes on to this day and the young man who married the older heiress that this story is about soon found out how 'older money' is controlled and managed. There are always 'strings' attached and these old-money families are not about to let someone marry in and fritter away the core of their wealth.
All very interesting stuff!
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
Actually I am planning on reading the book :) Thanks for the info! I saw that awful story "Mother's Murder" and recall the stuff about old and new money, learned first from "Titanic" :) Big lover of historical books.
shareWhat you speak of is called, "live off the interest and never touch the principal." Because the family home is owned free and clear and only maintenence is the main expense, it is much easier to live off the interest made from the principal. This family is always looking for the best relationship with their financial broker/adviser and being worried about trusting the broker not to badly invest their principal or lose it through bad investments. They appear very wealthy to the outsider looking in.
Also, in Jane Austin stories and other books written in the same 200 year period, her books had a central theme about families with invested wealth who were always in debt because the father was always borrowing against the house or principal to finance what the interest alone couldn't pay. And, then his investments or crops fells through and he couldn't pay the loans back. But since he was considered a Gentleman, rarely was he pressured to pay for a long, long time. Usually, it was only after he died that his wife and children found out about their negative financial situation. That was how many a family had to sell off their land, home and belongings after the father died to settle his debts leaving them poor and trying to find husbands.
Someone a lot of posts back asked if the law were written that the husband/man had complete control over the money and decisions about it even if he was poor and did not bring any money into the marriage and only had the wife's money. Yes, the husband, once married completely controlled the money even if it was all brought in by the wife. That was why the doctor was so concerned that Morris would fritter away her wealth, leaving her a pauper. And, the worst part is she could do nothing about stopping him legally. Even if the wife received an inheritance after she was married, she had to turn it over to her husband.
It must have been the worst catch-22 for women to have to choose between love and staying single so they could control their finances. In these books and movies, it always seems that there are many older women who are happy and rich and single!
Women were financially beholden to their fathers, husbands or brothers/uncles, whoever controlled the purse strings in their lives. That was why they were forced to be nice to men they didn't like because their financial future depended upon it.
That was one of the big reasons for women's lib in the USA. I'm only 53 but I can remember being turned down many times for a Visa card before I was approved when I was 19or 20, even though I had a good paying steady job. And, I was turned down for a mortgage when I was in my twentys and told I needed a cosigner, even though I had a good paying job for many years and perfect credit. It felt insulting.
It has only been in the last thiry years or so that women have been able to get mortgages on their own easily and a little more years for credit cards. Those were hard won victories for women. Heck, I can even remember when I wasn't allowed to wear pants/jeans to school. I was so happy when they changed that rule as my legs used to freeze walking to school! LOL Or, I kept trying to apply for men's work like in a warehouse and being told that we don't hire women for those jobs but if you'd like a receptionist job!
LOL Great post!
shareI think your interpretation of all those points was completely wrong. Morris was mad at his sister because she embarassed him and possibly hurt Catherine's feelings by choosing the prettier one as his possible choice. He was honest about Catherine's virtues because her guilessness really did touch him; he'd never met anyone who made him feel so welcomed in their presence. I think he was personally too frank, almost bumblingly honest in the presence of her father to be the skilled wolf you claim he was. He was honest about making a career and was only dissatisfied with his own after Lavinia spent a year telling him Catherine needed more. Eventually he got tired of being made to feel inferior to her father and left, regardless of whether Catherine would wait for him; she did NOT wait for him and it was made perfectly clear she was not accepting of his decision to leave. Had he been interested in money alone he never would have left the object of his greed for ten years; he'd seen her hardening himself before he left. He knew darn well she wouldn't welcome him back after all that time, hence his hesitant and rather sheepish greeting to her in the end. Heck, he didn't even bring up marriage upon his return; he barely ventured the invitation to be friends again.
shareAnd btw, when I said "Her father had hardened his heart a long time ago", I meant her father had hardened his OWN heart, not Morris's.
shareMorris wanted her for her money. She loved him dearly though. He was a fortune hunter. It was not uncommon for parents of that era to deny matches based upon financial inequality.
shareYes. The movie makes it abundantly clear when he leaves her in the rain on his way to New Orleans. He was expecting 30.000 and had spent "two years in pursuance of it."
The book is more ambiguous.
Morris isn't doing anything that all wealthy young men were doing at the time, he just didn't have a powerful family backing him and arranging things.
Everyone in society then was scrambling to preserve fortunes and acquire the best social matches they could...or failing that, the wealthiest.
Catherine's the bigger loser in it all. She ultimately needed him more than he needed her.
I seem to have a different interpretation of Morris' motivations than other posters. Disclaimer: I did not read the book and my ideas are only about the movie.
I think Morris' main faults are self-centeredness and shallowness than outright malicious manipulation. When I started watching the movie, at first I thought that the main tension is going to be the question of sincerity of Morris' feelings towards Catherine, but IMHO he makes his feelings very clear during his conversation in Dr.Sloper's office. He says that his vanity needs audience, more worldly people realize this and find it obnoxious, but sweet, naive, attention-starved Catherine is an always willing and adoring audience. She is perfect foil to his narcissistic personality. I think he did enjoy being with Catherine, mainly, as he admits, because "he tires of himself before she tires of him, which is saying much." If I can switch gears a bit, now, think about what we know about Morris' past. He spent his 20s traveling, apparently not thinking about long-term, seeking "happiness". He is basically 1820s version of that guy you know "who is looking into going into woodworking" while smoking pot all day. Think about how resentful he was when he told Catherine "He has to WORK for his living now." I think he was seduced by the picture of a life with sweet, adoring Catherine where he skates by on her money without any responsibility. When Catherine goes to see her in his sister's house at the end (his unmasking), he says "I wanted you WITH your money", NOT "I wanted you FOR your money." I think he is too conceited and shallow to understand his own motivations. Before going to Europe, Catherine tells him her father will disinherit her if she marries him and he seems genuinely offended by the implication and impulsively wants to Catherine immediately. One can say he was still manipulating to prove he is not after the inheritance, thus turn Dr.Sloper around, but I don't think that is the case. He likes the idea of living the good life on Catherine's money but couldn't admit it to himself. Well, that's my two-cents. What do you guys think?