MovieChat Forums > All That Heaven Allows (1955) Discussion > Unconvincing romance

Unconvincing romance

posted 18 years ago by archer1267
20 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this for the first time and was unconvinced that a man like Ron would find Carrie all that interesting or attractive, instead of finding some boho nature girl (wait - I guess there weren't any in CT/Long Island/wherever this took place). Sure, she took a polite interest in him at first, but what was really there, other than her being a bit more genuine and less plastic than her peers? She's not part of the country club...she doesn't own a TV at first. I guess that was supposed to mean she was less conventional than many of her neighbors.

I get that inner beauty matters, yada yada, but I was thoroughly unconvinced that a hunk like Ron should be riled up by a rather plain, older woman - to the point where he's talking marriage without hardly knowing her. If Carrie's character had been written to show a bit more personality, spunk, etc. I might have understood it more.

[–] ducdebrabant 18 years ago

He likes her looks (you may not, but these things happen; a lot of people thought Jane Wyman was very attractive), she's intellectually curious (she genuinely takes an interest in his horticultural knowledge), she's kind, and she's a LADY. He's a little too good to be true, but so is she. They're both shiny fantasies of the dreamer. A lot of women aspired to have Wyman's warmth and cool good manners. She's socially assured without a drop of arrogance, always eager that those around her should be at ease and enjoying themselves. She doesn't assert herself much, but she knows what to wear and what fork to use and how to plan a menu. She's right out of a 50's magazine.

--------------
***You must be old and wrinkled to have that type of reaction. - Liana***

[–] AliciaHuberman59 17 years ago

Well said, ducdebrabant! I also think they had bereavement (his father/her husband) as a bond.

[–] Rand-o 17 years ago

I also agree with ducdebrabant! Jane Wyman's character exudes warmth and class in ATHA. I thought the chemistry between Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman was great in this film; their mutual attraction for each other was more than about looks: it goes much deeper than that. Douglas Sirk's film is just brilliant as it goes beneath the surface to show us things that aren't readily apparent or obvious.
9/10

I can resist anything but temptation.

[–] Siel_O 16 years ago

the problem with your explanation, ducdebrabant, is that you explain "why would anyone fancy her", and not "why would ron fancy her", which was a major problem in the script for my opinion also. i saw it the other way around though, and couldn't get what she found in him. both ways the script didn't elaborate on.

[–] HarlowMGM 16 years ago

I agree with you completely ducdebrabant. Jane Wyman also had a beautiful figure still in 1955. She's not really known as a fashion plate but she has some rather timeless fashions for a few scenes in this movie when she's "dressed up" and is gorgeous in those gowns. Also clearly Ron was used to frivolous young blondes with apparently little on their minds like Leigh Snowden and Merry Anders and for someone as philsophical as he was, I'm sure he was intrigued by the sensitive Carrie right off the bat.

[–] the sphynx 12 years ago

"She doesn't assert herself much, but she knows what to wear and what fork to use and how to plan a menu."

Those strike me as three talents Ron would not care about whatsoever--but he did need her to be more assertive.

[–] chandler-47 16 years ago

Those were the days. By today's standards the life in the 50's is not much understandable. I'm always surprised that women did not work that time. Most of the time they just waste their husband's money and don't have problems to do so.
In so far it might be possible that a man like Kirby falls in love with an older woman.

--------------------------------
They don't give you the leads, they don't give you the support, they don't give you dick. (Dave Moss)

[–] agera 16 years ago

>. I'm always surprised that women did not work that time. Most of the time they just waste their husband's money and don't have problems to do so.

You couldn't be more wrong. The lucky women didn't have to work outside the home to earn money but women of that era most certainly did work. I still remember my mom using a wringer washer when I was very young, though later we had a regular washing machine. Women also sewed many of their own clothes and those of their children as well as making curtains, table napkins, etc. for their homes. They ironed almost every piece of fabric in their homes, from handkerchiefs to clothes to sheets. They cooked and baked from scratch. They canned vegetables. Homemaking fifty years ago was much harder and more time-consuming than it is now. And that doesn't count taking care of their children.

Of course, then as now, wealthy women didn't have to work much in or out of the home. But middle-class and below, yes, the women worked hard.

[–] teaandoranges 16 years ago

You're kidding aren't you? You make it seem like woman in the fifties did not have any conveniences and worked like women in the early 1900's. Nothing could be further from the truth. I only had one friend whose mother worked. We bought all of our linens and clothes from a Department Store, while its true they ironed sheets there was a machine called a "mangle" which did it in no time. My mother had a cleaning womann who came in twice a week and we were not super millionaires. Jane Wyaman was the epitome of the WASP New England housewife of the time. No one in our neighborhood canned vegetables either. By the 5o's American grocery stores were filled with fresh or canned vegetables. You make it sound like everyone was living like in the depression.

[–] agera 16 years ago

>You're kidding aren't you? You make it seem like woman in the fifties did not have any conveniences and worked like women in the early 1900's.

No, I'm not kidding. My mom and the other moms in our neighborhood (of homeowners, not renters) sewed, canned, cooked lots of stuff from scratch, etc. Gee, we must have been poorer than I thought.

You even had a mangle? I remember my mom spending one whole day each week ironing our linens and clothes--with an iron. To this day, I've never even seen a mangle.

>My mother had a cleaning womann who came in twice a week and we were not super millionaires.

So you were ordinary millionaires? How nice for you.

[–] mrpiddleslives 16 years ago

there is no point you two arguing over what the 50's really was because your both clearly right. One of you was from a more middle class family - working class families RARELY have cleaners...even now. Thats kind of a ridiculous statement to make 'my mother had a cleaner...and we were not super millionaires' Well you were richer than many my friend!

The 1950's was fairly glossy and comfortable if you had the money I'm sure.

[–] agera 16 years ago

>Well you were richer than many my friend!

As a matter of fact, my mother was the only housewife in our neighborhood to have both a weekly cleaning lady and her own car and our family was the first to get central air conditioning.

But yes, she still canned, cooked from scratch, sewed clothes, etc. The housework of 1950's is not to be confused with Victorian-era domestic toil but Carey's lifestyle was certainly a tad more opulent than that of the typical 50's housewife, I think.

[–] BwlBoy 15 years ago

Not a great film. This is one film where I wish the imdb rating system allowed you to give half marks. I didn't want to give 6/10 but I also didn't want to give it 7/10. 6.5/10 would be a fair rating.

[–] elgatolocorojo 15 years ago

How could we know what Ron really wanted in a woman and say that Cary wasn't it?

It was obvious that women flocked to the character, and it just seemed to me that he had "sowed his oats" so to say, and was ready to settle down, and knew exactly the kind of woman he wanted, and except for bending to what her "friends" wanted, she was it.

I looooooove this movie because it is so cheesy...

[–] AliciaHuberman59 15 years ago

During the scene at the old mill, after the pigeon scared her into his arms and she suggests he turn the place into a home for a prospective bride unless he's not "susceptble", to which he replies he's met all kinds of girls, "nice" and "not so nice", the way he looks at her, and the kiss that follows says it all, and in a very convincing manner, I might add.

[–] natashafx2 13 years ago

The ordinary millionaire comment was Hilarious! I wasn't born in the 50s but I do remember my grandma having one of those wash board things. She also was a cleaning woman with several clients where she went to clean their homes and even brought me with her...this was in the 70s by the way. So, rich white women from what I saw growing up in Louisiana didn't lift a finger to do anything.

Oh, and did people actually iron sheets! I guess these days we have the wrinkled free kind but I can never see myself ironing linens. I guess my grandma did but she's dead so I can't verify.

By the way, saw the movie for the first time today and thought it was lovely. They surely don't make movies like that any more.

[–] Jason_Radley 13 years ago

The romance developed way too fast. And here they were talking love, not lust.

[–] AliciaHuberman59 13 years ago

I don't think it "developed way too fast" at all. Sometimes, people are ready to fall in love and don't realize it until the right person comes along.

[–] denis-38 13 years ago

It developed "way too fast" because that's how they made movies then. There was rarely a lot of exposition. Sometimes looking back, it works. (We have too much exposition now) Other times, not so much.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]