MovieChat Forums > I'll Be Seeing You (1945) Discussion > SPOILER ALERT - a question for those who...

SPOILER ALERT - a question for those who've already seen film

posted 15 years ago by poetryqn
14 replies | jump to latest

Can anyone who was alive during the war years clear this up for me? I hate to sound ignorant, but have attitudes changed so much? It seems to me that Sarah should have been able to claim self defense against an attempted rape. Even with the condition of a body after falling 14 floors, the medical examiner would be able to show that the deceased was intoxicated. I'm sure that Sarah had bruising that would corroborate her story of being attacked. Even a public defender should have been able to get her off. So, when I heard manslaughter, I got mad. Or were attitudes about a single woman being alone in a man's apartment enough to get her convicted? i.e. A good girl wouldn't have been in this position so she must be guilty of something. She even comments that if she had left, no crime would have been committed. (although I see the bigger fault - both morally and criminally - in the boss's trap)

Again, I apologize for getting stuck on this, but it's so hard to understand the values and attitides of an era before I was born. So, is it a movie plot point, or was it actually likely for a woman in Sarah's position to be convicted?

Thank you to anyone who can clear this up.

[–] vonhangman 15 years ago

There is no easy answer to the question. Sarah herself admits a manslaughter occurred. How the authorities concerned would respond to that would depend on a whole range of different factors, involving Police and the lawyers for the prosecution and defence teams. Not just then, but now too. Why are you sure that Sarah had bruising that would corroborate her story? You are putting a lot of weight on bruises that might not exist. What difference would it make that the deceased had been drinking? That wouldn't prove an assault. Think of it from the prosecutor's point of view. How come Sarah was so suspiciously sober? Perhaps she got him drunk on purpose to make him easier to knock off.

[–] poetryqn 15 years ago

I think we could have a lot of fun actually arguing the case. A prosecutor has to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. That's a higher standard of proof than a civil case, and with good reason. A judge or jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that both a crime occured and that the defendant was the one person responsible. While specifics differ from state to state and even case law changes over the years, generally speaking a prosecutor would have to prove that the defendant either intended to kill the victim (voluntary manslaughter) or that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for safety (involuntary manslaughter). A good example of voluntary manslaughter is a crime of passion. A cop finds his wife in bed with another man, loses it and shoots them both, without thinking.

On the other hand, involuntary manslaughter is when a death is not intended, but the defendant has a reckless disregard for the consequences of his actions. A good case could be made for involuntary manslaughter when two men are fighting and one strikes his head, resulting in death. You can generally prove recklessness if the defendant had an opportunity to leave the scene/fight and freely chose to stay. That's why a death resulting from the defendant trying to escape is not likely to result in a conviction. The physical force she was using was in her attempt to escape. A reasonable woman would be expected to push her assailant away in her attempt to escape. That there was a window behind him was his dumb luck. If he hadn't tried to restrain her from leaving, he wouldn't be dead.

In this case, in the flashback, Sarah specifically describes trying to escape the room and him not only grabbing her, but physically grappling with her with sufficient force to keep her from the door. So, it comes down to the physical evidence introduced at trial and the credibility of witnesses. I tbink there would likely be bruising on Sarah, given the physicality of the pre-fall struggle. Those bruises wouldn't be random. Medical evidence coupled with the defendant's testimony would reveal that the bruising is consistent with her story.

What struck me was that in today's world (ok, let's disregard that most windows don't even open in high rise buildings anymore!) a prosecutor would have a tough time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Sarah acted with reckless disregard for safety in defending herself from physical attack. Remember, in the flash back, he grabes her first without any provocation on her part - no invitation or slap or attack. She's just a good girl in the wrong place. That's what made me think that prevailing attitudes about women and sexuality have changed so much in the last sixty years. In today's courts, I'd argue that there's a good chance that the case wouldn't even have been prosecuted as manslaughter, much less won.

Anyway, that's what I would argue. I was interested not so much in actually presenting a legal defense of Sarah as in asking those folks on the boards old enough to remember, if a forties jury would have been more likely to convict just because a 'nice' single girl would never have entered the boss's apartment once she found out there was no party.

I'm just curious about how evolving societal attitudes might change this whole scenario of guilt. Thanks for your reply. It was fun hashing this out.

[–] vonhangman 15 years ago

I know that your original query was about changing societal attitudes, and I am afraid I can't cast any light on what a jury from the 1940s might have thought about the issue of date-rape.

But I still think you are still placing too much reliance on the likelihood of bruising. Sure, if there was good medical evidence that Sarah had been assaulted, she wouldn't be likely to have been prosecuted. But I don't think what we see of the struggle between Sarah and her boss is consistent with the existence of that kind of evidence. That the boss is trying to force his attentions on her is unquestionable, but whether he was trying to actually rape her is much more ambiguous. The cops arrive on the scene and find a corpse.

And Sarah, remember, is presented in the movie on several occasions as being self-effacing to her own detriment. I would not put it past her to have given the cops a signed confession (to a manslaughter) in her initial shock after the incident; and, in those pre-Miranda times, it would have been hard to argue with that.

Even without a confession, if she didn't have bruises, and didn't have the services of a shark of a lawyer like yourself, and in the absence of a compelling case that her boss was a person of bad character, the court could well have found there was a case made "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Sarah had acted with reckless disregard for safety.

[–] beaslybee 15 years ago

Not that this has anything to do with what you're discussing, but I thought you should know that her name is actually Mary. Her aunt is named Sarah. ;)

[–] orchid_dalloway 15 years ago

To quote the film as directly as I can (having just finished it a few minutes ago) "he was a man, and I was convicted of MANslaughter".
This film makes a very interesting case for the portrayal of women and crime. It reminds me of another film Ginger made 3 years before, "Roxie Hart". Two very different outcomes yet strikingly similar portrayals of "justice".

[–] operabuff67 14 years ago

In many cases of that time, people tended to blame the woman. "What was she doing in his apartment in the first place?" Up until recently, my great-aunt
(my maternal grandfather's sister) was the only one in the family (both sides)
who was divorced. HE divorced HER! HE left HER! HE left HER for another woman.
HE walked out on HER and their two sons, and never contacted them again. But my
mother said that my great-aunt went through hell, because everyone kept saying,
"If you had been woman enough, you could have kept your man!" These same attitudes would probably affect a case like Mary's.

[–] gema6 11 years ago

My grandmother's sister had a very abusive husband in the 50s. Her lawyer told her there would be no way she could get custody (not having a career), so if she wanted to get out of the marriage, she would just have to walk away...leaving her three children. Otherwise, she had to stay and hope she wasn't killed by him.

She opted to walk away. She died a few years ago never having any contact with them ever again...period.

My grandmother knew where the children were, but she also knew that the father had told the children their mother died, so she would never tell her sister where they were.

Just to note, I don't understand why. My mother told me this story and my grandmother wouldn't talk about it, so I never got any details. However, as it turns out, perhaps grandma knew it wouldn't work out well. She didn't want her sister hurt more than she already was hurt.

Somehow, and I don't know how, the adult children found out the true story and instead of being mad at their father, they were mad at their mother. Apparently, they thought she should have stayed and been killed.

So, again, four lives were ruined because according to the law a husband had the right to beat the crap out of his wife and she was simply not good enough if she didn't want to take it.

So, I do believe the courts of the day could convict a woman for defending herself.

Remember, a woman was considered a hussy if she didn't wear a girdle each and every time she went out of the house. My other grandmother owned a corset shop. She sold a lot of girdles, so it comes first hand. In the 70s, a woman was considered loose if she used tampons. One of my aunts recalls having to go to another town to an unknown drug store to "stock up" on tampons to smuggle home.

Now, I believe the world has gone the other way and nothing is too crude. Women let their chests hang out and many look very slutty indeed, and that is considered normal. Even if they are covered, many people wear flip-flops and pajama bottoms in public. Not to mention the men with their pants hanging down. That part of the change is unfortunate.

My mother told me that everyone dressed up to go out when she was younger. They wore nice clothes to the grocery. There was pride in appearance.

This last bit is slightly off topic, but it does show at least some of the differences in thinking.

[–] jdown-1 14 years ago

This isn't reality, it's a movie. I look at her 'crime' from the point of view of the writer. I need a pretty young woman who is serving time, out on furlough. But she cannot be bad, cannot have committed some henious crime, because we want the audience to sympathize with her and wish for her happiness.

So this guides my plot. She's in prison because she was lured to a man's apartment, he atacks her and ends up dead, and she feels remorse. It's a bit of a stretch even for the '40s, but the problem is solved: she's a felon with a dark secret, but still a heroic figure. What matters most is that we feel good when she's embraced by Joseph Cotton as 'The End' appears on the screen.

[–] orchid_dalloway 14 years ago

Also keep in mind that the production code required criminals of "bad" crimes (whatever that means) to suffer bad endings, so she couldn't find love in the end unless she was not really guilty.

[–] Liza-19 14 years ago

The man was also a successful buisnessman, Mary was a nobody. She probably couldn't afford a good lawyer and there may have been a lot of public interest in prosecuting her. Justice ain't always justice.

I don't care about money. I just want to be wonderful. - Marilyn Monroe

[–] KlutzyGirl 14 years ago

I'm 62. Up until at least the late 60's, in most states a woman had only a limited right to defend herself. If she injured the man she could be prosecuted. Now imagine yourself or a woman you care about in her position--with the BOSS, no less--and if you defend yourself too vigorously YOU will go to jail, not him! In the 60's I was a teenager, so I was aware of such things, and I was always shocked at the treatment women received in the courts. Those of you who believe our courts are too liberal now, think about your daughters. Would you want them to go to prison for accidentally killing a guy who tried to rape them? Hopefully not.

[–] yoweetobin 11 years ago

I'm glad this was brought up. I'm 24 years old, and was shocked to see why Ginger had been sent to prison. She was only defending herself from a predator! If this was an example of the attitude toward rape and defending oneself against perverts in the 1940s, I'm glad I live in the 21st century. How frustrating for the women of the time to feel powerless and without options in such a horrific situation!

[–] jobimfan3000 11 years ago

The short answer is yes, mostly.

Don't forget that into the 80s a defense attorney could bring up the fact that a woman wasn't a virgin and/or promiscuous as a part of a defense strategy. Check out "Rape Shield Laws on Wikipedia.

They attitude would have been that because she went alone to the home of a man, she went with the understanding that they would have sex.

I think a couple of other things may have been happening here. She talks about her rough childhood, it's possible that she may have not been a virgin or at least knowledgeable about sex. Also, it looks as though the man was older and wiser, he likely had powerful friends who would go out of their way to silence her and shuttle her off to jail.

Hope this helps!

Darling, I am trouble of the most spectacular kind!

[–] Fred-333 9 years ago

Yes the attitudes and the mores have changed - the movie is 70 years. I was born in 1960 and even then the attitudes had changed - sometimes today I question if we have any values at all.