Both films have their strengths, naturally. But when the highlight in one film is Meg Ryan sitting at a kitchen table crying and eating a stick of butter and in the other it's Rosalind Russel, wearing a sparkly cape/hood/tiny hat combo, making a devious, shady friend deal with a be-bubble-bathed Joan Crawford... One of these things is better than the other.
1938 credit sequences:
2008 credits sequence:
Now, are the 1938 credits insultingly pairing each actress/character with a corresponding zoo/wildlife animal? Yes. Are they still more entertaining and interesting than the 2008's montage of women's feet and half-hearted Terminator riff that is dropped seconds after showing up? YES. This a theme that will be continued through this blog post.
1938 Gym/Gossip sequence:
2008:
Point to 2008 for Carrie Wilson as the manipulative gossip columnist. But otherwise the 1938 workout wins for being outdated and silly and still kind of awesome in its irrelevance because when someone in the 1930's is like, EXERCISE YUCK! you can be like ha! Oh silly don't-know-any-betters but when they do it in a 2008 film it doesn't have quite the same charm.
Speaking of charm, you need to see the endlessly amazing spectacle that are the hats/fasteners/headpieces and accompanying fashions worn by the characters in the 1938 version as compared to 2008's:
Formal bald caps, for all your fancy bald cap occasions.
Yes, Rosalind Russel is wearing a shirt with 3 eyes on it paired with a flowery headpiece. And she's kind of pulling it off? What is even happening.
In which this scene is mostly notable for how frumpy/boring everyone is.
SO MANY SHOULDERPADS!!!!!!!!!
Hot cross hat.
Slapstick!
Jaunty hats.
Flaunty hats.
Well... those coats are nice...
Feathery caps.
I don't even fucking know. Bows, positioned to look like satin antennae? This was a look that happened in 1938, it would seem.
Pilgrims.
There is nothing about this scene I did not love. Boozing ladies on the night train to Reno? Check. Out heroine wearing a hairstyle that CLEARLY inspired the iconic costume design for Princess Leia? Check. Behooded and bebanged extra? Check. Giant fucking bouquet tacked onto the crazy elder lady's hilariously over the top fur coat? YES OF COURSE.
Did I mention that this happened? I may have mentioned it already. But to reiterate... this happened.
By the way, this is the 2008 version of that. Snore. Look, it's not that Eva Mendes is not as beautiful as Joan Crawford. She totally is. It's just that Joan Crawford is a force of nature, even in an ensemble cast, she just goes for broke as the eeeeevil [twirls mustache] gold digging other woman. And Eva Mendes tries, bless her heart, but she's just... not.
And of course no from from the 1930's, regardless of genre, is complete without a fancy, (preferably shiny) lady turban. It simply isn't done, darling.
Blowouts, yay. I guess.
And while we're here and talking about fashion let's just take a minute to compare the wildly unnescessary and only passingly relevant fashion shows featured in both movies. Because there is quite the disparity there. And while the 2008 version at least tried to enfold this event into the plot (Meg Ryan's character is a fashion designer who strikes out on her own to create a line after she's fired from her father's company/her husband starts cheating on her with Eva Mendes, it's a whole thing), I think it somehow works better in the 1938 version BECAUSE it's not explained and it's so bizarre and left feld and just, why? Why are we even watching this? Why does a film that is supposedly about some sort of empowerment/honesty among and for woman have a 12 minute fashion show in the middle, besides condescenion? Don't get me wrong here. I LOVE THE FASHION SHOW (at least in the 1930's version). Because it is insane. And maybe that's what's intended. But I sort of suspect that the idea was more, hey it's a movie for women! It's not enough that all the characters are dressed outlandishly in every scene, better put some models in dressing even MORE outlandishly! In Technicolor! That being said:
HAND BROOOOOCH WHY NOT ME?! I love that the piece of jewelry has its own jewelry. Details.
More pilgrim hats, was this seriously that popular of a look back then? Also: floor length bathing gowns and antebellum style hair nets because in what else would you go to the beach?
To stomach is cool though, you can show that off. As long as the neck and ears are covered, you're good to go.
I confess, I want that green coat. I want it. Even if it means wearing that stupid hat with it.
There's a zoo sequence. It's a whole thing, I think it's supposed to tie back into the credits and the whole women/zoo animals analogy that is pretty insulting , which I am going to excuse as a product of its time and from which I will now attempt to move on and not rant or rave about.
Tell me this is not inspiration for the restaurant scene in Terry Gilliam's Brazil, where the society matrons are wearing shoes on their heads, and I will tell you that I do no believe you.
SHOULDERPADS
It's so hideous it defies words.
Antebellum...
And back to pilgrims.
Which naturally progresses into this. This outfit is fine, I guess, whatever... Mostly I took this picture to try and capture the clear plastic hair container she is wearing on her head.
Do you see it? It's like a Tupperware container. Formal Tupperware. As you do.
I do actually kind of love this...
But not as much as I loved this. All of it, every piece. I want to own it. And I want to walk around all day striking the same exact poses that this model does. Because she is a treasure.
That last dress is stunning, otherwise this entire sequence is total snoozeville. Was stuff just really boring in 2008? Was that just a thing we were collectively doing at that point in time? I can't remember.
Dressing room confrontation:
I... yeah.
I have to give the 2008 version props, they win when it comes to comparing the gossipy help characters. Because crochety Cloris Leachman is pretty great even when she's kind of annoying.
And Debi Mazar is pretty great as well, so I'll give the 2008 version the manicure/revelation scene.
Since women in 2008 do not have to take the night train to Reno in order to divorce their husbands, the movie instead has Meg Ryan go to some kind of wellness ranch spa business, where she smokes pot with Bette Midler. Which is pretty good, but is it as good as this cowboy hat?
Or this kick fight? I don't know. We'll call that one a draw.
Some more fashion choices from 2008:
Frumps.
Box-shaped.
Forgettable.
Why is it when the 1930's character does those buns it's fantastic, and when they do it on Debra Messing it's a mess? Maybe it's the tiny neck-bandage scarf, haus-frau muumuu and colossal pocketbook?
UGH.
STOP DOING THAT MOVIE. WHAT DID DEBRA MESSING EVER DO TO YOU?!
Just... so bland.
Not to mention the movie ends with this:
Poor Debra Messing.
This poster also gets treated as a legitmate plot point. As in, Meg Ryan makes a dream board and we're treating to a 5 minute montage of this happening. Right before the super boring fashion show. How does the 1930's version end?
Sass.
Forced closeting.
This dress.
These faces. OH THE DRAMA.
That legendary last word, "There's a name for you, ladies, but it isn't used in high society... outside of a kennel."
This line gets recycled in the first few minutes of the 2008 version, but without all the buildup it's really got no punch. Plus it's said by some nameless faceless character and not... Joan Crawford.
In conclusion, am I biased because the clothes in the original The Women are alternatively enviably beautiful and absurdly ridiculous, and therefore I want all of them? YES. Yes I am. But is it also a far superior movie because it uses the madcap, rattling, fast-paced, word-play heavy format of the 30's comedy to shine a little light on the many ways women operate against and with each other? Yes. Is the original also fairly offensive in it stereotypes? Does that therefore make the transferred elements all the worst in the 2008 version, where there is no excuse for that kind of ignorant, boring, ugly depiction of women? And does the original work 1000% than the 2008 version's because the attempt to give the same story, with its same plot beats and characters, an entirely different storytelling sensibility, replete with 21st century bland, romantic dramedic strains is a god awful idea? Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry, everyone involved. I get that it's attempting to honor and update something great. But some things are like a peacock-feathered pilgrim-looking hat paired with a shimmering floor length gown: they're of their time, and any attempt to pull that trick a second time is doomed to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment