I think the argument for Eilis/Tony's long term success is strong, but also there is the matter of chemistry. Eilis and Tony just seemed to enjoy each other's company. Their faces lit up, their eyes sparkled, they busted each other's chops a little bit. Look how monosyllabic Eilis was with her family and with the girls at the boarding house, versus how confident she was bantering with Tony. Even looking at no-dialogue scenes like walking around Coney Island, or exiting the movies, they seem alive together. Important for Eilis, who tends to withdraw. There's also the matter that Domhnall Gleeson is at least 30 (or in his 30s) and to me there looked to be too much of an age difference in the movie between Jim and Eilis. Eilis grew up with a sister ten years older, an older mother (who acted even OLDER), worked for Miss Kelly (an older lady). In Ireland, the only person she was vibrant with was her best friend. Tony and she were more equal.
I, also, see Tony's family as an asset. Obviously his family came from no money, but in just one generation the sons were starting to succeed and climb to the next rung on the ladder. And obviously, there was the intention to send the little brother to college. The only question mark is Eilis's career, and having babies, but she'd have both challenges no matter who she married. It was the 1950s. Tony's mother seemed impressed that Eilis was attending college and intending to be an accountant, so maybe despite them being a 1950s Italian family, there would be support for her having a career. In the book, the reason Rose didn't marry, despite having no problem having boyfriends, is she didn't want to be stuck in the house, buried in babies, like all her girlfriends.
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
Jane,
I understand your point about chemistry with Tony and how that went a long way to helping Eilis grow and be happy. But there are two problems with extending that observation to a conclusion she was better off with him.
The first is that Eilis has already grown by the time we see what amounts to a possible choice being presented to her. The benefit of her experience has already been realized. Is Tony necessary for her to if you will stay in that improved state or condition? Her behavior on returning to Ireland suggests not. In fact that whole section of the film can hardly be read as anything other than showing that she has been changed, and Tony's absence shows her change does not depend on him for her to sustain it.
Second is I think you glossed over Eilis's to me obvious chemistry with Jim by only mentioning the age difference of the two actors. Despite Gleeson's actual age there is nothing in the film that indicates his character is 30 or older. But more to the point they DID have great chemistry, too, which is precisely why Eilis faced a dilemma, one only resolved as it was by Miss Kelly's intervention.
I coincidentally rewatched this film last night, and I found it unavoidable to notice how that intervention was a plot turn intended as such. Eilis had put off reading Tony's letters. This meant not only that she did not want to be confused by what might be in them as she explored her new way of relating to her hometown and those in it. It meant that the confident, effective, attractive and even sophisticated woman we saw there depended not at all on any involvement or encouragement from Tony.
Rewatching the film also I think set to rest the notion (subject to one caveat) that the nature of Ireland, her hometown and those around her would in effect force her over time to backslide as it were away from this new persona she adopted in Brooklyn. Jim for example is not only an intelligent and educated person. He specifically wants to travel, here intended to mean he will not be a mere provincial going forward. And her work is not only personally rewarding in a way that her work for Miss Kelly was not. It was specifically noted that the bookkeeping work she did was essentially the same as what she was training for in America - well of course it is. The point being that she already had what she was looking for after she would eventually leave her sales girl job.
The fact is she had in Ireland in addition to Jim her mother, her best friend, her best friend's husband a good friend of Jim, and the admiration and support of any number of others. As much as I agree the film shows Tony's family as supportive and warm, does that really overcome what she had in Ireland?
The sole caveat as I see it is what Eilis says to Miss Kelly during their last meeting. Eilis refers in effect to the small mindedness of the town and its people. I interpret this as evidencing her adopting a more American attitude about such things, in turn suggesting that having become more American she would be happier returning to America.
No doubt there is something to that, but I think it begs the question since on that score the only reason she was confronted with that which took away her choice was about something that if it had not occurred - her secret marriage - she would still have been able to have that choice.
I was not so sure on first viewing, but having seen it again I am now certain that if Eilis did not have to go back to America, she would have stayed and married Jim.
reply
share
cetaylor3
8 years ago
Personally, i think everyone on this board who is analyzing Tony v. Jim who mentions job prospects or social class or signs of ambition or background economically saw a very different Eilis (or projected on her) than I did: She doesn't prioritize money - enough to live on, yes, but she fell in love with Tony quite happily whether he was a plumber or not - and we see her disdain for the privileges of wealth already in the first scene when Miss Kelly privileges the late-entering woman with status to serve her over those who'd come before her. Eilis disdained that kind of focus on status, money, etc.
Also I think you forget that bookkeeping was not a goal for her and in America she intended to study and go beyond that - to "accountant" - but the sense is that she's not someone likely to be limited there either. The job she falls into back in Ireland, essentially replicating her sister and living her sister's life, which she had sought to escape, with her sister's blessing, is a job that would likely be lifelong with little chance for further education and growth into other uses of her talents that she already started discovering in Brooklyn.
I have already written in other threads here about my interpretation of the "choice" she had before her, which is quite a bit different from your interpretation.
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
^
I do not mean to disparage what Eilis had with Tony, but the fact remains Tony was the only man who paid attention to her. Her happiness was real but also relative to what had been a life of loneliness in Brooklyn. Accepting his wish to be a couple does not mean she literally disdains money. To the contrary, what was the meaning of the scene when Tony took her to the vacant land on Long Island? It was him in effect assuring her that he would do better than cleaning up other people's raw sewage.
I did not mean to say that bookkeeping was her end goal, just an intermediate one after eventually leaving the sales job. You also evidence an implied condemnation of the kind of education and life she would have had in Ireland. Ireland is relatively a highly educated country, and was not significantly less so post WWII.
As for this sentence, there are several problems with it:
"The job she falls into back in Ireland, essentially replicating her sister and living her sister's life, which she had sought to escape, with her sister's blessing, is a job that would likely be lifelong with little chance for further education and growth into other uses of her talents that she already started discovering in Brooklyn."
She first of all did not "fall back into" the job. She never had that job before, either in Ireland or the US. She was not replicating her sister's life, who after all knew she was sick, had no wish of children or marriage, and was honor bound to take care of her mother. None is true of Eilis. Also her own outlook on going to Brooklyn in the first place was rather more ambivalent than seeking an escape. Yes, her sister encouraged her to leave, as much to have Eilis grow which she already had by the time she came back, coming back a changed person. And you simply have no basis for saying Eilis would certainly not grow any further if she had stayed in Ireland.
In fact I wonder if we saw the same movie. On a thematic level I don't see how this film can be understood as saying anything else but that a change in this case of a locale and culture and lifestyle can be transformative. As I pointed out in my previous post on this thread it is clear that Eilis was transformed and would not go back to being the same as she was at the film's beginning whether she went back to Brooklyn or stayed in Ireland.
And why if Eilis was so happy with Tony did she fall in love with Jim, not read Tony's letters, and have it take Miss Kelly's threat to make her leave?
OF COURSE she did not like Miss Kelly, who was an awful person. But there are awful people everywhere.
In the end there is too much left unanswered to suggest that Eilis would have gone back to Brooklyn even if she were not secretly married and Miss Kelly had not found out about it. That is the narrative turn that led to the end, not an unadorned preference by Eilis for Tony over Jim.
reply
share
Dagwoodie
8 years ago
I do not mean to disparage what Eilis had with Tony, but the fact remains Tony was the only man who paid attention to her.
Wasn't there a guy working in a cafe that tried to put the moves on her?
reply
share
kenny-164
8 years ago
Dag,
You are correct that the guy working in the café did notice Eilis and say something to her. But it did not go beyond that.
reply
share
freebird1987
7 years ago
I don't think Eilis fell in love with Jim. I think she was only attracted to him.
reply
share
LovesConfusingJoy
8 years ago
Chemistry does not last and isn't a marker of long term success. I thought she seemed very confident talking with her friends back in Ireland.
reply
share