MovieChat Forums > The Philadelphia Story (1941) Discussion > Original Maid-of-Honor?

Original Maid-of-Honor?

posted 15 years ago by boweasel
8 replies | jump to latest

While I can certainly understand that the original best man for Tracy and Kittredge's marriage would be unavailable for the same duties at Tracy and C.K's wedding, what about her original maid of honor? Wouldn't she presumably be Tracy's best friend? And presumably still be there and available when she marries C.K?

Instead she picks Liz? Whom she had just met the day before?

I never felt anything odd about C.K. picking Connor for best man. After all C.K wasn't supposed to be there, so he would hardly have had any friends at the wedding. And C.K. and Connor had seemed to bond over the course of the picture. But Tracy and Liz? I never sensed any bonding between their characters. In fact I always assumed that Tracy found Liz be be every bit annoying as I did...

I always thought there should have been SOME explanation for that maid of honor thing. Or was there and I've just always missed it?

[–] TheDuchessofM 15 years ago

Women who married for the second time were advised in etiquette books of the time to eschew the "extras" that went into a marriage ceremony. Since Tracy and Dex had been previously married and eloped, Tracy choosing Liz to be her maid(matron)-of-honor was sort of her way (as she said in the dialogue) of doing her wedding to Dex right. Granted, Liz and Tracy didn't bond, but I feel it was her way of definitely conceding Mike to Liz.

[–] trpdean 13 years ago

I thought "Oh yes, what a great question in the op - I never thought of that" but Evangeline is right. There is no original maid of honor from the first wedding - at least not around Philadelphia - they had eloped.

That does raise a question though - why did they elope? Had Seth Lord really disapproved of C.K.?

[–] alquawen-1 15 years ago

Weddings were done somewhat differently in those days, and a maid of honor was not as essential as bridesmaids. Tracy, being the kind of person she was, may not have had any really close female friends, but if she had, imagine how awkward it would be after months (years?) of going on and on about what a louse that Dexter was, to ask one of them to stand up with her. We girls can be pretty catty about that kind of stuff.

[–] bravehome 14 years ago

Have to take exception with the thought that Tracy and Liz didn't bond. Remember the scene where Mike proposes to Tracy near the end, and she gently lets him down. One of the reasons she lets him down was "I don't think Liz would like it" (after seeing Liz have a deer in the headlights moment). Liz gives Tracy a very grateful look, and it's apparent the two share a compassionate understanding of what each other is going through.

[–] PillowRock 14 years ago

One of the reasons she lets him down was "I don't think Liz would like it"

I would have phrased that differently. It's not just "one of the reasons". The fact that "I don't think Liz would like it" was the first reason that Tracy gave for turning down Mike.

[–] SteveReed007 13 years ago

Even beyond "I don't think Liz would like it" being Tracy's first reason, the two women also had reasons for a bond from a few minutes earlier, out in the garden used for the reception.

George: I fail to see the humor in this situation, Miss Imbrie.
Liz: I can appreciate that. It was hard for me too, at first.
Tracy: Oh, Liz, I —
Liz: Oh, it's all right, Tracy. We all go haywire at times. And if we don't, maybe we ought to.
Tracy [grateful]: Liz ...
Liz: You see, it really wasn't Tracy at all, Mr. Kittridge. It was another girl, a Miss Pommery, 1926.[*]
George: You'd had too much to drink, Tracy.
Tracy: That seems to be the consensus of opinion.
George: Will you promise me never to touch the stuff again?
Tracy: No, George. I don't believe I will. There are certain things about that other girl, that Miss Pommery, '26, I rather like.

[* Some say this refers to the champagne from the party. (I certainly couldn't see the label.) I've always thought it refers to Tracy getting a title in a pageant or ceremony, when she'd have been in her late teens and, likely, far more spontaneous. Either take works here, though. The spelling is taken from the DVD subtitles.]

Liz frames Tracy's having been drunk, and only appearing to have a dalliance with Mike Connor (though enough to enrage George the fiancé), as being her inner spirit coming out in the open, one that isn't tied up in a goddess-like, aloof, judgmental self-appraisal.

That's when Tracy gains the fortitude to neither berate herself nor exalt herself, but to see herself as a flawed but worthwhile human being. And this allows her to apply her realizations to the immediate problem: a marriage she hadn't yet admitted she didn't want and shouldn't enter into.

Liz gets Tracy over that final hurdle in gaining self-awareness. I'd be rather fond of someone who did that for me, to say the least, and would be proud to have such a friend (however new) as part of my wedding.
__
Yvaine: What do stars do best?
Captain: Well, certainly not the waltz!

[–] PillowRock 13 years ago

Some say this refers to the champagne from the party. (I certainly couldn't see the label.) I've always thought it refers to Tracy getting a title in a pageant or ceremony

That's what I thought, too, when I first saw the movie as a teen who wouldn't have recognized any wine by name. However, ....

First, Pommery is a well known winery, but I can find no evidence of any city, town, county, or school with that name that would possibly confer such a "Miss Pommery" title (if it's a fictional place then it should be established with a reference earlier in the script, and it's not).

Second, the segue to George's immediately following line ("You'd had too much to drink, Tracy.") makes much more sense following a comment attributing Tracy's behavior to wine than it would following a comment equating her behavior with a younger version of herself.

[–] SteveReed007 13 years ago

Yeah, shows how much I drink (not much at all): Apparently the "Pommery" establishment has been making champagne in, logically enough, the Champagne region of France for over 150 years now, sayeth the consensus from sources on the almighty Google. Once it had the broader brand cachet of, say, Dom Perignon or Christian Brothers. For all I know, among oenophiles, it still does.

I always thought, until turning on the DVD subtitles to check this the other night, that it was "Pomeroy," a much more likely place name in and around, well, Philadelphia for a suburb, school, or private club that might hold a pageant. So it's no wonder that my previous searches turned up nothing.

Allusions to brand names are dangerous in movies, even when — as was almost certainly not true here — it's paid product placement. What if the firm goes out of business? Or is involved in ethical or legal misconduct?

Or the reference is trivial or fleeting? I still remember how the remake (otherwise quite worthwhile) of "Sabrina" was a bit blighted by Harrison Ford's Linus talking about investing early in "MTV's 'House of Style.'" ... Eh? {g}
__
Yvaine: What do stars do best?
Captain: Well, certainly not the waltz!