I don't understand how this movie exists. I first heard about it on a Joan Crawford episode of You Must Remember This. I don't remember much that was said about the quality - I think she came out in favor of it. I was mostly intrigued by the idea of an ensemble movie with only women from 1939. It was kind of a stunt at the time. It certainly didn't lead to any lasting trends. An all-female cast was a rarity then and it still is. Then again, the 2008 remake barely made a ripple employing the same "all women" casting principle, so, maybe we've made an iota of progress (only one, certainly not two or many iotas). It's a little disheartening to see a movie like this still barely pass Bechdel Test, because everything still revolves around the men in their lives.
While I liked the idea of only casting women, pure fidelity to the idea became a bit of a burden. There's a lot of scenes that are pure exposition, recapping something that happened off camera because showing it would've required a man be present. Certainly, the much more progressive move would've been to put men in the movie, but make them objects with token roles while the women did all the good stuff. For 1939 though, this certainly exceeded my expectations.
The movie does feel longer than it needs to be. I could see its stage roots throughout*. There's a lot of extended scenes with a lot of dialogue and not much else happening. Perhaps, if I was pulled in by the story a little more (like, say, Fences), I wouldn't mind so much.
*It was adapted from a play.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment