MovieChat Forums > The Awful Truth (1937) Discussion > Jerry had an affair, Lucy didn't

Jerry had an affair, Lucy didn't

posted 16 years ago by hansel714
18 replies | jump to latest

Read a few comments saying that it is indeterminate if Jerry had an affair when he told Lucy he was in Florida. The awful truth is he did have an affair. A few pieces of evidence:

1. At the end of the movie, he said to Lucy--I paraphrase here--that he had changed during their marriage, but things can go back to be the same if she allowed him to.

2. He's a chronic liar. He lied to Barbara Vance when he could have told her the truth.

3. Because he just had an affair, when he returned home and didn't find Lucy, he suspected her of an affair too.

4. If he didn't have an affair, he would probably tell the guy in the gym room where he had been or what he had done. If he didn't have an affair, we as audience would know what he had done. But we weren't told because he did have an affair but at the same time, we had to keep a sympathetic view on Jerry. Cary Grant probably didn't want to ruin his image by being an adulterer.

Lucy, on the other hand, didn't because:

1. She was squemish even about kissing Dan Leeson because she didn't love him, showing she couldn't be intimate with someone she didn't love and she loved only Jerry.

2. (This point is said in jest) The singing teacher is probably gay. When Lucy said something to the effect of, "Jerry barged in because he cared too much for me."

The teacher said wistfully, "And he cared too little for me."

He's French(?) and teaches singing! How can he not be gay?

[–] mikeoak840 16 years ago

You still haven't proven anything except that you're speculating. You've given no iron-clad evidence, only your opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be.

Second, I'm sure there are plenty of male vocal teachers in France and living elsewhere in the world who are straight and would welcome the opportunity to punch you in the nose or worse for suggesting otherwise.

Third, the play the movie's based on is decades older than this film. The "Jerry" part is just as Grant played it in this movie. In other words, your speculation that "Cary Grant probably didn't want to ruin his image by being an adulterer" is wrong as well.

[–] clanhar 16 years ago

I'll have to agree with the original poster-- Jerry did have an affair, but Lucy didn't. Lucy's side of the story was vindicated several times throughout the movie, but Jerry's never was.

Furthermore the "and what wives don't know won't hurt them" line seems a little too obvious in the direction of an affair.

Also, there were several films made at this time condoning men having affairs. Let's look at Philadelphia Story or even The Women. Both movies make a big deal out of saying that women should be accepting of a man's infidelity. This is one of the reasons that I have never liked either of the aforementioned films or this one. However, in viewing the film again today, I see that Lucy does get some satisfaction in the end -- Jerry apologizes, accepts his blame, and says he has changed, and only then do they reunite.

Those were some interesting points though. I had never thought of the voice instructor as being gay. Mmmm...some food for thought.

[–] joes119 16 years ago

Jerry's fingers crossed behind his back while doing the "She's as pure as the driven snow!" line suggests something, I think. And it's that Mrs Leeson's tidbit of gossip that Jerry chivalrously let Lucy bring divorce suit was probably true.

[–] trpdean 16 years ago

Well, Jerry certainly did something he doesn't want to admit - that's clear - otherwise he wouldn't have to get a tan to pretend he's been in Florida, bring the oranges "back" from Florida (which were actually from California), etc. The movie doesn't want to tell us - but it probably involved a woman in some way.

(And I agree that she didn't have an affair - her explanation is so convincing, she doesn't mind at all giving details of the breakdown, etc. when he discovers and asks about it, etc.)

But to say he definitely had an affair is pretty strong - I think it could well be that he was infatuated with someone, arranged to be with her for that short period, then thought better of it or was turned down, or something of the kind. After all, he and his wife were apart only a short time - and afterward, there is no consequence emotionally for him whatever. If there had been an affair, it was truly a fling that ended entirely and completely - and was planned that way since clearly this was planned in advance.

I do wish that McCarey had worked into the movie - really late in its plot, something that showed that Jerry had done something to surprise and please his wife during that "missing" period before the movie began. (But there isn't!).

[–] jgroub 15 years ago

"Jerry's fingers crossed behind his back . . . suggests something."

Nah, he was just doing that so she could see him doing that, so that he could convey to her that he still thought that she had been with the vocal coach. It doesn't mean that she actually was with him - I for one don't think she was - but just that he thinks she was.

I asked the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] joes119-1 15 years ago

I can buy that! It makes sense.

"Nah, he was just doing that so she could see him doing that, so that he could convey to her that he still thought that she had been with the vocal coach. It doesn't mean that she actually was with him - I for one don't think she was - but just that he thinks she was."

[–] hodie 16 years ago

Kids, there was a time when adultery committed by a film's protagonists was not considered the stuff of comedy (and certainly not screwball comedy) by the American public. That was the way things were at the time The Awful Truth was released, though it was OK for a character to MISTAKENLY suspect that his spouse has been unfaithful, (which is the case with Jerry in this film), NOTHING ever happened. It sounds as if none of you was alive during that time.

Consider. Would Lucy have EVER taken back Jerry if he'd truly had an affair? Would he have been a sympathetic character to the audience of that time? Wouldn't she have mentioned it, at least to her aunt? Lucy wasn't stupid, and she never gives any indication in the film that she suspects Jerry had an affair. And was Jerry really that much of a heel? I don't think so. There is no indication in the film that he was a philanderer. He probably went off gambling with the guys, no wives included, and neglected to tell her about it. Have none of you ever watched "The Honeymooners"? It's an ancient plot element.

Real adultery would have ENTIRELY destroyed the entire tone of the film.

It's too bad to see films interpreted out of the context of acceptable moral behavior at the time the film was made and instead interpreted under the relatively degraded standards of today.

It's a shame. Judging from your quotes, you have the words. But you're definitely not hearing the music.

God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety

[–] jmashmun 16 years ago

From 1787 till about 1973, adultery was the only grounds for divorce in New York, so this movie is about adultery from the beginning. It was common for the husband to take the blame, whether or not he was at fault. Evidence of adultery had to be provided. There were people who made their livings posing as co-respondents (adulterous partners) for divorce actions. It's not unusual for movie comedies from the 1930's to allude to this stuff. People who could afford to went to other states (or other countries) with more lenient laws to get divorces, which was depicted in "The Women."

[–] TheCinephiliac 15 years ago

I think Jerry definitely had an affair. He never told her the truth as to where he was which if he was off with the boys he wouldn't have a reason to lie let alone let a divorce go through. He obviously didn't go to Florida and like someone above mentioned when he came home and she wasn't there he assumed she had done the same thing he had done. This was 1937, male adultery had and continued to be portrayed on film with no terrible consequence or judgment. I think because Lucy walked in late with another man everyone assumed she was the one who committed adultery and everyone gossiped about it because she didn't cover her tracks.

Jean Renoir did the film "Rules of the Game" two years later which was about adultery in high society. The only reason adultery becomes a problem in the film is because one of the characters who is committing it openly admits it and the 'rule of the game' was that if you had an affair you don't talk about it or leave any evidence. Lucy appeared to leave evidence that's why everyone assumed it was her and didn't question Jerry because he didn't leave any evidence (except to us the audience).

RIP Paul Newman 1925-2008. Words can't express how much you will be missed.

[–] Kinokima 15 years ago

You are incorrect according to the Hays Production Code, adultery at that time would have been frowned upon in the movies.

"The sanctity of marriage and the home had to be upheld. Pictures shall not imply that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing." Adultery and illicit sex, although recognized as sometimes necessary to the plot, could not be explicit or justified and were not supposed to be presented as an attractive option."

Jerry was doing something behind Lucy's back but we shouldn't automatically assume he was having an affair (in the radio show it was implied he was gambling). However the point of the movie is that jumping to conclusions and not trusting your spouse is the problem. In the end Lucy was shown as the right one because even though she caught Jerry in a lie she did not jump to conclusions like he did.

"Don't you see there can't be any doubt in marriage. The whole things based on faith. If you lost that you lost everything."

In the end Jerry is the one who has to apologize to Lucy and only then does she agree to take him back (even though she admits earlier to her aunt that she still loves him). In the end the film shows us that the only real truth that matters is that Lucy and Jerry love each other. And that is the awful truth.

And comparing this to Rules of the Game makes no sense. That was a French film and was not limited by the same restrictions of US films at the time. Although at the time Rules of the Game was not well received because the upper class did not like what Renoir was trying to say (although of course now the film is considered a masterpiece). The Gay divorcee which was another example given was made before the production code was enforced.

There were movies where the wife took back an adulterous husband (Philadelphia Story). But I don't think these films were trying to say adultery was no big deal just that divorce was also frowned upon in films since they wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage (which is why you had so many comedy of remarriages at the time).

[–] canuckteach 15 years ago

to start with: Mikeoak - chill, dude - yer gonna pop an o-ring.

It's not unusual for movie comedies from the 1930's to allude to this stuff.
well, spoken, jmashmun - don't we all remember 'The Gay Divorce(é)'? -- based on a play written around 1930, and made famous by Astaire & Rogers. It included the send-up Co-respondent character 'Tonetti' : "your wife is safe with Tonetti - he prefer spaghetti!" and "are you a Union man?" - but the real husband calls him a 'hairdresser'! anyway, these films poked fun at the upper classes who could afford divorces, or viewed them lightly..

and netflix_chick - I think you were watchin this on TCM this a.m. also? enjoyed your remarks as well.. these films were subtle about sensitive matters and allowed audiences to 'figger out' stuff for themselves.. today, Hollywood has no couth - it's all Sean Young and Kevin Doofus in the back seat!

:-) canuckteach (--:

[–] victoria711 15 years ago

I think that we can only speculate about what really occurred during those "two weeks in Florida". But what upsets me, not that I am surprised, is that the husband's affair (which probably really did occur) does nothing to besmirch his honor, it is not even given a second thought, while the wife's (mistakenly supposed and unproven) "affair" is continually referred to and is very destructive to her reputation.

[–] TheCinephiliac 15 years ago

^ exactly what I felt. And canuckteach, thanks and yes I was watching it that morning too!

RIP Paul Newman 1925-2008. Words can't express how much you will be missed.

[–] zaraath 11 years ago

(This point is said in jest) The singing teacher is probably gay. When Lucy said something to the effect of, "Jerry barged in because he cared too much for me."

The teacher said wistfully, "And he cared too little for me."

The singing teacher could have been gay, but an oily continental character like that could just as easily be a ladies' man. I thought he said that because he was afraid Jerry was liable to beat him up.

[–] NewtonFigg 11 years ago

Keep in mind that this movie is adapted from a 1922 Broadway play, presented during The Roaring 20s at about the same time Gatsby was written. Broadway show audiences were considerably more blasé about situations involving sexual peccadillos than were the movie audiences, and plays were not subject to any Hays Code. I have not been able to find the text of the play or a synopsis of the two pre-code versions of this movie, so I can't say for certain what either spouse had actually been up to. It could be that both were engaged in light hearted flings to relieve the boredom of marriage, but both woke up when the marriage was threatened. Light hearted flings were definitely off the table in a 1937 American movie, so considerable cutting and pasting had to be done.

[–] johnston.scot 10 years ago

Since it's all fictional, there's not really any "truth" other than what the intentions of the author were - which, in film, is complicated somewhat by the identification of the "author" (director, writer, producer?).

My perception is that it was intended that the audience could take it either way, as to Jerry. The more straitlaced (and the Hays people) could understand that he didn't have an affair. The more "sophisticated" parts of the audience (or those more attuned to innuendo) could understand that he did.

In any event, they seem to have made it fairly clear that Lucy didn't, whatever the sexuality of the teacher.

On the last point, it seems they were looking for a few chuckles, though it might have gone past some of the audience, without any definitive idea that he was necessarily gay.

[–] NewtonFigg 10 years ago

Now hear this: I just found Alexander Woollcott's review of the 1922 play. The couple had been divorced for two years when the wife began to rethink things.

[–] rck1 10 years ago

I love this movie.
We don't know if Jerry had an affair. We know he went somewhere that he keeps secret. And he did something that he keeps secret.
As for Lucy - I doubt she had an affair with her singing teacher. However, why does she agree with him that no one could accuse him of being a great lover? How would she know that?