Can anyone give me the answer?

[deleted]

Often the truely great and worthwhile things are passed over by the masses. Not always, but often. Many people have not heard of this movie, or other less well known, but equally wonderful movies. (ever see Greer Garson's 'Blossoms in the Dust'? Fabulous!!) and that is really too bad.

But then, then lots of people spend their time watching the latest crude humor moronic summer flick or late fall slasher movie.

You'll never be lonely, when you appeal to the lowest commom denominator.

"Hating people is like burning down your own house to get rid of a rat". ~Henry Emerson Fosdick

A couple of other possible reasons. I agree with the person who said tht Casablanca is much more complex and has much more ging on than Waterloo Bridge. Its writing is also more distinctive and the dialogue more memorable. There are also many memorable characters.

It may also be that people KNEW the story of Waterloo Bridg. First, there was the very successful play by one of the best known playwrights in the English speaking world, Robert Sherwood (who wrote among other things Abe Lincoln in Illinois).

Second, there had already BEEN two Waterloo Bridge movies - one had been a silent. Both had been big successes - and the earlier sound version which I've seen is really VERY good - though not nearly as glamorously beautiful as this. (You do however feel a little more the real poverty into which Myra and Kitty have been plunged than in this version).

I think this is certainly as good as Roman Holiday - and the reason why I think it's less vividly remebered is simply that it's older. There are a lot more movie fans out there who remember Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn alive and making movies - than remember Robert Taylor and Vivien Leigh when they were alive and making movies. Similarly, World War I as the backdrop is less current than post-war Italy. (Neither factor should affect people's love for movies, but I'm afraid they do).

after seeing it this weekend ...i wandered about that question too...and the thing that bother's me (i have not scene the silent version or the version prior to this) but is there a possibility of propaganda lurking beneath teh ending that if someone had had to become a prostitute in war-time england there is not a chance that they would end up in a proper family married to an aristocrat officer?
the thought of this possibility angered me.....

I love that movie, but I also do not love that movie...
Why...
- I love the story, I love the acting, I love the love beetwen Roy and Myra... but I do not love that she made suicade... Roy loved her and for him it was not important that she was prostitue when he was on War, he wanted to be with her, beacause he really love her, she was his the only true love...

This movie with be better with the odder end...
Myra is one the bridge... and maybe cry...
And Roy say Myra best firend that he will always try to find Myra, because she is the only woman he want to be with...

[deleted]

Good God, come on now. The film was produced in a different era, and in the times it would be a show of great generosity to allow her to stop working and go live with high-society, rather than keep slaving away at her station as dancer (as Roy probably thought).

Feminist and chauvinist agendas have no place regarding analysis of this film, it was a different time when men were men and women were women. The men looked after the women, and I hardly see a chauvinist undertone. Yes, Roy is assertive, but he's also a kind, caring and charming character, and when you ask women what they want, I have a feeling they wouldn't go "oh that Roy Cronin, what a chauvinist brute!"

As for her suicide, it wasn't a blow on men, but society on the whole. To think that something like prostitution deserves death, and the way it's portrayed in this film, seems to be an attack on a close-minded society that chastises those that, through its [society's] own fault, are forced to something as unsavory as prostitution. I feel Roy, should he have known, would have been able to forgive her, as he was "madly in love" with Myra, and it shows how prejudices from society can destroy individuals.

"It's not romantic in the way that "Casablanca" was, where two people are not to be together due to the selfless sacrifice one of them has made (Rick forcing Ilsa to go with her husband, because her husband needs her in a way that Rick does not). Rick's character has become uplifted and redeemed, his love for Ilsa is pure, his motivations are truly meaningful."

Umm, I am sorry, but for all the Marseillaise playing etc., the notion that Rick sends Ilsa off to live with a man with whom she is not really in love, but, rather admires, is hardly romantic as it barters her will and emotions without her own decision-making being consulted. It is another example of women being objects to satisfy an ego that apparently would not work (Lazlo's) unless the heroine is there to sell herself in a charade.
Rick's ego doesn't bear much scrutiny either--as it's only when he's convinced of Ilsa's love for him that he can fight Nazis.

To wish that Myra had more spunk, but to ignore the fact that Ilsa is without will or say in her own existence is to ignore a greater parallel-- than Rick getting some sort of baptizing because he's finally given in to the notion of joing the resistance.

"This movie has the production code stamp all over it, where someone must be punished for having extramarital sex, and getting paid for it into the bargain."

Even in "Casablanca" women are reviled if they are whores (Yvonne, Ilsa--when it is so thought)--and the young bulgarian girl is saved from what seems to be a fate worse than death by not having to sleep with Claude Rains. So I don't think moral judgment was any better in "Casablanca"--but, just on a double-standard.

Whether or not it was Myra's disappointment in having given up in pure love that leads her to suicide, it is apparent that the sacrifice is most exceptionally not altogether self-loathing--with which she has already been living and could continue to live. But it is finding an end that Roy could not alter. I believe she thinks it would be his ultimate pain, doubts and humiliation that are being saved from him.

It's a subtle twist - is it her self-loathing that does her in or is it the production code? The self-loathing and negativity, inability to believe in the goodness of others is a constant for Myra throughout the movie. When she tells Roy's mom what life was like for her after she thought Roy was dead, the mother (rightly!) blames herself for not looking after Myra. Myra spits out "don't be nice to me," spoken like someone who's never known affection that didn't come without a steep price. Now obviously every part of the movie would have been written with the code in mind, but this story, in it's entirety, rings true in a way most movies that killed the unchaste woman can only dream about. Many prostitutes do loathe themselves and are deeply unhappy and unable to get over how they feel they've been 'marked.' Personally, I'm not always sure how alimony is different from the 'pay per service' method prostitutes use, but this is a topic for another thread.

I know we all see 'the times' this movie was set in as a character. Oh, given the way things were then, they could never have married, she found this unbearable so she killed herself. But if you found out today that your kid's teacher had recently been a prostitute, would you be ok with that? It's a big deal in society, right or wrong, and probably always will be. It's also a big deal to the woman who becomes a prostitute.

This is a masterfully written script. To make her character sympathetic they split the realities of prostitution with her and Kitty. When they went through all the seedy places looking for her, the movie didn't really show Vivian's character in those places, 'debased' in that way. They left all the debasement to Kitty, and all the remorse and grief, the sympathetic parts of the prostitution experience, to Myra. Not an uncommon technique, but to do it so deftly with such a thorny topic is pretty amazing. Of course, Vivian Leigh's acting made it what it was.

Back to the idea that prostitution 'marks' you, both in society and personally, another deft touch in the script was the use of Swan Lake as the ballet depicted in the movie. I've long held a theory that Swan Lake is about incest, at the very least about some traumatic sexual experience that leaves Odette feeling cursed and forever estranged from society, feeling that her pain/shame/trauma makes her visibly different to people. I've read elsewhere that female leads in ballets were often transformed into something that was socially acceptable to 'oogle,' such as a swan. In Swan Lake, female sexuality was obviously split into 100% good (odette) and pure evil (odille). So sex and sexuality are integral to Swan Lake. Add in the whole misery, estrangement, powerlessness and now you see where my theory is coming from. Surely I can't be the only one to think this.

Anyway, at the end of Swan Lake, Odette tries to kill herself. This being a ballet, though, the prince throws himself in after her, and according to liner notes, this act of pure love - following someone into the afterlife - breaks the curse and saves her life. Not to glamorize suicide, but another way to look at the end of Swan Lake is that by taking control of the situation, Odette breaks the curse herself. This didn't occur to me until I read a very dry analysis of how people jumping to their deaths to avoid burning to death can be a natural and 'healthy' response.

At the end of Waterloo Bridge, Myra kills herself by throwing herself under what appears to be a military convoy truck. This being a serious movie, there is no fantasy and she's not "redeemed" nor brought back to life. But it's an intersting parallel, nevertheless.


Strange coincidence:
Pretty woman - Julia's character (Vivian) had a best friend who was also a prostitute - Kit
Waterloo Bridge - Myra (played by Vivian Leigh) has a best friend who was also a prostitute - Kitty

You'll forgive me for rambling on, I hope. I'm sure other people got to examine all these fascinating ideas and theories in their women's studies or literature classes, but I was an economics major.

Even Casablanca is so beloved because it's just as ANTI-romantic as it is romantic. The ultimate message of the film is that love DOESN'T conquer all, relationships aren't easy, and there are more important things in the world than "the problems of three little people." Part of the reason it's so popular is that it's sort of thumbing its nose at these over-idealized Hollywood romantic concepts. But like you said, Casablanca is also extremely romantic because these people love each other purely and equally, enough that they're willing to sacrifice for one another.

The production code may have dominated the story of Waterloo Bridge, but I think that's dismissing the subtlety of the story. The ending doesn't feel tacked on by a censorship board, it's the product of a very complex emotional buildup. It's an interesting statement about the times, that women believe they deserve death if they have to resort to prostitution even if starvation is the other alternative. I have no doubt that Robert Taylor's character could have forgiven her if she could bring herself to tell him, but she had society's voice in her ear telling her that she was worthless. The film depicts Myra's death as tragic, not as a necessity for a woman in her position.

This is an environment of welcoming, and you should just get the hell outta here.

Just watched it myself. Major bummer with the ending. And I mean, well, YEAH!

Interesting thread, and obviously one of the older ones on the board for this film. But still the question posed by the OP remains.

while some earlier posts alluded to the basic point aegoss makes, that poster does tie some valuable analyses together.

Before going back to the question addressed, I do want to submit that this is an excellent film. I consider myself a huge fan of Vivien Leigh's, by which I mean I appreciate her performances as much for her non-Oscar winners as for GWTW and Desire. Perhaps more so - That Hamilton Woman, Anna Karenina, Anthony and Cleopatra, Sidewalks of London, and of course this film.

In giving due deference to Leigh's own valuation of this film I can see why she said it was her personal favorite. She carries this film in a truly great performance, one might say rather obviously so.

But that alas is not enough to make it a better film than some of the others mentioned. Compared to the seamless ensemble of the cast performance in a film like Casablanca, Vivien stands not quite alone, but certainly more on her own. And for all the upside that gives her performance, it does not make for a better picture.

Aegoss also correctly points out that, at least to today's viewer, the narrative arc is rather contrived. For example on seeing this film again rather recently I became frustrated with the way Myra begins as a rather skeptical and self aware person who certainly does not think the world owes her a living, becomes not only careless with her job (which we can understand, being in love and all that), but also does not mention or even seem to consider that she might lose her job, not have Roy around or anyone else, and then what? It just seems odd that this particular character would seem so unprepared for her future.

The film also does run from an almost sublime good fortune to the depths of dispair, and back and forth at that. It seems contrived. As others have also pointed out the "explanation" as to why Myra turns to prostitution is so cryptic, really not showing any efforts to find practical alternatives, as to make the turn as if it were obvious and inevitable. This may have served to fit into that binary great to awful narrative arc, but it is not merely contrived. It also makes the choice Myra makes lack depth. Yes we understand the turn is awful and not really what Myra wants, but it adds a no doubt unintended wrinkle of making one wonder just how bad this choice is really seen to be by Myra.

I would also add that most reasonable people were they in Roy's situation, more or less, would have spent more time, out of sheer caring for their beloved, asking what Myra had been doing with herself since he last saw her. In that connection the film toys with the frisson of fear of being found out by showing the reuniting of the two at the train station while Myra was looking for new customers. Why didn't Roy wonder more?

I don't suggest these are all gaping plot holes, but the contrivances of the narrative do detract from the film.

Again as for Casablanca, that film has better dialogue, and also a superior performance by the male lead - Humphrey Bogart even compared to one of Taylor's better performances is not really a contest, is it?

But the main thing i think is the ending. Not only is it downbeat, which for myself is not enough to make it problematic. But it is also another turn that seems contrived. I find it simply problematic that Myra would turn to prostitution once, thinking that Roy was at first not likely to return, and later dead, but surviving nonetheless. And then as the film ends effectively kill herself because she lost him (again) and apparently would otherwise return to prostitution. She survived it at first, so why not again? Because it would not be an ending fitting with the (problematic) narrative arc of the film.

In other words, the ending seemed not only dreadfully sad, which it was, but also somewhat contrived.

Ftr I am not in agreement with the notion that it makes too much of the point that in the time of WWI a family of the sort the Cronins were would be scandalized if their scion were to marry a whore. Or more to the point should not have been. The should not point asks too much, asking them to adopt today's attitudes of moral relativism. The Cronins depicted in the film no doubt reflect the social mores of the times. But Roy's attitude? And Myra not even attempting to make sure what that attitude would be? I don't think the film adequately addressed those questions.

It detracts. Still a great film.

This is a great example of how to make a film; acting, lighting, cinematography, atmosphere, the works,

Let there be no doubt about it. Vivien Leigh is as fine an actress as we have on the screen today. Maybe even the finest, and that's a lot to say.

it is even well written, but as I see it the problem lies in the story.

True, this is not such a fiction as would qualify for a place among the great.