The Divorcee [Nominee ~ 1930]

"Marriage was the one thing in the world I thought ought to be perfect.  And when mine wasn't, I quit."

Ahhh... some redemption for the ladies of 1930.  After watching The Love Parade, I expected The Divorcee to glorify many of the same gender stereotypes.  It does, but in a much more palatable way.

Jerry (Norma Shearer) and Ted (Chester Morris) marry and share three happy years as husband and wife.  But when Ted has a one night stand, Jerry decides to balance their relationship by doing the same.  Their infidelities prove too much to overcome, and the couple files for divorce.  Jerry and Ted struggle with their lives and loves post-divorce, but ultimately find themselves in the process.  (I promise the actual movie is not as cheesy as this clunky summary.)

This movie was a surprise from the beginning.  I'm fairly certain divorce was severely frowned upon in the 1930s, and yet in the opening scene there are ladies cheerfully discussing and joking about their ex-husbands.  No stigma.  Just a piece of their lives that these women have gracefully put behind them.  Ted and Jerry are also quite the progressive couple: she has a job which she keeps after marrying, and she jokes with him about all the sex he had before they met.  Now, I'm not naive-- obviously premarital sex has always happened-- but I would think that most women in the era of this film would have just pretended their husbands were virgins on their wedding night.  Perhaps I'm just shocked at the frankness of some of the movie's dialogue?*

What I found most interesting is the film's discussion of adultery.  It feels so much like a contemporary discussion of the topic. Infidelity is still a huge barrier to couples, and how it's treated by the sexes seems to have changed little over time.  Ted explains his lapse as a meaningless tryst that should be excused because "it didn't mean a thing."  However, when his wife does the same he cannot forgive her.  Men are expected to slip up, but women must remain faithful.  Even how the two deal with the news of the other cheating is hardly surprising: Jerry pulls herself together and pretends nothing is wrong (for a few hours at least), while Ted gets drunk and makes a scene at a friend's wedding reception.  Sure, this is more flattering representation of women than men, but it still goes back to the same expectations of the sexes.  Men should get mad and fight for their woman, while women should just shrug it off and pretend nothing is wrong.  Women are intrinsically viewed as a man's property, while men are nothing more than roving sex monsters.

Despite the gender stereotypes pertaining to love and sex, I enjoyed this film for one reason: Jerry is a strong, independent woman, and remains so throughout the movie.  None of this take-everything-I-own-so-you-can-be-happy crap from The Love Parade.  Jerry tries to move on with her marriage, and when it's clear that Ted cannot do the same, she leaves him.  She comes to regret it, but she takes the time to be sure.  She sees other men, she has fun with her friends, and she even earns a promotion at work.  Her decision to divorce never comes across as a flippant one.  In fact, she even urges another not to do the same despite his own unhappy marriage.  And even though it was Ted who started all the trouble, Jerry knows they are both at fault, and she deals with her guilt admirably.

The Divorcee deals with a sensitive topic with great maturity, and for that it has stood the test of time.  Perhaps a remake is in order?

*  "I like to make love to you until you scream for help!" ~ Ted to Jerry

(Things are going to get a bit boring once the Pre-Code films end, huh?)

The Love Parade [Nominee ~ 1930]

"When royalty marry they don't quarrel like common people.  They can't afford to."

Royalty has always fascinated me.  This is in large part due to my mother, a self-professed "royal watcher," who's always good for gossip about the British monarchy.  As an American, I probably shouldn't care about these people.  They are, after all, the direct descendants of the monarchy that my ancestors fought to gain their freedom from.  But I just can't help myself.  Their regimented lifestyle is interesting, if only because I cannot fathom what it would be like to live that way.  They are philanthropic, and use their influence to further some excellent social and environmental causes.  And some of them are pretty good-looking, which never hurts (Harry's gotten quite handsome, hasn't he?).

While my fascination with the British Royal Family began as a school-girl crush on Prince William (which has mostly ceased due to unfortunate pre-mature balding), it has evolved to include more sociological issues.  My primary question being: how does it feel to be the consort of the Queen, in a world where men are expected to be the dominant partner?

The Love Parade addresses this issue, in a not-so-subtle gender roles-reinforcing way.  Maurice Chevalier plays Count Alfred Renard, the military attache to the Sylvanian Embassy in Paris, who is recalled due to a string of affairs.  Meanwhile, Queen Louise of Sylvania (Jeanette McDonald), is annoyed by her country's preoccupation with her marriage prospects.  Predictably, Alfred and Louise fall in love and marry, and then things get complicated.  [SPOILER ALERT: The rest of this post pretty much gives away the ending of the movie.  I apologize, but there's really no way to make my point without doing so.]

As Prince Consort, Alfred basically becomes a glorified sperm donor.  He's expected to spend his days playing tennis, and napping to "keep up his strength."  Alfred must also vow to be an "obedient and docile husband," and his wife takes precedence over him in all matters.  This riles his male sensibilities so much that he chooses to divorce Louise.  So how does the bereaved Queen get him to stay?  By giving him command of affairs of state and of her, basically elevating him to the title of King.

I'll come right out and say it: I'm probably waaaaaaay over-thinking this film.  It is a comedic "battle of the sexes," after all, and over 80 years old.  It's position on gender norms really must be taken with a grain of salt by modern viewers.  But I think that's what really bothers me about it; some things haven't changed all that much since 1929.

For all the advances we've made toward gender equality, women are still expected to become subservient to their husbands on some level.  Even if women do not do this, the cultural expectation for them to do so is still there.  Every time a sitcom husband is annoyed by his nagging wife, or a man is derided for being a stay-at-home dad, society is showing its discomfort with strong, independent wives who have a life outside their home and family.  Even Kate Middleton's choice to omit the words "to honor and obey" from her wedding vows caused more of stir than it really should have, in my opinion.  (Honestly, how many women actually include this portion anymore?  And how many of those who do are just saying to for traditions sake?)  And it really shines a spotlight on the marriage of Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip.  Being married to a woman so powerful and revered must be daunting, but he rarely seems to rankle under the pressure.  Really, who would have thought that a union so steeped in tradition could also be progressive?

Setting my feminist turmoil aside, The Love Parade was a rather cute film.  It's considered the first true musical, fully integrating songs as part of the story line.  Maurice Chevalier gives a great performance, and once again it was nice putting a face to the name.  So definitely watch it if you get the chance.  Just don't take it as seriously as I did.

The Big House [Nominee ~ 1930]

This is another film I'll need some help seeing.  It aired this past February on TCM, but I was unable to record it as it conflicted with an episode of The Office.  (Cut me some slack; it was Steve Carrel's final season and I've been watching the show from the beginning.)  I also see that it's for sale through the TCM website, but since I do not have $20 to spend on it just yet I thought I'd send out the call for help.

Contact me if you're willing to lend a copy (details to the right), and hopefully I'll be updating this post soon!

Disraeli [Nominee ~ 1930]

"Perhaps you think that because no war clouds darken the present horizon that there is no danger."

So here is where my history teachers have failed me.  Prior to watching Disraeli, I had only a passing idea of who Benjamin Disraeli was and why he was famous.  His name pops up in the Jeopardy! category "British Prime Ministers" from time-to-time, and his quotes are favorites in those Penny Press puzzle books (which, yes, I very much enjoy despite being 30 years younger than their average customer).  Beyond that I was ignorant of the man.

Though perhaps there was no reason for me know anything about him?  History in the US is taught from an American perspective, which many feel is egocentric, but I feel is probably pretty common.  (A friend who grew up in England was taught that the American Revolution was a "small skirmish" and that Great Britain "gave us our freedom."  Talk about spin.)  So while I'm sure Disraeli is an important figure in British history, from what I can tell he wouldn't really merit mention in the US.

The focus of this biopic, the first of this blog, was Disraeli's purchase of the Suez Canal.  If this sounds less than exciting, you're kind of right.  This is a perfect "talkie," in that there's a lot of talking and little action.  Not that that's always a bad thing, but in this case I just wasn't into it.  I will, however, praise George Arliss.  He won the Best Actor Oscar for this role, one which still stands up today.  Often I find myself cringing or laughing at the acting style of old movies, but this one felt much more natural.  This was Arliss' "talkie" debut, and his transition from silent film seems effortless.

Other than being a bit of a snoozer, this movie was OK.  I'd praise it more, but I can't seem to separate the on screen Disraeli from the real life Prime Minister.  This was a man who bought a canal simply to secure a nation for monetary reasons.  Forget the people already there and their feelings on the matter, the Queen needed the title "Empress of India."  So while the character Disraeli was witty and likable, I couldn't fully root for him knowing what was to come.  Hell, I'll probably outright hate him by the end of Gandhi (assuming this blog lasts that long).