MovieChat Forums > It Happened One Night (1934) Discussion > This film is overwhelmingly sexist

This film is overwhelmingly sexist


I'm aware that this came out in 1934, therefore it embodies the standards of that time period. I'm not uptight about that kind of thing. For instance, I don't consider Gone With the Wind to be racist or offensive; it just deals realistically with the social norms of that time (and that's a whole different issue which I won't get into right now).

But this film was so blatantly sexist, it was overwhelming. I couldn't enjoy it. I found myself shaking my head more often than I was laughing. I couldn't stand Clark Gable's character; he was an arrogant, controlling prick. The film did have its moments, and it was well-acted, but I couldn't get past the sexism that was shoved down my throat and smeared in my face throughout.

reply

I think you need to give examples of how, exactly, this movie was sexist.

reply

I'm sorry, but you considered this overwhelmingly sexist, but didn't consider Gone With the Wind racist? Wow.

reply

"Gone With the Wind" was the first movie to award an Oscar to a Black person (Hattie McDaniel won Best Supporting Actress for that film) so it would be pretty ironic if it's a racist movie.

reply

Wait -- WHAT?

I urge you to watch ANY of the documentaries about GWTW, and follow it up with the featurette made to accompany the new 75th anniversary release. They spell out very clearly (for anyone who could possibly miss it, which is boggling) the racism inherent in the source book and the film itself.

reply

Explain to me in your own words how Gone With the Wind is racist.

"I feel all the time like a cat on a hot tin roof!"

reply

"Gone With the Wind" is presented totally from the old southern point of view, that slaves were basically just servants who were ever loyal to their masters and would do anything for them. Yes, Hattie McDaniel received an Oscar for her portrayal of Mammy but her character does not even have a name or a life. What do we know of her, other than she stood up to Scarlett as much as possible? "Uncle" Peter (Eddie Rochester Anderson) is a beloved house servant in Aunt Pitty's home yet he's like a favored pet. Butterfly McQueen as Prissy is childish and useless. The other servants, like Big Sam or Polk, who received Mr. O'Hara's watch and cried in the process, were the typical loyal to the death "darkies" that would do anything for their masters. Scarlett fusses over Big Sam and the other "boys," telling them if anyone gets sick to get in touch with her---treating them like pets. But she threatens to sell Prissy up the river if she's disobedient. The script plants the idea that Ashley's family would have liberated their slaves after Mr. Wilkes passed on. That's nice, after owning them most of their lives. Yes, it's a film based on a popular historical novel presenting the attitudes of the 1860s, but never once is there any spirit of rebellion or hostility among any of the African American characters. Except for Mammy, they are all like ignorant children, better off being in the "care" of their white folks. One of the most painful scenes to me, in terms of race, is when (during the spring 1861 barbeque afternoon at the beginning of the picture) tiny black girls are fanning the beds full of white girls who are napping. How can anyone say "GWTW" isn't racist? It's a wonderful picture, don't get me wrong. But I cringe at the non-stop negative racial attitudes. My God, even the title---"Gone With the Wind"--this beautiful life of grace and charm built upon the slaves' backs--is gone with the war. Did you know the Oscars in that period were a dinner type radio show? Hattie McDaniel was not allowed to come to the dinner (or the premiere of the picture in Atlanta) but showed up to receive the award and had to give a thankyou speech in which she was told to mention she was a "credit to my race."

reply

omg, I HATED Clark Gables character to the ENDS OF THE EARTH!!!

At least SOMEONE on this board said something about it.

Even when Ellie was being nice and plesant to him, he still had to be an *beep* and call her a brat and think of himself superior to her.

I don't know why the hell she loved him, or that her father even allowed Gable to insult not only him but his daughter.

Currently obsessed with: Tailor Made (I Love Money) Oh-la-la!!!

reply

"I don't know why the hell she loved him,"

I don't know I was thinking along the lines of a reverse "Of Human Bondage". If he had been sweet and kind she wouldn't have given him a second thought....or....

They both were 'brats' so they had something in common....or....

He was very different than everyone she knew and he let down his tough guy act the more they got to know each other....

Just some thoughts....

If Clark Gable is sexist what does that make Shapeley....

How many Amish does it take to screw in a light bulb????

reply

Even when Ellie was being nice and plesant to him, he still had to be an *beep* and call her a brat and think of himself superior to her.
Peter was rough around the edges, street smart, a man's man. But he wasn't a jerk. Brat was a term of endearment and without him, Ellie would have been stranded, starved, forced to sleep outside, and captured by the authorities.

Yes, maybe the male savior is a little played out, but he did save her butt--many times!

reply

GWTW portrayed the old south. Not every slave lived in consciousness of their enslavement as something to escape. It was the only life they knew. Yes, the white characters are racist, but the movie isn't racist for portraying them as such. The loyalty and even love portrayed in the relationships among slaves and their owners was not unrealistic. Not every owner was cruel and violent, not every slave was unhappy and rebellious. Life was and is more complicated, not black and white (pardon the pun). If GWTW had portrayed the characters in that way, it would have been a cliche, contrived, crappy movie. Accuracy in history means seeing the good and the bad in the past.

As for IHON, Ellen is a brat, Peter is pompous and they get off on the wrong foot. His treatment of her reflects his disdain for her brattiness and his need for a story. Her behavior reflects her inexperience with the real world, her disdain for his arrogance, and her fear of being out on the road alone. They warm to eachother, eventually getting a rapport that's funny and sweet, then fall in love. She needed his toughness in the beginning, which he felt impatiently obligated to give. It does seem sexist because she's a woman but the same interactions, up to the falling in love part, would be realistic if the character of the runaway brat were played by a man.

Criticisms of the social norms of another era, as portrayed in movies and books, annoy me. It's very easy to look back and criticize but totally unfair. Our standards and culture have changed gradually over time; how can we look back and impose those standards on another era?

reply

How strange. I actually agree with you.

reply

You're checking out my posts now? I thought you were ignoring me? If you think my other comments to your post were some kind of confrontation, then you haven't seen confrontation...at least not from me.

reply

"Yes, the white characters are racist, but the movie isn't racist for portraying them as such."

GWTW doesn't portray its white characters as racist at all. In fact, it sympathizes and identifies with white slaveholders. Margaret Mitchell was enamored of the American South and everything for which it stood.

And every film has a viewpoint or bias. It's always SOMEONE'S story. GWTW is the story of paternalistic whites who built their lives around an institution that bought and enslaved other human beings. Simple as that. Admire the movie for its merits, but let's not live in denial.

reply

So, when Scarlett says "ill sell you south, I will!" she's not being racist? It was complicated, the white characters clearly had love and affection for a few of their slaves but they were the product of their environment, which was systemically racist.

reply

Prissy would have had that effect on anybody!

reply

ec1979

Yes, the white characters are racist, but the movie isn't racist for portraying them as such.

The reverse: the movie is racist for portraying all black characters as enjoying slavery. There is no exception to that rule.
The loyalty and even love portrayed in the relationships among slaves and their owners was not unrealistic.
Yes it was, since it was presented as a rule by which both sides lived. It contradicts so much of historical documents, transcripts of court cases of the period, planters letters, slave narratives that I would not even know where to start listing them.
If GWTW had portrayed the characters in that way, it would have been a cliche, contrived, crappy movie.
If that way means as opposing slavery in a passive or openly aggressive way - no, it would not have been a cliche. Cliche refers to repeated presentation of same stereotype. Neither slaves were shown as rebelling in American cinema (until recently) nor is it a stereotype: it actually was happening more often than not.
It's very easy to look back and criticize but totally unfair.
I agree with the first part of the sentence, disagree with the second one. Reflection on the past and healthy criticism leads change is how societies move forward; and it's a way to avoid uprisings and revolutions.

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply

Man, what an idiot.

You make claims this movie is sexist as hell. Someone respectfully asks you to name how it was, if you are going to make a claim like that. You ignore that comment completely, and then try and make someone else defend themselves without addressing the claim you made. Another asks how you can think GWTW is is not sexist but this one is. Again, you ignore addressing that.

You ignore a lot.

In the dept of knowing how to effectively argue a point, you are not a pro.

Stop writing on message boards if that is your way of doing business. You cannot make claims willy-nilly and ignore any opposition or even discussion and expect to be taken seriously.

reply

[deleted]

Wow. I'm a girl and that didn't cross my mind once during the film. It's definitely one of my favorite's of all time. I guess it just never showed to me... I really don't think it's sexist. Look at the character of the girl... she was kind of the damsel in distress so naturally that's portrayed differently anyway.

As for Clark Gable well, I enjoyed every second with him. :)

reply

I also thought he was arrogant and controlling at times, but he did apologize to her after yelling at her in the hitchhiked car.

reply

[deleted]

I thought that was her father who slapped her, on the boat.

reply

[deleted]

Oh, okay, I think I vaguely remember that. And I do see where you're coming from :).

reply

All I can say I'm glad I don't live in the feminist PC US of A. You people need to get a grip. Visit Italy for a while and if you are a sexy woman or a man you'll have your ass pinched multiple times a day. If you are like the average whiny fat cow type don't hold your breath and stay in your PC cocoon.

reply

[deleted]

Clark Gable's character was perfect for Ellie.... she needed a man to keep her in line cause she was a spoiled brat....

reply

[deleted]

Did he slap her? I can't remember... Her father slaps her in the beginning but she is breaking all the furniture.... Ellie and Peter are perfect in this movie....

reply

[deleted]

Could it have been a shout in shock? Given the context, I'd say that's likely.

But no, clearly, it was in pain...

reply

[deleted]

I have seen people do that to people usually just joking around... Hell as a woman I have had guys do that to me and not in a joking way like Gable does because of their piggy back conversation....

I love that scene because he tells her to hold his shoes and then slap her.... Ellie is a strong willed woman and she needed a man like Peter....

I think you are taking that scene too seriously... The only scene that makes me cringe is when he says something about breaking her neck if she goes in to get food, but shortly afterwards he gives her a heartfelt apology

reply

[deleted]

He didn't abuse her he playfully slapped her on the butt...

I have had guys do that to me that I didn't even know and I told them if they did it again I was going to kick their balls to their throat....

Peter does not abuse Ellie.... Her FATHER slaps her in the beginning that is it... Peter is a little short with her....and says things he doesn;t mean

Peter never hit her and than apologized he said something awful and then apologized.... I have said worse things to my boyfriend than Peter said to Ellie....

Really I am girl and I really don't see it.... Peter and Ellie are equal.... She is strong willed for the 30's and that is why I love her and Peter, she isn't some quiet submissive woman who doesn;t stand up for herself

I don't know how you can see this movie as sexist and not see Gone With the Wind as racist.... They both are movies about the time, it is just one takes place during the depression....

You guys are acting like he beat her up like Chris Brown or something

reply

He didn't slap her on the behind because she was talking back.... i think some of you need to watch this movie again....

reply

I agree. Audiences in the early 30s were much more sophisticated than many viewers today and could understand the nuances of relationships, perhaps because they were given the richness of human experience before the Code clamped down and made the first PC movies.

This is not only a road picture, it is a growing up picture. The high society brat and the rough-hewn rebel mature and find true love, and her father comes to respect them both.

reply

I don't like the way people are all "She NEEDED a man like Peter". She didn't NEED anyone, for crying out loud.

reply

[deleted]

I must take serious issue with what you have said:

he tells her to hold the suitcase, not the shoes.

:)

reply

Oh come on! Their "argument" was playful, and so was the slap. Her cry was more of surprise and indignation. Don't be so PC!


--
Rome. By all means, Rome.

reply

[deleted]

I'm an American of Italian descent, and I too think we're too PC here when it comes to "feminism." However, I've been to Italy, and I know that you are too PC over other things, like criticism of Islam and Islamic fanatics, although roman Catholicism is fair game for criticism. Of course, Catholics won't kill you for criticizing them. Vigliacci!

reply

He slapped her one the bum because she was driving him crazy. Kids get slapped on the bum all the time. Cary Grant gets kicked in the bum multiple time in "Holiday". If I had to drag some guy around like Peter does Ellie, I probably would have hit him in the head

reply

[deleted]

But in the scene where Gable is piggybacking her, at the end of the scene he slaps her in the behind. And again, I realize this kind of thing was more acceptable then. But it's not fun to watch now.

If that had happened between a boss and his employee or a waitress and a customer I would call it misogynistic. But not here. Here it's mating ritual. She's goading him and he reacts. Whether consciously on the part of either character is up to individual interpretation. My guess is that very few women in that 1934 audience watched that scene and thought, "Ooh! What a horrible misogynistic brute!" More likely the opposite.

cinefreak

reply

[deleted]

I'll watch that scene tonight. I'll look for defining nuances. But if you think this is misogynist, wait'll you see "Swept Away" directed by Lina Wertmuller!

cinefreak

reply

If the woman doesn't mind such an act, that's one thing. But the moment is a (supposedly cute) scolding, which she does not seem to be enjoying.

I saw the 10 minutes leading up to the swat last night. I stick to my original take. It's a mating thing. They've been together for at least a couple days by then. They're crossing a lake with her slung (caveman style) over his shoulder. They're engaging in banter. A swat on the butt is a sexual thing, trust me. And her reaction is not one of outrage. It goes to a whole man/woman/dominance/submission thing. I'm not saying that there aren't mysogynistic films around. And I'm not saying that the Gable character in this film is a saint. But I don't think this is an instance of misogyny. I've been in a couple long-term opposite sex relationships and this is the way men and women often act. Now you want misogyny? Watch "Straw Dogs".
(And as I said previously...I'm guessing that a reasonable amount of women watching that film in '34 (or 2010 for that matter) wouldn't have had any problem being wacked on the butt by Clark Gable.


cinefreak

reply

A swat on the butt is a sexual thing, trust me.
Well, I know a lot about the culture of the 1930s, and you're half right, and half wrong. You see, back then, a mild spank like that was considered quite mild, almost as mild a small peck on the lips. It was not considered very sexual at the time. If you watch many movies from the 1930s-1950s, you will see that a slap to the derrière is treated very casually. It wasn't until the 1960s when the S&M fetish stuff became popular that it became overtly sexual. Culture has changed quite a bit.

reply

Well, I know a lot about the culture of the 1930s, and you're half right, and half wrong. You see, back then, a mild spank like that was considered quite mild, almost as mild a small peck on the lips. It was not considered very sexual at the time. If you watch many movies from the 1930s-1950s, you will see that a slap to the derrière is treated very casually. It wasn't until the 1960s when the S&M fetish stuff became popular that it became overtly sexual. Culture has changed quite a bit.

I think it was always sexual. I just think that it took getting to the 60s to make us admit that it was sexual!

cinefreak

reply

Not really. It was mildly sexual in a way, but not overtly so like it is now. As I said, our culture has changed a lot.

reply

It was mildly sexual in a way, but not overtly so like it is now.

That I'll grant you!

cinefreak

reply

Totally agree. I just asked my 84 year old mother (we are watching this movie right now) and asked her if my dad (who I faintly remember doing so) gave her "love taps" and she said yes - all the time. I said, it was a kind of foreplay, and she agreed and added, anytime your father came around me it was a kind of foreplay.

I think the tap is sexual in nature (just like in Mrs Miniver). After all the time together and all the baiting it was a kind of next step. It wasn't malicious (he wasn't in a rage) or meant for harm (he wasn't beating her) or even correction (it didn't stop her from baiting later on). It was meant to say, our banter is getting me hot and we can't go at it right now so here is something we can both enjoy.

A slap this way was back then, as it is now, something sexual between hot partners - nothing new under the sun.

reply

I think the tap is sexual in nature (just like in Mrs Miniver). After all the time together and all the baiting it was a kind of next step. It wasn't malicious (he wasn't in a rage) or meant for harm (he wasn't beating her) or even correction (it didn't stop her from baiting later on). It was meant to say, our banter is getting me hot and we can't go at it right now so here is something we can both enjoy.

A slap this way was back then, as it is now, something sexual between hot partners - nothing new under the sun.



I couldn't put it better myself!


cinefreak

reply

[deleted]

So let me get this straight. In modern films, men must watch their every word and action and not touch women under any circumstances unless she specifically tells them too. However, women are allowed to punch men in the face over the slightest real or imagined grievance and the man is supposed to just stand there and take it. Has any of this PC crap done anything to reduce violence against women in real life?

reply

So let me get this straight. In modern films, men must watch their every word and action and not touch women under any circumstances unless she specifically tells them too. However, women are allowed to punch men in the face over the slightest real or imagined grievance and the man is supposed to just stand there and take it. Has any of this PC crap done anything to reduce violence against women in real life?

Are you talking about movies or real life? If a movie, writers have to bear in mind their target audience. If real life...well that's a much more complicated discussion.


cinefreak

reply

Men are in the target audience too. After over 20 years of PC baloney, bullying by domineering, snarky women characters is no longer refreshing, novel, or funny. The whole rationale was originally to respond to the ridiculous feminist complaints that showing a man so much as shoving a woman even if she attacked him with a frying pan was encouraging wife beating, which sadly has been going on for ages. We know better now. The scum who beat their wives and girlfriends get their ideas from their slob fathers, not TV. I can't be the only man tired of seeing women abusing men and getting away with it. Assault is assault, and neither men nor women should do it.

reply

Men are in the target audience too. After over 20 years of PC baloney, bullying by domineering, snarky women characters is no longer refreshing, novel, or funny. The whole rationale was originally to respond to the ridiculous feminist complaints that showing a man so much as shoving a woman even if she attacked him with a frying pan was encouraging wife beating, which sadly has been going on for ages. We know better now. The scum who beat their wives and girlfriends get their ideas from their slob fathers, not TV. I can't be the only man tired of seeing women abusing men and getting away with it. Assault is assault, and neither men nor women should do it.

I tend not to go to movies like that less specifically for those reasons than that they just look like lousy movies in general. I like wit in my comedies and a couple beating the tar out of each other seems to me to smack of desperation on the part of the writers. I would venture to say that I think that although yes, one gets one's attitude towards women by familial example, TV does contribute a great deal - especially with all the time that people send sitting in front of it these days. My wife is by no means a raging feminist and she has a spectacular sense of humor, but for instance, Ralph Kramden and his constant threats to send Alice to the moon do not amuse her. She's a smart, thoughtful woman and I'd be foolish not to take her thoughts and feelings seriously.
But Clark Gable smacking Claudette Colbert on the ass --that's a different thing entirely!

cinefreak

reply

Ralph would no more have punched Alice than he'd have punched Rocky Marciano!

reply

But in the scene where Gable is piggybacking her, at the end of the scene he slaps her in the behind. And again, I realize this kind of thing was more acceptable then. But it's not fun to watch now.


How did you feel earlier in the scene when she was hitting (and I used that word very loosely)Gable with his shoes as they started across the creek? The whole crossing was nothing more than banter between them.

reply

It was adoreable and hilarious! It showed how close they were getting. He's tough and her bratiness annoys him but she needs his help and he needs her story (and her leg). And eventually they need eachother because they fall in love.

reply

I'm beginning to think that this topic is overwhelmingly inane.

reply

My grandmother saw this film when it first came out. It was always her favorite. I used to watch it with her in the eighties sometimes, after we'd gotten a copy of it on VHS.

When I became a teenager I asked her about all the mistreatment Ellie gets from Peter. She told me---and I quote---"He's treating her like that because she's RICH, not because she's female."

Apparently a lot of the pop culture comedy at the time was at the expense of wealthy people. They were portrayed as obnoxious, spoiled, clueless, and generally unworthy, and all the common people who had nothing saw great entertainment value in that. That's what made the film so funny to audiences back then, was seeing this spoiled banker's daughter get her comeuppance when she acted like a brat.

My grandmother was insistent that nobody at the time the film came out saw any of Peter's behavior towards Ellie as having to do with her gender. It was obvious to everyone that it was all about her being a rich girl.



Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

My grandmother saw this film when it first came out. It was always her favorite. I used to watch it with her in the eighties sometimes, after we'd gotten a copy of it on VHS.

When I became a teenager I asked her about all the mistreatment Ellie gets from Peter. She told me---and I quote---"He's treating her like that because she's RICH, not because she's female."

Apparently a lot of the pop culture comedy at the time was at the expense of wealthy people. They were portrayed as obnoxious, spoiled, clueless, and generally unworthy, and all the common people who had nothing saw great entertainment value in that. That's what made the film so funny to audiences back then, was seeing this spoiled banker's daughter get her comeuppance when she acted like a brat.

My grandmother was insistent that nobody at the time the film came out saw any of Peter's behavior towards Ellie as having to do with her gender. It was obvious to everyone that it was all about her being a rich girl.



That's an interesting perspective. It makes perfect sense too because this film came out during the Great Depression when most people were poor, so it's no surprise that movie audiences would enjoy seeing rich people made fun of. Maybe it made them feel better about not being wealthy.

But many people today would think it's because of Ellie's gender, because today's world is a lot more liberal and politically correct than the 1930s.

It's nice of your grandma to share that; it's fun to hear about what things were like a long time ago from someone who experienced it.

reply

[deleted]

Amazing. Must suck to be you.

reply

MMavis has this right. The movie is about class, not gender. In fact, the most consistent theme in Capra's movies is the selfishness, greed, and blindness -- and in his more serious movies, the wickedness -- of the wealthy. This is counter-balanced in most of his movies by his portrayal of the virtues and courage of the "little guy." The fact that you don't see the racism in GWTW, and mistake the class conflicts here for sexism, is a sad reflection on how any kind of real political awareness in our society has manipulated out of us by the media, which, after all, is owned by those wealthy egotists about whom Capra tried so hard to warn us.

By the way, this is a comedy. Did it ever occur to you that you're supposed to be laughing at Gable in some of the very scenes that were angering you? I'd hate to watch a good performance of Taming of the Shrew with you; I'm quite sure you'd be fulminating when I'd be laughing.

reply

[deleted]

In case you didn't notice, I was responding to the OP, not to you.

reply

"Ok, I didn't say the movie was about gender. Of course it was about class, I absolutely see that, I study the history of film. I'm saying the behavior he exhibits toward her wouldn't be acceptable nowadays, nor should it be. I'm talking about in retrospect, looking at the film now from a modern point of view. I'm not talking about the original intentions of the creators. I'm talking about how the film looks now in the 21st century.

That's not being politically correct, it's being civilized. It's a great movie, but it's also old, and society has evolved somewhat."

Most certainly society has 'evolved', but I think you would be hard-pressed to prove society has 'improved' from the way it was portrayed in the movies of the 30s to the way it is portrayed today:

1. No slow-mo bullet riddled corpses.
2. No love affair with drugs.
3. No take it all off body-smacking in your face gratuitous sex.
4. No find a new way to cut it off with enhanced CGI slasher flicks.
5. No video industry where porno comprises the bulk of rentals.

I'll take a light rebuke to the butt any day over this....


reply

[deleted]