I've loved this movie for years, but this just occurred to me last night:
Since Harry left Jennifer on their wedding night, couldn't she just have her marriage annulled, without having to prove Harry's dead?
Anybody know (or care)?
Watching it now and you are so right -- but then there wouldn't be a movie!
shareI'm not so sure about that. Harry did try to track her down - she took off, changed her name and hid from him etc., And she may have been charged criminally for hiding the boy from Harry...oh damn, now I don't remember...was the boy Harrys ?? If so, she'd have some 'splaining to do and the courts back in the 50's would have taken a dim view of her actions to say very least.
'...sickness and health' etc. Harry could have come up with a dozen excuses for the wedding night - her word against his.Feel better now ? LOL !!
Arnie was her child from her first husband, Harry's brother, but I think she was still pregnant when she married Harry.
shareHe left her on their second night of marriage.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ishshare
What Poppy Transfusuion said:
Jennifer left Harry after their second night on the honeymoon.
It's implied that Harry performed his husbandly duties on their first night.
Therefore the marriage would have been consumated - no grounds for annulment.
The marriage was unconsummated.
Jennifer was not willing to have a sexless marriage.
The real problem was that Harry was gay. Not a problem now, given, and it shouldn't have been a problem then, but he should not have gotten married to a woman who expected a marital relationship with him as did Jennifer.
Arnie was the child of her first husband, Harry was Arnie's uncle.
The references to 'washing the dishes' were references to personal self-satisfaction.
Yes, Jennifer could have obtained an annulment but that requires written agreement from both parties the marriage was unconsummated. With Harry dead, it would be a trifle difficult to obtain those signatures.
Where are you getting the idea that Harry performed his husbandly duties on the first night? Jennifer clearly states he never showed up because of his horoscope in the magazine in the lobby of the hotel?
She was left alone in her new negligee sitting alone with the moon all night long, Bahamamama. Jennifer had no Harry, no sex, and no consummation.
QUOTE: "Where are you getting the idea that Harry performed his husbandly duties on the first night? Jennifer clearly states he never showed up because of his horoscope in the magazine in the lobby of the hotel? "
because Harry didn't show up on the SECOND night of the honeymoon. Which leaves open the assumption that the first night of their honeymoon went according to plan
Jennifer - "It was on the second night of our honeymoon that I found out the truth about harry"
Sam - "You didn't find out on the first?"
Hitchcock has lots of queer content in his films - Rope being the most obvious, but also that character of bruno is Strangers On A Train, Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca, lots of his early british stuff (even the mincing queen of a clothes designer in his first silent film "The Pleasure Garden"), but I really think that claiming that Harry was gay is stretching it, especially since he essentially went on to try to rape Miss Gravely after he got hit on the head with the bottle.
Jennifer - "It was on the second night of our honeymoon that I found out the truth about harry"
I am in the UK,and here an anullment will only be granted for "non consumation" and for that 2 witnesses are required.In the movie one of these(Harry) was dead.The only other way(under UK law) is for the woman to prove herself a virgin.We have to remember these laws were brought in when a woman would remain intact until her wedding night.I don't know what requirements are in the USA to obtain an anullment?
"There is no road that has not a star above it"
Ralph Waldo Emerson
[deleted]