Tweet One More River

Since watching (and recording) this on TCM a few months ago, I've watched it twice, & yet again yesterday on TCM when it was re-broadcast. Diana Wynyard, dull as dishwater, I thought, in Cavalcade, now seems to me almost as intriging & alluring as Garbo in her prime; an infatuation that may in time pass, but not yet. The entire cast is truly outstanding, with one notable excption, that slight, nugatory, juvenile, Frank Lawton--a debilitating case of mis-casting. Part should have gone to someone like Ronald Colman or Leslie Howard, & if it had, this picture would be one of my top favorites.

But the part of the story that fascinates me is the deliberately ambiguous scene of Diana alone in her room with brutish husband Colin Clive--are we meant to understand that she (after the horsewhipping!) yielded her "chaste treasure to his unmastered importunity"? (Laertes' warning to Ophelia.) That interpretation would certainly support Clive's dastardly contention that some women like to be "roughly handled."

Tried to find the answer in Galsworthy's original story (Over the River), but nothing that specific is available online that I could find. So what really happened?

But the part of the story that fascinates me is the deliberately ambiguous scene of Diana alone in her room with brutish husband Colin Clive--are we meant to understand that she (after the horsewhipping!) yielded her "chaste treasure to his unmastered importunity"? (Laertes' warning to Ophelia.) That interpretation would certainly support Clive's dastardly contention that some women like to be "roughly handled."

Tried to find the answer in Galsworthy's original story (Over the River), but nothing that specific is available online that I could find. So what really happened?

Galsworthy doesn't baldly state what happens, but he makes it plain throughout the novel. "Yield" is the wrong word, Gerald Craven is a sadist and it's rape, and it's not just once, it's SOP for their marriage. "She liked it" is a standard defense.

I don't much care for Wynyard in the role, but that's because the characterization differs sharply from that in the novel. Since I like the novel, I don't care for the changes. But ymmv on that, and Whale is always worth watching.

Galsworthy doesn't baldly state what happens, but he makes it plain throughout the novel. "Yield" is the wrong word, Gerald Craven is a sadist and it's rape, and it's not just once, it's SOP for their marriage. "She liked it" is a standard defense.

Well, yes, something like that would be my initial assumption, except that she's so strangely considerate toward him--doesn't wish to humiliate him pubically or ''ruin his business." She lets him into her room after he'd attacked her in her father's house just the day before! It's folly, of course, to try to "make sense" of a work of fiction, but I can't help it.

Galsworthy doesn't baldly state what happens, but he makes it plain throughout the novel. "Yield" is the wrong word, Gerald Craven is a sadist and it's rape, and it's not just once, it's SOP for their marriage. "She liked it" is a standard defense.

Well, yes, something like that would be my initial assumption, except that she's so strangely considerate toward him--doesn't wish to humiliate him pubically or ''ruin his business." She lets him into her room after he'd attacked her in her father's house just the day before! It's folly, of course, to try to "make sense" of a work of fiction, but I can't help it.

It's made clear in the book. Different times, different laws, different mores, different reasons for behavior. The film is not very good at illuminating that.

Galsworthy doesn't baldly state what happens, but he makes it plain throughout the novel. "Yield" is the wrong word, Gerald Craven is a sadist and it's rape, and it's not just once, it's SOP for their marriage. "She liked it" is a standard defense.

Well, yes, something like that would be my initial assumption, except that she's so strangely considerate toward him--doesn't wish to humiliate him pubically or ''ruin his business." She lets him into her room after he'd attacked her in her father's house just the day before! It's folly, of course, to try to "make sense" of a work of fiction, but I can't help it.

It's made clear in the book. Different times, different laws, different mores, different reasons for behavior. The film is not very good at illuminating that.

Um, I see what you did there.

This is one Whale I'm fairly cool on myself. I have friends who don't like Remember Last Night? but I really do.

It's made clear in the book. Different times, different laws, different mores, different reasons for behavior. The film is not very good at illuminating that.

Um, I see what you did there.

This is one Whale I'm fairly cool on myself. I have friends who don't like Remember Last Night? but I really do.

You do? Not sure what I was doing, other than trying to indicate that the book is more detailed about Clare's motivations, which is not a huge surprise. Much of the socio-legal background would have been understood by contemporary audiences without explication, though, so I guess damning the film for not explaining is unfair. Galsworthy's novels were immensely popular so a lot of the people seeing the film would have read the book. Having read it myself I understood why Clare behaved the way she did, but there was much lost in translation and that mainly revolves around casting Diana Wynyard as Clare, who is a much younger woman in the book. That's a long conversation, though, might just be easier to read the book. Although, you'd have to read all nine of them, so not a small investment in time.

I can't remember if I've seen Remember Last Night. No wordplay intended.

You do? Not sure what I was doing, other than trying to indicate that the book is more detailed about Clare's motivations, which is not a huge surprise. Much of the socio-legal background would have been understood by contemporary audiences without explication, though, so I guess damning the film for not explaining is unfair. Galsworthy's novels were immensely popular so a lot of the people seeing the film would have read the book. Having read it myself I understood why Clare behaved the way she did, but there was much lost in translation and that mainly revolves around casting Diana Wynyard as Clare, who is a much younger woman in the book. That's a long conversation, though, might just be easier to read the book. Although, you'd have to read all nine of them, so not a small investment in time.

I can't remember if I've seen Remember Last Night. No wordplay intended.

A thousand pardons, I saw a suggestive typo, and due to my misreading the multiple nests, I ascribed it to you.

Remember Last Night? is a whodunit faux-screwball murder mystery with the twist being that most of the characters are of the sort (with their boozing and fast driving in Bugattis and such) who aren't exactly sympathetic. There's one sympathetic character, and she's not rich, just pretending to be. She's also the only one who seems to show any genuine pain or grief over the deaths.

Although, you'd have to read all nine of them, so not a small investment in time.

No kidding. A local library possess a fabulous collection of older PBS & BBC series on VHS, including the late '60s production of the Saga, but I'm saving committments of that magnitude--25 hours!--for the nursing home. Same for The Pallisers. Truthfully, it's less the time demanded than the "return on investment." A long series like Clark's Civilization or Bronowski's Ascent of Man repays with absurdly generous interest that investment, but these interminable family sagas really do not--for me. (A spectacular exception--Brideshead Revisted!)

Moreover, for those not assured of immortality, ever book read or film watched means some other book or film has been excluded from one's life-list; hence, choose wisely.

Although, you'd have to read all nine of them, so not a small investment in time.

No kidding. A local library possess a fabulous collection of older PBS & BBC series on VHS, including the late '60s production of the Saga, but I'm saving committments of that magnitude--25 hours!--for the nursing home. Same for The Pallisers. Truthfully, it's less the time demanded than the "return on investment." A long series like Clark's Civilization or Bronowski's Ascent of Man repays with absurdly generous interest that investment, but these interminable family sagas really do not--for me. (A spectacular exception--Brideshead Revisted!)

Moreover, for those not assured of immortality, ever book read or film watched means some other book or film has been excluded from one's life-list; hence, choose wisely.

I'm sure you don't mean to sound quite as pretentious as you do here. The Forsyte Saga is long (hence the word "Saga") but there is certainly a lot more going on in it than soap opera. If you haven't read it, you might not want to dismiss it so cavalierly, especially since you were the person having the problem with character motivations in the first place.

The Forsyte Saga is long (hence the word "Saga") but there is certainly a lot more going on in it than soap opera. If you haven't read it, you might not want to dismiss it so cavalierly, especially since you were the person having the problem with character motivations in the first place.

Soap opera? Who (except you) said that? (It applies, however, in spades to much lauded Downton Abbey.) While it IS true I have in effect dismissed Saga for that very reason you emphasized, its length, I should hope "practical" or "realistic" more fittingly characterizes my attitude, which acknowledges that life is short, but art is long. (Not that I object to "Cavalier"; it's "Roundhead" I won't abide.)

Only one, actually, of Galsworthy's works has time allowed me, in this lifetime, to read, & it paid dividends out of all proportion to its brief length: Memories.

Soap opera? Who (except you) said that? (It applies, however, in spades to much lauded Downton Abbey.) While it IS true I have in effect dismissed Saga for that very reason you emphasized, its length, I should hope "practical" or "realistic" more fittingly characterizes my attitude, which acknowledges that life is short, but art is long. (Not that I object to "Cavalier"; it's "Roundhead" I won't abide.)

Only one, actually, of Galsworthy's works has time allowed me, in this lifetime, to read, & it paid dividends out of all proportion to its brief length: Memories.

You might want to work on your wording then, because "practical" and "realistic" is not how your response reads. I'm sure you don't intend to sneer at all of us for our limited cultural attainments from your exalted (and apparently, time-constrained) intellectual perch, that would not be wise with a group as obstreperous as this one. Oh, by the way, I like Downton Abbey, and art is often short.

Oh, by the way, I like Downton Abbey, and art is often short.

Loving Edwardian history, manners & costumes, most of Downton Abbey I've watched myself, but doing so didn't blind me to the level of literature I was stewing myself in; its art was short.

Oh, by the way, I like Downton Abbey, and art is often short.

Loving Edwardian history, manners & costumes, most of Downton Abbey I've watched myself, but doing so didn't blind me to the level of literature I was stewing myself in; its art was short.

The correct answer is "ymmv," but never mind.

It's made clear in the book. Different times, different laws, different mores, different reasons for behavior. The film is not very good at illuminating that.

As Frederica says, it's clear in the book:
"Upstairs it was warm and light, the door into the tiny bathroom open, and the couch in disorder. Clare looked at her sister with a sort of unhappy defiance.
"Yes, I've had Jerry here, he's not been gone ten minutes."
A horrified shiver went down Dinny's spine.
"After all, he's come a long way," said Clare; "good of you to worry, Dinny."
"Oh! darling!"
"He was outside here when I got back from the Temple. I was an idiot to let him in. After that--oh! well, it doesn't matter."