MovieChat Forums > Hot Saturday (1932) Discussion > Interpretations of Romer

Interpretations of Romer


As I commonly do after seeing a movie, I came here to take a look around at whatever discussions and reviews there might be. I often find it interesting to read some other points of view about a movie. What was unusual this time is that I found a User Comment that I felt the need to reply to here.

From the review by Cannes2000 in the "User Comments" section of the IMDb page:

Kitten-faced Nancy Carroll whiles away her days working at the bank in a small town, her only entertainment being tepid flirtations and weekend outings with her co-workers. All this changes when a suave gigolo played by Cary Grant enters the picture. Luring Carroll along with her clique to his ill-gotten country mansion, Grant puts the moves on her relentlessly -- complimenting her on her "mind" -- and the attraction is mutual. Carroll does manage to resist, but makes the mistake of taking his car back into town, leading the gossip mill to churn and Carroll to be branded the town tart. But when an old family friend played by Randolph Scott returns to visit, with marriage on his mind, things begin to look up for this girl, who has taken all the pain of a fall without any of the pleasure... Yet!

What makes Hot Saturday remarkable is its non-judgmental tone. Now, people have a tendency to confuse "amoral" with "non-judgmental." What they forget is that it's also possible to be judgmental the other way -- against conservative mores, and FOR piggish, selfish behavior, as you can see in almost all the other comments on this board. This film is very fair however and different people will take different messages from it. A riot grrrl will see it as a story of breaking the shackles of conventional life; a Christian will see it as a descent into hell, like a light 'n' frothy Inland Empire. But both sides are covered, and no one in the film is perfect. For all the mistakes that the townspeople make, like letting a little harmless bit of gossip catch fire, the Nancy Carroll character makes one that is much worse. She is attracted to a monster.

The monster in question, played by Cary Grant -- edgy and Byronic as he often was from 1930-1933 -- is as seductive to the audience as he is to Carroll. I have to say, I wish that Cary Grant had always played characters like the ones here and in Sylvia Scarlett. He had a real knack for rotters, Clockwork Orange punks with a polished surface ( I suspect this is what he was like in real life. ) While watching this film you can either be mesmerized by Grant's good looks and wit, or judge him by his actions, which aren't so good. Not only does he take huge checks from an older lady for sexual services rendered, but he cheats on her right in the Architectural Digest Home of the Month she bought for him. But he is so easy on the eyes, and his lifestyle seems so genteel, that it would almost be bad manners to point out how sick it all is, say old chap... So the audience is put in Carroll's position and given Carroll's quandary: Will she/we be blinded by a beautiful lie or wake up to this devil in spats?


That was so completely diametrically opposed to my understanding of the Romer character, not just in the interpretation of subtext but also in terms of basic "facts of the case", that I went back and rewatched a key scene to make sure that *I* hadn't somehow misheard or misunderstood what was said.

The scene in question is one in which the $10000 check is discussed by Ruth and Romer.

I had not misheard. The above review has it exactly backwards. Romer had not received $10000 from the woman as a gigolo. He had paid her $10000 as a sort of "parting gift" in getting rid of her.

Ruth brings up the topic of the check to double check with Romer that he had in fact wanted that sum to be paid out, since the check had been torn. My interpretation of what that torn check likely implies about a scene that we did not see is that the woman had made a great show of being insulted by Romer giving her a "golden parachute" by ripping the check in half in front of him, then had later thought better of it and taped the check back together.

There is never any evidence in the movie that Romer's wealth / house are "ill gotten". Since there is also no indication of Romer having any career or need to have a job, I figured that he had inherited his money.



Now, we finally do get into the realm of interpreting behavior and motivations. Where Cannes sees Romer as a corrupting "monster" in Ruth's life, I see him as being one of only two characters in the entire movie (with the other being her father) who actually shows any respect and consideration toward Ruth. Yes, Romer makes initial advances toward Ruth, but ..... Even his advances were limited to touching her arm, pending her response; He (unlike the supposedly more "respectable" townsman) immediately backs off when she says "no"; He remains gracious, even in rejection; He leaves the power to control the direction of their relationship entirely in her hands ("let me know if you change your mind").

Further, I believe that Romer's feelings for Ruth were always genuine, and not just a heartless attempt to put another notch in his bedpost, so to speak. I think that he probably did think of the previous woman in pretty much those terms. I find the timing of his dumping her to be telling. That happens in the couple / few days between his invitation to the group being accepted and them actually coming out to his estate. He was willing to pay her $10000 (which was a huge sum in 1932 dollars) for her to be gone before Ruth made her first visit, dispite the fact that Ruth had given no indication that she would ever do anything more with him than she did in the bank lobby. That just doesn't make any sense if he's just out for a quick tumble; and Ruth doesn't have any money for him to be after either.

Going in an entirely different direction, there's that bit about "a harmless bit of gossip". To me, one of the main points of this whole movie was that there is no such thing as a "bit of gossip" that is "harmless". In fact, gossip appears to be the most harmful, hurtful, and hateful thing that exists in the world of this movie.


I agree with Cannes that there is a central quandry that is the entire theme of this movie, and that is being posed to the audience along with Ruth. I just disgree about what it is. I don't see a question of whether or not to delude oneself about a seductive evil represented by Grant's Romer. Of course, I don't see Romer as being evil. In fact, I find him to be the truest gentleman, in every sense of the word, in the film.

What I think is the central quandry is actually pretty directly stated at one point. Romer asks Ruth something along of the lines of wouldn't she always like to be happy (sorry, I don't recall the exact phrasing). Ruth answers "Not if it means being talked about .... etc.". To me the central quandry of this picture is which of two paths to follow: go your own way to find the most happiness that you can, but at the cost of being ostracized by much of your (original) community; or do everything that it takes to remain a member in good standing of your community, but at the cost of sacrificing your own dreams and happiness.

My reading of Ruth's somewhat conflicted look at the end is that she is recognizing that between those two options she is now on the opposite path from the one that she had always (until that week) assumed was right. Neither is perfect and pain free.

reply

I totally agree with PillowRock's analysis. It pretty much sums up the way I saw things. In the scene in which Romar talks of Ruth's mind, it was a very telling moment in his favor. When a guy really falls for a woman, that's the component that wins him in its variations....intelligence, wisdom, personality, selflessness. Romer in the past probably chose women who live a life in which it's always about them. In Ruth, Romer saw a woman who would be there for him as he would be for her. The creep played by Edward Woods displayed his total lack of character particularly in the boat scene. Also, I feel sorry for Bill. Regardless of whether or not we agree with his response, it's understandable to see things the way he assumed they went, as far as believing he was taken advantage of, referencing the rushed marriage plans.

reply



I completely agree with you. I don't know if that poster reviewed the film sometime after seeing it but they are incorrect on several levels. Romer Sheffield is absolutely not a gigolo, nor is fortune "ill-gottened". He is simply a rich man with apparently a summer home in the small town. THe old biddies in town are atwitter how he apparently quite frequently brings women from out of town to stay with him for extended periods. He gave that woman $10,000 apparently to soothe over his wanting to break off the affair; while briefly offended, she obviously cashed the check!

The gossips are absolutely horrible in the story - they cause Nancy Carroll to lose her job (apparently they demand she be fired), they embellish the story with each retelling so that she leaves his house at daybreak rather than 2:30 am! My main problem with the film is none of the nasty people in the story got their comeuppance, that worthless jerk Conny, who left her alone in a deserted area after she refused to neck with him on the river and that trampy "friend" who repeatedly backstabbed her even though she herself is seen making out in a car at the very hour Nancy arrives at home! They should have been exposed in my opinion.

I thought the ending was a bit tacked on though; didn't really buy Cary Grant wanting to get married after all. Let's face it, his character enjoyed the sexually active single life for years, I don't think he would give it up on the spur of the moment even if he met a nice girl who had been accidentally "ruined" by her association with him. I agree with the second poster here, Randolph Scott's Bill was a really decent fellow, hated to see him get mixed up in all this and not win the girl. I think a better ending would have had Randolph tell Nancy he loved her and it didn't matter and then Cary Grant come to him and tell him nothing ever happened and Randolph and Nancy drive away. Cary, I'm quite sure, would have foudn consolation elsewhere .

reply

SPOILER ALERT:

The ending is what made this movie so unique and pleasant for me. I was like, "Oh, Ruth will forgive Bill, they'll make up, yada, yada, yada." A rather typical Hollywood conclusion. Except what Bill (Randolph Scott) did at the party was deplorable. If I'd just asked a girl to marry me and heard a nasty rumor, I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps Ruth should've given him the heads-up on the whole controversy. But his rush to judgment, in my opinion, was the final straw for her. She'd tried to be a good person and follow the town "rules," but even the guy she was going to wed fell into the typical townie mindset when she needed him most.

So, when "The End" popped up and she'd basically said "screw you" to the town by sleeping with Cary Grant's character, I actually laughed out loud. Good for her. Sure, her marriage with Romer is probably doomed, but at least she doesn't fall in line for the mere sake of keeping everything in its right place.

reply

Just watched this fascinating movie and agree with your interpretation, PillowRock - Romer was not a monster - he was more honest than the townspeople.

Also liked what nerdrocker177 said about Randolph Scott's character turning out to be just as easily pressured by community opinion. What really got me was that the actions of "Bill Fadden" when helping Ruth after the storm placed her in a situation that could have been completely misunderstood by an outsider. That experience alone should have made him discount opinion and believe her unless proven otherwise. The jerk didn't deserve Ruth - what a fab ending!

reply

What about the possibility that Fadden dumped her because he was jealous of Romer rather than her? ;)

unique means there is only one so there's no possibility of "so unique".

reply

Rheli says > What about the possibility that Fadden dumped her because he was jealous of Romer rather than her? ;)
Whether he was jealous of Romer or believed what he heard about his intended bride, Fadden was right to dump her. She clearly wasn't in love with him. As I recall, she laughed when he first said he had feelings for her. He was just conveniently there when she needed to get out of a jam.

She wasn't honest with him and tried to use his good nature against him. Her little sister was the one pining away for him; perhaps he can marry her when she comes of age. I'm sure her family wouldn't mind.

In regards to Romer, I'm not sure what he was actually supposed to be in the movie or how he made his money but I can see either possibility. He could be legit and the rumor mill made him out to be something he's not or he could have really been bad news but truly did reform his ways for the love of a woman. The audience gets to see him and the end of the movie through our own eyes.

reply

The scene in question is one in which the $10000 check is discussed by Ruth and Romer.

I had not misheard. The above review has it exactly backwards. Romer had not received $10000 from the woman as a gigolo. He had paid her $10000 as a sort of "parting gift" in getting rid of her.



Replying five years later, but here goes:

While I agree with most of PillowRock's comments, I do think he missed one point: Earlier in the film, before the scene with the $10,000 check, Romer comes into the bank to deposit a $30,000 check. There is a woman (Camille Renault was the character's name), who does indeed look older than Romer, waiting in the car. Romer flirts with Ruth a good deal, which is plainly visible to Camille through the bank's plate glass window, and she gives him a hard time about it when he gets back to the car.

Although the circumstances are not made clear, it is possible to infer that Camille was paying Romer for his companionship. When he later gives her the check for $10,000, it could have been a repayment since she didn't, how shall I put it?, get full value for her money.

As I said, otherwise, the OP's comments are on target, but I do think the review he quoted was not totally off base on this one point.

reply

( I suspect this is what he was like in real life. )


Dude is really on thin ice with this statement!

reply