MovieChat Forums > Crime of Passion (1957) Discussion > realistic film showing interaction betwe...

realistic film showing interaction between men and women?

posted 11 years ago by babsbrodie
5 replies | jump to latest

this is one of the few films from the 50's to portray the mental vacuum which was supposedly in existence for women at the time. i say supposedly because a smart woman let the men believe they were in control while they held the reins in many ways themselves. most men had no ideas what really went on in the management of their own households at the time.since they worked long hours and spent little time with their children there was little chance of the husbands finding out.of course the smart husbands expected their women to be able to carry on a conversation with anyone and was proud of them for this ability. they didnt really wish to have wives who were brain dead with no ability to raise smart children.

[–] dengelke 11 years ago

Babsbrodie,

We share similar sentiments about this flick.

Watched Crimes of Passion last night - which is streaming on Netflix - and loved it. Was surprised this morning at the low rating and even lower criticism of the film. Thought Stanwyck was awesome; and while Hayden played a bit of doofus, it was an accurate reading of the character; Burr wasn't bad either.

Check out what the Wiki page supplied:

"Critic Glenn Erickson liked the film's noir screenplay and wrote, 'Crime of Passion is a fascinating film that goes head-on with the classic conception of the femme fatale character. Screenwriter Jo Eisinger wrote the delirious 1946 Gilda, noir's most romantically perverse epic, but here she dissects the murderous female from a 50s perspective. It's hard-edged, direct in its theme and both dated and progressive at the same time. Barbara Stanwyck and Sterling Hayden make an exceptional screen couple.'"

"Everyman is an island? I'd like to think I'm more of an archipelago."

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] salvador_1980 9 years ago

I liked the writing in this film very much. It did feel very natural and Kathy Doyle is a fantastic tragic figure. She wanted more for him but also for herself because he did not share her ambitions which she placed on him after she quite her career to marry him. You could sorta sympathize with her actions wrong as they were. The fact that her husband "did the right thing" and was the good cop in turning her in, was like an insult on top of her self inflicted injury. Really good movie.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

I don't agree about the writing feeling natural - the observations the film makes may be basically astute, but the script frequently asks Stanwyck to resort to overwrought melodramatic histrionics that, despite her best efforts, come off phoney. A bit more understatement would have gone a long way.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] canuckteach 8 years ago

I thought the film was out-of-era - it was well before the "women's lib" movement flourished, but it portrays the mantra clearly enough: Stanwyck has a great job as a star writer of scandal column, but leaves it all to become a housewife to a non-ambitious police detective. It wouldn't work 50 years later: she could marry and keep her job, working over the Internet!

At the same time, had the movie been made between 1930 and 1934, the scriptwriter might have been able to keep Stanwyck from getting caught, in the meantime revealing that the Raymond Burr character was more sleazy than we thought, and got exactly what he deserved. (Maybe another of his affairs resulted in the mysterious death of a naïve younger lady?)

Whatever, as long as Stanwyck was suitably repentant, and cooked her husband a nice breakfast, in a 1932 (pre-code) film, she might have lived happily ever after. Sadly, the Hayes-code of 1934 dictated that criminals could not profit from their crimes, and ladies who behaved immorally must end up badly.

So, 25 years early on the 'lib' factor - 25 years too late on the ending.

Don't get me wrong - I believe in justice. Occasionally, I just long for something a little different in these Code-era films (i.e. the bad guy gets away with the loot!) but it never happens. Even poor Scarlett O'Hara was punished for her deeds (Ah, but the code was violated for Rhett Butler's closing line, right? .... 'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn...')

:-) canuckteach (--: