I watched "Wife Vs. Secretary" and I had the same thoughts watching it that I've had watching other MGM films.
Namely:
- "Myrna Loy is the most charming talentless actress to ever grace the screen."
- "Good God, Jean Harlow is over-rated. Would someone please explain to me what the big deal about her is supposed to be".
- "Oh look! Jimmy Stewart is playing a shmuck again!"
- "Clark Gable is wasted at MGM. They should have traded him to Warner Brothers for Bette Davis (another right actor/wrong studio). Too bad the studio system didn't work like that."
Aside from their entertainment value, I find these old movies interesting for the historical/sociological value. Due to censorship from the production code, they may not be the best way to understand how people really lived in 1937. They do offer a glimpse into what the values of the time were. And watching Wife Vs Secretary I realized, brother, times done changed.
In particular...
If you watch a current romantic comedy, it will invariably involve some plucky underdog guy. He will be competing with some rich asshole for the affections of some girl. She's usually captain of the cheerleading team or some hag he's had a crush on since 2nd grade.
Of course, you expect the girl to choose the plucky underdog over the rich asshole. To the modern audience, this would be the more romantic ending because she's choosing "love" materialism and social expectation.
Well, in American movies made before WWII, it is always the opposite. The girl always chooses the richer of the two suitors.
How does this work? Well most of the time, the two suitors in question will both be wealthy. One will happen to be charming and handsome. The other an all-around heel.
Occasionally, the will be a plucky underdog vying for the woman's affections but this guy will either only be there for comic relief or played by Jimmy Stewart. Either way, he never gets the girl.
The reason why this was the case is quite simple. Prior to WWII, women did not have very many possibilties for economic advance. And by "not very many", I mean they had none. A woman could teacher, a maid, a waitress, a cashier or a stenographer. That's about it.
So marrying into higher economic class was pretty much the only way for a woman to improve her lot in life. Given that, rejecting a rich suitor for a plucky underdog would not have been seen as a very satisfying ending. It would not have been seen as romantic. Just foolish.
But then WWII came around. All the men went overseas. The women went to the munitions factories. Blah blah blah. War ended. Dudes came home. Women didn't want to go back to the kitchen. Blah blah blah.
So the 1950's roll around and women get more economic opportunities. As a result of this, the sex lives of countless plucky underdogs improves dramatically.
Well, at least in the movies they do. Whether women choose "true love" over wealth anymore now than in 1937 can be debated. Like I said, movies are not a good reflection of how people actually live. They are just a good reflection of people's ideals and values.
I think Wife Vs. Secretary should be remade as I am certain that today's focus groups would demand Jimmy Stewart be banging Jean Harlow by the end credits. They must!
Things done change.
But you know what hasn't changed? Movies that involve MFF love triangles still demand that the dude choose the less affluent of the two women. Today, as in 1937, hometown sweethearts still triumph over wealthy socialites.
At least in the movies they do.
Namely:
- "Myrna Loy is the most charming talentless actress to ever grace the screen."
- "Good God, Jean Harlow is over-rated. Would someone please explain to me what the big deal about her is supposed to be".
- "Oh look! Jimmy Stewart is playing a shmuck again!"
- "Clark Gable is wasted at MGM. They should have traded him to Warner Brothers for Bette Davis (another right actor/wrong studio). Too bad the studio system didn't work like that."
Aside from their entertainment value, I find these old movies interesting for the historical/sociological value. Due to censorship from the production code, they may not be the best way to understand how people really lived in 1937. They do offer a glimpse into what the values of the time were. And watching Wife Vs Secretary I realized, brother, times done changed.
In particular...
If you watch a current romantic comedy, it will invariably involve some plucky underdog guy. He will be competing with some rich asshole for the affections of some girl. She's usually captain of the cheerleading team or some hag he's had a crush on since 2nd grade.
Of course, you expect the girl to choose the plucky underdog over the rich asshole. To the modern audience, this would be the more romantic ending because she's choosing "love" materialism and social expectation.
Well, in American movies made before WWII, it is always the opposite. The girl always chooses the richer of the two suitors.
How does this work? Well most of the time, the two suitors in question will both be wealthy. One will happen to be charming and handsome. The other an all-around heel.
Occasionally, the will be a plucky underdog vying for the woman's affections but this guy will either only be there for comic relief or played by Jimmy Stewart. Either way, he never gets the girl.
The reason why this was the case is quite simple. Prior to WWII, women did not have very many possibilties for economic advance. And by "not very many", I mean they had none. A woman could teacher, a maid, a waitress, a cashier or a stenographer. That's about it.
So marrying into higher economic class was pretty much the only way for a woman to improve her lot in life. Given that, rejecting a rich suitor for a plucky underdog would not have been seen as a very satisfying ending. It would not have been seen as romantic. Just foolish.
But then WWII came around. All the men went overseas. The women went to the munitions factories. Blah blah blah. War ended. Dudes came home. Women didn't want to go back to the kitchen. Blah blah blah.
So the 1950's roll around and women get more economic opportunities. As a result of this, the sex lives of countless plucky underdogs improves dramatically.
Well, at least in the movies they do. Whether women choose "true love" over wealth anymore now than in 1937 can be debated. Like I said, movies are not a good reflection of how people actually live. They are just a good reflection of people's ideals and values.
I think Wife Vs. Secretary should be remade as I am certain that today's focus groups would demand Jimmy Stewart be banging Jean Harlow by the end credits. They must!
Things done change.
But you know what hasn't changed? Movies that involve MFF love triangles still demand that the dude choose the less affluent of the two women. Today, as in 1937, hometown sweethearts still triumph over wealthy socialites.
At least in the movies they do.