A Radical Feminist Film Far Ahead Of Its Time !!!

"Film will only become an art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper."-J Cocteau

********************************************************************************


Carl Dreyer's Master Of The House (1925) is an ant-Establishment film that is very radical for 1925. Being the first Dreyer film that I've ever watched, I must say that it took me by complete surprise, being very different from any other silent era European film that I've viewed. This is a film that was definitely ahead of its time.

Master Of The House is definitely a feminist film, decades before "feminist", both as a word & as an idea, even existed.

It highlights the dependence of the wife on the husband in the traditional nuclear family. In this film, as in most families in the whole world in 1925, the wife did not hold a job outside the home. She was totally financially dependent on the husband. The husband was seen by his wife, his children, & indeed by the whole world as the supreme, unquestioned authority figure in the home. His decisions were never questioned. The wife was to be the subservient, ever obedient "door mat" who never dared to criticize or question her husband. His every whim & criticism was his command to her. The wife, as is the wife in this film, is very "co-dependent", inasmuch as she psychologically adjusts herself to believe that her husband can do no wrong, regardless of how outrageous his behavior & criticisms are. Indeed, her co-dependency convinces her to believe that she is deserving of her husband's bad behavior & that he would behave better if she could only do a better job as the ever faithful wife. As such, this paragraph is a quick thematic sketch of the first half of Master Of The House.

The most radical part of the film is the second half, which dares to suggest that the wife need not tolerate her husband's bad behavior &, indeed, can do something to improve it. Because throughout this film, right to the end, the wife is the ever compliant door mat, it is the intervention of interested third parties that causes a moral reform in the husband's domestic behavior. Thusly, although it is a radical, feminist film, it stops short of actually inciting disgruntled wives in the audience to openly rebel against their authoritarian husbands, although drawing such a conclusion wouldn't be difficult for any viewer. Most significantly, this film has a "happy ending", thereby suggesting that attempts to reform boorish authoritarian husbands can actually lead to a happier marriage; this is definitely a subtle prompt for wifely rebellion among females in the audience.

This film is also a not so subtle indictment of the traditional, patriarchal nuclear family. Basically, it attempts to show that at least some aspects of the traditional nuclear family structure are not good. This is a very radical message to deliver in a 1925 film.

Although this film is quite radical for its times, subtly inciting rebellion among oppressed housewives & attacking the traditional cornerstone of the nuclear family, the unchallenged moral authority of the male, the husband & father, Dreyer did constrain his ant-Establishmentism within certain limits. As already mentioned, the wife in this subversive tale never actually becomes a true feminist. She is the compliant door mat from the start to the end & the feminist "dirty work" is delegated to "wiser & older" third parties who, not coincidentally, are women. This film shows no physical abuse in the home. This film shows no hint of adultery by either the husband or the wife. Although the wife does depart the household for a time, she does, in fact, return; as poorly as the husband is initially portrayed in this film, the ultimate cohesion of the nuclear family is not questioned in this film.

It is significant that the wife's mother, to whom the wife retreats, is show to have financial means. Her large home is much better furnished than her daughter's small apartment. The mother is even shown to have a maid. The mother can even afford to summon a physician to her home to examine her daughter, the worn out wife. In the final scene, the wife's mother is even shown giving her now reformed son-in-law a bank check for 10,000 Danish dollars to start a new business in another province. So, from all indications, the wife's mom is "loaded".

Yet, as financially well off as the wife's mother is in this film, there is no suggestion by any character that the mother use her money to facilitate a permanent break up of her daughter's marriage. Surely, if the wife's mother can give her son-in-law 10,000 bucks to open a new business, then she has the money to make her daughter similarly financially independent of her once abusive husband by facilitating a permanent break up of the marriage, a divorce. But because this film is quite careful, after all is said & done, in affirming the unity & cohesion of the nuclear family, such a consideration is never even entertained.

So this is not only a thought provoking, even radical anti-Establishment film, but it is also a very well considered & well thought out film because it only goes so far in its revolutionary feminist trumpet call to the females in the viewing audience. Dreyer surely realized that he could only go so far with his revolutionary zeal & kept this film within certain boundaries.

There is no doubt in my mind that this film was the cause of many domestic disputes in the 1920's. I am quite certain that word of this film spread among the female population & that many a wife dragged her husband to see this film , hoping that he could learn something about being a more considerate & appreciative husband. I am quite sure that this film caused many marital arguments & perhaps some divorces.

But, in the final analysis, the function of any piece of Art, film or otherwise, is to make the viewer think at least a little bit, & perhaps to affect him personally. Carl Dreyer certainly accomplished this with Master Of The House (1925). It is a very thought provoking instance of Cinematic Art that was far ahead of its times.

I viewed this film at Hulus.com, and my $7.99 per month subscription fee allows me to view it as many times as I wish with no additional costs. I understand that this film is also available for free at YouTube.com.