The flaw with this movie is: the question that directs the whole affair is put much too simply. The most immoral characters in this film is made out to be the one who gives and receives love the most. It is a cr@p idea and must have come from a cr@p novel written by a cr@p writer who wants the cr@p bastards he or she grew up with to be loved as much as legitimate children that he probably envied as a child.
The Countess, who married into money and prominence, spends the movie playing dirty tricks to keep the grandfather from finding out which granddaughter is legitimate. First, she denies and lies about her childbearing affair. Then, she tries to have him imprisoned in a monastery. Then, she plays the dirtiest trick of the movie by giving him the granddaughter that he mistakenly believes is his, because after all, it is all about love, no matter what else is true.
The problem that I have with this movie is not that it wasn't well made or well acted - it was both. But, I think that it was really made for two audiences: women (especially for women who sin prominently) and those crazy old foggies who think that it is important to know which of your children and grandchildren are actually yours (what an outdated, anachronistic idea!).
The moral is as sophisticated as the lie that it is all predicated on, that love is okay as long as it is love.
Meanwhile, the Grandfather, obsessed with determining paternity, is supposed to represent the viewer. He vagabonds through his old province and spouts moral lessons, gleans family history, learns the ins and outs of the local characters, all the while reading clues to determine which daughter is of his oh-so-sacred bloodline. We are supposed to follow his journey and come to the same conclusion that he comes to by the end of the movie.
So the audience is slowly tricked into believing that it is okay to cuckold or be cuckolded as long as you love the children it produces. I get the movie. I get the moral. But, I have to say that I find it morally and ethically objectionable to trick a grandfather into raising and caring for a child that is not his, when the only thing he wants is to bestow his aging sense of honor onto his true heiress. What kind of moral is that?
The Countess, who married into money and prominence, spends the movie playing dirty tricks to keep the grandfather from finding out which granddaughter is legitimate. First, she denies and lies about her childbearing affair. Then, she tries to have him imprisoned in a monastery. Then, she plays the dirtiest trick of the movie by giving him the granddaughter that he mistakenly believes is his, because after all, it is all about love, no matter what else is true.
The problem that I have with this movie is not that it wasn't well made or well acted - it was both. But, I think that it was really made for two audiences: women (especially for women who sin prominently) and those crazy old foggies who think that it is important to know which of your children and grandchildren are actually yours (what an outdated, anachronistic idea!).
The moral is as sophisticated as the lie that it is all predicated on, that love is okay as long as it is love.
Meanwhile, the Grandfather, obsessed with determining paternity, is supposed to represent the viewer. He vagabonds through his old province and spouts moral lessons, gleans family history, learns the ins and outs of the local characters, all the while reading clues to determine which daughter is of his oh-so-sacred bloodline. We are supposed to follow his journey and come to the same conclusion that he comes to by the end of the movie.
So the audience is slowly tricked into believing that it is okay to cuckold or be cuckolded as long as you love the children it produces. I get the movie. I get the moral. But, I have to say that I find it morally and ethically objectionable to trick a grandfather into raising and caring for a child that is not his, when the only thing he wants is to bestow his aging sense of honor onto his true heiress. What kind of moral is that?