But I've seen better Doris Day movies. It was good until James Garner sees the psychogist friend. After that the movie goes downhill with him trying to make her think he's cheating on her. And it's not even brought up in the end. Good movie, but the ending sucked.
"Shall I come heckle you on your job? Make sure you count out the requisite number of McNuggets?"
The fact that his fabricated "affair" is never brought up in the end, is there to underline the chauvinistic, conservative conceit of the film, very much a manifestation of 50's American values. She bothers asking him because, given that Garner has manipulated Day into believing her TV career has ruined their marraige, she is put into the position of believing her husband having an affair was a valid response to the situation. The audience is meant to sympathize with her belief that she deserved it and that she should return to the lifestyle of the submissive housewife.
There's something corrupt going on around my pants but I just can't seem to locate it.
I totally agree, Fuzzy. I just caught most of this movie on TV and honestly think it is one of the most overtly sexist things I've seen. I find it hard to just see it as having an ending that sucked only, because I think the ending defined the theme of the entire film.
*SPOILER ALERT*
I missed a little of the movie, so when he was 'drunkenly' telling her how wonderful and sweet she was, I thought he sincerely meant it until he said the name of the'other woman'. And I thought it had the potential to be a good movie if it had been about him changing his attitude. I think her adoration of him could have been touching if the success of their relationship didn't ultimately depend on her being submissive.
And yes, never addressing that she was crushed thinking he cheated is horrible.
In a review on here, I notice someone points out the ending reminds us her rightful role is as a 'baby machine' :D. It did disturb me how hard we were hit over the head with this idea she was wrong to want anything but to be a devoted wife and mother, and that somehow exploring a career and her talents would take away from that. The gynecology theme seems to have existed solely to allow the climactic baby delivery scene. This is of course where she realises women are meant to be 'baby machines'!
What was especially painful was that in her advertising career, she was being appreciated for being herself and it's hard to see the husband as anything but oppressive if he couldn't support that.
Astute of you to notice all the "differences" between then and now...
Yes, it was a totally different mindset back then. That is just how it was!
We should all thank the Women Leaders of that time for demanding to be treated differently. I thank them everytime I have to sit through Lonesome Dove with my husband {his favorite movie :( }
Your observations are right on target.
Very good summary! It is a seriously morally horrible movie.
I was on the verge of adulthood when these movies came out and they horrified me.
"What happened to my rights as a woman?"
"They grew and they grew until they suffocated MY rights as a MAN!!!"
Obviously, the writers were male.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
The film was pretty bad and there is sexism and it reflects the '50's. But, there is some truth in that line. I cringe when my son comes home from school and tells me that girls always get to go first in line every day, for example. We now live in a society where EVERYONE wants to have their cake and eat it too and women are no exception. Equal pay, but they can't do any lifting. Treat us equally, but we get to go first. Bleh. I'm for equality for both sexes and all races, but only when equal IS equal, and it never is because everyone wants an edge. Can't blame anyone for wanting an edge, but don't blame me for looking down on you because you seek and attain that edge under the guise of simple equality. It's disingenuous and hypocritical.
I won't be monitoring or responding to this thread since I know I'll get attacked for speaking what we all know is, but hate to admit is, the truth.
Good point, Fuzzynavel. It is funny to watch this film just to see how retrograde the attitudes underlying the film are. Boy have things changed. Could you imagine having this premise with Bill and Hillary Clinton - Bill harrassing her for ruining their marriage because she is busy getting a job outside of the home? Of course, then they could really play up the angle of Bill having to have an affair in reaction. 8-)
shareI think it shows points for and against both arguments. At the beginning she gets the job, Gerald argues and Bev says she is unfulfilled in her current role. But whilst she has the job it shows that the only time the children see her that day was on the TV. So by having a job the movie is saying that women cannot handle having both a family and full time career, which is still an issue today for women.
Now with Gerald, he doesn't like the fact that outside the children and him, Bev has something else. We should also remember that Gerald was raised believing that once a woman was married and had children her life is complete. So the movie is just reflecting the period. When she tells him that her life is unfulfilled. Unintentionally, Bev is taking a jab at his manhood and his ability to provide for his family. Bev's boss and employers do not help by giving them the pool.
Gerald's position as gynecologist is kind of funny because as a gynecologist he has the advantage that other men do not have. To see what pregnancy and life can be like for women. Now all that Gerry sees' is the excitement of pregnancy for women, and putting new life in the mothers arms and how proud and fulfilled she is, which is reflect in Arlene Francis' role. So because he is consistently see this side of motherhood, he expects his wife to feel the same.
So both Bev and Gerald are at crossroads because he only sees' the beginning of married life for women, not the day to day struggle with raising children as he works all day. Bev does not have the luxury of going to work each day like Gerald does.
I don't think the issue would have been so blown out of proportion if she had a job that went on through the day whilst Gerry was at work and the kids were at school. Her TV career had odd hours, not regular 9-5 hours.
I liked this movie, I like the stars and the story. Obviously I do not hold the values that women should stay at home and not work. But I watch it as a light heart comedy and as a movie that reflects the considered traditions of the period. Although it was set in the early 1960s, its comes from a conservative couples point of view.
Sorry for blabbering on so long. I hope I made myself clear.
The only Abnormality is the incapacity to love
I enjoyed your assessment very much and agreed with it thoroughly. Your "blabbering on" totally made more sense than all the others put together. Thank you. I was born 1956 and did not see this movie until I was an adult woman, but I saw it as a "period piece". It showed one side of an issue that changed the way I was to look at and perceive my role as both a married woman, and as a career woman in the '80's. It showed the "olde" side but I still totally loved the movie, and I enjoyed Doris Day and James Garner. They always did work wonderfully together. And yes, the end was predictable in it's early 60's time period. It wouldn't work today, and I imagine it didn't work for the most liberal of women in 1963, but it was enjoyed by enough that it is still shown today. And for me, I watched it again this morning, after reading all these posts, and seeing the ending again this time, all I thought about was maybe they discussed it in the car on the way home, and he told her he made it all up, and she forgave him, which all still works for the early sixty's conservative viewer. I don't know what kind of woman I would have been in 1963 but I am quite a liberal woman in 2012. I realize I actually have no problems at all with the ending. In a different movie, I might have liked it he had skipped the false cheating, and she had stuck with her new found career, and he had supported her all the way, but then, that would have been a different movie. I know enjoyed this one.
shareThis was 1963. Period.
There was a time too, that homosexuality was never discussed.
There was a time (in my lifetime, when I went to college) that water fountains and bathrooms in the south where I lived had signs that said, "Coloreds Only."
GET OVER YOUR MORE EXPERIENCED and dare I say, SOPHISTICATED, EDUCATED selves.
it was a Carl Reiner/Larry Gelbart comedy very apropos of the times.
I saw this movie when I was about six and I thought it was funny. Of course the sexual politics went waaaay over my head.
I saw it a few nights ago and when Gerald says to his wife "your money" and he complained that she was making $100,000 a year I thought "Whoa! What man today would be upset if his wife brought in an additional six figures?"
Not only was Gerald a chauvinist, he was nuts! LOL
pjpurple-1 says > I saw it a few nights ago and when Gerald says to his wife "your money" and he complained that she was making $100,000 a year I thought "Whoa! What man today would be upset if his wife brought in an additional six figures?" Not only was Gerald a chauvinist, he was nuts! LOLIt's not all about the money. One of the reasons I liked this movie is because I thought it did a great job of showing how her little job was affecting the entire family. When it was just an infrequent trip to the studio and an amusing distraction for the wife, that was fine but all of a sudden that job was taking over their lives.
Interesting post and actually I do agree with all the points you made.
I was being somewhat flippant about a serious situation. But the film was a comedy and it was typical crazy, out of control situations that got even waaaay more out of control to increase the comedy aspect. I mean, who has a swimming pool dug in their backyard in ONE day, doesn't tell the head of the house and he drives his car into it? No wonder Gerald was furious!
To be fair to the wife, she didn't exactly seek out a job as a spokesperson for Happy Soap. The whole situation was thrust on her and she got swept away by "the thrill of it all" (pun intended).
In real life (not a comedy movie) it would make way more sense for a couple in this situation to have calm, rational discussions about the wife's new job, would she keep it, how would the family cope, what adjustments would they make,etc.
I may watch it again during TCM's upcoming James Garner tribute, but I remember thinking that it was dated and sexist even by 1966 or '67, when it was shown on TV. Things changed a lot in just a few years.
shareI beg to differ. i don't know how old you are, but I can assure you that for 1966 standards, it was 100% apropos of the time.
I lived through it; lived it, and when I was old enough (a couple of short years later) I fought against it.
It was still a hilarious movie.
You may be right about it being apropos. I don't recall the timing exactly, but I think I was not quite a teenager when I saw it on TV in the late 1960s. Might have been 1968 when I was 12. My parents are European, however, and my dad would never have been against my mom earning that kind of money. My mom ran the finances in our household, and my dad always respected her intellect. Consequently, I never found "helpless housewife" comedies funny or relatable.
shareI'm sure part of the reason he found it hard to tolerate (her income, that is) was because he was a doctor, and doctors' incomes back then were what everyone aspired to. They made more than the wall st. folk. So, (here we go, overthinking a fictional comedy character) he figured, "how can my wife earn more than i do." Men (then) would have found that somewhat emasculating.
shareOne thing that hasn't changed: when the Soap CEO mentions tv shows where everyone is smarter than than the husband/father.
shareI totally agree with everything said. I remember watching this movie as a kid and reacting the same say - even thought the popular mindset was "pro-housewife."
On the other hand, I would gladly do anything James Garner asked me to do, including being his male-bitch slave and cross-dressing as his feminine wife to maintain the facade of a "happy heterosexual" marriage.
"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"
[deleted]