Infuriating!


Though sharply written and well-acted, it is tragic to hear, among other things, Mary's mother advise her to clam up and behave like a good little doormat and not confront her husband about his infidelity, that she should stay with her loutish husband because "a child needs two parents" and that she is making a mistake by standing up to him and leaving him...not to mention the constant stream of chatter about the worthlesness of men and howlers like "oh Mary, when I get back, I'm going to do everything John says"...it is hard to remember that this movie is a product of its time, because it's so darn offensive. I have never wanted to punch the characters so badly...I feel very sorry for grandmother and her generation.

reply

I know, I know... Especially because the speech Mary gives to her mother while trying to put on a "brave face" is absolutely SPOT ON! You know, "but this is today, now. We took each other of our own free will. ..."and I won't qualify that relationship now. ...women who put up with that are beneath contempt, and I won't be one of them. ... it's shockingly wrong..."

Even more loathsome and offensive is the load of clams the supposedly foxy Marian Aarons tries feed Mary: "...you're a blithering coward, Mary. You ran out on him...left him without the one security he had, his wife and home...you would take care of him if he had small pox. (????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) That whole speech is soooo backwards I won't/can't even begin to parse it. Yuuuuck!

Nevertheless, I do love the movie for the great comedy it is.





"I told you a million times not to talk to me when I'm doing my lashes"!

reply

I absolutely agree with the comments about the speech about Mary being a coward. I wanted to slap that woman. She left him without the one security??? Like he doesn't have a mind of his own. The minute his wife isn't available to him he runs to another woman. He is the coward and should not have been taken back.

reply

Actually I want to slap all of YOU. A bunch of mindless pc clones who are so mind controlled that you cannot take the time to understand that speech came from an older woman born in the 19th century. Perhaps it was wrong, but on the whole Mary's mother had some very sage advice. I wish I was around 70 years from now to hear all the platitudes you bunch hold so dear aired out for the excoriation and derisive amusement of two generations removed.

reply

I used to agree with you.

Then, I became a teacher and saw the devastation of divorce on children. It's worse than anyone has the courage to say.

No, a child needs two parents.

About her ridiculous comments "I'm going to do everything John says," well blame Loos for writing something no woman has ever, I mean, ever, said.

reply

[deleted]

Puzzow, you are right to feel the way you do, and normally, I would, too. You must understand, Clare Boothe Luce wrote this story, in the early part of the 1930s, and as sort of a spoof of Society Women. In addition, Mary came from a wealthy, east coast family where women were expected to tolerate certain "indiscretions" from their husbands.
Next, this story was written when women had very few rights; legally, they had won the right to vote just 15 years earlier, in 1920. At the time this story was written, and in 1939, Women truly were 2nd class citizens, and had to tolerate a great deal. With the "women's movement" which really emerged in the 1960s, that brought the term feminists out as a coveted and positive label, we now wouldn't dare tell our daughters to look the other way or that putting up with cads, and brutes were part of their "womanly duties". We women strive to raise strong girls that believe they can do and have anything they want. Unfortunately, this was not the "tone" of the women of pre-1965.
Another interesting point is that even today, many Society and Wealthy women like Mary Haines are raised to and do tolerate their wealthy husband's mistresses and indiscretions.



What, just for once in your life can't you be serious?

reply

I can't say it enought: historical context, historical context, historical context!!!

reply

I can't say it enought: historical context, historical context, historical context!!!

No, not entirely. It is a little more than that, and some of the attitudes and prospectives still exist, today.







What, just for once in your life can't you be serious?

reply

Historical context, a particular view of how men and women do/should interact (now or then), the Code, and the need to create conflict just to have a story (happy, calm lives are best in real life, but don't make for interesting movies!), all enter into it.

I hate infidelity, and stories in which it is cheefully forgiven often set my teeth on edge. I want to throttle the unseen Stephen sometimes -- he never should have started with Crystal in the first place, and there's no real excuse for it.

And the "ignore it, ride it out, and take him back" aspects of Mary's mom's speech are obnoxious. But, one aspect of that speech is interesting.

She says that Stephen is bored with *himself,* not Mary. And, she points out that a woman has more choices for change if a mid-life crisis or boredom with herself hits -- redecorating her home or herself, etc.

She does miss the "buy a sports car" opportunity, which was as possible then as it is now. If a man's work happened to have a timely opening for something new and exciting, that was an option. And, of course, in their social class, a trip to an exotic locale, or an expensive new hobby, were possible.

But, in those days when well-to-do women could make themselves or the house over, but even wealthy men didn't have those choices, their way of feeling new and alive could be limited, if they lacked imagination or opportunity, making them prime targets for women like Crystal.

Doesn't forgive the infidelity, in my eyes, and it's a bit sad to know that Mary is married to a man without the imagination to just take up a hobby or buy a new car, but it's an interesting observation.

I think it's also a plot device to make sure that we know that Stephen is not a horn dog who has already been sleeping around, and one of many lines that make sure we know that he never really loves Crystal, and the divorce, and marriage to Crystal, are all a mistake.

reply

Excellent observation, Piano.

reply

Excellent observation, Piano.
______

Thanks!

reply

I think it's part the era, part satire. At the end of the day, you're still seeing women making the important decisions here - Mary being the one to go back and (finally) fight for her husband. And Crystal and Miriam being the ones to steal the married men in the first place. I don't know, it is frustrating, but I saw parts of the remake and it was even worse - like a bad, even shallower version of the Sex and the City movie.

reply

Yes, OP - As a child of a single Mum, I, too, found it quite opposite to the way I was raised. BUT, I do agree with the sentiment that it is a good historical depiction. AND, I think one of the best ways to advance is to take a look at how things were 'back then'.

Many comments indicate the character behaviour to be 'painful' or cringe-worthy. True - And, again, that makes us realise how far we have come and, indeed, how far we really still need to go.

Christopher

'There’s a name for you ladies, but it’s not used…Outside a kennel! (Crystal Allen)'

reply

[deleted]

Yes, that sentiment (i.e. woman go back to the kitchen) was definitely echoed in the film 'A League of Their Own'...The Team Owner tells the Manager he's going to get rid of the team now the men are coming back.

The Manager argues they'd told the ladies it was their 'civic duty' to play baseball (as part of the war effort - and, of course many women did factory shifts, etc. to keep everything running) and now they're betraying them by telling them to go 'back to the kitchen'. The Owner (Gary Marshall) replies saying, (something to the effect of): 'Who should we be sending back to the kitchen - the men!?'

‘Six inches is perfectly adequate; more is vulgar!' (Prime of Miss Jean Brodie Re: An open window).

reply

On the mothers defense she was mostly saying that it was gossip, though it turned out to be true, it is not a bad thing for a mother of any era to advise her daughter not to believe gossip.

reply

In certain respects Mary's mother has a much more realistic view of male sexuality than all the people who have commented on this thread who think that all marriages and all married men should be monogamous and never cheat or become bored with their wives. Men are able to have sex with others without being in love (as is the case with Stephen and Crystal) while still being committed to their wife and family. Women of America, you need to wise up about men and how most of them really are when it comes to sex.

reply

Crystal certainly illustrated that women were able to have sex with others without being in love. I don't know any young woman today who thinks women are different than men in that.

reply

They had very set roles back then. You could be independent, but you'd probably also be unmarried and without children. :/ There were not many choices. Even educated women were expected to stop working, if their husband had the income to support everyone. Then they'd be wives and mommy's for the rest of their lives. I suppose they accepted this lifestyle because it's better than being alone and poor. We've come a long way.

reply

^^Yes, we have but they had cooks and maids.

reply

Time passes, but people are the same, and always will be. Most of the world is poor, always will be. Just because you have a smart phone, a big screen, and indoor plumbing, that doesn't mean you're 'rich'. What's left of the middle-class is a missed paycheck or two away from homelessness. Infidelity has been around since before marriage, and if you get married really 'expecting' your spouse not to cheat, then you are a fool to begin with. When you're a child, you get hurt on the playground. You get up and play again. When you're an adult, you get hurt if you're cheated on. Doesn't mean you have to have a war, end a relationship, need analysis, etc. There are many reasons to be married and to stay married, but the 'modern view' is often, "Screw it, I'll find somebody else!" and bail out. If you realize you may likely just be swapping one 'problem' for another in the long run, why? The real question is ... are you happy? NO ONE can 'make' you happy. You have to do that for yourself, no matter who you're with, or not with.

reply

[deleted]