|
Post by topbilled on Apr 11, 2023 14:55:45 GMT
I just don't see it that way. I understand your thesis, but I see the movie another way. As we noted, it is all exaggerated, but the ending feels so obviously slapped on and silly, as if we are to believe this smart business woman and sexual adventuress has seen the "evil" of her ways and reformed on the spot. My take is still that was just a way to get the movie by the censors.
Chatterton's character was an exaggeration throughout, so I'm not arguing that was "the real her," but I believe the writers had fun putting her out there that way as an "affront" to the "conservative" view and they simply "paid the fare" by "reforming" her in the end. A reform that, again, felt silly. I don't think they set her up to fail from the beginning to "teach" a lesson, but of course, at the surface level they had to teach a lesson to be allowed to tell the story.
My view remains the intent was the subversive message not the reform message. But does it really matter as "art" is subject to interpretations that go past the artist's intent. You see it one way; I see it another way; regardless of what the artist wanted, both ways are out there. Good conversation. The reason I think the writers' intent was reform and not subversion (or perversion) is because they would not have set up George Brent's character to be the hero/conqueror if the idea was to just do a story about a female Casanova. They deliberately delay his entrance into the movie, because they want her to seem unstoppable, then all of a sudden there is this inertia that happens when she intersects with Brent. He is meant to be tamer of the wild woman. They don't even leave it ambiguous that this will be an equal marriage. He has won two pigs, little Lulu and Alison Drake. But Alison's swinish ways will cease to exist as she becomes a respectable conservative wife that knows her place.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 11, 2023 15:22:27 GMT
I just don't see it that way. I understand your thesis, but I see the movie another way. As we noted, it is all exaggerated, but the ending feels so obviously slapped on and silly, as if we are to believe this smart business woman and sexual adventuress has seen the "evil" of her ways and reformed on the spot. My take is still that was just a way to get the movie by the censors.
Chatterton's character was an exaggeration throughout, so I'm not arguing that was "the real her," but I believe the writers had fun putting her out there that way as an "affront" to the "conservative" view and they simply "paid the fare" by "reforming" her in the end. A reform that, again, felt silly. I don't think they set her up to fail from the beginning to "teach" a lesson, but of course, at the surface level they had to teach a lesson to be allowed to tell the story.
My view remains the intent was the subversive message not the reform message. But does it really matter as "art" is subject to interpretations that go past the artist's intent. You see it one way; I see it another way; regardless of what the artist wanted, both ways are out there. Good conversation. The reason I think the writers' intent was reform and not subversion (or perversion) is because they would not have set up George Brent's character to be the hero/conqueror if the idea was to just do a story about a female Casanova. They deliberately delay his entrance into the movie, because they want her to seem unstoppable, then all of a sudden there is this inertia that happens when she intersects with Brent. He is meant to be tamer of the wild woman. They don't even leave it ambiguous that this will be an equal marriage. He has won two pigs, little Lulu and Alison Drake. But Alison's swinish ways will cease to exist as she becomes a respectable conservative wife that knows her place. Agreed, it's a good exchange, reminds me of English Lit class: "Dimmesdale was a coward / no he wasn't...." Everything you say about Brent could be, or again, he could have been sent in as a foil/hero to solve for the code.
However, if he's the hero, he's one heck of a boring one, which would seem odd if the writers' intent was to make him the hero/conqueror. IMO, the writers made him a boring prig to subversively undermine the surface message that being his wife is the ultimate goal of a "good" woman. I don't think women walked out of the theater swooning over Brent, but I bet some of them walked out thinking Chatterton (for the first 56 minutes) was cool.
I think the story you are telling is what Warners sold to the censors, but again, I believe the intent was to slip a subversive message by the censors.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Apr 11, 2023 19:42:47 GMT
I agree with both of your points, but let's pretend for a minute, that the writers had no interest in reforming us or bowing to convention, but only wanted to entertain with a great story. How would they have ended it? Would we see her pausing for a moment during that important meeting and then flying off to New York to fix things with the bankers, saying something about her duty to stock holders and holding true to her own nature?
That would be an interesting character study, but aren't we always more satisfied with a story where the protagonist's better self wins and the two leads find love with each other?
It would have been great to see this remade in 1950 with Katherine Hepburn tamed into accepting a proposal from Spencer Tracy, but with the understanding that she would be keeping her job as manager while he ran the engineering wing.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Apr 11, 2023 20:12:34 GMT
I agree with both of your points, but let's pretend for a minute, that the writers had no interest in reforming us or bowing to convention, but only wanted to entertain with a great story. How would they have ended it? Would we see her pausing for a moment during that important meeting and then flying off to New York to fix things with the bankers, saying something about her duty to stock holders and holding true to her own nature?
That would be an interesting character study, but aren't we always more satisfied with a story where the protagonist's better self wins and the two leads find love with each other?
It would have been great to see this remade in 1950 with Katherine Hepburn tamed into accepting a proposal from Spencer Tracy, but with the understanding that she would be keeping her job as manager while he ran the engineering wing.
That's a great point as ending movies like these, even without censorship hanging over your head, is hard. To have Chatterton just go on with life as is feels anticlimactic and shows no growth, but having her cowed like in "Female" felt forced and inconsistent with her character. I think some compromise, like you outlined is the most reasonable, where she keeps her core personality but in a way that shows a believable maturing of her character.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Apr 11, 2023 20:12:46 GMT
In the thirties studios ran previews to doctor films before regular release. Maybe audience reaction indicated Alison needed to be "put in her place" according to norms of the day?
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Apr 11, 2023 22:40:57 GMT
In the thirties studios ran previews to doctor films before regular release. Maybe audience reaction indicated Alison needed to be "put in her place" according to norms of the day? I expect that's exactly what happened, Kims
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Apr 11, 2023 23:54:08 GMT
In the thirties studios ran previews to doctor films before regular release. Maybe audience reaction indicated Alison needed to be "put in her place" according to norms of the day? Yes, there were focus groups set up by the studios. If the Female ending was influenced by such a group, it must of been made up of 95% men. Related to the topic: I've been watching a lot of 50s \ 60s westerns. These are set in a period around 1870 - 1890. A theme that comes up is the suffrage movement. This was a theme in the Rifleman, Gunsmoke, and Tales of Well Fargo (and I'm sure more) that I have seen in the last month or so. Of course, the main character in all of these shows is a man. Even reasonable Matt Dillion didn't appear so happy about women having the right to vote. The other man (just a side character) was upset with the standard lines of "once they get the vote there will be nothing left for us men" and other paranoid, sexist comments. The funnies one was in Tales of Well Fargo. A Well Fargo stagecoach is held up by a gang lead by a woman (Belverly Garland). She is a crack shot. Jim Hardi (the lead character) goes after the woman. When he visits the town sheriff, the sheriff's wife is with him having lunch. As soon as the wife finds out Jim wishes to arrest the woman for a crime, she goes off the rail: Since all the laws were passed only by men, only men should be forced to follow them. The Rifleman handled this the best. Young Mark was confused about women voting, but since the mom\wife had died, Lucus says that if his wife (Mark's mom), believe she should vote he would have supported it.
|
|