I watched this movie last night, not knowing much about it, and with little expectations.
Of course my mind didn't allow me to sit back and be entertained, I kept thinking about the women, how they were portrayed, what their relationships said about them, and all the things I have been studying in class.
Thanks Women and Lit!
A little context:
First of all, this movie came out in 1945. The portrayal of a strong working woman reflected what was going on during WWII, even though the chronology of the movie is 1931-1940. At the time the movie was made, America was emerging from a new era. Men were off on the Pacific or European fronts, fighting, while women were at home working. So is this movie promoting "Rosie the Riveter" or questioning this liberation?
A movie about a working woman, may seem progressive or positive, but ultimately the message of the movie was a conservative warning against women as workers. I don't want to give too much away, but let's just say Mildred Pierce's working life backfires on her. Though she shows much initiative and self empowerment, Mildred is still playing in a man's world. She is also still subject to very feminine weaknesses and failings. For example, she is solely motivated by pleasing her daughter, even though it is very clear that her daughter is pure evil. Perhaps if there was more subtlety here, this could have been explored in a deeper, more honest way. Unfortunately the premise becomes laughable. The daughter is over the top obsessed with money, status, and things.
Maybe it's because we are currently living through the worst recession since the Depression, but the evil daughter's evilness seemed particularly clumsy, unsympathetic, and disgustingly transparent. I feel in tune with the struggles of Mildred Pierce, but am disgusted by the greed of her daughter. When the evil daughter is that obvious, it just makes her grown mother look dumb for wanting to please her. Mildred Pierce was way too smart to be duped by her daughter like that.
So we have a movie that walks right up to the edge of empowering women, but jumps over it, condemning women back to the home.
Too bad.
Loving these entries! So, I had an assignment in college to write about women's roles in a specific movie. I wrote on a movie I wouldn't mind seeing five hundred times, but that I felt a strong loyalty toward. Ultimately my argument was the film made some progressive choices, but continually the protagonist needed a male hero to swoop in and help her find the happily ever after. Can this film be doing the same? A 3 steps forward-2 steps back approach? Slight and slow progress, but progress nonetheless?
ReplyDeleteSo interesting! I think that might be the ultimate result of the film, but I don't think it's the purpose. Although, I'd be curious to know what you thought of it. It is very pretty to look at, even thought that Vida is crazy!
ReplyDeleteI know, right? That Veeda was SOOOOOOOOO broadly drawn it was unbelievable. The HBO remake promises to be better. They went back to the original source material and the story really is about the mother/dauther relationship and not the "mystery" murder. And the original really loses me with that last shot of her and her 1st husband walking away, hand in hand. As if that is what should have been all along even though he was a cheating scumbag.
ReplyDeleteThe HBO remake looks SO good! Melissa Leo, Kate Winslett, Rachel...Evan Wood. ? I think. I'm very excited to see it. I'm also very excited to hear BAD DATES again, and understand the references to Mildred Pierce. We are smarty pants!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the other comments, but i don't think we should view Veda outside of the context of the rest of the movie. i don't watch a lot of old movies, and i was struck by the lack of realism in this Oscar-winning piece. the dialogue was often soooooo under-written and the interactions sooooo untruthful, the movie just couldn't do much for me emotionally. (although, i did totally hate Veda) the scene where the doctor tries to save the good daughter? laughable. ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteall that being said, the movie definitely portrays mildred as wildly capable, except when dealing with her bias toward her daughter. the incompetent first husband may not be able to earn a living and may not be faithful, but he isn't swayed by love for his daughter. he's a sober minded MAN. (or maybe he just doesn't love his family that much?) and yeah, LJ, the end was forehead-smackingly dumb.
What a great take on this film - so smart of you to notice the message. It is quite a stark comparison to other films of this time that were secretively savvy in sending positive messages about women.
ReplyDelete