MovieChat Forums > The Lady Eve (1941) Discussion > Question...

Question...

posted 20 years ago by vinent
16 replies | jump to latest

Henry Fonda opened an envelope and found a picture of Barbara Stanwyck and two men. His face soured after seeing this picture. I didn't understand this part. What is the significant thing about the picture?

[–] csu16387 20 years ago

Fonda was told that Coburn and Stanwyck were card sharks, but he didn't believe it. He finds out by looking at the picture when someone on the ship mentions both of them. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I believe that's how it went.

"Geniuses don't need good luck. I do."

[–] dioro 19 years ago

(Spoilers) That's right, he finds out that the girl he just asked to marry the night before is a con-artist, so he thinks that she was just setting him up, or that she was just going to marry him because of his family's money.

[–] eusticja 19 years ago

Card sharps, not card sharks.

[–] tgold78 18 years ago

Actually, the original term was "card sharp", but through the years, for whatever reason--for better or worse, the terms "card sharp", and "card shark" are really accepted as interchangable. It's all in what you prefer--I still prefer card sharp, myself==but anyhoo . . .

Todd Gold
(southern agnostic "Jew" [email protected]
from Shreveport, Louisiana)

[–] nutsberryfarm 7 years ago

interesting...didn't know that.

Autumn is a second spring when every leaf is a flower.-Albert Camus🍁

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ajrabbits 18 years ago

Hopsie reads the back of the picture and it says the names of the ppl in the picture and states that they are card sharps.

[–] dbtallman 18 years ago

C'mon vinent and reggiechrist this isn't a complicated plot twist...do you watch movies or are they just on in the background? How can you enjoy the more subtle dialogue or comedic nuances if you can't even "decipher" what happens when he looks at the pic? Seriously, PAY ATTENTION to the film before posting such imbecilic questions.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Verdoux-1 18 years ago

wow dbtallman ... you seem like a real jerk.

I think he brought up a valid point. People should pay more attention to the movies they are commenting on, or have questions about. It seems that today’s ADHD generation has a really short attention span and many great movies are lost to them because they can't sit still long enough.

--
"An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind"

[–] Piafredux 18 years ago

The ship's purser - the officer whose duty it is to safeguard passengers' valuables (hence all the intense interest in the Titanic's safe) - had files, furnished by steamship companies and their insurors, on card sharps, thieves, and con artists; this is how the purser has the photo he shows to Hopsie. The equivalent nowadays is the security staff in Vegas' and other casinos that keep up-to-date files, including videos, on blackjack card counters and other cheats; and you can be sure that today's cruise ship lines and hotels also maintain such files.

[–] kpjf 17 years ago

C'mon vinent and reggiechrist this isn't a complicated plot twist...do you watch movies or are they just on in the background? How can you enjoy the more subtle dialogue or comedic nuances if you can't even "decipher" what happens when he looks at the pic? Seriously, PAY ATTENTION to the film before posting such imbecilic questions

I think he brought up a valid point. People should pay more attention to the movies they are commenting on, or have questions about. It seems that today’s ADHD generation has a really short attention span and many great movies are lost to them because they can't sit still long enough

This is what this board is all about, questions/discussions and so on about the film; it doesn't matter how stupid the question may seem. Okay it wasn't very complex and i understood it at the time but, say for instance someone was watching it and were interrupted by a phone call/door bell the list goes on and they didn't quite catch one little bit. I think you shouldn't dictate to people as to what they should and shouldn't make a post about plus saying this to people makes them feel stupid. I think it was a little rude to say this. I mean, you really don't know the reason(s) as to why this vinent person didn't understand this part and it might have been on tv and he wouldn't be able to just rewind. Give him a break seriously there is no need to question the intelligence of someone if he didn't understand one bit. Not everyone has the same intelligence...seriously it's not a board solely for aspiring film directors, or people who are real movie buffs, it's also for the common man!

[–] idlehands73 17 years ago

I'm certainly happy to follow that post with a few questions of my own. And if I seem a little too nit-picky, it's only because I have a paper to write about the film.

If Charlie was so depressed after seeing the photo of Jean and the other sharks, then why would Jean feel that she was being played by Charlie? This doesn't make any sense. While Charlie's shaving the day after they met, and his bodyguard tells him he's being swindled, and then Charlie doesn't believe him, how could he, all of a sudden, convince Jean that she was the one getting swindled? And most of all, how could she believe him and then hate him so much for it that she planned a long con? I thought they fell in love. She should have been totally convinced that Charlie, being the clutz that he was around her, couldn't have faked their romance together. And why would he want to play her anyway? He's filthy freakin' rich! Now I'm not that use to old films, so maybe I should have just gone with the flow, but this really seem to be hanging over my read for the remainder of it.

And talk about not paying attention. Even though it's written on the back of the photo (maybe written in perhaps the Old English form) as "sharp", Muggsy clearly pronounces it as "shark" while talking to the purser. Plus, he responds to the purser's claim that there aren't any on the ship, with: "Naw, they're swiming alongside in the water."

About the OP: I thought it was a valid question. The man tells Charlie that he better take a look at the photo, but the photo shows nothing. However, it would only be useless if it weren't for the information on the back of it, which is what I believe Charlie actually responded to, and unfortunately, not the background music, which I thought came a little too soon. So I guess when Charlie showed it to Jean, she played it off pretty naturally knowing that she was guilty of something, even though she didn't know about the fine print on the back. But, then aganin, it's her reaction towards Charlie's reaction that gets me. And the photo seemed too convienently taken by the boat's security. You would think the trio traveled incognito, or would be like their shark friends at the horse race and use different names. The 1930s/40s seemed like a time when people could travel going unnoticed, and being that these cons were famous enough to be known by the boat security, you'd think they would have a more elaborate plan with Charlie, and that Jean would be a little in control of herself, especially with someone so wealthy, which makes it unclear as to why she tripped him in the first place. I guess I'll have to give it another watch.

[–] gS49 17 years ago

If Charlie was so depressed after seeing the photo of Jean and the other sharks, then why would Jean feel that she was being played by Charlie? This doesn't make any sense. While Charlie's shaving the day after they met, and his bodyguard tells him he's being swindled, and then Charlie doesn't believe him, how could he, all of a sudden, convince Jean that she was the one getting swindled? And most of all, how could she believe him and then hate him so much for it that she planned a long con?

Charlie may have been referring to what Mugsy said, and Jean misinterpreted and thought that Charlie knew she was a sharper all along. Or Charlie intentionally meant to give Jean that impression in order to hurt her and maybe salve his ego. Either way, Jean thought that she was being used, and communicated that to her father.

And why would he want to play her anyway? He's filthy freakin' rich! Now I'm not that use to old films, so maybe I should have just gone with the flow, but this really seem to be hanging over my read for the remainder of it.

Why would a man who hadn't been around a (suitable) woman for a year want to mislead her into feeling something, or into feeling him. I'm not sure the board rules would let me answer that question......

gS

[–] dreadpirate2 17 years ago

Just in case you haven't turned in that paper yet...Jean already thought that she was being a sucker by falling in love. Since she was in that mindset, she was ready to believe that she was an even bigger sucker. And anyway, Sturges movies usually have a lot of implausible elements.

I did accidentally kill her father when I went to pick her up for the first date. AWKWARD!

[–] FilmBuff (6663) 3 years ago

My interpretation: Jean thought she had found "the one," and she was going to give up her grifter lifestyle and settle down with Charles. She was going to play it straight, and let him believe she was who she said she was, and never look back. Her father belittled her, and warned her, but she was adamant. When Charles said he was dumping her, and claimed to have known all along that she was a grifter, she not only felt played by him, but ashamed that she'd been so quick to trust him and to abandon her lifestyle. He was humiliated, and angry.

Also, keep in mind that movies in the '40s didn't show sex. Yet, the scene with the two of them in her room is incredibly explicit for its time. There's at least some implication that they did more than sit side by side talking during that scene, even if it isn't spelled out, so there's also the implied undercurrent of her feeling that Charles used her for sex, and that when he dumps her he's basically saying "I was only pretending to believe you to get what I wanted."

And yes, I know you posted 12 years ago, on IMDB no less, so it's unlikely you'll see this, but I thought I'd chime in nonetheless.