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

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …