MovieChat Forums > Parade's End (2013) Discussion > Can someone explain the meaning of 'Para...

Can someone explain the meaning of 'Parade'?


In the HBO series Christopher likens his situation to a "parade." What does he really mean? Does this mean he has to parade his cheating wife around and do nothing else?

reply

In this context?

Parade = a show.

An interpretation of what he said there would be that there needed to be at least the show of a marriage. i.e., a false pretense.

---
"Fear not for the future; weep not for the past." -- Percy Bysshe Shelley
---

reply

He doesn't see it as a pretense, I think. He sees it as a display of what you are at its very best.... like soldiers ready for inspection, polished and neat and with their weapons prepared to face the enemy. It's a military metaphor, but it's British so it's a bit difficult to grasp. Christopher believes that by being moral, he can appear moral in the eyes of a world which rightly values morality. He remains loyal to his marriage vows no matter what Sylvia does.

In the book "There shall be no more parades" is a phrase Christopher keeps repeating to himself in the trenches. His confrontation with Campion, when Campion tells him he is filthy (because he's just been blown up and tried to save the life of another man) is the visual equivalent. The army that protected Britain has changed radically, and Christopher changed with it.

Stoppard introduces the phrase earlier and with relation to Christopher's marriage, I think in order to try to help us understand the title. I guess I would say that his Christopher means by it "Being ready for inspection by your peers and your servants, so that they can find nothing to criticize." He doesn't want to live at Groby with Valentine because he owes it to the Groby neighborhood and servants not to make them tolerate anything that is not morally correct.

The irony is that his peers (for example Campion) are quite eager to believe the worst of Christopher, to see the mess he is making of his life or actually to imagine much worse (that he has multiple mistresses and bastard children). He gets no respect for being loyal to a cheating wife. His own father and brother believe the lies--both the "parade" of Sylvia's fidelity and the idea that he shares a woman with his best friend and knocked up his father's best friend's daughter.

Cheating spouses: In a lot of societies where divorce is not available or frowned upon, cheating spouses are very common. It is considered fairly normal for a man to have a mistress and/or fool around, but humiliating for the man if the woman in unfaithful. That's why Campion is so willing to believe that it is Christopher, not Sylvia, who is unfaithful.
In Christopher's society, the only ground for divorce was adultery (though then as now Catholics like Sylvia could not remarry after a civil divorce). If Christopher divorced Sylvia because of her affair with Potty, he would be telling the world that (a) she was a slut, and (b) he was a cuckold, a fool who could not keep his own wife in line.
It was COMMON for men in that position (English gentlemen) to hire a detective and a woman, and set up a scene where the detective would find HIM in bed with the hired woman in a hotel, so that HE could be accused of adultery, which was socially better for both parties than having his wife accused of it. Now that's "parade."

reply

Jshoaf, yours is an excellent explanation. Another term for 'parade' is 'false front.' PARADE'S END is a wonderful demonstration of how quickly people are to believe ill of others, even when it's untrue.

That which you describe, setting up the false scene of adultery with the hired woman was considered to be protective of the children. They were the ones who would suffer most if their mother was branded as a slut. It was believed that a mother's depraved sexual tastes would be inherited by her children. The Edwardian age was unkind to all.





Some things you just can't ride around...

reply

The theme of the "End of Parade" is also used when the soldiers were being dismissed after Armistice Day. Its sort of a metaphor for the transistions and changes which came to England as a result of the Great War. The felling of the great cedar caused Christopher to put an end to the tradition of the "parade" in his family.

I'm curious, this era is called the Edwardian Age, but it seems like the prudish sexual norms of the Victorian Age were still in place. It seemed like every character except for Christopher and Valentine, is obsessed with appearences, reputation and social status. Was this just the ethos of the age, or does it say something deeper about British culture?



Who's High Pitch?

reply

One dislikes to disagree with others, but the prudish sexual norms of the Victorian Age are still in place today in many countries. The sexual double standard is still in existence in the US in spite of the fact that it is now the 21st Century. Some things do not change.

The felling of the cedar was revenge Sylvia took upon Christopher. She had made attempts to control his actions and failed on many occasions. She knew the felling of the tree would cause him to show up at the estate, no matter what his impediment.

The cedar's destruction is a metaphor for another change. It demonstrates the divide between the past and the future. The past is forever dead and gone with the felling of the tree. Any hope that Sylvia may have had with Christopher was doomed forever when she destroyed the Cedar of Groby. Sylvia has surrendered. She will divorce Christopher.

Remember that everyone 'knew' Christopher and Valentine were guilty of adultery although they were innocent of the deed. With the burning of the cedar log Christopher embraces his future with Valentine, which includes a physical relationship, adultery, children and possibly marriage. Christopher welcomes all. He cares nothing for the gossip. He has endured it for years. The parade has ended.






Some things you just can't ride around...

reply

Any hope that Sylvia may have had with Christopher was doomed forever when she destroyed the Cedar of Groby. Sylvia has surrendered. She will divorce Christopher.
She will? Is that really what happens in the books? I'm surprised that devout-Catholic Sylvia would ever agree to that.

reply

Sylvia divorcing Christopher: in the books, she does not decide on the divorce until quite a while later--long enough for Christopher to have moved to the country and started a business selling English antiques (the kind English farmers are using as nesting boxes for hens) to Americans. Also long enough for Valentine to be pregnant. Sylvia confronts Valentine at the cottage and then decides to divorce Christopher. I think Ford feels that she sees Christopher as having an opportunity to have a legitimate child, which she could not give him (complications after Michael or something). This is when, in the book, she comes up with the bright idea of marrying Campion and going to India with him. A new start for her too.

If you are watching for this, you can see that Stoppard prepared his shortened version (which omits everything in the last book except the tree coming down and the possibility of divorce). After Sylvia returns from France, she talks up Campion as someone who should get a chance to make his name in the war and then be made viceroy of India. So she is already feathering her nest, so to speak.

reply



And in the miniseries, we have a quick scene of Sylvia and Campion which hints at this. First we see her lobbying on Campion's behalf to someone in power, trying to get him some position overseeing things in India. Then she, or Christopher, speaks about how well-suited she would be as a leader's wife in India.

But finally, we see Sylvia and Campion out riding and she says to him something to the effect of "If I divorced Christopher, would you marry me?"

I think that was Stoppard shorthand for "yes, in fact, Sylvia would give up the ghost with Christopher and move onto some other man". Christopher, in openly taking up with Valentine had given legal grounds for a divorce for Sylvia, and probably also given her grounds for an annullment in the Church*, opening the door for her to marry if she so chose.

* keep in mind, my knowledge of this is based on Catholic Church guidelines in the 1970's and 80's when people I know went through it. It probably was quite different in the 1910's and 1920's. Though, at the very least, an adulterous husband who was living apart from his wife, especially in the open with another woman, I think would have provided legal and religious grounds for divorce at that point.


reply

It was COMMON for men in that position (English gentlemen) to hire a detective and a woman, and set up a scene where the detective would find HIM in bed with the hired woman in a hotel, so that HE could be accused of adultery, which was socially better for both parties than having his wife accused of it. Now that's "parade."


Thank you for this explanation. The most interesting thing about this series was its study of reputations ruined for all the wrong reasons. I've never seen that theme examined in any film or television series before. Unfortunately, the hero at the twenty-fifth hour loses all the moral courage that made him the only compelling character through four-and-a-half hours.

reply

Unfortunately, the hero at the twenty-fifth hour loses all the moral courage that made him the only compelling character through four-and-a-half hours.


I don't agree. I think he finally gains the courage to be happy and at peace at last. He's not going to play the game or follow the 'parade' anymore.

Why is it considered 'moral' to live an unhappy and false life?






And all the pieces matter (The Wire)

reply

Why is it considered 'moral' to live an unhappy and false life?


Because for him to become "happy" meant for him to force a principled suffragette to become his whore.

reply

Because for him to become "happy" meant for him to force a principled suffragette to become his whore.


Well if asking the woman he loves and who loves him to become his mistress tonight is forcing her I suppose you might be right.

Valentine was more than ready and willing to be with Christopher. They had both waited a long time and had seen the tragedy of war and realised how short life was. They wanted to take happiness where they could.

Valentine still believed in the rights of woman but had tempered her beliefs to include happiness and sexual satisfaction.

reply

jshoaf wrote:

The irony is that his peers (for example Campion) are quite eager to
believe the worst of Christopher, to see the mess he is making of his life or actually to imagine much worse (that he has multiple mistresses and bastard children). He gets no respect for being loyal to a cheating wife. His own father and brother believe the lies


Jshoaf, I don't quite grasp the Victorian/Edwardian metaphor of "parade" (I don't think that it referred to a sham wedding). For whose benefit was Christopher putting on a parade? Presumably, it was for Sylvia's benefit except she didn't join his parade.

Christopher's parade was almost like the one in "The Emperor's New Clothes". All of his family and peers saw the irony on parade. So why continue his parade for so many years when he was the only one deluded by it?

reply

He was sticking to the moral code he believed in, despite the fact the world was changing around him. One does the honorable thing. He was willing to accept the blame himself and to allow a divorce if she instigated it, but he wasn't going to drag a woman's name through the mud. Call it old fashioned chivalry. Plus more than a little nostalgia for the past and an uncommon amount of stubbornness. He gave it up when he realized (like Valentine), that it's all well and fine to have ideals, but they don't bring you happiness. So they both said the hell with society and went off to be happy together.

reply

Some excellent ideas about the meaning of 'Parade' given here.

But I think it's important to qualify that there is more than keeping up appearance at stake here, in Tiejens' mind. For him ' parade' seems to be a metaphor for a code of personal honor...which involves his doing what is right, just, gentlemanly...whatever the personal cost.

He would not bring dishonor on his wife, or anyone else...even if by doing so he was telling the simple truth and saving himself from disgrace, or mortal danger.

reply

For him ' parade' seems to be a metaphor for a code of personal honor...which involves his doing what is right, just, gentlemanly...whatever the personal cost.


mflint, I think you're the first person to hit the nail on the head. I think "parade" to Tienjens meant exactly what you say: a code of values and morals, gentlemanly behavior which makes one a gentleman. They include sexual purity, telling the truth, not gossiping, honoring one's debts (the bounced check business) and not living beyond one's means, taking care of one's social inferiors (servants, tenants and the like), being gallant to ladies even when cuckolded, and courage in battle. They have very little to do with one's outward appearance to others and much more to do with what might be termed character or moral fortitude.

The values were certainly old-fashioned by the Edwardian era, a holdover of mid-Victorian propriety, but Christopher had clearly been brought up to believe in them, probably by his father, who seems to share his code. (Note that even General Campion, at least twenty years Christopher's senior, doesn't share them. Not only does he treat the suffragettes violently, he bellows that a gentleman should divorce his wife if she is unfaithful, something Christopher is unwilling to do.) And even in the prudish Victorian era, plenty of "gentlemen" failed to live up to Christopher's high moral principles, especially concerning extramarital sex and gambling.

By the end of the story this code of values, which was symbolized by the Groby Tree, is gone forever, destroyed irrevocably by the war. Christopher finally comes to realize this, which is why he burns his souvenir cedar log (symbolically relinquishing his ties to the past and the old-fashioned way of life) and finally starts his long-delayed relationship with Valentine.

reply

Thank you for this very enjoyable analysis, Virginiana. I agree with you. I would add, that though I respect his code of honor, I was relieved when he relaxed it enough to enable him & Valentine to live a happy life. He will still be a very honorable person by practically any standards.

reply

.
Other people have said a lot of great things here. I'd just like to add a couple of other comments:

Christopher is very "old school": He knows it, he admits it, and he believes that his traditional old-school honorable values (and those include the best of conservative values, like caring for one's servants and so forth) are the only logical and honorable way to live.

He does not see that the crack or flaw in his logic is the fact that these old-school values involve, to one extent or another, putting up a false show, a false front, a facade ("parade"). It's a dichotomy that drives the plot of the entire film: His concern with his honorable false front is increasingly ravaged by the vicious and completely false gossip that swirls around him and which he is initially oblivious to, and which is in stark contrast to the actual reality that it is his wife, not him, who is the scurrilous one in his marriage. While Christopher is busy protecting the honor of his wife and his son and his family name and his own manhood, society is busy undermining his reputation on even falser grounds.

As the movie progresses he finally sees that this old-school "honor" is not actually 100% honorable because it involves a lie: The lie that he loves his wife, the lie that his wife is honorable, the lie that his marriage is happy and holy and necessary to preserve his family's honor. As he comes to understand that true honesty involves being with and openly loving the person you actually love, he adjusts his moral code accordingly, so that it is 100% honorable and true, rather than 90% honorable and true. As he gives up all pretense ("parade") whatsoever, he becomes a truly honorable, truly honest, and truly happy, man, who is 100% true to himself.
.

reply