MovieChat Forums > The Forsyte Saga (1969) Discussion > What did Irene say to Fleur?

What did Irene say to Fleur?

posted 11 years ago by sapphiremyst
17 replies | jump to latest

I'm a little late to the party, but I hope there's still someone around. I've just finished watching The Forsyte Saga, which I greatly enjoyed. I have a question on something in the final episode. Irene is warning Fleur to stay away from Jon - she should think of the future, the affair will hurt her father, her child will be taken from her, etc. Fleur tells her that Jon "proved" that he loved her and then Irene says there's something she needs to know. We don't hear what this is, but we see a distraught Fleur driving away. So what did Irene tell her? Was it about what Soames did to her? I'm not sure if this is covered in the books. In any case, I'm nowhere near that point as yet.

[–] gorye 11 years ago

Just from my memory - that Jon's wife is pregnant I think. Whether Irene knew or just suspect it I'm not sure... Anyway, I'll check all this.

[–] sapphiremyst 11 years ago

Thanks! I guess that makes sense. Unfortunately, everything goes downhill from there.

[–] ShannonTriumphant 11 years ago

Are you talking about the 1967 version? I don't remember Irene saying anything to Fleur, especially not anything about Jon's wife, since it ends before he marries her...but maybe I'm wrong.

In the 2002 version, during tea, Irene doesn't say much. Then when Soames and Fleur show up to beg Irene to let Jon marry her, he says no and Fleur won't accept it. Irene softly tells Fleur to "go home with your father" and Fleur yells at her.

None of this happened in the book. The only time Fleur and Irene talk is when Fleur and Jon go to Robin Hill and run into Irene in the copse (where she and Bosinney first kissed). Irene invites Fleur to tea and Jolyon becomes rather sarcastic about "the younger generation". That's it.

She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

[–] sapphiremyst 11 years ago

Yes, the 1967 version. Don't know anything about the 2002 version, since I haven't seen it. In the last episode Irene speaks to Fleur at June's studio, but we aren't privy to the whole conversation. Then Fleur runs out of the studio visibly upset and tears off in her car.

I have since read the first two parts of Galsworthy's trilogy and found it interesting that Irene stays in Paris after Jon returns from the US, so the scene I am referring to, as you said, never happened. I just thought it was interesting to speculate on what she might have said to Fleur to upset her so much. I guess that's left to our own interpretation.

[–] ShannonTriumphant 11 years ago

Okay...now I see why I don't remember this--I think I last saw the 1967 version in the 1980's! I tried to get a copy of it last year and it was incredibly expensive and hard to find. Perhaps it's more available now.

Anyway, that kind of scene was the sort of rewriting they did (such the scenes in the beginning with Young Jolyon and Helene). It also parallels another scene in the gallery, in which Soames goes there, almost against his will, to see Jolyon's exhibit but as he expects, runs into Irene. They don't talk but as he leaves, she raises her hand "in a gesture of release".

So maybe the writers thought it would work to combine that with Fleur's "kiss off" by Jon, delivered through Irene. You'll recall that in the novel, Soames delivers it after visiting Robin Hill and hearing it from Jon. Then Jon writes from British Columbia.

Despite my admiration for the '67 adaptation over the 2002 one, I can't imagine Irene saying anything on Jon's behalf to Fleur. She was still quite passive, and had told Jon to do as he liked, despite her approval of Jolyon's letter to Jon, and telling Jon that Fleur had a "having nature". She warned him that his marriage to Fleur might be like hers to Soames! She put up all these obstacles (understandably), yet thought there was a chance Jon would opt for Fleur. How could he? He actually was, as Fleur accused (in the book), "tied to his mother's apron strings". (Despite Irene's actions, I still sympathize with her far more than Soames...a theme not too present on these threads!).

Like June, I feel the most sorry for Jon and Fleur, but ultimately for Fleur! She has no part in what Soames did to Irene, or anything else, but she is most harshly punished. Being young and foolish, she marries without love and it has far-reaching consequences, for her, Michael and even Jon.

You should read To Let and then A Modern Comedy, which deals mainly with Fleur and her life after marrying Michael. This is where you also see the older, mellowed Soames, whose personality was (sadly) worked too soon into the 2002 adaptation, making people take his side when I feel they should not have.

Jon comes back to England but isn't alone for long; his wife Anne joins him at Val and Holly's house in the country...and things start happening again! I won't spoil it for you if you still haven't read it, but I found that it gave me a new appreciation for Fleur, as well as new insights into people like Holly, Val, June and even retrospectively, Irene and Young Jolyon.

She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

[–] sapphiremyst 11 years ago

Don't know where you live, but if you're in the US, Amazon has the 1967 version currently listed at $45.49. (List price is $79.98.) It had been $56 and jumped up to $60. I've been keeping my eye on it. I'll probably be buying it very soon, for fear that it might go up again. (I feel like I'm dabbling in the stock market!)

I have finished all of the Galsworthy novels up to Soames's death and enjoyed reading them in conjunction with seeing the 1967 version. (I have no current plans to see the more recent version.) There are always disparities between novels and their adaptations, but I can't say there was much that really bothered me in that regard. The one thing that really surprised me was Irene's virtual "disappearance" from the later novels, which, I suppose, couldn't really be done in the dramatization, since she had played such an important role.

Unfortunately, my memory isn't what it was and I really should invest in the books as well, since I don't always remember what happened on the page vs. what happened on screen.

[–] ShannonTriumphant 11 years ago

Hello, sapphiremyst!

Thanks a bunch for the update on price. Sadly, they have not changed too much. Still, I may break down, esp. as I am writing a sequel to "Swan Song" (the 3-part "trilogy" that mainly deals with Fleur's life and her renewed pursuit of Jon).

Though I usually rely on just the texts, it's always helpful to pick and choose from among those cast to play the characters. I was extremely pleased with the 1967 version and conversely, aghast, for the most part at the later one (save for Young Jolyon, Fleur, Val and Monty).

The books, if you don't care about their condition, are readily available, especially in used book stores.

I have tried the last 3 "sequels" (they are not really) to TFS, with Michael's cousin, Dinny, and find her irritatingly "GOOD"! She even gets involved with Fleur's passing fancy, Michael's war buddy, Wilfrid Desert! The nerve.

These people DO come alive for us in a way few others have since Tolkien's. If you are looking to buy more "Forsyte" books or, like me, replace those you've worn out, try www.alibrisbooks.uk/com--I've had good luck with them!

Best wishes,

Shannon

She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

[–] sapphiremyst 11 years ago

Shannon,

I went for it and got the 1967 version on DVD. I managed to get it down to $40 with some bonus points. I'm already getting my money's worth and have been noticing more and more things that totally slipped by me the first time around. With minor exceptions, I think the casting was great and when I read passages from the book I always hear the specific actors' voices reading the lines.

I also bought "The Forsyte Saga" (book) and will eventually follow up with "The Modern Comedy" one of these days. My library has "End of the Chapter" and I suppose I ought to read it sometime, but your mention of Wilfrid puts me off a bit, since I didn't really care much for him.

Thanks for the tip on the alibrisbooks website. Sadly, book stores are slowly becoming a thing of the past, but there still are some in my area and also some used book stores.

Good luck with your sequel!

[–] gorye 11 years ago

My library has "End of the Chapter" and I suppose I ought to read it sometime, but your mention of Wilfrid puts me off a bit, since I didn't really care much for him.

I can't tell you that Galsworthy turned Wilfrid out in very nice and adorable person to please some reader in his TEOTC, rather the reverse. Because he was realistic. And his characters are real people. For me, the problems which described in TEOTC much much more substantial and deep than petty sufferings of flirty and selfish girl like Fleur, or her beloved toy boy Jon.

The sisters Claire and Dinny from TEOTC met real problems, which always was hard to solve. Divorce and losses, which they hardy are capable to turn in the very happy ends to please us. Just not to break, to be able to cope and live.

[–] ShannonTriumphant 11 years ago

gorye,

My main problem with TEOTC was that there were just too many people by this time. The Forsyte clan was miniscule compared to the Monts, Cherwells and Muskhams!

You're right about Wilfrid--he was not a "fix-it" for Fleur, and was too rough-edged for Dinny. She is so fragile! Galsworthy's style did change here: much more gritty and depressing. Possibly the pre-War phenomenon? But it reminded me quite a bit of Thomas Hardy's books--the ever-present sense of tragedy and doom!

She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

[–] sapphiremyst 11 years ago

Gorye,

I'll probably end up reading "The End of the Chapter" over the summer. I really should continue on and see what happens.

[–] gorye 11 years ago

Great, I hope you'd like it. It's hard to tell for others, tastes so differ. But I really think that TEOTC has much more depth than the Modern Comedy. Concerning many important changings in England, in attitudes of people towards divorces, freedom, standards of Honour which afflicted Desert so badly. I like to read all I could get about the period.
But still, many people find Dinny much too "good".

[–] ShannonTriumphant 11 years ago

Sapphiremyst,

I'm envious that you got the 1967 version on DVD! If I had it, I'd replay it over and over and get nothing done.

I wish I had that ability to "hear" the characters. I'm not very "auditory", I think. Well, I hear some of them, like Monty, Young Jolyon, Winifred and June. If their voices "strike" me, then I hear them. Irene is a tough one, both in imagining her inner world and even in her voice, since we so rarely hear her speak.

Why did my mention of Wilfrid put you off? Did you dislike his character or the idea that some other girl would have him? Fleur did treat him rather badly, but then, I think she didn't want to hurt another man she wasn't sure she really loved.

I hope you're wrong about book stores going out! I dislike ebooks. You know, they said that about vinyl too and I know many people who collect it, including my college-age son! Let's hope it's the same with books.

She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

[–] sapphiremyst 11 years ago

If you had the 1967 version then you WOULD be able to "hear" the voices, just like I do. It's a wonder I'm not dreaming about the Forsytes. Pretty soon it will be time to put them on the shelf.

As to Wilfrid, I'm speaking of the TV version. I just didn't cotton to him. Of course, Fleur didn't help the situation, with her flirting. Poor Michael.

Some bookstore chains here in the US have closed in recent years, which doesn't bode well. I guess they can't compete with online sales and ebooks. But I hope I don't live to see the day when "real" books are no longer available.

[–] CakesAndAle 10 years ago

and telling Jon that Fleur had a "having nature"

I'm pretty sure that it's Holly, not Irene, who tells Jon this. She explains to him why she and Val don't like Fleur.

[–] SaliceMcD 7 years ago

Just in case you still care . . .

I just finished watching the series, and agree with gorye that Irene most likely told Fleur that Anne was pregnant. When Anne told Jon, she said she'd planned to tell him the previous night, but as he hadn't come home (?) "I told your mother." As he tells her that "it" would never have happened with Fleur if he'd known, and per the mention of Anne's knowing her condition, I thought it was set up to be disclosed to Fleur - and that the news would dissuade her from further pursuit of Jon. (I'm not so sure that it would!)

[–] Jobimfan (95) 6 years ago

Yes, the implication is that she told Fleur that Jon's wife was pregnant. That would have upset her because while she felt that she could eventually get Jon to leave his wife and go off with her (she would have left Mont and her son like a shot) she knew that Jon would *never* leave his wife now that she was pregnant.

I think that's the reason his wife mentioned it in the first place, she was suspicious that Jon and Fleur still had a strong attraction and might have even had sex with each other.