MovieChat Forums > Christmas in Connecticut (1945) Discussion > Was this a geniunely feminist move?

Was this a geniunely feminist move?

posted 10 years ago by nedhorn
13 replies | jump to latest

Thinking about it, I realize that:

- The girl falls in love the with guy when she learns he knows how to change a diaper.

- It's obvious she is NOT going to give up her career.

- The movie teases you with the possibility she's learned how to cook, then makes it clear she hasn't and probably never will.

In other words, it at least leaves open the possibility that she will continue to be the breadwinner, with her husband providing loving support.

Just leaving such an possibility open was pretty radical by Hollywood standards then (and maybe now).

Am I off the mark?

[–] karmala2 10 years ago

AAAnd she buys her own mink coat. Yes, I think so.

And that is why I am partial to the the Reginald Gardiner love angle more than Dennis Morgan. She tells him (Reggie) straight away, after his proposal, that she doesn't love him in "that way"; which he accepts. He loves her unconditionally.

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

[–] texastreasure517 10 years ago

Look again at the relationship between Elizabeth and John Sloan. He mentions things like that's not the way the wife of a noted architect should act, trying to control her. He told her boss that Elizabeth had and would not have any input in his architectural designs. He seems very controlling and is trying to mold her into the wife he wants her to be. I think it's a prestige thing with Sloan to marry Elizabeth, not to mention when Yardley mentions the prospect of having his own column in the magazine.

Jefferson seems to love Elizabeth for who she is, even at the end of the movie. More importantly, he is willing to allow her to be herself, and she allows him to be himself.

[–] louiseculmer 10 years ago

She will probably continue with her writing career, but I don't think he will be a househusband. They will probably get a housekeeper.

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

It certainly seems like a feminist film to me. If not feminist, but female empowering. Particularly with the entire concept of the articles she was writing. It was very female centred, even though it was fabricated. The fact that she fabricated her articles felt almost as if she did it not for fame, but to please her readers because that's what they wanted to hear from a female perspective (married with kids, good job, loving husband).

[–] gbennett5 9 years ago

It has elements of being a feminist film, but the whole thing is thrown
out the window when we're expected to accept Stanwyck's marrying
Gardner just because she may lose her job. Not only would a RESPECTABLE
person of either gender not do that, but it reeks of a woman stating
she needs to be taken care of if she's fired or laid off. Talk about
lack of character.

[–] texastreasure517 9 years ago

I think Elizabeth realized that when Sloan insisted on "Here Comes The Bride" instead of the music she wanted. From then on, she seemed totally disinterested in reciting those vows and did all she (and Uncle Felix) could to avoid it.

[–] MisterDenton 8 years ago

Exactly. It's part of her arc that she realizes that marrying Sloan would be a mistake because it would involve compromising part of who she is. I think it is a feminist movie because ultimately she does end up in control of her own life and is not constrained by the roles that others have expected her to assume.

[–] ozzieink 8 years ago

It has elements of being a feminist film,

I agree. Through most of the film Stanwyck does what everyone else tells her to do. It's only at the very end that she finally asserts herself and tells off the publisher. After that she gets it all: new man, her work and a raise.

[–] IEatWords 8 years ago

Yeah, it's full of feminist trite, but you'd be wrong that it's considered "radical" even for those times. Hollywood has always been the "social" mechanism for the rich to dictate to society through the guise of entertainment.



[–] liscarkat (18999) 6 years ago

It can be read that way now, and I think to some degree it was intended that way in 1945. The difference between the view of female independence at that time and today is that she got along well with men and retained all her femininity, whereas in a twenty-first century movie she would most likely have an abrasive personality and be a man-resenter, if not a full-on man-hater.

[–] Popcorngal (4881) 3 years ago

It did have a few radical trajectories, for example; standing up to her boss and fake husband, in addition, slightly scandalous at the end when the soldier had no reservations kissing a presumed married woman. Nor did she have any inhibitions regarding flirting.

[–] xanthas (3215) 2 years ago

Yes, it's definitely Feminist, as were many of Stanwyck's big roles. It's funny that in the old days, one could be a conservative republican and a feminist at the same time. Nowadays feminism is looked down upon in the republican party.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 2 years ago

Not really. The nurse and Stanwyck's character were smitten by men right away.