Double Feature: "The Women" 1939 & 2008

The Women was a 1936 play written by Clara Boothe Luce that ran for 657 performances at the Ethel Barrymore Theater in New York. Besides being known as a comedy of manners, the play utilized an all-important and rare gimmick: the entire cast, down to the background players, animals, and set decoration, only featured women. That’s right, the play that ostensibly heralds that it’s all about the lives and dramas of a group of urbanite women was just that. The play has been revived twice, and has been adapted into four films, two of which I’ll cover in this Double Feature. Made seventy years apart, both focus on the trials and tribulations of being a woman, and how that relates to the men that love us.

The Women (1939) dir. George Cukor

The concept and execution is very much of its time. (Other timely examples of comedy of manners include The Philadelphia Story and Trouble in Paradise.) The film featured all of MGM’s biggest female stars: Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Paulette Goddard, Rosalind Russell, and Joan Fontaine. The story focuses on Mary Haines (Shearer) a wealthy wife and mother who discovers that her husband is cheating on her with a perfume girl (Crawford). Mary then decides to divorce him, goes to Reno to get said divorce (since this is 1939), and the rest of the film features partner switching, infidelity, scandal, and intrigue as other female characters face the same issues as Mary and her daughter.

Though the casting gimmick makes for an interesting watch, and the film does focus on basic issues that women have, it’s not revolutionary. The women all depend on men. Their issues all stem from men. Their livelihoods, interests, careers, and aspirations are constantly linked to the men around them, even though they are completely unseen. Even when the women are alone, men are their only obligation. Perhaps Clara Boothe Luce and screenwriter Anita Loos were trying to slipin some commentary about the lack of agency in women’s lives. A more likely explanation is that executives thought a film solely about women wouldn’t interest anyone unless it was solely about finding and keeping men.

The one scene that is supposedly solely intended just for women viewers is a fashion show, which is the only color section of the entire film. Director George Cukor hated it so much that he tried to have it cut from the film. It definitely feels forced and kind of patronizing, since the entire sequence is a lengthy 10 minutes, and it does nothing for the plot. It’s as if the film doesn’t trust women to be entertained by wit and humor, and decided we needed a palette cleanser, which is obviously ridiculous.

What the original has over all subsequent remakes is a sense of poise and sophistication. Norma Shearer wins because she is a woman of substance, who cannot be replaced by the sultry Joan Crawford. Shearer was clean and concise, and she was known as an actress for her historical roles up until the advent of Turner Classic Movies. Any remake is going to be subpar, because this is a film very much of its time, and we no longer possess the same views on sexuality, marriage, equality, or feminism that we did in the Depression era 1930s. Of course, this didn’t stop the 2008 remake from happening.

The Women (2008) dir. Diane English

Murphy Brown creator Diane English tried to get this film made for fifteen years. Many of the choices in casting were exceptional, especially Meg Ryan as Mary Haines, who was the perfect relatable woman done bad by her hubby. Eva Mendes is an effortlessly salacious vixen, as the revamped Crystal Allen, as well.

Otherwise, many of the characters and complex plot points were completely changed, for the better. Sylvia Fowler (Bening) is no longer a chatty gossip with a penchant for ruining lives. Now she is the editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine, completely single and loving it, and motivated by ambition rather than petty jealousy. Debra Messing’s character seems to be an amalgamation, who represents motherhood, fertility, and the complexities of the American family. Jada Pinkett Smith’s character is also a blend of characters, a welcome change as she is also a strong lesbian character, which was only hinted at in the original.

Of course, the Reno angle was scrapped, as we live in a world where divorces can be much simpler and reasonable. Instead of plotting and planning her imminent reconciliation with her husband, Mary changes herself and becomes a stronger and more thoughtful designer and mother. This is much better in comparison, because the film is no longer geared at the idea of having a man, getting a man, losing a man, or missing a man. Instead it is a film about how women can thrive and move forward, and the importance of female friendships. Of course, the problem with this change is that we have seen it before. (Sex and the City, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Crazy, Stupid, Love, The Other Woman etc.) There’s nothing new about the narrative of woman can do bad all by herself. Without the original’s biting wit, sophistication, or the idea that cattiness and tearing down other women gets you what you want, this doesn’t work. It’s simply gimmicky and stale.

It’s understandable that English would try and remove the grotesquely backward thinking of the original and create a unique and thoughtful adaptation that would celebrate women instead of canonize men. A better way to accomplish this is to keep the gimmick but completely change the story. An even better accomplishment would be to create a woman driven story without drawing attention to the fact that she’s a woman, which is what Murphy Brown did when it premiered twenty years before this film was released. As much as I would like to tout this film as a decent feminist adaptation of a work in the male gaze, I can’t.

Stories about the significance of female friendship are very important, but they already exist. Yes, The Women was revolutionary for its time, but there are plenty of works that paved the way for social issues that are problematic in today’s world. The original film was enjoyable yet awkwardly regressive, and the remake was thoughtfully feminist yet unenjoyable. There’s probably never going to be a formula that fixes the issues of either. If I had to recommend one of these films it would be the original. It’s historically important, boasts an all-star cast, and began the long arduous trudge that women are still marching today.