MovieChat Forums > Mr. Skeffington (1944) Discussion > why was Job the bad guy? How about Fanny...

why was Job the bad guy? How about Fanny?


As much as I love this movie, I have never understood why it was acceptable for Fanny to divorce Job because he had "5 secretaries", yet Fanny's behavior was always accepted. I know that she told her "friend" who was the ganster that she was a woman who believed in keeping her marriage vows....but there was hardly a man in NY that she was not with. Does not make sense.

reply


Fanny wasn't sleeping with the men. she was just flirting with them.

Apparently Job was sleeping with the secretaries, because he didn't dispute the divorce.

This is a logic free zone:
Use of logic will be met with uncomfortable silences

reply

[deleted]



Job didn't dispute the divorce because he was a GENTLEMAN.




reply

Job knew it was futile to dispute Fanny. She was probably sleeping around too, and Job knew she was a hypocrite, but he loved so much he let her go.

I'll drink to that.

reply

I don't think that she was sleeping with the men....she was too much of a "little girl"...to even think of it.

at least..that's what I took from the movie...:D
This is a logic free zone:
Use of logic will be met with uncomfortable silences

reply

Know, I think fanny was fully aware she was a woman, and the fact that she always had men fawning over her helped her realize that. I'm sure she was sleeping with that mobster guy, probably becuase he was rich, and also to get back at her husband.

Isn't is divine? Jungle Red!

reply


I don't think she was sleeping with him.
This is a logic free zone:
Use of logic will be met with uncomfortable silences

reply

As much as I love Bette, Fanny was a hobag. I think she just used the fact that Job was sleeping around to make it easier for her to ditch and pawn little Fanny off on him.

She was not a very nice lady.

Isn't is divine? Jungle Red!

reply


Fanny was NOT sleeping with the other men.
This is a logic free zone:
Use of logic will be met with uncomfortable silences

reply

[deleted]

You're probably projecting your current worldviews and customs to people back then. I don't think Fanny was sleeping around, she flirted though.

reply

I don't think that she was sleeping with the men....she was too much of a "little girl"...to even think of it.


And probably frigid, too, for the same reason.
(Much like Scarlett O'Hara.)

I credit Bette with letting these nuances show through.




reply

I agree with claudia, Fanny was not sleeping with the other men in her life.

That aspect is consistent with her character. It makes her look even more vain and gives her something to hold over Job Skeffington.

reply

Oh, I disagree with you all. I think that Fanny WAS sleeping around. I think that Job was NOT. And I think that he didn't dispute the divorce because his love for Fanny was so pure that he would allow her to get away with this dishonest fraud just because she wanted to. Plus I think that he felt guilty for coercing Fanny into marrying him when she clearly didn't love him.

reply

I can see Fanny not sleeping with most of her admirers, but I have a hard time buying it with McMahon, he didn't seem the type to put up with teasing.

(\ /)
(O.o)
(> <)

reply

Fanny wasn't sleeping with the men, just flirting. Vincent Sherman himself says so in the DVD commentary track.

reply

okya, I know she was not sleeping with any of them, but come on... she was always entertaining them. what man in his right mind would put up with that? i still think that is one area that the movie is so off base and unrealistic. But I do love the movie.

reply

It never occurred to me to think about either of them sleeping around. Job was an old style "gentleman" who, despite it all, loved Fanny and would not let her (his wife and the mother of his beloved daughter) be dragged through the mud. He (once again) took it on the chin for Fanny.

reply

We can't look at the sexuality of this movie with a year 2007 lens.

For the time, Fanny's scandalous behavior was simply to go out on the town with these other men and flirt. THat was incredibly scandalous. She would not have endangered her "position" by incurring the possible dangers associated with actually sleeping with the men she toyed with.

On the other hand, Job may have been sleeping with the secretaries. He seemed so genuinely in need of some kind of connection and love ... and may have been willing to disregard society's taboos in order to get what he needed ... from someone.

reply

I normally do not condone infidelity at all. However, think of Job's situation: Fanny does not love Job. At all. She is a mercenary bitch who only married him so her worthless SOB brother wouldn't go to jail. When her brother
dies, she cruelly blames Job and all but screams from the hills that she's now stuck with "kind, gentle, sickening" Job. She takes up with suitors, and whether or not she sleeps with them is beside the point... Fanny has treated her husband heartlessly, neglects him and her daughter, and created a damaging environment for them.
So, no, I don't blame Job at all for sleeping with his secretaries, though I think he was stupid for not demanding a divorce from Fanny earlier.

"Will you stop feeling sorry for yourself?! It's bad for your complexion!"-"Sixteen Candles"

reply

I think the whole point of this was to show the hypocrisy: Fanny had NEVER truly been a faithful wife. Not in the physical sense, but had never loved, cherished or nurtured Job in any way. Or their child either for that matter.

Job slept with other women but still (for God only knows what reason) truly loved Fanny. He was faithful to her in his heart. She was ONLY faithful to him with her body because, as another poster pointed out, she was still childlike and probably never had those physical desires. That's just my take.

reply

It probably wasn't, and Job probably could have used Fanny's own behavior as grounds for a countersuit, but at that point he was probably happy enough to get out of the marriage and on with his life. How else to explain why he insisted on giving Fanny a far greater settlement than she was apparently legally entitled to?

reply