He was so mean to his daughter. And then trying to validate his cheating ways by telling his wife it has nothing to do with her, he just wants to feel young again. Ugh, whatever. I couldn't stand him. He was so disrespectful and unsympathetic. But every good story has a villain of some sort. Other than that, I loved the other characters.
shareI agree, I hated Seth Lord the first time around. My problem is that he is essentially blaming Tracy for his cheating. You can say he was just trying to explain himself, but he was explaining himself in a way that had absolutely no room for him to be judged as having done something wrong. He was essentially saying, 'I cheated because you're not a good daughter.' And that's just not okay. You can't say that it's none of her business that he cheated and in the same breath blame her for it. I find it a little hypocritical that he blames her for not being forgiving enough, when he's the one putting undeserved blame on her shoulders.
And that goes in general for that point in the movie. Everyone is attacking her for not being a forgiving person, all the time being incredibly unforgiving to her, essentially, 'You're not forgiving, and that is unforgivable.'
In general terms of the way the adultery is treated in the film, I have to chalk some of it up to the times that Seth Lord is summarily forgiven. It seemed that it was meant to be on par with Dexter's past drinking, but to me that resonated much more as something Tracy could have been more sympathetic to.
I'm going to go against the lynch mob's call to string Seth Lord up from the highest tree here and take a slightly different tack:
Seth Lord did not so much as come out and explicitly blame Tracy, he stated that the best comfort for a man getting on in years is that kind of loving daughter he described, whom Tracy was not. He was yearning for her to be the truly beautiful human being she clearly was not and that he actually needed her but that she was unable to be relied upon due to her cold and unflinching intolerance of weakness. Whatever it is that he did, seeking the affections of this dancer in New York, he wishes most of all for that loving daughter with the understanding heart and, had Tracy been that daughter, that he might have been happier at home and better able to address his insecurities in the form of this reluctance to grow old of which he speaks. He does not say that it's Tracy's fault, that because she is not a loving daughter he ran off and with Tina Mara, the dancer in New York. Seth Lord is stating that he has a human failing, a weakness (which is against Tracy's "religion"), that he's afraid of growing old and that instead of being able to turn to a loving daughter at-home he was tempted to seek his youth outside the home in the eyes of another woman. I assume, that, like many human beings whom have made mistakes, Seth Lord is looking about himself, at his world, trying to enumerate the conditions and causes which have caused or contributed to his making his own mistake and stray. Seeing Tracy, very much the most beautiful woman in the Lord household, so full of arrogance and so critical of others, must have been rather cruelly ironic from Seth's view.
I see this as being very different from blaming his daughter for his cheating, which is the hasty judgment by others on this board.
Tracy is outraged and throws it all back at him defensively, and introduces the word "blame", but Seth did not specifically assign blame to Tracy for whatever he did, he was wishing that Tracy was that kind of daughter as he was feeling insecure about his age, loss of youth, attractiveness and, apparently, to sufficient degree that his wife, Margaret, was unable to satisfy. I don't think that it's very nice to seek excuses for one's behavior by wishing that their children had been different in some way. It's not nice to the child and it is a lousy example to so openly seek to shirk responsibility for one's own actions, but, Seth is being honest about his feelings with his daughter. Also, in fairness, Tracy is not a child but an adult of somewhere around thirty years who has been married before. Tracy did rather agressively start the argument with her father and he is stating his side, for better or worse, right or wrong. I suspect not so patently wrong as the prevailing attitude of the majority of posters on this thread would suggest.
Now, he does say, rather emphatically, that nothing happened with the dancer in New York. Whether we're to believe this or not, I don't know. He may have had to say that for the film to be in right with the production code. It seems a little farfetched, especially for us in the present, living in today's world of casual morals, to think that he'd been living in New York for some time and running around with this dancer and for there to have been no hanky panky. It was a lot harder to get away with back then (although doubtless he could have managed to if he wanted), I'm sure that even dictionary defined "philandering", as in flirtatious behavior, as in going around with Tina Mara on the town but no more than that, would have been ample fodder for gossip columns and sleazy scandal rags, like Spy magazine.
One thing about Margaret, when she acquiesces and states that whatever it was that happened between Seth Lord and this dancer was his affair and concerned Seth Lord only: Margaret is choosing wisely, as Seth notes. Apparently, she is willing and able to forgive and would rather have her husband than be "right" and alone. I don't think that Margaret Lord would necessarily have wanted to just let her husband sleep around with whomever he cared to. Margaret Lord was making a very direct break with the solidarity of the Divorced Lord Women, undoubtedly led by Tracy. Tracy's reaction to her mother's statement says it all, she appears visibly wounded and her absolute and high morals are being openly refuted by her mother. I picture Tracy as having whipped up the issue of Seth Lord's "interest in the arts" into some sort of cause for Margaret to point an accusing finger at Seth and send him packing. If that were the case, then perhaps one could say that Tracy WAS the cause of her father's philandering! In any case, if, as has been stated by so many on The Philadelphia Story discussion boards, the theme of this story is in fact forgiveness, then, Margaret has made a great example of forgiveness and we see that it is clearly for the best.
Alcoholism is a disease. If Tracy were that loving woman with an understanding heart, she might, or might not, have been successful in getting Dexter help with his alcoholism. Thankfully, he was able to embark on the path to recovery after they split up. How is adultery treated in the film, exactly? I'm not sure that I know what you're saying. If what Seth Lord is saying is in fact true, then there are no examples of adultery and the worst example of loose morals we see in this story is Mike and Tracy, and I would hold Mike much more accountable for that incident than Tracy. In the final reckoning after that trysting, Tracy decides she wants to be able to put on some "Miss Pommery 1926" from time to time and perhaps be free to make other potentially huge mistakes for which she was previously not able to forgive others, such as her father.
My initial knee-jerk reaction to this scene, where Seth Lord addresses his "philandering" was to be similarly outraged and appalled as many other posters here. I'm now looking a little deeper and seeing that several of the roles have substantial flaws of character and that forgiveness is very much in want all across the board in this story. Seth Lord is not a "villain" in this story, not by any stretch of the imagination, not at all. This scene is harsh and not exactly flattering to himself, but it's actually a pretty direct and honest statement of his own weakness while also giving voice to his displeasure with the person his daughter has become and the intersection of those two things. First, Dexter, in the previous scene at the poolside, and then Seth tell Tracy exactly what they think of her, and their opinions, apparently, have considerable merit based on the ensuing events that play-out in this story. They are the only ones to really stand up to her. The others are either enthralled with Tracy (George, Mike) or weaker than she (Margaret, Dinah and Liz).
The problem is that: 1) Tracy isn't his only daughter, and 2) I think there is an innate issue with parents relying on anything from their children for their own emotional health. It is not the child's responsibility, however old, to 'be' anything for their parents. To me, that's like a couple having a baby because they think it will save their marriage, or wanting a kid because then someone will always love you.
Seth's implication that if only Tracy had been a certain way he might have been able to avoid a flirtation is different from Dexter's assertion. Dexter wanted Tracy to be understanding of his disease and be there for him in his recovery. He didn't say that if only his wife had been caring he wouldn't have needed to drink. Dexter wanted Tracy to help him through his weakness, but Seth is saying that he might not ever have given into his weakness if not for Tracy.
I should say that I love at the end that he says he could never say she was a disappointment, though.
I think you raise a very good point, unionjgirl. While there can be little doubt that children do in fact have enormous impact upon their parents' mental health (whether the parents are relying on the children or just as a by-product of the relationship), for Seth to basically lay it at Tracy's feet, as Tracy's responsibility, is going a little far across a line that shouldn't be crossed - even if what he was saying was true, and in a very real world sense probably would be true. And it did really sound as though he possibly was trying to off-load responsibility onto Tracy. He did choose his words carefully and prefaced them by saying that he had thought long and hard about the issue. He was wishing for things to have been different and in the process he is trying to take some of the blame, and I'm sure guilt, off of his own shoulders. Tracy pounces on his statement indignantly and defensively. You can't blame the man for wishing that he had a happier home and a more loving family such that he might never have yielded to temptation and would never have felt any need to stray, but in the end we didn't hear Seth take responsibility for his own behavior.
However, if he hadn't heaped that speech on Tracy, we wouldn't have had as much of a story. Seth's issue with Tracy was one more straw on the camel's back for Tracy, so that we could see how so many aspects of her life were not exactly working and then ultimately see her make her full transformation.
I'm picturing Seth as also being at least a little miffed with Tracy for meddling in his marriage and making judgments about others, as it was more than likely she who convinced Tracy's mother to throw him out. So, maybe that speech to Tracy was tinged with some of those feelings, too.
We weren't given a very clear picture of what Dexter's life as a drinking alcoholic was really like. It's safe to say that a 1930s play would not have treated alcoholism the same way it would be treated today. But, it did sound as though Dexter was invoking the "in sickness and in health" clause of the marriage vows and while today's modern recovering alcoholic would not seek to cast any blame on anyone else, again, for the mechanics of our story to fully work, we need Dexter to say those things to Tracy.
You make me think, I would probably prefer it if it was Tracy's mother who chastises her, because she was sort of pushy with her. Assuming that there was an affair with the dancer, it's entirely up to her how she deals with it, and Tracy shouldn't have questioned her self-respect based on that. I think it's mostly just a factor of the times. There's something slightly off-putting about it being three men that put Tracy in her place, it would be kind of interesting if a woman were one of the voices of dissent against her.
Essentially, my main issue isn't with what Seth says as much as it is that because of the time period of the play and the movie, the judgement is on Seth's side. Seth is right and Tracy has to change. Again, for me Dexter's side is much more 'palatable' because he has already changed. He's recovering, so he kind of already assumes acceptance of a certain amount of responsibility. So I really don't have any issues with his argument with Tracy.
A very long, long read... Based on either a biased falsehood or a bad memory. Tracy outright asks Seth if she is to blame for Tina Mara. And Seth says without any hesitation " to a certain extent, I *expect* you are." Tracy calls him a "coward," which is justifiable for an old, grown man refusing to take accountability for his own actions and, instead, is much more comfortable blaming his daughter for his affair.
As if that wasn't creepy enough, he states that whatever he is is better than being a "prig" and a "spinster," basically declaring that his worthless cheating ass is better than women, who for whatever reason, never marry, including his daughter... And he doesn't stop there. Oh no. He continues... By accusing Tracy of sounding like a "jealous woman," all the while commenting on her figure and calling the "note" in her voice "unattractive."
As if all that wasn't enough, Seth is so critical and rude toward everyone, including his daughter's fiance, but refuses to apply those same standards to himself. Call Tracy what you like, but, unlike her pathetic father, she didn't make demands of people that she didn't make on *herself.* Also, you can't blame the girl for wanting to defend her fiance, as well as herself, from her callous, insulting father.
Mike being so sweet toward Tracy in the 2nd half of the movie is the only thing that keeps this film from being an absolute cesspool of male depravity, including but not limited to fathers blaming their daughters for their infidelities, as well as, uncles going around pinching anything with a vagina, even his own damn niece. WTF???
I might've included Dexter in with Mike, but that opening where he "socks" his ex-wife is also unacceptable.
If this were written today they would approach things from the other side, that his daughter was cold BECAUSE she came from a home where she couldn't respect or rely on her father and where her mother was an enabler and lived on the surface to avoid deeper issues. She therefore built up a shell around herself.
I don't think this version makes a good case for her coldness, anyway. I don't see Hepburn as being any different than she was in her other films. It seems like a phony issue with the men all acting out of their own insecurities and projecting their inner problems onto her, rather than her being the real cause. Just saying a woman is judgemental, priggish, etc over and over is not the same as good writing SHOWING us that she's what they claim she is. I thought her support of Stewart's literary aspirations showed the opposite. She didn't crush his dreams by telling him his work wasn't perfect, nor did she look down on him for needing to make a living. It struck me that Grant was intimidated by her because he came from "the so-called lower class" and his ego demanded he bring her down to his level, whatever that meant to him. I could see men acting that way around Grace Kelly but not around Hepburn. She exudes earthiness and passion. To me, this movie begins to sound misogynistic after her father's speech.
Culturally, it might have been a backlash against the increasing power of women that came about with the start of WWII and employment at the end of the Depression. During the Depression some women, such as teachers, were kicked out of their jobs if they got married because the man, even an unemployed man, was deemed to be the sole breadwinner. It is telling that the remake was in the 50s when again women were kicked out of jobs to make way for returning servicemen and were being told to be dutiful wives and mothers again. I think this movie was old-fashioned for its time, with others like His Girl Friday, being the trend-setters of the decade.
(A stronger case that could have been made was mentioned in passing, that she had always had the way made easier for her. But even there, her trying to make it easier for a struggling author, although not offered in a way his ego could accept, would be a sign that she felt for him and wanted to help, not a sign of arrogance.)
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned was her father's saying she was beginning to sound like a jealous woman. There is a Freudian undertone to their conversation with him implying it was partially her fault he was unfaithful and then saying she was jealous that was truly unpleasant and disturbing, especially as people have said, in light of the fact that he had another daughter and didn't treat her like that. If she DID wall herself off from her emotions and try to avoid making a mess of her life by being very careful and perfectionistic it would be no wonder! That is a well-known psychological response to growing up in a bad situation one can't fix, such as with an alcoholic parent, and wanting to distance oneself from any possibility of going down that same path.
I think the younger sister shows signs of being emotionally troubled. She doesn't act in a way one would expect of girl her age, as if she, too, is walled off emotionally. Her trying to influence events after she sees her sister carried in from the pool makes her seem much more controlling than her older sister. "I did it. I did it all," little sis says when the wedding goes forward. If this were made today the dysfunctional aspects of the whole family would have to be addressed because it often happens that they pick out one member to be the scapegoat, whether overtly or covertly, for all the family's ills. Audiences today know a lot more about family dynamics.
Just saying a woman is judgemental, priggish, etc over and over is not the same as good writing SHOWING us that she's what they claim she is. I thought her support of Stewart's literary aspirations showed the opposite. She didn't crush his dreams by telling him his work wasn't perfect, nor did she look down on him for needing to make a living.
Trinity, I think we ARE meant to believe the father was having an affair - your point about others' willingness to forgive him (because they know he wasn't really involved) conflicts with their tolerance of despised Spy magazine reporters because they must feel there IS something substantial to the rumor about which they may be blackmailed by editor Sidney Kidd.
I find the father's speech to Tracy fascinating - and it's certainly one of the wonderful things about this movie. The movie's not afraid to make bold claims on us - and I like that.
To engender our sympathy for C.K. Dexter Haven, the film does not show us him with puppies or helping a child climb upon a carousel's horse. Quite the contrary: in the very first scene we see him knock his wife down to the ground. Later, we'll hear references to him hitting her during their marriage. We learn he was a repeated drunkard during their marriage. We learn that he had refused ever to seek or take a job - (though presumably available despite the Depression). Yet he's the most romantic male in this romantic comedy. That's a wonderfully bold approach for a film.
Similarly, we are asked to heed the words of a philandering father who has caused the family enormous trouble and has only appeared - leaving his lover in New York - to see his daughter marry, expecting his family to defer to him and treat him just the same. Again, I like the film's boldness in asking us to trust his reproach to his daughter.
Amazing - I can think of no film asking us to do anything like this. It is not because the film is "dated" - films of the Hays Code era were as tough in treating a philanderer as any films seen since World War II.
As for what the father actually says: I have no idea whether an adult daughter's attitude toward her father plays a part in whether the man of late middle age succumbs to the temptations of a dancer. Many on this thread are quick to say "this is utterly false" - but without telling us why they think so.
Why is it so implausible that a daughter's attitude toward her father may contribute to a feeling that he is not so deeply loved in his family, that he has lost the admiration that once gave him the feeling of pride, of belonging, of a niche in life - and only half-consciously look for that admiration elsewhere - perhaps with someone his daughter's age? Sounds VERY plausible to me.
I wonder if those who denounce this explanation by the father as utterly false - really are in a position to know it's false.
Remember that playwright Barry and scriptwriter Stewart DO NOT SAY - that such a cause of a father's infidelity - constitutes a justification or excuse.
But the important thing is that we aren't asked to believe it IS justification -only cause. Seth Lord never says "I am justified" - he says only that this is why it happens. He says only that if Tracy were different, this would probably not have happened. He does not say "I am right" at all.
He does not say "I am right" at all.
Seth is a creep, pure and simple. No, it's not just between you and your wife, not when you have kids. It affects them in very bad ways (and in the movie itself, they're even being blackmailed over it), so yes, they get to have a say.
The other nasty thing is when you're having an affair with a much-younger woman and then you tell one of your daughters that you did it at least in part because *she* wasn't available. Ick. How incestuous is that? Grow up, Seth, and stop being creepy.
I always had issues with the way the men in the film pile on Tracy. But then, Hepburn seemed to get a lot of those kinds of roles.
Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com
Wow, a post I made today echoes exactly what you said. Thank you for straightening out the facts!
The ones who are arguing so hard on Seth Lord's behalf can't even get their facts straight and so confidently write several paragraphs based off what they *think* happened or what Seth Lord supposedly didn't explicitly say. Ridiculous.
While it's true that we can't know what led to him being unhappy or weak or tempted and to do what he did, he didn't come off like he was just explaining his side and not trying to justify himself at all. He was attacking her and blaming her for her part in it. Say he was having problems and Tracy pushed him over the edge into cheating in some way. It's not her fault it happened and he had no business putting that on her. He literally told her if she were a better daughter and not so awful and unloving then he wouldn't have done it.
We can't know that Tracy didn't have an effect on her father that led him to cheating on her mother. But he responded in the worst possible way and blamed his child for the parents' problems. And even if she's an adult child now, not blaming the kids is parenting 101.
But maybe if she had been a more admiring daughter - he would not have had the affair. Your point is that he shouldn't have said it? He shouldn't have been so open and sincere?
Nowhere do we hear him say "a man has the right to have affairs", that he is entitled or justified. We hear only his explanation of why - and perhaps he's right. People (in this case Tracy) can cause/be the motive for others to do things that are wrong - even when they themselves did nothing wrong.
"Blame" is an interesting word in this context. If there is a cause - that constitutes the true explanation for another behaving badly - then one supposes one may "blame" that cause even if the person who behaves badly remains the wrongdoer.
Seth Lord never says he is NOT the wrongdoer - only that he would not have done wrong had Tracy acted differently. Assume he's right - he is after all, talking about motivation for behavior - and I've no reason to think he's mistaken. Then he can say Tracy is to "blame", yes? That doesn't relieve him of ANY culpability for what he did.
E.g., "Had my parents not been so strict, I'd not have rebelled and done drugs". "Had my spouse been more physically attractive, I'd not have had cheated". "Had my daughter been more charming and good looking, I'd have been a better parent to her". These may all be true statements - they don't relieve the speaker of culpability - but they do explain it - and perhaps they are true.
So if the person then says "I think almost all who overdose had such strict parents" or "I think almost all spouses who cheat have unattractive husbands/wives" or "Almost all parents who neglect their daughters' upbringing have charmless and unattractive daughters" - again there may be some truth to this. But that doesn't excuse the behavior.
Well, for one, absolutely. He absolutely should not have told his daughter that if she had been a better daughter he wouldn't have had an affair. He especially should not have told her that the day before her wedding during the course of an argument where she was mad at him for the affair so he turned it around and said she was why he did it. Never mind that he has two daughters and if he didn't feel Tracy was warm enough he doesn't mention Dinah at all. This wasn't a quiet conversation where he was trying to just explain himself without casting any blame. It was the day before her wedding, he was upset he didn't receive instant forgiveness for her, and he intentionally made her feel like crap. Even if it were true, it's one of those things that you just don't tell someone. Say he regretted ever even having children because, I don't know, that made him feel older, too, and required him to be responsible and not a playboy for life. He would have no business ever telling his daughter he wished he hadn't had children. Nothing good would come of that. No one is 100% honest even if they value honesty. There are some things you just don't tell people and "it's your fault I cheated on your mom" is a pretty obvious one.
It's also the fact he seems to think it's true at all. In my experience, motivations are a bit more complicated than that. How exactly does he figure that Tracy is the reason he did it (and anyway, if he were lacking in daughterly affection I don't see why he had to sleep with her instead of taking her as a platonic pseudo-daughter so that already rings false)? Did he look around at his life before he did it and say "I would be perfectly happy to grow old with my wife and my younger daughter but my older daughter is just not nurturing enough so I guess I'm going to go have an affair now?" If he didn't, he's only speculating after the fact about why he did it.
Saying "You are why I did this thing" sounds like it's casting blame even if it's not what he meant (and he likely did mean it because he threw it in her face in an argument and never apologized) because how else is someone supposed to take it? "You're the reason I did this but don't worry, it's not your fault at all and I'm not blaming you for being the one to drive me to this bad thing, just laying out all the facts objectively"? That's not how anyone would take that. And if you take "it's my daughter's fault I had an affair because she didn't indulge me enough" and replace it with other things, I think it shows that holding other people responsible for your bad behavior can often make you look even worse. "My ex-girlfriend is the reason I killed her because if she hadn't broken up with me I wouldn't have done it", for example. You could say the person saying that is just being honest about why he did it and isn't blaming his dead ex-girlfriend, just explaining that it's cause and effect and being honest about his motivations but, really, it sounds like he's victim-blaming and holding her responsible for what he did because she didn't behave like he wanted her to.
Cheating is much less serious but Tracy wasn't even in the relationship. It'd still be crappy but far more understandable if Seth were having that conversation with his wife, saying that he had an affair because his relationship with his wife wasn't working and he wasn't getting what he needed. It still wouldn't excuse what he did but that sounds far more like an explanation and far less like blaming (or at least it doesn't have to sound like blaming but Seth would probably phrase it in a way that makes it sound like it's all her fault) than to say that some third party (and not even a third party trying to seduce him because holding someone actively trying to get between him and his wife responsible makes far more sense than, say, his daughter who would never want him to have an affair) is the reason why he just had to go have an affair.
I'm wondering if there was a way that he could still decide it's all his daughter's fault he had to have an affair because she didn't put him on a high enough pedestal and tell her this without coming across as such a victim-blaming creep and it's hard. Maybe if he had said to her, in private and not on the day before her wedding when he's forcing himself in on the proceedings by right of being the patriarch when he knows she doesn't want him there, "I'm so sorry that I hurt you and your mother. I'm working this out with her and that is strictly between us. I know there's no excuse. I suppose I was just afraid of growing old and lost my head. I wasn't feeling supported and tried to find that support elsewhere. It's not your fault, that's just how I was feeling." Because while it's true he didn't say it wasn't is fault, he also didn't say it was. Sure, Tracy put him on the defensive when she started in about the affair but, to begin with, he did have the affair and she was being blackmailed to let reporters cover her because of it (which, to be fair to him, she didn't mention). And he showed up unannounced acting entitled to be at her wedding no matter what she wanted. And, as her father and presumably the guy who owned the house, maybe he did have a right to be there and maybe if he had stayed away she would have regretted not having him there when they made up. But he still kind of barged in and expected her to accept it, saying his breaking up the family and hurting her mother wasn't her business but it was her fault.
The fact he felt that way was terrible. The fact he said it was worse.
Tracy actually did tell him they were on the spot because of him. And later, Seth even said that the reporters could write anything they liked about him, which makes him even more despicable than he already was. For him, everything always revolves around himself. He never has a 2nd thought about how his family could be affected by his thoughtless actions.
shareYou sure base a lot of your defenses on a reprehensible guy like Seth Lord based on what he supposedly didn't say (some of which you got wrong). How about focusing on what he *actually did say.*
shareI agree with you on almost everything, except the part about Dexter being from the "lower class." That's not correct. He came from, if not wealth, a very privileged upper-crust upbringing. He and Tracy even grew up together. George was the one that came from poverty. But, otherwise I love what you wrote.
shareThat's funny. I think granting gays the ability to marry is wrong. It doesn't change anything. You can't exactly go back and have the writers make dad into some feminized pussy, whining and begging for his wife and daughters' forgiveness. No. Dad was a man, standing up for his own concepts and beliefs. He explained it. He didn't get emotionally offended like someone gets if they hear someone else says, "I don't approve of gay marriage." He's not a child in a male body. Dad - like CK Dexter Haven and even Jimmy Stewart were all men in this movie.
shareWhat the heck does Dad cheating have to do with gay marriage? That is a total non sequitur. Cheating on someone whom you promised to be faithful to until death do you part has no relation whatsoever to who gets to make those vows to each other.
Bragging about doing wrong and not owning up to your responsibility for it (while your children are being blackmailed and having their own reputations dragged through the mud thanks to your wrongdoing) is anything but being a man. It's something, all right, but it's hardly standing up for one's own beliefs. If Dad didn't want to stay with just one woman, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.
Innsmouth Free Press http://www.innsmouthfreepress.com
He didn't get emotionally offended like someone gets if they hear someone else says, "I don't approve of gay marriage."Oh: like someone getting emotionally offended by the existence of "gay marriage."
yes, he was a creep. i find the whole tone of the film rather unpleasant, the way tracy is blamed for everything, even her father's infidelity.
shareIt's about forgiveness, charity, recognition of weakness and loving the weak person anyway. The movie doesn't emphasize - but does allude to - the many things that Grant did as husband - he hit his wife, he was a chronic drunkard, he never sought a job. Similarly weak, the father was a philanderer. The movie intends to show someone whose tolerance for weakness is nil - who holds them to her own high standards and cuts them off from her love when they fail to meet them.
Tracy Lord's father and ex-husband share the same sense that she is unable to embrace them in her heart - due to their failings. Unlike her father Seth Lord, C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant) never says that Tracy's behavior led or contributed to his own - but his bitter resentment at her contempt/condemnation is present throughout - and leads to his many insults as a "virgin priestess", a stone sculpture, etc. - one without a heart.
I assume people here would have reacted to Haven even worse than toward Seth Lord had we heard more specific references to their marital pasts - times when Haven had knocked her down, slapped her, even punched her - when drunk.
There's been an enormous movement over the past half century to find nothing redeeming in those who act badly - particularly toward women. There's been a kind of crusade that one should never forgive such behavior - should never tolerate it in any way - and certainly should never excuse, forgive, or continue to love the wrongdoer. This movie questions such an attitude - before the crusade began. It's bound to be controversial - forgiveness of wrong always is.
And it's what makes the movie so fascinating and bold - truly bold.
This is an interesting thread, and no wonder it's had a long life.
I got interested enough to take a look at the scene from an online version of the script
http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=philadelphia-story-the
The section that caught me is this:
Because, without her, he might be inclined to go in search of his youth.
That's just as important to him as it is to any woman.
But with a girl of his own, full of warmth for him...full of foolish, unquestioning,
uncritical affection...
There's been an enormous movement over the past half century to find nothing redeeming in those who act badly - particularly toward women. There's been a kind of crusade that one should never forgive such behavior - should never tolerate it in any way - and certainly should never excuse, forgive, or continue to love the wrongdoer. This movie questions such an attitude - before the crusade began. It's bound to be controversial - forgiveness of wrong always is.