MovieChat Forums > Strangers May Kiss (1931) Discussion > Dissapointment

Dissapointment

posted 16 years ago by kukunutsie
12 replies | jump to latest

I just love watching older classic movies but I got to say I was disappointed in this one…… Norma Shearer was wonderful and absolutely beautiful but the treatment of women back then was horrible but then again I guess it was the era. It was a man’s world back then no doubt( still is to some extent) how Alan could do what ever he wanted when he wanted but she had to apologize and stay pure for him or else she didn’t love him. Did I catch on to that part or did I completely miss it? Oh it made me mad….. Sorry had to vent

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mojo2004 15 years ago

She didn't stay pure for him. She made a tramp of herself with a bunch of men and then didn't get why he didn't want her.

[–] pedro4300 15 years ago

I thought the ending was rather weak and it reminded me of "Pretty in Pink" where the lead picks the obviously wrong choice in the end. She should have stayed with Montgomery and kick Commissioner Gordon to the curb! I know if I were Montgomery I would have fought for her. But that's Hollywood.

[–] Helena727 9 years ago

She didn't "make a tramp" of herself, and thanks for reminding us that misogyny is alive and well in the 21st century, long after it should have disappeared.

What she DID: She behaved with the freedom that men have long enjoyed. Period.

Ask yourself: What are the masculine equialents of "tramp, slut, whore" and the like? There are no such words, because society doesn't censure men who explore their sexuality. Time for society to retire these antediluvian ideas about women.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

[–] gribfritz2 8 years ago

ROFL...to you, prostitutes are probably simply free souls.

Society doesn't censure men because they can't get pregnant. A pregnancy happens and the deadbeat dad is born. A pregnancy happens and a woman's life is changed forever. So it's only natural to ingrain more common sense sexual values in young girls than in young men. You can say all you want about abortion, pills, etc... but look at the increase in fatherless children over the years. Technology is largely outpaced by the increase in promiscuity.

I like how you think women are entitled to act like whores because men historically have. Wouldn't a better solution be for NOBODY to act like whores? Hell in a handbasket: we're heading there fast, if we're not there already.

[–] miss_meli 8 years ago

I have yet to see this film but I think the problem is that a successful marriage wouldn't make quite the entertaining story for a Hollywood picture. Two hours of seeing a couple work and go home for years and years and years...hardly Oscar worthy. Although I Love Lucy was kind of about a successful marriage, Ricky comes home to Lucy with the conflict that Lucy is always trying to get into show business and Ricky always trying to keep her out of it...but that can't be every film or TV show.
The problem is that unfortunately media influences the masses and life imitates art which is not good and why you get the broken families. Even in movies, as exciting as it is to see two screen duos work together its always a nice variation to see a different costar now and then. Myrna Loy was great with William Powell, and Ginger with Fred Astaire, but Myrna in Animal Kingdom was stunning with Leslie Howard while Ginger won an Academy Award without Fred Astaire for Kitty Foyle.
In some ways marriage is monotonous and routine, even on-screen duos can become monotonous and routine. In a way if you've seen one Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers film you've seen them all, only the songs and costumes change a bit, but the storylines kind of remains the same.
I can't think of many costars that always had a different costar, sooner or later they all teamed up. Jean was often teamed with Gable, Lana too, Judy had Mickey, maybe the most varied could have been Deanna Durbin of top stars but IDK.
Main point is monogamy in both real life and in films is playing it safe in some ways, a person to rely on even if it does it get boring, more stability for the children. Same notion in films if people paid to see Ginger with Fred Astaire, once, twice, and three times...then why mess with the formula.
Not very exciting but so is most of real life.

[–] fcalderp 15 years ago

Dear kukunutsie:

If you are to be disssapointed in this or any other movie, you have to see not what the characters do on the screen, but what is the film trying to tell us through that behavior. The heroine of this picture is Norma Shearer. It is obvious that the double standard exposed by this picture is unafir. It does not seem to me that the film is condoning the man's attitude. Quite the contrary. It is exposing an unfair attitude. The film could not have ended differently, taking into consideration the backgrounds and circunstamces of each of the characters. The same can be say of "The Divorcee", in which Norma Shearer faces a similar situation. Watch that too please.

It s a common mistake to judge films by what the characters do on the screen instead of trying to figure out what the film (the director, the writer..) is trying to tell us.

That would be like saying, "I hate Roots because of the way they treat the slaves". Quite the contrary, that mini-serie whan condemning slavery. I'm not sure if I expressed my point clearly.

[–] devtrev27 9 years ago

Completely agree. I couldn't believe she went back to him! Worst ending ever. This movie set feminism back about 50 years.

[–] justbobkc 9 years ago

This movie was made in 1931. When was penicillin discovered? What were the STD rates like for loose women (and men) in those days? And what were the consequences before antibiotics? When was "the pill" invented? When were the actual "medically safe" abortion procedures developed?

Do you know that modern science has discovered women intimate with only 1 man finds her immune system enhanced? (As it adopts to his unique biological fluids.) But a woman who is promiscuous only has a degraded immune system as it is JUST constantly stressed with the exposure to different antigens...not to mention the different microbiomes every individual human has. (Google it.)

I hate to break it to you but despite feminist propaganda - men and women are very, very different in just about EVERY aspect of human sexuality. And just wishing (or legislating) otherwise won't actually change 200,000 years of human evolution.

[–] lnoft97-412-316846 8 years ago

Oh, baloney. Who cares, anyway, that 'one man' who bores the sh*t out of a woman, she's supposed to stay with him forever and ever to keep up her immune system? What if she commits suicide out of depression and boredom, that will cut her life short, too...... A man sticking it to a thousand women, his d*ck will fall off eventually. He will need more and more, and stranger and stranger, and more grotesque sex acts to keep up his flagging interest. Or he will get AIDS. Just ask Charlie Sheen how that worked out for him.

[–] francesca-miller-1 8 years ago

So true, inoft97-412,

I can't believe the baloney some people believe. Honestly, the previous poster is straight out of the Victorian era and full of misinformation.

[–] justbobkc 8 years ago

My but you are full of the straw men and false dichotomy logical fallacies aren't you? At least "serial monogamy" would be a better relationship template for every woman than merely casual promiscuity.

And men also benefit from faithful monogamy in many ways. I never said otherwise. Do YOU know what the STD "sick bay" rates were for all the soldiers in WW2 and how worrisome that was for all Generals on both sides?

BTW - where does the concept of reproduction actually factor into your own ideas of a "fulfilling sex life" for women? Not at all? Who cares?

What are the statistical outcomes results for the standard traditional 2-biological-parent families children - versus the non-standard (though becoming a majority situation now for women under the age of 30 and their children) one parent "family"? (Hint: one situation shows a 7 times greater chance the child ends up in prison or dead from criminal activity...)