MovieChat Forums > Brooklyn (2015) Discussion > I really liked the movie until her trip ...

I really liked the movie until her trip back to Ireland.

posted 8 years ago by firemagefm
12 replies | jump to latest

After that, she suddenly lost all of being the protagonist for me, and I think it was incredibly rushed and badly developed in that part.

Jim Farrell had 0 character development, and the whole section was a crammed-in 30 minutes of bad things happening both from other characters and Eilis. Her mother, Nancy, that one boss, and other people essentially doing what they could to say "Stay here in Ireland."

And Eilis went from seeming to be against all of that to suddenly being okay with it all and ignoring Tony. She literally would've sensibly said "I'm in love!" to Nancy or her mother instead of just weakly saying "I'm returning to America."

Her stand-up to Miss Kelly was even worse and I wasn't rooting for her, because it wasn't like it was a realization of what was happening. She very well knew that she was essentially sitting Tony and her happiness in America aside, with scenes like the letters in the drawer, or each time she would weakly argue and then accept someone's suggestion.

The scene felt like she was just all of a sudden upset that someone else found out what she had left behind. She did not "win" against Miss Kelly. She just decided "Well, guess I have to reveal everything if I don't want the old boss of mine to do so!" By the time this scene occurred, she essentially seemed all ready to stay in Ireland with Jim, her new job, and everything.

It wasn't fitting for her at all from what we'd seen of her personality the rest of the movie. I understand that she would've had a reaction to returning home, and part of it would've been feelings to stay there, but the random mini-relationship with Jim as well as just accepting what everyone else basically told her to do was not fitting with who she was.

Her sister Rose's meaning to her was basically thrown out of the movie at that point as well. Her sister, who did her best to help her out and believed in Eilis' new life in America. Rose is not mentioned for the rest of the movie and Eilis basically forgets how much her sister pushed for that as well.

Basically lost all of my sympathy or liking of her, leaving the rest of the movie as being pretty flat. I didn't need or even want some idealistic romance movie. Clearly it was about where "home" is - but the way they did the conflict was horrible.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

Just so the rest of us who read your comments will understand, did you discontinue liking Eilis or did you discontinue the way they were telling her story?

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] firemagefm 8 years ago

Sorry for the essay, but I explicitly referenced a lot of things.

I stopped liking both her as a character and the movie as a whole around that time. I felt like it was bad plot and actually not that realistic to the extents that they made her go.

I understand that "realistic" is sorta ambiguous depending on what way you're arguing it, but I mean her particular way of events. And if that was meant to be realistic, then I would think she suddenly shifted to a weird double-sided person.

Usually movies don't make me that fidgety or anxious about the way they go. But I really, really enjoyed it (and her as a person) prior to that return trip.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

I just re-watched the whole movie, not because of your post but because it was time, I find that when I like a movie I get a lot out of it a second and third time.

I re-read your main comments and all I can say is it seems to me you totally misread the second half of the movie where she went back to Ireland and was tempted to stay. I had your general reaction in mind when I was watching that part and I come away with pretty well the opposite reaction, it all makes sense and is consistent with her character. I found it all well-written and appropriately acted and filmed.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] firemagefm 8 years ago

That's nice, but can you explain why you said I "misread"?

I explained and referenced multiple things in my original post, including how I understood her facing home and possibly wanting to stay there. But I also explained how she acted entirely differently than we'd seen the rest of the time, mostly.

Why are some of the things I mentioned above properly fitting for her?

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

I will not attempt to address all your issues because I think they stem from a misunderstanding of the basic premise and a basic misreading of the character.

Eilis was part of a devout Catholic upbringing which included, particularly in the 1950s, being considered a sin to be married in a civil ceremony. So even before she went back to Ireland she felt guilty but wanted to please Tony. In Ireland her failing to tell others was a direct result of that, she had no real need, she would be headed back to Manhattan soon. Presumably she would have told her mother right before she departed.

When her friend surprised Eilis by bringing Jim to the outing she gave her the "evil eye", she clearly did not want a date. As a very young and still immature woman she got caught up in the fantasy, the dream of having a life back in Ireland. At the wedding ceremony, sitting next to Jim, when the priest explained how the exchange of rings was a symbol of their commitment to each other Eilis became visibly affected, because she had taken off her wedding band and the priest's words made her realize that she was acting out of character, in a sense being disloyal to Tony.

The short meeting with Mrs Kelly was just the figurative slap that woke her up from her dream, it was what made her absolutely sure "home" was no longer in Ireland but was waiting for her back in Manhattan.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] firemagefm 8 years ago

So it's not a misunderstanding - it's literally you seeing the same exact scenes differently.

I referenced most of those things (except the priest's ring comment), but I used them in my view of how it was out of character.

For instance, in my OP:

And Eilis went from seeming to be against all of that to suddenly being okay with it all and ignoring Tony. She literally would've sensibly said "I'm in love!" to Nancy or her mother instead of just weakly saying "I'm returning to America."

Giving Nancy an "evil eye" as you said, and just going along with Jim and that double date, was one of the earliest points of her entire fault and flip of character.

It is her fault that she did not simply draw the line there, even if she didn't have to come clean about everything.

From that point forward, she continued giving in and started ignoring Tony, literally, like when she wouldn't open his letters.

You even said:

...made her realize that she was acting out of character, in a sense being disloyal to Tony.

Which is my entire point. That's why I didn't like her or the way the movie went after she returned. She became an entirely different person.

Her sudden disloyalty which didn't actually require much work at all to fight. She could have just put Jim and that whole part off, but still fought deciding where "home" was, which would've made more sense.

That's not misunderstanding for me - that's understanding her big giant flaws that suddenly appeared. If Tony knew all of that (which we don't see), it wouldn't be a suddenly nice and ideal ending like the movie tried to portray.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

It is just a good example of how two people (you and I) can see the very same scenes, with the very same characters and story, notice the very same things, and come away with two totally different takes on what it all adds up to.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

[–] firemagefm 8 years ago

True enough. I will accept that!

[–] purple_lemon 8 years ago

I agree with you. If the film had shown Eilish to be a person with both a good and a bad side (like most people) instead of making her a kind of saint then her change of heart when she returned to Ireland wouldn't have been so jarring. As it was she seemed to have become a different person to who she was in Brooklyn.

But the writer of the film wanted everyone to love Eilish so they made her a paragon of virtue. But by doing that they painted her into a corner so that what happened when she went back to Ireland was out of character with who she had been before.

The Players of The Game are the scum of the earth.

[–] firemagefm 8 years ago

Indeed, it led to a very sharp contrast.

[–] kimberlycshields 8 years ago

She is less sympathetic in the book. She goes back to Ireland and sort of falls for Jim, and doesn't know or think she loves Tony anymore, and feels torn between admitting to Jim (who she is fooling around with!) she is married and needs a divorce, and just accepting her fate and returning to Tony. Nettles Kelly eventually threatens outing her, and she fleas back to Tony for lack of any real choice. There is no chapter talking about her life with Tony in america after that. She gets on the boat and that's the end.

The ending in the movie was more satisfying for me. I felt like she was walking through a dream brought on largely by grief for Rose, and that she flirted with Jim, but was only flirting with a life that could have been, meanwhile she still loved Tony and returned to him.

[–] TxMike 8 years ago

"The ending in the movie was more satisfying for me."

Not surprising, is it? A book is written by a person in relative isolation. They write what they visualize. When a book is turned into a movie and gets in the hands of a good, experienced script writer, who understands movies and how audiences react to them, shouldn't we expect the movie to be better and overall more satisfying? In most cases.

..*.. TxMike ..*..