Morals back in the day (very minor spoilers)

Most reviews have covered the things I wanted to mention regarding Indiscreet, but there is one other aspect I found intriguing, and more suitable for a message board: the matter of morals and male expectations during the early-1990's.

Of course, people had always been human throughout the ages and Indiscreet gives enough suggestions that Gerry and the cad Jim had been in the sack together prior to her dumping him. Nothing scandalous about that. Then soon we're introduced to a new lover, Tony Blake, with his own brand of interesting behaviour and curiousity about social interaction, on the basis of "always obeying his impulses." And yet, quite ironically, he wouldn't want to be betrothed to a woman who had also obeyed her impulses before meeting him, and is not "pure" any longer (in his eyes) - even when that woman is not exactly a young daisy any more.

Sure, he bends his rules just a little bit here by preferring not to know the details of Gerry's previous affair in order to hold on to Gerry, but the principle remains that men in that age thought it reasonable that a woman should stick to her first love no matter what - because once she's been physically involved with someone, she's somehow "tainted" for others, and out of bounds.

It's actually not such an archaic view. In the 1980's I worked for a middle-aged bachelor boss who was in a healthy relationship with a widower - but he'd never marry her because another man had lain at her side before, and he couldn't bear the thought that she'd never be his and his alone. Still, that's a view on the decline, and in books and movies from the first three or four decades it's evident that many men thought that a reasonable standard of conduct.

It's easy to critically look back at former ages, but the male arrogance on the one hand, and the naivete on the other, is rather remarkable. (By the way, I am male too.) I say that simply because men didn't hold themselves to the same standards. There wasn't the same pressure on men to remain virgins before marriage (perhaps because of lack of physical evidence of a non-puritan life?), and not being willing to acknowledge that women could also fall in and out of love, and naturally acquire a "history" in the same way that men do.

I find Indiscreet quite interesting on many levels, and while it is not a defining masterpiece of the post-silent era, it does provide us with a look-in on the morals that held sway among the "proper" strata of society back then. And between the lines, Indiscreet seems to make fun of it too!

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.