spoilers

She aborted the first one, but kept the second (out-of-wedlock) child by yet another man. Yes, I was surprised by this part of the storyline.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Echo_in_big_sky says > Very refreshing to see a 1930's film that reflected society without blinders on.

You may see it as refreshing but I see it as sad. To you the movie shows society without blinders but to me it shows how irresponsible people are. Ann (and her beau) didn't seem to give much thought to what could happen if they succumbed to their desires and had sex but boy was she quick to think about what would happen if she didn't act quickly to dispose of the child.

It's also interesting how women who find themselves in this position are often really pissed off with the guy. How is his actions any different than hers? He felt strong emotions especially given the fact he was heading off to fight in a war so he wanted to have a good time. Later he didn't want to deal with having to marry the girl. He had his life to live and other things going on. It wasn't a good time and he had other interests.

When she let him know she was 'in trouble' he was disappointed and felt trapped. How unfair of her to drop that news on him at that moment. He had so much to look forward to and now she wants to saddle him with a wife and child, for life. She didn't like his reaction and was upset until she got over it. That's a rarity in film and in life. Most women would consider him a jerk and have a lot to say; none of it nice.

However, it's the exact same thing they do to the child. Oh, it's not the right time. They feel burdened and trapped. They have so much going for them, or not, so having a child just isn't in the cards right now, etc., etc; just like the guy but heaven forbid we call them jerks. The big difference is the child didn't ask for any of it and, unlike the two prized jerks that created him, did not participate in the decision making process.

That's just one more twisted perspective of feminist types. The man is wrong but when they decide they're not ready to own up to their responsibilities it's a 'right' they're supposed to have. What if the guy decided, hey, I'm not ready for all this commitment and knocked her off; as many do. How is that different than her aborting the kid?

It's just one more way we play with words. Apply a different word to the same concept and in one scenario it's a right; in another it is exactly what it is, murder. It's someone ending another person's life because they're inconveniencing their life. In the woman's case, it's said she has a right to decide what happens to her own body. Yeah, just like she could have kept her panties on and her legs together. The guy, on the other hand, just wants the monkey off his back. Both are equally wrong for not wanting to behave responsibly but only he's held accountable. It's her body and she chooses to either have or not have the child. He gets no say but he sure is help responsible in a way she never is.

Yes, I'm a woman but I'm really sick of it. Women know going in that we're the ones who will have to carry the child and most likely be the primary caregiver. Why is it suddenly a big surprise when there's a pregnancy? Marriage is designed to balance things out. While a woman may not be able to carry the same load during pregnancy and when the child is young, she has a husband who can support her and the child. If the parties don't want to go with that plan then why do they get a pass to behave irresponsibly? It's like going into debt then when the note comes due and we don't have the money we get to legally knock off the person we're indebted to. I'm sure a lot of people would go for that too.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Some of the best movies were the Pre-Motion-Picture-Code movies and most were very realistic stories ... no super-heroes or moronic movies made for children, though children could watch them. Check out some of Barbara Stanwyck's or Ida Lupino's early movies. Most of these movies were great, and real movies too.

Pre-Code Hollywood was the brief era in the American film industry between the widespread adoption of sound in pictures in 1929[1] and the enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code censorship guidelines, popularly known as the "Hays Code", in mid-1934. Although the Code was adopted in 1930, oversight was poor, and it did not become rigorously enforced until July 1, 1934, with the establishment of the Production Code Administration (PCA). Before that date, movie content was restricted more by local laws, negotiations between the Studio Relations Committee (SRC) and the major studios, and popular opinion, than by strict adherence to the Hays Code, which was often ignored by Hollywood filmmakers.

reply share

add reply

formatting help