'No sympathy for Irene.'


I notice a lot of you people claim to have "no symapthy" for Irene because she didn't marry Soames for love. Get real! Not many people did back then. God knows Annette didn't. Except Annette was willing to whore herself until she conceived and then flaunt her lover in a way that even Irene wouldn't have. So Irene stopped sleeping with him - so what? Things could've gone on fine from there. No one says a wife is OBLIGATED to sleep with her husband. But my DVD of the movie may have had a scene yours didn't - or maybe you skipped it -

namely the part where Soames BEATS and RAPES her.

Not many of you even bother to bring this up in your condemnation of Irene. I understand that you were all captivated by Damian Lewis' BRILLIANT performance (as I was) which actually lends some symapathy for Soames' case. There were many times I felt a small tear weling up at his predicament, but he crossed the line and even by the end of series two he has to admit it to himself. He could have really won me over if he hadn't crossed that line. But I suppose by whatever means necessary.

No, she didn't marry for love. He knew that. He thought he could win her. Buy her. And he promised that if "it" (meaning his attempts to conquer her) failed he would release her. All in all it seems he didn't marry for love either but for posession or even a challenge. The diffeence is that beore theytook those wedding vows he had already made another promise that he wasn't willing to keep. Soames goes on and on about the institute of marriage being a sacred vow as if he were a man of his word and Irene wasn't. Isn't the first promise more important than the second?

So go ahead. Keep feeling sympathetic for the creepy Grinch-looking stalker/rapist. Ironically, it seems the majority of you who feel "no symapthy" for Irene are women. Imagine if your husband/boyfriend came home drunk one night when you weren't "in the mood" and decided to take you by force anyway. I guarantee even if you did love him you'd be packing your bags that night. It's a bit disingenuous not to feel some sympathy for these two poor souls traped in a web of their own bad decisions.
___________________________________________________
A tip: [*URL][/URL](remove the asterisk) for all your linking needs. spread the word Use this sig!

reply



Actually during that time a wife was obligated to sleep with her husband. A husband could rape his wife and it was completely legal. Soames knew this as he was a lawyer. It sucks but that's how it was then.

reply

How do you think Soames would have felt about his daughter being treated that way?

I thought so.

reply

I certainly don't hate Irene. I feel sorry for her, even though I also feel sorry for Soames. She was forced to get married, because her stepmother wouldn't support her anymore. And considering the situation she was in, marrying Soames made sense. She didn't have any money left from her dead father, that she could live on. And still, she was a professor's daughter, so she had probably lived a good enough life until her father died, so she didn't know how to be working class, so she couldn't become a maid or something like that either... She could play the piano, but she evidently couldn't live solely on that either. And she didn't have any education for anything else. And there was Soames, who she didn't love, but he loved her and wanted her to be his wife. It wasn't strange that she chose to marry him after all. No one knew the trouble, that lied ahead in the future.

It's also clear to me now, that if it had been up to the mothers, Jon and Fleur could have gotten married. But their fathers hated each other, even though they were first cousins, and destroyed their children's lives. Jolyon pretty much forbade Jon to marry Fleur. And I think we all can agree with Soames there, that it was silly coming from him. And of course, Soames hated it all. Who would have thought otherwise? He wanted Fleur to marry the baronet Michael Mont, and he absolutely hated the idea of his daughter with their son. But when it comes to the mothers, Irene however was more understanding than Jolyon and said it was Jon's decision, and Annette would probably not have cared about who Fleur married.

Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden!

reply

I think there are several things working agaisnt Irene in terms of sympathy.
First Gina McKee was a dreadful choice I couldn't for a second buy that she would have all these men tripping over one another for her!Not that I found her ugly or homely she just had this listless,lifeless way about her I couldn't see what was drawing all these men to her.

Second in what she dose to June

Third she never even tries with Soames,I won't defend his worst actions but she never gave him anything she never tried to make things work

Fourth-and this plays into her treatment of June and Soames she's a cold and detached as they come if I had ever seen any warmth in her I might have felt some sympathy for her.

Soames and Irene were a mismatch he either needed someone like Annette right from the start who knew the game and played it even if she didn't love him or he needed someone who did love him and would help draw him out more as he was so desperate for love but didn't know better ways of showing it instead of the more harsh and rather sad and desperate ways it came out.

Irene needed someone very much like herself from the start but one that understood her temperment and her independence.

reply


You say that "Irene never even tries with Soames"...not true! In the books, she reminds Soames that she has tried to "love him" for FOUR YEARS, for his sake! This shows that you have NOT read the books. You need to do so before you can claim ANY knowledge of what Galsworthy intended! HE married his cousin's estranged wife (Ada Galsworthy), just as Jolyon did! Ada was raped by him, as was Irene. THINK ABOUT THIS!!!

How would you feel if YOU were raped? Would you feel repentant to those around you who kept saying that you should try HARDER to "love" your rapist??! I doubt it!

Things have changed 100 yrs. later but not THAT much; rape is still rape, no matter what the law says. "No" means "no".

As for June and Jolyon, that's a complicated matter. I agree that her treatment of June is selfish and probably much like SOAMES' is of HER: SELFISH! Soames wants sex. Irene wants sex and love and so DOES BOSINNEY!!!!So..who is to blame under "the law"? Whose law? "Man's"? "god's?" As the Prince says in "Romeo and Juliet": "All are punished!"...and so it is...they all are, in some way or other.
BUT...are they all "damned"? No! It is human weakness, human desire and in the end, the opportunity (which Soames REFUSES!) of human forgiveness.


She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

reply

I agree somewhat with the OP. I hated Irene - she was insipid, and beyond her beauty, I saw no reason why anyone should fall so deeply in love with her. But no one deserves to be raped, and rape should never be overlooked because you have a personal bias against someone.

reply

Being made to fulfil your wifely duties did not count as rape in Victorian times. You can't just superimpose today's standards and morality on a time long gone by.
Soames wasn't a bad person. He was a product of his times and his class. The English were rather poor at showing their emotions. But he loved his wife and she just treated him like dirt. She also treated June like dirt. Her behaviour at the ball was inappropriate for a married woman.

And I agree with those who found her odd looking. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well I guess it mustbe!

Love is never having to say you're sober.

reply

[deleted]

Ummmmm..... ok.
She had a man that was willing to bend over backwards to treat her well, and quite frankly she acted like a moody spoiled teenage brat that was too stubborn and too good to ever try or accept the love given to her. So, no I don't have any sympathy for her. Not to mention her immature and selfish behavior in her actions towards June. And when she publicly disgraces Soames at the ball by dancing with phil disheveled. She really only cares about herself and its pathetic.

She shouldn't have accepted the proposal point blank (yes, marriages do include SEX! oh the horror!) and she should have just lived a life in 'poverty' instead of marrying him. Not to mention she blatantly used Soames for his money, but is she too good to be used in return?? She knew what she was getting into when marrying him. Obviously Soames shouldn't have raped her but her behavior, attitude, and stupidity still didn't allow me to feel sorry for her.

reply

[deleted]

She was raped!! Doesn't anyone here understand this? OK, by law at the time there was no such thing as rape of a woman by her husband. But she had stopped sleeping with him for quite a long time when he sneaked into her room while she was asleep and got into bed with her and raped her. Left her with bruises -- yes, he abused her. Soames was a horrible man whether he'd lived in 1880s, 1780s, 1980s or 2013. He was a creep. Never knew what love was. He had an obsession about Irene that he continued to have after he married Annette. He was consumed by his obsession, jealousy and later his hatred of her or anyone who she loved.

I like Damian Lewis. Good actor and he played the part well as the creep that Soames was. Loved him in Band of Brothers, as a completely different character. (I haven't watched Homeland.)

reply

Right on! I am amazed at all these "high-minded" women who still, in the 21st Century, say that Irene should have "put up with" Soames' rapacious desire and his all out RAPE of her, just because she was naive enough to wed him!

NEWS FLASH: Marital rape is called that for a REASON now: It's RAPE! It does not matter if the guy's married to you; if you say "NO", the it is rape. End of story. But there a lot of either women out there who are (a) too stupid or (b) too ignorant or (C) too desperate for a man...to call it what it is: RAPE.

That is really SAD, especially in this day and age, when women fought so long and hard for the barest of rights...that idiot women (for who knows what reasons?) would ditch them all, including accepting rape as a contingent of securing a man!

What the hell is with THAT?! Why would any modern woman feel that a woman must submit to her husband's whims, whenever they occur, just to keep him? Is that it, or do they just hate women like Irene, who want freedom?

MEN have freedom...so why not women? I really, don't get it. If any guy tried that on me, he'd limp away (IF he was lucky!) clutching his balls and crying like a baby! And I'd make DAMNED sure he wouldn't come back! I know this because I've already done it...twice!

No woman should have to say "yes" when she doesn't want to--end of discussion.

So all you idiots out there who trash Irene, ask yourselves WHY you're doing it!!! Are you that insecure, or that crotch-bound, as me mum says? (and SHE's a CATHOLIC!!!).

She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

reply

Thank you, Shannon, for bringing some sense into this disgusting thread. I mean, jeesh!

It's really sad how little these people understand about what women's situation was like in that social class back then, or indeed that they want to defend the rapist instead of his victim.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

Thanks for your post, furienna! I'm glad you could see what I mean. This whole issue, viewing Irene as the "bad guy", rather than the victim, is just insane. It shows how women's rights have slipped back severely. It goes along with the trend to see "Feminism" as a bad word, or the equivalent of hating men. How absurd!



Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long

reply

These people seem to think that Irene had the same options as they do, but she didn't. Because back in the 1880s, girls from the middle class were taught that their lives only had one purpose: they had to find a husband. Even if a minority of them found a job, most occupations would not have been considered respectable enough for "a lady". It was much more common that a middle class woman, if she didn't get married, lived on her fortune or on the good will of her family. But since poor Irene had neither a fortune nor a family, and then her stepmother suddenly refused to support her anymore, what could she do? Even if Soames creeped her out, a marriage to him seemed to be the best option at the time. And even so, she asked him to make her a promise, that he probably never intended to keep...

And even if Irene's affair with Bosinney wasn't her brightest moment, I can see how it happened. She was deeply unhappy in her marriage to Soames, and then a totally different man came into her life. It is a shame that June had to be heart-broken, but I guess that Bosinney never was worthy of her love after all. And it hardly is like Irene didn't have to suffer! She was not only battered and raped by Soames, but the poor woman also had to lose her lover in a terrible accident, while her abusive husband lived on to stalk her for many years to come. So I can't believe that there are three threads (four if we include this one, which has pretty much been hijacked by the Irene-haters as well)) about what an awful person she is!

Intelligence and purity.

reply

Good points about the disparity between the 1880’s and now. Even after things changed due to WWI, it was still considered “unladylike” and questionable for a woman to have any sort of job other than a governess or maid, neither of which paid enough for survival in one's own place. And even if she had gone that route, she would have been vulnerable to unwanted advances from her employers, with no recourse. Why can’t people see that it wasn’t Irene who was the problem, but society and the men in it?

That’s the other thing I don’t get about people supporting Soames: their insistence that Irene’s lack of love or attraction is HER fault, not his! She tried for four years to be more open to him, to love him, and of course, failed because love cannot be forced any more than attraction can. Soames never got that, blaming only her for the fact that he repelled her. He never asks (aside from not drinking or gambling), what HE could have done to make her love him. Later on, he treats his second wife, Annette, the same way. He never has to resort to rape with her because she seems to regard sex as a business contract; he gets to sleep with her and she gets to have a nice house, fancy clothes and security. And Soames STILL begrudges her that, for never really loving him, when in fact, he does no more to make her love him than he did to Irene!

Galsworthy constantly remarks, though other people, including Soames’ sister, second wife, daughter, cousins June and Jolyon, how cold, selfish and unlovable he is. He also gives Soames a long and nasty history of taking delight in the suffering of others, such as Junes’ betrayal by Bosinney and Jolyon’s exile from society for adultery. He is basically a nasty person, but (for some people, not me) he is redeemed by the love he has for Fleur. Even she rejects him.

Time has not changed things for women much, despite the Sexual Revolution and Women’s Movement. Most men now, and even many women, see these as archaic or irrelevant. Younger women take for granted the rights that were hard won by previous generations and many men simply ignore them or resent them. And, as in the 1800's men think that because a woman like Irene is beautiful, men take it as a given that she is “easy” and will “put out” for them if they push her enough (like Monty does).

I think that Soames’ mindset lives on: the guy who won’t take “no” for and answer, who can’t believe that a woman can choose which guy she wants and reject some of them. They think that, no matter how ugly, fat, stupid or gross they are, that it’s the woman’s obligation to say “yes” to them, simply because they asked. And as we know, they often DON’T ask at all!

This is why I think there are so many people on this board (and others, no doubt) who blame Irene and applaud Soames, just as they did in the 1880’s. They're totally deluded.





Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long

reply

That was another very good post, Shannon! I agree with much of what you say. I have lost most of the sympathy, that I used to have for Soames, at the same time as my sympathy for Irene only has increased. And as much as Soames could be a pleasant enough man around others, he was really awful to Irene. Sure, I don't blame him for being upset about his wife having an affair. But if he had been a good husband to her, he would have handled it in a better way than hurting her and raping her! And then after she had left him, he started to stalk her as well! Oh yeah, Irene is the villain here... 

Soames is to me a sad product of a time period, when it was totally okay for a man to see his wife as a part of his property, and (probably) a mental disorder, which made it even more important to him to possess what he wanted. While I believe that he did love Irene in his own creepy way, she had been pushed into a really bad situation. And even if Soames tried to make Irene happy by giving her nice gifts, material things could never compensate for what a disaster that marriage was...

Intelligence and purity.

reply

Thanks, furienna. I thought you made some excellent points as well. I saw some of your earlier posts on this thread and you're right: most people just don't get the scenario.

What cracks me up the most is those who say, "Oh, Irene could have just got a job somewhere instead of staying with Soames." They seem to have no idea that women back then did not just go out and "get jobs"! The few jobs available to them were low-paying and involved domestic or factory work.

They also forget that Irene was raised in gentility, by a professor, who only taught her academics and music, things of little use outside the home. As you said, women were meant to be married. Irene was only eighteen and very naive. Also, her stepmother's "boyfriend" kept making advances toward her! She was in a terrible bind. Another thing that people never mention is that Soames (at least in the books) is always around, driving other suitors away! He makes a deal with the stepmother to ensure that he will be given preference because he's rich.

I don't think Soames is really that agreeable toward others, except for his sister, Winifred, his parents and a couple co-workers at his law firm. His own aunts and uncles gossip about him and call him "a stick", "a finnickin' young feller" and of course, "The Man of Property"! He had utter contempt for Jolyon and June, for his brother-in-law, Montague "Monty" Dartie and anyone who doesn't conform to his money-grubbing, uptight view of what is socially acceptable, such as his cousin George, whom he actively despises (a mutual feeling).

I thoroughly agree with Soames being a "product" of the Victorian mindset. He really does see Irene as property and to him, she is the same as any of the other things he collects, except that he desires her sexually. He has no interest in anything that she likes and even hates the music she plays, making no effort to understand it or her. People who rag on Irene for "not trying" should really look at Soames! He has no interest in knowing Irene as a person. Why should more be expected of her?

Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long

reply

I just read through a couple of chapters of the first book yesterday, and yes, it was really clear that Soames considered his wife as a part of his property. It is only sad that we never get to read what Irene thinks, but we only get to see her through other people's eyes.

George was never much of a character in this series (we probably get to know him better in the books and the 1967 series). But as for Monty, I despise him as well. Not only was he a jerk to his wife, but he also tried to push himself upon Irene (Bosinney had to save her). And as for Jolyon and June, my feelings about them aren't that positive either.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

Isn't the book a hundred times better than either of the TV adaptations? I've never seen the 2-3 films based on it; nothing is worse than the way they handled 1800's costumes in the 1940's-1970's! Except for a film like "Gaslight", with Ingrid Bergman.

Yes, Soames really does see Irene as property, as his possession! And the worst part is that the law is on his side. It seems insane to us now but Galsworthy gives several instances of what people, especially older ones and men, thought of Irene's refusal to keep having sex with Soames. They call her rebellious, selfish, not doing her duty and so on. Soames is only ever blamed by June, Old Jolyon, Bosinney, Young Jolyon and George. Even old Uncle Swithin (the ones who takes Irene for a drive) is sympathetic to her and not Soames.

Also, in addition to Soames pawing at her and yelling, Irene is subject to repeated lectures from people like Soames' father, his aunts and nosiness from people like Winifred and Monty.

Once a woman signed a marriage contract, she not only became her husband's "property" and could be raped and beaten, but if she tried to divorce him, it was extraordinarily difficult. It wasn't enough to prove that he committed adultery, for instance (that was sort of expected!). She had to prove it several times. And if she does get the divorce then SHE is "disgraced" and is reduced to poverty, since the husband gets control of all her money once she marries. If her husband can prove ONE instance of infidelity, then he gets custody of any children.

Only the rich women, with trust funds or relatives who helped, could get a divorce and survive afterward.

Though Irene does leave Soames, she nearly drowns herself, is saved by another "fallen woman" and cared for. Somehow, she is able to survive on giving piano lessons, translating and dress-making. Yet she lives in a shabby flat in Chelsea, a dangerous part of town back then. Jolyon is shocked when he visits her to tell her that his father left her money in his will.

As for the Irene being seen only through others' eyes, that's quite true, except for a few statements by her. I think that Galsworthy wanted to portray her as the embodiment of beauty, and how it distorts' people's thinking and wrecks lives, due to their own greed, lust and nastiness.

I've been working an a "sequel" to The Forsyte Saga, seen through Irene's eyes, but it's difficult! There's very little to go on. I have another sequel to Fleur's story, that picks up after Jon ....[SPOILER!!] rejects her the second time in the second trilogy. In this case, I can understand Fleur quite well, but Jon is as much a mystery to me as his mother! If I ever publish it, I'll let you know where it is, if you're interested.

In the meantime, there IS a sequel to Fleur's story by Suleika Dawson, The Forsytes, from 1996, with this summary:

"Soame's daughter, Fleur, is Lady Mont, dutiful wife. She has buried her passion for her long-lost cousin, Irene Forsytes's son, Jon Forsyte, under a veneer of motherhood and good works. But when tragedy brings Jon back to England, Fleur is determined to recapture the past--and the love of her life."

I would have settled for that, but it did not go as I thought it should, so I figured I'd just write my own!

It's pretty hard to find but I got a copy from this bookseller.

http://www.alibris.com/The-Forsytes-Suleika-Dawson/book/2416525


It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long[/i][/b]

reply

I won't say that the books are better, since I love this TV series. But just like always, the books will give you more details than any adaption is able to do.

It is true enough that a woman was her husband's property back then. I know that here in Sweden, that didn't change until 1920 (around the same time as women got the right to vote in nation-wide elections), and I guess that it changed around the same time in the UK. And yes, Irene had to learn that the hard way. But I had no idea that she almost drowned herself after she had left Soames! Yeesh! But I guess that she suffered from depression, which I sure can understand if she did after all what she had gone through...

By the way, I would really like to read your novels one day. 

Intelligence and purity.

reply

I'm probably a lot older than most of the female (or male!) posters here so let me tell you something you may find hard to believe. Many women, even now, DON'T CARE ABOUT SEX. Really, it's true. It was even more true back in the Victorian era where middle and upper middle class women were not even supposed to be responsive (I think it would have been considered either poor breeding or possible insanity). So what we call "rape" now would have just been considered...just the way things are....back then. Most women really DID just lay back and think of England and wait for it to be over. Sex was thought to be something that men needed and women endured. Many women, all over the world, EVEN NOW, consider marital relations in this light. I say all of this because so many of you become agitated by what you would consider "rape" now, which would not have been regarded as such in the Victorian era....even by other women. Most of them would have just told Irene to try to be a good wife to Soames, who would have been considered quite a catch, and as I say...lay back and think of England. If you don't really care about sex, or its not at the top of your priorities, that's not bad advice for many people, shocking as it may sound.

reply

But for the love of... Where do I even begin?

Yes, I know that Soames felt that he was in his full right to rape Irene. And yes, he would have been according to the law of the Victorian age. But even though I would normally agree that we shouldn't judge people from earlier eras with a more modern mindset, I still have to put my foot down on this one. After all, we saw a woman actually being raped, and then you say that she should have just stayed quiet and thought of England! How can you say such a thing? Aren't you the least glad that things have changed since the 1880s? Do you want women to still be abused by their husbands? And I can also tell you that at least three out of Soames's male relatives (Jolyon Jr, Jolyon Sr and Cousin George) all found his behavior towards Irene dispicable. So you can't even claim that all men back then would have seen marital rape as something, that a woman should have to endure...

As for the Irene/Bossiney thing, this is what I wrote in another thread:

I can agree that June didn't really deserve that. But alas, things will happen. Irene was not happy in her marriage, which had been a disaster from the beginning. And it seems like Bossiney never loved June as much as she loved him, so he would probably have cheated on her anyway sooner or later (but when you consider that this version never really explained that, I can see how people missed it). And after all, June decided to forgive Irene after she found out about the rape, which only made his more liberal cousins (and even his uncle) hate him even more than what they had before.

So fine! You can go ahead and call Irene a two-faced home-wrecker, if you still have the nerve to ignore the suffering of a rape victim! But you have to remember that Irene had been pressured and bullied and tricked into this marriage, where she never could have become happy. And yet again, Soames went so far that he raped her! How can you not see that he had crossed a line when he did that? And did you know that Irene almost commited suicide after she had been raped and her lover had died? Can you still be so damn cold-hearted, that you can feel no sympathy for her?

Intelligence and purity.

reply

Your statements about the GENERAL attitude of Victorian society (which was by no means shared by everyone!) are valid...to a point! They are mostly the result of Queen Victoria's restrictive, and quite frankly, neurotic ideas about sex and marriage. Ironically, though she enjoyed a healthy sex life with Albert, she domineered her children and spread the word that women were delicate flowers who should not (for some reason) want or enjoy sex. Those who did were viewed as prostitutes, immoral or crazy. It may have resulted from Albert's untimely death--perhaps Victoria wanted EVERYONE to suffer sexual frustration if she had to?

Anyway, in addition to agreeing with furienna's post, I'll add that you are missing the entire point of Galsworthy's novels: He was a feminist. He was in love with his cousin, Ada, who was married to an abusive, possessive man. Like Irene and Bosinney, they had an affair and only married when his cousin died (the husband was the blood relation). In Galsworthy's case, he was trying to spare his father the shame of a public scandal (unlike Jolyon).

Galsworthy knew far better than we do about all the nonsensical, Victorian ideas you detailed above--the "lay and think of England"--(Cripes! Who says women were okay with that, just because they were forced to do it?), the idea that women weren't supposed to consider good sex as a part of their marriage, but whether their husband provided for them, didn't hit them (too much!) and didn't drink or gamble.

He thought all that was ROT! He gave Irene a sex drive! She was not a woman who disliked SEX at all; she simply disliked it with SOAMES! She found him revolting. I've always found him revolting. No doubt, most of us have had someone come on to us at some point in our lives, even a spouse, and had no desire for sex with them. We usually tell those people to get lost! Irene had no way of testing that before marriage, due to her upbringing, so, tragically, she found out afterward.

The key thing (one of them) is that Soames promised more than once to let her go if the marriage was not successful. It was a disaster! And he lied and denied that he every said it. For me, the blame lies entirely with him. Despite Irene's loathing of his touch, she did try to be a "good wife" (sickening phrase in this case!), slept with him for three years or more! Only after falling for Bosinney did she lock him (Soames) out.

You'd THINK that a guy with half a brain could have figured out he wasn't wanted, and I believe Soames did; he simply refused to accept it. He was obsessed with Irene, as other men were (like Monty, and even Young Jolyon). Luckily, Jolyon was enough of a compassionate human being not to push himself on Irene, but to get to know her as a person and let her come to him.

So this isn't about sex drive at all; Irene had plenty of it for the right men and she also knew how to love (Bosinney and Jolyon).

And if I met someone nowadays who had no sex drive, I would advise them to see a counselor and if that didn't help, a doctor! It's not normal to have no desire for sex. It is a biological imperative, if nothing else.

For those who don't understand any of the above, I HIGHLY recommend reading Galsworthy's novels, to sweep away the horrible writing and misguided script of the 2002 version. Even the 1960's one, though it was much more thorough, could not give people the insight into the characters' thoughts and feelings that are present in the books.


Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long

reply

They are mostly the result of Queen Victoria's restrictive, and quite frankly, neurotic ideas about sex and marriage.


Yes.

Ironically, though she enjoyed a healthy sex life with Albert


That's not my understanding, from what I've read about Victoria, and her relationship with Albert. While she was without any doubt passionately in love with him, what I've read has said that passion was relegated to the world of emotions and (religious) spirituality, not of "the flesh," as they referred to it. Women were supposed to be "above all that." If they weren't, they were thought of as abnormal, prostitutes, crazy, etc., as you said.

The key thing (one of them) is that Soames promised more than once to let her go if the marriage was not successful. It was a disaster! And he lied and denied that he every said it. For me, the blame lies entirely with him. Despite Irene's loathing of his touch, she did try to be a "good wife" (sickening phrase in this case!), slept with him for three years or more!


That is key. In the 2002 version, which is all I've seen, Irene asked Soames to promise that she'd be as free as if they'd never married if their marriage wasn't a success. He agreed, but said it would be a success if they married. She pressed him again, insisting that he solemnly swear he'd let her go if it weren't a success -- which it clearly wasn't, after two years of her trying but being unable to even tolerate him -- and he agreed.

You'd THINK that a guy with half a brain could have figured out he wasn't wanted,


Yes, you'd think so, but Soames was supremely insensitive to Irene and her feelings. Except he did realize she laughed and was happy when she was around June and Bosinney, resented it, and forbade her to go with them to the art exhibit (or whatever it was). With Soames, the more she rejected him, the more he repelled her, the more he went after her, which repelled her more, which made him pursue her more … and so on.

reply

I must have been influenced by a pro-Victoria documentary! They dwelt heavily on her devotion to Albert and seemed (to me) to be saying that she was pretty open-minded about sex (with him anyway). Then there was that whole "Mrs Brown" thing!

They did criticise her for ruining her daughters' sex lives, however. She chided them constantly, even after they were married, if they spoke too fondly of the physical side of marriage. Weird!

I like your analysis of Soames' obsession with Irene growing the more she rejected him. It was more about a power play than affection (certainly) or perhaps even sex!

Young Jolyon's (read Galsworthy's) analysis of Soames and what made him so miserable and unlikeable, was that he was "cursed with a lack of self-awareness", like many other Forsytes. Unlike Soames, however, they didn't go around chasing prospective spouses or actual ones and then raping them! (that we know of!)


Don't get me wrong...
It might be unbelievable,
But let's not say so long

reply

Actually you're viewing it from the POV of a 21st century person. In the Victorian times, it would have been EXPECTED of Irene to "tolerate" sex and try to conceive children as that was viewed as the point of marriage. Also, in that time period, Soames would have been regarded as well within his right not only to demand sex from her, but to force her. It would have been considered him "asserting his martial rights" as sex from his wife would have been considered his "right". If this had gone to court at this time, as a rape case, Soames would have won as the judge would rule that a husband could not rape his wife.

That was in those days and we think differently now. But we shouldn't make the mistake of judging characters from a different era with our standards and beliefs. Not all of them hold.

reply

Soames' rape of Irene would have been considered within his legal rights, but not moral rights within "polite" early 20th century values, as was portrayed by the reaction of several characters, including one of his own family. A man who "had to" rape his wife in order to assert his "marital rights" would have been looked down upon, had it become known. Women were generally viewed as delicate flowers.

The Forsyte Saga was written in Edwardian times and from an Edwardian perspective, not Victorian, although early on it does cover some of the Victorian period.

reply

Interesting post. Yeah, I also tried to explain that not even his relatives approved of what Soames did.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

I don't know why so many people don't notice this, or Soames' mother's key story about him killing the kitten when he was a child by smothering it to death. How could anyone miss these two important story elements?

reply

Yeah, it should be so obvious.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

The tv series played up the angle of Irene's financial desperation and the screws her stepmother were putting to her, with many scenes that were not in the book. The emphasis in the book was more on her youth and the fact that she was completely ignorant about sex, as girls of her social class were at the time. I think that she did not know that she would feel sexually repulsed by Soames until after she was married.

Why do we have to take sides? I empathize with both of them. Neither can help the way they feel.

reply

The tv series played up the angle of Irene's financial desperation and the screws her stepmother were putting to her, with many scenes that were not in the book. The emphasis in the book was more on her youth and the fact that she was completely ignorant about sex, as girls of her social class were at the time. I think that she did not know that she would feel sexually repulsed by Soames until after she was married.


If you think the '02 Forsyte Sage made the stepmother out to be a fortune-hunter, you should see the '67 version. I agree totally that Irene did not know before marriage how intensely ugly sexual repulsion could be. In fact, Galsworthy dwells on this subject in his introduction to the novel, on how uncontrollable the matter of sexual attraction is.

I don't empathize with Soames, having known someone like him. I think Damian Lewis--who has got to be the most charismatic and attractive British actor of the 35-45 age group--made Soames sympathetic because he himself is so damn likable.

reply

They also had Irene do the last meeting Handshake scene. It kind of let Soames off the hook after he had wept recalling "the incident" to Fleur.

Soames sort of left Irene and the series with a contented look on his face...
Kisskiss, Bangbang

reply

I agree totally that Irene did not know before marriage how intensely ugly sexual repulsion could be. In fact, Galsworthy dwells on this subject in his introduction to the novel, on how uncontrollable the matter of sexual attraction is.


With the exception of having tried to watch the '67 version and being unable to get past the 15 minute mark, I haven't seen it, nor read the novel. But I agree Irene had no concept of how awful sexual -- and emotional -- repulsion can be. We are shown a broad hint of it when Irene is first really turned off by Soames at the art gallery, as their characters are completely at odds with one another, and then later at the restaurant when he practically devours her hand and arm after removing her glove. Ugh!

I don't empathize with Soames, having known someone like him. I think Damian Lewis--who has got to be the most charismatic and attractive British actor of the 35-45 age group--made Soames sympathetic because he himself is so damn likable.


I didn't know you've known someone like Soames. This probably explains your great antipathy towards him. You've mentioned a number of times now how you think people -- women in particular -- respond favorably towards Soames because Damian Lewis plays him in this rendition.

As I've said before, I'd never seen Damian Lewis until I saw The Forsyte Saga, and became captivated by his amazing talent in his portrayal of Soames, who for the large part is a villain.

I felt a small amount of sympathy for him when he had that mental breakdown, but he'd been so awful, I couldn't summon much sympathy for him until the scene when he first held Fleur as an infant. Never would I have thought I'd come to sympathize with and understand him as I did at the end, which is the brilliance and beauty of the series. I'd never before seen such a brilliantly played and written, multi-dimensional character, which has nothing to do with Lewis's likability.

I have now seen Homeland, and predictably he was great in it, but likable? Brody was a real mixed bag, in many ways similar to Soames, although as Brody we were left guessing for a long time, and Soames was unlikable right out of the shoot.

reply

I'd never before seen such a brilliantly played and written, multi-dimensional character, which has nothing to do with Lewis's likability.


Can't understand how I missed this response in January. I disagree; I think that if an unattractive actor played Soames, many, many female viewers who are willing to overlook his repulsiveness wouldn't have. (And I felt free to comment about having known someone like Soames because the person was not and never became related to me in the ways Irene was compelled to be related to Soames.)

Apparently, you weren't impressed by Homeland. The show changed my life. Sincerely--I ignored it until last September by which point Brody was long gone from Homeland. Then I literally could not stop binge-watching. But The Forsyte Saga changed my life, too. Damian Lewis is the most versatile actor of his generation, totally under-valued, written off in ways many British actors simply are not. I don't understand it--and that's putting it mildly.

(But I want Prince Harry to be the next James Bond .)

reply

I can only repeat this:

As I've said before, I'd never seen Damian Lewis until I saw The Forsyte Saga, and became captivated by his amazing talent in his portrayal of Soames, who for the large part is a villain.


I don't know why you're unable to accept it. Perhaps you, personally, find Damian Lewis so attractive and captivating you're unable to understand that not everyone else does. Many women find "ginger" men unattractive just by virtue of the fact that that have red hair. Oddly, men generally find red-headed women attractive.

I don't find Damian Lewis to be unusually attractive, although I have no prejudice towards gingers, unlike many women. So to me, Soames started out at the very beginning as a neutral, and soon became a villain. It took me several viewings to catch the nuances of Soames, and no longer view him as just a villain. Again, this had nothing to do with his attractiveness, as you seem insistent on, but is simply untrue, in my case, in any event. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but for you to characterize any woman who felt sympathy towards him, in addition to distaste, as being self-loathing, is simply untrue, and, I might add, condescending. I don't think your intention is to be condescending, merely that you're not looking deeply enough into the opinions of those whose take on this character differs from your own, and is not anywhere near as black and white as yours.

I loved Lewis's characterization of Brody on Homeland. I loved that for a long time the showrunners kept you guessing about him, and Lewis is so good at playing ambiguous characters. He really needs that, or some other type of very complex character, in order for his talents to shine. I found him overall endearing in Life, but there wasn't enough to that character or plot for him to do much else with it. I only watched two episodes of Billions, and had to be nudged into watching the second episode, because anyone could have played that character, and so I was bored. He's the kind of actor who needs a character who's written with multi-dimensions. Otherwise he's wasted.

I didn't watch Homeland either until last fall. Didn't think I'd like it. I too binged it, but frankly it was primarily to see Lewis play Brody, because he did it as well as he'd done Soames. Carry wasn't and isn't as compelling a character to me. Saul is good, as is the other character played by Rupert Friend, but none of them are enough to sustain my interest.

Damian Lewis is the most versatile actor of his generation, totally under-valued, written off in ways many British actors simply are not. I don't understand it--and that's putting it mildly.


I mostly agree. I think he's as fine an actor as was Spencer Tracy, and similar in ways in their respective abilities to breathe life and nuance into well written characters, where they have room to expand and shine. Regardless of how good Lewis is, there was little he could do with his character in Billiions, because it wasn't written in.

reply

@catbooks(sp?)

Ha, you're right, saying that I find him so attractive, I just blindly assume other women will as well. The only problem is that, if Lewis' personal attractions don't compel interest in Soames (and, at least in past years, misogynist sympathy from women)...what is the source of the sympathy? The character's complexity? See, even if one argues that Soames' multi-faceted, true-to-life, contradictions are fascinating, they may account for viewers' fascination with him; they don't explain hatred of Irene. I can feel sorry for all of the characters in the 2002 version at some point or other, but, in the end, the 2002 version is dominated by Soames and Irene.

Your words bring me to an insight. I think one can pity or "take sides with" Irene without liking her. In the beginning, in her young years (and, in the 2002 version, in series 1), she is completely sympathetic, even up to and including her affair with Bosinney. She betrays June wholeheartedly, and in this, she does a grave wrong. But at that point, she's so far out to sea in her ability to control her life, she's like a drowning woman grasping at a straw, which explains the betrayal. I don't condone the betrayal; I understand it.

I understand much less her decisions in future years. She becomes independently wealthy. To marry Jolyon seems to indicate that she has, at least in part, always been an essentially selfish woman. By the end of the "saga," she is nothing like the pitiful young woman she had been when she agreed to marrying Soames years before. Unlike others, I find her most distasteful act the mere entertaining of Jolyon. She has a moral if not a personal duty to respect the *fact* of her first marriage which is ignored when she encourages Soames' cousin. Worse, she encourages the father of the girl whose heart she broke. Poor June had darn well better have turned out as resilient as she did; else she'd be a suicide. So the long and short of it is that Irene can remain essentially sympathetic (because she always acts out of feeling), the same as Jolyon, while not remaining particularly likable. Soames, on the other hand, will for me remain forever essentially heartless. In the 2002 version, we see him as a young father crying over his newborn, but we never know the source of his tears. (I inferred they were as much for the fact that he--poor poor pitiful misunderstood Soames--had finally procreated, even though he didn't procreate a male.)

We next see him as someone who indulges his miraculously lovely grown daughter not for herself, but because she is his avatar, his hold on the future. As for the concluding scene, I was not taken in by it whatsoever. I found it heartbreaking, yes, but neither for his sake nor Irene's. I think it's heartbreaking because it shows the viewer how hurts inflicted in youth never truly go away or heal; they simply transform. I believe Soames leaves the meeting a more self-satisfied man. As the Beatles say in Eleanor Rigby: "No one was saved."

As for Homeland and Billions: I have lost interest in Homeland since the end of Season 3. This past season was depressing as hell and abysmal in terms of character "development." I made it, barely, to the end of episode 1 with Billions. You are *SO* right, saying that Lewis has to play complex (and tortured) characters, or else his talents fall flat. I honestly felt his character in Life was tortured. That series was treated horribly by NBC.

I do not understand why romantic relationships between leading characters on television series are the source of so much angst for viewers. Romance, if left realistic, can become as little a source of interest as John and Olivia Walton on the Waltons: there when it's appropriate, pushed to the background when not. On "Life," I would have been interested to see how (yet another Lewis character with PTSD) carried on with his equally wounded partner...a forerunner, in that respect, to Homeland, which seems to dote on destroying healthy young males, and which, for me, has become rather prurient because of the tendency.

You mean everyone doesn't find redheads irresistible?

reply

The only problem is that, if Lewis' personal attractions don't compel interest in Soames (and, at least in past years, misogynist sympathy from women)...what is the source of the sympathy? The character's complexity? See, even if one argues that Soames' multi-faceted, true-to-life, contradictions are fascinating, they may account for viewers' fascination with him; they don't explain hatred of Irene. I can feel sorry for all of the characters in the 2002 version at some point or other, but, in the end, the 2002 version is dominated by Soames and Irene.


Hilary, it's difficult to tell posters' genders. I have read any number of people's posts on here defending Soames and reviling Irene. Some obviously from men, some obviously from women, and some I have no idea which gender they are.

For posters who defend Soames and revile Irene, the only explanation I have is they're unused to characters with so much depth, can't recognize them, and therefore swing to extremes. Had Irene been portrayed by an actor who was more conventionally beautify (by today's standards), they'd have probably sided more with her, and still not understood that Irene is not simply a heroine.

I can only give you my own point of view, and yes for me my fascination with Soames lies in his complexity, and Lewis's brilliant portrayal of him. There are few series, films or TV shows that require numerous, attentive viewings in order to appreciate and understand the many subtleties of both plot and characters. Let alone in 2002!

I've already explained to you several times the source of my sympathy for Soames, and that I had to watch it several times before seeing it. There were moments in which I felt sympathy for him, yes, but only fleeting moments.

Why some women hate Irene, and think Soames was some kind of hero who was repeatedly wronged by him is something of a mystery to me too, other than my guess above. Another contributing factor is probably that several years passed between Irene agreeing to marry Soames (with conditions), so we weren't actually shown how and why their relationship devolved the way it did.

Yes, you and I realize the scene with Soames silently following her up the staircase to their bedroom, the horrifying sex scene, and Irene's reaction, including that sad douching scene, was meant to convey that this had happened night after night, for those missing years. That Irene had tried as best she could to fulfill her "wifely duties" and make it work. But she could not. She only found him increasingly repellant, and with good reason. Obviously many didn't get this and could only post about how cold Irene was, that she never really tried, which wasn't true.

Your words bring me to an insight. I think one can pity or "take sides with" Irene without liking her. In the beginning, in her young years (and, in the 2002 version, in series 1), she is completely sympathetic, even up to and including her affair with Bosinney. She betrays June wholeheartedly, and in this, she does a grave wrong. But at that point, she's so far out to sea in her ability to control her life, she's like a drowning woman grasping at a straw, which explains the betrayal. I don't condone the betrayal; I understand it.


I didn't, per se, take sides with Irene, although I certainly did sympathize with her, up to her betrayal of June. Yes, I too understood her affair with Bosinney. Where I lost sympathy for her was cruelly berating June after his death, and before that, so publicly humiliating Soames at the dance. She needn't have done either.

Yet, again I sympathized with her, of course, in the carriage with Soames on the way home, and the rape, and when he tracked her down and stalked her in Paris, when all she wanted was for him to leave him alone. Again when he went back into his obsession of her before she'd married Young Jolyen, and in the scene where he did the same at Jolyen's house.

I don't and can't blame her for her relationship with both Old Jolyen and later Young Jolyen. I believe she truly did care about both of them, even though Bosinney was her one real love. I didn't like Bosinney, but understand their attraction for one another.

She has a moral if not a personal duty to respect the *fact* of her first marriage which is ignored when she encourages Soames' cousin. Worse, she encourages the father of the girl whose heart she broke. Poor June had darn well better have turned out as resilient as she did; else she'd be a suicide. So the long and short of it is that Irene can remain essentially sympathetic (because she always acts out of feeling), the same as Jolyon, while not remaining particularly likable.


Really, though, she did not encourage young Jolyen. He came to check up on her in Paris and they had a lovely time. They were both lonely, but still she didn't encourage him romantically. It was only after Soames came and confronted them that she said yes, they'd been having an affair, even though they hadn't. Although I do agree Irene didn't seem to consider June -- again. Overall, to me, June was the most sympathetic character, and yes, thank god she was as resilient as she was!

We next see him as someone who indulges his miraculously lovely grown daughter not for herself, but because she is his avatar, his hold on the future. As for the concluding scene, I was not taken in by it whatsoever. I found it heartbreaking, yes, but neither for his sake nor Irene's. I think it's heartbreaking because it shows the viewer how hurts inflicted in youth never truly go away or heal; they simply transform. I believe Soames leaves the meeting a more self-satisfied man. As the Beatles say in Eleanor Rigby: "No one was saved."


Yes, he did, although I personally give him credit for having overcome the pervasive sexism of the era, and the pressure he had on him to have a son, and fell in paternal love with his daughter, however ultimately destructive that was.

I agree it shows how hurts inflicted in childhood/youth never go away, and instead transform, but that was on Soame's side, not so much Irene's. For whatever reason, early on, Soames had a tendency to obsess on those he loved, or perceived that he loved (the kitten, and later Irene), to their (and ultimately his) detriment. That isn't explored, and I wish it had been, or some hints given.

I felt that in the end, both Soames and Irene were saved, as best they could be at that point in their lives, by shaking hands and letting it go.

As for Homeland and Billions: I have lost interest in Homeland since the end of Season 3.


As did I, with Homeland. I know many Homeland fans hated S3, but I didn't. It was heartbreaking and difficult to watch, but I loved Lewis as Brody all the way through it, and loved his relationship with his (much, and inexplicably to me, reviled) daughter, Dana. I notice many teenage daughters in shows are hated, and have to wonder what that's about.

You are *SO* right, saying that Lewis has to play complex (and tortured) characters, or else his talents fall flat. I honestly felt his character in Life was tortured.


I agree, his character in Life was tortured. He'd been through unthinkable things. But it was more a light comedy/detective story than it was about how tortured he'd been. Brody was a perfect character for him, because he had so much depth. I just hope to see him in more things that allows him to spread his formidable acting wings. Not Bond! Unless someone has a script that completely remakes the character, and gives him more depth than has ever been thought about. I'd rather see him in something else. I could see him doing a very interesting Heathcliff. What do you think about Lewis as Heathcliff?

You mean everyone doesn't find redheads irresistible?


 Not hardly, or not women in particular. I'm not sure why this is, given many men often talk about how they like redheads, after blonds.

reply

You've mentioned a number of times now how you think people -- women in particular -- respond favorably towards Soames because Damian Lewis plays him in this rendition.


You have to understand what this mb used to be like. It was literally overflowing with Irene-haters and Soames apologists for YEARS. Most were Band of Brothers fan girls who had never watched an episode of Masterpiece Theatre in their lives. But lo and behold, they tuned in for Damien Lewis and started hating on Irene from the get go -- basically a year before the later eps with Fleur were even broadcast.

reply

You have to understand what this mb used to be like. It was literally overflowing with Irene-haters and Soames apologists for YEARS. Most were Band of Brothers fan girls who had never watched an episode of Masterpiece Theatre in their lives. But lo and behold, they tuned in for Damien Lewis and started hating on Irene from the get go -- basically a year before the later eps with Fleur were even broadcast.


You're right, I didn't know this. I have seen many long threads that revile Irene and defend Soames, on the basis that Irene was a "gold digger," "cold," and "never gave Soames a chance." I've undoubtedly posted arguments against on all such remaining threads since I've been here, which has only been for the past few years.

I had no idea there were Damian Lewis fan girls from Band of Brothers (which I've still not seen) here who were sympathizing with Soames for merely that reason, and hating on Irene as a result.

reply

I think the real problem was in the casting. The actors were not equally matched. Damian Lewis was terrific and delivered a multi-layered, textured performance. Gina McKee, in contrast, was a weaker actress. Her performances were flat and relatively one-note. She seemed very cold from the outset. If she had been a bit better, it would have developed more sympathy for Irene. I felt she entered the marriage with severe reservations. She told him at the outset-- if I am not happy, you will let me leave and it would be as if we were never married. That was a crappy way to enter the marriage. Better to say no outright.

Oddly, I found I had more sympathy for Irene in the 1967 version.

But it always really bothered me more than Irene betrayed her friend June by cheating with Phillip Bossiney.

___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

@catbookss, cakesandale, jennie portrait, et. al. (especially catbookss ):

I missed at least three or four responses above, so this will be scattershot.

1) @catbookss-- Wow, is it ever good to hear someone else agree with me about Damian Lewis' daughter on Homeland! By the end of the "series," for lack of a better word, she had broken my heart. I thought I had seen tragedy done better and more painful in The Forsyte Saga--such a politely savage and decorously heartbreaking series! The pain of The Forsyte Saga can't of course be compared to the kind that brings you to your knees in Homeland, and a large part of that pain is seeing how bravely and gracefully Lewis' daughter on that series tries to bear up under the stresses she is under. Funny thing: I bought Homeland and have re-watched four seasons more than once. However, the last re-watching was way back in late winter. Now, every time I pass the DVDs on my shelf, I want to avoid it. The DVDs are right next to The Forsyte Saga, which I think there is a chance of my re-watching, but not until the drear midwinter. Luckily, I live in a climate where there is such a thing as drear midwinter. Finally, I fear that if Lewis continues with Billions, his day in the sun may be over for good. I don't care how many Emmy nominations it gets, I will never watch my entertainment-idol, Lewis, in it.

Back to FS: I also regarded the ball-dancing scene with Bosinney as upsetting and in very poor taste. No question that the director did not want to evoke the apparently universal admiration for Irene that Nyree Dawn Porter evoked nearly fifty years earlier.

And never forget that this series was in production during 9/11. Lewis famously recounts how the rape scene was filmed the day the Twin Towers were taken down. Such talents, for all these actors and crew to create such a world apart from what they were living in real life.

2) @Jennie Portrait-- I had not considered that the crux of the "Soames v. Irene" problem (if one thinks there is a legitimate problem) had to do with Gina McKee's acting. Now that you mention the disparity between Ms. McKee's and Lewis' abilities...no, I still don't agree. I have never seen this actress in any other film or mini-series, which, considering the eternal inequity between opportunities for men and women in the acting industry, is not in itself indicative of a darn thing. But even if McKee is a one-note dour poseur (or whatever the female equivalent of "poseur" is), her portrayal of Irene as a highly sensitive, hypochondriac-like, Victorian? Spot-on! That she comes to life with Bosinney reveals her real nature (although McKee never betrays anything close to exuberance in her scenes with him).

3) @cakesandale-- Wow! As catbookss said, thanks for enlightening us on the totally unexpected source of the Irene-hatred. Surely, the (aging?) fan-girls that came here to defend marital rape and rant about Irene's "coldness" (while totally forgetting and forgiving Soames') are long gone. It is *so* easy to forget, in the thrall of the internet's appearance of timelessness, that even it is subject to change. I should say that message boards offer the illusion of timelessness, because what we have here today called the internet would have been not only inconceivable, but frankly very distasteful, to me if I had had the ability to see the World Wide Web's future in 1996. I miss those days like crazy.

reply

3) @cakesandale-- Wow! As catbookss said, thanks for enlightening us on the totally unexpected source of the Irene-hatred. Surely, the (aging?) fan-girls that came here to defend marital rape and rant about Irene's "coldness" (while totally forgetting and forgiving Soames') are long gone. It is *so* easy to forget, in the thrall of the internet's appearance of timelessness, that even it is subject to change. I should say that message boards offer the illusion of timelessness, because what we have here today called the internet would have been not only inconceivable, but frankly very distasteful, to me if I had had the ability to see the World Wide Web's future in 1996. I miss those days like crazy.


Thanks for responding! 

Heh, well you know, there's been a discussion about the nature of fandoms and the negative evolution of online "fanning" recently on the Outlander board. As I stated there, I have seen a lot of negatives in online discussion since I first started engaging online in the mid-late 90s (chiefly among Janeites). And back then, the online Jane Austen contingent was mostly made up of academics discussing the minutiae of the latest Austen adaptations on the Austen-L ListServ. Things got beyotchy, back then, all the time! Some academics are so petulant, pedantic, elitist and dismissive!

The recent discussion on the Outlander forum centered on several articles published this summer about the nasty turn in fandoms due to social media.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3006802/board/nest/257843862?d=259803938#259803938

I do agree with that assessment, but I have to date it further back. I must say that I observed a huge influx of very rude behavior in online discussion after the arrival of the Twilight contingent.

Now I'll just sit back here and await the many rotten vegetables and shovels of animal dung which will be hurled at me for saying so!

reply

And back then, the online Jane Austen contingent was mostly made up of academics discussing the minutiae of the latest Austen adaptations on the Austen-L ListServ. Things got beyotchy, back then, all the time! Some academics are so petulant, pedantic, elitist and dismissive!


Oh. My. God. I just traveled back to that Dark Time with the Force. In the late 90's, I made the colossal error of joining a Vic Lit listserv under my real name, figuring (ha) I'd encounter the mature, wise academics literary listservs were supposed to be full of.

"Petulant, pedantic, elitist, and dismissive" do not begin to cover the types of condescension and outright contempt I met with there. (I have an advanced but not terminal degree in the field.)

The recent discussion on the Outlander forum centered on several articles published this summer about the nasty turn in fandoms due to social media.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3006802/board/nest/257843862?d=259803938#259803938


I'm unfamiliar with Outlander but will read this thread. In the mid- (not late-) 90's, I was fortunate to be in contact with a major science fiction writer. Harlan Ellison's essay "Xenogenesis" was recommended to me, and I read it as if it were surely--surely--a work of fiction. The "fan" behaviors Ellison recounts were *so* outrageous as to be criminal; it was impossible to believe "fans" were capable of such hatred. In 2010, I got on the PBS "Sherlock" board here on IMDB and found out that the same kind of behavior Ellison described clearly infects vulnerable minds. "Fandom" will always have its very dark side--and I acquainted myself--very very briefly--with hatred for Benedict Cumberbatch's wife.

One of the problems with internet bulletin boards is that written comments not posted in real-time (like on social media sites) can be finessed, edited, re-edited, and gussied up with correct syntax so as to hide severe and pathological psychological problems. Once I realize that a poster is simply too close to his/her idol, I stay far away from them. But another problem with internet bulletin boards is the ability for disturbed individuals to create endless accounts. In fact, I'd say this is the hallmark of the truly disturbed: to have enough time and animus to create endless accounts from which to take potshots at--whatever and whoever pushes their (many) buttons.

I like the Forsyte Saga board because while the disagreement here has often been very heated, I have never seen it disintegrate into the glassy-eyed cult-like behavior I find on the Sherlock board and you (apparently) have found on the Outlander board.

reply

I like the Forsyte Saga board because while the disagreement here has often been very heated, I have never seen it disintegrate into the glassy-eyed cult-like behavior I find on the Sherlock board and you (apparently) have found on the Outlander board.


I like boards with ample traffic. The Jane Austen adaptations boards don't get much traffic anymore. For years, I only popped in on IMDb every now and then. But when Downton Abbey started airing, I liked that board because not only did it have plenty of traffic, but in the beginning, it was visited frequently by knowledgeable and friendly posters. We had a great group going. Then the influx of the age 20-something Twilight fangirls started to bring the board down. Later, we were invaded by several Downton fangirls who imo were also quite nutty. We also had the usual trolls and fanatical fans (though nothing like the Sopranos boards, or esp Game of Thrones). So I understand what you mean about the Sherlock fandom.

Busier boards tend to have more of that sort of thing, and certain types of shows and films attract that type of fan. I'm not a real Outlander fan; I've never read the novels, nor will I. I just migrated over there because the show somewhat interests me (I enjoy a couple of the non-starring characters), and the board gets lots of traffic. But there are several factions on that board that are really something!

reply

The Jane Austen adaptations boards don't get much traffic anymore. For years, I only popped in on IMDb every now and then. But when Downton Abbey started airing, I liked that board because not only did it have plenty of traffic, but in the beginning, it was visited frequently by knowledgeable and friendly posters. We had a great group going.


I never even knew there was a Jane Austen board here. As for Downton Abbey, the first year of that show was like dying and going to heaven--the most visually beautiful television production I've ever seen in my life. And I will miss Lady Edith forever and ever. No period-piece take-off will do; only a return of Julian Fellowes.

reply

Hilary, it is very nice to come across someone else who liked Homeland, and is baffled by the EXTREME animosity towards the daughter. It's so over the top, even to the point-- so I heard -- of websites devoted to it. ??? Like you, I loved the relationship and connection between them. Not only did it deepen their characters, it was integral to the plot.

Once I asked about it and most said it was because they felt she took away from Brody and others' screen time, but that still doesn't make sense to me.

I have to confess that while I've watched the post-Brody episodes, and enjoyed some of them, a lot of my interest was lost after Lewis was no longer on the show. Not to say there aren't other good actors, but for me it felt like the main light had gone out.

Likewise, I couldn't get into Billions, no matter how much I wanted to.

Maybe those who like Billions aren't familiar with his extraordinary acting skills we know he's capable of, as Soames or Brody, so their expectations aren't as high as yours and mine. I LOVE his ability to show and not tell, with such subtlety and emotion, however held back it may be. To me his part in Billions could have been played by anyone; his talents were wasted on it.

I'd never before heard the FS was filmed around 9/11, let alone the rape scene filmed that day, Jesus.

I've still never seen McKee in anything else, but still feel she did an outstanding job as Irene. Even to the point of so many expecting her to be the pure and flawless heroine, and vilifying her for not being that! Missed the point, oh well.

I agree, message boards do provide us with the illusion of timelessness, particularly with non-of-the-moment shows or films. That's as it should be, but sometimes there are cultural events, of the moment, that come and go and are confusing or inexplicable to those who come along later.

reply

Hilary, it is very nice to come across someone else who liked Homeland, and is baffled by the EXTREME animosity towards the daughter. It's so over the top, even to the point-- so I heard -- of websites devoted to it. ??? Like you, I loved the relationship and connection between them. Not only did it deepen their characters, it was integral to the plot.


Such a coincidence! I just reported a thread on the Damian Lewis board in response to the increasingly abusive rhetoric there both for Damian Lewis as well as for yourself. We must have the same "Favorites!"

I, too, still have never seen McKee in anything else.

Watching the long, and no-doubt "Billions"-propelled, SAG/AFTRA interview with Damian Lewis last weekend, I asked myself some questions. 1) Why could I easily accept Lewis as a working-man in "Homeland," but not in "Billions?" 2) Could I not accept him in "Billions" specifically because of "Homeland" (which in my opinion was the zenith of his career--as of 2016)? 3) Is there a point after which stars who have created hallmark roles in hallmark series--"The Forsyte Saga" and "Homeland" for me, "Band of Brothers" (which I won't watch due to violence) for others--become unable to create additional hallmark roles?

I honestly don't think I will ever be able to accept Lewis in another American role after Brody. That "Billions" premiere was repulsive in every conceivable way and dealt with a world in which heroism is neither military nor truly personal (pick your favorite "Forsyte Saga" sufferer): these liabilities were/are severe. I just watched Lewis last week in "The Silent Storm," streaming on ITunes. While it's by no means the role of his career, I instantly accepted him as Reverend McNeil in the late 1940's.

Lewis is chameleon-like to a degree most fans don't realize, or at least in my humble opinion, such is the case. "Forsyte" fans know him as Soames, and we watched Soames playing Nick Brody, in whose tragic character a great deal of Soames' "dualities" existed (and how). Lewis in "Keane": whoa, Nelly, did that deserve an award of *some* type for its ambiguity; the role was infinitely more frightening than Nick Brody. But in "Billions," he's presented, at least in the premiere, as a straightforward working billionaire. "Billions" is essentially in the "mob" genre, only with legal mobs. Wall Street and high finance, and the British equivalent to Wall Street and high finance, are legal mob places. I have never, not once in my life, watched a mob film. The worst film of last year that I nearly walked out of was "The Big Short." It reeked of mob mentality and greed. Lewis' innate aristocracy is not in play here.

Benedict Cumberbatch fans or Michael Fassbender fans may concentrate on either star's sex appeal or whatever-appeal, and be willing to accept them in any role for dubious reasons. Lewis' fans seem of a different sort, to me. I don't think I'm congratulating only myself when I say that Lewis' fans are thinking people (men as well as women). Those less refined but nonetheless sensitive folk who said, "No Brody, no 'Homeland,'" were merely expressing what fans of Lewis' less well-known works know. This actor has to dominate a film or series indirectly; it's all about his ability to play deeply conflicted and frankly tragic roles. I welcomed "Wolf Hall" if for no reason other than that I knew that his character would certainly not end up tortured or worse, like Soames and Sergeant Brody.

reply

I, too, still have never seen McKee in anything else.

The only thing I have ever seen her in besides The Forsythe Saga is The Lost Prince. You can see it here: https://youtu.be/mrLTs7x4FNk. She plays Prince John's governess. It is a very sad movie. Her performance is actually very similar to the way she acted as Irene.

___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

Glad "Forsyte Saga" is in my favorites; and thanks for the link. It's so early, I read "King John," not "Prince John." I will watch the film on Thanksgiving if not tonight. I watched a British documentary on Prince John (also on Youtube), and "sad" isn't the word.

I'll be glad to see Gina McKee in it. Thank you.

reply

Thank you. I've neither seen nor heard of The Lost Prince before, but do love period pieces. You're right, she plays virtually the same part in this, at least in the first 45 minutes, which is all I've seen thus far. Her persona and dulled emotional reactions are exactly the same as in TFS.

I was surprised to learn I had seen her in something else, as I didn't recognize her in it. She was one of Hugh Grant's friends in Nottingham Hill. She looked and behaved so differently in it, I didn't recognize her.

reply

She was also in a British series called Our Friends in the North about 20 years ago. You can see a part here: https://youtu.be/6NSvTpeqZlE But the real stand-out in this clip is the young Daniel Craig.

But this is one of those British series' were the accents are so very, very hard to understand that I end up turning on the closed captioning.
___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

I use close-captioning for "American."  I'm halfway through "The Lost Prince" and am enjoying it VERY much. Thanks much for the "Dark Youtube" link.

reply

I've never heard the term "Dark YouTube" before. What is it?

As for closed captioning, I use it all the time for so many things. People mumble or use terms that I've never heard before. For instance, I use it when I watch "The Sopranos"-- and it takes place RIGHT where I grew up! It's not just the accents, but people use terms I just don't understand. And my hearing is just fine.

___________________________________
Never say never...

reply

I'm just joking. I owe it to IMDB to introduce me to a way that people "hide" videos on Youtube; and believe me when I say, "The Lost Prince" does NOT come up in a search of that site for, like, "The Lost Prince."  

reply