I was wondering if they were going to pull their punches and have Sidney see the errors of his ways and try to set things right. But no, they barreled right on through. I loved the scene where Sidney had been pushed so far that he finally thought he had to take a stand on the last measly bit of morals he could scrape together only to find that with a bigger bribe he was eager to dive on in.
It also took the excitement of a traditional noir film and made it more of a heavyweight with the complex characters, particularly J.J.
Like DW, I thought Sidney -- especially because good-guy Tony Curtis plays him -- would redeem himself, and I thought Susan would indeed kill herself. Instead, the plot kept shifting in new directions. It was fun to watch.
Oh, I'm glad you mentioned the noir aspect, cl. I was surprised to see this movie on so many "best noir films" lists. It wasn't something that struck me as noir, except for the late-night urban setting and the general clubby atmosphere. I always associated noir with some type of crime, especially a murder, and femmes fatales and all that. So I did some reading online, and Wikipedia points out that the majority of film noirs feature neither a femme fatale nor a private eye.
The movie is okay. I guess I liked it, but with reservations. The expository dialogue was annoying and gave a ponderous feel to the movie, and even with it I got lost in the complex scenes. Some of the acting was great and the score was well-written. Some of the camera placement choices were ill-conceived and some of the editing left something to be desired, but the overall look was okay. The sexism left a bad taste in my mouth.
I mean, of course there's sexism. Is there a movie made in the 1950s that isn't sexist to some degree?
I didn't see the control that J.J. and Sidney exerted as a function of their maleness so much as a function of their evilness. They shit on men and women equally.
And one could argue that the heroine getting her way in the end is sort of a feminist ending.
And some other women in the movie were really rather impressive in their way. They weren't just meek sidekicks to men; they often had their own agendas. The cigarette girl. The wife of the other press agent. Sidney's secretary. J.J.'s secretary. They all had strong personalities and a stake in the action (I especially loved J.J.'s secretary). They weren't just June Cleavers sitting idly by in pearls.
I understand that the sexism was a reflection of the time, but I still didn't enjoy it.
Do you think there was a feminist point to be made by the fact that the evil men were sexist? I thought it was more supposed to be "the way things are" rather than a bad thing associated with bad men.
I also liked J.J.'s secretary. But I don't think the heroine ever really showed any strength. I know that's because part of the point was that she was weak, but I would have liked to see her pull it together and be strong. The only reason it seemed like strength that she rejected her brother was that she was so weak. I don't think it showed any real strength.
But I could be wrong. I can see how a person could do an analysis of the film that shows a feminist sensibility; I just think it would have to be reading too much against the plain meaning of the film.
I wasn't proposing a feminsit reading of the film per se (although I found the female characters very sympathetic). I'm just saying that for it's time the movie is no more or less sexist than anything else out there, and maybe it's a lot less when you compare it to some. The audience was definitely intended to root for the women in this film, to feel for them, to maybe question the social order that puts them where they are ...
It's sort of like accusing a film from that era of being white-dominated or homophobic. Of course they are.
I think it showed a tremendous amount of strength that she left her brother in the end. The easy thing to do would be to stay, to feel secure, even if alone. The hard thing to do is to make a break for happiness, to leave her privileged life for something unknown.
I consider all films from that era sexist. But at least in this film there wasn't a reaffirmation at the end of male dominance. We weren't left to feel that all is right with the world now that men are in control and women know their place. There's no sense that I can I see of the filmmaker trying to make a point about sexism being the way to go. If anything, he's saying it's about time for this woman to throw off her oppressor and look for some happiness in life.
Wait. Maybe Susan is a metaphor for the American public. She presumably went from adoring her brother (as people did Winchell in his heyday), to tolerating him (as people do who know gossip is silly but read it anyway), to thinking of him as a cancer on her life (as people saw Winchell on civil society after he started the really vicious McCarthyite stuff). In the end, she rejected him as people did Winchell and McCarthy. Her withdrawal (the public's withdrawal) betokened the collapse of his empire.
Again, I'm not saying this is a feminist film — just that it may have a little something on the sexist fare of the day.
I don't think ending up in the arms of another man invalidates what I said. Everyone desires companionship (even crusty old feminists!). She went to him because she loved him. If all she was looking for was simple male protection and provision, she had that in spades with J.J.
And I think she was so disillusioned with her brother by movie's end that she would have left whether or not she had a sexy blond guitar player waiting in the wings.
I like your Susan-as-metaphor theme. Steve is the one who spouts off about what J.J. does. J.J. claims that Steve doesn’t bother him as a personal matter, but he must be destroyed because of the insult to his millions of readers. That’s a very odd way of casting your spite, isn’t it? And J.J. isn’t truly crushed until his sister rejects him.
15 comments:
Yes! Delicious moral capitulation.
I was wondering if they were going to pull their punches and have Sidney see the errors of his ways and try to set things right. But no, they barreled right on through. I loved the scene where Sidney had been pushed so far that he finally thought he had to take a stand on the last measly bit of morals he could scrape together only to find that with a bigger bribe he was eager to dive on in.
It also took the excitement of a traditional noir film and made it more of a heavyweight with the complex characters, particularly J.J.
Like DW, I thought Sidney -- especially because good-guy Tony Curtis plays him -- would redeem himself, and I thought Susan would indeed kill herself. Instead, the plot kept shifting in new directions. It was fun to watch.
Oh, I'm glad you mentioned the noir aspect, cl. I was surprised to see this movie on so many "best noir films" lists. It wasn't something that struck me as noir, except for the late-night urban setting and the general clubby atmosphere. I always associated noir with some type of crime, especially a murder, and femmes fatales and all that. So I did some reading online, and Wikipedia points out that the majority of film noirs feature neither a femme fatale nor a private eye.
The movie is okay. I guess I liked it, but with reservations. The expository dialogue was annoying and gave a ponderous feel to the movie, and even with it I got lost in the complex scenes. Some of the acting was great and the score was well-written. Some of the camera placement choices were ill-conceived and some of the editing left something to be desired, but the overall look was okay. The sexism left a bad taste in my mouth.
What sexism?
I mean, of course there's sexism. Is there a movie made in the 1950s that isn't sexist to some degree?
I didn't see the control that J.J. and Sidney exerted as a function of their maleness so much as a function of their evilness. They shit on men and women equally.
And one could argue that the heroine getting her way in the end is sort of a feminist ending.
And some other women in the movie were really rather impressive in their way. They weren't just meek sidekicks to men; they often had their own agendas. The cigarette girl. The wife of the other press agent. Sidney's secretary. J.J.'s secretary. They all had strong personalities and a stake in the action (I especially loved J.J.'s secretary). They weren't just June Cleavers sitting idly by in pearls.
I thought the dialogue was snappy, especially between Sidney and J.J. I loved how the match came back into play at the theater.
It also reminded me of noir dialogue of the time -- appropriate for the time it was made.
I understand that the sexism was a reflection of the time, but I still didn't enjoy it.
Do you think there was a feminist point to be made by the fact that the evil men were sexist? I thought it was more supposed to be "the way things are" rather than a bad thing associated with bad men.
I also liked J.J.'s secretary. But I don't think the heroine ever really showed any strength. I know that's because part of the point was that she was weak, but I would have liked to see her pull it together and be strong. The only reason it seemed like strength that she rejected her brother was that she was so weak. I don't think it showed any real strength.
But I could be wrong. I can see how a person could do an analysis of the film that shows a feminist sensibility; I just think it would have to be reading too much against the plain meaning of the film.
I wasn't proposing a feminsit reading of the film per se (although I found the female characters very sympathetic). I'm just saying that for it's time the movie is no more or less sexist than anything else out there, and maybe it's a lot less when you compare it to some. The audience was definitely intended to root for the women in this film, to feel for them, to maybe question the social order that puts them where they are ...
It's sort of like accusing a film from that era of being white-dominated or homophobic. Of course they are.
I think it showed a tremendous amount of strength that she left her brother in the end. The easy thing to do would be to stay, to feel secure, even if alone. The hard thing to do is to make a break for happiness, to leave her privileged life for something unknown.
I consider all films from that era sexist. But at least in this film there wasn't a reaffirmation at the end of male dominance. We weren't left to feel that all is right with the world now that men are in control and women know their place. There's no sense that I can I see of the filmmaker trying to make a point about sexism being the way to go. If anything, he's saying it's about time for this woman to throw off her oppressor and look for some happiness in life.
Wait. Maybe Susan is a metaphor for the American public. She presumably went from adoring her brother (as people did Winchell in his heyday), to tolerating him (as people do who know gossip is silly but read it anyway), to thinking of him as a cancer on her life (as people saw Winchell on civil society after he started the really vicious McCarthyite stuff). In the end, she rejected him as people did Winchell and McCarthy. Her withdrawal (the public's withdrawal) betokened the collapse of his empire.
I don't know, kc. The heroine got her way in the end, but she was heading to the arms of another man to take care of her.
Could she have left J.J. without that out?
Again, I'm not saying this is a feminist film — just that it may have a little something on the sexist fare of the day.
I don't think ending up in the arms of another man invalidates what I said. Everyone desires companionship (even crusty old feminists!). She went to him because she loved him. If all she was looking for was simple male protection and provision, she had that in spades with J.J.
And I think she was so disillusioned with her brother by movie's end that she would have left whether or not she had a sexy blond guitar player waiting in the wings.
I like your Susan-as-metaphor theme. Steve is the one who spouts off about what J.J. does. J.J. claims that Steve doesn’t bother him as a personal matter, but he must be destroyed because of the insult to his millions of readers. That’s a very odd way of casting your spite, isn’t it? And J.J. isn’t truly crushed until his sister rejects him.
Post a Comment