dlevy1201 says > While this is an adaptation of a book by Sinclair Lewis, the source material is a screen play. Therefore the screen play could have changed this part of the story. It is in my opinion that the film, possibly after a re-write, made it clear - that the baby died.
You are, of course, absolutely right that a movie and the book, on which it is based, do not necessarily tell the same story. I have neither read the book nor the screenplay, on which this movie is based, but watching the movie, it's very clear to me what happened to her first pregnancy. She aborted the baby. By definition, an abortion means her baby died. She says it that way because in those days people had the good sense to not talk about it like it was no big deal or as if they’d just gotten a manicure. They understood they had done a shameful, terrible thing so they didn’t go around announcing it even to people who knew. By saying her baby died, there’s also an attempt to deny it in her own mind.
One of the things I like about movies from this era, whether pre-code or later, is the subtlety with which information is revealed. I don't think they need to show her undergoing the procedure for us to know what happened. There were plenty of clues. Obviously some people understood what happened and other did not. This is how it should be.
The audiences can be more varied with each viewer understanding the events according to their own level of understanding. What happens in many movies today is interesting. In a way, it seems they are aimed at more sophisticated viewers because they are so blatant and graphic but I think it's the opposite. I always assume the writer and/or director know they have to dumb things down so most people will be able to keep up. A lot of the subtlety is gone yet there are still plenty of people who are still unable to follow.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share