MovieChat Forums > From the Terrace (1960) Discussion > Mrs. Eaton

Mrs. Eaton

posted 17 years ago by mp99
11 replies | jump to latest

It's been years since I read the book (which I found excruciating), but at least as set out here, the film seems awfully tough on the wife of the "hero." To begin with, Alfred marries Mary strictly out of social ambition. She's "classier" than he is, and he seems to regard her as little more than an object. Secondly, having married her, he all but ignores her chasing his goals. It's true she married him because she couldn't marry the man she was really in love with (the shrink Jim Roper), but for a long time she tries the best to keep up her end of the bargain and be a good wife. Why is her adulterous affair with Roper that much worse than what dear ol' Alfie is doing with the vulnerable Natalie Bensinger. (and if I remember correctly, after Alfred marries her, she winds up almost as miserable as Mary--O'Hara's book ends with his protagonist as empty and miserable as his hated father).

[–] AliciaHuberman59 16 years ago

I have not read the book, but have seen and enjoyed the film many times. I know Dr. Jim Roper was supposed to be her "secret" fiancee...why did he have to be a secret and why were they not able to marry? I don't think the film explained that.

[–] shanehaynes 16 years ago

How was Jim Roper her "secret"? They were publically engaged. Her parents knew it and all the friends in her circle knew it. As I recall, when Alfred first saw her at the party his friend Lex tells him "she's engaged to and only has eyes for her fiance DOCTOR Jim Roper"

[–] AliciaHuberman59 16 years ago

Sorry I'm just writing back now...unless I'm mistaken, and that's entirely possible, didn't Lex say she was "secretly" engaged to Roper? I know her parents knew they were an item, but I don't recall them referring to him as her fiancé, secret or otherwise, when Alfred showed up unexpectedly to their home after doing some "duck hunting".

[–] MitchumsGal 15 years ago

I think it was a "secret" engagement because later on Roper doesn't want to discuss love or marriage. That wasn't his thing, she knew it but wanted him, so to save face in case it didn't work out, it was never publicly announced as it would have been in those days.

Then she meets Alfred, he's even more exciting and probably better looking (IMO anyway). She goes and marries him but returns to Roper because he'll take her. Only it turns out it's just for romps in the sack.

Maybe this mattress will spin on its axis and find me on yours.

[–] pandora8 15 years ago

The sexual politics in this film are extremely disturbing. I got the sense that the book was much harsher on its hero, which is fitting. Instead the movie goes soft making this completely unbelievable "happy" ending with Natalie. Mary was the only character I had any sympathy for. Alfred pursued her relentlessly and then once he caught her he ignored her completely, and the movie tries to make us think that this is her fault and she deserves to be left shouting his name after a cab on Wall Street... all because she wanted to have sex with her husband now and then. Yes she strayed first, but he was not a virtuous man, not in the least.

~If you say "I had everything under control" one more time I'm going to slap you with my guitar.~

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lamont-hard 14 years ago

You are right, the film Is a bit hard on her. I really love the roll she played. Was it in the book that she was older than he was? Alfred Is getting a major pass in this film. Even for this particular era I could understand how a man has to sacrifice a lot to climb the latter, but this guy was just a man that had very little love and sexual drive to give and used the excuse of i am to busy to be a loving husband, Then once It has been brought to his attention she is lonely for years he made no adjustments. Just how would his life with Natalie been any better was a big mystery to me. It seemed as though his character was gay because he almost had panic attacks with his wife and Natalie when they tried to have sex with him.

[–] butaneggbert 10 years ago

Yeah, this was a pretty egregious case of the ol' madonna/whore dichotomy.

The woman with the sex drive is revealed as bad all around and rightfully loses the man. The virgin is good - and spared any actual sex (camera coitus interruptus!) until the wife is out of the picture, then she gets the guy.

The performances by Woodward and Balin were so good, it seemed more complex than that. But breaking it down to the basics - there it is, same old same old, and exactly the mentality of its time.

[–] seahorsespa 10 years ago

Exactly my thoughts while watching this completely aggravating movie. So completely misogynist, starting with the Newman character being SOOOO disrespectful to the two women at his home, when he first came home, calling them "old crows", and stating the one is "getting bigger" - holy smokes, so completely insulting, patronizing and disrespectful. That really set the tone, and it just got worse. The "hero" could be all mocking and disrespectful for the "HORRRRID" wife he completely neglected and ignored, because she was so BENEATH him and his fricking completely willing to do the same thing virginal "simple country girl" girlfriend, but it was decided Natalie was acceptable since she was rescuing the poor cheated on "hero". Unreal. This crap could never get made these days, and that's a good thing. :D

[–] liscarkat-2 10 years ago

Yeah, men suck!

[–] Lola_Bedworthy 8 years ago

Oh, yeah. "50 Shades. . ." Wins hands down. And, where were all the teen-age vampires and Zombies?