Ending ***SPOILER***
-
Hypatia42 — 16 years ago(December 10, 2009 09:31 PM)
The thing I resent about the ending is how completely her character is denounced. The first fifty minutes she had me grinning, then suddenly her company is in financial straits. At the beginning of the film the boardroom discussion is of steady sales, though she ambitiously wants them to increase. At her party a salesman discusses the ease with which her cars can be sold to the American people.
So how did the company manage to get stuck on the ropes in the space of ten minutes?
It seemed a striking condemnation of her management abilities. She ran the place for five years, suddenly it was ripe for a takeover? I was offended by that. It was not only her capitulation to 'marriage' but that she was going to hand over the company responsibility to a mere engineer who lacked leadership experience. Again, implying that any man would be a better leader than a woman.
Why oh why, in a world that is consistently lacking in talented and energetic leaders, did/do people want to keep half the population from working?
Absolutely infuriating. -
netshopper-2 — 16 years ago(February 10, 2010 08:31 AM)
I agree that the message and story of the movie was ruined by knocking a strong woman off her pedestal. What was even worse was her taking that chauvinistic advice from her secretary, Pettigrew. The way he said what she had to do to land her man made me wince.
-
practicepiano — 16 years ago(March 15, 2010 08:09 AM)
I was "saved by the bell" today I was watching it on TCM when a piano student showed up for a lesson, right before the illogical ending!
Besides being unpleasant towards the idea of women being able to function in business, I always find these endings unpleasant towards men. I don't like the idea that all of the burden must be on the man to earn, and that he's not a man if he doesn't cheerfully insist on that burden.
At their best, the various waves of women's rights movements that have come through over the years have had the potential to be good for everyone, men and children included. -
toshguy — 15 years ago(August 20, 2010 05:34 PM)
Yep, it the first two thirds showed that not only men can be bosses and use people from the other sex and throw them away like candy wrappers and that the rock rolls both ways (or however the saying went). It seemed to show that men and women can equally and in the same way be a-holes and that it isn't justified in any case. But ultimately what the movie brought across to us is that women should just lie flat on their husbands' backs, queeze out children and keep house (unless they can afford servants for the latter like our heroine). It's easy to see why Ruth's character was so exaggerated - so that there could have been a strong contrast when she realised the folly of her ways and learned how to be both a woman and a businesswoman. However, they went for the exact opposite extreme at the end and the build up was invain. Furthermore, by this film's logic, one could construe that not only is the man the only one who should be in the office, but also that it isn't wrong for him to solicit his female employees/colleagues, since if they ain't married yet, what other good are they for?
I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die -
timlin-4 — 14 years ago(March 08, 2012 08:17 PM)
Interesting your silence on her own hobby of "sexual harassment". Viewing every attractive man at her company as a boy-toy to be lured to her home on false pretenses and drugged into sex. True, the writers are imposing their own idea of a male executive on her, but it doesn't seem like any of you have a problem with predatory sexuality when it is the female's.
-
mdonln — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 09:26 PM)
timlin-4 says > Interesting your silence on her own hobby of "sexual harassment".
Its funny how you still haven't gotten a response to your comments. It's clear a lot of these women, the ones disappointed with the end but seem to have no problem with any other part of the movie, don't have a problem with sexual harassment if the aggressor is a woman. Thats crazy!
I read all the post before throwing in my own comments because I hoped others thought as I did. Unfortunately, there were very few. I cant believe all the I hate the ending people didnt mind how Alison treated her employees. She used the men for sex then treated them horribly; even banishing them when she was tired of having them around. Its simply unbelievable!
For most of the movie, Alison seemed miserable and it showed. She wandered off into the night in hopes of finding and connecting with someone who didn't want something from her; who saw her as a person but when she found that and he really didnt want something from her; to use her, she was lost. She resorted to tricking him into being with her and neglected her responsibilities to chase after him. Still, the only part that bothered some people is how she left her career to take on one that, in my opinion, mattered a whole lot more.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan.
[Tarzan and his mate] -
directorscut — 13 years ago(August 27, 2012 06:14 PM)
This board is populated either by idiots, feminist ultras, dusty spinsters, people who don't pay attention to movies or a combination of all.
She had the business THRUST upon her by her father. She had no choice in the matter. She never says she loves her job and by all accounts she doesn't. She is described as a "machine" in her workplace and tries to ESCAPE her work by becoming different people in her personal life. Regardless of how good she is at it throughout THE ENTIRE MOVIE it's obvious that she doesn't like it - and that's not a last ten minute twist - that's the core of her character. So all you feminist ultras would rather her stick to a job she doesn't like than to break free and live the life she wants? I suggest the ending is a lot more feminist and liberal than you gender facists who want her to stick with her job just to uphold your feminist agenda.
And the "nine babies" line was obvioulsy a joke - made by the character.
So sezeth I, so sezeth the world. -
GeniusIQ180 — 13 years ago(March 16, 2013 02:52 PM)
Finally, some sense to this thread.
She NEVER enjoyed her job. She actually WANTED to be a mother and housewife which is the greatest gift any woman can ever have. This thread IS populated by feminist and manginas who don't realize that the Ruth Chatterton's character was unhappy and unsatisfied with her life until she met a suitable man that understands her, and the enormous pressure she has to deal with in her job daily. Also, relationships CANNOT function correctly when the female leads. Period.
No one listen to these feminazis up there, they are simply brainwashed feminist propaganda BS.- A genius has just spoken.
-
RubyHypatia — 12 years ago(June 14, 2013 07:56 AM)
It wasn't even just the ending I had a problem with. From the beginning they showed her abusing her power. The message of the movie was loud and clear: women can't handle power and should instead stay home raising a bunch of children. It was all about the 1930's male ego. Thank goodness times have changed!!!
-
atlasmb — 12 years ago(October 04, 2013 07:31 AM)
As a man, I was also disappointed with the ending. From the beginning of the film, Allison was portrayed as the equal of men, able to wield power and behave just as men do. Along comes a man who won't allow her to manipulate him, and she falls for him. So far, so good.
It is encouraging when Allison throws all business concerns aside to pursue Jim. And even more so when he says that they will go to NY together to make a necessary business deal. The disappointment comes when she says she will hand the business over to him.
All women should be respected for the choices they make of their own volition, whether it be career or motherhood or both. But in this film, Allison is a symbolic woman, representing the nature of all women. Consider the title. The film is saying that a woman's place is at home. And that she will only be truly happy if she follows the path of motherhood.
If Jim had said, "No, honey, we will both run Drake together." or even, "Well, we'll have to talk about that," then it would have saved the movie from its sad, outdated view of women. -
manoftheoldies — 12 years ago(October 06, 2013 10:33 AM)
Atlas, you make sense with your post. By the way, I took that last line as "we" and "our business" since they were going to get married at the end, but I suppose it could have gone either way. This was a 1930's movie though, which by and large were optimistic. If it were made inlet's say 1949, then I would expect a certain degree of cynical narrative, but not so much in the mid 30's.
When watching older movies like this, seemingly off-handed comments or remarks like this (and there were a lot of them) usually make more sense to me when I take what they are saying in context, rather than at face value like we would be more likely to do today. But when people today see these older movies, they often read into things people say and hear what they want.