Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Dreams, you need to remember the times that Thorne Smith wrote in. It was during Prohibition, and alcohol was a daring thing offically (as it was illegal). Sex couldn't be talk about, even after James Branch Cabell's Jurgen trial. It had to be hinted at. (And it was in the book, to the limit of the times.) His book were about the constraints of society, and rebellion against those constraints. Today, we have no constraints, and discerning people miss them (at least philosophically). Given the Hayes Code at the time (married couple shown with twin beds!), and the length of the book, I think the movie did a good job. The right length of story for a movie is about 50-100 pages...
|
Spot on Sir Ralph about his books being about the constraints of society, and the rebellion against those constraints. I think this is evident in the abundance of symbolism he uses, including the mandatory leg of lamb (constraints), the car (rebellion) and ultimately the sparrow (freedom). I had to laugh when he wanted to throw the leg of lamb out the window.
I watched the movie last week, having last viewed it over 30 years ago. I'm about a quarter way through the book, the first time I've read Topper.
And Zelda, I also remember my parents and grand parents dressing the best they could afford, putting away preserves and not wasting a crumb. I think this was a carryover from the 30's when times were tough for most. And now, due to our economic constrains, even I have gone back to making preserves, and baking my own bread. Not only as a cost saving measure, but to get that feeling of worth back in my life that got lost in all the greediness and self indulgence of recent years.
I believe the book and the movie were both racy for their times. Sitting on Marion's lap, with her arms around Topper's waist was more than just a sexual overtone. That low cut in the back dress that Marion wore in the movie was extremely sensual, as was most of the clothing. Do you think Thorne Smith deliberately chose invisible, and dead at that, characters to pull an end game around the restrictions of the censors at the time. How could it be indecent if they were not even there? Do the laws apply to dead people, as Marion was questioning herself in that her marriage only lasted until "death do us part"? And speaking of twin beds, in the movie, if I'm not mistaken, they had separate bedrooms.
Just think how the times have changed. Sex and nudity in a movie today is common place, yet drinking and driving or smoking in a movie today would almost be considered taboo.
Time to get back and read a few more chapters. I've had to look up some references made in the book. One reference was to "white duck trousers", a piece of clothing I've never heard mention before. They just seem to be white pants made out of duck material. The other was refering to a "brown study", which I found out to be "a state of deep absorption or thoughtfulness" or "gloomy mental state". Read and learn.
WDE.