I wonder if in the original play version, Ann Harding's character trapped William Powell's character into marriage by faking a pregnancy. It just seems a stretch that he would be forced to marry her after being caught by her father in his apartment. I know things were different in1933, but this is a grown woman, and not some 16 year old caught with her gym teacher.
shareI don't know, but I wouldn't think so. I think part of the plot is that she traps him in marriage, but that he marries her because deep inside he is in love with her and also he isn't truly trapped because there is no baby. Also, she has set her cap for him because her father has lost their money, William Powell's father left him lots of money and he has so far not done well with the family business. She has reasoned that she would be a great catch for him because she would make a great executive wife. I think William Powell's character marries her because he figures she ain't bad, as things go, they've been having a good time and she certainly wouldn't be an embarassment. Thats the plot line - that she gets involved with him only for money, but falls in love with him - he marries her only out of a sense of moral duty, but falls in love with her. I don't think the original play would have had a baby in the plot because this is supposed to be a sophisticated couple who may or may not have children and are beginning their marriage by working together to create a financial empire. Well, thats my guess...
shareNot a stretch at all. Funny how, today, it seems parents don't even blink about their childrens' bed-hopping. Even shotgun weddings are a thing of the past. ("Pregnant? Oh, how nice!") We have here, in this movie, a relic of the times when "shame" was enough to force a couple into tying the knot... regardless of her age. Proper unmarried women didn't do such things. Or, if they did, they tried very hard to NOT get caught. Today, they don't care. It may be hard to relate to this custom now, perhaps it's because we are, essentially, shameless.
I don't know about the original play, but faking pregnancy back then might have been overkill and perhaps even beyond shame.
In 1933 being found in a man's apartment in a state of undress (her father tells her to go get dressed) would have been cause for a forced wedding.
shareShe wasn't undressed, though! But I think it was a slip or a nightgown. Certainly not revealing. But why did William Powell answer the front door when she was in the front room with her slip/negligee on? That doesn't really make sense to me.
shareShame in small doses can be a valuable thing.
It also ruined a great many lives on a regular basis, as human beings were called to adhere to unnatural demands. Sex between consenting adults was considered other (judgmental and censorious) people's business. Women were denied agency and sexual autonomy. Abortion was reserved for the rich. Anyone outside a rigorous male/female polarity and stringently enforced heterosexuality had a miserable life - and often a very short one.
Much less of that these days. It's a worthy trade-off.
_______________
Nothing to see here, move along.
Interesting discussion. I saw this movie last night on TCM as part of a series of pre-code films containing depictions of homosexual characters. (Maybe I blinked and missed that scene, I don't know.)
I got the impression that Wm. Powell agreed to the marriage in large part because of his regard for Ann's father and because he didn't want to break the gentleman's code of honor. Remember, this was 74 years ago and Ann's father would have grown up in the Victorian era. Talk about a generation gap! Can you imagine?
Plus, I think Wm. Powell really appreciated Ann and was probably in love with her even if he didn't realize it yet.
** possible Spoilers ** in June 2007, TCM had a discussion of the film prior to the showing; the gay/lesbian connection ( "Screened Out" series showing this month) is that the original dress shop owner was to be jean malin, but he was too flamboyant, and had appeared in drag shows, so they used fred santley instead, who was less obvious. jean malin is still listed in the credits on imdb, as fritz schitz, no less. It is Fred Santley as "Bruno" that appears in the credits at the end of the film. This was on the beginning cusp of the hayes production code, so that may also explain why it was hidden away for so long. when Joan (Ann Harding) is caught by her dad (fully dressed and talking) in John's (wm powell) apartment they "must" get married. There was also a movie from 1915 titled In Double Harness, but no information on that version is known.
shareWhile she was dressed, she was in some kind of negligee which insinuated that they were one step away from the bedroom.
shareI had this on, was not really paying attention but understood what the plot was supposed to be. Sat down during the father/daughter in the man's apt. scene and wondered what I missed, why they then *had* to get married. I did notice the negligee and how she was in different clothes when the father *caught* her and when she changed and was ready to leave with her father. The comment really made me laugh, that the "negligee insinuated they were one step away from the bedroom." How times have changed.
shareI think it is an interesting - albeit, sad - commentary on contemporary society that most people today have difficulty accepting the moral standards of bygone eras such as the early depression years depicted in this movie. We have drifted so far from those standards that we find them not just difficult to "swallow" but impossible to accept that they were not merely tolerated but valued! Thus, in this film, a "faked" pregnancy would have been superfluous. It would be necessary only in the mind of somebody who believes something "beyond" merely "catching" the man and daughter in a breach of their moral code is necessary to prompt their wedding. Powell may be "maneuvered" into marriage, but he is definitely not forced into it! Simply put: Powell has broken the code and been caught; now he accepts the consequences of his conduct under the terms of that very code!
Besides, a "faked" pregnancy would have been an entirely different plot. This plot involves Ann Harding's getting her sister to conspire with her to manipulate the father. (The father is NOT a co-conspirator. He, himself, has been maneuvered by his daughters into the confrontation.) That is one of the bits that makes this movie interesting. A "faked" pregnancy would have provided much less interest and intrigue than the film's actual plotline. How many faked pregnancy films do we need? That device is, indeed, tired.
John 3:16
>>> think it is an interesting - albeit, sad - commentary on contemporary society that most people today have difficulty accepting the moral standards of bygone eras such as the early depression years depicted in this movie. We have drifted so far from those standards that we find them not just difficult to "swallow" but impossible to accept that they were not merely tolerated but valued!
Indeed, up until the 1970s, I think, girls simply didn't have children out of wedlock. Any woman -typically a young girl - who was stupid enough to have sex with a guy before getting him to marry her, and got pregnant, generally had to give the baby up for adoption.
Nowadays, of course, it's the norm for a girl to get pregnant and have one, two or even more children without being wed. Since she can get on welfare, and no one is allowed to "shame" her by telling her she's an idiot, there's nothing to stop 'em.
The Thunder Child ezine
http://thethunderchild.com
Nowadays, of course, it's the norm for a girl to get pregnant and have one, two or even more children without being wed. Since she can get on welfare, and no one is allowed to "shame" her by telling her she's an idiot, there's nothing to stop 'em.
When I was in high school in 1972, a girl friend of mine became pregnant at 16. The boy didn't have to marry her as adoption was a viable option, but he did because it was considered the "stand up" thing to do. The boy was praised for doing so, in fact. They were divorced 3 years later.
The most scandalous thing about this at the time was that the girl showed up pregnant at school every day for her classes, when home-schooling was the norm for such cases.
Barbara, it should be remembered that birth control was impossible to get in the 1970s unless you were over 18 or a married woman. Not being "stupid" meant not "putting out". It was really the 1980s when people started to have out-of-wedlock children and shrugged it off. Personally, I think we're the worse for it. Where are the "stand up" guys today?
There were 2 kinds of women then, and Ann Harding's character was the virginal type you did not take alone to your apt. The other woman was the type you could take there without marrying. William Powell's character agreed to marry her because she fascinated him while the old girlfriend bored him--she'd never fit into his adult life. and he was beginning to grow up without his dad, and starting to care for the company...a classy adult woman--was continuing that trend.
Rather than a negligee, it was her state of undress that brought her behavior into question. She had her hat, necklace, scarf, and possible sweater or jacket, and stockings, shoes off. She was a mess. Her hair was full, fuzzy, "bedhead"...
The Trivia mentioned some missing footage and I bet a lot could be explained. There were gaps that some choose to treat as simply people without class or something not comprehending the respect the virgins of the world once received. Apologies if I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time). But I think the missing footage is to blame. It's just 2 short subjects (I add the roses and running return to the dinner party so late): the clothing and sleeping together, and 2d, what happened to make her husband leave his girlfriend and bring his wife flowers signifying getting back together.
what happened to make her husband leave his girlfriend and bring his wife flowers signifying getting back together. [/quote]
That's a very good question. I just got through with the movie again and I was wondering the same thing. I am very happy that Joan and John reconciled and got their happy ending, but it definitely feels like something is missing.
[quote] The Trivia mentioned some missing footage and I bet a lot could be explained. There were gaps that some choose to treat as simply people without class or something not comprehending the respect the virgins of the world once received. Apologies if I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time). But I think the missing footage is to blame. It's just 2 short subjects (I add the roses and running return to the dinner party so late): the clothing and sleeping together, and 2d, what happened to make her husband leave his girlfriend and bring his wife flowers signifying getting back together.