MovieChat Forums > The Quiet Man (1952) Discussion > A Strong Word Against This Film

A Strong Word Against This Film

posted 12 years ago by tomtac
40 replies | jump to latest

Okay. First of all ... should you see this film? Is it entertaining?

Yeah. Its quality is there, and others here will tell you it is a film with lots of marital comedy and clever jokes and a good story. Classic Hollywood.

Now that that is out of the way ...

A short story -- this movie was based on a short story. I was made to read the short story while in school.

[Warning: spoilers for short story] A man returns to rural Ireland after having spent a decade or so in America. He buys a place, falls in love with a girl and marries her, but makes an enemy of her brother, a jerk who acts like a bully, and who not only refuses to pay all her dowry, but hounds the guy and shames him in front of the people of the town. The guy's response ... is not to physically fight back. He's had enough of fighting, is a kind of pacifist, and prefers to just ignore the insults. Naturally, everyone in town (including his new bride) suspects he is a coward. After all, the bullying brother is a much bigger man. But, eventually, the guy DOES have to fight, and he surprises everyone by skillfully, professionally, and quickly beating the brother unconscious. Only then does the reader find out that this returning Irishman had been a professional prizefighter in America, under the name of "Tiger Kelvin". He had never been afraid of this bully, knowing all the time that he could clean up the floor with him, but really and truly had become a gentle peace-loving "Quiet Man" because he really was tired of fighting.

This story ... it helped shape me. I saw that real men were not so because they could beat people up. Real "strength" would result in gentleness, not bluster. And a good fighter might be so out of skill, even if he was not the biggest man in the room.

Okay? Now ....

A movie -- this short story became a movie.

[Warning: movie spoilers] A big man, Sean, returns to rural Ireland, buys a place, falls in love and marries, but her brother is a bully and hates him and refuses to pay the dowry. Sean prefers to let it all roll off his back, having gotten the girl he wanted, but the girl, the bully, and the rest of the town, sees it differently. Pretty soon in the movie, we find out why he feels this way -- he killed a man, accidentally, while fighting in the ring in America, and he gave up his career and came home to put all that behind him. In the end, he finds that he DOES have to fight the bullying brother, just because that's the Irish way. So he does so -- it's an even match, since they're both big guys, and with the town cheering, and with enough alcohol, the fight is a fun and comic way to spend a big chunk of the movie. Even the clergy and the bishop think this all is great. And, guess what, the brother and Sean start to like each other, and Sean's wife loves them both dearly, now that they've been fighting. After the fight is over, well, all the bad blood is gone and everyone is friends! The brother actually is not a bully, and now he's going to marry the woman that didn't like him before!

Okay? Or not okay?

I remember lots of movies in which the "hero" solves all the problems with his fists. And it helped that the hero was a big guy with powerful right jabs and left hooks. And it turned out that enemies would always feel friendly about each other after they'd fought it out.

After all, that's the way it is in real life? Right? Hey. Right? . . . Look, not 'right'. When I was growing up, fights were only sometimes like that. The biggest kid in the area would rule, simply because he could beat any kids around. He did not turn noble, he did not become everyone's friend simply because he had nothing to fear from anyone. Instead, he would be the town jerk.

Score one for the original short story. While the movie is entertaining, it's a bad object lesson for youngsters in that respect.

The original short story said "Fighting should be avoided, although it is sometimes necessary." The movie said "Fighting is a fun and quick way to make friends out of your enemies." The first saying makes sense, now that I've lived a good chunk of my life. The second saying is idiotic.

Score another one for the original short story.

I liked the short story; the hero returned to Ireland because that's where he wanted to be, and kept his prizefighting to himself because he didn't need to talk about it. In this movie, he changed careers and countries because he could not face what he had done, running from a past he wanted to forget. (And it is strange that, after giving up fighting because of his fear that he hadn't known his own strength and might kill someone else, he quickly decided to fight again and enjoyed going all-out with his brother-in-law. Did he think his killing days were over, or did he no longer care if he killed again?)

There's more I could say, but it all boils down to Hollywood, having to beef a short story into movie length AND produce a happy ending for all involved, actually turning a good story's premise upside down and backwards.

So, "Fighting good!" according to this movie, and "Giant", and "Fight Club". But not according to the original "The Quiet Man".

My advice: Enjoy the film, but keep the above in mind. Let your kids see it, but make sure they understand that a film is a film.

[–] nickm2 12 years ago

Actually I am more puzzled by the appeal of 'Fight Club'....

[–] bari2525 12 years ago

You didn't see the film, obviously.

Sean AVOIDED fighting Will throughout the film. Will was the one who tried to sucker-puch Sean when Sean and Mary Kate threw her dowry money into the furnace after they confronted him working in the fields.

He was standing up for himself (he WAS being attacked), AND his wife from this bully of a big brother.

A bad object lesson? Not in the least.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] nickm2 12 years ago

Great post Bari! And to the OP: I STILL don't get 'fight club'....

[–] tomtac 12 years ago

Bari wrote

> You didn't see the film, obviously.

Um, are you a troll?

Obviously, I did see the film, in fact ran through the thing a second time while I had the DVD.

Yes, he avoided fighting, Will attacked him, Sean fought back. That's in accordance with the original story, too.

The differences are as I listed them. In the film, Sean stopped fighting and returned to Ireland because he was running away from his past and was afraid he might kill someone if he fought. When the fight did happen, the film became a comedy and everyone enjoyed the big fist fight. The former enemies became friends.

Very different object lesson. "Have a fist fight, make friends, it's all good clean fun."

Kind of "The Quiet Man Learns not to be a Quiet Man".

The original story ended about five minutes after the dowry is thrown into the furnace. Will is still unconscious on the ground, while Sean and his wife walk back home, while the narrator reveals the news that Sean was the American prizefighter.

Kind of "Any Quiet Man might be a better fighter than you think, so keep that in mind when you throw your weight around".

Anyway, of course I saw the film.

[–] strntz 11 years ago

Very different object lesson. "Have a fist fight, make friends, it's all good clean fun."

I'm guessing you never Duke'd it out with anyone. Most guys will tell you that a knock down drag out fight often leads to the combatants becoming very good friends afterward.

[–] mangoman1 11 years ago

Very true. Plus, the "idiotic" judgment only applies if one accepts the premise that "fighting good" is the movie's message. I don't, therefore.... :)

[–] grandmabrat 8 years ago

you are right, the fighting is not such a good plot point but at the time, the Irish people were supposedly known for fighting and brawling. I guess they felt they had to keep the stereotype in the movie and, of course, have a happy ending. I am disappointed as I get older and wiser that most of John Wayne movies had fistfights and brawls in them. I especially don't enjoy the ones where he spanks Maureen O'Hara. McClintock and Donovan's Reef don't exactly measure up as honoring women, though John Wayne did usually have strong women characters and did seem to respect the women and women characters in his movies.

[–] carpet_seller 12 years ago

You are correct, this film has VERY BAD morals.

The film glorifies violence between a man and his wife, and says
"to be a man you must be violent to your wife and violent towards other men"

Sean was very brutal to his wife -his wife was very stupid- but that's no reason to be brutal to her.
His wife thought that because he was not fighting her brother he was a coward -this is why she was very stupid- Sean dragged her wrenching her arm out of her socket, pushing and throwing her infront of him onto the ground for 5 miles. Supported and cheered on by the locals. Finally disgarding her to her brother as a peice of property that he no longer wanted. After he punched her brother, she changed completely and admired her husband.

Then we had the "men must fight scene" and all the town enjoyed the fight and the fighters became friends

What a lot of dangerous nonsense - dangerous for the society that creates & and grows up watching films like this.

[–] Princerd 11 years ago

What stupid PC crap!

This movie has nowhere near the violence, brutality, cruelty, marital immorality and other criminally bad behavior and message shown nightly on 'EVERY' major TV network.

[–] carpet_seller 11 years ago

Actually no, the stuff shown on TV networks every night, yes, it has violence but that violence is generally shown as "Bad guys" being violent towards people and the audience hates the bad guys. Or Good guys being violent towards the bad guys (seen as acceptable violence by society). There is not violence of a husband towards his wife, unless it is shown to put the husband in a bad light.

This film TQM, is from an era when marital violence was not treated with the contempt it deserved by society, everyone was to look the other way and think "maybe she deserves it" and the police would not investigate domestic violence. What is extremely troubling about TQM is the way it glorifies marital violence, it doesn't seek to say "what goes on behind closed doors stays behind closed doors, it may be wrong but we will not discuss it and we will look away"....instead it says "A man must be violent to his wife and everyone in the town should support that violence and rejoice in it, she should be taught a lesson and be beaten with a stick."

[–] Princerd 11 years ago

So a kick to the butt is worse than the violence on TV today? I wish you were correct, but there is no comparison between the light hearted interplay between JW and MO'H and the bloody violence of today.

Husband toward wife is all you saw? The 2 of them rehearsed the scene together of him dragging her back to her brother. Her slap of JW was much more forceful than his treatment of her. She actually bruised or broke her hand according to the history of the movie.

What's really stupid is that most of you PC police don't even see the truly "abusive" idea being disparaged in the movie was that of a brother controlling the fate and dowry of his sister. John Wayne's acting out was a result of his frustration stemming from this mistreatment of women rather than acceptance of physical abuse toward his wife.

[–] Foxlair45 11 years ago

Agree. Sean was distressed that Mary Kate could not be her own woman and make her own decisions. It did take him a while to understand her need to contribute to the marriage via her dowry and that contribution would make her (in her eyes) an equal partner. When he understood this, he then was able demand the money from Danaher. And the money itself was not important -- it was simply the symbol of her equal footing as a wife.

[–] mightymike-1 11 years ago

BLOODY HELL! Can't you just enjoy one of the very best flicks ever? How many people don't even know this awesome comedy/love story? How many don't even know that John Wayne made this, for him, a vey atypical movie.

Sheesh! It has - probably - the greatest, longest, comedic fight in a movie of all time. Are you gonna look at every single movie and judge its morality factor or are you gonna just watch some for pure entertainment? And tons of movies digress from the stories or books after which they were fashioned.
And this is also saying nothing about the magnificent cast and their wonderfully acted roles. Ward Bond, for example, was NEVER better. And the guy sitting in the bar, completely ignoring the slamming of the bar top. And the plethora of quotes, my favorite being from Barry Fitzgerald, "When I drink whiskey, I drink whiskey and when I drink water, I drink water."

Come down off your high horse, get off your meds and enjoy the movie. I did.

[–] TanteWaileka 9 years ago

I think you didn't understand the movie. For one thing, Maureen O'Hara was 32 when she acted in this movie, but her character was much younger. Given that the story takes place in the 1930s?? and her character was an irish roman-catholic woman, she could have been 27 or 28 but still a virgin. She was also very much under her brother's 'rule'. The problem is that she LOOKS 'worldly' being in her 30s at the time of the movie.
As a woman who can remember what early-onset 'passion' feels like, it can be confusing. Also, at the this movie was made, John Wayne was 45 years old playing a boxer in his mid 20s. Of course that's not what you see on the screen.
My father was a professional heavyweight boxer until he was almost 30. I was a young child then but I still remember when he retired. Back in the 40s-50s men didn't fight much beyond 30-34 or so. So I am quite sure that Wayne's character had his boxing career cut short by the tragedy of actually killing the other boxer in the ring.

As to 'beating his wife', hmmm, it very much looks like the character, Sean, was going to be beaten by his future wife, probably verbally, throughout at least the first few years of their marriage until their eight children (I hazard a guess) would keep her too busy to indulge in verbal castration of her mate.

This movie is a LOVE story, and it is one of my top ten favorite movies. I think YOU are analyzing it from a totally different cultural perspective.
Love this movie! Am watching it now on Netflix. Blessing to Netflix for adding this movie to their selections.

Life is a journey not a destination. Fear nothing.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 months ago

Who was your father?

[–] KingCobra686 9 years ago

While I agree that there are many elements that are disturbing by modern standards, I think this movie is fairly harmless. Its pretty easy to see that most of the things you mentioned are the consequences of much different societal standards back when this was filmed. I doubt many young impressionable kids are watching this, and most people who are watching are most likely knowledgeable to understand where all the strange morals are coming from.

If a remake of this movie came out now and treated everything the same way I would be disturbed. But I dont expect movies filmed over 60 years ago to conform to modern PC standards.

[–] jimbo97-1 9 years ago

Barry Fitzgerald (as Michaeleen) explained it all during the courting/walking scene when Mary Kate "got her Irish up" at something Sean said and tried to hit him. "You're not married yet. You can't hit him until he can hit you back." I think a lot of "wife beating" happens because the wife won't hit him back.

[–] mangoman1 11 years ago

"movie said 'Fighting is a fun and quick way to make friends out of your enemies.' .. .Idiotic." *Only*, of course, if one accepts the interpretation one's own self put on it -- a straw man, in essence. The message I got was that a man sometimes has to question immutable principles he's laid down for himself, & whether they're always applicable in every case or whether there might not be a case when standing up against tyranny is more important in some cases. Also, it was a John Ford movie. Ford liked stories to have somewhat comfortable resolutions, as did nearly every movie audience back then. Judging yesterday's movies harshly by one's present standards doesn't always do justice either to the film *or* to one's self.

"So, 'Fighting good!' according to this movie," -- If we take 5 minutes out of 130 & insist that's the message of the whole, possibly. Fortunately for me I've never seen 2.6% of *anything* being THE definition of the whole. :)

[–] fasteryoufool 11 years ago

One thing that mitigates this is that it's about rural Ireland in the 1920's. That's how life WAS then and there. It wasn't that different here, either.

Additionally, Mary Kate WANTED Sean to drag her back to Innisfree - WANTED him to fight her brother for her dowry. WANTED him and not her brother to "own" her. That's the way life was. Bleating about an accurate historical portrayal is foolish.

[–] g_dekok 11 years ago

Grow UP and get a life. Have mommy put in the Barney VHS tape for you; it's obvious that you're not mature enough for "The Quiet Man".

[–] slapradd-23769 8 years ago

Thank you for your simple, and to the point comment. I agree with it whole-heartily. The Quiet Man is one of the most visually beautiful films ever made, and the dialog (unlike current movies) does not assume I have the intelligence of a gnat.

[–] cmashieldscapting 8 years ago

Hey, Tomtac, what you said is the main reason that many TV and film adaptations of Robin Hood are great while the book basically sucks...because the book is all about Robin fighting guys he then befriends, except for the really bad guys he fights and does not befriend. I do think there is more to the movie of The Quiet Man than that, though, and in most respects it improved on the short story. The story was in our tenth grade reader, too, and my teacher, some 25 years after the film came out, was unaware it was a movie until I said so! (He had heard of the lead actors, though.)

[–] lee1888 11 years ago

LMAO LMAO, OK I get it, you got your butt kicked in school and you can't get over it. LMAO

[–] lizcarlo87 11 years ago

This movie is comedy. Its no where near as violent as stuff they have in movies. Maureen O'Hara punched him so hard that she broke her hand. There is violence in movies for comedy. There is women punching, pushing, kicking and hurting men for comedy relief.

[–] poetcomic1 11 years ago

Huh?