Why didn't she just have marriage annuled? I would have!

Divorce may have been "out" for Favrini, but she wasn't a poor, powerless peasant anymore. She was a famous, powerful movie star. I bet she could have divorced him without his consent. She didn't strike me as a "victim" type, but a woman who could be strong & stand up to people when needed. The whole tragic premise just didn't ring true for me.

It was certainly very wrong of him to not disclose that before the marriage. However, I find it sad that some here say they would have left him. Was their love based only upon the hope of sex? I hope there are more reasons than that to fall in love and get married. A marriage can't just be based on sex. The lack of a normal sex life can sure make for marital challenges, but doesn't have to be the end of love. Besides, there are other ways of pleasuring, and children can be adopted.

That's an excellent point - the only logical reason for her staying is that she really did love him. But unfortunately, he did not love her, IMO. You don't murder people you truly love, no matter what.

I don't know about adopting kids, there's a reason the count & his sister never adopted before, the title could not be passed unto adopted children, they have to be biological. & the title or family lineage was what was foremost in their minds. Of course, an added reason would've been that many people don't turn to adoption, many prefer to have their own or none at all, like my father.


By Grapthar's Hammer.......what a savings.

“Maria was no virgin…she’d been around the block.”
But I think that’s why she was picky. I think she probably had had to prostitute herself for survival here and there up until a few years before the three guys see in her In Spain. That’s why she flees. Not that again.

Remember the dance in the gypsy camp? She entices and invites, but don’t touch. She throws the gambling money to the guy just because, money is needed and she sees it to throw.

Now in Beverly Hills, she DOES go and spend the night with the guitarist we hear. We see her shoes later.
But on the yacht, she refused the Eyebrow Millionaire and clutched her robe to herself when she saw all the guys leering at her; then she turns the moment around and owns it. That’s a hard thing to pull off.
I think she re-virginizes herself for the Count, who overheard that frustrated tirade at the Casino, saw that chaste toss of the money; he draws his own conclusions, with fatal results.

The one jarring note for me was how unreal most movies had been under The Hays Code and then suddenly when she meets Crew (Bogart)while shopping, she tells him of the Count’s gentlemanly behavior for a whole 6 weeks and he’s shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

It’s an odd disconnect between the way the movies usually discussed premarital desire or sex outside of marriage, and while there’s certainly some realism there, the moment is more of a sledgehammer of foreshadowing, just in case we didn’t get all the anguished but dignified hints in the brother-sister conversations.

Oh well.

I agree with Rheli - the scene with her family shows that she had a reason to always be running away from something, or running to something. All the men she picks as lovers are all dysfunctional, and she is always running away from the more socially acceptable men to go slumming and dancing with the men who are more like her, a peasant at heart. The count wants her only as a trophy, no one would do what he does (marry under false pretenses) to someone he really loves. Her need to "give" him an heir is completely irrational. In a situation like an italian mantle of nobility, it was ALL about "blood" inheritance. People like the Count did have children out of wedlock - they were called bastards because they were born out of wedlock, and were not considered to be worthy in inheriting a title. If Ava has a child that was not his blood that child would be considered a bastard and not eligible to inherit his title or his fortune. It would also be a dishonour and humiliation to the Count as a man, and this in part has something to do with his need to kill her as a means of revenge for dishonoring him. It may sound medieval but that is precisely the point. Add to that his jealously in finding out that she has been with another man - she is his property and he controls her and she went out and slept with another man - does he love her? Could someone murder the person they love? It happens EVERY DAY - the jealous husband/boyfriend/lover kills HIS woman because she ran off with/slept with/left him for/fill in the blank another man.

I really love this movie. I think of it as something of a guilty pleasure, but the dialogue is great and Ava just looks magnificent. It's my favorite Humphrey Bogart film - everyone loves him in Casablanca, but to me this part, and his wonderful narration, just seem to be perfect casting. Any time I happen to see it I will end up riveted to the end as usual.





Love is the best, most insidious, most effective instrument of social repression

Although not quite 21 when I first saw it, I was profoundly affected by the tragedy, even at that young an age.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

I think it helps to remember the time period when the story was written and set. In the 1950s, divorce wasn't anywhere near as common as it is today. In fact, divorce was heavily looked down upon and a woman who would willingly leave her husband could very well become socially ostracized, even if she were popular. Look at what happened to Ingrid Bergman when she left her husband for Roberto Rossellini. It created a huge scandal, and she was publicly denounced on the Senate floor.

As for the Count, I agree it was wrong of him to withhold the information. But I could understand his hesitation. After all, what man would want to admit to his would-be wife that he was emasculated and could not father children? Suppose she dumped him on the spot? Such a blow would be psychologically devastating.

I also think that the injury was a way for Mankiewicz to get around the strong moral codes of the time period. I imagine that Mankiewicz might have portrayed the Count as gay or bisexual, but you weren't allowed to do that in a 1950s film.

It has nothing to do with feminism . . . they married under false pretenses . . . and, yes, an annulment, under such conditions, could easily be procured . . . of course, he is a nobleman, she has a title, comfortable surroundings . . . and,no, she need not have to kill herself, or shoot him . . . technically there is no marriage . . .there can't be . . .