whose child?


was the child Walter's son or Charlie's?

reply

I believe it is Walter's. I only say that because when I first saw this film (I read the book afterword) and they showed the child at the end, I thought of Walter immediately. I felt as if they had cast a little boy who had the look of Norton.

reply

Yes, yes ... but he has very strong, light blue eyes, just like Charlie's. I think the directors deliberately chose a child who had both these mens features, causing the viewer to do a double take. I know I did! I too thought he was Walter's son - that is, until the camera kept going back and forth between Charlie and child where I could see such similarities.

Beautiful film, fabulous costuming, which is why I love historical dramas.

reply

It's implied in both the movie and the book that it is Charlie's.
_________________

"Regardes, Platero, toutes ces roses qui partout tombent..."

reply

Charlie.

reply

[deleted]

I don't know about the book, but the fact that they made Kitty run into Charlie at the end of the movie when he was not relevant anymore and it was made obvious that Kitty rejected his offer to see each other again, plus they made a scene of Charlie having a warm chat with the child all made me believe that they wanted the scene to serve no other purpose than imlpying that he is Charlie's child and Kitty doesn't care to tell neither the father nor the child about that as she wants a new life with her son away from Charlie.

reply

I believe he is Walter's son (because I hope he is). In any case, Kitty will raise the child to know how brave and noble his namesake was, and hopefully that will shape the young boy to be a good, honest man himself.

Someone wrote on the Wikipedia entry the ending that I hoped for --

"Five years later, Kitty appears well-dressed and happy in London shopping with her young son Walter. They meet Townsend by chance on the street, and he suggests that Kitty meet with him. Asking young Walter his age, he realizes from the reply that he might have been the boy's father. Kitty rejects his overtures and walks away. When her son asks who Townsend is, she replies "No one important". It is clear that the child is actually Walter's after all. This is the source of her happiness, Walter lives on in his child and she lives on in chastity finally faithful to her husband."

reply

That she said "noone important" doesn't make it "clear" that he isn't Charlie's kid. She may have said that as she might have wanted to not engage her son with Charlie even if Charlie is the father as she doesn't want to see him anymore and she doesn't want to reveal or even remember herself that she has a child with a man she doesn't like or even respect which in the case of revealing to him would end her up in a unwanted lifelong engagement with him because of a kid they have together. I think that they wanted to emphasize that point in that scene.

reply

[deleted]

I understand that. I don't think it was "clear" at all, and that was the point. I'm only saying that the Wikipedia write-up (which we all know could be written and edited by anybody and is essentially fan fiction as it was NOT clear at all) describes the ending that I hope for.

reply

i agree with you on this


reply

It wasn't clear at all whose child he was; I thought the little actor resembled Schreiber more than Norton. When Charlie asks him how old he is and he says "five" Kitty interjects that they must run along.

reply

I believe it was Charlie's due to the way she reacted when she first found out she was pregnant. I'm really not sure how many months had passed in the film, but it seemed too soon after she and Walter had been together.

reply

More than likely Charlie's because she was at the time having more sex with him than Walter.

reply

This.

Also, Walter did not touch her after he heard her having sex with Charlie. The movie made it pretty clear Walter had a low libido anyway and sex was rather infrequent - and the question arises if birth control was being used by her with her husband and/or Charlie and the presumption is not any - yet she was NOT made pregnant by Walter before Charlie entered the picture.

Walter must have felt the baby was not his and yet accepted the situation anyway.

Walter actually protected Kitty from her own foolish plan to "quietly divorce" him because that would have really ruined her when Charlie ("the Cad") would never divorce his own wife to marry a little "fling".

Compare this movie with Oscar Wilde's "The Fan" ("A Good Woman" remake name) and also read of one of the most famous "love triangles" in Victorian England surrounding WWI - the affairs of Field MArshall Sir John French:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_French,_1st_Earl_of_Ypres#Family_2



It's always more difficult for women in divorces. Especially when pregnancy/children are involved. Most people nowadays would think Walter was being incredibly cruel and spiteful by making his wife accompany him into such a dangerous situation...but she left him little choice, actually. If only she HAD been faithful and just...smarter.

reply

I agree Walter wouldn't have touched her after he knew she was having sex with Charlie but he probably moved pretty quickly to confront her, jumping on the chance to be a volunteer reading the newspaper story about the cholera epidemic. But he probably DID have a healthy male libido, although he definitely wasn't smooth about it and she obviously was unfulfilled. Likely she truly did not know who was the father.

reply

I just finished reading the book for the first time.

Fascinating.

It seems clear in the book Kitty really thought Charlie was the father - though she wasn't quite certain.

I kind of like the "Lucifer principle" sociobiology theory. (Book by Howard Bloom.) And this novel had that in spades. All that peer pressure and social status ("pecking order") motivational concerns of Kitty and her mother, and even Charlie.

In this book Kitty never actually loved her quiet man husband - nor her own father who was just the same! Only at the end was she determined to LEARN to love her own father.

An interesting differing view of human female nature is that short story "The Quiet Man" first published in 1933 (vs. 1925 for this book) by an Irish author employed in British service, Maurice Walsh. In his story the courted woman married another small and quiet man (John Wayne cast in the movie was completely different!) who nonetheless fell "head over heels in love" with her own husband the first time their marriage was consummated. (But then she STILL had her own pecking order status concerns with how he acted around her bully and higher social status brother.)

For Kitty, obviously, this never happened with Walter - just "romantic" foolishness she had over Charlie and then reinforced after she had such "great sex" with him.

After reading the book I don't think Kitty was stupid, silly, or insane. She was just the product of her own family with a very dominant mother and the society she grew up in and really didn't bother thinking about or understanding anything deeper. It was merely shallowness begetting ever more shallowness.

Poor Walter was really the dumb one, after all. And he realized this with his last words to Kitty (in the book) "The dog it was that died."

Waddington finally told Kitty these words were from Goldsmith's elegy - the last four verses:

This dog and man at first were friends;
But when a pique began,
The dog, to gain some private ends,
Went mad and bit the man.

Around from all the neighbouring streets
The wondering neighbours ran,
And swore the dog had lost his wits,
To bite so good a man.

The wound it seemed both sore and sad
To every Christian eye;
And while they swore the dog was mad,
They swore the man would die.

But soon a wonder came to light,
That showed the rogues they lied:
The man recovered of the bite,
The dog it was that died.

http://graduate.engl.virginia.edu/enec981/dictionary/24goldsmithD2.html

reply