The classical tale of Oedipus goes a bit like this. The king and queen of Thebes in Greece (Laius and Jocasta, if we’re getting particular) receive a prophecy that, if they have a son, he will kill his father and sleep with his mother. Disturbing. So they have a son. Laius, not wanting to die, leaves the infant exposed on a mountain and thinks he’s dodged his fate. However, as in every good Greek myth, a wandering shepherd stumbles upon the struggling infant and rescues him. The shepherd delivers the baby to King Polybus and Queen Merope of Corinth, who have no children of their own. They name their adopted son Oedipus and never tell him that he’s adopted. One day, though, Oedipus, suspecting something’s amiss, visits the Delphic Oracle and is told the same prophecy: he will kill his father and sleep with his mother. In an effort to avoid this horror, Oedipus vows to never return to Corinth and sets out to seek a different fate. At a crossroads, he runs into a group of cranky, uncooperative men. Both parties demand the other move out of the way, and in the ensuing scuffle Oedipus kills Laius. Yup, his real father.

Oedipus and the Sphinx

Oedipus, feeling rather smug about his small victory on the road, heads towards Thebes, where the populace is being menaced by a Sphinx who kills people when they can’t solve her riddle. Oedipus, though, easily answers the Sphinx’s question and enters Thebes victorious after the Sphinx has killed herself in rage. As reward for saving the city, Oedipus is given the crown of Thebes—and the hand of its widowed queen in marriage. Yup, his real mother, Jocasta. It gets worse. Oedipus and Jocasta experience many wonderful years of marriage and have four children together. But then things in Thebes start to not go so well. As a plague ravages the city, Oedipus appeals to the Oracle for guidance as to how to save his people. After interrogating several individuals who should know who really killed the former king Laius, Oedipus and Jocasta learn the truth about their relationship. Jocasta kills herself, and Oedipus blinds himself. And nobody really feels good about anything at the end of that tale.

Whew. The reason for this summary of the tragedy of Oedipus is that our film this week, Tom Jones, bears an uncanny resemblance to the classical Greek story, one of the few aspects of the film that I found truly compelling. Like Oedipus, Tom is born to someone who doesn’t want him and is cast upon another individual, Squire Allworthy, a prestigious and well-to-do man who resolves to raise Tom as his own son. The reasons for Tom’s seeking his own fortune differ from those of Oedipus, but both heroes set off on their own believing they can never return home or see their families again.

Is Mrs. Waters Tom’s mother?

Here’s where it gets really interesting, I think. In a rather bizarre scene, Tom stumbles upon a woman who is being abused by a disgraceful deserter of the British army. Tom saves the woman, whom the narrator calls “Mrs. Waters.” After the film’s famous (and quite disgusting) scene in which Tom and Mrs. Waters eat an enormous meal in a pretty sensual manner, Tom (of course) sleeps with the woman whose title indicates that she is either married or widowed (or pretending to be one of these). Mrs. Waters then takes up with a perpetually angry man named Mr. Fitzpatrick. We’ll come back to both of them in a bit.

Later as he walks along a road dreaming of his lost love Sophie, Tom is brought up short by a highwayman who attempts to rob him. Younger and craftier, Tom manages to wrest the gun out of the would-be robber’s hand and points it in the prone man’s face, threatening to kill the person he believes would have killed him. Protesting that he is only a poor, desperate man, the stranger tells his life story and reveals his identity to Tom. He is Partridge, Squire Allworthy’s old barber who was named as Tom’s father when Tom was discovered as a baby. Tom joyously embraces the man he has been told is his father. Tom Jones, though, now throws its viewers a curve. Partridge quickly tells Tom that he is not really his father and that no one ever found out who Tom’s dad actually was. Partridge makes no mention of Tom’s mother and begs that Tom take him on as his servant, which Tom happily does.

Is Partridge Tom’s father?

(Spoiler alert!) Tom’s adventure continues in London (where he has an affair with a wealthy courtesan), and he eventually runs into Mr. Fitzpatrick again. The men duel (Mr. F. is always so testy), and Tom wounds Mr. Fitzpatrick. Upon the false testimony of a couple of goons hired by Tom’s evil cousin, Tom is set to hang for “armed robbery.” His loyal now-servant Partridge goes to petition Mr. Fitzpatrick to withdraw his charge against Tom and runs into—who else—Mrs. Waters. Except Partridge calls her “Jenny Jones,” the woman who is supposed to be Tom’s mother! In this scene, Jenny does not deny that she is Tom’s mother, and the viewer is led to believe that Tom has had an affair with his mom! How very Oedipus-like of him! Yet the film soon throws another curve at its audience, for Jenny knows the real truth of Tom’s parentage. “Breaking the fourth wall” (the one between the actor and the audience), Jenny explains to the camera and to the viewers that she is not Tom’s mom, but that she is the one who put Baby Tom in the squire’s bed all those years ago. Tom’s real mother was the squire’s sister, which makes Tom Squire Allworthy’s heir, so he can marry Sophie, and yada yada. Everyone’s supposed to feel good about everything at the end because this film is a comedy.

However, I do not feel good about it. Why does Tom Jones lead us in the first place to think that we are watching something incestuous? Does that make the movie funny? I certainly don’t think so. Furthermore, I don’t find it amusing in the least that Tom continually succumbs to the sexual allures of basically every female who crosses his path (regardless of age, marital status, reputation, etc.), yet still claims to only love Sophie. This disgusts me. Sophie, meanwhile, though a bit atypical for the time period in her bravery and determination to find Tom in his banishment, appears weak to me as she remains loyal to Tom (and notably chaste), loving him despite his “youthful follies.” If he is so apt to cheat on her before their marriage, I wouldn’t hold out too much hope for his devotion after their marriage. And that thought pretty much eliminates for me any effort the film makes at comedy in its final scenes.

Sophie and Tom–just how long will their love actually last?

For Me Then…

So, in summary, Oedipus meets his real dad on the road, his dad fails to identify himself, and Oedipus kills him because he doesn’t know his real dad. Tom Jones meets the man he thinks is his real dad on a road and almost kills him before he finds out that the man is not his dad. Oedipus saves his mom, then marries her before discovering she is in fact his mom. Tom also saves the woman whom he knows to be his mom; except because she goes by another name, he has no qualms about sleeping with her. Once the film’s viewers find out who she is, we only have to wait for a couple of revolting minutes before we learn Tom has not involved himself in incest because she is not really his mother. A very twisted Oedipus story, but one with clear parallels.

My question then is what’s the big deal that Tom Jones resembles Oedipus? What might this movie be offering us depth-wise in its use and modification of such a famous motif? The one conclusion I came to is that, in a movie in which Tom is blamed for much mischief and mayhem (most of it involving escapades of a sexual nature), it would seem that the Oedipus connection perhaps is intended to remove some of the responsibility he would otherwise carry for what happens in the plot. In other words, fate plays a huge role in both Tom’s indiscretions and in his restoration to Squire Allworthy’s good graces and fortune. It’s not completely Tom’s fault that he can’t commit to Sophie and stay out of other women’s beds. What is he really to do? Boys will be boys. And I think the film’s premise that this idiotic statement is true is meant to be the basis for all the film’s supposedly comic situations. But, personally, I don’t think it’s funny at all.