Putting Robbie's feelings for her aside, would you have told Julia about Glen in Robbie's position?
My wife and I discussed this last night. I say no - Julia is an adult and able to make her own decisions and mistakes. My wife said yes, you owe it to her as a friend.
How about this:
"Julia, I respect your right to marry whoever you wish, but I don't think Robbie is as commited to this as you are."
It's an interesting dilemma. On one hand, if he feels any kind of responsibility for her happiness, he should tell. OTOH, is it any of his business? At what point do you "get involved?" I don't have a good answer.
A similar situation occurs in the Jane Austen novel, "Sense and Sensibility." For those who don't know the story, Willoughby is introduced as a love interest of Marianne, who is a sweet, innocent but naïve teenage daughter of Mrs Dashwood. About the same time, an older man, Brandon, is introduced. It seems apparent Brandon, although being twice her age, has a romantic interest in Marianne. Willoughby leaves Marianne without explanation, leaving her anxious and confused. At that point, the Dashwoods have no knowledge of anything WIlloughby has done wrong. About the same time, Brandon also goes away and learns about Willoughby's true nature. He learns that Willoughby seduced and abandoned his (Brandon's) teenage ward, Eliza, and left her pregnant and penniless. He also learns that Willoughby is "expensive, dissipated and worse." He knows this weeks before he tells the Dashwoods. And, oddly enough, he waits until Willoughy's true nature has been exposed by other means AND is completely out of Marianne's life. THEN, and only then, he decides to tell.
Now, relating it back to this issue. One big difference is that Brandon is presented in a different role than Robbie. He's twice Marianne's age, and actually more of a peer of Mrs Dashwood than a young suitor of Marianne. He has had long heart-to-heart talks with Elinor sharing innermost feelings. He seems to be portrayed as a friend of the family, a trusted confidant. IMHO Brandon really DOES, without question, have a duty to tell Mrs Dashwood what he knows. Keep in mind that he doesn't just know that Willoughby, in a moment of weakness, had sex with Eliza. He also knows...somehow...that on top of being a seducer, Willoughby is expensive, dissipated and worse. IT seems to me that he should have an obligation to tell Mrs Dashwood...to warn her about the danger Marianne is in. On top of all that, he makes a visit to Elinor BEFORE Willoughby's engagement to the rich heiress is know and even asks Elinor if Marianne and Willoughby are engaged. So it is apparent he feels some obligation to "check" on their status, to "wish" Marianne happiness, and to generally be concerned with the goings-on of the Dashwood family. But even then he fails to mention what he admits, a week later, that he has known for many weeks.
HIS only excuse is that he's afraid he won't succeed AND he believes that Marianne might reclaim Willoughby. I doubt ANYONE really believes THOSE are good reasons for not telling. Perhaps one might assume he didn't want to "get involved." That's what we might assume about Robbie. He's not in a position to feel obligated to "get involved." BUT if that is the case, WHY does Brandon GO AND ASK about Marianne, and then a week later, TELL on Willoughby? It would be like a hypothetical situation where Robbie acted interested in whether Julia was going to marry Glen, but then WAITED until Julia found out about Glen and was well rid of him THEN he decides to tell her he knew all along and thought that maybe she wouldn't believe him AND that she might really be happy reclaiming him. IN this movie, there is no scene where Robbie is shown telling Julia what he knew. So I assume Robbie did not EVER tell. This would be consistent. It would be inconsistent to NOT tell then TELL after she finds out she doesn't love Glen.
Another difference is that Brandon is disclosing something very humiliating about his ward Eliza. He doesn't disclose it when it could help protect Marianne from a life of misery, but goes ahead and discloses it AFTER she is free of Willoughby. IT seems any positive benefit to Marianne fails to compensate for the humiliation and embarrassment to Eliza by having her weakness and vulnerability disclosed. It would be like Glen was diddling Robbie's younger sister. If that was the case, we might forgive him for not telling because he was protecting the sister. But then we'd not expect him to TELL later after Julia was rid of Glen like Brandon did, would we?
Cool answer! I thought that an interesting side effect of Robbie telling Julia afterwards (assuming they split...) would be Julia saying "You knew he was like this and didn't tell me?"
shareI don't want to go too far on the Sense and Sensibility tangent, but I think Brandon can be justified in not saying anything about Willoughby, for several reasons. There was his own private nature, much like Darcy when it came to his sister's indiscretion. There was his shame of Eliza for her bad behavior. He was responsible for her, and look how she turned out. Maybe now we're blasé about a girl having an illegitimate child, but no one was blasé about that in 1811. He would be ashamed of her, and his failing her in her upbringing, for the rest of his life. It was also not something you discussed openly in public back then. It just wasn't done.
Worse, once Brandon decided he had to speak up, the custom of their time would have made it highly improper for him to reveal what he knew of illegitimate children and the like to a young, unmarried (virginal) woman like Marianne, especially when she was such a romantic and so naive. It wouldn't (and didn't) even occur to him to speak to her about it. He could tell Elinor because she was not only mature enough to handle the truth, but also more practical and level-headed. I also don't think he could have handled it when Marianne F-R-E-A-K-E-D upon learning the awful truth. It would have hurt him to see her devastation. She'd probably never forgive him for telling her, either!
Thus, Brandon is a wonderful example of how context and circumstances make deciding to tell the truth not a simple or easy thing. Sometimes you have to decide what will do the most good for the most people. Sometimes, speaking up is the right choice; other times, silence is the wisest course. Sometimes, speaking up makes things ugly in ways you couldn't have foreseen. It can create so much conflict or unforeseen circumstances that you and whoever got the truth from you will wish you'd never opened your mouth. Or they can be grateful for it. You can't know which is the best course, until you're there.
I think a case can be made for Robbie telling what he knew, and for him staying silent. For the purpose of the plot as written, and moving it forward, telling her was the right thing; however, the writers could have had him stay quiet, and they could have made it work, quite easily.
I think another big difference is the times they were living in.
In the time of Jane Austen a woman could be comepletely ruined by such a scandal- noons would want to marry her and she could never be seen in society again. Even if she wasn't directly involved questions would be asked about her.
I think, if you have enough evidence, rather than just a gut feeling, that she is making a serious mistake, it would be wrong not to share your concerns with her. At least that way, she can make an informed decision.
=*=*=*=*=
The main reason that Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live
Yeah, I agree that that would be the honorable thing to do. But sometimes doing the honorable thing can get you into trouble...you know the old saying, "no good deed goes unpunished." So I can sympathize with Robbie even if I can also see he may have made the weaker decision.
shareNo way in hell.
Robbie had no real facts. If anything the right thing to do would be to enlist Julia's friend Holly to confront Glenn and raise her (Robbie's) suspicions that way. Holly was not only a better friend of Julia's, but she's also a woman with no vested interest or ulterior motive of getting in Julia's pants (this is also why the limo driver couldn't do it instead of Robbie).
This way, Robbie is absolved of the guilt of seeing Julia marry a suspected womanizer and still has an active role in seeing that something gets done about it. It also keeps him in the game of getting in her pants whether for a long-term commitment or a rebound f^ck, and Julia can't blame him for screwing up her life 20 years down the road when she's married to a bald, loser wedding singer who works for meatballs while they live in his sister's basement.
"De gustibus non est disputandum"
#3
I'd tell her.
shareIsn't the real reason we don't get involved and tell people bad news is because we are afraid? It's hard to screw up the courage to do the deed, and we fear a backlash of hate and anger. Sometimes the very person who is being wronged gets angry and tells the do-gooder to mind their own business!! No good deed goes unpunished.
shareI don't think he could have said anything really... Because it was obvious he had feelings for Julia (and vice versa), it would have looked like he was just trying to split them up.
As someone else said, he could have enlisted the friends help.
Having said all this, why on earth did Julia agree to marry him at the end? I know she was upset about Robbie, but it was almost like she had to marry someone. Surely she must have realised what an arse glen was?!?
It did make her seem a teeny bit pathetic. Like she couldn't be on her own.
Having said that I really liked both Julia and robbies characters, they were very sweet.
I meant why did she agree to marry glen!
shareWhat would be the most loving choice?
What would make Julia the happiest in the long run?
I'd think it would be to tell her.
Lay out all the facts to try to convince her.
She can hate you, but she'll have heard the truth.
If Julia was my best friend, I would owe it to her to tell the truth...
share