Karen Stone is one of the most pathetic female characters in filmdom. With all her beauty, wealth, friends and connections, all she can do is wander around Rome and piss off all her money on a gigalo? What a waste of life.
shareWell it's a pretty sleazy movie all around.
"I told you a million times not to talk to me when I'm doing my lashes"!
Unfortunately, she's drifting and aware of it and a snob to boot; like the character Mrs. Treadwell she played in Ship of Fools(65). Karen Stone is not meant to be sympathetic nor is the the audience expected to identify with the title character.
shareThen why watch? People for the most part watch a film because to be entertained. They don't necessarily have to identify with the character, but they can still sympathize with the main character. If that is lacking, then the film is a waste of time.
The only person who had any substance was Coral Browne's character.
Do people sympathize with Macbeth? The Godfather? Is Macbeth a waste of time because Macbeth and the Mrs. were deplorable hosts? And Don Corleone? Was he to be admired? Great film, lterature and drama would be largely null according to your criteria, Helpfan65. Complexity is the enemy of simplemindness. People are not as simple or mono dimensional as sooo many films woud like us to believe. Film should deal with the spectrum of human existence like it or not.
shareDon Corleone was very sympathetic. Did not identify with him, of course, since he was a ganster, but he had qualities which were very intriquing and appealing in spite of his career choice. MacBeth was a dupe of his wife and his story was interesting, thus entertaining.
Literature and drama would not be null according to my criteria, that is why it is considered great literature and drama, because humans respond to it in some way and find it entertaining.
Karen's story was sordid and miserable to watch.
I came to that same conclusion. But it also made me realize that a lot of people who are like that, are just protecting themselfs from being hurt by another, and are 'closing' themself from being liked by their surroundings. That's why people like that can be hard to live with, i think the same goes for Vivien herself as well (that's why she was hard to work with), although, of course, she had a bipolar disorder.
shareI find the character kind of annoying in this version, too. She's much more sympathetic in the Helen Mirren version.
shareI can totally enjoy this film without having to sympathize with Karen Stone.
She was fairly clueless, though. Walking around solo in her finery through the streets of recently war-ravaged Rome, around all those folks pushed into poverty.
Not only was that insensitive, but dangerous...
"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois
You absolutely miss the complexity of her character to make such a ridiculous statement about this movie. If you want a fairytale, go watch "Pretty Woman".
From the beginning you see that Karen the aging actress was having a "midlife crisis"- she saw her career waning, she was considered old for roles, she was receiving terrible reviews by critics and audiences for her acting roles in plays. She was vain in insisting on playing roles that should have gone to younger actresses. We also see that she had married an older rich man for the comfort it brought her. So from the beginning you see she is flawed. She doesn't suddenly go to "wander around rome" and make mistakes out of thin air. This is good movie making. This flawed woman, with all her weaknesses and vulnerabilities, was played upon by evil people, circumstances both in and out of her control, her environment, her poor choices, unfairnesses of life, and in fact her wealth only aided in her downfall, as it was a lure for the evildoers.
She's not complex, she's pathetic. Karen Stone is a woman who is so self absorbed that all she can do with her wealth is piss it off on a gigalo. Based on your description, she was pathetic from the get go: a woman with limited talent and zero ambition, who was eager to latch onto a sugar daddy to support her.
Who said anything about a fairy tale? There are plenty of film roles in which women are flawed and those films make great film viewing.
________________________________________
Get me a bromide - and put some gin in it!
You did not understand my response, obviously. I did not say she had "limited talent" I said she was an aging actress having a difficult time getting roles and so was playing roles too young for her and getting poor reviews, and then had to leave her career and life behind because of that. That is a real issue for many Hollywood actresses and Pop stars today and years ago- in fact Vivian Leigh had to face that same problem. Look at Madonna falling into the hands of 20 year old toyboys to think she is young. Just like you said, she is flawed! That makes a good movie. She was VULNERABLE to be played upon by evil people. Her boytoy turned out not to be a prince but an evil prostitute with an evil pimp.
share
I didn't say Karen Stone was flawed, I said she was pathetic. What I said was there are other film characters out there who are flawed and yet have some quality that makes their story interesting. Karen Stone's story was a waste. I find the comparison with Madonna humorous because she is another female of limited talent.
________________________________________
Get me a bromide - and put some gin in it!
You don't seem to have paid much attention to the film because Karen was not "pissing" away her wealth on a gigolo, she gave him a rather limited amount and only well into the relationship. He was after her from the beginning for the money and she was aware of it and just kept their relationship as social acquaintances for the longest time. When Paolo makes strong overtures for money she bluntly tells him if she has to pay for affection she would just as soon do without it. She then goes to bed as to suggest he is welcome to join her but has made no promise of payments. And he does join her and their relationship at last becomes physical.
Sleazy Paolo however tries another trick and persuades her he is falling in love with her and in her vulnerable state (recently widowed, in career crisis) she gradually begins to believe it. She does start to buy him things - clothes, a movie camera - but she is not handing him money by the fistful as he expects and he grows tired with the limited funds she's been giving him and decides to move on to the movie star. This is when Karen completely falls apart because she realizes he was at every point a gigolo and never in love with her. I find your hostility to her curious given she is not remotely a malicious or cruel character just a lonely vulnerable woman who unfortunately is ultimately brought down by the leeches she tried for so long to keep at bay.
It's quite insulting to tell a movie fan that they didn't pay attention to the movie because they don't agree with the viewers opinion. I did pay attention, because I'm a fan of Vivien Leigh and my opinion has not changed.
________________________________________
Get me a bromide - and put some gin in it!
I'm sorry you got offended but I am just saying you have a wrong impression of the character being shallow. That was not Tennessee Williams' intention. She's not, she's not even remotely mean, she's just a very vulnerable widow well into middle-age who just does not know what to do with herself now that her husband is dead and is conned by someone she has come to love and trust. It's her vulnerably that brings out the toxic Paolo and the Countess to exploit her and take her for they can. Sorry you don't have any sympathy for someone victimized by evil people but if your opinion is that this lonely fragile woman is just a stupid broad who deserved what she got I'm fine with that.
share
I never said she was mean and she certainly didn't need to be lonely, she had friends, the character Coral Browne played,reached out to her repeatedly. I'm guessing she had a pretty nice life before her husband kicked it, they had respectable friends, lived a quite a nice life(her faded career nothwithstanding). So I do find it pathetic that Karen would eschew that friendship, and willingly put up with those nasty people just so she could have that creepy gigalo. Pathetic.
________________________________________
Get me a bromide - and put some gin in it!
Roman Spring is Obviously based on Tennessee's problem's with getting boyfriends/sex as he aged...
Actually, I agree with the OP.
Karen Stone was one of those weak, pathetic women who believed that they were nothing unless there was a man in their lives, or--after 35 or 40--they were essentially washed up has-beens in the acting profession.
There are a number of Shakespearian roles made for mature actresses: Lady Macbeth, Queen Gertrude, Mistress Quickly, to name a few.
But Karen chose the path that led to her downward spiral.
She has nobody to blame but herself.
Roman Spring is Obviously based on Tennessee's problem's with getting boyfriends/sex as he aged...
I agree with the OP to some extent. I don't think a character has to be likable for a film to be entertaining but Karen was pathetic AND there was nothing really going on around her to make the film more compelling. I thought some of the visuals were beautiful but otherwise the acting and script were unremarkable, making the film quite boring.
shareI think Harlow MGM gets much the better of this debate.
shareShe was lonely and vulnerable and in the midst of a full blown mid-life crisis. She knows her beauty has matured and youth is a memory. She doesn't believe in her talent or all the "friends" that Coral Browne insists she has.
I feel she was quite sympathetic. Foolish of course, but there would be no story if she was a woman with a strong self-regard.