MovieChat Forums > The Forsyte Saga (2002) Discussion > Gawd, Is This Series Painful!

Gawd, Is This Series Painful!

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

I was re-watching Season 1, Episode 3, to help another poster with a question about the music in the waltz scene. I hadn't re-watched FS in over a year, and I think--I think--I have finally found the nexus of both Irene's moral ambiguity and her legions of detractors' hatred here on IMDB.

Soames' mother is trying so charitably to help her with her problematic marriage, describing how having children (as if a woman before birth control had any real say in that matter!) would help. Irene says, in protest, "I do not want to love him." And that, I think, is where she crosses a line that only hurts her more.

She knows she married for money. What she is saying to Ann (it's Ann, right?) is that even had she married the Prince of Wales for money, she would not *want* to love him. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too, and, as so many people, almost exclusively female, have lived to learn, If you marry for money, you will work harder than you ever thought possible for every cent of it.

Irene is as fortunate as Jolyon, in that she has financial saviors in Jolyon, Senior, and then in Jolyon, Jr. She is either blessed or darn lucky in this regard, but it's the interval when we don't see her--when she is living independently and, just possibly, raggedly, that saves her.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I think you're onto something here.

I just finished rewatching the entire series. (It seems I do this once or so every year, although this time I confess I skipped over a number of scenes: I never liked Young Jolyon's second wife, so FFed past those, couldn't take the rape scene again either, nor a couple others that currently escape me.)

IMO, it started even before that scene with Ann -- yes, I believe that was Soames' mother's name -- when the series skipped ahead two years into Irene and Soames' marriage. I think a number of viewers didn't grasp what we were supposed to grasp: that the scene with Irene going up the stairs with Soames silently following her, and that horrific scene in bed, followed by the scene with Irene immediately getting up and almost if at not at the point of tears of absolute misery, as she tried to dutifully fulfill what she understood as her "wifely duties" for two years, regardless of how repugnant as they'd become to her, and Soames being so insensitive as to not even notice, had gone in throughout those two years that we didn't see. It was obvious to me, but it seems a number of viewers didn't get this, and therefore think Irene "didn't even try" with Soames, because that wasn't spelled out in the missing two years.

Yes, the scene with her MIL, who was trying her best to help, in the most sensitivity way she knew how, and Irene's frank response of "I do not love him, I cannot love him, I do not want to love him," is certainly part of the animus towards Irene.

But in my opinion, he lost her first when they met at the art gallery, and realized their outlooks on life and all that mattered to her, but not to him, were in reconcilable. Then when he violated her by stripping off her glove and essentially "raping" her arm, she began to be actually repelled by him, as any woman would be. Even the people in the background realized how shocking and inappropriate his behavior towards her was -- everyone EXCEPT Soames.

He did these things because he was obsessed with Irene, which his mother recognized because she saw him behave the same way with the kitten he so longed for when he was a child, and over fed and smothered to death. Soames did not know how to love.

I don't think Irene wanted her cake and to eat it too. I think she hoped they could have made a success enough of their marriage that they could have gotten along well enough, and at best grown to care about one another, in a similar in ways that Soames and Anette eventually did. But in case that didn't happen, she wanted an out, which Soames swore to, but refused to honor.

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

the series skipped ahead two years into Irene and Soames' marriage. I think a number of viewers didn't grasp what we were supposed to grasp

I totally agree, largely because I myself only sat up and took notice this last re-watch! And the reason I paid attention came about oddly. I chose "Scenes" on the DVD, hoping to find the waltz scene so I could identify the music. I certainly don't know the Scenes by name, however. The scene I happened to choose was the scene you're talking about--that horrific (even worse than the rape if you ask me) scene where Soames follows Irene up the stairs, he has sex *on* her (not with her), and she douches in the freezing bathtub. Possibly if the director and scriptwriters had given more scenes of the two years, Irene's efforts would have been clearer.

In fact, your post reminded me that "I do not want to love him" is said only after two years of being repulsed by him. There's a point of no-turning-back in many if not most sexual relationships. If the repulsed partner is fortunate enough to have, in her or his unappealing companion, a man or woman whose virtues in other areas of life compensates for the grossness in bed, I imagine a marriage or union can work. If the repulsed partner finds no other reasons to work at the relationship, it ends. That was the case with Irene.

But I disagree that either Soames or Irene were obligated to honor an impossible promise, regarding their juvenile, naive, totally impossible "if it doesn't work for either of us, it's finito." That vow in itself was immoral. I excuse Irene for entering it because she was so horrendously desperate. Viewers who have not seen the first television version are unaware that she was in danger of being raped by her stepmother's fiancee. That point is really brought home in the original series. So do I understand the desperation that informed her defrauding Soames to his face? Absolutely. Abso-lute-ly. But as she would learn, 1) the devil can make any promise an idiot asks of him, because he has no intention of keeping his word; and, much more importantly, 2) relationships cannot be "arranged." The word "arrangement" is foul, because it begs a foul question. If a relationship between two humans that should be a marriage is "arranged," that means a feeling much MUCH stronger than love has taken precedence in it.

As I've said many many times on this board, I don't blame Soames for the "foolish vow," either. He also was young, he was head over heels infatuated (he is incapable of love), and he was blinded by his own egoism, thinking Irene would never possibly want to leave someone as great as he.

The entire saga actually is encapsulated in the biblical verse I just paraphrased: "Do not make a foolish vow."

Glad to hear you re-watch yearly. I do too. This series is instructive in ways other than romantic or sexual.

[–] randommovies2002 8 years ago

LOL @ "grossness in bed." I love how you put that. 😊

If the repulsed partner is fortunate enough to have, in her or his unappealing companion, a man or woman whose virtues in other areas of life compensates for the grossness in bed, I imagine a marriage or union can work.

I'm not convinced. Perhaps if the repulsed partner had a low sex drive (and the repulsive partner did), but even then, I cannot imagine enduring sex or even non-sexual physical intimacy with someone who so thoroughly turned me off.

In his preface to the saga, Galsworthy writes:

the simple truth, which underlies the whole story, that where sex attraction is utterly and definitely lacking in one partner to a union, no amount of pity, or reason, or duty, or what not, can overcome a repulsion implicit in Nature. Whether it ought to, or no, is beside the point; because in fact it never does.

I think that's true, but that's my opinion; ymmv.

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

I'm not convinced. Perhaps if the repulsed partner had a low sex drive (and the repulsive partner did), but even then, I cannot imagine enduring sex or even non-sexual physical intimacy with someone who so thoroughly turned me off.

That's because you--and I--are lucky enough to live in an era of history where women can choose not to service an animal. For most of human history, women have been forced to survive by servicing such kinds.

In his preface to the saga, Galsworthy writes:
the simple truth, which underlies the whole story, that where sex attraction is utterly and definitely lacking in one partner to a union, no amount of pity, or reason, or duty, or what not, can overcome a repulsion implicit in Nature. Whether it ought to, or no, is beside the point; because in fact it never does. I think that's true, but that's my opinion; ymmv.

Galsworthy does indeed say that. You seem to miss, however, that he does not go on to say that such repulsion is not a lifelong hell 99.9999% of the female residents of this planet nonetheless endure.

YMMV.

[–] randommovies2002 8 years ago

why the hostility? I don't get it. We've engaged in friendly discussions on IMDb for years and now this.

Of course I know women have been chattel and endured hell. But I don't define that as a marriage that works. I call that dysfunction. .

And the reason why I added ymmv was because I was hostilely chastised in another thread about my "inferences" so adding ymmv was to indicate I acknowledge that was my opinion and yours might be different. But you used it in your response to suggest I'm stupid.

Thanks.

I'll stay away from now on.

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

And the reason why I added ymmv was because I was hostilely chastised in another thread about my "inferences" so adding ymmv was to indicate I acknowledge that was my opinion and yours might be different. But you used it in your response to suggest I'm stupid.

Not at all. I find the use of acronyms almost always indicates the user thinks little of me--certainly on this subject, this sensitive subject (and you were the first to use this millennial-speak). If it counts, I never married nor lived with a man outside marriage, and do not understand the mindset of 99.9% of members of my sex who can tolerate marriage's requirements for the female partner, which necessitate trafficking in her body and hers alone.

I think Galsworthy "got" that and is one of the *very* few men who ever have gotten it; my "Forsyte Saga" fixation is therein explained.

[–] Jennie_Portrait 8 years ago

I find the use of acronyms almost always indicates the user thinks little of me...But you used it in your response to suggest I'm stupid.

I know this is not my conversation, but I don't think your logic is valid. People use acronyms/abbreviations all the time and it doesn't necessarily indicate any negative opinions. It's just the manner in which people tend to write on the internet.

I actually enjoy reading the items you have posted on this board because they reveal you have analyzed the story in depth. But I don't agree with your conclusion here at all.

___________________________________
Never say never...

[–] whoanelly (1586) 4 years ago

Are you saying women don’t enjoy sex? Women don’t really want sex, they just feel obligated To comply by law, or commitment?

Might I suggest that you cannot assume the experience of every woman is like your own?

IMO Sex is great! ymmv. Both of those “acronyms” were used because it’s internet shorthand. Not because I am belittling you. I just hate typing.

[–] Furienna (3345) 8 years ago

Viewers who have not seen the first television version are unaware that she was in danger of being raped by her stepmother's fiancee. That point is really brought home in the original series.

But the incident with the stepmother's rapist suitor never happened in the original novels either. That was completely an invention of the 1960s TV adaption.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Having never read the novels or been able to slog through the 1960s version, I didn't know the stepmother's rapist suitor was an invention solely of the 1960s version.

[–] randommovies2002 8 years ago

I've just started rewatching this version again. I haven't watched it in more than a year (I think it was summer 2015). Funnily enough, the reason why I'm watching it right now is because a friend of mine told me she couldn't take it anymore, the sadness and helplessness she felt whenever she watched the series, so she gave me her discs.

I also have the 1967 version. I think the last time I watched it was early this summer (2016). I love Susan Hampshire's portrayal of Fleur, especially in the later series, the part that takes place after Fleur and Michael marry. Caroline Blakiston's portrayal of Marjorie, Fleur's social rival, is superb. That whole story line is incredible. I feel sorry for Fleur, esp as she couldn't resist making things worse (her own worst enemy).

I'd like to have seen how things would have played out after her return from the US with Soames and Kit if the General Strike hadn't occurred. I wonder if she would have regained her social footing? But the strike does happen, and Fleur takes on the role of running the canteen and does a great job of it, which likely would have helped her social status. But then all hell breaks loose with her and Jon.

[–] Furienna (3345) 8 years ago

I don't think Irene wanted her cake and to eat it too. I think she hoped they could have made a success enough of their marriage that they could have gotten along well enough, and at best grown to care about one another, in a similar in ways that Soames and Anette eventually did. But in case that didn't happen, she wanted an out, which Soames swore to, but refused to honor.

Indeed! It is very insensitive to say that Irene "wanted her cake and to eat it too", because she obviously had tried to make things work with Soames. But it became clear that nothing could save that marriage. It is very sad that so many people can watch this TV series and still not get that Irene did try for a painful period of two years, or that Soames was never a good husband to her.

[–] Furienna (3345) 7 years ago

Firstly, Soames's mother's name is Emily. Ann was one of his aunts.

But now that I've covered that, I have to say that the scene with her and Irene is very powerful. Emily really does what she can to help her unhappy daughter-in-law, but no dice. There's a terrible gap between these two women. Emily is a seemingly sweet conventional older lady, who can't see what Irene's problem even is. Irene is the younger more free-spirited woman, who fails to make Emily realize that you can't force yourself to love somebody back. It is rather cruel of Emily to call Irene " so cold". Then again, that is probably what she seemed to be to her at the time: someone who refused to try to make her marriage to her son work, because she didn't "want to".

And I also have to mention another scene, that has been discussed in this thread: the one where Irene has to force herself to let Soames have sex with her, and he can't see what was wrong with the situation. Ugh... I guess that the Irene-bashers will say that she should have smiled and thought about England or something. But that is just disgusting, and I can't understand how people in the 21rst century can say such a thing. If having sex with your husband has just become a repulsive chore to you, you should be allowed to get a divorce. But alas, that was hardly possible for women in Irene's generation.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Emily, yes, of course, and Ann was one of the dotty aunts. No, wait, I believe she was the eldest, the one who lived alone with her maid, wore the hairpiece, and was the first of the siblings to die.

I agree it was a great scene, that Emily was doing her best to help Irene, and doing it in as delicate a way as she could manage. She couldn't have been looking forward to having that conversation!

I don't think she was cruel to Irene in saying that. As I recall, her line was "Forgive me, my dear, but you seem so cold." Even Irene agreed with her that this was how she appeared, but went on to say it wasn't how she really was.

Yes, Emily doesn't know all that's gone on between Irene and Soames, so to her it boiled down simply to Irene not wanting to love him and make the marriage work. She couldn't grasp *why* Irene was so deeply miserable, because she didn't know. Even if she had, being of the age and time she was from, when marriages often weren't based on love, she still might have not understood. I doubt her marriage to Soame's father was based on love, although it didn't seem like their marriage was terrible or unbearable, just not great.

That scene was to me even worse than the rape scene, because it conveyed so poignantly what had been going on between them for years, and how completely removed Soames was to her feelings, and how utterly miserable Irene was.

[–] Furienna (3345) 7 years ago

*** Emily, yes, of course, and Ann was one of the dotty aunts. No, wait, I believe she was the eldest, the one who lived alone with her maid, wore the hairpiece, and was the first of the siblings to die. ***
Correct.

*** I don't think she was cruel to Irene in saying that. As I recall, her line was "Forgive me, my dear, but you seem so cold." Even Irene agreed with her that this was how she appeared, but went on to say it wasn't how she really was. ***
I found it very weird that Irene agreed. She wasn't cold to me, just miserable. Which is two different things, mind you.

*** Yes, Emily doesn't know all that's gone on between Irene and Soames, so to her it boiled down simply to Irene not wanting to love him and make the marriage work. She couldn't grasp *why* Irene was so deeply miserable, because she didn't know. Even if she had, being of the age and time she was from, when marriages often weren't based on love, she still might have not understood. ***
No, she would never understand.

*** I doubt her marriage to Soame's father was based on love, although it didn't seem like their marriage was terrible or unbearable, just not great. ***
Her marriage to James was the kind of typical safe marriage of that era and that social class, that was good enough but without any real passion.

*** That scene was to me even worse than the rape scene, because it conveyed so poignantly what had been going on between them for years, and how completely removed Soames was to her feelings, and how utterly miserable Irene was. ***
Indeed. I wonder if all of the Irene haters must have accidentally fallen asleep during that scene.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 7 years ago

Emily may have been able to understand, had Irene been better able to articulate her feelings and reasons for them. After all, she did tell Emily, who was kind to her and trying to help, that she knew she appeared as being cold, and she did. Until she met Bosinney. She *was* cold to Soames, but not without reason.

Even Emily later realised the problem, when she confronted Soames by saying even as a little boy he smothered and ultimately killed the kitten he was so obsessed with, which was the same way he treated Irene. She even went so far as saying she should have punished him for that.

I think when Irene agreed to accept Soames' proposal, she hoped for the type of marriage Emily and James had. No passion, but an amicable enough companionship, which was common at the time.

We were never shown what the marriage between Irene's father and mother was like. Nor the marriage between her father and stepmother, but it's vaguely implied the stepmother married her father for security and companionship, not love.

It seems to me the Irene haters aren't capable of understanding anything that isn't plainly and very baldly spelled out to them. But I find the same thing, although to a lesser degree because his character was far more subtle and on the surface far less sympathetic, of the Soames haters.

[–] Furienna (3345) 4 years ago

It is weird though that some people can hate Irene and not see where Soames went wrong.
It is like even the rape is no big deal to them.
My theory is that people don't get Irene or her decisions, because her situation is so alien to them.
As a daughter of a professor in the 1880s, she had very few options in life after her father died.
There were so few jobs avaible and a pressure to remain "respectable" for a girl with that background.
Not that we know that much about Irene's thoughts and feelings from the novels.
But I learned this from a Swedish novel about a girl in an eerily similar situation.
As in, she too was the orphaned daughter of a professor in the 1880s.
And she too was bullied into a marriage to a rapist since her father was dead and couldn't protect her.
Eventually, she gave up and tried to think that her repulsion to an abusive man was just her being foolish.
But she of course wasn't, since the rules of 1880s upper class society were wrong and she was right.

That is clearly what happened to Irene as well.
Fortunately, both she and her Swedish expy Beatrice had a genuinely happy second marriage later on.
But it was like they had to go through a thousand sorrows before that.