Here we get the fairy tale happy ending we all want but Paul doesn't have to look like the villain of the piece by leaving his wife. The lovers should be forced to make the difficult choice, one way or the other.
I am actually just rewatching this dvd at the moment and I have to say I see things a little differently.
Right from the start, I didn't think his wife sat twiddling her thumbs waiting patiently for Paul to return from war. She was busy "negotiating" a pay rise for him with his boss, working on her self-improvement, entertaining other men. All these things she does in order to achieve HER goals. By the time he does return, their expectations and needs are poles apart. Betty tells him she wants "things" like she never had before - he wants things too, heartfelt things like a family and belonging, whereas she is more focused on the material things in life.
Paul is very gallant, an officer and a gentleman; he is doing the only thing he can think of (on the spot) to rescue Victoria and in the process develops genuine feelings for her (unlike those he has for his wife whom he married 24 hours after meeting and which were most likely based purely on the physical). He does not act on his feelings for Victoria (even though she is quite willing) because, even if his marriage to Betty is meaningless, he IS still married.
I don't think Paul and Victoria are "baddies" or that the story was dumbed down by Betty conveniently leaving him. The writers could easily have made Paul's character as single to simplify matters, but I think having Paul married was a deliberate tool to show how much he is a man of his word. And how by that very nature, he fits perfectly into Victoria's proud but honourable family.
Sorry this post is so long, but your view got me thinking!
jc
"
What say you?" ~
RotK
reply
share
arm61
17 years ago
theWyleyOne---I don't agree with your view of this film, however, if you look at this movie again, you will find that Keanu's character was a sergeant, or a Non-Commissioned Officer, and not an officer. My own father, who is now in his mid-eighties, retired as a Sergeant First Class after having served in WW II (and afterward), and we are very proud of him and all of the other millions of other Non-Coms and enlisted GIs who served in that "Great Crusade" against the forces of fascism, racism, and hatred.
reply
share
postfred
17 years ago
Do you know that this movie is a remake of an Italian film (Quattro passi tra le nuvole) done in 1942? There were even a French version with the actor Fernandel.
reply
share
TheWyleyOne
17 years ago
Arm61, it's OK if you don't agree with my view, each to their own, but I don't understand the rest of your post!
I have NO IDEA what rank Paul held; by "officer and a gentleman" I simply meant he was a gallant and chivalrous guy who didn't hesitate to step in and help a complete stranger.
jc
"What say you?" ~ RotK
reply
share
Val-El
16 years ago
the term "officer and gentleman" is often meant to provide a description of a man's character - not his rank!
reply
share
feecarabine65
17 years ago
[ well... ok, time has passed and probably you won't be reading this, but i reply anyways :) ]
i completely agree, and i add that the very conflict (paul's marriage vs. his love for victoria) helps build his character, helps him grow and learn what he wants in life (he did say earlier on that he wasn't sure, right?). the obstacle of his marriage also is needed to test his (and victoria's) love.
what i didn't find quite convincing was his protests to his wife that he wanted really to make it work. i would have expected him to have admitted having come to the same conclusions she (betty) had reached while he was away. and her affair too seemed a bit "rushed" (we had no clue she was having an affair when paul returned home, and after all he hadn't stayed in napa valley for that long, just three days, right?). certainly the first scene of his return and reunion with betty screamed of the mismatch (she never read any of his letters and wanted things; he wanted family and a real job, not just selling chocolates). when he left the next morning, i imagined (not knowing the film was a remake of "four steps in the clouds", 1942) that he was leaving her and try to make it in the real world.
why did he want to reach sacramento? did he have connections there? that detail seems to have been dropped along the way, or else i have missed the point...
it would be unfair to compare this movie with the original story (which was much sadder: once he's assured he has reconciled the father with the daugther, the hero returns to his bitchy wife and lousy life. but that was real wartime, and it was italy, and it was the dawn of neorealism...
unfair as it is, still it's unavoidable!
reply
share
ladylavende
17 years ago
what i didn't find quite convincing was his protests to his wife that he wanted really to make it work.
Interesting point- please don't hate me for saying this, people, but with a better actor (Keanu is still great), you might not be questioning that so much. I think we are supposed to get the impression that he feels bound by duty, even if he doesn't love her anymore. He's the good guy; he's the polar opposite of the professor who knocks up Victoria and then ditches her. He honors his commitments. He's Edwards Ferrars from Sense and Sensibility if you're a Jane Austen fan. Exasperating at times, but always honorable. Perhaps a better actor could have made us feel the struggle he goes through more strongly. Having said that, I still think Keanu Reeves does a very nice job, and I did sense the inner battle raging in Paul.
I need to get my drink on- Pearl
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8093247
reply
share