MovieChat Forums > Carousel (1956) Discussion > Umm...He hit me and it felt like a kiss?...

Umm...He hit me and it felt like a kiss???

posted 14 years ago by abracafabulous
35 replies | jump to latest

This film is so offensive to women...
I know this was made in 1956 and everything but that doesn't mean it can condone violence against women.
If it wasn't enough that the women in this musical act like complete imbeciles...
We get this lovely quote:

Louise Bigelow: I didn't make it up, Mother. Honest, there was a strange man here, and he hit me hard. I heard the sound of it, Mother, but it didn't hurt. It didn't hurt at all. It was just as if he kissed my hand.
...
Louise Bigelow: But is it possible, Mother, for someone to hit you hard like that - real loud and hard, and it not hurt you at all?
Julie Jordan: It is possible dear, for someone to hit you, hit you hard, and it not hurt at all.
[they embrace]

That's right folks... he hit me and it felt like a kiss...
wonder if this inspired the song.

Again, I realize that it was made in the 1950's, but it's just so appalling!!!
The main character is a scumbag, and the women don't care...how nice.

------------------------------------------
Our Love is God. Let's go get a slushie.

[–] rorysa 14 years ago

Every year or so, someone trots out this old canard, which I have thoroughly trashed on this board: see my 2/12/06 post in the thread "Well I like it" and my 8/29/07 post in the thread "Feminist viewpoint?"

Bottom line: this film IS offensive to women...who misinterpret films and plays.

[–] bluesguy 14 years ago

This film is just plain lame.

[–] musicrocks9 14 years ago

I agree, but that doesn't make this film any less enjoyable, plus your opinion isn't going to ban this movie, so take a deep breath, let it go, and enjoy it. It's just a moive.

"Twas I, but I used to beat her!" -Cover Girl 1944

[–] ssywak 14 years ago

Just watched the whole movie (including the beach sequence which felt quite "tacked on"), but there are a number of scenes where Shirley Jone's character accepts her husband's violence as proper and loving. But that last line--"He can hit you really hard and it doesn't hurt at all" is very offensive. My wife, my daughter and I all commented on it.

[–] akira_2108 14 years ago

Pretty tame compared to today how violence by women against men in film is not only condoned but celebrated as humour and a woman's act of moral superiority. In any case this so-called condoning of violence against women is realistic as many women are addicted to badboys who abuse them. Far more exciting than being with some boring nerd who is afraid to even touch her. Not a misogynistic projection just reality sad but true

[–] nocomputer1962 13 years ago

I agree. A classic R&H musical nearly ruined by what can only be called a pro-domestic violence agenda. Even the song "Stonecutters Cut It on Wood" seems to be a celebration of women's attraction to scumbags.

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

Oh, yeah, you have REALLY figured it out: Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II were out to promote wife beating. What a brilliant analysis. What shrewd insight. We are dealing with some deep thinkers here, folks.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nocomputer1962 13 years ago

I'm not convinced that R&H want us to dislike Billy and Julie. In fact, all through the play, we are given clues that their relationship is OK, and those who would pass judgment on them are the "real" bad guys. There's even the standard scene where the gossipy ladies in the town badmouth Billy and his abusive behavior. Anyone who's ever seen a musical knows that you're automatically supposed to disagree with anything that the gossipy townspeople say. (Examples: the book-banning ladies in THE MUSIC MAN; Millie's city slicker friends in SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS.) So, when one of the ladies says (paraphrasing), "He says he beats her because he's frustrated by not having a job. What a dumb reason to beat your wife," we're actually being manipulated into siding with Billy. (Although I still don't.)

And then there's Mr. Snow, a sincere and decent guy, who, as depicted here, seems dull and out of touch. If R&H really intended CAROUSEL to be an indictment of domestic violence, shouldn't Mr. Snow be the hero, rather than the comedy relief foil?

Go ahead: convince me that I don't "get it."

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

Well, you don't get it. Here is a part of my post back in '06:

Those who think "Carousel" condones wife-beating (and daughter-slapping) have completely missed the point. Does anyone truly believe Rodgers and Hammerstein were trying to promote spousal abuse? If you know anything about these gentlemen, you know this cannot be true.
Have you forgotten the many characters who criticize and deride Billy's violent behavior (I hope I'm not leaving anyone out): Carrie, Cousin Nettie, the Starkeeper, the Heavenly Friend, Mrs. Mullin, and Enoch Jr. And when confronted with the accusation, Billy twice makes a lame attempt to defend himself and the third time makes no response at all.
What of Julie's heartbreaking comment to Louise near the end of the film that it is possible for someone to hit you and it not hurt at all? Come on, folks, look beneath the text! She is obviously trying to state poetically and metaphorically (as she did in "What's the Use of Wondrin'") her undying love for Billy, despite his shortcomings.

What I said then hasn't changed.

The sentiment about hitting someone and it not hurting originally comes from "Liliom"--it ends the show. In "Carousel," with Julie expressing her love for Billy with the "not hurt at all" line, R & H wanted Billy to also express his love for Julie to close their show.

What "gossipy ladies"?? Are you talking about the major characters of Nettie and Carrie? Their criticism of Billy is supposed to actually be a manipulation of the audience to side with Billy? Whay kind of interpretation is that? "Carousel" presents Billy throughout as a deeply flawed character in need of redemption. Anyone who doesn't get that completely fails to understand this show.

This criticism of "Carousel" seems to have eluded critics over the past 65 years, including Time which named it the best musical of the twentieth century. Some people ought to take off their politically correct glasses once in a while. I had seen this movie numerous times before I heard this criticism and had never considered that any commentary was being made about spousal abuse.

[–] nocomputer1962 13 years ago

Bottom line, Billy is the protagonist, and all of the supporting characters who rightly criticize him are seen by Billy as antagonists. Most moviegoers are not like the super-discerning rorysa; they tend to go along with whatever the protagonist does, and disagree with whatever the antagonist says. (It doesn't help that most of the supporting actors, other than Gene Lockhart, play their roles as sanctimoniously as possible.) I imagine it's easy for some to sit on a pedestal and judge the rest of us, but I still think the film BEGS to be mis-interpreted by knuckle-dragging Neanderthal types. (Mitigating factor: most spouse-abusers would never watch a musical, and would therefore not be influenced by this one.)
And I'm still not sure why the decent, respectful character of Mr. Snow is depicted so foolishly.

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

Mr. Snow is kind of a sanctimonious stuffed-shirt, though he has his good qualities too. Does every character have to be so black and white for you? Can't you appreciate a musical that has three dimensional realistic characters who aren't painted with the broadest of strokes?

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

According to your logic then, R & H were not only promoting wife-beating, they also were big supporters of armed robbery, because that's what the protagonist did. I think audiences are capable of recognizing flawed protagonists, even if they aren't as "super-discerning" as I am--they just have to be a bit more mature than you are.

[–] nocomputer1962 13 years ago

I just think you're giving Rogers and Hammerstein credit for having more subtlety than they actually deserve. Like it or not, their other musicals DO paint characters in shades of black or white. (OKLAHOMA: Good-natured Curly vs. Date-rape arsonist Jud; THE KING AND I: Good-hearted Anna vs. Martinet King; THE SOUND OF MUSIC: Act I: Music-loving Maria vs. Martinet Captain von Trapp; Act II: Von Trapp family vs. Nazis. Not much room for ambiguity here.) If CAROUSEL is trying to paint characters in shades of grey (which I'm still not convinced that it is), the film version would have benefitted by having a more versatile actor than Gordon Macrae as the lead.
A younger Cagney would have worked fine; or, better yet, just give Frank Sinatra the extra salary that he wanted for filming two versions simultaneously.

[–] nocomputer1962 13 years ago

By the way, your argument is not enhanced by aspersions against my maturity level. And my grandson feels the same way.

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

1) Maturity is not necessarily related to age. Your grandson may be more mature than you are.

2) Rodgers and Hammerstein's characters came from other sources. Billy Bigelow may be the character they changed the most--Liliom was pretty much just an unredemptive lout. One reason I like "Carousel" so much is that the lead characters are so much more colored than those in most every other musical, including the other R & H shows (I think only the King is as finely drawn as Billy and Julie). I don't mean that other R & H characters are not well realized, only that they aren't as rich as Billy and Julie.

3) I am a Frank Sinatra fan, BUT

4) The replacement of Sinatra by MacRae in "Carousel" was one of the most fortuitous happenstances in the history of cinema.

[–] nocomputer1962 13 years ago

I read LILLIOM a few years ago, and had the same problems with the domestic violence angle. I usually like Molnar's work, but LILLIOM just seemed creepy and dated to me. (At least R & H had the good sense not to end their show with Molnar's nauseating last lines.)

I just don't buy Gordon MacRae as Billy Bigelow. Granted, he had the perfect singing voice for this score, but he can't make viewers care about his unsympathetic character. It would be like casting Patrick Swayze as Jake "Raging Bull" LaMotta. He's in over his head, in my opinion.

On the other hand, Sinatra had a run in the 1950s of successfully playing train-wreck characters who we watch in spite of ourselves. (Think: FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, SUDDENLY, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM, etc.) Furthermore, since Sinatra was about the same size as Shirley Jones and the daughter, we could at least have taken heart in the possibility that his family had a fighting chance against him. (MacRae's figure is so imposing, that he just comes off as an insurmountable bully.)

Lastly, in 1990, I saw 74-year old Frank Sinatra perform the entire "Soliloquy" song without a hitch. Nobody in the arena seemed to mind that his version wasn't operatic enough.

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

You certainly don't have to convince me that Sinatra was a great singer. But listen to his recordings for this film--he crooned the songs. He simply does not have a legitimate stage voice. MacRae's rolling baritone was perfect. As I've said on this board before, I read an article many years ago quoting vocal director Ken Darby saying that Sinatra had trouble recording "Carousel's" songs; his voice was less than strong. MacRae came in and with a voice as clear as a bell nailed the recordings on the first take.

You aren't the first one to jab at MacRae's acting, but I thought he was excellent here, and I don't think Sinatra's acting was any great shakes.

[–] cobbcl87 13 years ago

I disagree that R&H only create black and white characters. And, I think it's odd that you cite the king as an example of a black and white character. He's incredibly complex, hence "Something Wonderful." And what about Rolf in the Sound of Music? Joe and Nellie in South Pacific, who are racists on one hand, but basically good people on the other?

If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not bleed? ARE WE NOT HEAVY BLEEDERS?

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

If your comments were directed at me, clcountry, you have misread my posts. I cited the King as a character as rich and nuanced as Billy and Julie, the kind of characterization rarely seen in musicals.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) a year ago

I'd have picked Elvis Presley.

[–] oldempire 13 years ago

I'm just watching this musical after some years away from it. I'd forgotten quite how strange it is. To quote my wife: "It leaves a bad taste in your mouth". Sadly I have to say that I agree.

[–] boxerrebellion 10 years ago

That reminds me of what my Mom told me about Faulkner's books when I was in high school - that she always felt like she needed a shower after reading them.

[–] hodie 11 years ago

I'm a woman and this is my favorite musical. It's not as if Billy did anything but hit her once. She chose to forgive him for that. And that was HER choice.

"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

[–] krazyj2472002 10 years ago

I feel this way about the highly acclaimed "Quiet Man" with John Wayne. Someone thought I would like it and I was appalled! I usually can enjoy a 'dated' films realizing 'it was a different time' but there are some things I don't think you can shrug off and consider entertainment.

[–] rorysa 10 years ago

It seems to me that those persons who are beside themselves about Julie's love for Billy, despite his hitting her, must really be apoplectic about Nancy in "Oliver."

[–] nocomputer1962 10 years ago

Now that you mention it, the song "As Long As He Needs Me" kind of turns my stomach. I can't tell if the song is meant to be ironic or just pathetic. Either way, Nancy's fate doesn't exactly vindicate her wretched taste in men.

[–] Shimmer_Me_Timbers 10 years ago

I don't consider myself a feminist but that part irritated me.

Pretty much the moral of this story is that if he hits you it means he loves you but if it hurts it means you don't love him enough. Really?

[–] rorysa 10 years ago

You have utterly and completely misinterpreted this story and its morals.

[–] Shimmer_Me_Timbers 10 years ago

Please enlighten me then.

I'm willing to give the movie another go if you can tell me what the correct story and morals are.

[–] rorysa 10 years ago

Read my other posts.

[–] RbDeraj 8 years ago

I wasn't alive in the 50's but I'm pretty sure it wasn't acceptable in society for men to beat their wives just as it isn't today. Women might have been expected to be more submissive back then but this definitely would have been frowned upon. This movie was just dumb. Worst musical I've seen in a long time.

[–] tzukeeper 8 years ago

It was because of their class, dum-dums. Did you catch all their broken English?

Just like in Oliver! Bill Sikes beat the crap out of Nancy. Actually, I think he beat her to death.

"What would you like to see on your honeymoon, Mrs. Cord?"
"Lots of lovely ceilings."

[–] liscarkat (16515) 7 years ago

The original poster is right. Julie and her daughter regard Billy's violence toward them as an expression of love. It's just sick. Billy is a loser, a moron, and an a-hole. That's the problem with this movie.

[–] laurence01 (12) a year ago

Does it not occur to anyone that Louise is not hurt because she is being hit by a ghost.