MovieChat Forums > The Women (1939) Discussion > This movie's only flaw.........

This movie's only flaw.........

posted 17 years ago by batkins-1
16 replies | jump to latest

"The Women" is a wonderfully entertaining film to watch, and I have watched it over and over. I love it despite the flaw: occasionally portraying women as victims and prideless toadies to the men they love. But hey, this was 1939, and it's a MOVIE. These attitudes may have given rise to the feminism of the 70's. Unfortunately, many women seem to have gone backwards in their relationships today. After seeing this movie, if you just really are ticked off, try watching "Kill Bill". Both Volumes.

[–] claudia02127 17 years ago

In 1939, women WERE victims and prideless toadies to the men they loved.

There was no such thing as feminism back then.

This isn't a FLAW. It's a fact of life for the time.

Watching Kill Bill (either volume) shouldn't be an antidote to watching a well made and entertaining movie such as this one.

This is a logic free zone:
Use of logic will be met with uncomfortable silences

[–] batkins-1 17 years ago

"Tongue in cheek" mean anything to you?

[–] BlueGreen 17 years ago

In 1939, women WERE victims and prideless toadies to the men they loved.

There was no such thing as feminism back then.

Really...?!
Says who?

There were just as many women who were PEOPLE first, women second then (and even long, LONG before them) as today - only, truth be told, they often pulled it off with a lot more flair...

Shall we discuss women in film, since we are at IMDB?
Let's not even mention the "divas" of the time - let's mention Leni Rieffenstahl.
(Reading her biography - in minute detail - should be mandatory for all people, especially after they reach a "certain age" - and beyond... WAY beyond!)

OR shall we rather discuss "ordinary" people?
That would be an even better idea, because it would offer much more "credible" a picture. Alas, it cannot be done - for rather obvious reasons. (Because I certainly could list the women from just one branch of my family several generations back, starting with my grandmother. But without mentioning their names - or writing their biographies right here - it would mean nothing to anyone here.)

And BTW... those women who fought - as early as the 19th century - for YOUR right to attend university would really be thrilled to hear you talk like that...

It doesn't matter anyway.
Anyone who wants to find real, NUANCED information about the position of women cca 1939 (although I was thinking specifically of European women, since I am not DIRECTLY familiar with the cultural experience of other environments), should be able to find it.The internet IS rich enough.

Here's the main point:

Being a (willing) "victim" - or "victimiser", for that matter - of the opposite sex (or any specific group) relies on STEREOTYPING.

Which is exactly what is going on here right now, A.D. 2008... :)

[–] crachelm 17 years ago

Some women are still like that.

"She plays like a Stradivarius, man," said Mr. Dobkin of Rachel McAdams.
R.I.P. Heath Ledger

[–] LoreleiLee 17 years ago

Feminism was around long before the 1930s! It gained particular momentum around the period of the first world war when, for the first time, young women went out to work and gained a certain amount of independence from their families; and the women's suffrage movement which culminated in women being given the vote. The 1930s was not a particularly productive period for the women's liberation movement - due in no small part to the economic Depression which forced women out of the workplace - but feminism certainly existed in 1939.

A girl with brains ought to do something with them besides think

[–] jasonhurd 17 years ago

Sylvia Fowler(Rosalind Russell)was anything but a prideless toady to her husband. If anything, she was so eaten up with pride that she allowed it to break up her marriage(it could be argued that the reason Mr. Fowler strayed was to get some peace from the strident harpy he married without having to split his property with her)and almost ruin her social standing. She is certainly the other extreme of the spectrum, but she was most certainly NOT a doormat.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pat102853 17 years ago

I saw this film with a lesbian friend of mine. As a gay man, I found it delightfully campy with witty dialogue, over-the-top performances and classic stereotypic women some gay men love to parody. However while watching the film, I don't think my friend enjoyed the dialogue nearly as much as me. The Reno "cat fight" with Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard and the actress who played "the Countess" had me in stiches, while my friend was just slightly amused. This film appeals to certain people and not others. Politically correct it ain't. A reflection of the time, place and mileau - absolutely.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] edward-miller-1 17 years ago

The poster who said feminism didn't exist in 1939 needs to brush up on their history. Feminism as a concept goes back to the 19th Century. Ever hear of suffragettes, Amelia Bloomer, Amelia Earhart, Eleanor Roosevelt, Emma Goldman, and countless others? Katharine Hepburn's own mother, born in the 19th Century, was a women's rights activist, and passed her beliefs to her children, long before 1939. How do you think that women got the right to vote in the United States? By the goodwill of Congress alone?

"Don't worry. I'm not on the side of the saints yet."

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] edward-miller-1 17 years ago

You're right, Pat. That poster claims that camp was something that was born twenty years ago. I remember much discussion of camp was I was in college, in the early 70s. And pointing to Susan Sontag is right on target. Her famous essay on camp was written around that same time, if I'm not mistaken. Camp is timeless; look at Mae West!

"Don't worry. I'm not on the side of the saints yet."

[–] BlueGreen 17 years ago

... this film's one MAJOR flaw (there are minor ones) is the very last frame: Norma's bodily and facial expression in the last second or two.

Its contrast with the rest of the film (and Norma's acting) is mind-boggling.
The first time I saw it, I couldn't believe it; I thought it was a joke - a parody.

Heck, I prefer to think so even now... ;)

[–] huweyjenkins 17 years ago

I'm sure it was as camp as a row of tents even in 1939. It was allegedly Freddie Mercury's favourite movie - which says it all! The fact that it was directed by a gay director George Cukor cannot go unremarked upon because his camp sensibility and direction of women was a huge plus. And Norma's acting isn't bad at all - considering she has to spout some really sentimental dialogue - OK she occasionally slips into over-acting but I thought Norma was one actress who really listened to the dialogue of the other players and reacted accordingly. She makes a dull role seem believable and the scenes with Virginia Weidler are full of warmth.

[–] brendanchenowith 15 years ago

This is a hilarious movie, but Mary's running back to Stephen at the end was one of the gut-busting funniest scenes in the film. Mary's gestures appeared as if she was singing along with the choir.

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.

[–] scottsteaux63-735-780576 12 years ago

I do believe you've hit on a central point: Clare Boothe Luce, the writer of the original play, was herself a member of New York's uppercrust: she understood both the characters she wrote about and the milieu in which they lived, gossiped, and connived, etc. And here's the main thing: she wrote the play to SPOOF the idle rich; think of it as a long "Saturday Night Live" sketch only with better clothes.

At the end of the day this movie is just too much fun to pick apart.

Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><