MovieChat Forums > The Women (1939) Discussion > The Women - Old Fashion or still accurat...

The Women - Old Fashion or still accurate?

posted 16 years ago by msladysoul
13 replies | jump to latest

This is a great movie with a wonderful cast but I don't like the message of the film. I guess I don't like the movie very much because it reminds me of how catty women really are even to this day but I guess I don't like the fact that women are portrayed as only interested in men, clothes, gossip, and hurting other women, well I guess it kind of hurts me to see art imitating life, a lot of women are like that in real life even now.

I also don't like the message of a woman should just stand by her man, no matter if he cheats, it's okay for him to have a fling, just stand by and be the loyal wife, he'll come back. Either I'm revengeful or modern, I would have me a fling and make my husband jealous by flaunting my new boyfriend and make him come crawl back to me, whether I take him back or not, I'll make him work for it, I wouldn't go running to him with my arms open.

I also hated the scene with Joan Fontaine on the phone telling her husband she's pregnant, they make up, but when she gets off the phone she tells Mary, she'll do anything he says when they get back together. I was like "WHAT" he should be saying he'll doing anything she says. I know back then women were suppose to be submissive and obey their husbands but the women were suppose to be independent but obviously they weren't. I wondered how the public would have taken the movie if the women had a little fun on the side and cheated on their husbands and let the husbands worry? I guess it wouldn't have been a film like that back then because women were suppose to be loyal, loving wives, it's bad for the woman to cheat but okay for a man....those double standard still exist today.

Even in an all women cast, men were the subject matter, the control of their lives, as if they couldn't live without one, that bothered me. The movie was still entertaining but I guess feminist may not like the movie.

[–] NSurone 16 years ago

I agree that the basic concept is dated today, because most women are capable of supporting themselves and their children nowadays, and they don't need men to define their existences.
That being said, THE WOMEN isn't much different from SEX IN THE CITY--just without nudity and graphic sex scenes.

[–] jashobeam5 15 years ago

"I guess it wouldn't have been a film like that back then because women were suppose to be loyal, loving wives, it's bad for the woman to cheat but okay for a man....those double standard still exist today."

Wow, you have missed most of Norma's other movies. She indeed played the woman who "evened the score" in many movies. Just google her and catch her movies on AMC or TMC. This is one of the few movies I've seen her in where she did not "even the score" by cheating. Pre-code movies often showed women at their worst and many 1930s movies who women as "modern" having their own careers and showing how they didn't need "old fashioned" roles to make them happy. Sadly women back then bought into it as they do now. They think living without a sound marriage is "modern" and will make them happy, when in fact they often desire to be in such a relationship and afraid to admit it even to themselves. Not the horrible relationships in The Women, but a sound relationship of respect and love and fidelity from the wife and the husband.

[–] PillowRock 15 years ago

Wow, you have missed most of Norma's other movies. She indeed played the woman who "evened the score" in many movies. Just google her and catch her movies on AMC or TMC. This is one of the few movies I've seen her in where she did not "even the score" by cheating.

That's pretty much a direct Pre-Code versus Post-Code dichotomy. Shearer was of a number of actresses whose prevailing screen persona changed quite a bit when the Production Code got teeth in mid-1934. (Jeanette MacDonald was another.)

Pre-Code, all of the possible story lines were open, including woman having revenge affairs without enduring any further consequences or divorces remaining final. Shearer played roles that took all of those options ..... including at least one that I recall where she divorced a husband who had an affair, had a whole string of affairs herself, and then decided to take her husband back some years later. Her characters were also capable of some pretty heavy partying.

Post-Code, none of those options were on the table because the Hays Office wouldn't allow such a movie to be released at all. Shearer's screen persona swung all the way to the always-proper, never-been-touched-outside-the-bonds-of-marriage end of the spectrum. And Jeanette MacDonald's screen persona became the model for the "Polly Purebred" cartoon character (you would never have guessed it from her Pre-Code work opposite Maurice Chevalier).

[–] jashobeam5 15 years ago

Yes, the post-code movies were very different, but the above poster was talking about the audiences. The audiences were the same, but the code of what could be shown was different. I was simply saying that audiences of that general time period would not be shocked at such behavior since they had indeed seen such movies pre-code.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brucepantages-1 11 years ago

There is an old epigram, or saying, attributed to Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Perhaps it applies here.

[–] first-things-first 11 years ago

A women can forgive her husband's infidelity. But she better know why it happened. And there's always a why for this. It's funny, in my twenties I would not have forgiven. But now I know that good people make mistakes. And sometimes they marry the wrong people. What's the point in getting even? Can you really hurt the one you love because he hurt you? What do you learned with revenge?

As for the loyalty, women can be very mean to each other. Sometimes we believe we can have everything, when we really don't know what we want. Sometimes we know what we want, and should say no.

As for the message, for the time, it seems appropriate. Women were second to men. The man made the money and that afforded him power. Power can corrupt. I think your word is submissive. I believe that is incorrect. My definition of submissive is someone who is treasured, and has the power in the relationship. Sure they don't give orders, but their well being is first over the dominant.

As for the roles of men and women in the movies, I can remember women portrayed as murderers-Double Indemnity, The Postman Always Rings Twice. Here, they wanted their men. Maybe that's portrayed as needy. What if it's honest and they picked the wrong guy? I remember a line in a movie-What wouldn't I do for the right guy (I'm talking about love, not murder).

I do disagree with the pride statements. A women who isn't respected doesn't have a role in the relationship.

Buffy...what's your damage?

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Hm. When people say times change, that doesn't mean everything changes. It means enough things change to make a difference, not that EVERYTHING has changed.

I think that is the basic answer to the OP's question. It seems to me that here and there in this film something will jump out as an ill fit today, but most of what is portrayed is close enough to what goes on today.

The above reference to Sex and the City is a bit painful to me, since I found that show unwatchable, while The Women was great, mostly for the exceptional performances. I think Sex suffered for me in reflecting too much of a gay male view of women, while I don't think The Women is guilty of that charge.

But back to the OP's question - I don't think there is a simple answer to the question of how to react to infidelity. It will depend on the circumstances, and as someone pointed out an understanding what it was attributable to, in order to avoid it being repeated.

[–] first-things-first 11 years ago

I can't speak on Sex and the City. Seemed a bit feministic to me, in that they wanted to be heard, they had choices, and there were no labels. I don't know what a gay male view of women is, but if the show portrayed the women with gay friendships, that's life. It might not be yours as you have stated.

I used to think that you could protect yourself by knowing the cause. But every challenge is different. You can't protect yourself by saying it won't happen again because I know this cause. If you don't have a moral support system to back up you personality, it doesn't matter if you know how it happens. We are human, not test animals, or products tested for use. Our humanity allows us to make mistakes. In fact, I believe now that I cherish a person who can make them, because they are human. I want my heart big enough to say I forgive, I understand, and if it's someone I love, not how but why. The whys are buried deep in our mind. It's that understanding that helps us get through the day, and that can be as simple as love.

It's choosing to love someone and not lose your self respect that is important to me.

"...as long as people can change, the world can change"

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Runway four, flight 209
Teardrop falls, we start to climb
This window seat proved a poor choice
It shows the dream that's been destroyed

A little baby starts to cry
Hey, I would too, if not for pride
I owe so much to pride, it's true
It brought an end to me and you

Chorus:
But if I could, I'd turn around
Set my feet back on the ground
'cause all this plane ride holds for me
Is a thousand miles of misery

Heh.

Pride is I think not something you give up too easily. But I don't think it's the last thing you hold on to, either, depending on the circumstances.

And as for the possibility of future problems, that in and of itself is not enough to not try and patch things up with someone you love. People make mistakes, and while there's no doubt truth to the notion that someone who cheats is more likely to do it again than someone who has not (yet, anyway), I don't think that in and of itself means it is not worth taking a chance.

[–] first-things-first 11 years ago

Thanks for the song, I like it! I still think there is a reason for everything. Cheating is a symptom. If you want a lot of sex with multiple partners, do it. But not in the confines of monogamy. So once again, it's who you pick to love. What they want, need, and possibly want they will do without (give up for love). And you can't lose your self respect or you may do things you regret. Self respect is supported by a moral code.

Pride should not stop you from doing something you want. Wrap that up in our moral code to protect everyone, and it sounds amazing!

"...as long as people can change, the world can change"

[–] hodie 11 years ago

I liked what you said, kenny-164. Mary could have insisted that Steven try and work things out. I don't think Steven really wanted the divorce. He screwed up but he wasn't a bad man. Mary shouldn't have just decided to divorce him. But she had to learn that some things are worth fighting for.

They had a child, too. Mary might have factored little Mary into her decision.

Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!

[–] hodie 11 years ago