Am I imagining this or...


Was there a part where the father randomly kissed the girls' slightly arrogant cousin that he had always been a little too nice to in the past? I was mainly just listening to the movie, as I was preoccupied with something else, but I just happened to look up at this bit and was shocked. Unfortunately, I was called away and didn't get to hear the subsequent dialogue that could have explained this weirdness.

Were my eyes playing tricks on me or did this weirdness actually happen? The movie seemed really good (what I saw of it, anyway), and I couldn't believe that something that questionable was in a classic movie.

reply

No, I caught it was well. He speaks later to Elizabeth of love and desire and how evil they are...I think it perhaps speaks of his inability to control his desires, which is why he is so desperate to tamp down any emotion or love in his house.

We are often the greatest critics in others of the sins we are guilty of ourselves.

I'm sure someone else has noted that more succinctly than I...

reply

You are correct, this did happen (although I would not go so far as to call the cousin arrogant, which denotes a haughty demeanor -- she was to me simply giddy and impulsive, and definitely less repressed than her cousins). Note that in a previous scene she actually sat on his lap and rubbed his temples to make his head feel better.

I believe an undercurrent of the storyline concerning the father is he has a repressed desire for his daughters. Although not stated, this could have resulted from unresolved feelings following the loss of his wife for whom he had (according to one scene as observed by Elizabeth) deep affection (or at least not mere token affection, as evidenced by the number of children).

In light of the times and his religious affectations, he tightly controls these impulses, which morph into a rigid control over all his children. There is a definite love/hate relationship on the father's part, especially for his daughters (more like scorn for his sons whom he considers weaklings).

So, when he passionately kisses the cousin, he is shedding a little light on the inner turmoil of his repressed feelings (but quickly puts a lid on this and returns to his cold, stony behavior).

Most of this is of course inference, but a careful examination of the subtle handling of this complex character in a fine portrayal by Sir John may yield similar conclusions for you.

reply

[deleted]

Just watched this now and this father was an incestuous old pervert. Thank God Elizabeth got out and took her dog with her. What an evil man !!!!

reply

She sits on his lap, then SHE kisses HIM! At that point, he pushes her away.

This is a dupicate of the scene in the Thirties film, in which the cousin is far more silly, frivolous and coquettish. She's much more forward than the girl in the remake, trying to get him to smile. I think she even chucks him under the chin. He's played by Charles Laughton, so the atmosphere seems stranger somehow, as Gielgud seems a much warmer person even as a ruler of the household.

In the remake, they stress the creepy father/daughter relationship. The Thirties film isn't as heavy handed.

*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***

reply

She invited him to kiss her, but he did so overly forcefully. Yes, he was an incestuous old pervert and an evil man. He creeped out poor Elizabeth so bad with one speech she left the house with nothing but her dog--which he would have killed had she not taken it!

reply

The kiss and the rest of that was in the Thirties version. The color version is practically a carbon copy except I think the other is so much better. Jennifer looks far too hardy for an invalid, undergoing no change in her appearance, unlike Norma Shearer, whom I usually don't care for that much. Charles Laughton is just creepier because he was excellent at giving off that aura, just as he could seem cuddly though grumpy. Fredric March sweeps in like the proverbial force of nature, and he believably revives her.

The kissing scene has a far stranger feel in the b&w version, especially because she's such a flibbertigibbet, especially with her baby talk.

*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***

reply

Frederick March is like someone throwing open the windows in a hot stuffy house. No wonder Norma Shearer got up and forced herself to walk across the room.

Bill Travers in the remake was adequate but Frederick March was something else! Just great.

reply

I certainly agree! Fredric March is incredibly handsome and athletic, and he's so full of life. He's just irresistible!

Norma Shearer as Elizabeth did seem like an invalid preparing to die and did a wonderful transformation as she responded to him.

Honestly, I just didn't get that feeling from the remake. Bill Travers is attractive, but he didn't have that larger-than-life quality that March brings to Robert Browning. That's how I always pictured the poet when I read about him.




*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***

reply