Sunday, November 7, 2010
Stepford Wives
Stepford Wives was a film that was writtend, directed, and produced by men. Can you really call this a feminist film or can should you call it an attempt to delve into the men's psychy? I would definately agree that the men took very good care of the feminist message however, part of me still feels as though this film sought out to satisfy every man's fantasy. I mean, who wouldn't want the perfect wife? A Stepford Wife has the perfect body, breasts, face, and does everything that they are told. They take care of their main responsiblity there husband and children. They had no mind of there own and they could not even speak against there husbands. The most controversal thing in theirs lives is getting behind on housework because they could not get the floor clean enough. The reading claims to say, "The Stepford Wives was in fact rather more faithful to the popular feminist discourse of its day than its critics were willing to accept at the time. Even seemingly outlandish image of patriarchally brainwashed women as automatons finds echoes in Mary Daly's contemporaneous description of such nonfeminist women as "fembots" and "puppets of papa". I don't think that anyone would know the underlying message unless knowing a lot of about the time of the films filming and background information. Any unsuspecting viewer might see the film as just simply a man's fantasy. You see a little bit of feminist fight in the main character. She tries fighting what is happening to her and the other women in town. She is trying to fight the men by figuring out what they are doing to all the women. However, in the end the men win. So what is this film trying to say about the feminist fight? Is it trying to say that no matter how much women fight and no matter how hard headed and strong a woman may be like the main character in the film that in the end men are always going to come out on top? Cause event he strongest character in the film fighting for women's rights, in a small way but still fightin, was turned into one of these "puppets of papa" with perfect breasts and no brain like men like there women. I am trying to figure out what hidden agenda these male writers and directors were trying to say. One the surface you could think that this film was fighting for women's rights and pushing for women's suffrage and that women are more then just homemakers and wives but people. Women are people with brains and capable of intelligent thought. However, I feel much like the reading interprets that this is a masoganist film that is trying to say that no matter what women try to do men will always win. Women are the weaker sex and will remain in such a role because men are on top. Would you say this film supports feminist strife? Or, would you say this film is merely a masognist film hidden beneath the seams?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this film's intention is much like Zabriskie Point: Hollywood executives trying to capitalize on a movement by implementing messages that they think will appeal to a movement. It backfires like Zabriskie Point because those messages (i.e. oppression through domesticity) aren't "complex"-as Jane Elliot states, but rather deal in simple assumptions about feminism and work off of 1960's feminist ideologies rather than the issues of 70's feminism. I have to somewhat disagree with you on the statement that viewers wouldn't be able to see it as close to popular feminist discourse. While this view may not have been as common as one viewing this film as generally feminist, a male view of feminism, or as the exploitation of feminism, I think those more knowledgeable of the movement of the time and discussions could have viewed this as a film that while not exploring issues of 2nd wave feminism deeply or seriously, did present discussions that were in reality occurring, although the mainstream, male-controlled Hollywood was the last place feminists may have wanted these issues brought up and interpreted. I think in the end the men winning in this movie may have not been for gendered reasons, maybe the intent as figured by filmmakers was warning women against letting this happen, how can a movement to prevent something or consciousness be raised without seeing the consequences of not taking action? I also think because this was a horror movie it functioned much like horror of the late 60's and early70's-rather than presenting us with a happy ending, it presents us with hopelessness, and a pessimistic vision of the future for women.
ReplyDelete"Can you really call this a feminist film or can should you call it an attempt to delve into the men's psyche?" Delve into men's psyche most definitely this entire film was every mans wet dream fantasy: An obedient housewife whom always looks perfect, takes orders, is always ready for anything on cue and is absolutely perfect at everything. Disgusting if you ask me, why would anyone male or female WANT a person who is in all sense of the word a robot, a person who can not think or do for themselves and always agree with you. I feel like my head would grow to the size of a door because my ego would be stroked everyday but then I would grow completely bored and probably stupid due to the fact that I would be the only person contributing mentally.
ReplyDelete"I don't think that anyone would know the underlying message unless knowing a lot of about the time of the films filming and background information. Any unsuspecting viewer might see the film as just simply a man's fantasy. You see a little bit of feminist fight in the main character." I am not sure how i feel about this, i don't really feel that she fought for anything other than her life. I mean obviously she though it was crazy that all the women in town WANTED and LIKED doing the housework and that of course bothered her but did it bother her because of feminism or because she felt pressures to live her life like that as well when she didn't want to and it made her feel bad so she tried to change them (little did she know). I mean of course the film is completely misogynistic and I will say I never did think of an underlying meaning of what the men were really trying to say about women and I can see that and I believe it but what I am trying to say is that since the movie was made by men I don't feel there was a feministic fight in the actual movie, the only fighting I really see going on is the fight for ones life.
You ask some really good questions here, and your contemporary perspective, looking back at this, is always interesting. It might be useful to think of SW as a zombie movie. In terms of 2nd wave feminism, your point is well taken that the Wives are really more a male fantasy. But certain aspects of 2nd wave feminism tended to analyze male/female relations in very polarized terms--that patriarchy is a game that women can't win because men hold all the power. The solution was something like the 'consciousness raising' Joanna was attempting, and women attempting to discuss their lives and feelings turns into product placement--treated extremely satirically in this movie.
ReplyDeleteThe subtler feminist critique, then and now is/was that the problems of an extremely privileged group of suburban women aren't particularly representative of women's struggles as a whole.
So you can read it either way, but recognizing the level of social satire possibly makes it more intelligible.