Patriarchy in old movies

[thoughtful]

I am watching an old favorite, The Quiet Man, starring John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. But as I watch I find myself increasingly distressed by the way women are treated in this movie. Maureen O'Hara is treated by her family and the community as a possession, first by her brother and then later by her husband. I know that we can't judge something from another time according to what you now know to be just and right, but still I find it upsetting. I find that more and more I feel this way when watching an old movie or tv show. Anyone else find this happening to you? And it isn't just about the way women are treated, but racist stuff and homophobia too.

I watch old movies all the time, and, yes, sometimes they need to be taken with a huge grain of salt (hmmm, a huge grain of salt -- strange image!).

Part of what goes in in The Quiet Man, though, is not just "of the time." It is also very much a John Ford trademark. Manly men, men roughhousing, men acting in a way that would make me think of them as assholes who think they're funny IRL, and women being merely supporters (and sometimes liking to be treated rough) were all staples of his films.

I've heard fans who really like Ford's movies despair of his inserting roughhousing and fighting very artificially into films that didn't need it to further the story line, or thinking that what Ford found cute and funny was sometimes pretty vicious.

He also loved to humiliate and verbally abuse actors, of either gender, on the set. For some, it was a "badge of honor" to survive it.

All of that stuff makes me want to roll my eyes and say "Ah, grow up."

[thoughtful]

My 14 yr old son and I watch the old Dick Van Dyke series together, and have had a lot of constructive conversation (beyond the "where the hell is Ritchie?!") about the gender roles in the show. Dick laments occasionally that he can't bring himself to spank his son or be the lord and master of his home. They sleep in twin beds too - but with all the smooching going on, you know Laura and Rob were getting plenty from each other.

I adore that show, and always have. They didn't quite make it, when it comes to gender equality, by our current standards, but they sure came close.

It was very funny, and a lot of the humor was based on down-to-earth, fairly real interactions, not one character or the other being a goofy, scheming schmo, or characters being mismatched (the source of much of the humor in a lot of sitcoms).

I had a tough time watching I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners or the Flintstones (which is essentially the Honeymooners animated!) when I was kid. So many of the story lines involved the goofy spouse (wife in the latter, husband in the other two) sneaking around and lying to the non-goofy spouse.

It either made me really tense, or just annoyed. I wanted to say "Oh, just tell him/her the truth and stop coming up with stupid schemes" at my TV.

Yes, I know, supposedly "hilarity ensued." But it never made me laugh.

No offense to those who like those shows -- I have my own odd little niche when it comes to humor.

[StarrieEyedKat]

I'm 26 and I grew up watching Nick at Night, and I have a special place in my heart for I Love Lucy, Dick van Dyke, I Dream of Jeannie and, my all time favorite, Bewitched (I was 10 years old and sobbed the day Elizabeth Montgomery died.) Now, Darrin #'s 1 and 2 - THERE was a patriarchal jerk. Samantha had to be the perfect stepford wife, hiding her true self and extraordinary abilities or he threw a fit. My jaded self watches episodes of all of my favorite old shows and my inner feminist cringes. :roll:

[finleeport]

Don't forget about the old classic favorite of Patriarchy films- Shakespeare's The Taming of a Shrew.

Now that was completely misogynistic

[Propagatrix]

I nominate WOMAN OF THE YEAR, starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The ending is soul-crushing.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm 26 and I grew up watching Nick at Night, and I have a special place in my heart for I Love Lucy, Dick van Dyke, I Dream of Jeannie and, my all time favorite, Bewitched (I was 10 years old and sobbed the day Elizabeth Montgomery died.) Now, Darrin #'s 1 and 2 - THERE was a patriarchal jerk. Samantha had to be the perfect stepford wife, hiding her true self and extraordinary abilities or he threw a fit. My jaded self watches episodes of all of my favorite old shows and my inner feminist cringes. :roll:

I remember in the debut episode of Bewitched, Samantha's mother Endora (the late, great Agnes Moorehead) sent Darrin to an unidentified void. In retrospect, she made a big mistake by not leaving him there, as he was indeed a whining jerk.

[thoughtful]

I nominate WOMAN OF THE YEAR, starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The ending is soul-crushing.

And they came so, so close!

For much of the film, the issue is that she is so focused on her larger projects that she ceases to be a human being, gender aside.

For example, she adopts a refugee child, for no other reason than to look good. Tracy's character is more interested in the child, and finds it mind-boggling that she wants to leave the little boy alone when they go out to the banquet for the award named in the title.

Off and on through the film, there are a few things that are cringe-worthy from our perspective, but lots that makes it clear that it's not about her not being "the little woman," but about her being so oblivious, ambitious and selfish that the audience would be as frustrated if the genders were reversed.

But, as you said, they blow it at the end. Although, the cooking scene aside, the lines near the end do not have her giving up her work -- he doesn't want that. Some lines from the end:

Tess Harding: I'm going to be your wife. You don't think that I can do the little ordinary things that any idiot can do, do you?

Sam Craig: No.

Tess Harding: Why not?

Sam Craig: Because you're incapable of doing them, that's why. You can't expect Seabiscuit to stop in the middle of the stretch, drink a glass of water, and count to seven at the same time, you know. That takes training.

Tess Harding: Well, I'm not Seabiscuit.

Yes, he's saying that she doesn't have ordinary homemaking skills, but only because she has more amazing skills, and hasn't taken the time to practice mundane things.

Sam Craig: I don't want to be married to Tess Harding any more than I want you to be just Mrs Sam Craig. Why can't you be Tess Harding Craig?

Tess Harding: I think it's a wonderful name.

The cooking slapstick nonsense was not the original ending, BTW -- per TCM:

One interesting fact about Woman of the Year is that the original ending of the film was changed after an audience sneak preview. The reason for this is revealed in A Remarkable Woman: A Biography of Katharine Hepburn by Anne Edwards (William Morrow & Co.): "The original ending of the Lardner-Kanin script had Tess Harding take an honest interest in baseball (her husband's passion) and become more enthusiastic than he at the game, which implied not compromise but growth and love. But Mankiewicz and Stevens were concerned that "the average American housewife, seated next to her husband, staring for two hours at this paragon of beauty, intelligence, wit, accomplishment, and everything else, (could not) help but wonder if her husband (wasn't) comparing her very unfavorably with this goddess he sees on the screen."

Stevens, who for all his charm was a dedicated male chauvinist, decided with Mankiewicz that Tess Harding had to have her comeuppance. Stevens recalled a kitchen routine he had done in a silent film in which a wife tried to fix a simple breakfast in order to prove her domesticity to her husband and "completely f*cked it up." (Ring Lardner) and Mike Kanin had already left for New York and so John Lee Mahin was assigned to write a new ending to specifications. When Lardner and Kanin found out they objected strenuously, but the only concession made to them was that they were permitted to rewrite some of the more objectionable lines. Kate termed the new breakfast-scene ending "the worst bunch of sh*t I've ever read," but Mankiewicz left it in after women at the next preview cheered, "not only with admiration," he said, "but relief."

They did somewhat better in Pat and Mike, where the man who wants her to be "the little woman" makes her incapable of functioning, and Tracy's character turns out to be truly supportive, even though he starts off categorizing her as part of his stable of athletes, an investment.

Adam's Rib has some annoyingly sexist stuff, but much of it is not too bad. Most important, he trumps her, one lawyer to another, by scaring her into saying that the "unwritten law" is bunk, and that neither men nor women have the right to kill over infidelity. She had been saying all along that people would accept a man being violent, but not a woman.

But where he found licorice shaped like a gun, I'll never know! :lol:

[FireIsCatching89]

Regarding True Grit - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the entire point of that scene. She's at an incredibly difficult age, and it's dangerous for her to be out there - young enough to be as vulnerable as a child, old enough for men to be leering at her. And Matt Damon's character is young enough that for him to be spanking a child who's not that much younger than he is, really, is showing his blustering insecurity. The relationship with the other guy (mind blanks at the moment, I'm on vacation on a iPad) works more because it's a more secure father-daughter sort of thing (albeit dysfunctional). Or maybe mentor-mentee. Anyway, the spanking - it's supposed to seem wrong, and uncomfortable.

Hmm...good point. I guess that bit just went over my head since I was so busy enjoying the witty dialogue. Still...ew. Even though I know it's intentional, my brain still feels violated. For some reason that scene gets to me more than anything else I've ever watched. Seriously, even though the movie itself sends a fairly good message (young girls can have grit too! yea!).

[thoughtful]

Yes, I'm posting again. Can you tell I love this subject? :lol:

Some of the unpleasantness in older films came from the need to make money. There was a real concern that anything showing AA characters in a good light would not sell in the South. Anything depicting strong independent women might not sell in the heartland.

Another influence on what we saw and didn't see in the movies was the Motion Picture Production Code. It was enforced strictly by the studios, starting in 1934, and held sway until the mid-60s. Religious groups were a driving force in unnerving the studio heads to the point where they were afraid they'd lose profit if they didn't self-regulate.

Some highlights:

1. No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

(a) The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation.

10. Stories on the kidnapping or illegal abduction of children are acceptable under the Code only when

(a) the subject is handled with restraint and discretion and avoids details, gruesomeness and undue horror; and

(b) the child is returned unharmed.

II. Sex

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing.

1. Adultery and illicit sex, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated or justified, or presented attractively.

2. Scenes of passion

(a) These should not be introduced except where they are definitely essential to the plot.

(b) Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures are not to be shown.

© In general, passion should be treated in such manner as not to stimulate the lower and baser emotions.

3. Seduction or rape

(a) These should never be more than suggested, and then only when essential for the plot. They must never be shown by explicit method.

(b) They are never the proper subject for comedy.

4. Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden

4. The subject of abortion shall be discouraged, shall never be more than suggested, and when referred to shall be condemned. It must never be treated lightly, or made the subject of comedy. Abortion shall never be shown explicitly or by inference, and a story must not indicate that an abortion has been performed, the word “abortion†shall not be used.

5. The methods and techniques of prostitution and white slavery shall never be presented in detail, nor shall the subjects be presented unless shown in contrast to right standards of behavior. Brothels in any clear identification as such may not be shown.

6. Miscegenation (sex relationship between the white and black races) is forbidden.

7. Sex hygiene and venereal diseases are not proper subjects for theatrical motion pictures.

8. Scenes of actual childbirth, in fact or in silhouette, are never to be presented.

IV. Obscenity

Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, song, joke or by suggestion (even when likely to be understood only by part of the audience) is forbidden.

V. Profanity

Pointed profanity (this includes God, Lord, Jesus, Christ—unless used reverently—Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or other profane or vulgar expressions, however used, is forbidden.

(1) No approval by the Production Code Administration shall be given to the use of words and phrases in motion pictures including, but not limited to, the following:

Alley cat (applied to a woman); bat (applied to a woman); broad (applied to a woman); Bronx cheer (the sound); chippie; cocotte; God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless used reverently); cripes; fanny; fairy (in a vulgar sense); finger (the); fire, cries of; Gawd; goose (in a vulgar sense); “hold your hat†or “hatsâ€; hot (applied to a woman); “in your hatâ€; louse; lousy; Madam (relating to prostitution); nance, nerts; nuts (except when meaning crazy); pansy; razzberry (the sound); slut (applied to a woman); SOB.; son-of-a; tart; toilet gags; tom cat (applied to a man); traveling salesman and farmer’s daughter jokes; whore; damn; hell (excepting when the use of said last two words shall be essential and required for portrayal, in proper historical context, of any scene or dialogue based upon historical fact or folklore, or for the presentation in proper literary context of a Biblical, or other religious quotation, or a quotation from a literary work provided that no such use shall he permitted which is intrinsically objectionable or offends good taste)

November 1, 1939, to mid-1940s

(2) The following words and phrases are invariably deleted by political censor boards:

Bum (in England)

Bloody (in England)

“Cissy†or “Sissy†(in England)

Gigolo (in England)

Poisons (specific names of) (in United States)

Punk (in England)

Sex appeal (in England)

Sex life (in England)

Shag (in British Empire)

Shyster (in England)

“Stick ‘em up†(in United States and Canada)

VI. Costume

1. Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in silhouette, or any licentious notice thereof by other characters in the pictures.

2. Undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where essential to the plot.

3. Indecent or undue exposure is forbidden.

4. Dancing costumes intended to permit undue exposure of indecent movements in the dance are forbidden.

March 31, 1930, to December 1956

VII. Dances

1. Dances suggesting or representing sexual actions or indecent passion are forbidden.

2. Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene.

VIII. Religion

1. No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

2. Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion should not be used as comic characters or as villains.

3. Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled.

The following subjects must be treated with discretion and restraint within the careful limits of good taste:

1. Bedroom scenes.

2. Hangings and electrocutions.

3. Liquor and drinking.

4. Surgical operations and childbirth.

5. Third-degree methods.

X. National Feelings

1. The use of the flag shall be consistently respectful.

5. Suicide, as a solution of problems occurring in the development of screen drama, is to be discouraged as morally questionable and as bad theatre—unless absolutely necessary for the development of the plot.

6. There must be no display, at any time, of machine guns, sub-machine guns or other weapons generally classified as illegal weapons in the hands of gangsters, or other criminals, and there are to be no off-stage sounds of the repercussions of these guns.

10. There must be no scenes, at any time, showing law-enforcement officers dying at the hands of criminals. This includes private detectives and guards for banks, motor trucks, etc

13. No picture shall be approved dealing with the life of a notorious criminal of current or recent times which uses the name, nickname or alias of such notorious criminal in the film, nor shall a picture be approved if based upon the life of such a notorious criminal unless the character shown in the film be punished for crimes shown in the film as committed by him.

But, hey, they also included this:

(3) The following words and phrases are obviously offensive to the patrons of motion pictures in the United States and more particularly to the patrons of motion pictures in foreign countries and, therefore, should be omitted:

Chink (Chinese)

Dago (Italian)

Frog (French)

Greaser (Mexico and Central America)

Hunkie (Hungarian)

Kike (U.S. and England)

Nigger (U.S.)

Spic (Mexico and central America)

Wop (Italian)

Yid (U.S. and England)

More here:

http://productioncode.dhwritings.com/mu ... oncode.php

Before 1934, there was a lot of sex, violence and near-nudity in films. Bad guys went unpunished, women were often free spirits, etc. But much of that was in silent film -- the window between the beginning of talkies and the Code really cracking down was only five years.

[alphaeta08]

Movies following those rules sound boring. :lol:

Like you said, I have heard that pre-1934, movies were allowed a lot more leeway until the big crackdown.

[thoughtful]

Movies following those rules sound boring. :lol:

Writers had to twist themselves around like pretzels to get some sort of a story, sometimes.

Although, the wittiest of them could take those bare bones and make a great movie.

[alphaeta08]

Writers had to twist themselves around like pretzels to get some sort of a story, sometimes.

Although, the wittiest of them could take those bare bones and make a great movie.

True, I guess the advantage was that they had to be more creative. It's weird, when I think about the old movies I've seen, I don't remember not seeing all the "bad" stuff. Like, I didn't finish It's a Wonderful Life and think, "Wow, they didn't say 'fuck' once!" Of course, people should be able to put whatever they want in their movies, and sex/language/etc. are definitely necessary to some plots, but it shows that "bad" stuff doesn't make or break them, for me anyway. The point is that you should be allowed to include those elements or not, which is obvious to us, but I'm sure it wouldn't be to our fundie friends... :roll:

I wonder what some of our "favorites" would put on a list of movie rules... But then, we have Fireproof as an example. :lol:

[AnnoDomini]

I don't know about old movies so much, but I know that growing up in my house, there were a couple banned classic Disney movies, namely Peter Pan for their stereotypes of Native Americans and the whole Wendy/Tinkerbell Madonna/Whore thing, and Bambi for its ability to traumatize anyone under the age of ten. And the Little Mermaid, but that was because Ursula gave me nightmares and not because of the problematic gender depictions (mostly about Ursula...a woman with power being portrayed as overly sexual, fat, and evil! agh!). Beauty and the Beast and Pinocchio also have some....issues... Though, these sort of movies can be a great springboard for talking to children about gender roles and the like.

I also recall in True Grit, the Cohen Bros remake, some of the ooky sexual/patriarchy shiz between Matt Damon's character and Mattie Ross, like when he says he wanted to steal a kiss from her while she slept and switches her over his knee. She's too young to get a kiss from a grown man and WAY too old to be spanked without it taking on really gross overtones. I liked the movie, but when I saw it with my father (who admittedly, gave me a swat on the bum once in a while, but not after I was six or seven), and the spanking scene made me INCREDIBLY uncomfortable. Like more uncomfortable than I felt watching Wedding Crashers with my brother and dad when I was 16.

I have to go cleanse myself now, I feel squicky.

Yeah, I'm unsure of the appropriateness of Damon switching Mattie if he also wants to kiss her. I also saw a clip of that scene from the original version. John Wayne says 'cut it out, you're enjoying it too much'.

I understand why Peter Pan makes you uncomfortable (in the live action 2004 version I appreciated that they minimized the Indian parts as much as possible) but what's the issue with Beauty and the Beast and Pinocchio? Granted I haven't seen Pinocchio.

[jockosmom]

All of these examples just go to show how very recent "womens' liberation" is. It's only one generation ago that women had far less choices in life and were treated a lot worse by society. Even less than a generation. I'm old enough to remember when it was impossible for a woman to have applied for and been hired for a job like policeman (patrol officer, not clerical worker) or firefighter. Also, even if you were in a traditional woman's job like secretary or office worker, you were fired the minute you revealed that you were pregnant.

[Joykins]

I don't know if The History of Tom Jones had any connection to Pamela (since I never read it), but he did write Shamela, aka "An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews," which was a direct reply to Pamela. That was also the only good thing about having to read Pamela in the first place; our professor had us read Shamela immediately afterwards.

Fielding also wrote _Joseph Andrews_ where the virtuous man is propositioned...by "Lady Booby" no less--it's also hilarious. I do love Fielding. Also shows not everyone thought like Richardson (the author of _Pamela_) in the 18th c.

[HoneyBunny]

I watched a lot of I Love Lucys this past weekend. I love that show, but it's always grated on me with Lucy's 'yes sir's and Ricky threatening bodily harm. Still, I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater...Lucy was pure genius and Desi man enough to let her shine while he played second fiddle.

I have the same issues in the opposite way with most TV commercials these days. Why is it ok to poke fun at male foolishness and stupidity but not women's? And, while we're at it- why does it take a family to sell everything these days? Unless it's a commercial for ED or feminine itching, every commercial seems to revolve around a harried-but-happy family and a mother-knows-best matriarch. Gag.

[AnnoDomini]

What do we think of the part in 9 1/2 Weeks where he tells her to pull up her skirt cause he's gonna spank her?

[Witsec5]

Does 1981 count as old? I went to see the Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange version of The Postman Always rings twice with my then bf in 1981. There was a scene in which Jack Nicholson's character is raping Jessica Lange's waitress character and in the middle of the scene, she starts wanting him and it becomes consensual. I remember being very upset by the scene and voicing my upset with my bf who of course thought the scene was sexy beyond belief. The bf was a jerk BTW and I was eventually very glad that it ended.

[Deleted12]

Anyone who's interested in the Hays production code should check out "The Celluloid Closet." It's about the history of gays in film, before the Hays code, during the Hays code, and after the Hays code. I've seen it like three times and every time I am amazed at both the oppression of gays and the ways that gays managed to portray themselves even during times when being gay was verboten.

[Eponine]

Did anyone else here ever have to read the book "Pamela"? Now, granted, that is WAY old (18th century), but I was an English major so I had to read it, and I HATED. Hate, hate, hate, hate, HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATED it! :angry-screaming: Actually, I don't know of anyone I went to school with who actually enjoyed that book.

I've tried to block any memory of that book from my mind, but to summarize, servant gal Pamela is constantly being chased around by her master, who keeps trying to rape her, but she is a Virtuous!Maiden! and therefore resists his advances, and is thusly rewarded later on in the book when her master finally admits that He!Loves!Her! and that is why he keeps trying to rape her, and suddenly, she loves him in return. It's the making of fundie wet dreams, I swear.

I've read sections of Pamela but I was even more horrified (and amused) by Charlotte Temple. It's a cautionary tale about a young English girl who is seduced by an army officer or something, follows him to America, he leaves her, she has his child, gets sick and dies. The book will go on these long rambly tangents about how this is what happens when you give in to vice! You will DIE in shame and misery!

Her old teacher is also a "fallen woman" (though more clever) and actually helps the man seduce Charlotte just because, I guess, having sex outside of marriage makes a woman predatory and willing to make other people's lives miserable for giggles.

Even better - this was written in the late 18th century and people were so very convinced that the book told the story of a real woman's life that they actually gave her a grave in Manhattan's Trinity cemetery - and for decades people left mementos on the tomb. To this day the character still has a gravestone (who knows who is actually in there) you can see, just because people were so convinced that the story was real.

I ended up reading it in a class on popular culture in the US because this was one of the most popular books ever.

[JesusFightClub]

Was and am interested in the Hollywood Ten so knew about the fact there were codes and part of the codes I recognised but not all the detail! Cheers!

Personally I cannot stand Family Guy, I know a big part of the joke is the sexism but it comes way too close to bad stuff for me.

[Guest Anonymous]

Personally I cannot stand Family Guy, I know a big part of the joke is the sexism but it comes way too close to bad stuff for me.

My partner likes Family Guy, I generally take myself somewhere else if he's watching it. It's far too much - fat joke, rape joke, Meg is hideous joke, gay joke, rape joke, fat joke. I won't sit through the stuff that pisses me off for the stray moments of funny.

[JesusFightClub]

My partner likes Family Guy, I generally take myself somewhere else if he's watching it. It's far too much - fat joke, rape joke, Meg is hideous joke, gay joke, rape joke, fat joke. I won't sit through the stuff that pisses me off for the stray moments of funny.

Totally agree, honestly can't laugh at a lot of it. There have been a couple of amusing moments but not enough to stay with it. Flatmates are very pro feminist and they still try to make me watch it and every time I do I regret it.

[forever ago]

My partner likes Family Guy, I generally take myself somewhere else if he's watching it. It's far too much - fat joke, rape joke, Meg is hideous joke, gay joke, rape joke, fat joke. I won't sit through the stuff that pisses me off for the stray moments of funny.

My boyfriend also likes Family Guy. I hate it, the only good episode for me was the ear sex episode. That was genuinely funny... I haven't seen much of FG because of how awful everyone is. Yeah, whatever, it's a comedy, but some of the jokes are either too old or quite offensive.

[Joykins]

I enjoy earthy humor as well as the next person, but Family Guy is mostly just crass and gross.