MovieChat Forums > The Dig (2021) Discussion > May Brown as Wife vs. Peggy Piggott as W...

May Brown as Wife vs. Peggy Piggott as Wife

posted 3 years ago by BeaSouth (2829)
11 replies | jump to latest

The character May Brown played by Monica Dolan was written so well. She was not the well-read curious partner to her husband Basil and her character was written to show there was limited chemistry with him after many years together. But the writers gave her toughness and fortitude and she had a couple of great scenes where she reminded him why he loved and needed her. She criticized Basil when he was wrong and she provided the backbone when he wanted instead to wallow as a victim after the university archeologists tried to push him aside. In the end, he respected her and there were a couple of tender scenes where he recognized her love and strength. Contrast this with the shallow and contrived way in which Peggy Piggott was presented as Stuart’s wife. The writers wrote Peggy as having just married Stuart without any clue that her new husband was gay and completely repelled by her. He literally could not bear to peck her on the lips and we’re to believe she saw no signs of this in advance of the wedding. Before they can even complete their honeymoon, he is off having a homosexual affair with Brailsford. Without any resentment or anger whatsoever, Peggy tells Stuart she thinks his gay relationship is beautiful and encourages him to leave her for his male paramour (a character written with such little depth that he shows not the slightest second thought at what he is doing to Peggy). It was a bipolar writing team and it gives the impression they just wanted to add gay characters but were too afraid of potential criticism if they wrote them as actual three dimensional human beings.

[–] spacecomedy (1967) 3 years ago

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of May Brown. It was refreshing to see an older female character written as thoughtful and decent and not a shrew or a woman trying to recapture her youth. In many ways, she was Basil's North Star, always guiding him and reminding him of what was truly important.

However, on your second point, I didn't see Peggy's character as shallow or contrived. We know that wrongly-matched marriages like hers were not totally out of the ordinary. In her case, she was drawn to Stuart because of their shared love of archaeology and was very likely a virgin when they married. We don't know how long their courtship lasted (could've been short) and when the realization began to dawn on her there were several scenes where her face registered confusion and anger. Honestly, I wasn't much interested in Stuart or Brailsford, so I appreciated the decision to keep the focus primarily on Peggy. Also, I think the fact that it was a brand new marriage made it easier for her to let him go.

[–] BeaSouth (2829) 3 years ago

I appreciate your thoughtful and considered response. You make a good point. I suppose it was on the eve of WWII and in the late 30’s which was a different time for couples in terms of possibly rushing into marriage. I stand by my opinion on the strange way Peggy was written in terms of the disintegration of her marriage. If a strong woman would not remain supine as another woman stole her husband and destroyed her new marriage, some similar emotional reaction should be true when the home-wrecker was gay. Instead, the culminating scene between Peggy and Stuart has her encouraging him to further cheat on her with his gay lover; no resentment, no criticism of his duplicity or questioning why on earth he would marry her just weeks before. I just think that was shallow and unrealistic. It seemed to suggest that writing a strong female character had to give way to giving an approving nod to the gay relationship

[–] spacecomedy (1967) 3 years ago

I agree with you that Peggy's final speech to Stuart seemed like a very modern attitude. Most women of the time likely would have been angry at his duplicity and ashamed/disgusted by his behavior. But the sad reality is that there was very little that women in Peggy's position could actually do. A woman could attempt to get a divorce (very difficult), live in a sham marriage, or find reasons to spend most time apart. I'm guessing someone like Peggy would've chosen the third option. She was a very likeable character, so I was glad she was able to find some happiness with Rory before he left for the war.

[–] BeaSouth (2829) 3 years ago

I enjoyed the dialogue SC. Thanks for the chat. Despite my minor criticism, I did really like the movie. And, I admit, that in the end, Peggy (and all the characters) found peace which was the reason this movie was so good.

[–] Information-Police (4161) 3 years ago

A lot of people like to complain at LGBT story lines being written into movies as if it's forced and an imposition upon them. I'm not saying you are going that far but I just wanted to say that such situations have existed forever. I know lots of people who got married and only later learned their spouse was not really attracted to their sex. It has been common. One might rightly ask why were such story lines supposed for so long.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 3 years ago

I think it's more that the way it was done in the movie did not feel very authentic. I don't think Peggy would have been able to just move on like that, divorce was not really an option for her. She would not have been able to be with Robert because if she got pregnant it would have been obvious it was not her husband's baby and would have ruined her life. It's unlikely she would have considered her husband's relationship with another man beautiful, because it was going to ruin her life. Much more likely she would have been angry and bitter at him, and unable to escape from the situation. He would likely have stayed married to her but had another relationship on the side, because men had the power to treat their wife however they liked at that time and could do as they pleased much more so than women. The gay relationship did seem forced into this movie. Sometimes it fits, other times it does not.

[–] Iffy762 (1331) 3 years ago

I liked the contrast between May Brown and Mrs Pretty also. At first I thought the movie was going to be a romance between Mrs Pretty and Ralph Fiennes' character. But then it took a different turn and I liked that path better. It was more unexpected and made a more interesting story I thought.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8610) 3 years ago

I kind of feel like, it is what it is, in this case. The character side stories cannot be portrayed in such depth as you seem to desire which requires viewers to fill in the rest with their imagination. I think that give the movie a bit of a book feel. I thought this movie was the best movie I've seen in a long time, as just a story, and bonus that it was based on a real person and true events. It seemed like such a reminder of what movies are supposed to be, rather than the digital special effects driven, action destruction, car crash, explosion, hit man, gun shots, drug deals, murders, etc. Based on that I rate it a 10/10. But I've noticed a few critics complaining about the side story as you have, so that must be something that bothers a number of people. I really enjoyed it. Especially that feel of where the world was before all the technology we have today when a man had to ride for 2 hours on a bicycle under his own power to get to work! Also the theme of the respected kindred spirit across class boundaries was an important part of the movie contrasting with today's more class driven society. To me, the movie was not being disrespectful to gays, just the opposite by portraying the bit that it did in an honest way. I don't know how that relates to the real story though.

[–] BeaSouth (2829) 3 years ago

Thanks for your response TQ. I appreciate the perspective you have about the movie. The real story is that Peggy was not a bumbling ingenue chosen to help with the dig because she was petite. In reality, she was a well-credentialed archaeologist who had worked on previous digs and who was a published scholar. And, there is no evidence that Stuart was homosexual. Although their marriage ended after some 20 years, Stuart didn’t leave Peggy for a same sex relationship and Peggy did not have some fling with the young, handsome Rory. In fact, Rory Lomax did not exist in real life. I think this probably adds to the sense that the gay relationship was so contrived. My take is that in fictionalizing that relationship, the writers really did a disservice in portraying the Peggy. They fictionalized a real woman into a weakling who acquiesced to her husband professionally and in their marriage by encouraging him to have an affair with another man.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8610) 3 years ago

> I think this probably adds to the sense that the gay relationship was so contrived.

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that, at least strongly.
But you have to keep in mind - ALL movies and stories are contrived as well.
Because movies are not and cannot be reality, and in some cases reality cannot
be reality because who really knows the truth about situations. As long as one
maintains a thoughtful perspective and is respectful or not disrespectful it can be
a subject of discussion or debate.

[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 3 years ago

there are gays who have married women today... there are sexless new marriages... even today, even in the West...

Gays tend not to care too much about their beard's feelings...