Is anyone else really creeped out the way that Tito is romantically involved with Simonetta, his adopted-since-a-toddler daughter?
C'mon, don't be so prudish.
Bring bartman_9 back alive!
No you're not hardcore! Unless you live hardcore!
No.
shareyes
_________________________
Don't you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty?
When I saw Tito's decision to raise the abandoned toddler, I hoped that they would not jump ahead in time and potray the little girl, now a young woman, as Tito's love interest as I felt that it would be unrealistic and perverted. Having raised her from a girl to a woman, he would be as a father to her. For him to turn and fall in love with her would be as likely as a father becoming infatuated with his own daughter. He'd raised her since she was a toddler and so, for all intents and purposes, he was as a foster father to her. The relationship may not be that of a father and a daughter, but they are family by that point. It is as if Tito had fallen in love with his niece or his cousin, only the bound is not by blood relation.
Still, having been on the road without a woman to call his own, I could see how he could tragically fall for the girl whom he helped to raise. While I felt it a little unsettling at first, and perhaps even an attempt at something taboo, I later thought that it added to the tragedy. He no longer saw her as an adoptive daughter, but as a young woman of her own. In the end, it added to the reasons why he and Simonetta could not be together.
I agree with all that Skye has said. I would say that "creeped out" is not quite the word for what I felt about the relationship; I felt mostly surprise that absolutely no one at any point in the film raises any objections or offers any hint whatsoever that the relationship might be inappropriate-- aside from Tito himself ... but is his moral conflict over the incest issue or over the age difference and/or the fear of destroying their precious platonic love?
My sense is that none of the other characters raise any objections because this reflects
1. An era before adoption became prevalent. Today most Americans are far more likely to consider an adoptive father to be a real father-- perhaps even more real that any blood father who is not involved in the child's upbringing.
2. An old-fashioned sense of the taboo being based solely on blood ties, almost as if it had unconscious roots in trying to avoid dangerous genetic choices.
The relationship between them and the fact that he is falling in love with her is probably not too far from the truth in a lot of father-daughter situations. Go over the line and you commit incest. But Tito is not her father, even though he has raised her.
There is another consideration: Tito is not stupid, but he is also not that bright. He depends heavily on Simon, the more pragmatic half of the act, who knows as soon as Tito "adopts" the girl there could be all kinds of complications. Tito, however, is like a kid with a new puppy, and has no idea how she will change his life. Over the course of the next couple of years she grows from a toy in Tito's mind to a lovely young lady. Her advance into maturity is a world shaking event for him, and comes as a complete surprise.
What is remarkable here is Tito's realization of what is happening to him and his truly monumental attempt to control himself. He becomes disgusted with himself and is terrified that he will destroy the innocent Simonetta. Tito is not a pervert, despite his growing realization that he is attracted to the maturing girl. He is a decent man, and the inner torment he suffers leads to the final tragedy.
You may find the subject matter distasteful, and to a certain extent it is. But it is presented maturely and tragically. The underlying motives in this movie are far more complicated than simply branding it a film about "lust" or "a dirty old man."
Tito's final act of self destruction is not entirely credible. There is no guarantee that he will be killed by doing the stunt. It is the only questionable sequence in the movie.
Even so, this is one of Chaney's greatest performances. Loretta Young is ravishing as Simonetta. She never again looked so young and alive as in this picture.
I agree in most part with IridescentPhantom, but you can only go so far to excuse a behavior like the one Flik exhibits. There is no way around it and no bleeding heart excuse can forget the fact that Flik raised the child as a daughter and for him to think of her any more than that presents a very big moral problem. Nothing against the movie at all, in fact I find it refreshing that a movie in that era can tackle a complicated subject like this, and this movie is a near masterpiece, this is more a criticism on the character's part, not the creator of the story.
So I agree, it is very creepy no matter what way you look at it.
On a serious note, anyone who can accept the relationship realistically and see no real problem with it may have some serious issues that go beyond the norm. I am in no way at all a prude, whatsoever, but what I do have is common sense and control. You really have to be very ugly, desperate, short sighted and or somewhat perverted to go after someone you raised as your own for romantic or sexual purposes. I'm sorry but there is no convincing us "clear" thinking people otherwise.
Great analysis, Phantom-- nicely summed up. I am not sure the film is 100% innocent of pandering to an audience's unconscious prurience, but you articulate perfectly the idea that Tito is primarily a moral man (a universe away from Humbert Humbert, for instance).
I take only one possible exception to one of your last points:
You write:
"Tito's final act of self destruction is not entirely credible. There is no guarantee that he will be killed by doing the stunt. It is the only questionable sequence in the movie."
I did not take Tito's final act as a rational, calculated decision to commit suicide (i.e., one in which he should be properly weighing up the odds of success). I took this last act to be one of two things: 1. Tito's moral conflict is causing a mental schism, making him far more slapdash in his rehearsal of the stunt (there is a running theme of the need for concentration in his act), and thus, at best, the failure of the last stunt is the result of an _unconscious_ urge for self-destruction; or 2. The strain is causing Tito to lose his mind, so even if the act is intentional, it is a reckless, headlong leap into self-destruction.
Personally, I thought it was sick. However, it is a different time we live in. When we hear of child brides and incest-type relations we think of somewhere in a third world location, yet, here, in our own country less than 100 years ago this was generally accepted as being Ok. Time marches on...
shareIt was definitely a relationship modern audiences find unsettling. I think, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, that people in the past may not have seen as adoptive parent as a "real" parent, more like a guardian (with the child thought of as a "ward" rather than a son or daughter). Certainly Simonetta never refers to Tito as her father and Tito never calls Simonetta his daughter. Also, a marriage wasn't really seen as a partnership of equals; hence, in the past people might have been less put off by the idea of a husband playing an almost fatherly role with his wife. This scenario of a guardian falling in love with his grown-up ward was a fairly common one in older films and books--for example, "Daddylonglegs" and Bleak House.
That said, often as not in many of these works the guardian gradually realizes that the young girl would probably be happier someone closer to her in age and ends the relationship, suggesting that even back then people were somewhat uncomfortable with these relationships.
Grover Cleveland married his unofficial ward, his deceased law partner's daughter whom he had known since she was born. He had bought "Frank" her first baby carriage. She was a great beauty and a big hit with the nation. There was a 27 year age difference.
shareI was creeped out by the sad acceptance of tying up a child to kill her because the parents couldn't afford her! Simon mentions taking her to an orphanage so those did exist. This is even worse than doing a Hansel and Gretel and "losing" your kids in the woods. They staked her out like a goat waiting to be eaten by wild animals. They really, REALLY did not want that child to find her way home! Was this practice going on in the 1920s in Spain? That's horrifying.
shareI was creeped out by the sad acceptance of tying up a child to kill her because the parents couldn't afford her! Simon mentions taking her to an orphanage so those did exist. This is even worse than doing a Hansel and Gretel and "losing" your kids in the woods. They staked her out like a goat waiting to be eaten by wild animals. They really, REALLY did not want that child to find her way home! Was this practice going on in the 1920s in Spain? That's horrifying.
shareI got the impression that she was going to drown. Horrible but it probably was done when the parents couldn't afford another mouth to feed.
shareWhat? How about the other guy who was getting it on with his foot fetish and getting some spit swap with a 15 year old? Hubba Hubba.
share