MovieChat Forums > Random Harvest (1943) Discussion > Smithy/Paula vs. Charles/Margaret

Smithy/Paula vs. Charles/Margaret

posted 17 years ago by naillon-2
11 replies | jump to latest

After watching this for the umpteenth time, I'm even more convinced that Charles was falling for Margaret - certainly not as quickly as Smithy fell for Paula, but he was falling for her. There's the scene where he's going to ask her to marry him (the infamous "merger"), but before he can do so, he stares at her for several seconds. When Margaret points this out, he mentions that her hair is "bright red in the sun."

He makes something of an effort to draw closer to her on the night of their third anniversary, but she wants him as Smithy, and he's haunted by those three missing years.

Then, at the station, he watches her train leave with a sad look on his face.

Finally, when she calls "Smithy!" after he's opened the door to the cottage, he turns and smiles lovingly at her - BEFORE the final piece falls into place, and he calls her Paula.

Long as it took, he fell for her in both identities.

[–] roghache 14 years ago

Yes, I agree that he fell for her in both identities. It seemed obvious by the end that Charles did indeed love Margaret, was not simply dependent upon her for business, political, and social purposes.

In fact, I believe it would have made a much better ending if, when he was giving her that expensive emerald necklace, he confessed to her that his feelings for her had changed through the years, that although their marriage had begun as a convenient arrangement, he had come to realize he truly loved her, that he had been reluctant to reveal his feelings lest he be seen as breaking their bargain or fearing she didn't reciprocate.

If Charles loved Margaret and they were happy together in their present lives, I'm not so sure their Smithy/Paula days mattered that much, given the writers' complete dismissal of their baby who was used merely as a prop for an idyllic 'and baby makes three', then eliminated and basically ignored. Obviously in real life, the fact that these two people had had a child together in their Smithy/Paula lives would have been important, something Charles was entitled to know.

I think the writers were totally fixated on the stereotypical view of romantic love as that idyllic honeymoon country cottage, that Charles simply must remember this blissfully romantic newlywed period. However, I believe the long term blossoming of friendship and respect into true love makes a better tale. I found the Charles/Margaret relationship much more interesting than the Smithy/Paula one.

[–] supergran 14 years ago

You're right in many ways and, if Charles had not possessed some awareness of those lost years, he and Margaret could have been very happy together. But he was conscious that he had once loved someone very deeply, and that kept him from committing totally to Margaret. And Margaret knew it.
The ending in the film was necessary as a sort of convergence of the "blissfully romantic newlywed" love and the "friendship and respect...true love" to make something whole and complete.
I'm not so cynical as you about the newlywed period. I look back with fondness on that time in my own life, and later when my children were born. Now, thirty-six years later, we are more mature, but they are just different stages of normal married life.
Thinking of the Smithy/Paula relationship, though, the basis for it was insubstantial. Smithy had lost his memory and was not a "whole" man, as it were. And Paula was essentially his nursemaid. So, although it took many long and painful years, the relationship at the very end was much more satisfactory - the uniting of two strong and equal human beings.

Just a thought - the baby may have died in the post WW1 Spanish 'Flu epidemic.

"You don't understand, Osgood. I'm a MAN!"
"Well, nobody's perfect!"
Some Like It Hot.

[–] justaudrey 14 years ago

I think so, too.

[–] dpharrington 13 years ago

Yes, he calls her "Paula" then and thus provides an epiphany. But the question remains: Just why did Paula need to change her name, presumably when she went to work as a typist?

[–] Magic_313 11 years ago

Paula was just a stage name.

Time - Phrase
00:16:23 What did they call you at that place?
00:16:27 Smith.
00:16:28 It's not my real name.
00:16:33 - What's yours? - Paula Ridgeway.
00:16:37 That's not my real name, either.

[–] rockcairn69 11 years ago

I always found it odd that Smithy didn't seem to have as much angst over his whole early life being missing in his memory than Charles did over those few missing years, which were a lot shorter time in his life, percentage-wise.

And poor Paula/Margaret has the worst of it because she remembers it all!!

"Go back to your oar, Forty One."

[–] supergran 11 years ago

I always found it odd that Smithy didn't seem to have as much angst over his whole early life being missing in his memory than Charles did over those few missing years, which were a lot shorter time in his life, percentage-wise.

Ah, well, during those relatively short years he'd met and married the love of his life! This film is a romance after all.

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[–] vertigothic70 8 years ago

I always found it odd that Smithy didn't seem to have as much angst over his whole early life being missing in his memory than Charles did over those few missing years, which were a lot shorter time in his life, percentage-wise.

Funny, now that you've mentioned it... yeah. It didn't seem odd to me while I was watching though.

I did find it puzzling that, after he 'is Charles again', he doesn't make more of an effort to find out what had happened during those three years. He was a rich man, he could have had ads put in papers, hired detectives... If he had been really determined, it seems to me it would have been by no means impossible to solve the mystery. Furthermore, he couldn't shake the feeling of loss, but he didn't appear to consider that he might have responsibilities towards someone?

The story is far-fetched anyway, so this minor quibble didn't spoil my enjoyment of the movie.
It was mostly Paula/Margaret I sympathized with and whose courage I admired. Of course Smithy/Charles couldn't help falling in love with her - twice. Greer Garson was luminous. The ending made it all worthwhile, that's as it should be.

clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...

[–] jennylynmasters 8 years ago

Hopefully Paula was still young enough to have another child. It was sad that their baby died. According to the novel twenty years had past between their first meeting and when "Smithy" regained his memory from the lost years. In the movie it seems more like fifteen years elapsed. If Paula was young at the beginning of the story, she could possibly have been able to have more children.

We're on a mission from God.

[–] TheChamCham 8 years ago

This entire thread is one huge spoiler !!!

Happiness often sneaks through a door you didn't know you left open.- John Barrymore

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]