augustinius wrote:Jeanine Basinger discusses this issue more fully in her book on women's films, which does include discussion of some precodes. Yes, those annoying endings confirm the traditionalist view in that the female characters usually fold and learn to love mopping floors. But they are subversive in that before the fold, the male characters are pushed to the sidelines and the female leads indulge in a lot of transgressive behavior, usually with really swell fashion thrown in.
The one I was thinking of in this regard is Female with Ruth Chatterton. They have the cliched ending of returning to domesticity but before then, it's about as feminist as 30s Hollywood ever got.
Also another resolution to the feminist approach in pre Code days was death. Think of Christopher Strong with Katharine Hepburn. She plays a strong character but the character both achieves her peak achievement and her death with one action, in response to her relationship with a man. Actually, Hepburn in the 30s is an interesting figure on this topic. Lots of nontraditional roles for her.
That return to domesticity thing in
Female only lasted for a week after the wedding. Then Ruth said "oh wow, this way sucks" and went back to the office. For a real modern sort of gal in pre-70s film, how about Torchy Blaine?
Man Wanted has Kay Fwancis playing a similar Chatterton executive-type. So does
Christmas in Connecticut in a way (Stanwyck is a Martha Stewart-esque columnist), and oh goodie, I get to watch that again soon! I don't think there is any pre-70s film that is going to make a feminist theorist's heart go pitty-pat, but there were plenty of films that communicated to women. In Women's Film, although the lead may be playing a traditional domestic woman, rarely is she seen cleaning a toilet or grocery shopping or doing laundry, and dishes are washed only as a pretext for a tête à tête with Man du Jour. If she has children they are trotted out once or twice to confirm her maternal chops, and then they are usually stuffed back into the cinematic closet. If the woman has a nontraditional career, it's always a colorful one: she's an executive, she's a scientist, she's an artist/musician/writer. If she's a waitress, she's Joan Crawford, and she will soon own a string of restaurants. Money is almost never an issue and she dresses in Adrian or Travis Banton or Orry Kelly. (She dresses in Adrian or Banton or Orry Kelly even if money is an issue.)
They're fantasies, of course, as Basinger points out, they weren't made to be taken seriously and no one did. But it's interesting that at a time when women didn't have much economic or social independence, they were going to movies to watch fantasies about it.