What was the point? - The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1956) Discussion

[–] gitan-leger 15 years ago

Ask your wife !

reply

[–] Catfishbunter 15 years ago

Well I would if I was married. Any more helpful info?

reply

[–] gitan-leger 15 years ago

Try your mum!

reply

[–] rsgre 15 years ago

Thanks for your comments Catfish, and I understand where you are coming from. You have to have been involved in that generation in some way, to understand the subtleties. We about to celebrate the 65th anniversary of D-Day, and memories are fading fast (and so are the people that were involved). I talk to modern Europeans who act like WWII was 100 years ago, and they don't want to even talk about it..old news, old times. That huge event is just fading into history...just another chapter in the history books. Might have more...

RSGRE

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

rsge says > You have to have been involved in that generation in some way, to understand the subtleties.

I don't agree with this statement but I do agree with the general point that this poster makes. The war happened long before I was born and no one in my family was directly affected because our family came from a country that was not involved in the war.

It may have been called a World War but a lot of people had no direct ties to it. This does not give us an excuse for not knowing. I feel anything that happens on the planet is our collective history and we should know about it. The only way we can learn is for those that were involved to share their experiences. That may be difficult but it's necessary because, as the poster said, as time goes by there are fewer and fewer of those people around.

Movies like this help us to see different sides of the story. The people left at home, like Betsy, had a different experience than her husband Tom, who was there fighting, and Maria, who was simply trying to survive. Their struggles also did not end the day the war ended and even all those years later it continues to be a factor.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] Catfishbunter 15 years ago

Thanks for the comment. For once it's nice to have a response to a question without someone trying to start a flame. I guess you are right, it is a nice portrait of the times, it just wasn't what I was expecting. All in all, it wasn't bad but it did seem a bit bland. You are certainly right about people forgetting about the trials of WWII. It's starting to become ancient history.

reply

[–] rsgre 15 years ago

Thanks for your response Catfish. One of the things that has puzzled me about that generation is how they just took that horrible event in their stride, and just moved on as if nothing had happened...weird. When Tom Roth is insulted and demeaned by his wife, in their kitchen, and just stands there and takes it (after all the horrible combat he had been through), you would have expected him to slap her and walk out. People still had the unability to see beyond the end of their nose, and realize why horrible wars like that happen. They happen because people conform rather than observe and analyze (and take a different, better route). Might have more..

RSGRE

reply

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

And what strikes me about the current young-adult generation is that they can't find a character's humanity interesting because they haven't developed their own. They don't even know what it is.

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

rsgre says > One of the things that has puzzled me about that generation is how they just took that horrible event in their stride, and just moved on as if nothing had happened...weird.

I don't think it's true that the generation involved in the war took it in stride. It was a strange position everyone was in. As was said in the movie, one day a person may be leading a normal ordinary life and the next they're shooting at a bunch of other people for no other reason than country allegiance. Those who had fought in it probably didn't want to come back home and relive the horrible things they had experienced and seen.

The people they could have talked to, the guys with whom they served, had all gone their separate ways. They wouldn't want to burden their families and friends with the details of what they'd been through. Likewise, their families may not tell them of the difficulties they faced knowing it would seem like they were complaining about inconveniences when their loved one had faced life and death situations.

When Tom Roth is insulted and demeaned by his wife, in their kitchen, and just stands there and takes it (after all the horrible combat he had been through), you would have expected him to slap her and walk out.

Tom and Betsy had never spoken of their experiences during the war. He came back a changed man who had probably learned to appreciate all the little things in life. He once had to kill someone for his coat to keep from dying himself. His best friend died by his hand. He made it home alive. After all that, he saw the world differently and he wasn't as driven as Betsy wanted him to be. He didn't lash out at her because he knew she couldn't understand. As hard as it was to hear, he was willing to forgave her.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] rsgre 8 years ago

Good points Mdonin, thank you. Not sure if I would completely agree with my earlier comments today either. Among the other interesting comments written here was that the film depicted a dysfunctional family, not the "Leave it to Beaver", "Father Knows Best" typical TV family depiction of that era. That seems like a pretty bold thing to do,considering those times, and especially in retrospect. Might have more...

RSGRE

reply

[–] Citizenright1 15 years ago

The story of Tom Rath was lived out by millions of American servicemen to one extent or another.

When he was telling his wife about what happened to him over there, that really meant something in 1956. Everybody could relate. And when his wife was saying how she tried to be cheerful in her letters and it was hard because he could already be dead, that resonated too.

When he told her what he did, it also communicated to Americans who weren't there just what our men did to win the war. Because that generation didn't come back and beg to be "understood." Nor did the media then pick everything apart, looking for another way to embarrass America. They came back, went to work and built a great country. Most of the grieving and suffering was done in private.

Roughly quoting Rath.

"I don't know how to make you realize how things were then. Nobody knows who wasn't in the war. I killed 17 men I was actually looking at. Looking right straight at them. Not enemies at a distance that I couldn't see. But persons, persons like you see on the train, in the elevator. I cut a German boy's throat to get his coat. I killed my best friend with a grenade...I was sure that I would never see you again. I was certain that I would be killed in the next action.."

These were all emotions and experiences that were felt by millions in one way or another, and this movie was one way to get those experiences out.

This movie and The Best Years of Our Lives tell the story of the greatest generation.

reply

[–] Ironman54 13 years ago

"The story of Tom Rath was lived out by millions of American servicemen to one extent or another".

Yes, and this is one of the ways these guys dealt with the things they had to do or had seen during that war. A man could look around the room and guess that almost everyone in the room had their own story or maybe a worse one. A 'shared
experience'. The way that war ended was so different from how the Viet Nam War was conducted and ended. 'Nam vets were returned home in drips and drabs over a 10 year or so period. When WWII ended, for the Americans at least, for most only (comparatively speakin' here) 4 years had passed (much shorter time frame than Nam) and all returned home within a relatively short period of time so that ones neighbor, co-worker etc., had just been through the same as you. No doubt this is how/why that generation had an easier time re adjusting to civilian life (not counting those who went through extreme combat/pow experiences).
Both my father and several of my uncles served either in the Navy or in the Marines.None ever talked about their experience(s),each were rather 'severe' kinda guys. I always wondered if either saw extreme combat or whether one did and the other didn't. I grew up on John Wayne movies and always figured that what I saw depicted in those movies is what they had experienced. By the nature of their respective branches of service though I know now that each probably experienced very different circumstances. One off shore on a ship while the other stormed the beaches. Its possible though that the terror of being trapped on a floating target while under attack by Japanese bombers/fighters may have been more terrifying than hitting the beach after it (may have) already been secured. I'll never know though because I will never ask.
The depiction of the baby boomer/tv generation watching the 'shoot 'em ups' oblivious to their fathers (Peck) feelings about hearing/watching shooting, killing etc when he returned home in the evening was so on the money. I do remember being sensitive to this when wrapped up in a Duke Wayne movie or a tv show such as 'Combat' when ever my father would walk into the room. He never said a word. I don't know how I'd deal with that had I been through what they had. One of my uncles absolutely forbid us ever watching 'Hogans Heroes' in his presence. I can only imagine what he must have seen/experienced. More accurately, my aunt would come into the room and ask us,in a hushed voice, to "turn the channel/find something else to watch". We knew she was not speaking for her own concerns. 'Theres nothing funny about a German prison camp'.
I 'get it' now.
If movies are good for nothing else, they're good for helping us to 'never forget' - although judging by some of the posts here, they're not doing the job adequately.

reply

[–] MissyH316 11 years ago

One of the other BIG differences between WWII and Vietnam is how the returning veterans were TREATED. WWII vets returned home largely a welcoming, grateful nation who called them "heroes". Vietnam vets returned home to an unwelcoming, bitter nation of useful idiots who spit on them and called them "baby killers!"

I went from being a toddler to a pre-teen in the 1960's, but even so, for some reason I NEVER liked the Hippies and their anti-war/anti-American rhetoric. At least since then we've woken up to the fact that you can be against a military action while still being supportive of our troops. :-)

Besides, I think WWII was the last real WAR we were involved in AND won decisively. Then the United Nations was created and ever since all we've been involved are basically police actions where our military had their hands tied and not allowed to WIN. We kicked butt on 3 continents in WWII, then can't finish off North Korea, Vietnam, now Afghanistan, etc.? Did we lose our courage to take on the bigger forces behind Communism - the U.S.S.R. and Red China? No... but our leaders sure did.

"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton

reply

[–] MissyH316 11 years ago

Great post! Thanks for sharing. :-)

"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton

reply

[–] bassman592 14 years ago

What struck me about the film, and what its essence seemed to be about, was its emphasis on different characters' responses to ethical situations. There are other, probably better films that have focused on more narrowly defined ethical dilemmas. As a matter of fact, there are even other Gregory Peck films that are probably considered better, for example, "To Kill A Mockingbird". However, this film spotlights and contrasts a whole range of, admittedly, less dramatic ethical dilemmas. That is, less dramatic from a theatrical perspective. But these ethical dilemmas are very "real world", as we would put it today. They are dilemmas that many of us face in our day-to-day, boring, and mundane lives. The beauty of the movie, to me, is that it recognizes that. It is not Homeric in its treatment - it is accessible.

Let me recount a few of the ethical dilemmas highlighted in its 153 minutes:
* killing an enemy for a warm coat
* killing your best friend with a hand grenade, accidentally (but negligently?)
* having sex with a women not your wife
* running out on said woman when you knew she was pregnant (he had orders at the time, but after he got out of the Army he conveniently forgot about her)
* lie in order to save your job?
* lie to your wife about an affair?
* neglect your family for your job
* shower money & things on your kids rather than show them disciplne or love
* attempt to cheat a dying woman into handing over her entire estate
* attempt to derail the career of a colleague in order to get ahead
* forgive your spouse for an affair?

I don't know if this list is exhaustive, but you get the idea. Now, was Tom Rath a "good" man or a "bad" man? Most people, at least by middle age, will have some very up close and personal experience with at least a few of these situations. The point, to me anyway, is that WE are all "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit", and in every one of these situations (and many others like them), we have a decision to make.

So, the point is, how would you decide? And do you consider yourself an ethical person?

reply

[–] rsgre 14 years ago

Thanks for all your insightful comments everyone, came back here to look after I learned that Jennifer Jones died on the 17th. The latest comments are particularly good. That generation of people is going, going, almost gone, and this great film gives us a glimpse of what they went through. Unfortunately, the lessons of the great depression and WWII were forgotten by the later generations, and we are back to another depression/recession and war economy.
At least Russia, Europe, and Japan are at peace now, those wars of conquest gone forever, the draft is over, and people have a greater understanding of war and it's tragic consequences. They did not fight and die in vain...

RSGRE

reply

[–] eastcoastguyz 14 years ago

bassman592, very good points!

reply

[–] ideabook 11 years ago

One major theme of every book Sloan Wilson wrote was guilt. His later books all deal with it in some form. You'd have to read them to follow, but, in this book (Suit) he is focused more on Rath's guilt over his affair than anything else. Rath takes it head-on, and does what he's supposed to do. However, you get the feeling that his wife isn't thrilled with the situation at all. In fact, Wilson's follow up book 'The Man In the Gray Flannel Suit II', which came out in 1984, notes that his wife never really forgave him for the wartime affair and that eventually influenced their divorce (which took place around 1964 in that book). In that book Rath is seriously dealing with the guilt and blames himself for the damage it caused his marriage. Even after he remarries (a younger woman-another of his major plot themes) Rath can't seem to shake his guilt. His Italian son, Mark, turns up in the new book, then runs off and joins the American army and is killed in Vietnam during the 1968 Tet Offensive. Which produces even more guilt for Rath.

reply

[–] pug77 11 years ago

ideabook how did you like this book? I thought it was great and so was A Summer Place. What other books like this book do you recommend?

reply

[–] ideabook 11 years ago

One of my favorites. It brings out life in the 50's and the desire to get ahead in a competitive business world while trying to maintain a normal family life. Tom Rath is someone I relate to personally, as I lived in the same place and faced the challenge of adjusting after military service. I like all of Wilson's main characters in his books. Most are very similar to each other and easy to follow. A Summer Place puts the 'character' in place. If you read his other books you'll see that same person in different jobs, places, families and names, etc.

If you read Gray Flannel Suit you have to read Vol II. I found it a must read but rather disappointing. Tom Rath is in it again, as are most from the first book. However, its set in 1963 and shows Rath going through some major life changes. Wilson admitted later the Vol II wasn't very good, but he wrote it because he needed some money (at the time). He said he rated it as one of his poorest efforts in his career.

reply

[–] samuel-kelly 14 years ago

This thread is now over a year old but I'll contribute my thoughts anyway.

I had the same thought as you did when I was watching this film. "Is the plot ever going to take off?" I asked myself. But then I started to notice that many of the themes struck a chord with me, especially since they are rarely shown in movies. In my opinion, this movie is more about real life than it is about war. It is one of the most real movies I've ever seen. It's different than most movies. Most movies either tell a fantastical story divorced from the experience of the masses or they show life without any significant conflict. The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit does justice to the experience of real people.

Here are some examples:

Near the beginning of the movie, Tom's wife tells him that she has grown to be ashamed of him, that he hasn't lived up to her expectations.

Tom and his wife are a couple who have nice children and live in a nice house and yet feel disgusted with it for some reason. They talk about moving to another state and lobbying to change a law so that they can earn enough money to purchase a nicer house.

Tom has to decide whether to tell his boss the truth or what he wants to hear. His wife wants him to make enough money so that they can live well (by their definition) and yet criticizes him for wanting to make the decision that will help him keep his job.

Tom's boss comes to a realization that he has neglected his family in favor of creating a successful company, resulting in a divorce and a lack of any true relationship with his children. And yet he still derides Tom for being a nine-to-five man who doesn't have it in him to run a business.

This same man later comes to love his ex-wife more than his business and tries to reconcile with her. Yet, he is rejected.

Tom has to decide whether to tell his wife that he cheated on her during the war and when he finally decides to tell her, to do the right thing, she doesn't appreciate that and the whole thing strikes a blow at the very foundation of their relationship.

In the end, none of these conflicts is shown as wholly and finally resolved. This movie tries to show the problems without proposing a general solution.

- Sam

reply

[–] anedeau 14 years ago

I just watched this movie, and remembered it was an award winning movie. I understand the point of the movie, but I agree with you that it was boring and flat. I found waiting for new plot points tedious. I'd rather watch a season of Mad Men.

reply

[–] PussyCrusher_Principal 14 years ago

Maybe that WAS the point? That LIFE is boring, flat, and tedious? And that he went through the horrors of war...for this?

reply

[–] kattysprite 14 years ago

dear force263: exactly.

reply

[–] poetwarrior67 14 years ago

Another point to consider is that the Madison Ave. and public relations types were becoming the subject of ridicule and derision in the 50's and 60's. They were viewed as driving some of the mindless consumerism that was part of the booming 50's economy and TV culture. Many also had less than rigid adherence to the truth and were willing to "do what it takes" to make it to the top (this criticism was also leveled at executives in other professions as well-for instance, see the depiction of the top exec.'s at the insurance firm in The Apartment). These men were seen as such cookie-cutter versions of each other that they were derided as a bunch of gray flannel suits. One of the points of this film is that there were actually MEN in those gray flannel suits. Many of those men, at least those of the age of Peck's character in this film, grew up during the Great Depression and later went off to war. I've always loved the film-more so after I married and had a family myself. It presents a great "slice of life" of the generation depicted but also shows the struggles one must undergo to lead an upright life, while also navigating through the worlds of family and business.

reply

[–] capablecarl 13 years ago

To put it simply:

The point of this movie is to show the struggle to get ahead, while trying to maintain a balanced personal life in the process.

It's a story that's been told a million times, and will be told a million more.

reply

[–] Ironman54 13 years ago

Good point.

reply

[–] rsgre 13 years ago

I just watched this again after a five year hiatus. More relevant than ever as you get older. Life is a struggle to survive and succeed, and you have to fight hard for the right things. Compromise and understanding are key points in leading a good life, and the struggle never ends until the last breath !

RSGRE

reply

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

The point of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit was to show that the important things in life should be love and family, to be happy and not be motivated by greed and the wrong sense of ambition. Through out the film there are characters whose ambition is only in their own interest. The caretaker wanted the house trying to gain it through dishonest means and Hopkins' daughter who only thought about her own happiness without thinking about the affect her actions had on those around her.

Most importantly there was Hopkins himself. A man who although had suceeded in his ambitions it resulted in becoming distant from his former wife and children making him regret the way he acting in his career. In the end Tom realises the destructive qualities of such ambitions, deciding his family was more important than greed and business.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

[–] viaggio1 12 years ago

Lot of good insights here --- if I may add my own 2 cents --- this was a landmark movie because it was perhaps one of the first American films to admit / acknowledge to Americans that perhaps things were not all "quite right."

Post-WW II, all of the surviving soldiers returned home, eager to put the horrors of the war behind them, eager to get on with their lives, eager to work hard to achieve the American dream of success up the corporate ladder.

This movie revealed the cracks behind these aspirations --- the traumatic effects of not confronting the after-effects of war, the difficulties brought about by hiding emotions or secrets from one's spouse, the hollowness of forever chasing the bigger paycheck for more toil and less rewarding work.

These revelations would have resonated with the returned veterans, but would also have horrified those who had not experienced the destruction and blood-letting of war first-hand.

"J'ai l'oeil AMÉRICAIN !"

reply

[–] nrangerseven 10 years ago

I don't get it either. I love Gregory Peck. The film started off ok. Was waiting for the plot to pick up. Didn't happen. I actually zoned out once he started working for the new place.

Didn't help that his wife was pissed that he only made $7000 in 1956 when my takehome pay is around $12,000 now. I know they have 3 kids but still...that's over $60,000 in today's wages. They weren't hurting as bad as the wife made it out to be. And her home wouldn't be that disgusting if she'd clean it.

It took WAY too long for the letter to come from Maria. Discovering he had a son was the only interesting part of the film. The rest was crap. And the kids being obsessed with death was just creepy.

The people you idolize wouldn't like you.

reply

[–] harley-cross 9 years ago

I agree, by today's standards it is quite bland and boring. Very boring. But you must remember that in 1956 it was a breakthrough film, and was talked about for years. I'd rather watch this then just about any remake (there are no new original plots anymore) on the screens today.

The dog scene is classic.

reply

[–] rsgre 8 years ago

Excellent posts everyone, had completely forgotten about mine a few years ago until IMDB just reminded me of a response. Reading through the responses makes me realize that age counts a lot in your opinion. I had WWII veterans among my relatives so I could relate to it better than younger people who only heard or read about it. Might have more...thanks everyone.

RSGRE

reply