I wonder...


My mother and I watched this today. Firstly, I'd like to say having never seen this movie that I was enthralled by its depth and emotion. I find that some older movies cause you to try to "time travel" back to completely understand the emotions of the moment, if that makes any sense at all. But this movie seems timeless, a quality of all great movies I suppose.

My mum and I were wondering, however, how controversial this movie must have been for its time. It seems that the idea that a woman would have an illegitimate child, and then the movie would ask for you to sympathise with her, would be preposterous and out of the question in the 1940s.

I was wondering if anyone else found this intriguing?

Thanks so much,
beeplaysbass

reply

I wondered too. However, I am positive during wartime (WWI, WW2, etc...) there was a sense of urgency in relationships that caused women back then to act very modern, and not wait. In the case of this movie, I wonder if many of the 1945 women who saw this, might have related Jody's situation to their own--many sweethearts/husbands/lovers were in the service, and many of them lost. Perhaps they had that "What if..." thought about their own lives. What if I'd slept with him....?

Who knows though...as you said, an intriguing thought.

reply

However, I am positive during wartime (WWI, WW2, etc...) there was a sense of urgency in relationships that caused women back then to act very modern, and not wait.
I do agree with you that premarital sex/illegitimate births increased during the years of WWII for the reasons you suggested. What people seem to forget, or maybe just don't realize, is that movies from this era didn't realistically show what was going on in the real world. There has always been premarital sex, children born out of wedlock, prostitution, homosexuality, drug use, etc., but movies during the Hays Code years didn't accurately represent this. Watch any pre-Hays movie and you'll see plenty of sin and degradation. My teenage daughter actually asked me if married people used to sleep in separate beds, since that what was depicted in old movies.

What I think made this film unusual for its time is the fact that they didn't make Jody an unlikable character, or make her pay for her "sin" in the usual ways (death, ruined life, etc.).



I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

reply

What I think made this film unusual for its time is the fact that they didn't make Jody an unlikable character, or make her pay for her "sin" in the usual ways (death, ruined life, etc.).


Yeah, I found this unusual also. In most movies under the Hays code, a character who had pre/extra marital sex was usually 'punished,' and at the end of the film doesn't get anything they want. It kind of ruins movies like this from this era, because you can always tell how it's going to end.

I guess the reason it was acceptable here because Jodie is punished, her indiscretion causes her to lead a mostly miserable life even if she gets her happy ending eventually.

Your future is all used up...

reply

I thought this was an interesting question and asked my Mom if she'd seen the film or remembered any discussion along these lines at the time. She said she had and she didn't, but she knew that it wasn't rated "Condemned" by the Catholic Legion of Decency - she wouldn't have been allowed to see it (she was 17) if it had been. I think Regina's right - "because Jodie is punished," she's allowed a qualified happy ending after she's done penance. Also because she accepts her punishment - she doesn't argue when her friend the nurse tells her, "You sinned" and her father refers to her "mistake" - and sacrifices her personal hopes to the child's best interests. Not to mention the sacrifice made by the baby's father - if Jodie had gotten pregnant by a traveling salesman or some guy she met at a bar, very different story.

Anne

reply

But she did get punished. She lost her child. I can't imagine the pain that must have caused her.

reply