Lost Girls talk about "Archie" (Spoilers)

[Anniemouse]

Love the idea on the film club.

[servalan]

Back to Cary Grant, I have been wondering how hard it is to be nice to people in a normal way if just about everyone is either awful to you, or puts you on a pedestal and thinks you are great.

They say "you can't be what you can't see". As a child Archie had a father and grandmother who both seemed not to care about him, and treated him either badly or with indifference. His father was very domineering towards his mother, who disappeared, and Archie was told she was dead. He likely imagined her for years as more wonderful than she really was, and then he was confronted with an older live mother whose personality must have changed entiely due to her incarceration. She seems to have been rather horrible to Archie (and especially Dyan) some of the time, but it's hard to tell how much control she had over this. She didn't deserve to be locked up for years and effectively forgotten. She had been extremely badly affected by the loss of her son, and the mental hospital doesn't seem to have done anything to actually help her, and she doesn't seem to have received any therapy after her release either.

So who was there for Archie to copy?

Again, we have the huge gap in the story, and have no idea from this show what his other wives were like, or if he knew any "nice" men whose behaviour he could have copied. We know for example that Alfred Hitchcock's attitude towards the women he directed was not good. It's only nowadays that we have actresses speaking out with the "Me too" movement, so we know how macho Hollywood has always been.

[Antoni Bandzior]

I don't think in the very beginning Elsie had very unusual react to his son's death. She was just depressed and grieving. We've seen scenes where it was obvious Archie wasn't the favourite son, so the fact that the other one died was probably more depressing for her. She developed very common attitude, when you end up drowning in fear about the next child, and you want to control them, because your grieving brain thinks this way you can save them. So from my point of view she was absolutely normal in her grief.
Institutionalization for sure changed her, detached her from reality, so she switched between fantasies about "perfection" of Archie's father, to demonizing him. And that's also pefectly normal, when you are living with agressive, abusive alcoholic. The whole life is a circle of honey moon - silence before the storm - tension - agressive outburst - appologizing - and honey moon again. So she had all those memories of his behaviours in her head, she was just using them as she needed to control Archie later on. She was manipulative as well and full of negative feelings, but in her case I'm not sure she ever came back fully to reality, and that she coped with the losses she experienced. She never seemed in this piece of the story that she really lived on her own, fully independent.

As for the good examples - we know from the story about the guy who stood up against his father, and helped young Archie to travel to America, so he looks like a good guy in this story, and possibly might be some example of healthy relation, but it's not shown properly, so we don't know if he didn't abused him as well.
But here, to assess his way of perceiving "good" relationship, we would have to dig deeper, see other wives, and maybe even some more backstage stories from Hitchcoks - how they were functioning as a couple, because if they were close, he might have seen some fragments of their relationship, that he wanted to mimic.

But most people from abusive homes try not to be like their parents, trying different behaviours, and he was repeating his own father worse mistakes (f.e. putting Dyan in a mental hospital, knowing already how terrible cosequences it had on him and his mother).

[thunder]

Servalan, you make very good points about his childhood, that he didn’t have very good role models, and added with what Annie wrote about the society at the time, his childhood didn’t help him developing healthy relationships later in live. I also wonder, (but you are the expert here, Antoni B) if there might have been a genetic factor here as well with the father. Putting his wife in a mental institution and then tell his son she is dead, is a bit beyond what a “normal” person would have done, I think. If his dad was a psychopath, maybe his son was too?

Even if his upbringing was bad and he had bad role models, it doesn’t mean he didn’t know what’s right and wrong. When he was young, he had to fight to survive in a very cold world, but most of the things that happens in the series happens in his 60’s. When he absolutely didn’t have to fight to survive any longer. He became very powerful in this system where no one cared how he used and abused others. From what I see, he was perfectly happy about who he was, he tried to change everyone else the way he wanted them. What made him unhappy, was that he wasn't able to do that. His choices may be caused partly by his childhood and background, but it’s still his choice. We see in this series that he has friends and are able to form somewhat healthy relationships too (with his agent, Grace Kelly etc.). He wouldn’t be able to be so charming if he wasn’t able to make people feel good in his company. He could do it when he wanted to.

I think Sophia Loren rejecting him might have had a bigger impact then what is suggested in this series. I think that rejection in many ways could explain his behaviour in the series better than his childhood could, but they skipped over pretty much everything that happened between the 1930’s and the 1960’s. I do think trying to understand Cary Grant/Archie Leech, just looking at his childhoold and younger years doesn't really give any answers or explain his choices in his 60's and later. I understand that they can’t cover everything in four episodes, though.

We learn, develop and change our whole lives, and we can in many ways create our own destiny. It’s harder for some than others, but everyone can change if they want to.

[Anniemouse]

I cannot speak for other nations but the UK's relationship with mental illness has been profoundly problematic. People were executed for being possed in the middle ages, The Georgian arostacrates toured Bedlem (A major facility were the mentally ill were kept in chains) as a pastime. Check out what happened to George the third. WW1 troups who got shell shock were often executed by unsypathetic Commanders. Also I can think of another person a UK comedian called Bill Oddie (find his ep of who do you think you are to get the full story) whose mother dissapeared and hje later found she had been placed in a facility. It was far more common than people think. Within my lifetime and just before women were often put in facilities if they were fallen women by husbands and families. It was very often the done thing. My mother would often say to me as a teen ( and I can say I was not a bad kid) If you do not behave I will put you in (The name of the local asyalym). I do not think it has ever been accepted that women were locked up and instatutionalised for no good reason. Ours was a mini town and I was terrified of being sent there. It is shocking to think that what Archie Dad did was normal but it many ways it was at the time and even up to the 1950's. Also it is worth noting that we deported many poor and neglated orphans to Canada and Austrailia to work on farms etc and not into the arms of new families. How Archie did not get deported I will never know and that went on I beleive to the 1960's.

The fact that mens mental health is only really opening up now is shocking and Roman Kemp is doing his hardest to bring this into the public eye. (he is the son of Shirley from Wham and Martin from Spandau Ballet after his best mate took his own life.

What Cary experienced as a kid was not that unusual.

[servalan]

I was shocked to learn that a wife could still be locked away on the word of her husband at that time. I knew the Victorians did it, and earlier too. It's the basis of the whole plot of The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins, a contemporary of Charles Dickens.

However I did know that once people are incarcerated in certain institutions, even wrongly, it is very difficult for them to get their freedom again. This is still happening in the UK to people with various medical conditions, sometimes wrongly diagnosed.

Then we also had the awful Magdalene Laundries in Ireland for unmarried mothers, as described in the book and film Philomena. One of the writers of its screenplay was Jeff Pope, who also wrote Archie.

[Antoni Bandzior]

Well, if it comes to psychotherapy, it's definitely different in different parts of the world. In an Eastern Block(all the socialists' countries, under Russia reign) I don't remember there was really any therapy happening until the end of the system in '80. The psychology studies weren't existing in my country until 1957-60.
All the mental problems were described as a whim, so even now, with all the knowledge and information, in older people there's a conviction that's not necessary and you should just pull yourself together. The facilities for those who were really sick and dangerous were rather unpleasant places, worse than jails in human consciousness, so no one would put anyone there unless completely necessary. Until today there's a madman label, that people will use to humiliate others.
But even now, certain diagnosis, like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, would lead to complete lack of credibility, and your rights can be taken away, and a family member will get full legal control over you.

With information we have from the movie(and scraps from interviews, that aren't included in the show) there's no way to diagnose the father. We don't even see properly his drinking behaviors. The whole action of putting the mother in an asylum looks rather like a convenient option to rid off of her to go to his lover. This way he could avoid divorce, that I assume weren't very popular then, while at the same time connected to scandals and social problems.
We don't know anything about feelings or lack of them that his father could have. Sociopath is possible, but it would require more information to confirm that. I wouldn't confirm a psychopathy, neither. He could have been emotionally avoidant, withdrawn, or have anger issues. His mother(Archie's grandma) didn't look like a loving person as well, so that lack of emotional involvement could be "just a system that runs in the family".
Not enough data to establish anything really.

As for the Archie, he looks to me definitely more narcissistic than sociopath (or anything else), but those two types are easily to me mixed as one, since both are manipulating heavily, and using people to fulfill their needs. Sociopath can become easily detached from any social relationships, if they don't need them anymore(And Archie had some "working" friendships). They lack of certain emotions makes them good at business or making decisions. Psychopathy - totally excluded, he didn't have any typical behaviors, even as a child, which would be visible very early. He was never shown as someone who would hurt someone on purpose, all the hurt he has done was just him controlling and manipulating to get the love he thought he wanted. We see him emotionally struggling, obsessing over people and do typical narcissistic techniques, like love bombing, controlling, and some version of gas lighting (that goes to extreme as literally putting Dyan in a mental hospital) and presenting himself as different human, to hide what he really was. They most of the time feel like they need to pretend someone else, because no one would love them for who they are if they'll find out. They feel like they have nothing to offer.
There can be 2 sources of that - lack of support and acceptance in childhood, or on the contrary, excess of it, when your parents praise you for nothing, (so you think you are awesome, until you realise that were empty words).
In his case it was definitely the lack, that created the need.

Of course not everyone who wants to be loved, accepted and recognized for their achievements is a narcissist. Those are completely basic needs of every healthy human. It's all in how you achieve that.

[Anniemouse]

Here is a link to the comedian Bill Oddie and his family's story.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... qzGgoIAgr4

[thunder]

Norway has had a nasty history with mental institutions. It’s basically the same story as in the UK, I guess. Except Norway didn’t have any colonies to send people off too. There were also quite a lot of what they called “school homes” for children, which they sent children to if they had done something wrong, or if their parents were too poor to take care of them. Sometimes that meant that their family had a different ethnicity. Eugenics was very popular in Norway before World War 2, and the Norwegian state kidnapped children from Romanichal families, and children were mistreated at school homes or in families that used them for cheap labour, a lot of the adults were institutionalized and went through forced sterilization. That ended in the 70’s and a lot has changed now. But it’s not too long ago that a report came out that said that they use restraints a lot more than necessary in treatment of mental illness in Norway.. A lot of the times it’s because of ulack of staff and budget cuts. I think that report made some changes, but still things are happening in institutions that should not happen.

I have seen the movie Philomena a few years ago, it was a very sad story. And I think I watched the movie about King George as well, I don’t know how accurate the movie was, but I assume the methods shown in the movie was in use at the time.

As a teacher, I clearly experience differences between cultures when it comes to how open they are about talking about their issues and how they react if I ask them if they need to talk to the school councillors, or the school nurse. It’s of course individual too. Some are vey open to the thought of speaking to professionals about their issues, and others completely dismisses it.

[Marie]

Basically Archie was rejected by everyone as a child. He was rejected so many times he could not handle rejection as an adult. So I think he felt he had to reject people before they rejected him. This is what Jason hypothesised and I think he hit the nail on the head.

[thunder]

I don't disagree, but it's too simple. He was one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, and not used to the word "no", once he got in that position. He didn't think he should have to deal with rejection. The series skips almost 30 years...

[thunder]

I watched the two first episodes that are available via Britbox yesterday, and I was inspired to write another essay.

It’s been a while since I first watched it, and I have had more time to digest. I think a lot of the issues that I have with this is that we are lacking one very important person’s perspective. The research that this is based on, isn’t Archie/Cary’s story. It’s based on people who knew him, but that doesn't mean that they aren’t colored by their own experiences. I still think Archie/Cary is a bit of an enigma. That’s probably why I keep thinking about the series. If Cary Grant had written his own memoirs, we may have had more answers, but as it is now, we still miss some pieces in the jig-saw puzzle.
For example, in his marriage with Dyan Cannon, most of what we see in this series, his behavior and their arguments, are based on her point of view. Watching it again, I have become a bit more distanced to it, and I start to ask, how would he have explained what went on in these situations?

I watched the scene after they’ve had a baby and she has an offer for a role that’s she is very excited about, but he isn’t. I understand that she would want to balance being a family with having a career, but if I try to look at it from his point of view: They just had a baby and try to take care of it and build a family together, then she plans to go away to focus on her career. She now has the baby that she wanted, and he didn’t want at first (even if he changed his mind now) Could he then question her motivations for marrying him? She said she wanted a family, but now she will focus on her career. Did she marry him to promote her career, and now he is stuck with her and the baby, that he didn’t want in the first place? Maybe he felt used. I only speculate here because we don’t know his point of view. Also, in the scene by the pool where he calls her “silly child”? At first, I thought what an a**hole he is talking to her like that. But now I think, why did he call her that, we only see her version of the story? I still don’t think that’s an acceptable way he should talk to his girlfriend, but I don’t know why he did it.

What I wonder is, why would she marry him in the first place? The explanation they give me is here is that he was so charming. He was also abusive and stalked her, wouldn’t take no for an answer, and he was over 30 years older than her, even older than her parents. Normally women don’t go into relationships with men that much older than them. Why would you marry someone because they are charming, when you already have a toxic relationship with them, and how much would she have in common with a person who are that much older than her? What did they both expect to get out of this relationship?

I like the series, but it’s more about what people who knew Archie/Cary Grant viewed him, I still don’t think I fully can understand the person, because we don’t have his version of the story. In danger of sounding like the history teacher that I am: We are missing a key source.

[Anniemouse]

Thunder you have made a very interesting point. I think it is genuinely fascinating that Cary was such a private man and here we all are trying to work out who he is ( I doubt he would know who he really was either). Jason made the valid comment that Cary packed in acting to devote his time to Jennifer, and that the roles were not what he wanted. Actually there is another reason. As the studio system collapsed in the 1960, the whole structure that Cary knew fell apart. That included the way the stars interacted with the media. His retirement came exactly the same time when stars were not protected anymore and had to go on talk shows et al to promote their new movies; or in the case of say Bette Davis herself and her career. I think it is possible that he was not happy that he would have to start doing press junkets (Jason is patient and always comes over very well in them) and can you imagine the fear he would of felt being in a successful movie and coming to the UK and have to talk about himself. I can hear the questions. Why did you leave the UK. Why change your name Why are you such a crap husband and are you gay. Under the new movie norm he would have no hiding place so I believe he left to keep his privacy.

Thunder I thought that too about the row he had with Dyan after baby Jennifer was born. That is such a complex moment.

Ultimately you are correct the viewpoint I wish we had is Cary's; although the closest we get is from his letters in the doc I watched. I think he spent a lifetime running away from himself. I wish he had given a prolonged interview to say Roger Ebert or Barry Norman. So many of the Hollywood great spoke to Barry or even Michael Parkinson, who had the likes of Bette Davis on his show.

I think I still do not know Archie and he is still an enigma. And to be fair he wanted it that way.

[thunder]

I think you make a great point about Hollywood changing. A lot of athletes retire when they are on top, because they want to be remembered as winners.

Cary Grant retired before he had to redefine who he was as a movie star. They touch in on it in the series as well, that he is worried he is getting too old to play the love interest of women half his age. His career and brand wouldn't necessarily been so legendary if he had kept going for 20 more years. He quit while he was still on top. It was conventient with the baby came along, but I don't think that was the main reason he retired from acting in movies. He quit while he was still wanted and before someone told him he was too old.

[Antoni Bandzior]

It's happening all the time in this industry. The need to redefine yourself. When you stop being young and perceived as "hot" by tabloids, it's not that easy to play heartthrob anymore.
It happens to many. From playing a lover to playing a creep.
I assume that if you have at least some of self-confidence you are able to adjust, to show different layers and skills. But it requires some ability to change, to expand your field of work.

We (still) don't know what was in Archie's mind, we have only a glimpse of his discussion about younger actresses being his partners on screen. But he could play roles of lovers with older women, I suppose. But old age and romance wasn't selling those days in Hollywood. I think it's barely selling now.