Sympathy for Regina? - The Little Foxes (1941) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MsGemini 12 years ago

I totally sympathized with her. I even rooted for her! And I don't think she in any way murdered her husband; she merely refused to help him-- just as he refused to help her.

You know I love you more when you're cold and heartless. -- Eric/Pam, TB

reply

[–] LincolnMarkV 12 years ago

I rooted for her, too. Probably because her two brothers were such louses, not to mention that weasel of a nephew. Regina was smarter and more ruthless than her two brothers, and they richly deserved the treatment they got. Regina is never intentionally mean to anyone who doesn't deserve it (she's always gracious to Birdie, always kindly and civil to her daughter). Yeah, she's a viper to her husband, but she never loved him and she's totally honest about that. And just as you've said, he didn't help her, nor did she help him. She wanted to be rich and move to Chicago. No crime there.

reply

[–] jyjgrf 12 years ago

You can stop making excuses for this woman. She's a worse human being than any of her brothers. They're terrible, but driven merely by their desire to get rich. She intends to get rich herself while making those she doesn't like miserable or destroy them completely. Their brothers had some redeeming qualities, they were at least scared, she had none. She let her husband die after she had just intentionally riled him up to get his heart going. Just despicable.

Wonderful performance by Bette though. She did her best to make her human.

reply

[–] bradford-1 12 years ago

As the OP mentions, she was a woman of her time who was shut out of a meaningful role in life. The family business is called "Hubbard & Sons." Maybe 60-70 years later, Regina would've been running the show, or at least been on the board of directors. Or she could've been running her own firm.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

reply

[–] 398 9 years ago

jyjgrf

"She a worse human being than any of her brothers."

Well, I don't know about Oscar, who doesn't have all that many redeeming features and treats Birdie as badly as Regina treats Horace.

Ben, though, at least in the 1956 version of the play I have watched along with the movie, comes across as a greedy man willing to engage in any sort of double dealing and exploitation,

but seemingly just to get more money and power. He doesn't seem to be a nakedly cruel person like Oscar and Regina. It might just be that he understands that a smile greases the gears, a point he makes explicitly with Regina,

and also Ben might be utterly selfish, but at least he has remained single, so his self-centeredness does not intimately harm hapless spouses and children.

*I noticed in watching the 1956 TV version with Greer Garson, and this one with Bette Davis, the different takes the two actresses give Regina.

Davis plays Regina with a demeanor which reminds me of the gruff Oscar. She doesn't display much charm, even with Marshall in the opening act.

Garson plays Regina with a demeanor much more like Ben. She is quite charming and gracious on the surface when she wants to be, such as with Marshall at the beginning. Her real character is exposed in a few key scenes.

reply

[–] 398 9 years ago

"Regina was never intentionally mean to anyone who doesn't deserve it"

"Yeah, she's a viper to her husband, but she never loved him and she's totally honest about that."

Why did she marry him? Other than to enjoy the lifestyle his money grants her?

You apparently feel she had no obligations at all to her husband and not loving him justifies making his life miserable.

"She wanted to be rich"

Regina was rich, or at least was living a rich woman off her husband's money. Let's be fair here. By the standards of the time she was a very rich woman who wanted to be even richer.

*One thing which was never clear to me in the movie or play. Regina talks of Chicago in both, but also New York and Paris. But why couldn't she visit without this new deal? It certainly seems Horace is wealthy enough for her to travel if she wants. Did he say no? The issue is never discussed. I don't think the mill deal will make Regina independently wealthy. It will just make Horace wealthier. But it appears at his death she expects to get his money.

reply

[–] FranLovesBetteD 11 years ago

"I totally sympathized with her. I even rooted for her! And I don't think she in any way murdered her husband; she merely refused to help him-- just as he refused to help her".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't have expressed it better myself. Since the very first time I saw this movie, I've always been on Regina's side.

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

reply

[–] MsGemini 11 years ago

I was actually extremely annoyed with Horace for having the audacity to ask for Regina's help after he helped her brothers cut her out of the cotton mill. I felt like she was a survivor. I can only imagine how hard it must've been growing up with Oscar and Ben. Then she married that weak Horace. A man who would rather turn a blind eye on Oscar and Ben's antics rather that stand up to them. Yeah, I totally rooted for Regina. I was so happy when she came out on top.

Do you want me, Gideon?
More than my next breath, Eva. You're my addiction... my obsession...

reply

[–] pgharett-676-553123 9 years ago

I was so happy when she came out on top.

Uh, everyone left her, and she has to live with her sin of omission regarding Horace's death. That's hardly "coming out on top". I was half hoping she would fall down the steps at the end. It would have been sweet justice if she broke her neck!!

reply

[–] MsGemini 9 years ago

Uh, everyone left her, and she has to live with her sin of omission regarding Horace's death. That's hardly "coming out on top". I was half hoping she would fall down the steps at the end. It would have been sweet justice if she broke her neck!!

Regina came out on top in regard to the situation with her brothers. She lost her most important relationship: the one with her daughter. Regina didn't lose her brothers. Actually, they were all going to be spending a lot of time together because of the business. Until she moved to the big city that is. I don't think she would be the least bit bothered over the way Horace died. I'm not saying she would be dancing on his grave, but there was no love lost there.

Sometimes people are beautiful.
Not in looks.
Not in what they say.
Just in what they are.~~ Markus Zusak

reply

[–] pgharett-676-553123 9 years ago

True, about the situation with her brothers, but they deserved each other. Look at the way Birdie's husband treated her. Also true about losing her most important relationship.

I don't think she would be the least bit bothered over the way Horace died.

True, but that to me is evil.

but there was no love lost there.

You seem to justify her inaction regarding her husband because of "no love lost". Hatred doesn't justify murder. Neither does greed. Her daughter knew that she was responsible for Horace's death. That's why she asked her if she was afraid, and it's why she left her. I also don't see Horace as weak. Sure he was weak physically because of heart disease, but he stood up to Regina. I consider him heroic. I also admire the daughter for standing up to Regina.

reply

[–] MsGemini 9 years ago

True, but that to me is evil.

We see things differently here. I don't think she should feel guilt or be bothered by Horace's death; he certainly didn't care what happened to her. He actively played a role in betraying her. I don't think she owed him anything.

You seem to justify her inaction regarding her husband because of "no love lost". Hatred doesn't justify murder. Neither does greed. Her daughter knew that she was responsible for Horace's death. That's why she asked her if she was afraid, and it's why she left her. I also don't see Horace as weak. Sure he was weak physically because of heart disease, but he stood up to Regina. I consider him heroic. I also admire the daughter for standing up to Regina.

No, I'm not justifying her inaction because she didn't love her husband. I'm saying he betrayed her and she owed him nothing because of that. I'm saying that you cannot betray someone then turn around and ask them to help you in any way. Horace didn't stand up to Regina he covered up crimes. He's no hero. Actually, he's no better than the rest of the Hubbards.

Sometimes people are beautiful.
Not in looks.
Not in what they say.
Just in what they are.~~~ Markus Zusak

reply

[–] pgharett-676-553123 9 years ago

I'm saying he betrayed her and she owed him nothing because of that.

Didn't she owe him basic humanity? Do you not she what she did as murder, regardless of all the other stuff? And how did he betray her? It was his money and he chose not to go along with her and her brothers' scheme. That in no way, shape or form justifies her not helping him. If there had been a witness, she would have probably been hanged.

Horace didn't stand up to Regina he covered up crimes.

You mean the theft of the bonds by her relatives? If he didn't choose to press charges against them, it's not really robbery.

reply

[–] MsGemini 9 years ago

Didn't she owe him basic humanity? Do you not she what she did as murder, regardless of all the other stuff? And how did he betray her? It was his money and he chose not to go along with her and her brothers' scheme. That in no way, shape or form justifies her not helping him. If there had been a witness, she would have probably been hanged.

No, she did not. Horace essentially aided in her destruction. She would have been forced to be on a limited income and to continue to be beholden to men who clearly did not have her best interests at heart. I think it's quite ballsy of him to expect help from her after betraying her the way he did. He betrayed her by siding with her thieving brothers against her; by aiding them in wronging her and subsequently protecting them. No, it was their money. She probably would have been hanged. You'll get no argument from me there. There have been many people wrongfully hanged in this country.

You mean the theft of the bonds by her relatives? If he didn't choose to press charges against them, it's not really robbery.

Simply because Horace refused to press charges doesn't change the fact that Regina's brothers stole those bonds. Simply because one chooses not to press charges doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

Sometimes people are beautiful.
Not in looks.
Not in what they say.
Just in what they are.~~ Markus Zusak

reply

[–] chelleellis 9 years ago

Huh? If someone is robbed, but choose not to prosecute, they are still robbed. Can't follow your logic.

reply

[–] chelleellis 9 years ago

Robbery is a crime involving force or fear, so grand theft would be the crime.

There was no murder, you aren't legally required to save someone's body from failing in them as Horace's did. Did Regina create the stress that lead up to it? No more than Horace, who showed up with a box and started a fight. She was a better fighter and his health failed him. :shrugs:

reply

[–] 398 9 years ago

"coming out on top"

In a way, but I don't think this is over.

Ben and Oscar don't have to stand on the unlikely loan position. They can claim that Horace gave Leo the bonds (or instructed Leo to open the box and get the bonds himself) to give to Oscar to take to Chicago to close the deal, with Horace, Ben, and Oscar each 1/3 partners.

This is a very likely scenario and it would be up to Regina to prove it didn't happen this way. She might be able to muster some evidence besides her own testimony that Horace really wasn't interested in the deal, but it would run into the obvious problem that this the way everyone originally expected it to go and it makes business sense.

Regina could try to hold onto her blackmail scheme to "win" against her brothers, but it seems to me it would be rather foolish. If she goes along, she gets her 1/3. If she takes it to court, she would have to explain why Horace would have expected to get 75% for a 1/3 investment. Even if she wins, she might be legally open to prosecution for blackmail.

She thinks with everyone hating Ben and Oscar they would have no chance. Perhaps. But Horace does seem to have been generally liked, and there are two witnesses to her saying she hoped Horace died and died soon, and the circumstances of his death would certainly raise questions. Why open that can of worms?

I think a smart woman would settle for the 1/3 interest.

reply

[–] pgharett-676-553123 9 years ago

I don't think she in any way murdered her husband; she merely refused to help him

Morally, she was guilty of murder, and perhaps legally.

just as he refused to help her.

The fact that he didn't help is no excuse for her killing him.

reply

[–] MsGemini 9 years ago

Morally, she was guilty of murder, and perhaps legally.

She was. I don't disagree. I simply see things from her perspective and understand why she did what she did. She was a woman at the turn of the century trying to survive in a man's world. A world where she was smarter and sharper than most men. She has this opportunity which she cultivated--- by having the guy come over to her house and charming him and wining and dining him--- only to have it snatched out from under her by her brothers. Then, to have her husband aid and abet their crimes against her and Horace is inexcusable. Horace committed his own sins; he betrayed Regina and, in her eyes, ruined her life... Then to have the audacity to ask Regina for help after wronging her... Well, one must be careful what bridges one burns...

The fact that he didn't help is no excuse for her killing him.

Regina did not kill Horace. She didn't cause his heart attack nor did she stop anyone else from helping him nor did she hide the fact that he was suffering. She didn't do anything to him... she just did very little for him.

Sometimes people are beautiful.
Not in looks.
Not in what they say.
Just in what they are.~~ MArkus Zusak

reply

[–] pgharett-676-553123 9 years ago

Regina did not kill Horace. She didn't cause his heart attack nor did she stop anyone else from helping him nor did she hide the fact that he was suffering. She didn't do anything to him... she just did very little for him.

I'm not sure what the law was then, or now, as far as responsibility to help someone in a situation like that. But surely there is a basic moral responsibility, regardless of her feelings about him. As far as not causing his heart attack: she was constantly badgering him to the point of screaming at him which probably hastened his death. You agreed with the first quote of mine that you posted, then said:

Regina did not kill Horace.

You can't have it both ways. I say the look on her face when she realized he was dying, and she decided not to help him was pure evil. She may not have stopped anyone else from helping him, but she took her sweet time in calling anyone.

reply

[–] MsGemini 9 years ago

I'm not sure what the law was then, or now, as far as responsibility to help someone in a situation like that. But surely there is a basic moral responsibility, regardless of her feelings about him. As far as not causing his heart attack: she was constantly badgering him to the point of screaming at him which probably hastened his death. You agreed with the first quote of mine that you posted, then said:

Well, there are different levels of responsibility people feel in regard to helping others who have wronged them. Is a rape victim morally obligated for helping her rapist? Is a father morally obligated to help the person who senselessly murdered his child? Is a patron of a bank morally obligated to help save the life of a person in the act of robbing a bank? Is a bankrupt businesswoman morally obligated to save the life of the person who participated in the Ponzi scheme that financially ruined her? There is no standard set of moral laws. They vary from person to person.

You can't have it both ways. I say the look on her face when she realized he was dying, and she decided not to help him was pure evil. She may not have stopped anyone else from helping him, but she took her sweet time in calling anyone.

Let me clarify, Regina was legally guilty of murder according to the laws at that time. However, it was also permissible to beat your wife at that time, it was illegal for women or people of color to vote, in the Constitution it stated that Black people were considered 3/5 of a person, there were laws that segregated the races... so much for laws... In some states today, gay marriage is illegal but 13 states still haven't criminalized beastiality. Just because it's a law doesn't make it fair.

Sometimes people are beautiful.
Not in looks.
Not in what they say.
Just in what they are.~~~ Markus Zusak

reply

[–] pgharett-676-553123 9 years ago

in the Constitution it stated that Black people were considered 3/5 of a person

That's a common fallacy people make. It's not true. The southern states wanted slaves counted 100%. The northern sates probably didn't want them counted at all. The purpose of counting only 3/5 for representation was to LESSEN the influence of the southern slave-holding states in Congress. It wasn't to de-humanize blacks or slaves. Slavery itself did that. The irony is that slave-holding states who dehumanized blacks by holding them as slaves wanted them counted 100%.

reply

[–] MsGemini 9 years ago

That's a common fallacy people make. It's not true. The southern states wanted slaves counted 100%. The northern sates probably didn't want them counted at all. The purpose of counting only 3/5 for representation was to LESSEN the influence of the southern slave-holding states in Congress. It wasn't to de-humanize blacks or slaves. Slavery itself did that. The irony is that slave-holding states who dehumanized blacks by holding them as slaves wanted them counted 100%.

They were slaves-- abused and beaten-- they were dehumanized by their treatment, by their lack of rights, and by what politicians deemed their 'humanness' or lack thereof. Which supports my statements about Regina and any culpability she may have held in regard to her husband's death. Men created laws and situations to oppress others: women, Africans... Simply because men in power make it a law or practice doesn't make it fair.

Sometimes people are beautiful.
Not in looks.
Not in what they say.
Just in what they are.~~ Markus Zusak

reply

[–] OnceUponATimeInTheWest 9 years ago

spoilers (lots)

Great thread Great read. I love Bette Davis and I love this film mostly because Teresa Wright is in it.
Regina realizes that by getting this money she would become the senior partner in fact at the end before Alexandra walks out telling her brothers you boys are sort of working for me now.

Horace tells her that she has enough money and she didn't need any more. That however was not enough for her. Horace appeals to Regina telling her (after realizing his bonds have been stolen by Leo) that he will allow Regina to lend the bonds to her brothers as a loan.
Regina does not like that idea. Horace is about to change his will and leave most of his estate to his daughter Alexandra, but dies before this can happen.

As for Horace's death. Yes, he had a heart condition but Regina's inaction causes him to die. Is she culpable in his death? Absolutely. I think in the end the old adage applies about gaining the world and losing your own soul. On the stairs Regina is afraid and why not? She was standing where he husband who struggled up those same stairs because of her inaction just died. She will be wealthy but really loses the one thing in the world she truly cares about, her daughter Alexandra.

Regina surmises that Alexandra knows what she did. When Regina is talking to her brothers downstairs after Horace has died. Alexandra comes down and wants to talk to Regina and asks: What was poppa doing on the staircase?
Alexandra has suspicions which is confirmed by Ben when he says to Regina: I agree with Alexandra, What was a man in a wheelchair doing on a staircase? I ask myself that. Regina: And what do you answer? Ben: I have no answer but maybe someday I will, maybe never but maybe someday. When I do I'll let you know. Then as he exits he says: Goodnight Alexandra you're turning out to be a right interesting girl.
Regina is still smiling at Ben as he exits knowing full well that she is culpable in Horace's death.

I think Regina feels the weight of what she did (or didn't do) but its too late she has lost her daughter, her husband and has been judged by her brother and daughter but more importantly she has judged herself to be responsible for Horace's death.

reply

[–] 398 9 years ago

MsGemini

"There is no standard set of moral laws. They vary from person to person."

I am certain the Hubbards would agree with you here.

"beat your wife"

But you confusing the issues. Nothing in this play indicates Horace ever mistreated Regina. She herself states he treated her with "kindness and understanding" which she finds contemptible.

I could sympathize with your point of view if you were defending Birdie for allowing Oscar to die without helping him. Oscar has beaten Birdie and mistreated her in every way and made her life miserable.

Regina has lived a plush life, but wants to live an even plusher one. Her husband has moral scruples about a business deal which will harm the poor folks of the area.

I don't think Regina came up with this deal. Ben probably did. Regina has lived a very privileged life. I doubt it if she has worked a day in her life. She married Horace for his money and has made his life miserable. If Horace decides to leave his money to his daughter, so what. She loves him and takes care of him. It makes sense to me. I think Horace is generous to leave Regina $75,000 (the equivalent of over $2 million today) considering the way she has treated him.

reply

[–] 398 9 years ago

MsGemini

"Horace . . . betrayed Regina."

You ignore that his reasons for originally turning down the deal had nothing to do with Regina or his relationship with Regina.

In the 1956 version, which I think closer to the play, Horace has had time in the hospital to think about his life, and he regrets how he has conducted his business and does not want to again exploit folks or harm the community. He feels that the mill deal with the Hubbards will do that.

In the movie, Horace is cleaned up and made almost a saint with his past sins unmentioned,

It is now simply his deeply held values about exploiting folks and harming the community which turns him against the deal.

It is true that after the bonds have been stolen, Horace is not about to press the issue, but Regina has already told him she hopes he dies and dies soon. Why she should expect him to do anything for her at this point eludes me.

reply

[–] butaneggbert 8 years ago

You find refusing someone a life-saving elixir to be directly analogous to refusing to participate in a financial scheme one perceives as immoral?

That's quite a sense of proportion.

Wow.

_______________

Nothing to see here, move along.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"Humanize"? Well she´s human all right - an as-hole of a human. But, yes, not one-dimensional as the loss that she ultimately comes to recognize, is made palpable enough... even if it doesn´t inspire any sympathy, exactly. An excellently creepy performance from Davis.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] basimbambaataa 12 years ago

"I saw a woman trying to make a name for herself in a patriarchal society."

I just watched this film for the first time and that quote reflects the exact feeling I was left with when it ended. It's easy to write Regina off as a monster, but harder to remember that women were not always regarded as equals as they are today (mostly). She had to use her brain to make sure she was able to live the life she wanted. I certainly respect her a lot more than her sister-in-law who just sat there and let her husband dictate every aspect of her life right down to her appearance.

As far as sympathy, I don't have any, and I don't think it is even called for. Who's to say that Alexandra won't have her heart broken and come back home? Who's to say that Regina won't take up a lover in Chicago? I don't see her marrying, but I can definitely see her having a relationship with someone else.

That's the fun part about movies...we only get to see a snapshot in time of the characters' lives, but life goes on for the characters after the credits roll. Who knows what will happen to any of them...

reply

[–] RedFaerieGirl20 11 years ago

Do I have sympathy for Regina? No, but I understand her, especially after Another Part of the Forest.

Ben and her father were the worst of the lot, and Ben screwed her out of her inheritance. Regina wanted to live on her terms like a man could, escape to Chicago. I think it pissed her off that she had to always be dependent on a man to get what she wanted (Marcus, John, later Horace), and from her perspective, every man always failed her, left her in the town and life she wanted to flee. She had bigger dreams than those around her, and she had no way to achieve them alone.

She also was incapable of acting/pretending to be a softer, traditional woman of the time (or refused to do so), and so she was never able to properly manipulate the men around her either.

Regina's basically a product of her time, family, and her own disposition.

_____________________________________________________________________
Everyone sees what you seem to be, few know what you really are. -- Machiavelli

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kenny-164 9 years ago

Just saw this film for hte first time last evening on TCM, and this particular thread's relevance is obvious to me, since aside from the plot, the question of how sympathetic Regina is is a huge issue in this film.

I htink some of those who say they sympathize with Regina are really saying they sympathize with certain aspects of her situation. An example would be the sexual politics if you will of her position - women in that age not having the authority to exercise power in the same way as men. Okay.

And then there's the amazing performance by Bette Davis, humanizing and making real a character who a lesser actress would have portrayed as cliched, even comically awful.

But in terms of what Regina DOES? In terms of the effect she has on people around her?

No, I don't have sympathy for either of those, and I don't see how anyone can.

Part of what she is trying to do is run her business to exploit the people who work for her in an unconscionable way. On a personal level she watches her husband die without helping - a sin of ommission for sure that as such is virtually a capital crime. She alienates her daughter, I would think for life - the only relationship she claims to care for. Either she is consumed more by money than her daughter, or she grossly misplayed this situation.

How she gets along with her siblings... That's another story.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scoup 8 years ago

I got the impression that if he cheated like you said, then it was because she was a shrew and he figured it out after the marriage. Before he has the heart attack, he asks her why she married him and she responds that she was lonely (or bored, can't remember exact words right now). That's not a great basis for a loving marriage.

reply