It wasn't made in the antebellum era, it was made at a time when women did have the vote, along with greater personal freedoms
But the opinions of the characters must be in accordance with the values of the historical period. They blame Julie, as they must. The filmmakers do not, and the audience has a right to choose where its sympathies lay. The diversity of opinions and perspectives on this board alone show that the film's depiction of Julie is not so black and white. Pres, a man of his time and locale, cannot marry a woman who has dishonored him by causing a public scandal. The other characters support him upholding the code of his people. Even Julie seems to understand she has gone too far, though she herself is too high spirited to mold herself to the rigid (and sexist) code of conduct. We as an audience, however, rejoice in her audacious rebellion against values we understand to be silly and outdated, even as we lament in her tragic hubris...namely her frustrating inability to change her actions even though she knows the consequences.
Julie can be interpreted as a selfish manipulator, or as a courageous underdog swimming futilely up the proverbial stream of an unjust society. The filmmakers wisely depict her as both, even as the characters who surround her can see her only as the former. That is what makes Julie as a character so brilliant.
The Scarlett O'Hara comparison seems almost inevitable, so I will beat a dead association to death. Scarlett seems invariably to be regarded by audiences either as the ultimate bitch character, siren and manipulator; or as a courageous survivor whose greatest asset is her formidable gumption in times of adversity...the strong woman who lives by her own rules and doesn't care about the opinions of her narrow-minded contemporaries. That she can be both villainess and heroine to so many people makes the story work, and made the character an icon.
Julie is less iconic, but perhaps that is because she is more subtly drawn in her moral ambiguity than her famous successor.
I mentioned
The Toy Wife, also set in 1850s Louisiana and made in 1938. I have recently read online reviews of this film and was surprised to read how much that film's female lead "Frou Frou" was regarded as at fault for her actions, though I had always felt that she was a crushed heroine, her follies the result of emotional neglect by her husband.
it's perfectly reasonable to criticise it for appearing to advocate retrograde values, such as Julie's self-sacrifice as a necessary act.
The narrative format of Jezebel follows the framework of a nineteenth century melodrama. This narrative format necessitates the self-sacrifice of the unconventional "bad" woman archetype in order to reconcile her with the values she has subverted...she can never be permitted to rise above them no matter how repentant she may be. Many of these women were sympathetic and psychologically complex even at the time, and by modern standards come across as tragic victims or brave rebels. But the narrative still requires their sacrifice, because to survive "dishonor" is simply inconceivable in the cultural context. Jezebel was made after, but takes place within that cultural context, and uses that model for inspiration. The screenwriters could have allowed Julie to triumph ultimately, but it wouldn't have made sense according to the logic of the melodrama narrative, and just would have been bad screenwriting. The audience shouldn't get the ending it wants in this kind of story, but the ending the story requires.
reply
share
kenny-164
11 years ago
Having seen this film only once, I should perhaps not get too far into the argument about what the ending really means. As I noted on another thread here, for example, I did not think that the "sacrifice" Julie makes is entirely that. I think she wanted to go to the island in part because she hoped to get Press back. But that is also a huge taking of risk for her. Concededly. And yet that she may have been making a mistake as to what might end up happening (even if they both survive there's no guarantee Press would leave Amy for Julie), does not mean that intention was not part of her motivation.
In short it is not clear to me that Julie really believed she was going to be better able to take care of Press on the island. It certainly seemed to be asserted by her as a means of appealing to Amy's loyalty to her husband, but whether Julie really believed her assertion is not clear.
But the larger point here is that for a film of its time I very much enjoyed the complexity of the characters. With the possible exception of Amy, who overall is a rather thinly drawn character, none of hte main characters (including the aunt) are either mostly good or evil. They are both. And so Julie is BOTH a selfish manipulator and an exciting and even admirable force willing to challenge convention.
And Press is both unfair to love Julie and then expect her to change her character, while also probably right in the end to marry a woman like Amy, who seemed better suited for him and his personality.
reply
share
ClassicMovieholic
11 years ago
I did not think that the "sacrifice" Julie makes is entirely that. I think she wanted to go to the island in part because she hoped to get Press back.
When Julie made up her mind to do something, she did it all the way. I think that the desire to be with Pres was such an overriding force in her psyche that being with him even on the fever island where they would both face almost certain death was a triumph for her. Amy also seems to sense that allowing Julie to "nurse" her husband at the likely cost of both their lives is a concession of power. Julie differs from Scarlett O'Hara in this respect...her desires being more essential to her character than her personal survival. Whether or not she had any practical idea of winning him back, or was simply so obsessed as to rejoice at dying with him, I can't say.
reply
share