Wouldn't the proposed marriage between young Edward and the Congolese girl be seen as scandalous (to the extreme) during this period of American history? The boy was clearly not a bohemian and his parents were American blue bloods. A good movie .. but that relationship did not ring true.
shareThe marriage would have beena problem in America. But, the marriage was not taking place in America. But, you are correct. I would imagine it would have been an awkward moment to see her at the annual Skull and Bones event. He probably would have been advised not to bring her.
shareI thought the same. Edward and Clover are upper crust American parents in 1961 who had always acted to keep up appearances. Edward Jr had done the same. Indeed, he was determined to exactly follow in his father's footsteps - Yale, Skull & Bones, CIA. Even today, 50 years later, such parents would likely express reservations. Yet, suddenly Clover is acting just thrilled, without being seen to even mention the issue, and Edward does not either.
I think most directors would have cast the fiancee as a beautiful, foreign Caucasian. De Niro, however, has a relationship history reflecting an exclusive attraction to black women. I think he wanted to tweak the audience by inserting such a relationship here and showing it as not only perfectly understandable and acceptable, but as the path to true happiness for a white man, one that shouldn't be thwarted. (Tarantino is also very interested in showing interracial relationships that are intense and important, without mentioning the interracial aspect.)
I think given the fact that Clover's personal life was such a misery all those years of keeping up appearances, she didn't want this kind of life for her beloved son. She even gave up trying to keep her own wreck of a marriage alive and moved to her mother. As for Edward Sr., I think that apart from caring for his son deeply, he didn't oppose him as he was aware the relationship would probably be cut short - for the exact precise reason it was.
share[deleted]
LOl That marriage was not going to take place even if she wasn't a spy.
"What happens to a dream deferred?"
I believe their relationship and marriage would actually have been criminal under state law in every state of the old Confederacy (as well as in Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri) at that time. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia was decided by the US Supreme Court in 1967 that anti-miscegenation statutes were ruled unconstitutional. Only New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Minnesota never had any anti-miscegenation laws. The other states repealed theirs before Loving was handed down -- many of the states bordering the Confederacy before 1887, but most states only after 1948. It seems that relatively straightforward constitutional guarantees of equality can be remarkably difficult to construe and interpret for people who are intent on getting around them....
share[deleted]