Did Eilis really have a choice? SPOILERS - Brooklyn (2015) Discussion

[–] svenrufus 8 years ago

I think she had no choice because of that scene with Mrs Kelly - the moment when she said
"I forgot"
"You forgot you were married?"
"I forgot what it was like here"

She knew then that to stay was to condemn herself to a life of being scrutinised by the small-town small-mindedness that she had just seen. I think for a while she was genuinely torn, but that moment crystallized why she needed to get back to Tony, to a place where she was amongst people 'who don't know your aunt' and to somewhere where she could grow into the person she wanted to be, not what her hometown expected her to be.

No choice. None at all.

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 8 years ago

I did wonder what she'd have done if she hadn't been found out. She seemed to be leaning towards not returning to Tony, preferring Jim. She didn't answer Tony's letters, didn't even open them at first. I think if she hadn't already married Tony, her decision might have been different. It was said a couple of times in the film that Brooklyn was just like home - full of Irish people. It was still a fairly insular community with the kindly priest at its centre. It also seemed to me that Jim would've been prepared to see the world with her so it wouldn't have been simply a choice of Ireland versus America. As it was, she'd done a rash thing and ended up having no choice but to make the best of things.

reply

[–] straburyred-38 8 years ago

Check your PMs, dear Brosie. 

Persephone: Olympus's Quintessential Flower Child

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 8 years ago

Replied, strab.

reply

[–] Nidratime 8 years ago

I posted this comment in another thread on this board, but think it might fit better here:

Speaking of who was better suited for Eilis, I thought one thing that really stood out was that Jim was planning to live in his parents home and run the family bar, while Tony and his brothers were planning to build a new business based on their skills, including building their own homes -- which mirrored more what Eilis was doing, i.e., building a new life, not walking in her parents' shoes, living the lives they chose to live.

reply

[–] kendrah66 8 years ago

Right. I felt she was kind of cornered by what Miss Kelly said, but I think she also realized she was making the right decision. What she said to the girl on the boat was supposed to tell us that. If she stayed with Jim in Ireland, her life would just be like it had been, like her mother's and sister's had been. By going to the US with Tony, she was going to experience more exciting things and know more people. It was important that Tony told her that all the other land around his land had been sold. Someday that town is going to be big and densely populated and there will be lots of people to know and things to do. If she stayed in Ireland, it would just be the same people she's always known.

reply

[–] Reallyididnthinkso 8 years ago

^^This.
I also got the impression that she chose US/Brooklyn over Ireland as she wanted to build her life on her own. Not take what she was offered. Also, Tony was a better fit for her as he and his brothers were doing the same. Building new lives in the US.

Also, Jim represents the traditional status quo and Tony adventure/independence and new beginning (land of opportunity, USA).

Feel bad about leaving the mother on her own. However, Ellis had outgrown her hometown and needed to do more..

"Careful. We don't want to learn from this."

reply

[–] friendoffilm 8 years ago

I agree, Reallyididnthinkso.

Eilis wanted to have a life of her own, and she was clearly stifled by the small town life back in Ireland. So, she did what lots of other people have done; travelled to the the United States looking for a different kind of life, and more opportunities.

reply

[–] gelliss 8 years ago

Excellent observations. You crystallized that scene perfectly. Until then I think she was torn between the two lives. Everything back in Ireland seemed to be done because it was expected and her mother and friends wanted it. It's easy to slide back in to just going along with what's expected of you. The scene with Mrs Kelly gave Eilis the strength to break away for good.

reply

[–] flaiky 8 years ago

I definitely felt that she wanted to stay in Ireland, and only returned after the conversation with the book keeper.

But then she seemed so positive in her closing voiceover - saying "you'll realise it's where you belong" and hugging Tony tightly...I found that odd and jarring, anyone else? Unless we're meant to think that she's kidding herself and it's actually very tragic....But she seemed sincere. 

I didn't like that she could abandon her mum like she did, either, with so little explanation. It didn't feel believable that she (or anyone) would leave in that manner.

A very nice, engaging film with great acting but the ending felt rushed and not entirely appropriate.

That is a masterpiece of understatement.

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

For this very conventional film, the part where Eilis suddenly returns to Brooklyn for fear of being found out is a "twist."

Up until the point where she stopped reading Tony's letters and started dating Jim, the film was pleasant and lovely to watch. Most people are nice and helpful to each other. It's refreshing to see after how today's films and shows promote stomach churning darkness.

I guess the cynic in me just sees Eilis as an opportunist. Tony obviously loves her a lot more than she loves him. Tony deserves better.

I also think her sudden return to Brooklyn is escapism; it is not love.

So for the story to end with a romantic, happy ending is just... what??? It's a cop-out.

I can't respect that and all the critics who gave this film high ratings, despite its contradictory nature.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 8 years ago

I haven't read the book, but I think the film does show that she returned to Brooklyn because she didn't have a choice. It also seemed clear to me that film's ending wasn't romantic in the sense that she suddenly realised she loved Tony. She hadn't been responding to his letters so I suppose she wanted to make it look convincing that she was glad to see him. He probably loved her too much to question her closely. He was shown to be not very bright when he asked his little brother for help, but his family had good prospects so he wasn't a total loss for her.

In Ireland, Eilis was attracted to Jim and it obviously didn't hurt that his family was wealthy. She'd have had everything she wanted if she'd been able to choose to stay and marry him. However, you'd think her marriage to Tony would have always been on her mind if she'd decided to marry Jim bigamously. Even so, she might have taken the chance if the shopkeeper hadn't found out. I think she changed during the course of the film from being quite innocent to being a much more morally ambiguous character.

My own mother went through a somewhat similar moral dilemma so I didn't feel completely unsympathetic towards Eilis.

I haven't read many reviews. The film critic I listen to always tries to avoid spoilers so his review was positive without giving anything away.

reply

[–] hywel596 8 years ago

I took the ending too be either happy or tragic, I mean, she is leaving her mother for ever.

But with interpretation, It's up too yourself whether she wanted to go back to Tony or if she was really just realising that New York was the better place too be.

You could interpret whether or not she actually liked Farrell at all or if she convinced herself that she did to appease her mother and her friend.

The film doesn't spell it out at all and it's totally up to the audience on what her return was all about, remember the woman on the boat with her, and how she makes the same speech at the end of the film?

She lived in New York and forgot that life in Ireland is a bubble whereas Brooklyn is a bigger bubble with too many people to know all of them.

I think calling the ending a "cop-out" is a ridiculous accusation, the ending could mean many things, her motivation is unclear because the film understands that we aren't 5 year olds.

It's all a matter of interpretation ultimately, if you saw the ending as romantic and happy then are you really such a cynic?

Maybe she convinced herself that she loved Tony after all? Or she really did?

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

It's up to the audience to form their opinion.

But the directors and writers definitely presented Eilis as having a romantic reunion with Tony.

I think they whitewashed the fact that her return to Brooklyn was escapism; they made the reunion romantic and idyllic, whereas it hid a darker side of her personality and motivation.

If she were passionately in love with Tony, she would not have dated Jim. She would also not have taken so long to tell Tony she loved him. A person who is madly in love with someone wouldn't need to "think" about how he or she feels. Or compare experiences with other lovers or need to experiment with other people. If they end up with the original person, it's only because that person is their best option, not because they're madly in love with him.

Calling a highly manipulative scene with fake sunset/sunlight and a slow motion of long-lost lovers kissing a cop-out is not a ridiculous accusation. What's ridiculous is painting something as good to give the movie a good wrap-up. No more questions asked. If the audience had any reservations, it's their problem.

My problem is that this is a woman who obviously merely likes her husband and isn't madly in love with him. She lies to herself that she loves him because it's convenient.

In my view, that is depressing.

Then the directors and the writers show them a Doisneau photography moment of lovers who are equally and passionately in love with each other, when one of them is lying to herself and to her husband.

That is discordant and dishonest.

It ends the movie with the couple heading probably towards a wealthy and stable future... and in love.

Not really true.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] jlent 8 years ago

I think they whitewashed the fact that her return to Brooklyn was escapism;

Au contraire. It's almost exactly the opposite.
The only thing about it that's escapism is it was her escape from Ireland. It was her scary jump into the unknown that became the future she wants to live, not knowing what will happen when she and Tony move to Long Island. The term "escapism" means an escape from reality. Ireland, with its comforts she knows, would have been escapism from the reality she is living in the US.

My problem is that this is a woman who obviously merely likes her husband and isn't madly in love with him

You know this, how? Have you never felt torn?
The fact the film is such an early success is an indication many feel it hits home.

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

I find it amusing that quite a few people are defending the near-bigamous Eilis?

As one poster said, if a guy did what Eilis did, he would be crucified.

But in this story, it's kind of cute and nostalgic that a girl can't make up her mind because she misses home. I think this has been extremely whitewashed.

You are interpreting my use of "escapism" too literally. She was escaping her blackmail, and Tony was her safety net. That's what I meant, not escaping any geographical location which she also did.

Just because a film is successful, it doesn't exonerate it from flaws.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] jlent 8 years ago

I find it amusing that quite a few people are defending the near-bigamous Eilis?

and

As one poster said, if a guy did what Eilis did, he would be crucified.

Seriously? The choices made in love triangles is one the staples of major move making. So, despite your moral certitude and priggishness, I give you:
Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, The Godfather, The Graduate, Sabrina, Legends of the Fall, Breakfast at Tiffany's (and she's a hooker!), lesser films like Twilight and The Notebook, countless others, and just about every Jane Austen novel ever written.

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

Some of those films are considered masterpieces for their film-making qualities, not necessarily for the ambiguities of their romances.

Brooklyn as a film is very far from any of the cinematic ingenuity of the films mentioned. They were successful because they were good films, superior to Brooklyn that promotes a nice romance and sanitizes the darker elements of the main character. The other films mentioned were honest about their characters' behaviors.

The fact that I don't celebrate bigamy and using a nice guy like Tony doesn't make me a moral prude. If you want to get personal, should I also say you did something that Eilis did and therefore you are more forgiving towards her? Let's not get personal and catty.

Questioning of one of the characters' motivations equates me with condemning romance in film and good film in general? What kind of logic (lack thereof) is that?

I'm putting you on Ignore.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] jlent 8 years ago

The fact that you saw her "darker elements" (so did I, btw) means they weren't sanitized. If they were you wouldn't have even known about them. You're mistaking subtlety for absence.
But I'm on ignore. Figures. Don't engage anyone with an opinion differing from yours.

reply

[–] craigdscopeland 8 years ago

I would have put you on ignore too for starting with the personal attacks.

reply

[–] Darthfrodo58 8 years ago

Bravo 

Snakes....I hate snakes

reply

[–] shoutingagain 8 years ago

yes, yes YES, totally agree VarysGash.

While I possibly enjoyed the voyage of this story a tad more than you (maybe not, unsure), I found it discordant to what many others took away from it. I did while watching it & even more so afterward.

And no matter what others contend you are absolutely right, she was near-bigamous & no matter how much a "throwback" in time this is meant to be, nothing cute or whimsical in that story-line whatsoever.

reply

[–] kay_cee_d 8 years ago

She would also not have taken so long to tell Tony she loved him.

I disagree with this part. I think people fall in love at different paces....doesn't mean they both won't get there at some point in time. You can't rush people. Just because someone doesn't feel the same love for you at the same time doesn't mean they won't eventually get there.

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

People may not fall in love at the same time.

But in Eilis' case, it was obvious he loved her more than she loved him. And according to this movie, she "got there" because she was in denial.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 8 years ago

My problem is that this is a woman who obviously merely likes her husband and isn't madly in love with him. She lies to herself that she loves him because it's convenient.

But do you think she would have been madly in love with Jim? Wouldn't a bigamous marriage to him have been -- to use your own word -- 'convenient'?

Spotlight: 10
Brooklyn: 9
Room: 9.5

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

She wasn't in love with Jim nor Tony.

They were convenient for her. Going for either guy would have been advantageous for her ambitions and sense of security.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] annlevtex 8 years ago

I don't think we can know whether she likes or loves Tony. I don't think she loves him as much as he loves her, but things are not always completely even in a marriage. I think she did love him or she would not have returned to him, or slept with him before marrying him. It wasn't a church wedding after all. When I saw her watching her friend marry in a church, I wonder if she wasn't thinking about that. A devout Catholic would not consider civil marriage binding in the same way. So to me, the bond WAS emotional and involved love, even if it was greater on his side than hers.

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 8 years ago

I mean, she is leaving her mother for ever.

But that seemed to be the mother's choice, not Eilis's.

When Eilis told her she was married to a man in America, surely she could not have expected Eilis to stay in Ireland with her?

The mother could always have come to America to visit them, but she didn't seem to want to be bothered.

Spotlight: 10
Brooklyn: 9
Room:9.5

reply

[–] koko-10 8 years ago

I have no doubt that when she & Tony are living in their new house on Long Island and start to have kids, then Ma would come over from Ireland to live with them.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

reply

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

I think calling the ending a "cop-out" is a ridiculous accusation, the ending could mean many things, her motivation is unclear because the film understands that we aren't 5 year olds.

It's all a matter of interpretation ultimately, if you saw the ending as romantic and happy then are you really such a cynic?

Maybe she convinced herself that she loved Tony after all? Or she really did?

I think this is the best answer.

As a romantic, I like to think that she ultimately realized she loved Tony and went back, but the cynic in me also thinks she might have stayed on in Ireland if she hadn't been found out. Either way, I still think its a great movie regardless of Eilis' motivations. After all, she's only human.

I do think that though she might not have loved Tony as much as he loved her that she did care for him and would be a good wife to him.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

[–] dlynch843 8 years ago

I agree that her return to Tony was escapism rather than love.
One question: Why did Tony and Eilis have that simple, apparently secret civil wedding in Town Hall? I got the impression Tony's family liked Eilis--they had a sense of humor, too. Not a bad family to marry into. I assume they were both Catholic---why not a big wedding? By the 50s, the Irish and Italians were starting to warm up to each other--there's an urban legend here in NYC---the children of Irish/Italian parents are very beautiful.
But it would've helped if there was some spark between Tony and Eilis...

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

Tony is hopelessly cute and almost handsome. Eilis also seemed like a big sister condescending to his level. I wasn't convinced about the supposed spark between them.

Yes, the Irish and Italians love a big wedding, and so do most cultures. The secret wedding thing was a big red flag. Eilis raised so many red flags that Tony ignored because he was so infatuated with her. As one poster mentioned, he has a pattern of going for girls who aren't that into him.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] phantomF-12 8 years ago

I suppose they got the secret civil marriage with the promise of a "real" (church) wedding later when Eilis returns from Ireland.

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 8 years ago

I didn't like that she could abandon her mum like she did, either, with so little explanation.

I don't know, I thought it was her mother who seemed cold and detached.

It was her mother's choice to say good-bye in that abrupt manner, even stating that she wanted it to be a final parting. I thought that was odd and cold.

Then I remembered how -- when Eilis was first leaving for America on the ship and waving good-bye to her mother and sister -- her mother had left suddenly like she couldn't be bothered with the parting anymore. Eilis' sister Rose stayed until the very last moment, waving with tears in her eyes until the ship actually began to move off. The mother had already left the scene well before that time.

There just seemed to be something lacking in the mother's feelings for Eilis.

Spotlight: 10
Brooklyn: 9
Room:9.5

reply

[–] peterwcohen-300-947200 8 years ago

Yes, there are a lot of clues about the mother that she was trapping Eilis into staying in Ireland. And not just from her mother -- Remember at the beginning of the movie, when Eilis informs Mrs. Kelly that she is emigrating, old Nettles tells her that she has just consigned Rose to a life of taking care of their mother. That's the classic trap about overbearing mothers in stories about "ethnic" families, a la Danny Aiello's mother in Moonstruck. Particularly in Ireland, the younger daughter is expected to devote her life to the care of the mother in old age. Also, along the lines about it not being the just the mother, note how she had to go to Rose's old employer IMMEDIATELY to help straighten out the books, how the old woman at the church was busybodying herself about Eilis and Jim, etc. There was a wide conspiracy, including the mother, to trap Eilis into staying.

reply

[–] friendoffilm 8 years ago

One has to bear in mind the Eilis took a part-time job in back in Ireland (where she was for her sister's funeral and her best friend's wedding.) to save up some money so that she could go back to the United States.

reply

[–] kajong-v-p 8 years ago

I've watched the movie just now but I don't think there was a scene that implied or started that she needed the money to return to the states..... Am I missing something? What I do recall is the opposite though - when Jim "mentions" (apparently in the hopes of making her stay) that a certain firm was looking for bookkeepers to help out immediately, Eilis makes a pass by saying that she'll be leaving for the states soon, with an expression that I felt displayed disinterest and a level of discomfort about being subtly talked into staying in Ireland. I took her saying no to mean she didn't need extra funds to return to the states.

reply

[–] Kinokima 8 years ago

I liked the analysis that Tony & Jim were both meant to be a metaphors of the immigrant experience the New vs the Old World. So when she chooses Tony in the end she is ultimately choosing Brooklyn vs Ireland.

From what I read the book doesn't even reunite her withTony in the end like the movie does it just shows her going back.

Personally I liked the romance with Tony more as I felt it was more fleshed out and developed and I was happy she returned to him (although Jim was a nice guy as well).

However when I stopped thinking of Tony & Jim in romantic terms but instead thought of them as symbols for Eilis journey I think the movie makes even more sense. It's not so much Jim, Eilis is
falling in love with her but her home town. It's the life that Jim represents that attracts her to him.

That is why she decides to go back to Brooklyn is because the shopkeeper shows her the insularity of her home and then she remembers her love and the positives of her new home and (at least in the movie) declares her love for Tony by saying her new last name to the shop keeper. But its not just her declaring her love for Tony by giving his last name she is declaring herself an American.

The marriage between Eilis and Tony too can be symbolic in my opinion of a marriage between Eilis and her new country. When I was first watching the movie the fact that maybe Eilis was forgetting her marriage to Tony sort of bothered me but when I think of it on a deeper level it's more that she was reconsidering her "marriage" to a new home country because while visiting her old home she remembers how much she loved it as well.

reply

[–] ames0826 8 years ago

. . . and when Ellis gets back to Brooklyn the stories about how she carried on with Jim will circulate and her relationship with Tony will never be the same.

reply

[–] QueenJackieB 8 years ago

I really found it uncharacterisric that she would go on with Jim like she did. She seemed more sensible than that.

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

While the film showed Eilis to be a generally good person, it was a study of contrasts between Brooklyn and Ireland. If indeed she had met Jim and had a nice job, she would have never left Ireland.

When she returned to Ireland, she got to taste what it was like to finally experience something that eluded her for so long.

I think that's why she went along with Jim and the job.

Her initial intention was to return to Tony and Brooklyn as soon as her obligations were fulfilled.

But since fate was going to show her what life was like in Ireland under ideal conditions, it became easier to choose between Brooklyn and Ireland.

I do think the ending needed more development.

Mrs. Kelly's gossip-mongering and extortion snapped Eilis out of the Irish fantasy and make her hometown clear to her eyes - it was just a stagnating small town.

The future in Brooklyn with Tony was limitless in comparison.

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] PacificHeights 8 years ago

I agree. It was disappointing that she viewed Tony as a means to an end.

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 8 years ago

If indeed she had met Jim and had a nice job, she would have never left Ireland.

But the reality was that she had left Ireland, and had started a new life in America, and had even married in America.

Her life circumstances had changed, and she had to own them eventually.

Mrs. Kelly's gossip-mongering and extortion snapped Eilis out of the Irish fantasy and make her hometown clear to her eyes - it was just a stagnating small town...The future in Brooklyn with Tony was limitless in comparison.

Absolutely. Very well stated. I too thought the "Irish interlude" had just lulled her into a kind of dream state, one she would eventually have to put an end to somehow. She had to snap out of it and take ownership of her new life, her new husband, and her new responsibilities in America.

Spotlight: 10
Brooklyn: 9
Room: 9.5

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 8 years ago

I really found it uncharacterisric that she would go on with Jim like she did. She seemed more sensible than that.

Agreed. Something about it rang false.

It was as if she had slipped into a dream state, a lull away from reality.

I also couldn't believe she would have felt comfortable about taking her dead sister's job! I don't know -- it just seemed kind of morbid to me.

Spotlight: 10
Brooklyn: 9
Room: 9.5

reply

[–] kajong-v-p 8 years ago

I hope so! She *was* a near-bigamist and it's just not fair for Tony. I hope Tony and his family never find out though, it'll break their hearts! I just want karma to come back and bite her. :P

reply

[–] Ysl2524 8 years ago

I agree. I also think that Tony was very hard working, ambitious in a good way, and wanted to build a great life for his family in the tradition of achieving the American Dream. He and his brothers were very smart and forward thinking in their plans to become developers in Long Island, which would be highly lucrative as well as having the benefits of being a family run business. Post War II growth there was explosive. Tony was a man who knew what he wanted and was willing to work for it, and he did deeply deeply love Eilis and she did truly love him.

Jim wasn't really working at all and was just waiting to inherit his family's business and house. He was brighter, better educated and more sophisticated than Tony, and in a lot of ways a better fit on paper for Eilis and she had a great time with him, but he totally lacked ambition and the desire to improve life for his future family. One other important point to me is that Eilis girlfriend mentioned Jim had been engaged but had broken it off because he didn't think the girl was into him enough. That seems emotionally immature, and just silly, that he got engaged to a woman that he wasn't sure about to begin with. He was more a boy than a man in a lot of ways. Would that have changed if Eilis had married him, or would her life have been lots of golf matches, church with mum, hanging with the rugby team, and lots and lots of tea? Very pleasant in the beginning but very stifling long term.

Eilis was a woman who was adventurous and worked incredibly hard to grow as a person and increase her opportunities for a better life. She made a comment when she and Jim were on the beach that she if she'd had her job and relationship with Jim before she went to America then she never would have left Ireland, and I think she would have been happy with that life. But she's a completely different person now:: a woman who left home and foraged her way very successfully in America, which is a place where she absolutely bloomed both in her career and personal life. She'd outgrown her small antiquated Irish town that would never change, and became a new person who wouldn't be satisfied long term with the status quo. The horrible bakery lady crystallized the negatives of living where she grew up, and even if she'd tried to stay there, would Jim have been a man who stuck by her in a controversy like that? I don't think he would have been able to handle it and love her through thick and thin. Tony was a man who would always be there for her no matter what.

Her life with Tony in America will be more challenging than a life with Jim, but ultimately it's what she really wanted. I think the threat from the horrible horrible bakery owner made Eilas realize that, and in that instant she said her married name. Jim was an awesome guy, but I think Tony was her destiny and true love.

reply

[–] mlambert890-1 8 years ago

It's ironic though because while Jim got engaged to a girl who wasnt sure about him, but broke it off when he realized... Tony *married* one who very nearly vanished to marry another guy and only came back to him because of blackmail. And he'll never know.

I think Jim is both better off and actually more mature. Tony deluded himself into marrying a woman who was pretty effortlessly able to head down the path of bigamy.

I found it all depressing and felt really bad for Tony who was poorly used and deserved far better imo.

Had the genders here been flipped I have my doubts criticis would be viewing this as charitably.

reply

[–] Drewboy-2 8 years ago

She loved Tony. They needed each other.

reply

[–] dini0519 8 years ago

I too, think Tony was her true love. Jim, and her mom, and Ireland were sweet and familiar, but Tony and Brooklyn were her true destiny.

Dini

reply

[–] RayLoHoldridge 8 years ago

Good analysis, Ysl2524. Thank you.

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 8 years ago

on a deeper level it's more that she was reconsidering her "marriage" to a new home country because while visiting her old home she remembers how much she loved it as well.

But she hadn't loved it so well that she didn't want to escape it for America, in the beginning. And whatever new appreciation she may have discovered for her old home was soured by the nasty shopkeeper trying to blackmail her.

That scene jolted Eilis back into the world of reality, and her responsibility to her new husband and status in America.

The "return time" back in Ireland seemed like a dream that couldn't last, a hazy and escapist lull in which she had put the real world on hold somehow.

Over and above the nasty shopkeeper's insinuations, it wouldn't have been fair to Jim (not to mention Tony!) to marry him bigamously when she already had a husband in America. He was obviously going to find out eventually.

Spotlight: 10
Brooklyn: 9
Room: 9.5

reply

[–] PacificHeights 8 years ago

She returned to America because her lying and deceit was about to catch up with her. Tony deserved better.

reply

[–] Sook-Yongsheng 8 years ago

she seemed ambitious for her own career and it looked like she would have the opportunity to succeed in either country.

Yes, she definitely would have succeeded in either place.

The thing is -- if she had married Jim the Irish guy, she would have been committing bigamy.

So, beguiling as the situation in Ireland had become, it really wasn't ethical (or legal) to marry anyone after she had already married Tony.

As for her career: I could see Tony and his brothers starting their company and becoming very successful developers on Long Island. Of course she would have been their accountant, and eventually their CFO.

Spotlight: 10
Brooklyn: 9
Room:9.5

reply

[–] Crystal915 8 years ago

NICE THREAD!! Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful (and respectful) comments!

reply

[–] Ambrosia-I 8 years ago

I've enjoyed reading everyone else's take on what happened and why. I think it's a strength of the film that it allows for so many interpretations - people see the same situation differently, perhaps depending on their own experiences.

reply

[–] greenpen33 8 years ago

I think the people who are saying Eilis didn't really love Tony should re-watch the scene where Eilis and her mother are talking and Eilis finally admits that she has a husband in the U.S. and wants to return to be with him. Her crying and want for him seem very genuine to me. Some people may say that she was crying out of guilt that she waited that long to tell her mother (which it partially could have been), but I feel she was crying because she missed Tony. It is at this point that she is honest with herself about how much she misses Tony and how much she wants to return to him. Her circumstances in Ireland were desirable and enticing, and she was attempting to imagine herself staying in Ireland and being happy, but ultimately it was Brooklyn, and Tony, that she wanted to return to.

Jennie

reply

[–] LeofricsBeloved 8 years ago

Personally, I find that suspicious. She only saw Tony as a husband she loved when she had nowhere to go to. Would she miss Tony as much if her affair with Jim worked out?

transcendcinema.blogspot.com

reply

[–] greenpen33 8 years ago

I think it would have eventually gotten to her, yeah.

Jennie

reply

[–] winepooh96 8 years ago

I just saw the film and felt the same way. It kind of cast a dark shadow on an otherwise very cute movie. I wasn't sure she loved Tony at the end and just went back because she had no options. I would rather have had her make the decision to return to Brooklyn on her own. Better yet, I wish they had never gotten married. I knew once they got married the decision was made. I love Tony, but thought he deserved better than some wishy washy girl like Ellis, who basically forgot all about him the minute she left America. I actually thought she was better suited to Jim. Honestly, I thought the chemistry with both guys was lacking.

I also wondered why the sister didn't just get her a job at her work since it seemed like she was well liked and the place seemed busy. She could have made a nice life there, like when she came back. Anyway, I liked the film, but thought it was predicable (saw Rose dying a mile away) and a little overhyped.

reply