MovieChat Forums > Mr. & Mrs. Bridge (1991) Discussion > Shocking lack of detail

Shocking lack of detail

posted 15 years ago by jonchopwood
4 replies | jump to latest

What a horrible movie! What a shocking lack of detail. Why couldn't they have just told us what year it was. Roosevelt was president from 1933 to 1945, so having us hear that Roosevelt is President early on in the movie doesn't narrow things down much -- and these people, indeed, everyone in the movie, HAVE NO CONSCIOUSNESS AT ALL ABOUT THE FACT THE COUNTRY IS GOING THROUGH A DEPRESSION.

How could you have a movie about the mid-to late 1930s (the U.S. went through a terrible "recession" within the midst of the Great Depression from 1937 to the beginning of the war) and not mention the Depression? Or show any consciousness of the Depression, versus their wealth and the wealth of their friends?

These people don't even seem middle class (the modern middle class was created after World War II by the GI Bill and the expansion of higher education, housing and opportunity; the middle class until then were professionals, like attorneys and bankers, and business owners; farmers were considered middle class, even if they were poor, as they owned their own farms) -- these people seem RICH.

They go off to Europe and war breaks out. Poland is invaded. HOW LIKELY WAS IT THAT THEY WOULD GO OFF NOT KNOWING THIS, OR NOT MENTION IT??? EUROPE WAS ON THE BRINK OF WAR FROM 1938 ONWARD!

What a horrible piece of *beep* this movie is!

[–] rmm413-1 14 years ago

Jon, I don't find your points at all relevant. Why must the film tell you exactly what year it was? The focus of the film was on this family, not primarily on the setting. I don't see the slightest problem in this at all. Why in the world did this bother you so much?

Apparently, the movie is set initially in 1939, when the country really wasn't in such horrible straights (I believe the unemployment level was at about what it is now--not really at Depression levels). I would imagine that many well-to-do people of the time were not particularly focused on the Depression or poor people in their everyday lives, and this movie is after all about everyday lives. Look at the movies from the late 1930s. Very few in any way reference the Depression. I have see nothing wrong with that.

Why are you so concerned whether these people are middle or upper class? Clearly, Mr. Bridge is a well-off lawyer. They live in a nice house and can obviously afford to travel as most successful lawyers can. However, it is also obvious that these people are not the Vanderbilts or Rockefellers. Besides, the question of when the middle class was first created is far less clear-cut than you make out.

Why would you think that they wouldn't know that war might break out? Many people would still be willing to take a vacation, so long as the threat of war remained hypothetical. Would you like the movie better if it included a scene of them sitting in their living room discussing whether war might break out? This just isn't relevant to the main plot line.

It really seems that you let yourself be distracted by many things that have nothing to do with the main story, while missing the story itself. It appears that you are trying to view a movie about a long-term marriage, old-fashioned ways of living, and interior personal feelings as if it were a movie primarily about the Depression and WWII. Indeed, I found this film quite "detailed" in that it delved into people's lives, feelings, emotions, pains, repression, etc. in a nuanced way. This is exactly what most movies gloss over in a very "undetailed" way.

[–] netshopper-2 14 years ago

I got the idea that they had not traveled much as they raised their kids and built a law practice and this trip was a special one taken when it became feasible.

They lived in the midwest where prices of homes would have been cheaper and probably hired help as well. The mother did scold Ruth for throwing out a 4 cent comb when it got dirty.

[–] Bob Pr. 11 years ago

I just saw this movie today and have the strong impression that the lack of mention of the Great Depression was intentional as being characteristic for THAT upper social class.

While the stock market had crashed not many years before, Mr. B. had a portfolio that apparently was surviving tough times -- remember the scene in the bank with his wife where he cautions her to keep certain stocks?

And with this there are also some anti-Roosevelt statements along with expressions that everyone needs to have the motivation to work and earn money -- AS IF lack of motivation was the only thing keeping people from doing that during those very dismal, distressing times.

These people are among the upper 1 or 2% and they're not very concerned with the things affecting the other 98-99%.

[–] leishayoung 11 years ago

You're spot on Bob. The whole point is that these people are so far removed from the ordinary folk that they have no concept of what is effecting people of the lower classes; they have no ability to relate and don't care to.

It also highlights the mindset of the upper middle classes, that poor people simply didn't work hard enough and made bad financial decisions. We still hear it today from conservative pundits in the media. It's a simplistic notion born of a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be disadvantaged.

The Bridges are also insulated from the realities of war, it is the lower classes that live with the looming threat of war because people of wealth have the connections and money to find their way out of it. You certainly get the impression (in the book at least), that Mr Bridge has no intention of allowing his son to go to war if he can help it. People of the lower classes quite simply have no choice.

This book and film are designed to give you an insight into upper middle class, conservative life and their value systems.