MovieChat Forums > Byzantium (2013) Discussion > 2 questions

2 questions

posted 11 years ago by Finkle-is-Einhorn
7 replies | jump to latest

1. we see clara's origin that the captain met her on a beach and then took her to a brothel and had sex with, but I don't understand why clara stayed there, why didn't she just refuse to sleep with him or having realise that's all he wanted from her just leave and go back to her beach job why did she stay there for years, it didn't look like she forced into anything

2. why did they cast another actress to play young clara gemma arterton is young herself surely she was capable of playing a late teen - early 20 version of herself it look weird that we see her flash back and she is played by someone else its not like this is a 4 0 60 year old woman and so would have to cast someone else

[–] Ghost_Of_Me 11 years ago

1. She was a girl who just got deflowered, no one would marry her now and her parents would more than likely disown her. She couldnt go back to her old life after that. He basically ruined her life.

2. I agree it seemed strange, but the film makers probably wanted to show just how young she was when she was turned into a whore. I mean dont get me wrong, Gemma is a beautiful girl but no way could she pull off being 13 or 14. So they took some liberties.

[–] Finkle-is-Einhorn 11 years ago

Why would she need to tell anyone,

[–] Wiedergaenger 11 years ago

You've got to get into the mind-set and social structure of that time. It was a small village, and everybody knew what had happened to her (and to all the other girls before her). As Ghost_Of_Me stated, she was a pariah. Furthermore I do think she would be physically prevented from going back to her old life, even if she could. We saw her being beaten for questioning her "gentleman's" actions.

[–] Ghost_Of_Me 11 years ago

Well she didnt really even need to tell anyone about it considering it was a small seaside village. Meaning everyone knew everyones business. So it didnt matter if she tried to keep it a secret, people would still know, not to mention she was seen getting on a horse with some dude on the beach, that stuff wouldnt go unnoticed at the time. So her life was basically over as soon as she got on the horse. Im sure if she ran away he wouldnt have tried to chase her or anything, but she didnt.

[–] Finkle-is-Einhorn 11 years ago

but it never gave the impression of exactly how big the place was or what the people were like it was a confusing scene and didn't explain the society or the people very well from the viewers point of view some soldier met a girl took her to a brother despite her not being a prostitute slept with her and left.

why she didn't just leave and say nothing , why she didn't object to going there or why the captain took her there as opposed to a rented room or an alley is also left out, I know he was nasty guy but this film should have fleshed things out a bit more

[–] Ghost_Of_Me 11 years ago

I think the filmmakers are just going on the assumption that the viewers would figure out that she couldnt go back to her old life after basically being turned into a whore. But I do agree they should have given more info on her background and her life. Maybe some deleted scenes on a DVD? Who knows.

[–] james-337 9 years ago

He was a sailor, not a soldier.

No fishing villages were that big in the early 19th century. Everybody would have known everybody else's business. A girl who was 'ruined' would be known to all. Continued prostitution would be her only chance of survival. It's also not clear that the brothel was actually in the village (which seems unlikely). It was probably in a larger town. She was probably alone for the first time in the big wide world with no friends and may have been held in the brothel by force anyway. Things were very different then.

Ruthven was a stereotypical cad. He took her to the brothel because he wanted to corrupt her and to keep visiting her. It said she remained his favourite every time he visited.