Skip to main content

Bridget Jones' Baby

Image result for bridget jones's baby

Strange movie.

Had its moments, but ... what happened to the theme of foot size?

SPOILER ALERT. As usual, I will proceed to discuss this movie without any regard to whether you've seen it or not or what plot twists I may be revealing. TURN BACK if you don't want to learn what this might teach you.

Anyway, half of the movie is the set up, the other half is a "who done it" where the "it" is "impregnated Bridget."

The two suspects are: Mark Darcy, played by Colin Firth, and Jack, played by Patrick Dempsey. Bridget has a long history with Mark; Jack is the new guy in her life.

Before my train of associations went elsewhere, I was going to say something about foot size. At one point, Bridget gets a sonogram, and learns that her baby (a) is a boy and (b) has large feet. A little later, we're privy to a conversation between Bridget and her father, where Dad mentions that HE has "dainty" feet which Bridget has inherited.

Yes, I know that foot size is often used as a gag parallel to penis size. But that doesn't seem to be the goal here, both references seem to be expository. There's only one expository reason for the  screenplay to include those points: someone wanted us to understand that the baby must have gotten his large-feet genes from his father. And THAT in turn would suggest a scene in which both men/potential Dads are barefoot, revealing ....

But the barefoot thing never happens. We never learn foot size for Mark or Jack. Instead, the Answer is revealed to the characters by a DNA test soon after the baby's birth, and is revealed to us, the viewers, only after Bridget and Mark are married.

Yes, Bridget and Mark get married. I issued the spoiler alert, so don't complain now.

During the wedding, Jack is holding the child. It appears that the resolution might be headed this way: Bridget marries her true love, but she (and he) will have to deal with another man as an involved not-just-biological father. But after the wedding, just outside the Church, Mark asks Jack for "my boy" back, and Jack hands him over. It was just baby-sitting. So ... the ending is that Bridget and Mark are both a married couple AND parents of the boy, a traditional nuclear family if ever there was one, chronology notwithstanding.

So that is the plot.  the foot size allusions could only have been put in there as a clue to a payoff that never comes.

Hmmmmm. Could it be that somebody decided well into production of the movie that the Big Foot Reveal moment seemed too much like a 19th century novelistic device, not at all 21st century, where the question would surely be settled by, ya know, DNA? And that they scuttled the denouement as originally planned but randomly kept the earlier references in the final cut?


Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

Philippa Gregory

My recent reading includes large helpings of Philippa Gregory's latest, THREE SISTERS, THREE QUEENS (2016), another of her fictionalized takes on love and betrayal among the royals of Renaissance Europe.

In this book, the focus is on the early Tudor dynasty, and especially on Margaret Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VII, founder thereof, and the older sister of the future Henry VIII. Margaret became Queen of Scotland with an arranged marriage to James IV. She reigned and ruled under the title of Dowager Queen after James' death at the Battle of Flodden in 1513.

So who, you ask, were the other two sisters of the novel's title? One is Margaret's blood sister, Mary Tudor, who was known as one of the great beauties of the age. Mary was the inspiration for the name her brother Henry gave to his older daughter. More important for Gregory's story, she wed the King of France (Louis XII) in 1514, and Anne Boleyn served as her maid of honor at that ceremony.

The third &…