Man, what a jerk!

I could not agree any more with you. All your points are right on. I sat watching this movie with my mouth open - I only kept watching out of morbid fascination. Instead of redeeming the character, he just got worse and worse...and then she stays with him?!! And he "reviews" their sex on a card on the pillow and this is supposed to be cute, make her feel better?!!

This movie is not funny or poignant or anything, it's f-king terrible.

Bob Hope's movie career must have ended with the reviews for this one...

How perfectly ironic.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

All if this times 1 million. Agree with both of you!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

theoctobercountry says > I found Bob Hope's character to be thoroughly unlikeable in this picture---what a mean-spirited man. There he was, constantly spouting all this nonsense about his "integrity," how he HAD to review his wife's play.

I agree. Ballantine was full of it. I could understand him giving his wife his honest opinion after he read the play. Whether it was favorable or unfavorable opinion wouldn't have mattered as long as it was honest. That would be his way of maintaining his integrity and helping her but what he told her seemed more like a personal attack than an honest review of her play.

He came across as a frustrated playwright turned critic who was jealous his wife had actually done something he was never able to do. That view was further reinforced when he later refuses to help her pull it together then insisted on reviewing it in a professional capacity when it opened. He put his work ahead of his wife and that was wrong.

I can't say I was surprised by all this though. By the time this movie was made the role of women was beginning to change as compared to what had come before but looking but it seems rather odd. I think it's just a man who was feeling jealous and threatened by his wife's potential success and notoriety.

The buzz started almost as soon as she announced she wanted to write a play. That took the attention off her husband and he just wasn't having it. Ballantine's reaction is probably how the male writers would have reacted if their wives were to suddenly 'compete' with them on a professional level.

Even today, some men find it difficult to be romantically involved with a successful women; especially by marriage. For some it may be due to a weak ego but for others it's something much simpler, in my opinion. Women are usually considered the nurturers in a relationship and, of course, we have the children. A man's role is typically the provider and protector. When women are perceived as the better provider, because they earn more and/or have a higher status job, some men may feel displaced. They may be able to nurture but they'll never be able to bear the children. That tends to throw the whole thing off balance.

I don't think it a coincidence in the movie Mrs. Ballantine was unable to have children. I also don't think it's an accident that Ivy, Ballantine's ex-wife was a very needy, dependent, kind of woman that needed and wanted her ex-husband back. Angie seemed to need him less and less. Most of us like to be needed or to feel we serve a purpose in the lives of the people close to us.


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

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I didn't like it either, or rather, his character in particular, but only because it's a personal preference.

You must understand that their morals then were different than our own. I'm not saying it was right, or wrong for that matter, but it was different.

Women were still supposed to be housewives who supported their men and their careers. There were no ethics or "conflicts of interest" in the way that we use them today. In fact, I don't remember having commonplace ethics committees until sometime in the late 80s early 90s. At that time, it would have been perfectly acceptable for him to review his wife's play. Though it would likely have spawned rumors of an unhappy marriage, I would think.

It's important not confuse the past with the present. Getting offended by the past is silliness. History is history and offense, or political correctness, doesn't matter.

Now! That said, I didn't like the fact that he was practically dying to insult his wife, his attitude was constantly condescending and he didn't want to support her in the way a husband really should. Marriage has always been a partnership. He was clearly more concerned about himself, than he was her.

This was the time that women were beginning to want careers, rather than being required to have one. Men resented women for that. It was petty and silly, but it does reflect the general attitude men were feeling in that day. They were afraid that if women had their own careers, they would lose them. For many, that did happen, which is sad to say. For this reason, their worries were not completely unfounded. What was unacceptable was their retaliation. But that's another matter, entirely.

I would recommend you see Bachelor in Paradise (1961) instead. That one is a romantic comedy where the woman is clearly career oriented and Hope couldn't be happier about it. It's still in that time frame, in fact, it's a couple of years before this one, but still demonstrates what I'm talking about here.

Cheers!

Random Thoughts: http://goo.gl/eXk3O

reply share

add reply

formatting help