MovieChat Forums > Angel Face (1953) Discussion > Sexism

Sexism

posted 15 years ago by carolbrnnn
13 replies | jump to latest

I know this film was made in 1952 and the Mitchum's character was a manly man but wow, the sexism here stood out for me in this film more so that any other that I can remember.

Like when Frank first meets Diane. He creeps up on her playing the piano and when she gets upset and bursts into tears, he (a man she had never seen before) grabs her up and instead of comforting her, basically tells her to get over herself and then smacks her when she doesn't calm down. I guess it was ok for a man to put his hands on a strange woman and rough her up some back in the day.

Later, after Diane follows him to the diner and they decide to go out to eat, he walks out and sees her snazzy sports car and immediately jumps in the driver's seat without asking, because no way is a mere woman going to drive when he's around (that bit of sexism would have served him well at the end though).

I love movies from the 30s and 40s and I'm sure their are blantant expamples of sexism in nearly all the good classics but for some reason this films sexism was extremely distacting for me.

[–] claudecat 14 years ago

Funny--I actually thought the movie was kind of twistedly feminist: when Diane gets slapped, she slaps back; Mary refuses to be drawn into a catfight competition for a man, and instead picks the nice guy who doesn't chase other women; Diane's frustration at being brushed aside and not taken seriously by her lawyer is portrayed as a major episode--like a symbol of women's low status in society. There are loads of examples of minor characters who are competent working women--even a female police sergeant--and Frank suggests that Diane become independent of her father and stepmother by getting a job. The stepmother is portrayed as a smart businesswoman.

The driving-the-car thing did bug me, though! They imply that women who drive themselves are either murderous or ditsy-crazy ("I clearly signaled I was turning left", "But then you turned right!"). You could probably write a whole essay on the use of automotive iconography in this film.

[–] bworm76 12 years ago

I do love that Diane slapped him back. Even then, Frank explains that he was following an instruction manual as to what to do for a "hysterical female". And the women are most definitely confident in this film. I was prepared to be really angry if Mona Freeman's character took Frank back after everything he put her through, no matter how sexy and charming he tried to be. And it was a great plot to have a take charge kind of guy who was supposedly so street smart to see the danger coming and still not be able to get out of the way.

[–] starry-messenger 10 years ago

"The driving-the-car thing did bug me, though! They imply that women who drive themselves are either murderous or ditsy-crazy ("I clearly signaled I was turning left", "But then you turned right!"). You could probably write a whole essay on the use of automotive iconography in this film."

Well at least she did get to drive at the end of the film.

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

I don't think it was a traditionally sexist movie either. About that slap that Jean Simmon's returns to Robert Mitchum. I have read that the director wanted Mitchum to slap her harder and harder through quite a few takes. Mitchum wouldn't go too far. And in the end, Mitchum is supposed to have threatened to slap the director if he kept insisting on a harder slap.

[–] gribfritz2 12 years ago

Love your example about the man getting in the driver's seat. You do know that back then, if he DIDN'T do that he would be seen as a cad? Don't mistake chivalry of the day with sexism. Almost every woman back then would have wanted, expected, and even demanded that the man do the chivalrous thing and chauffeur her around.

[–] bworm76 12 years ago

Good point. I know now some women take offense but I watch old movies and see men were taught and expected to be gentlemen. Another example I noticed was when they walked a lady to her door he would take her keys to unlock and open the door for her. It's rare to see that anymore.

[–] jeskavandetta 10 years ago

Yeah but Frank is the chick in this movie.
When you think about it, for the first half of the film, he's just some gold digger who leaves his "nice guy" girlfriend for the richer, sexier, alpha-[fe]male. Of course, when things go horribly wrong, he rushes back to his nice guy girlfriend only to find that she no longer wants him and thinks he's a slut. The writers punish his behaviour by killing him off at the end.

There are a few other examples of reversed gender roles in the film, most notably Catherine and Diane's dad (by 1950s standards, I'd say that the dad is also the "chick" in his relationship, what with his being a poor artist who inevitably latches on to a wealthy capitalist in order to survive), but also the (allegedly) henpecked Japanese guy and his wife serve as an example of this happening. I suppose that because the relationships in the movie with reversed gender roles mostly seem to end poorly, you may have a point (perhaps this was some nightmarish vision of what might happen if women really "wore the pants"?) but I can't help but think Angel Face was oddly progressive for its time.

Saying that, that comment the guy on the jury made when asking about the car ("anyone could do it, even a woman?") really pissed me off when I heard it. In fact I think a lot of the trial scenes kind of killed the movie for me but I suppose that's neither here nor there...

[–] jdw50 8 years ago

Women didn't fix a lot of cars in the 1950s; the juror wasn't being sexist, just normal. After all, even now, a guy who knows something about cars would be a more sensible suspect than a woman who apparently doesn't. In fact the juror's question may have been aimed at tipping off the audience to the possibility that Diane could well have done it, as otherwise they would have been unlikely to consider it either.

[–] Tchoutoye 10 years ago

He creeps up on her playing the piano and when she gets upset and bursts into tears, he (a man she had never seen before) grabs her up and instead of comforting her, basically tells her to get over herself and then smacks her when she doesn't calm down. I guess it was ok for a man to put his hands on a strange woman and rough her up some back in the day.

The way you describe it is totally out of context. At that moment he had no personal interest in her. Everything he did in that scene was part of his role in the medical profession.

When you say "he creeps up onto her", he merely went to inform her about the condition of her step-mother. She wasn't upset because he approached him, as the house was full of strangers. She only became upset after she learned from him that her plan to murder her step-mother had failed. As explained in the film, him slapping her was according to medical procedure to get someone out of a hysterical fit, a fit which she most likely faked to hide her involvement in the gassing of her step-mother.

It was only after she started following him around, basically stalking him, and scheming to further his career that he became interested in her personally.

[–] dellahicks 9 years ago

I just watched this film for the first time, had it on PVR. Aside from the examples listed already, I almost choked on my tea, when the juror asked if tinkering with the car was easy enough that anyone could do it..."Even a woman"!

[–] mnbush 9 years ago

That line got to me too. "Even a woman" was quite a common phrase. It was used in early commercials to sell some product to a housewife, as in, "Use Super Suds to clean your oven. It's so easy even a woman can use it!" And back then, women didn't find that offensive. Can you believe it?

[–] Consul_Incitatus 9 years ago

Although, realistically, how many upper class women knew how to work on cars back then?

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

I almost choked on my tea, when the juror asked if tinkering with the car was easy enough that anyone could do it..."Even a woman"!

Come on people get a grip. Sexism existed then as it does now but not everything that that distinguishes between a woman and a man is necessarily sexist.

What's the alternative to the juror asking that question? He could have just assumed it's not something a woman could do. Asking the question, considering there's even a possibility, is actually a big step forward.

Female mechanics are still not the norm today, imagine how rare they would have been back then. There's a level of interest and skill that the average women would probably not have at that time or still. Asking the question means he's wondering if someone with no formal training or independent interest could figure it out.

It's also a legitimate question given the situation. They're looking at a slight, fairly weak young woman before them and trying to imagine her tinkering with a car as compared to a rather brawny guy who was a skilled mechanic. He wasn't home at the time so it would fall to her to have done it alone. The jurors have to know if she was capable of doing it on her own.

There are societal norms that were stronger then than now. There are also general physical attributes that haven't changed over time. In general, men tend to be physically stronger and women tend to be less interested in certain things. It's just how it is.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]