Film's Social Implications

anybody???

The implication of the ending is that Tess doesn't give up her career, at all. Sam say to her when she says she wants to give up her career and just be a housewife, that he doesn't want her to be just Mrs. Sam Craig any more than he wants her to be Tess Harding. He wants her to be Tess Harding Craig. She says something about that sounding fine to her. It seems evident that what he's asking for is some compromise not a total capitulation on her part.

I totally agree that the film is weighted heavily against her character, however, the ending does ameliorate what goes on before. I"m kind of surprised that people miss that part.

And, incidentally, KH never said anything about the film being a compromise of her views on feminism. The only thing she said is that she was glad that L B Mayer let them refilm the ending because the original ending wasn't very good.

On the contrary, I found this film to be highly critical of traditional gender roles.

It depicts a self-absorbed, neglectful spouse more interested in professional life than marriage and reducing the person they married to an accessory, something that's "nice to have". When things start to go a bit south, spouse A tries to fix things by giving spouse B a child to care for, one which doesn't interest spouse A in the least. The only time spouse A seems to really care about what spouse B does is when A's pride is on the line; when A wants B to appear in public with them.

In reality, in 1942, “A” would invariably be a man and “B” his wife.

By reversing the sexes and having Hepburn as the selfish wife and Tracy as the humiliated, degraded husband, it forces the audience to look at this kind of treatment in a new light. If a successful woman treating the man she’s supposed to love like this is terrible…what does that say about men who treat their wives the same way?

I think they make pretty clear that Tess Harding trying to play "Mother Craig" is not going to work out for her in the long run. I don't think that the message in the film is that career women are a problem and need to give it up so that they can become good housewives. I think the idea is that this particular woman, in trying to compensate for her status as a woman in the career world and later as a career woman trying to be a good wife, is so insanely driven in everything she does-- from international relations and adopting orphans, to putting on an apron and making waffles-- that she tends to overdo it. Tess needs to find a happy medium.

I don't see the film as an anti-feminist statement. Rather an interesting comment on women's situation in the time period and humoruous view of a career woman trying to "do it all", as well as a character study.

[deleted]

The movie left a bad taste in my mouth. The entire boring sequence of her attempting to make breakfast was insulting. Are we to believe a woman as well traveled and accomplished as this (and a professional journalist no less) doesn't know how to make a pot of coffee? The movie punishes her for wanting to have a career, and then ridicules her when she changes her mind. I was let down because the beginning of the movie was so funny and clever. The whole, I want you to be Tess Harding Craig felt more like a halfassed compromise than an actual message. So ALL women have to have careers and individualism AND be houseslaves to their husbands? Bull.

And what was Craig's problem? He knew who he married when they had the ceremony. What was with him moping around the house acting like he had no idea it would be like that? She even wanted to jump his bones far earlier in the movie. No, he wanted to tie her down in home life first, before having his way with her.

As for MASH being misogynist and sexist, I think that's a little myopic. The characters in MASH could be misogynists and sexists, but the movie itself was not. One could watch the film and certainly have a lot of sympathy for Houlihan. There are other nurse characters who stand up to their shenanigans at times. Connecting that to Ring Lardner is also a big stretch when considering how little of his script actually made it on screen. At least MASH didn't have a long speech at the end, guilting the women for not keeping up their homes. Some of the nurses in MASH were just as sexually liberated as the men. Watch the scenes of Hawkeye having an affair with one of the nurses who was also married. They're on equal footing.

I said the same thing on another thread, that it was her choice. What they were both looking for was balance, and that is defined by a couple.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

What a disappointment. The beginning of the film was great -- two interesting people who write for the same daily NY newspaper, Tess Harding (Kate Hepburn) and Sam Craig (Spence Tracy), fall in love in spite of their obvious differences. Their love moves her to takes an interest in his world and he to take an interest in hers.

But then as things get serious, the tone changes...

Their marriage is rushed; their honeymoon becomes a farce, Tess is very busy in her sphere of influence, and Sam doesn't get the attention he believes he deserves from his famous wife. Between Tess' pride and Sam's jealousy, the marriage begins to run off the rails.

Tess, in a typical unilateral move, brings Sam a new "son" Chris, a 9 year-old Greek refugee, when Tess learns she is elected Woman of the Year, which is evidently a great honor; something between getting your picture on the cover of Time, or winning the Nobel prize.

While Tess heads off to the award banquet, Sam develops a severe bruise on his male ego, and so returns Chris to the adoption agency with a "sorry, but we don't want him anymore" -- and moves out of their apartment without a word. He belligerently appears the next day typing away on his sports column, ignoring any attempt by Tess to talk things through.

From this moment I've lost all sympathy and respect for Sam. He's abandoned his marriage vows, blaming the miscommunication on Tess, and his behavior toward Chris is unforgivable.

Tess has her problems too, but she still has my respect. She has a lot on her plate for good reasons, and perhaps needs to evaluate her commitment to the marriage in terms of time and attention. I admire the fact that she realizes this and wants to talk about it with Sam, and I despise his cold rejection of her attempts to talk things out. He's a fool who seems to want to dictate how "his wife" should behave. Perhaps this was common in 1942, but not universal and certainly not a marriage requirement.

How many newlyweds have made the often fatal error of expecting their new spouse to conform to their ideas of marriage? Sam has made this error, and worse, he believes he has every right to expect Tess to change because she's the wife who serves and obeys, and he's the boss who is waited on in the home, and lays down the law in the family.

Now, the Tess I've met during the first three reels of this film is strong, self-directed, and a brilliant contributor to the forces of good trying to restore order and freedom in a fascist dominated world taken by force. So why does she allow herself to be dominated by male fascism in the kitchen during the final reel of this film? The kitchen scene, where Tess tries to make Sam a breakfast is enough to put most people off their food. As Kate plays her best Lucy Ricardo, putting yeast in the pancake batter, Sam sits back to read the paper and watch the destruction before him. Even with coffee percolating over on to the stove while Tess is busy with controlling the monster in her waffle iron, Sam can't get up off his ass to turn off the flame under the coffee, less than 10 feet away.

During Tess' inevitable breakdown over the failed breakfast, Sam instructs her that if only she would try to be both Tess Harding and Mrs. Sam Craig, all would be right in the world. Fade to black on happy ending.

But not for me.

For a woman who has meetings with Winston Churchill, Tess should be able to handle playground alpha-male Sam Craig. Even in 1942. Ask Eleanor Roosevelt.