This movie was a 1930s version of the standard woman from a humble background who uses her body to climb up the social ladder. This story is as old as human culture. Why is this movie so controversial and worthy of protests and boycotts?
Was it because part of the movie going audience preferred to pretend parts of human nature didn't exist?
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
[deleted]
It's more like this: the more intelligent members of the "movie going audience" knew damn well that these "parts of human nature" existed, but considered them so dangerous that any possible glamorization of them would constitute a moral failing of the worst sort.
The patronizing attitude of the phrase "constitute a moral failing" is what bugs the hell out of me. If America was or is a homogeneous society where everyone agreed to follow a hand picked group of people, then the notion of enforcing morality would make sense. In reality, once a human being reaches the age of maturity, they are allowed to decide for themselves what is acceptable and what is not, within the boundaries of the laws and penal codes. That includes the choice to buy into any morality scheme or not.
If an adult American choses not to follow an organized religion or accept some random group's concept of morality, why should an organization have the power to enforce their concept of morality on a whole entertainment category? What gives them the right to use economic blackmail to decide what is acceptable entertainment for the whole population?
Another part I hate is the hypocrisy. Many of the men in charge of "protecting" America from the "ugly side" of life were enthusiastic practitioners of the bad behavior in reality. In capitalism, of which the movie industry is a part, it's usually "Let the market decide." That is, if something is wanted and desirable by consumers, then it'll be supported by purchases. If something is rejected and unwanted, no one will buy it and it will go away.
The fact Red-Headed Woman was a commercial success tells me that the audiences had no problems with the topics of the pre-code movies. So-called guardians of culture decided on their own what topics were suitable for mass consumption. That's another thing that galls me.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
[deleted]
I suppose it comes down to a semantics discussion. To me it's simply realism in film to show in movies what already happens in life by holding up a mirror to human behavior. Can't see how much worse the world could be by copying what already exists. I get the impression that you and others interpret any representation of behavior on film as "glamorizing" it.
My point of view is colored by the fact that I like and watch a lot of documentaries. You tend to see a wider range of human behavior than in Hollywood sponsored movies. No sane person would describe most documentaries as glamorous, no matter how real and true. Documentaries tend to be outside the institutional moralizing because of their relatively small economic and cultural impact.
I don't really get the ultimate goal of trying to keep immoral images out of movies. By blocking images of gangsters, rapists, sleazeballs, corrupt politicians, etc. from being in movies, was the goal to stop the behavior in reality? If my memory serves me correctly, the period of the Hays Code, 1930s to late 1960s, was the golden era of gangsters in America. So I suppose all that watching out for "America's best interests" didn't really work very well.
Even though I'm an advocate for adult's right to choose what they want to watch, there are topics that even I believe should always be "off the table" and punishable by law. Mainly illegal acts between adults and children, among children or non-consenting acts between adults. I may not choose to watch it all myself but pretty much anything else is fair game.
Fools will do idiotic things whether or not movies exist to give them ideas. Long before movies, TV, video or the music industries existed, people did lame-brained, harmful, illegal and cruel things. It doesn't hold water with me to say that we should moderate movie content or else someone will hurt themselves. The fact that it's only a handful of moronic nincompoops who use poor judgment vs. millions of people who saw the same images but didn't do something stupid kind of proves my point. If there was a straight cause and effect of movies, then more people would go out and do stupid stuff related to a movie.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
[deleted]
Once again, pogonophora, you make some good points. I agree that we do have agreement on somethings but maybe not every point. For instance, I agree there are some infantile people on the IMDb boards that are more interested in causing a commotion or spreading negativity than having a reasonable conversation. There are also some who aren't as articulate in making their point as folk such as you. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell the difference between the groups at times. Luckily, neither of those groups tend to like old movies or Black and White movies, so we get to have a fun dialog.
However, you opened this thread with a question as to whether this movie was banned as a means of denying the reality of its content... I say, no, it was banned because in the end, this predatory woman is depicted as happily prospering by her despicable behavior. Now, the "moral lesson" a thoughtful person might take from this is "watch out, or someone might use these tactics on you!" The "moral lesson" taken by others-- too many, I fear-- is "I want be just like Jean Harlow!" I think this concern is what may (or may not) have caused major players in the industry to lose a little sleep.
Maybe my opinion is naive, but I believe people would want to be like Jean Harlow's character whether or not the movie "Red-Headed Woman" ever existed. Men and women have used their bodies to get the material things they wanted out of life for millenniums. There are plenty of ancient texts to prove it. Banning movies on the topic or making sure the "bad person" is punished at the end of the movie won't and hasn't changed things.
If so, I don't resent their spirit or motivation, no matter how much I disagree with their approach and with the stipulations of the Hays Code. I simply can't hate them for wanting to take the high road and to set a good example (by their own lights, of course), especially in recognizing their enormous and unprecedented influence on our society... and that they did so voluntarily is also laudable.
As you can tell, I most certainly resent their spirit, motivations and efforts to "rein in morality". Primarily because the effort isn't sincere. You can't tell me none of the leaders in the morality racket never visited a prostitute, owned property that was used for illegal purposes, had a mistress, slept with another guy's wife, gambled illegally, took advantage of someone who was weaker or had less power, robbed someone, participated in an interracial relationship, enjoyed nudity or suggestive dancing outside of marriage or any other "immoral" activities as defined by the Production Code. Their stand would have a lot more credibility if they hadn't. I'm proud to me a moralizer against moralizing.
Though there is no Hays Code per se in force today (that I know of), there certainly appears to be some sort of unwritten code governing what is morally acceptable in major motion pictures.
The closest we have to this today is the motion picture rating system. Slapping a film with an X or NC-17 is de facto making it unmarketable in the United State. Because of the catch-22, adult movies are limited to being suitable for 17 year olds or are pornography. What happens to adult movies that fall between that gap? There is a recent film called This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006) goes into the topic a little more.
We now have a popular culture in which the word "pimp" and its derivatives have acquired a positive connotation. Does that bother you at all? I do believe that Hollywood plays a major role in creating this cultural environment.
The English language is always evolving. It's almost a requirement for marginalized groups (teens, non-middle class or wealthy, non-mainstream) to annoy the establishment by normalizing "bad words". I see the evolution of the word "pimp" as the latest version. In a few years, pimping will be replaced by something else and then pimp will sound as dated as groovy or hep cat.
As for prostitution, it exists in every level of society in every ethnic group. For whatever reason, it will always appeal to somebody, so I don't see it going anywhere. Whether or not there are any films on it.
I am not at all in favor of banning profanity from the movies, but it is becoming very tiresome and has lost all effect, or even any sense of realism. To my ear, most modern movie dialogue just sounds very, very stupid. Maybe that's why I so often prefer these older movies...
Profanity doesn't bother me as much as so called sex scenes. Hardly anything can turn me off more than two unappealing, unattractive people grinding away at each other for no apparent reason. At least sometimes profanity is bleeped out. Now TV shows and even commercials with close-ups of scenes that should be private between the people involved. The worst is when the two people come up for air long enough to get out a few lines of dialog. So now you have to watch the amateur porn or miss part of the storyline.
That's what I like about old movies. More emphasis on the story and costuming and less on watching "hot" people swap spit and other bodily fluids.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
[deleted]
[deleted]
<<<<The fact Red-Headed Woman was a commercial success ...>>>>
If this movie was indeed banned, how could it get commercial success?
The movie is kind of shallow and cheap, a lot of scenes were designed to show lustful kissing, women's legs, rear, changing underwears. The whole story is more like a farce, instead of a serious realistic portrait of a social climber. Personally, I think Baby Face is much much better.
You're right, it does seem like a contradiction.
Back then, I know the entertainment industry was more diverse. So that if one chain of movie theatres banned a movie, that doesn't mean you couldn't watch it on another chain. Unlike today when less than 5 companies control 90% + of all channels of all media.
Plus, don't forget that some movies could show overseas. So maybe Red-Headed Woman made it's money in Europe or other english speaking locations?
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
> If this movie was indeed banned, how could it get commercial success?
You're forgetting the "pre-Code" part o the common descriptions of this movie.
It's all a matter of timing.
It is entirely possible for a movie to have been released in 1932, been a commercial success, then have been banned from further showings in 1934 (when the Hayes Code really started being enforced).
If this movie was indeed banned, how could it get commercial success?
The movie is kind of shallow and cheap, a lot of scenes were designed to show lustful kissing, women's legs, rear, changing underwears. The whole story is more like a farce, instead of a serious realistic portrait of a social climber. Personally, I think Baby Face is much much better.
HarlowMGM says > I love Barbara Stanwyck but I've always thought BABY FACE was wildly overrated. Stanwyck just isn't credible as this sort of mantrap plus her film lacks the wild humor to make this type of story work.I disagree. I thought Stanwyck did a great job in Baby Face. I think she was believable in the role. Perhaps you're thinking she didn't look the part. I disagree there too. I think she was an attractive woman. That said, a 'mantrap' wouldn't need to fit any particular mold or look. All she really has to be is willing.
and BABY FACE cops out with that totally Hollywood type ending where this sort of woman repents. Yeah, right.The ending we saw in Baby Face was an alternate 'happier' ending that was added to appease the censors. People assume the pre-code movie makers had the freedom to do whatever they wanted but that wasn't always the case. The entertainment business has always been a business above all else.
This glamorizes prostitution by not showing the consequences. Parents did not want their children to enter this seamy existence. They didn't want them to think it was smart, sophisticated, or an easy short cut to a success that was entirely material with no negative repercussions. Because it wasn't. Normally, kept women ran out of men and money when their looks declined. And before the pill they would have to have dangerous back alley abortions because the birth control was iffy, as well as STDs including syphilis which is as ugly a way to go as AIDS (penicillin was given to the troops in WWII but she would have had to wait until later which would mean she was on the game for long enough to be permanently and possibly hideously damaged), or contracting TB, having drug addictions and/or alcoholism, and the strong chance that after all that no decent man would have her and she would be alone and ill, having lost her opportunity to have a home and family or be employed by anyone but the Salvation Army or a pimp.
My mother was told by her mother, "Women who marry for money earn every penny of it." This movie doesn't have that message. And THAT was what worried people in the Depression. It looked like fun and you could have all the luxuries you wanted. A teenaged girl whose brain has not fully-developed the part that deals with cause and effect, as studies now show is true of kids, would think, "Why am I putting up with poverty when I could be a rich man's darling?" not realizing that there was a horrible downside to entering that life, even if it didn't do anything negative to you as a human being.
Whatever your religion or morality, you wouldn't choose that for your daughter if you loved her. And you wouldn't want your son to have a golddigger attach herself to him like a leech. There were a lot of very decent but exceedingly poverty-stricken people in the Depression who were fighting tooth and nail to keep their family on the straight and narrow and not ruin their future with some immoral, illegal, or stupid action in the present. That's why they wanted the ending of a movie to show that there were good reasons to avoid going down certain roads no matter how strong the very real temptations of the desperate Thirties might be. The phrase "poor but honest" meant something to them. They didn't have money but they had strong middle class values just the same and there was something more important to them than the material realm--ethics.
(Writing that I was reminded of the Bachelor and Bachelorette shows. Can't think why.... :) )
I like your write up, skiddoo.
Although I agree that taking the "easy way" lead to disaster for a large portion of people who chose that route, reality shows that things do work out for a handful of people. They are just lucky and fortunate that way.
You know the types. They love to write those "I made it, quite whining and you can too" books or articles. Ignoring the fact they are the one in 10,000 who did make it. Pretending that they don't know far better and more deserving people than them have failed in similar situations.
Red-Headed Woman gives a lotta food for thought.
No two persons ever watch the same movie.share
It was controversial because Lil didn't get her comeuppance in the end. She wrecked a marriage, cheated on her husband, messed around on the guy whom she took up with, and then when everyone found her out, she ran off to Paris with the chauffeur (her real "love") and ended up with another dumb old rich man. Compared to Baby Face, which actually "punished" Stanwyck's character for her sins (and gave her a happy ending with George Brent's character), Red Headed Woman was the story of a blissfully immoral woman who always managed to land on her feet.
share