So my take is that Kate committed suicide when she stood over the waves and imagined herself in a heaven which the guy actually loved her. We didn't see the jump of course.
Because it made no sense that the guy actually loved her and not Pat all these years.
The film only took place over one year. And Bill wasn't truly in love with Pat. He was growing to love Katie, but the glamorous and forward Pat got in the way. Think about what the artist said to Katie, that she was the sort of woman who wanted love to be a grand passion, where the man would sweep her off her feet. Since Bill didn't do that, and was so swept away by Pat, she believed he never loved her. Quite believable considering that she always felt overshadowed by Pat, and Pat treated her like a nonentity.
shareThat was the only thing I did not enjoy about this movie, the ending, which gave in to the usual happy ending.
shareI think you are getting names mixed up. Pat (mean sister, who married Emerson) is the one who died, thrown overboard in the storm and lost at sea. Katie (nice one)lived, but because she had on ring (which came off Pat's hand and Katie put on)everyone thought she was Pat and in order to "get" Bill, she let the ruse continue. One she saw the mess that had become Bill and Pat's marriage, she realized "Oops, big mistake!)
share[deleted]
I too liked the movie and the ending as well.
shareI like to believe that as well, I mean he called Kate a cake without frosting and then he suddenly loves her and everything's alright and they live happily ever after? I really prefer to think that this film has actually a darker, more realistic ending.
sharehe called Kate a cake without frosting and then he suddenly loves her and everything's alright and they live happily ever after?
[deleted]
He didn't call Kate (nice sister) a cake without frosting, he says it to Pat (mean sister) the first time they've met/dinner, when he thought she was Kate.
shareI don't like the ending at all! The Heiress has much better ending.
shareThose of you who can not tolerate happy endings must be leading desperately grim, neurotic, miserable existences. Or is this something you were taught to say by the effete intellectuals who teach film classes?
An unhappy ending is no more "realistic" or "sophisticated" than a happy one. It certainly was not "tacked on" (film class cliche), but was the only conclusion that would have given this story any meaning.
----------
He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45
Maybe. But the film didn't really move steadily towards the ending we were given. A lot of time was taken up with Kate's determination to be a good artist and her relationship with Karnock, who seemed much more in tune with who she was and wanted to achieve. Suddenly, that all went by the wayside. She ditched art and she ditched Karnock, in favour of maintaining her 'grand passion' for a man who behaved towards her with spectacular insensitivity. And we're supposed to believe that this man would bring her permanent happiness.
You don't need to have gone to film school to know that this was all completely implausible. I suspect the Hayes Code had a hand in this - maintaining the conservative trope that, when a woman falls in love, that becomes her entire life goal. Pursuing an artistic career and an affair with a very sexy artist were out of the question. Not conducive to American 'family values'.
This film was a remake of an earlier film with Elisabeth Bergner. How did that one end, anybody know?
shareThe film is very rare. I've tried to track it down, but no luck. Michael Redgrave played the Glenn Ford character, and he was an adventurer and mountaineer. The setting is central Europe - fair enough, as the novel was written by a Czechoslovakian, Karel J. Benes. All I know from what I've read is that the ending takes place in the Acropolis of all places. And, yes, it appears she ends up with the same creep that threw her over for her sister.
shareAs regards the Hayes code, how is it that they missed the fact that Kate is attempting to have an adulterous relationship with her late sister's husband? To be sure, she fails, as he insists she break off with her (sister's) lover before he'll continue the relationship, but it's strange they didn't object. However, as Jay Presson Allen said, "These guys weren't rocket scientists. A lot got by them." (I wonder how the Catholic Legion of Decency dealt with this film. They actually objected to The Miracle on 34th Street for showing a divorced woman in a favorable light!)
By the way, how are they going to continue? Is Kate going to continue masquerading as Pat or is she going to reveal her true identity publicly--which might have legal repercussions.
Yes, it's a minefield of moral hypocrisies. If she fully intended to sleep with Bill under false pretences, that could be construed as rape. She could also have faced arrest for fraud and for misleading an official investigation, which the film chose to ignore. It all comes down to the 1940s Hays Code doctrine that a 'good' woman can get away with anything on film if she gives her love totally and completely to one man. I also found it annoying that she finally abandoned her scheme, not because it was morally wrong, but because she was so outraged at how much Pat had hurt Bill. Always blame the woman. The film never once held Bill to account for his randy stupidity or his sexual snobbery about cakes and frosting.
Having said all that, I still perversely love the film.
I agree! I'd like to see the original too.
share