MovieChat Forums > The Lady Eve (1941) Discussion > Puzzling ending (SPOILERS)

Puzzling ending (SPOILERS)

posted 12 years ago by GuyOnTheLeft
38 replies | jump to latest

I know this was a farce, so maybe we're just not supposed to overanalyse it. But are we supposed to take it that Henry Fonda doesn't want to see his "British" wife any more, that he's fed up with her, but has realised that all along he should have stuck with the card sharp he met on the boat? Or are they just supposed to be playing a game with each other, and he knows (just as she does) that this is still his wife?

Even though I was slightly nonplussed by the ending, I did still give it four out of five stars on Netflix. And please spare me the high-hat invitations to go back to Adam Sandler comedies. I once owned a foreign/independent/classic video rental shop, and if anything this movie is more mainstream than a lot of the films I like (for instance, two of my all time faves are the foreign silent films "Earth" and "The Passion of Joan of Arc").

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

But are we supposed to take it that Henry Fonda doesn't want to see his "British" wife any more, that he's fed up with her, but has realised that all along he should have stuck with the card sharp he met on the boat?

Yes.

Or are they just supposed to be playing a game with each other, and he knows (just as she does) that this is still his wife?

Charles is not temperamentally capable of deliberately tricking anyone, least of all the woman that he loves.On the boat, Charles claimed that he knew all along that Jean was conning him, but it was not true. He was just trying to salvage some self-respect after realizing how easily he had been taken.At the very end, it is clear that Charles has no idea that Eve and Jean are the same women.

Charles: I have no right to be in your cabin. Jean: Why?Charles: Because I'm married. Jean: But so am I, darling. So am I.

I love the ending. Seeimdb.com/title/tt0033804/board/inline/21633319?d=191796795#191796795_______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

I caught all the dialogue at the end--I heard it probably only a few minutes before I wrote the OP. But it's certainly possible to imagine that they were saying those things tongue in cheek, sort of winking at each other, isn't it?

Still, I went and looked at your post about the ending and you make a good point. I like your interpretation.

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

But it's certainly possible to imagine that they were saying those things tongue in cheek, sort of winking at each other, isn't it?

No.You are attempting to turn this movie into a genre that you are familiar with, and that is common these days, in which two people successively trick each other. Is an ancient genre; folktale is full of it. But this movie is not an example of it.What in the movie gives you the idea that Charles would play that sort of game? He is straightforward and sincere to a fault.You would have to believe that Charles went from refusing to even see Eve to enthusiastically embracing the same woman a few days later. Charles is going back to the jungle; he has no idea that Jean will be on the boat. He has no idea how to find Jean, and he does not expect to ever see her again.It is only when she calls him "Hopsie" that he realizes it is Jean, and he is overjoyed because it is completely unexpected.Do you remember this dialogue? Are you saying that you find some trace of playfulness in the way Charles says it?

Charles: Will you forgive me?Jean: For what? Oh, you mean on the boat.The question is, can you forgive me?Charles: What for?Jean: Oh, you still don't understand.Charles: I don't want to understand. I don't want to know. Whatever it is, keep it to yourself.

_______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Fair enough! As I say, I think you make a pretty persuasive case. But just for the record, I was not floating a scenario where they "successively trick each other". I was speculating more that Charles could be fully aware (finally) that it really is "the same dame", and aware that Jean knows he's aware, but simply engaging in back-and-forth winking, teasing wordplay on the idea that he doesn't know.

I do find your counter-explanation mostly convincing; but there's just one flaw in it: he consistently is represented as a paragon of traditional morality, and thus raises the objection that he is a married man; she replies that she is married as well. If he really doesn't know she's "the same dame", do we really think he'd go through with it? It's one thing perhaps if he considers his marriage unconsummated, but she has told him she's a married woman!

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

I was speculating more that Charles could be fully aware (finally) that it really is "the same dame", and aware that Jean knows he's aware, but simply engaging in back-and-forth winking, teasing wordplay on the idea that he doesn't know.

When do you think Charles comes to believe that they are the same woman? It cannot be before he gets on the boat because when he refuses to see Eve, he would be refusing to see Jean, but when he sees Jean, he enthusiastically embraces her. If he believes that they are the same woman, getting on the boat precludes, as far as he knows, his seeing her, probably forever.It cannot be after he sees Jean on the boat, because the recognition that the woman who humiliated him on his wedding night to such an extent that he left the train in the middle of a rainstorm is Jean will surely cause some emotional reaction, and there is not a trace of it in what we are shown.So you are speculating that between the time Charles gets on the boat and the point at which he trips over Jean, he has this revelation. Is there anything in the movie to support that?In the dialogue quoted above, Charles makes it clear that he does not understand that Eve was Jean. His tone of voice makes it clear that he does not understand. (There is nothing "teasing" in his voice.) Jean correctly understands that he does not understand. (Jean says, "Oh, you still don't understand.") Just what do you want?

. . . he consistently is represented as a paragon of traditional morality,

Charles is not represented as some sort of rigid moral bigot. He is a very inexperienced young man who accepts the conventional morality that he was brought up with, but he's never been seriously tempted. That is about to change.

If he really doesn't know she's "the same dame", do we really think he'd go through with it?

Do you really not understand how powerful sex combined with love is? You don't think lust will take over? I expect that Jean will wait until after they have had sex to explain to Charles what he has to forgive her for. _______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

First of all, you seem to ignore, every time, that I keep saying you make a convincing case. You reply as though I am digging in my heels and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the merit of any of your points!

Mainly I was correcting your misapprehension of what I had said previously (you thought I was arguing for their "taking turns tricking each other" or something along those lines).

I do think though that, lust or not, he would logically be more concerned about *her* being married than his own abortive marriage. For all he knows, her husband could be knocking on the door any minute!

Additionally, if you feel he will forgive her after they have sex, how do you know he couldn't forgive her when he sees her and realises she's "the same dame" and has all his feelings rush back? Sometimes when people refuse to see someone it's because they know that seeing them might crack their resolve.

Ultimately, I don't think there are any set-in-stone answers to these questions. It's a silly movie with a silly ending that doesn't hold up to intense scrutiny, bottom line. But we are in the Internet age now and it's what we do.

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

You reply as though I am digging in my heels and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the merit of any of your points!

You are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that Charles does not know that Eve was Jean in spite of the fact that they both make it clear from what they say that he does not.

I do think though that, lust or not, he would logically be more concerned about *her* being married than his own abortive marriage

If you think that people behave "logically" in the grip of lust and love, there must be a lot of movies that you don't understand.

how do you know he couldn't forgive her when he sees her and realises she's "the same dame" and has all his feelings rush back?

Once again, there is nothing in the movie to suggest that he realizes she is the same woman. What they say indicates that he does not understand that. You have not pointed to anything that indicates the opposite.

It's a silly movie with a silly ending that doesn't hold up to intense scrutiny, bottom line.

The ending of the movie makes complete sense, emotionally and logically, if you pay attention to what actually happens and don't imagine things for which there is no evidence._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

"You are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that Charles does not know that Eve was Jean".

No. How many times do I have to say that you made a good case? I'm only positing that the countervailing case is at least arguable.

But to say "the ending of the movie makes complete sense, emotionally and logically", is really a stretch. It doesn't have to make sense since it's a farce. But you seem to be arguing that it nevertheless does--and I'd counter that it first of all makes no sense that anyone with an IQ over 80 would believe Jean and Eve were two separate women. Secondly, even if we were to ignore that wee bit of impossibility: it was never shown at any point before the final scene that he had changed his mind about Jean. So if his change of mind about Jean occurred as an internal monologue to which we were not privy, there's no reason it couldn't have about Eve.

Just to be clear, though: if I had a gun to my head and had to pick the interpretation that most closely matches what the screenwriter intended, and the person holding the gun was absolutely omniscient (knowing what was in the screenwriter's mind), I'd pick your interpretation. That doesn't mean however that I'm ever going to be persuaded that it actually is a *sensible* scenario, either "emotionally or logically"!

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

I'm only positing that the countervailing case is at least arguable.

How is it arguable when both of the characters indicate that it's not true?

and I'd counter that it first of all makes no sense that anyone with an IQ over 80 would believe Jean and Eve were two separate women.

See this link. Hopefully it will explain some things to you.imdb.com/title/tt0033804/board/inline/161176548?d=191693986#191693986

So if his change of mind about Jean occurred as an internal monologue to which we were not privy, there's no reason it couldn't have about Eve.

We know from Charles's behavior when he sees Jean (and he knows it is her when she calls him Hopsie) how he feels about her. (You do understand that he has loved her all along? It just seemed impossible when he realized that she was a crook. Now, after the trauma with Eve, he is ready to accept her as she is.) There is nothing in his behavior to suggest that he knows that Eve was Jean.By the way, if it makes you feel better, you can certainly believe that Jean explains the situation to Charles right away. That is definitely a possible scenario, but it is going to rather destroy the mood. (What Jean did as Eve was really nasty.) I don't think that discussion is a good ending for a comedy. _______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Once again, in that discussion you do a good job of making a plausible outside-the-text explanation (aka "fanwank") that ties everything up neatly. But a movie, especially a lighthearted farce, shouldn't require a separate apologia to make sense to viewers. If it were some sort of deep, philosophical and allegorical film like Bergman's "The Seventh Seal", then sure, fine. But this is a silly little slapstick movie, not an art film; so for it to be a head-scratcher strikes a bit of a false note. Still, I did like it more than I disliked it, although for me it doesn't hold a candle to "Miracle at Morgan's Creek".

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

But a movie, especially a lighthearted farce, shouldn't require a separate apologia to make sense to viewers.

The movie made complete sense to me the first time that I saw it. Almost 46% of the viewers who have rated it on IMDb gave it a 9 or a 10. It is reasonable to assume that it also makes sense to them.It does require a more sophisticated understanding of human psychology than most Hollywood movies do. You are not the only person who has a problem understanding what is going on, but it is your problem that you find it a "head-scratcher," not the movie's.When The Lady Eve was made, audiences were older and more sophisticated than they are now._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Ah, yes--what appears to be the standard refrain on IMDB from those whose noses get bent out of joint when one of their favourite films is not met with the same accolades from all: "You just don't get it", "You're not sophisticated enough", "Why don't you go back to your Adam Sandler comedies".

In this case it's especially laughable because (a) you're debating a cinephile whose favourites include early silents like "Earth", existential French cinema like "Un Coeur En Hiver", and intellectually challenging American indie films like "Synecdoche, New York"; (b) the film you're defending is--even if we leave aside the absurdity of the "same dame" premise--loaded up with pratfalls, the lowest and *least* sophisticated form of comedy (which my two year old would find funny although I do not); and (c) Americans are in fact more intellectually sophisticated than they were 70 years ago, not less: http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

Were I to judge this film by the standard of serious intellectual or artistic cinema, as you seem to consider it worthy of being, it would fail miserably. The flick only gets my mild endorsement because it was so obviously not intended to be anything more than a piece of fluff; and since it is mildly diverting, it is a moderate success on that level.

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

Ah, yes--what appears to be the standard refrain on IMDB from those whose noses get bent out of joint when one of their favourite films is not met with the same accolades from all:

I have never suggested that you should like the film. I don't care whether you do or not; such things are always very subjective. What I have objected to is your imposing on the film an interpretation that the dialogue in the film shows to not be true. That is not being intellectually honest.

In this case it's especially laughable because (a) you're debating a cinephile . . .

A self-proclaimed cinephile. Hard to say how much that is worth. I am beginning to wonder how much you understand about the films that you seem to like the most.

Were I to judge this film by the standard of serious intellectual or artistic cinema, as you seem to consider it worthy of being, it would fail miserably.

I have never said that this film is an example of "serious intellectual or artistic cinema." Actually, I think it is quite a simple and funny comedy. What is going on in the film is obvious to me, and I have no idea why you have so much trouble understanding it._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

So I'm "self proclaimed"--true enough. But what about you? I suppose you're independently certified by the International Cinephile Administration? ("ICA: the worldwide home for cinephile registration since 1931!") Could I see those credentials? ;-)

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

So I'm "self proclaimed"--true enough. But what about you? I suppose you're independently certified by the International Cinephile Administration? ("ICA: the worldwide home for cinephile registration since 1931!") Could I see those credentials? ;-)

I'm coming to understand why someone would tell you to go back to Adam Sandler comedies. (I don't actually know who Adam Sandler is, but I think I understand the implications of the remark.)My arguments stand on their own and not on some questionable claim to be an authority._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

I don't actually know who Adam Sandler is

This is a preposterous lie.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

YourOneBeauty wrote:

This is a preposterous lie.

LOL.So you think that Adam Sandler is a person of such great cultural importance that if an education person says that he has no idea who he is, they must be lying? You are mistaken.At the time that I wrote that, the name meant nothing to me. I have noticed that his name comes up occasionally. I assume that he makes comedies targeting the lowest common denominators of human psychology. To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen an Adam Sandler film. I know I could go and look, but why bother.P. S. I understand now. You used to be alankingsleythomas and your remark here is as intelligent as what I have come to expect from you from your posts above.P. P. S. Did you ever figure out what the word "Farce" — with a capital "F" — refers to?

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

So you think that Adam Sandler is a person of such great cultural importance that if an education person says that he has no idea who he is, they must be lying?

Assuming "education"="educated", then yes: that is precisely what I think. Sandler has been on TV, in movies,* in TV commercials for movies, in newspapers, magazines, billboards, the sides of buses, etc. There is no way a person could live in modern society and "have no idea" he is a movie star, even if you have never seen any of his movies. I know, for instance, that Selena Gomez is a pop star and actress, despite the fact that I have never seen anything she has acted in or heard any of her songs. It's just cultural osmosis, and if it doesn't happen to you there's something wrong with you.

*Even, believe it or not, a couple good ones (along with many very bad ones).

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

YourOneBeauty wrote:

There is no way a person could live in modern society and "have no idea" he is a movie star, even if you have never seen any of his movies.

You are just wrong. Aggressively wrong and ignorant.

I know, for instance, that Selena Gomez is a pop star and actress, despite the fact that I have never seen anything she has acted in or heard any of her songs.

I have never heard of Selena Gomez.

It's just cultural osmosis, and if it doesn't happen to you there's something wrong with you.

I seem to swim in different cultural ponds than you do. I have almost nothing to do with pop culture and I don't think that indicates there's something wrong with me. It is a matter of taste.

[–] andsoitgoes_42 9 years ago

My god, you sound like such s pompous twat. You're carrying on a multi year "argument" where the only thing you come across as is an arrogant... Well, twat.

You won't ever see the forest through the trees here, because chances are you see your posts and are proud of them.

But I can assure you that while you may be very intelligent, more intelligent than I am, I have no doubt, you have passed into arrogant twat territory. The fact that you commented viewers were older and more, I'm paraphrasing, "refined" when this film was made is precisely the problem with your comprehension of things.

There is a well regarded study of intelligence over time titled the "Flynn effect" which, quite clearly, has observed an increase to the average, adjusted, IQ on a consistent basis. So those people who were sitting in the theater are, scientifically, less intelligent than the normal population now. So when you say that phrase, science is clarifying that you are in fact wrong. There were just as many bafoonish people (just look at someone as uncultured as Ambrose) then as there are now, the issue comes down more to what those people, intelligent and unintelligent alike, were more in step with the colloquial framing of the time.

Now, we are more critical of film and are much more ready to pick apart what we watch. When those films don't hold up to basic scrutiny, it can become hard to scratch that itch.

For me, I have a much harder time letting this situation sit because if Charles is so naive he believes that this new woman would be wearing the exact same perfume, even with his overwhelming love and lust blinding him, then he becomes less relatable to me, less enjoyable to root for. At least that happened for me.

For me, I enjoyed the film as I love both Stanywk and Fonda, but my experience in film and life made it a little harder to enjoy their struggle, screwball or not. Take a film like To Be or Not To Be and man, I'm in 200%. That is easily one of my favorite films, comes from the same era, is ridiculous in every aspect but yet I never had to handle the same issues like the original poster has.

It may simply be that I'm very specific on the screwball comedies I enjoy. I adore both Grant and Hepburn (his turn with Audrey in Charade is also one of my favorite performances and favorite films) but I found the film enjoyable enough, but Bringing up Baby never really "hit" for me. Oh, I wanted it to, the same with His Girl Friday, I guess the plots there and here just don't fit my sensibilities.

But that's the crux of this. We are seeing things differently. We are experiencing these films in a completely unique way, and I believe that is an inherent flaw in criticism, that it inherently insults others feelings and experiences. When criticism is done well, it engenders positive discussion. You've not done that. You are so determined to be right, to show your depth of knowledge, that you can't walk hand in hand with someone who has a differing perception from you. I am in the same boat as the original poster, at this point we outnumber your opinion. Considering you referenced the percentage of people who voted this a 9 or 10 (to be transparent, I gave this an 8 due to the performances, they were fantastic.) to be in your camp of "getting it", that should quality. I say that not because I believe it, but I believe you had a straw dog argument. I think there's a damn good chance a great many who rated it highly didn't get it. Hell, Bergman's Persona is a 10 and I know there's much I didn't fully get, so I truly believe it's not fair to use them towards your argument.

This has gone on a fairly sizable and rambling tangent.

The summary is this. You are too high on yourself, this whole argument has spanned 2 years of Internet time (which is truly sad), and I honestly believe that you could benefit from a good self referential look at how you speak to others, and how you perceive audiences from generations past, because you are intelligent and have a great deal of knowledge that should be shared with fellow film lovers... It would just be nice to not come with a side of utter condescension.

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

andsoitgoes_42 wrote:

The fact that you commented viewers were older and more, I'm paraphrasing, "refined" when this film was made is precisely the problem with your comprehension of things.

You could have quoted what I said. That would've contributed to the discussion. What I was trying to say is that when this movie was made, everyone went to the movies, from the brightest to the stupidest, from the most sophisticated to the least sophisticated, from the youngest to the oldest.The result was that a lot of highly intelligent and sophisticated people went to Hollywood movies regularly. And it paid to make films for that segment of society. It doesn't anymore unless it is a very low budget film.The Lady Eve is psychologically much more sophisticated than is typical of Hollywood these days and that confuses some people who expect something psychologically simpler.

Now, we are more critical of film and are much more ready to pick apart what we watch. When those films don't hold up to basic scrutiny, it can become hard to scratch that itch.

I think this film holds up completely.

For me, I have a much harder time letting this situation sit because if Charles is so naive he believes that this new woman would be wearing the exact same perfume, even with his overwhelming love and lust blinding him, then he becomes less relatable to me, less enjoyable to root for. At least that happened for me.

What I've been trying to explain is why Charles's reaction makes more sense when you think about it. I gather you do not understand what I've been saying — you certainly do not argue against it — but that is your problem."Relatable" is not an issue for me one way or the other.

Considering you referenced the percentage of people who voted this a 9 or 10 (to be transparent, I gave this an 8 due to the performances, they were fantastic.) to be in your camp of "getting it" or "get it", that should quality.

My search function cannot find "getting it" in the thread before your post. I don't believe that comedies are a matter of "getting it." But the OP's complaints about this film are based on his not understanding some elementary things about human psychology. Simply put, how quickly love and hate can flip back and forth. Perhaps he has never experienced that, but I think most people have. Humor is very subjective and the point about the ratings is not that is a great move because of them, but just that a lot of people like the movie a lot, and so do not find the psychology unintelligible.

It would just be nice to not come with a side of utter condescension.

You made it clear that you really don't understand what I've been saying.

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

andsoitgoes_42 wrote:

if Charles is so naive he believes that this new woman would be wearing the exact same perfume,

You seem to be a lot like Mugsy. If they look exactly alike, they have to be the same person.Charles points out that if the woman is Jean, then she has not attempted to disguise herself. Why wouldn't she if there is some deceit involved?The same argument can be applied to the perfume. Why would the woman be wearing the same perfume if she is trying to pretend to be a different woman. It doesn't make any sense as far as hiding her real identity.But it does make a lot of sense in another way. As Proust knew, and as modern psychologists have confirmed, smell evokes memories perhaps more powerfully than any other sense.The same perfume will bring back a flood of memories of Jean.But Eve cannot be the American Jean because she is the English niece of a friend of Charles's parents. And she does not sound the same as Jean. It is not just the accent, her speech rhythms are very different as is the pitch of her voice. And she does not move the same way that Jean does — a very difficult thing to disguise. And she does not have the same personality at all.And Charles wants to believe that she is a different woman. A version of Jean that he could marry. By the way, Charles is not so naïve as to believe Jean on the boat.

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

Americans are in fact more intellectually sophisticated than they were 70 years ago, not less:

I'm sure that is true in general, but it is not true of the audiences for films. These days, films are geared to people, mostly men, in their teens and 20s that are almost the entire audience. This is a common observation concerning the state of movies now.Before television, everyone went to the movies, not just mostly young men, and judging by what was produced then and what is produced now, the audiences were definitely older and more intellectually sophisticated._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

"These days, films are geared to people, mostly men, in their teens and 20s that are almost the entire audience. This is a common observation concerning the state of movies now."

It may be a "common observation"; but like many "common observations", it happens, inconveniently, not to be true. In 2009 women bought 55 percent of all tickets sold. People aged 25-59 made up 50 percent of the overall population, and 49 percent of the moviegoing population, not a meaningful difference. (The under 25 set was overrepresented and the 60+ cohort underrepresented, but that's a far cry from "almost the entire audience".)

(Source: http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/2010/03/mpaa-statistics-who-goes-to-the-movies/ )

Furthermore, there was nothing like the independent film scene we have today (which includes a "long tail" on Netflix or IFC to provide viability for niche films).

I think you're suffering from a form of confirmation bias, of draping the past in an ahistorical, gauzy idealised sheen. Let me close by citing two reviews of a popular film, "Yanks in the R.A.F.", released the same year as "Lady Eve". The first is a contemporaneous review from the New York Times:

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B0DE5D7173AEF3ABC4F51DFBF66838A659EDE
"There is good entertainment in this picture. Thumbs up for 'A Yank in the R. A. F.'"

Even the language used in the review is less sophisticated than we'd expect today from the "Grey Lady" (NY Times).

Contrast that rave review with this one of the same film, looking back from a 21st century vantage point:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/4075/yank-in-the-raf-a/
"[A] simply dreadful movie whose only potential redeeming value is in demonstrating how times have changed in the sixty years since the film was made."

It's available on Netflix streaming, so I watched a few minutes of it. I would tend to side with the latter review: "sophisticated" is certainly not a word I'd use to describe it.

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

It may be a "common observation"; but like many "common observations", it happens, inconveniently, not to be true.

That is fascinating; I am quite surprised. Thank you for finding that.I'm particularly surprised that 55% of tickets are sold to women since my impression is that roughly 3 times as many men as women rate contemporary movies on IMDb.Maybe there is a whole universe of chick flicks out there to go along with all the movies in which things blow up or young men act like idiots. I don't know. Many women claim to not like the movies that young men typically want to see.There have certainly been dreadful movies in all eras. I don't see the 30s and 40s as a golden age, and I did not mean to imply that. I meant only that movies then were made for the entire range of the population, not just for a subset. 10% of the population is 18-24, but they buy 19% of the tickets. It is certainly my impression that that is Hollywood's target audience. I don't think that was the case when this movie was made.There are certainly intelligent and sophisticated movies now, independent and foreign, but they seldom seem to be mainstream.The Lady Eve was a mainstream, Hollywood movie. Some people in the original audience were doubtless confused by it, as they are today. I do acknowledge that it does not spell everything out, and it does require some knowledge of how people behave to make sense. Still, I don't see it as a difficult movie that requires explanation. And the almost 46% of viewers who gave it a 9 or 10 would seem to agree. (They are a much older group than you get rating a contemporary movie on IMDb.)_______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

You're welcome. I thought until your last paragraph that our back-and-forth sniping was at an end (and you deserved the most credit for that detente). But then there was this:

"I do acknowledge that it does not spell everything out, and it does require some knowledge of how people behave to make sense."

Okay, so now you're back to saying I don't have "some knowledge of how people behave". Nice.

I would challenge you to find a real life person with an IQ in the average range or above who would act the way Fonda's character did in that movie. I'm including the pratfalls, the tongue-tied goofiness, and most of all: the credulousness. Of course, in a farce we don't have to expect people to act realistically; but by the same token we can't explain plot holes by citing human behavioural norms, either.

I think a better tack for you to take would have been simply to cite the definition in Wikipedia of a "farce" as:

"a comedy which aims at entertaining the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant, and improbable situations, disguise and mistaken identity, verbal humour of varying degrees of sophistication, which may include word play, and a fast-paced plot whose speed usually increases, culminating in an ending which often involves an elaborate chase scene. Farces are often highly incomprehensible plot-wise (due to the large number of plot twists and random events that often occur), but viewers are encouraged not to try to follow the plot in order to avoid becoming confused and overwhelmed. Farce is also characterized by physical humor, the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense, and broadly stylized performances."

Every bit of that applies to "The Lady Eve" except for the lack of a chase scene at the end. So you could simply say "hey, you're overthinking it: it's a farce and isn't supposed to be realistic or make sense". To which I'd reply "okay, fair enough!".

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

Okay, so now you're back to saying I don't have "some knowledge of how people behave". Nice.

You described this movie as a "head-scratcher" that "require[s] a separate apologia to make sense to viewers." I have no idea why you find this a difficult movie.

I would challenge you to find a real life person with an IQ in the average range or above who would act the way Fonda's character did in that movie.

People fall in love, they fight, they break up, they hate each other, they want revenge, and after all of the emotional turmoil, they realize that they do love each other and have all along. That is what is happening in this movie, and it is very true to the way people behave. If you understand that, then the movie is easy to understand. If you've never experienced or seen anything like that, I guess the movie won't make any sense to you.

"a comedy which aims at entertaining the audience by means of unlikely, extravagant, and improbable situations, disguise and mistaken identity, verbal humour of varying degrees of sophistication, which may include word play, and a fast-paced plot whose speed usually increases, culminating in an ending which often involves an elaborate chase scene. Farces are often highly incomprehensible plot-wise (due to the large number of plot twists and random events that often occur), but viewers are encouraged not to try to follow the plot in order to avoid becoming confused and overwhelmed. Farce is also characterized by physical humor, the use of deliberate absurdity or nonsense, and broadly stylized performances."Every bit of that applies to "The Lady Eve" except for the lack of a chase scene at the end.

The Lady Eve is not a farce; it is a comedy. No farce contains the strong and devastating emotions that this movie does. Farces are uniformly light. If anyone gets hurt, it is a comic villain, and the pain is not real. Both Jean and Charles are devastated emotionally both on the boat and after the train scene. Their pain is very real.This movie does not include the sort of verbal humor that characterizes farce.It does not have a fast-paced plot of the sort that you find in farce. There are not the sort of plot twists and random events that you find in farce.Farce is difficult to define, but it is easy to recognize when you see it. This movie is not a farce. Noises Off is a wonderful farce, but alas, the movie is awful. A number of the episodes in Coupling are classic farce. I don't think of farce as being common these days although many movies and sitcoms contain farcical elements.P. S. The 1952 movie of The Importance of Being Earnest is a wonderful "farcical comedy." It lacks some characteristic elements of pure farce, but if you compare it to The Lady Eve, the point should be clear.For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

You had some good points earlier, but now you're just getting weird.

"If you've never experienced or seen anything like that, I guess the movie won't make any sense to you."

No, I guess not. I've been in love multiple times, been married twice (including my current marriage), but I've never fallen in love with a con artist who then pretended to be someone else to get me to fall in love with them again so they could get their revenge but then felt badly about it after all. Common situation apparently that I've just missed somehow. ;-)

"This movie does not include the sort of verbal humor that characterizes farce."

I disagree, but I'm not going to dig up a script so I'll let you have this one.

"It does not have a fast-paced plot of the sort that you find in farce."

Now here's what I mean about your just getting weird. In a brisk, 94 minutes, we start in the jungle with Charles coming back from an expedition with rare reptiles, and introduce a number of characters who oddly aren't seen again. Then we move to a passenger liner, where Charles is conned into falling in love with Jean while losing a fortune to Jean's father. He discovers they are con artists and breaks it off with her. Suddenly we're in Connecticut high society, where another con artist is fleecing the well to do, Jean becomes an English duchess, cons Charles back into falling in love with HER this time, and off we go to the races. Quickly they're married, off on their honeymoon, then the marriage is off, negotiations for divorce ensue but are broken off...then finally the twist on the boat that we've been discussing endlessly. Looks pretty fast-paced to me! You could make a miniseries at least out of that many plot developments.

"There are not the sort of plot twists and random events that you find in farce."

See above.

If you really don't think the movie is farcical, I suppose you'll want to correct Wikipedia then:

"Screwball comedies also tend to contain ridiculous, farcical situations, such as in Bringing Up Baby, in which a couple must take care of a pet leopard during much of the film. Slapstick elements are also frequently present (such as the numerous pratfalls Henry Fonda takes in The Lady Eve)."

Anyway, I think I've said my piece. I'll let you have the last word if you want it.

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:

No, I guess not. I've been in love multiple times, been married twice (including my current marriage), but I've never fallen in love with a con artist who then pretended to be someone else to get me to fall in love with them again so they could get their revenge but then felt badly about it after all. Common situation apparently that I've just missed somehow. ;-)

If your requirement for understanding a comedy is that you have experienced almost the exact situations in the comedy, then there must be a lot of comedies that you don't understand.Good comedies are true to human emotion and psychology, and this movie is. Comedies routinely include situations that most people have never experienced and never will. That is certainly true here.Comedies deal with common human emotions and psychology, but not necessarily with common situations. If you don't understand that, I really don't know what to say.

If you really don't think the movie is farcical, I suppose you'll want to correct Wikipedia then:

"Farce" in the classical sense is a very distinctive and instantly recognizable theatrical form. "Farce," as a technical term used by people who deal with literature, is a very specific genre term; it is not a general term for a work that is silly or does not make sense. The description in the Wikipedia article is not bad given that farce is notoriously difficult to define. You really need to see an example to understand what it is. I cannot imagine that anyone would actually understand what a "farce" is just from reading that definition. And you don't. The people who contributed to the Wikipedia article include examples that tend to extend the definition of farce to the point that it is no longer quite so distinctive. This may well reflect current, common usage.

Looks pretty fast-paced to me!

Not in terms of how fast-paced farces are. I suspect that you have never actually seen a farce.However you define farce, no farce contains the kind of strong emotions that are in The Lady Eve.Of course this movie contains farcical elements. As I said in my last post, many comedies and sitcoms do. Probably most. But the fact that a work contains farcical elements does not make it a "farce." No one who actually understands what the term "farce" means, even in terms of the extended examples in the article, would call this movie a "farce."_______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] ppllkk 12 years ago

This definition gives a much better idea of my mental model of "farce" as a dramatic genre than the Wikipedia article does.

FarceFarce is very broad comedy, generally appearing in acted media. It's characterized by double entendres, misunderstandings, deceptions, and in general very contrived and ridiculous situations. Farce is almost never leisurely-paced; "breakneck" is more apt to describe it. Look for a lot of doors opening and shutting and characters stumbling upon other characters when they're in compromising situations/situations that appear compromising. tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Farce

I have highlighted the elements that I think of as specifically characteristic of the subset of "Comedies" that are called "Farces." In general, there is escalating frantic confusion.Obviously, many comedies have "double entendres, misunderstandings, deceptions, and . . . very contrived and ridiculous situations," but in farces, they are carried to an extreme.A great example of pure farce that is easily accessible is Coupling, Season 2, Episode 9, "The End of the Line." If it were a self-contained farce, it would end with a reconciliation. In Coupling, cell phones that have become separated from their real owners replace the "doors" of earlier farces. Many Coupling episodes have large hunks of farce in them.If you ever get a chance to see the play, not the movie, Noises Off, that is the best example of farce that I can think of.As in any genre definition, there will be pure examples and mixed examples. Different people will draw the line between "farce" and "farce with some qualification" in different places.The word "farce" is frequently used in a non-technical sense to mean something silly or ridiculous. Above, I have been talking about "farce" as a technical term denoting a specific sort of dramatic work. Really good examples are not common these days although many comedies contain strong elements of farce or scenes that would easily fit into a farce._______________For easy markup see http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/42255

[–] TheWanderingFish 11 years ago

Because I haven't already talked enough...

In the late 70s and early 80s there was a rather clear shift in the types of films being made. The enormous success of Star Wars and similar films, along with the disastrous failure of Heaven's Gate, caused Hollywood to shift its focus to different kinds of filmmaking - one more directly geared at "general audiences."

Yes, there were plenty of juvenile entertainments produced before the 70s, and Hollywood does still produce sophisticated entertainment. Yes, there were thousands of bad or mediocre films, many of which are now forgotten, produced each decade before the 70s. However, the balance has rather decidedly changed, and now Hollywood now focuses almost exclusively on two or three styles of filmmaking, and the sophisticated verbal comedies (of Wilder, Sturges, Hawks, Lubitsch, etc.) and adult, non-R-rated dramas that were relatively common before the 70s are now almost entirely absent from the multiplexes. They're still being made, but one has to look to the independent and foreign scenes to find them. And most people aren't willing to look in those places, so they never experience them at all.

Hollywood does have a large part in shaping people's tastes, and taste has shifted over the past 40 years. It's not that people are dumber - rather, it's that art appreciation is something that has to be cultivated, and many adults don't feel like making the effort to look any further than the local multiplex. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - art appreciation isn't an essential element of living a good life. However, I do think it is good and worthwhile to at least be aware of your options, rather than simply swallowing whatever is offered you.

-

As for the jab about the "less sophisticated language" - I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. It is true that contemporary acclaim doesn't always equal acclaim in the future. It's also true that film criticism was still a developing format then, and the theories and vocabulary that now define it weren't yet developed. Many at the time viewed film as a simple, disposable entertainment "for the masses," and newspaper writers often treated it as such in their reviews. It wasn't until the Cahiers du Cinema crowd, along with Sarris, Kael, Crowther, et al. came around that things began to grow more sophisticated in that arena.

I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

My point was just that mainstream filmmakers *and* critics were less sophisticated then. There were a LOT more movies made back in the day, so when we cull the diamonds in the rough, the era looks sophisticated but that is a very skewed perspective. I suspect if we took a random sample of films from 1952 and 2012, the 2012 sample would be better (though certainly of great variation).

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] Krustallos 8 years ago

alankingsleythomas wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans are in fact more intellectually sophisticated than they were 70 years ago, not less:

How do you explain Trump, then, Alan?

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] TheWanderingFish 11 years ago

Were I to judge this film by the standard of serious intellectual or artistic cinema, as you seem to consider it worthy of being, it would fail miserably.

Well maybe. Still, Preston Sturges is one of the great artists of cinema, and this is one of his greatest films. You're right that it's no Ordet, but then again Ordet is no Singin' in the Rain.

That is to say, if you judge everything by the standard of Bergman or Dreyer, then most other films are going to come up short for lacking their philosophical and intellectual depth. On the other hand, if you judge everything by the standard set by Howard Hawks (another great artist of film), then Bergman and Dreyer will come up short for lacking his comedic wit and extraordinary writing.

This isn't a lesser film because it's not about deep existential topics. There's room for all sorts of movies in the pantheon. I'd argue that a "silly comedy" about a man falling in love with a conwoman can be just as great as anything by Tarkovsky or Bresson. In my book, Singin' in the Rain and The Miracle of Morgan's Creek are very nearly the greatest films ever made, even though they may lack the heaviness and weight of certain art films.

That's because I don't consider "serious intellectual" cinema the sole apex of cinema - some of the greatest films ever made do fall into that category (my favorite film is Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev) but some of the greatest films ever made are also fluffy comedies and cheerful musicals (not to mention animated films about flying pigs.) In my book, there's room for many different kinds of films in the world, and I'm not going to call a film a failure or "lesser" if it doesn't match one set style.

Mind you, I have no problem with someone not loving this movie - I think it's a practically perfect film, and one with a surprising amount of emotional weight, but you're free to disagree. For the record, I also hate the "if you didn't like this film then you should just go back to watching Michael Bay films" line of "argument."

On the other hand, I do strongly disagree with the implication that lightweight comedic films can't be as great (and as adult) as more serious films.

And it could be that you weren't really trying to suggest any hierarchy at all (as in, "some screwball comedies can be good for what they are, but they can never hold a candle to serious and intellectual films") - if you weren't suggesting that, then I apologize for this long, rambling response.

Actually, even if you were suggesting that, I still apologize for this long, rambling response.

I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

I wasn't really suggesting such a hierarchy, but I enjoyed reading your "rambling" actually.

If you look at the list in my sig, you can decide for yourself whether I privilege certain types of films over others.

BTW, I did really find "Miracle at Morgan's Creek" quite brilliant--it is what led me to this film, which I found rather disappointing by comparison. I also started watching another Sturges picture, in which an elegant apartment is being sublet and a couple is running out of money to pay their tab at the market...I think there was talk of divorce to somehow repair the situation. Anyway, I found that one dull and turned it off.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] Bree_33 11 years ago

The most memorable railroad honeymoon in film comedy.
Perfect ending.

------- __@
----- _`\<,_
---- (*)/ (*)------- ----__@
--------------------- _`\<,_
---- -----------------(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»nec spe,nec metu :*•.. ¤°.¸¸.•´¯`»

[–] ppllkk 11 years ago

SoliEtta1 wrote:

Perfect ending.

Yes. Perfect in so many ways.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]