Not I. I love it.
I think one has to appreciate the sheltered life of her character - and without a mother in whom to confide or seek advice. She's living in a rather ordinary apartment - making meals for her father - and adhering to the requirements of a very stringent disciplined field (practice, practice, practice) with a boyfriend who lacks any glamor or excitement - in part due to comparative poverty.
Yet all her life she's thrilled to any hint her father gives of a gayer life, a world-traveling life - which she's been completely denied. She's starving for it - reads all his files. She wants to escape as badly as Marion in The Music Man (who's ready to run off with a fraud!).
And in the far older Frank Flanagan we see things that greatly appeal to her: i) she's utterly used to caring for a much older man - she's been the lady of the house for a long time taking care of her father's needs - it seems normal for her to take care of a much older man, ii) she gets a thrill from his very deserved "bad boy" reputation, bait for many a girl at age 19 or 21, iii) yet conversely, she also can see his age, his vulnerability, his weariness - appealing to the same kind of maternal instinct she's exercised since her mother died. This is not the same Frank Flanagan as 20 or even 10 years before. She can see it - we can see it. He's finally near to completing his life-long sowing of wild oats - he's aware of the passage of time - as she is - it has made him a less powerful force and one more to be mothered as she does her father, and iv) most importantly she gets a true man of the world - who's been everywhere and with his wealth and knowledge of it, can show her all she's yearned to experience throughout her life.
I love the movie - and those who turn it off quickly - miss perhaps the most romantic ending of any movie ever made.
reply
share
sawznhamrs-1
11 years ago
Oh I did not turn it off quickly.. I watched the entire movie. I love Audrey, and I like Bogart very much in his old films...They just seemed like two icons of different times forced together by a script. Had the part she played been by an unknown, less glamorous person, I would have come nearer picking up on what you suggest. I suppose my problem is just that she was miscast in this role. I'll have to try to see it again, but I think my gut feeling will be the same. Maybe your views will influence the way I see the film. We'll see.
reply
share
trpdean
11 years ago
Oh, good! I think the movie would not make as much sense if he had been younger - or if he were this age but looked much better (e.g., a Cary Grant or Gregory Peck). And he's rather goofy - he's not the ultra suave character whom he seeks to be: he rolls up the opera program and peers through it at the audience, in the Life article, we see that he chooses to jump up and down on his hospital bed.
I think she finds this endearing - recognizes his vulnerability due to age -and the greater likelihood that he's ready to settle down.
If we had less age disparity - imagine Hugh O'Brian or John Gavin or George Montgomery or Cliff Robertson or William Holden in 1957 in the role - with the same philandering career - it would be more difficult to imagine him ready to settle down. But Cooper is weary - and looks it.
It's why I thought that on this board, the suggestion of Errol Flynn if Cooper had been unavailable - was a good one. By 1957, Flynn was just trying to survive. Neither he nor Cooper would for long.
But the suggestions of Peck and Grant - are simply off. Would they really incite the maternal instinct - the carryover from carrying for her old father - that an older, more weary man would? I don't think so.
I think people's vulnerabilities are often what draws out affection. Ariane would be overwhelmed with a Cary Grant - not of him could she have any article of this sentiment:
Your looks are laughable
Unphotographable
Yet you're my favourite work of art
Is your figure less than Greek
Is your mouth a little weak
When you open it to speak
Are you smart?
But don't change a hair for me
Not if you care for me
Stay little Valentine stay
Each day is Valentine's day
reply
share
sawznhamrs-1
11 years ago
Wow. That was a lot to say. You are indeed an expert on the subject, far above what I would have ever noted about the film. You must be a scholar of some sort! Thanks for sharing! David
reply
share
trpdean
11 years ago
Hi, thanks! But I'm no expert. I just love the movie - and have seen it many times.
reply
share
lamont-hard
11 years ago
Though I have not read the book, but based on what I have read about it she was not as innocent as she is in the movie. It is well hinted that she had a sexual past herself witch makes a lot of sense in the context of the film. You will not get this actress to play this kind of young women it would not fly with her fan base or her reputation. But as I said it makes more sense that she was into him for his sexual prowess as well as his charm.
Even without the viewers knowing about her sexual past one can still feel she was into him for more than just he being a great looking and adventurous older man.
reply
share
Forlorn_Rage
9 years ago
Not I. I love it.
I think one has to appreciate the sheltered life of her character - and without a mother in whom to confide or seek advice. She's living in a rather ordinary apartment - making meals for her father - and adhering to the requirements of a very stringent disciplined field (practice, practice, practice) with a boyfriend who lacks any glamor or excitement - in part due to comparative poverty.
Yet all her life she's thrilled to any hint her father gives of a gayer life, a world-traveling life - which she's been completely denied. She's starving for it - reads all his files. She wants to escape as badly as Marion in The Music Man (who's ready to run off with a fraud!).
And in the far older Frank Flanagan we see things that greatly appeal to her: i) she's utterly used to caring for a much older man - she's been the lady of the house for a long time taking care of her father's needs - it seems normal for her to take care of a much older man, ii) she gets a thrill from his very deserved "bad boy" reputation, bait for many a girl at age 19 or 21, iii) yet conversely, she also can see his age, his vulnerability, his weariness - appealing to the same kind of maternal instinct she's exercised since her mother died. This is not the same Frank Flanagan as 20 or even 10 years before. She can see it - we can see it. He's finally near to completing his life-long sowing of wild oats - he's aware of the passage of time - as she is - it has made him a less powerful force and one more to be mothered as she does her father, and iv) most importantly she gets a true man of the world - who's been everywhere and with his wealth and knowledge of it, can show her all she's yearned to experience throughout her life.
I love the movie - and those who turn it off quickly - miss perhaps the most romantic ending of any movie ever made.
Great post! I really enjoyed reading it! You captured very well why Arianne is so relatable and why this movie works so well.
I should definitely put
The Music Man on my watchlist as well. I haven't seen it since I was a kid!
reply
share