MovieChat Forums > Journey for Margaret Discussion > A touch of Nazi in the good guys

A touch of Nazi in the good guys

posted 13 years ago by DonnaLevin
9 replies | jump to latest

My favorite movies of all time: films about WWII made during WWII. This one is typical of the genre: almost all the Allies, military & civilian, are saints, while the enemy is pure evil. (How about the Japanese diplomat who can't give up his baggage allowance because "I have to be back in Tokyo in early December"? Good one.)
But I wonder if the film makers considered the following (semi-SPOILER): when John can only save one child and is forced to choose between the little girl and the little boy, Trudy-the-kindly-orphanage director says she'll relieve him of the burden by choosing for him. She'll do so by administering an intelligence test, so that John can adopt the most intelligent child.
Saving the most intelligent and physically capable children at the cost of the weaker was at the core of Nazi philosophy, and disturbed me as woven into this otherwise three-hankie film.

"I've loved you my whole life."
"You've only known me three days."
"That's when my life began."

[–] pennyserenade1208 12 years ago

That's a good observation. I never thought about the intelligence test as a form of eugenics. I liked Robert Young's character saying "How can I pick a kid based on an intelligence test? It took me three years to get out of algebra in high school!" The first time I saw this movie, I was a little irritated about the intelligence test too - I felt like Margaret was a little older than Peter, so of course she would be more intelligent. I really love this movie, I cry every time I watch it. I also love Robert Young in this, he is so natural with the children. You believe he really loves these kids and is not just tolerating them. I also love Fay Bainter - she is always so warm, even in the scene when she is being "scientific" by making Robert Young stay in the room with the shrieking girl. Laraine Day is heartbreaking in the hospital scene, and NO ONE can cry like Margaret O'Brien - child or adult!

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

I think during wartime it would be great to show Nazis as sympathetic and kind and show the Allies as horrible monsters. Makes a lot of sense for morale, the country, etc...

Now with the sarcasm out of the way, I also thought the intelligence test was odd. However, you make it sound like Peter was being sent to a gas chamber for not being as intelligent as Margaret by referring to it as "saving." It's as if a child who remains in an orphanage is worthless and ends up invariably dying alone and useless. While I agree there were better ways to handle "the choice," to say that simply adopting a child is saving it and not adopting a child somehow makes the child some kind of written-off loss? Intelligence is usually rewarded, not just in a Nazi-idealized world.

So if you were adopting a child, and had a choice between an intelligent one who would easily excel in life and a mentally slower child who would always find things difficult, which would you choose? Most choose the intelligent child and I don't think that makes them Nazis.

[–] DonnaLevin 11 years ago

You're right across the board. The man or woman who would make the conscious choice to have a less intelligent vs. more intelligent child is very rare. (A notable exception being those heroic people who adopt special needs children.) If I could have pre-programmed my children before they were born, I would have made them the best-looking, most athletic, etc. -- I couldn't do that, so I loved what I got.
After reading your post, I do see the movie as less harsh, but I cling to the thought that since it was so full of propaganda anyway (even if the "good" propaganda) that it was strange that the writers/director would use as their standard a worthiness test tainted even slightly with Nazi ideals. For example, they might have made the choice based on each child's future prospects. Which was the older one? (I think Peter, but I don't remember.) Were either more likely to be adopted because of their gender? Surprisingly, I believe that girls are adopted more often than boys, not just from countries such as China where girls end up in orphanages en masse.
Then again, if the movie were made today and the choice was based on gender, what an outcry that would cause! And from people like me, too!

"I've loved you my whole life."
"You've only known me three days."
"That's when my life began."

[–] boxerrebellion 9 years ago

I adopted both of my children and 'got what I got'..... with a few more surprises than most who give birth. Between the two of them, they represent three races/ethnicities that my husband and I don't. That is totally off topic, but most adoptive parents who go through state or charitable systems don't get to cherry pick. It's not like going through a list of sperm donors and looking for a smart, intelligent, tall, athletic guy whose family doesn't run to heart disease or diabetes.

I think the idea of 'saving' comes from the fact that the child 'left behind' was left in war time London which had the hell bombed out of it.

I thought that the intelligence test was odd, but perhaps that was what the British perceived as important to Americans?

[–] jchcin1 9 years ago

In the movie Margaret was the older one, but yes today girls are adopted at higher rates than boys.

[–] missrhea 11 years ago

***Spoiler warning***

Okay, probably not - it is a 70 year old movie/book.

In the book, which I'm reading right now, Margaret is actually a year younger than Peter (John in the book). The place where the children are tested is actually a "rest center" which is being run by Anna Freud (yes, *that* Freud's daughter) and a whole bunch of Viennese folks who have come to Britain to escape the war. The purpose of the center is to give the children (who have been orphaned or abandoned in some way) a chance to adapt before being adopted by other people. It's the same idea as in the movie except it's not being operated by English ladies.

[–] alrodbel 10 years ago

Interesting about how in the book it's a psychoanalytic orientated facility. There the question of whom to save would not be an I.Q. test, but perhaps compatibility with the parents. Beyond this I.Q. worship in the film, which before I saw this discussion I had the same Nazi connection, this must have resonated with the values of the audience, of America of that time.

In the real world, a child like Margaret who had not accepted several other placements would have been seen as a long shot, and the Director would have recommended the boy.

It was a treat to see this first film where Margaret got her name.

[–] atlasmb 10 years ago

The application of the "intelligence test" is an interesting choice. And I do think it is a nod--if only unconsciously--toward eugenics, which was in vogue during the first half of the 20th century. It is all the more interesting to know that the eugenics movement started in the U.S. (California), where one leader of the movement wrote proudly:

"You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought . . . I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

Later, most of the eugenics concepts were abandoned due to their association with Nazism.

I would hope that by now, we would recognize that there are many types of "intelligence" and no person's value is based upon any one measure of brain capacity. By suggesting that such a test might provide some kind of answer (and having the materials on hand), the woman who ran the Children's Home is shown to be, at least in part, a bureaucrat.

[–] Fred-333 8 years ago

What a stretch -