MovieChat Forums > The Forsyte Saga (1969) Discussion > Standards of That Time, Not Standards of...

Standards of That Time, Not Standards of This Time


I adored the Forsyte Saga as a kid. Now that I am 52 I see so much that it was a portrait of the morals and values of the time.

I can't see how Irene "marrying a man she didn't love" could have been so awful; many girls did just this; it was the thing to do for someone like Irene. She was poor, pretty, had to get out of her stepmother's way, accepting a marriage proposal from a rich man like Soames Forsyte was the normal way of things-- in those days. It isn't like this today.

Another more obvious example is Young Jolyon dallying with his kids nanny, getting her pregnant, and leaving his wife. In those days it was an unforgivable scandal, these days, everyone just laughs.

Less amusing was Soames rape of Irene, despite his remorse. In those days a married man was allowed to have sex with his own wife any way he had to do it. Not so today.

Then and now are totally different.

reply

Had Irene shown Soames some consideration (not only the sex but given him her time, her courtesty, etc), he would've been a fairly decent husband for her, as you say, for those times. You're right, lots of women in her position married men they didn't love, and, unfortunately, many of those women were stuck in an abusive situation. Granted, he raped her--and that was despicable--but he put up with four years or more of her coldness to him before he lost it.

There's a scene in later episodes I always found ironic: Soames and Winifred are talking, and she says something like, "You've always judged people well." For the most part, perhaps this is true, but he sorely misjudged Irene.

Yes, Young Jolyon did the absolute unthinkable for those days. I've wondered if perhaps J's wife (her name escapes me now) would've been better off with Soames.

reply

You are wise. Young Jo's wife was Frances (I didn't look it up, I remember it).

I think Soames was very much a product of his times in his behavior, but down below the surface, which no one knew except maybe Winifred, he had a need to be loved. I think he would have been a wonderful husband to Irene if as you said so well, she would have shown him the least consideration and effort. As Soames once yelled at Irene "what is it about me? I am not lame, I am not loathsome" as to why she just couldn't accept him.

Becoming a social outcast was the price to pay for behavior like Young Jo's. It was the way in those days, of keeping people in line. People in those days were not stupid, they knew men would dally with nannies, cheat on their wives, unless there was some price to pay. The flip side was, it was allowable to do it and keep it a secret, the wide open knowledge was Jo's sin, as much as leaving his wife and family.

These days, there is no answering to anyone, everyone does what they feel like doing when they feel like doing it. Personal happiness is all that matters. I can't help feeling some middle ground would be best.

reply

One of the things I loved about FS was the relationship between Soames and Winifred. Oftentime, series-whether set in the past or now-ignore the deep love that siblings can have; I guess they prefer to show the rivalry. I have two brothers and one sister, and we're very close. We can count on one another when we can't depend on anyone else. Both Soames and Winifred married the wrong person--someone who did not truly appreciate them. Although Monty did show Winifred a fun time (as she admits in the later series), he didn't provide for her nor respect their marriage. I believe Soames says something to the effect, "We never can seem to get a break."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

We were only discussing the way the stories played out, as against the values of that day, compared to the values of today.

No one in any time should marry someone they find repulsive, yet today's way, of basing all action on love, and what makes us happy -- that doesn't seem to be working either.

I don't see any epidemic of happiness, joy, and love, just because everyone is doing what they please, with no consideration for anyone else.

reply

[deleted]

Well-said, DSC! Somewhere between today's emphasis on happy, happy, happy, as opposed to accepting the best of a bad lot, there may be a better solution. Irene warned Soames she did not love him, so I never understood why he expected so much from her. His possessiveness shriveled whatever love resided inside her. She was already scarred when Soames appropriated her.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

reply

But she agreed to marry him. You don't marry someone without expecting they will have an expectation of marital rights. And she said she would try to be a good wife, then made no effort whatsoever.

It's not like some men today who never pay their wives a bit of attention but still demand sex. Soames loved Irene, and gave her everything, while she was off having it away with Philip Bosinney.


Love is never having to say you're sober.

reply

Agreed! If you read the book, you see in Soames' own flashbacks that he remembers how he pursued the reticent, then repelled Irene, driving away all other suitors. He remembers that she was penniless and that her step-mother wanted her out and the mother's suitor was making advances to Irene. He even remembers his promise to let Irene go if the marriage doesn't work.

She begs him several times, after FOUR years, to let her go, after submitting to sex with a man she loathes, physically and then in every other way. He has no ability to see her as a person. Despite the fact that this was considered "normal" back then, Irene rebukes herself over and over for marrying Soames, especially after Jon falls for Fleur.

But Jolyon understands. He was pushed into a loveless marriage and has paid the price. He is not a scoundrel, but chose between torture and love, between appearances and being exiled from his family and society. He knows what Irene has been through, including the rape, and despises Soames, rightly so.

This is all based on the REAL story of Galsworthy's affair with his cousin's wife, Ada, whom he later married! So, this is not made up. No doubt, he heard from his wife how horrible it was to be physically bound to a man she loathed.



She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

reply

Both of them went into that marriage deluded, and both of them are guilty for its failure:

Irene:
-married Soames to get out from under her stepmother's roof
-Didn't love him
-Wasn't physically attracted to him, which made sex with him extremely distasteful to her. It's wrong to think Victorian woman didn't want or enjoy sex. There were studies like this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263256/Early-sex-survey-reveals-Victorian-women-NOT-prudes.html which showed that married woman liked sex especially if they had a sensitive husband. Soames isn't much of a lover. Irene implies that sex with him was uncomfortable and perfunctory at the best of times.
-Didn't make all that much of an effort. She never does anything nice for him. Her idea of putting an effort into her marriage means tolerating sex.
-Was aware that Soames was crazy about her and that she'd never love him the same way
-Cheated on him

Soames:
-Consistently disregarded her wishes and feelings. He thought he knew what would make her happy, but never asked her what she wanted and ignored her when she told him. His idea of making love was kind of non-existent, it seems. He was deeply controlling and probably the type to tell her what to wear, how to do her hair etc...
-Stalked her (having her monitored by a detective agency is stalking)
-Raped her
-Went into the marriage knowing she didn't love him, but hoping he could change her
-Refused to accept that she was leaving him and didn't want him

reply

Very typical calculation. Her faults outnumber his. In short, why she never tried to enjoy. But what about him? "Cheated on him"...
You forget that it's Soams who cheated on her in their most important agreament - for surely it was so for her - he promissed to return her freedom if the marrige won't work. She obviously had suspected that it might be so, and it meant a great deal to her. But not for Soams. He never meant to keep that promise. To get her consent he would say anything.

Now couples have time and means to know whether making love will or won't work for them, and happily that before they marry. Not so was even in the middle of XX cent.
Irene hardly could guess the intensity of her disliking of Soams in that respect. As for all the soamses even now, I doubt they bother ever about unwillingness of women. Do you?

I'm asking because among Soams's faults you didn't list his disregard in that respect. Whereas I'm sure that "what to wear, how to do her hair" meant nothing to her, when all her life was poisoned with total absent of mutual intimate happiness. It was Soams who the real Victorian man, whereas Irene was much more ahead of her time. She needed love to be happy in sex life.

the results of her survey of American women.

As for that Dr Mosher petty survey, I can't see how those American women, and only 45 of them, may answer for British Victorian women - in masses and for each of them.
And in any case, each of us is an individual. I can easily believe that some typical Victorian wife might be indifferent to how her husband makes love to her, but still not repulsive. Well, just bored and waiting it to end the sooner the better. And when it last she might think about something practical so as not to waste time. If she IS practical.

reply

Overall, I think you give the best summary of Soames’ and Irene’s doomed marriage. It isn’t really a matter of tallying up “faults” and seeing who “wins”, as it is trying to understand the Victorian mentality and realizing that it was quite different—in all respects—between men and women. Everything: rules, expectations, society’s “norms”, what the Church said, legal status and relationship to family, was laid out much more strictly for women than for men. In fact, in Victorian times, unlike now, it was more or less EXPECTED that men would cheat, in affairs and with prostitutes, while married women would never. Legally, a man could divorce his wife just by proving that his wife spent time with another man! A woman could not. She had to cleverly push her husband to cheat, several times, to obtain a divorce. Such a woman is described in The Forsyte Saga: Mrs Macander, a divorcee who had “forced her husband into pronounced error” (cheating)” so that she might get a divorce yet still remain respectable! This is why Irene doesn't "just divorce" Soames. She has no grounds under their laws.

Furthermore, women were literally, legally “owned” by their husbands, as Irene was by Soames, even after 12 years—he legally had the right to demand her return. In short, men (like Soames) had the upper hand almost entirely.

In sex, too, a woman was required to meet the sexual needs of her husband, at his command, and to do whatever he said, as long as he did not beat her excessively, drink too much or engage in forbidden acts (what would we would consider “S&M” now). But what woman would go into court and describe such things? Though Irene was, as you say, more modern, she and Jolyon are repelled by the thought of going to court when Soames brings the divorce suit against Irene. To them, it’s their private business, especially since it involves deep love. This is why Soames' rape of her is so traumatic (aside from the obvious); there is nothing she can do to make him pay or stop it, other than run away--the law says it's his right to force her!

You make the excellent point that Soames cheated in terms of the promise he made to Irene. Though he pretends not to remember it, he does later on and thinks, that “he would have said anything” to obtain her consent. So basically, he didn’t mean it; he married her on false pretenses. He’s selfish, narrow-minded and unwilling to consider the needs or feelings of others. Irene only SEEMS selfish (to some) because the law and Soames won’t give her freedom to choose.

Your other good point – the main one, I think (echoed by Young Jolyon in his letter to Jon)—is that young women had little or no idea about sex and even if they knew, they had no experience of what it was like, whereas men had been out, “sowing their wild oats”, which didn’t necessarily make guys like Soames better lovers!

But, regardless of the study, or whether the participants were American or British (I think American women were probably MORE clueless and uptight about sex, if anything, due to their Puritan background)…it doesn’t erase the face that sometimes, you don’t know if someone is appealing to you until you have sex with them. That’s what happened to Irene, and she did try to please Soames for FOUR years…not for her own sake, but his!

All anyone has to do is think of a person who has come on to them sexually and for whom they’ve had no desire, to imagine Irene’s response to Soames. She didn’t like him even before they married, but was conditioned by society and forced by lack of money and by her stepmother to accept him. All those who condemn Irene for not just “going along” with Soames lust for her, when it sickened her, are just like the people in the novel who blamed her in the same way! (Jolyon later writes that they are not what he considers ladies or gentlemen) And they’re not being honest about times in their own lives when they were pursued by someone who was unappealing to them. But at least they got to say “NO” and walk away!


She deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die.

reply

Go, Shannon!

Maybe you will never find your way to MovieChat and read this. But you were one of the wisest posters about "The Forsyte Saga" on IMDB!

reply

Great post.

Re forbidden acts:
Don’t forget sodomy. (See Lord and Lady Byron).

reply

[deleted]