good husband or bad husband?


What do you think about it? I feel people will be divided on this. On one hand he was absolutely so caring and truly loved his wife. On the other hand he was cheating on his dying wife who had no clue it was happening.

reply

Truly awful man. She paid for him to live a totally selfish life without any accountability. Of course he loved her. I'd love her too with that type of relationship but I'm not a sociopath and have a conscience so would never!

reply

Good husband

He truly cared for her and wasn't totally using her like the Vocal coach or other people in her entourage

Sure he was banging another woman but he's a man who has needs.

The fact he was so passionate about keeping her happy and didn't want people to laugh or mock her showed he was a good man.

He wasn't like how say a younger Woman might use a rich older man. There was actual depth to their relationship

reply

Well said Gavin. Birmingham above is either very young or a moron. After watching this movie, if he/she still says that St. Clair only loved her for her money, I'm at a loss for words.

I don't think anyone could have asked for a better husband.

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

reply

I'd love her too with that type of relationship but I'm not a sociopath and have a conscience so would never!


I'm guess you're no older than 15.

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

reply

Sociopaths are incapable of genuine feelings for others. It was obvious he cared deeply about her and went to great lengths to protect her from bad reviews or mockery.

He was a good husband with fidelity issues, however, his infidelity is borderline understandable and ultimately forgivable.

Something else to consider. Thought it wasn't mentioned in the movie, theirs was a common law marriage, not a legal one.

reply

The movie did make a point of showing he cared, he put Florence ahead of the girlfriend and the girlfriend left him. Which was good writing, the audience is in some doubt about his feelings for the first hour or so.

IMHO it doesn't really matter if he meets anyone's definition of a good husband or not, he was the spouse that La Jenkins wanted! I think she really wanted someone who'd coddle her and lie to her and cover up her mistakes, and shield her from reality. She would have been miserable with someone who called her on her shit.

reply

Good husband but flawed obviously, the fact they couldn't have 'relations' I think Florence knew he was going elsewhere for that or at least had done in the past. There was no doubt he loved her, although tjere possibly in a mother/son type way. The best performance I have ever seen from Hugh Grant

reply

Good husband but flawed obviously, the fact they couldn't have 'relations' I think Florence knew he was going elsewhere for that or at least had done in the past. There was no doubt he loved her, although tjere possibly in a mother/son type way. The best performance I have ever seen from Hugh Grant

I think this is a very fair assessment.

http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/

reply

Well-intentioned bad husband.

Har ring molassis abounding
Common lap kitch sardin a poor floundin
.

reply

I wonder if he would have been so caring if she wasn't super rich? I think not. One thing he loved... Her money!

reply

Her Money?

Ummm did he try to fight those people mocking his Wife?

reply

He did care and wanted the best for her but I think this was due to the fact she provided everything for him and allowed him to do what he wished without question. She also was very sweet with her interactions with him, so who wouldn't care for someone like this? If she had been a right 'itch to him he may have not cared who laughed at her, but would quite happily of continued to live off her.

reply

He did care and wanted the best for her but I think this was due to the fact she provided everything for him and allowed him to do what he wished without question.


You can't buy love with money, and Bayfield obviously loved Mrs Jenkins, although not in a passionate or romantic way. He went far above and beyond what he needed to do to maintain his inheritance out of devotion and a sense of duty. Those are admirable things, not dishonorable.

They entered the marriage with no intention of having sex. At the time the real-life Bayfield and Jenkins were married, he was only 34. Was he supposed to remain celibate for the rest of his life?

This is one of those ironic situations where earlier generations would actually have understood and accepted an unconventional relationship much better than modern people do.

By the way, the film plays around with dates and ages in a way that is a bit deceptive. Bayfield was only 7 years younger than Mrs Jenkins and in fact was 69 years old in 1944, not the fiftyish man that Hugh Grant appears to be. He might have had a live-in girlfriend somewhere, and if he did, in those pre-Viagra days, more power to him. But more likely that was an invention of the filmmakers. Also, Jenkins and Bayfield had been married since 1909 (when she was 41 and he 34), not 1919. This changes the picture quite a bit - the film makes it seem that an almost elderly Florence married a quite young St Clair, which was not the case at all.

reply

He went far above and beyond what he needed to do to maintain his inheritance out of devotion and a sense of duty. Those are admirable things, not dishonorable.

They entered the marriage with no intention of having sex. At the time the real-life Bayfield and Jenkins were married, he was only 34. Was he supposed to remain celibate for the rest of his life?


I saw it last night and thought the same thing. They both knew going in to the marriage there would be no sex, so his wife had to guess he may seek physical needs elsewhere, given their nightly routine. What married couple has two houses? Women are not that naive to assume he would be celibate 100% of the time.

I go with good husband, given the circumstances.

reply

Good question. Clearly he cared about her, but he was also tremendously selfish. The "understanding" he spoke of was strictly one-sided. I'm going to call him a bad husband who had good and bad motives – caring for Florence, but also ensuring his inheritance.

reply

In the film he loved her and she loved him. He was there for her in every way that she needed for over 20 years. They could never consummate the marriage safely even if they wanted to. If he was ensuring his inheritance, I see nothing wrong with that.

reply

Ensuring his inheritance? He "only" got $10,000 from her and went back to acting in Broadway for a few years after her death.


I'm so excited, I think I'll brush all my teeth today!

reply

Well, she knew. But because she was diseased she understood his needs, but also wished she could have been more of a wife to him.

reply

Do some research. I think you'll find that Jenkins was well aware of her common law husband's extra-marital activities. They made it quite clear in the film, that due to her disease, the relationship had never been consummated.

reply

I found St Clair's caring attitude very sympathetic. I think that the way he protected Florence from harsh criticism was borne out of true love for her.

reply

Good husband, he supported his wife's ambitions and showed interest in many things other husbands at the time would have been bored with.He stuck up for her when he felt she was being disrespected. As for the girlfriend on the side, that was about sex. Do you really expect him to never have sex? That is cruel. There was a lot of love in his heart, enough for two ladies.

reply

After Florence died he married Kathleen, so he loved her, too.

I don't think anyone should expect a young person to give up something that important forever. It wasn't the her fault her first husband gave her a disease that could have killed her, and it wasn't his fault, either. He was there for her in every way that he could.

He was a better husband than some women have. He was definitely a better husband than my father was to my mother.

reply