Interpretations of Romer
As I commonly do after seeing a movie, I came here to take a look around at whatever discussions and reviews there might be. I often find it interesting to read some other points of view about a movie. What was unusual this time is that I found a User Comment that I felt the need to reply to here.
From the review by Cannes2000 in the "User Comments" section of the IMDb page:
Kitten-faced Nancy Carroll whiles away her days working at the bank in a small town, her only entertainment being tepid flirtations and weekend outings with her co-workers. All this changes when a suave gigolo played by Cary Grant enters the picture. Luring Carroll along with her clique to his ill-gotten country mansion, Grant puts the moves on her relentlessly -- complimenting her on her "mind" -- and the attraction is mutual. Carroll does manage to resist, but makes the mistake of taking his car back into town, leading the gossip mill to churn and Carroll to be branded the town tart. But when an old family friend played by Randolph Scott returns to visit, with marriage on his mind, things begin to look up for this girl, who has taken all the pain of a fall without any of the pleasure... Yet!
What makes Hot Saturday remarkable is its non-judgmental tone. Now, people have a tendency to confuse "amoral" with "non-judgmental." What they forget is that it's also possible to be judgmental the other way -- against conservative mores, and FOR piggish, selfish behavior, as you can see in almost all the other comments on this board. This film is very fair however and different people will take different messages from it. A riot grrrl will see it as a story of breaking the shackles of conventional life; a Christian will see it as a descent into hell, like a light 'n' frothy Inland Empire. But both sides are covered, and no one in the film is perfect. For all the mistakes that the townspeople make, like letting a little harmless bit of gossip catch fire, the Nancy Carroll character makes one that is much worse. She is attracted to a monster.
The monster in question, played by Cary Grant -- edgy and Byronic as he often was from 1930-1933 -- is as seductive to the audience as he is to Carroll. I have to say, I wish that Cary Grant had always played characters like the ones here and in Sylvia Scarlett. He had a real knack for rotters, Clockwork Orange punks with a polished surface ( I suspect this is what he was like in real life. ) While watching this film you can either be mesmerized by Grant's good looks and wit, or judge him by his actions, which aren't so good. Not only does he take huge checks from an older lady for sexual services rendered, but he cheats on her right in the Architectural Digest Home of the Month she bought for him. But he is so easy on the eyes, and his lifestyle seems so genteel, that it would almost be bad manners to point out how sick it all is, say old chap... So the audience is put in Carroll's position and given Carroll's quandary: Will she/we be blinded by a beautiful lie or wake up to this devil in spats?
That was so completely diametrically opposed to my understanding of the Romer character, not just in the interpretation of subtext but also in terms of basic "facts of the case", that I went back and rewatched a key scene to make sure that *I* hadn't somehow misheard or misunderstood what was said.
The scene in question is one in which the $10000 check is discussed by Ruth and Romer.
I had not misheard. The above review has it exactly backwards. Romer had not received $10000 from the woman as a gigolo. He had paid her $10000 as a sort of "parting gift" in getting rid of her.
Ruth brings up the topic of the check to double check with Romer that he had in fact wanted that sum to be paid out, since the check had been torn. My interpretation of what that torn check likely implies about a scene that we did not see is that the woman had made a great show of being insulted by Romer giving her a "golden parachute" by ripping the check in half in front of him, then had later thought better of it and taped the check back together.
There is never any evidence in the movie that Romer's wealth / house are "ill gotten". Since there is also no indication of Romer having any career or need to have a job, I figured that he had inherited his money.
Now, we finally do get into the realm of interpreting behavior and motivations. Where Cannes sees Romer as a corrupting "monster" in Ruth's life, I see him as being one of only two characters in the entire movie (with the other being her father) who actually shows any respect and consideration toward Ruth. Yes, Romer makes initial advances toward Ruth, but ..... Even his advances were limited to touching her arm, pending her response; He (unlike the supposedly more "respectable" townsman) immediately backs off when she says "no"; He remains gracious, even in rejection; He leaves the power to control the direction of their relationship entirely in her hands ("let me know if you change your mind").
Further, I believe that Romer's feelings for Ruth were always genuine, and not just a heartless attempt to put another notch in his bedpost, so to speak. I think that he probably did think of the previous woman in pretty much those terms. I find the timing of his dumping her to be telling. That happens in the couple / few days between his invitation to the group being accepted and them actually coming out to his estate. He was willing to pay her $10000 (which was a huge sum in 1932 dollars) for her to be gone before Ruth made her first visit, dispite the fact that Ruth had given no indication that she would ever do anything more with him than she did in the bank lobby. That just doesn't make any sense if he's just out for a quick tumble; and Ruth doesn't have any money for him to be after either.
Going in an entirely different direction, there's that bit about "a harmless bit of gossip". To me, one of the main points of this whole movie was that there is no such thing as a "bit of gossip" that is "harmless". In fact, gossip appears to be the most harmful, hurtful, and hateful thing that exists in the world of this movie.
I agree with Cannes that there is a central quandry that is the entire theme of this movie, and that is being posed to the audience along with Ruth. I just disgree about what it is. I don't see a question of whether or not to delude oneself about a seductive evil represented by Grant's Romer. Of course, I don't see Romer as being evil. In fact, I find him to be the truest gentleman, in every sense of the word, in the film.
What I think is the central quandry is actually pretty directly stated at one point. Romer asks Ruth something along of the lines of wouldn't she always like to be happy (sorry, I don't recall the exact phrasing). Ruth answers "Not if it means being talked about .... etc.". To me the central quandry of this picture is which of two paths to follow: go your own way to find the most happiness that you can, but at the cost of being ostracized by much of your (original) community; or do everything that it takes to remain a member in good standing of your community, but at the cost of sacrificing your own dreams and happiness.
My reading of Ruth's somewhat conflicted look at the end is that she is recognizing that between those two options she is now on the opposite path from the one that she had always (until that week) assumed was right. Neither is perfect and pain free. share