Speaker 1: On the dol Cast, the questions asked if movies have
Speaker 1: women in them, are all their discussions just boyfriends and husbands,
Speaker 1: or do they have individualism? The patriarchy? Zef invest start
Speaker 1: changing it with the Bedel Cast. Caitlin, Yes, why would
Speaker 1: you do this? I thought you were my friend and
Speaker 1: I was just about to make you some coffee. Oh geez, well, women,
Speaker 1: get back in the kitchen. Wait, am I your husband?
Speaker 1: Or remind your friends? Okay? Right? And I didn't just
Speaker 1: wanted to make you some coffee. Why would you do that?
Speaker 1: Truly high comedy? Well, I was gonna try. I should
Speaker 1: have added the word like, a word like podcast into
Speaker 1: that there. There could have been a transformative joke and
Speaker 1: it didn't come. Hey, but this is the Bedel Cast.
Speaker 1: Here's the thing I've been. I've been switched out with
Speaker 1: an inferior model, and that's why I did that the
Speaker 1: way I did. Yeah, well, I here's the thing. I
Speaker 1: love you so much more now, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I've given up my dreams of being a photographer. And um,
Speaker 1: I am wearing a sheer nightie at all times. She
Speaker 1: cooks as good as she looks. Today's episode, I feel
Speaker 1: like It's been a kind of a long time coming.
Speaker 1: We've been getting this request pretty steadily over the years,
Speaker 1: so I'm excited to talk about it. This is the
Speaker 1: Bechtel Cast. My name is Jamie Loftus, my name is
Speaker 1: Caitlin Toronte, and this is our podcast where we examine
Speaker 1: movies through an intersectional feminist lens, using the Bechtel test
Speaker 1: simply as a jumping off point, and that what is
Speaker 1: it even? I don't Oh my god, I've been I've
Speaker 1: been turned into a robot, and I don't remember the
Speaker 1: things I used to know. Oh my god. Okay, the
Speaker 1: seventies robot is so much scarier than the two thousand
Speaker 1: four robots. I'm just saying the alien eyes, Okay. The
Speaker 1: Bectel Test is a media metric originally created by queer
Speaker 1: cartoonists Alison Bechdel, is sometimes called the Bechtel Wallace test that,
Speaker 1: for the purposes of our show, requires that two people
Speaker 1: of a marginalized gender with names talk to each other.
Speaker 1: Uh for uh, Well, I guess we're kind of changing this.
Speaker 1: They're talking to they have to talk to each other
Speaker 1: about not a man. Uh. And we're we're switching it up,
Speaker 1: aren't we? Caitlin, I mean that we have I guess,
Speaker 1: two different ways because we used to say for two
Speaker 1: lines of dialogue, but then we were making a change
Speaker 1: so that it's like some sort of plot impactful interaction. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so as to get rid of the like what would
Speaker 1: you like for dinner? Cheese? Like, you know, like non
Speaker 1: interactions kind of Yeah, I hadn't that was like something
Speaker 1: that I was going to pay attention to it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if we but if we want to implement it for
Speaker 1: the whole show, I'm down. Yeah. I feel like it
Speaker 1: could just be cannon because what There's been so many
Speaker 1: movies over the years that have gotten away with some
Speaker 1: really like heinous ones that like and sometimes they're really funny.
Speaker 1: But I feel like, um, yeah, it should at least
Speaker 1: like I don't know, I guess it's kind of the
Speaker 1: like you'll know it when you hear it, Like it
Speaker 1: doesn't need to be like influencing the next plot point,
Speaker 1: but it's just a meaningful interaction. Whatever beautiful means. What
Speaker 1: are interesting the movie to apply the test to, because
Speaker 1: arguably the conversations they are having most of the time
Speaker 1: are about what nefarious plans the men have and more
Speaker 1: they're already robots, So if they've already been impacted by
Speaker 1: the men, can they really have a conversation about anything
Speaker 1: that isn't related to house cleaning. Let's take this, Let's
Speaker 1: take this new version for a spin. Does sounds good
Speaker 1: to me? And with that, let's properly introduce our our guests.
Speaker 1: She is a sex edutainer. She is the owner of
Speaker 1: Spectrum Boutique and author of Carnal Knowledge. It's Zoe Ligan
Speaker 1: been so excited to talk about this, well, these films.
Speaker 1: I'm a huge horror and thriller fan. And while the
Speaker 1: two thousand's version of this film is hardly spooky, um,
Speaker 1: you know it's it plays on some very real world fears.
Speaker 1: You know that the men in our lives are secretly
Speaker 1: plotting against us at all times, like could be some
Speaker 1: truth to it? Hard to say. This is also one
Speaker 1: of the I would say, one of the better Larry
Speaker 1: and so, so okay, we're talking about Originally we were
Speaker 1: going to just talk about the two thousand four movie,
Speaker 1: but then we all watched both, so it's an episode
Speaker 1: about both. But I would say that this is one
Speaker 1: of my top Larry King cameos, not on b Larry
Speaker 1: King in B movie level, I think that's kind of
Speaker 1: the golden standard for Larry King cameos. But this was
Speaker 1: a pretty good one. At the end, I thought, agree
Speaker 1: that it's nowhere near his his peak, which is of
Speaker 1: course in B movie. I mean, unbelievable Christopher Walkin Christopher.
Speaker 1: I just so many good at Midler, so many good, good,
Speaker 1: like wonderful actors in this two thousand four version, and like,
Speaker 1: but they're just like they're not given very much. They
Speaker 1: are not. So what is your history with the Stepford Wives? Um,
Speaker 1: just overall any of the movies interacting with the property
Speaker 1: in general. Absolutely. I watched the two thousand and four
Speaker 1: movie probably right when it came out. I then was
Speaker 1: such a fan that I owned it on DVD, watched
Speaker 1: it many times. I was so excited to rewatch it
Speaker 1: for this podcast because I knew it was going to
Speaker 1: be one of those films that was like deeply embedded
Speaker 1: in my psyche, and and it was exactly as I expected.
Speaker 1: There was like little moments that like I like unlocked
Speaker 1: parts of my memory, Like especially the Docy dough scene
Speaker 1: where she's twirling out of control. I was just like,
Speaker 1: I'll never forget this part O. My god. I hadn't
Speaker 1: seen the seventy five version and decided to watch it
Speaker 1: the night before. I watched the two thousand and four version,
Speaker 1: and I am so glad I did, because what a
Speaker 1: different film. I mean a premise. I mean the main
Speaker 1: difference between a comedy and a horror is people living
Speaker 1: versus people dying. So you know, very different outcomes, similar premise,
Speaker 1: And now I want to read the book. I haven't
Speaker 1: read it. Same yeah, same. This is the second adapted
Speaker 1: I mean, like really famous adapted property from this author,
Speaker 1: because this is the same author as Rosemary's Baby that
Speaker 1: we've covered covered a couple of years ago. Um Ira
Speaker 1: eleven so kind of an iconic writer who very often
Speaker 1: wrote about the expectations of women. Um So there you go. Yeah, Caitlin,
Speaker 1: what's your history with this stuff? For wise, I saw
Speaker 1: the two thousand four movie at a drive in movie
Speaker 1: theater in two thousand four when it came out. This
Speaker 1: is a good drive in movie. Yeah yeah, I had
Speaker 1: just graduated high school because it came out June two four,
Speaker 1: so I think I probably like went with either some
Speaker 1: friends or my mom, who knows, But I saw it
Speaker 1: at the drive in, and I think that was the
Speaker 1: only time I had ever seen it, and I did
Speaker 1: not I had not seen the version, but I did
Speaker 1: watch it the other night, so I'm fully prepped to
Speaker 1: talk about others. Just oh my gosh, there's so much
Speaker 1: to cover, Jamie, really, what about you mine? I think
Speaker 1: kind of similar. I remember watching The two thousand four
Speaker 1: when at a sleepover shortly after it came out. Good
Speaker 1: sleepover movie, Yeah, yeah, and really liking it. And I
Speaker 1: remember being like, oh, it's like, I don't know, being
Speaker 1: like young enough that I was like, oh, it's Inspector
Speaker 1: Gadget and Carella de Ville and the lady from Milan
Speaker 1: Rouge and oh. I remember my aunt being like Faith
Speaker 1: Hill in a movie because she well, really this was
Speaker 1: the two thousand four. One was a fun rewatch for
Speaker 1: the high volume of two thousand four themed jokes in it,
Speaker 1: like a Vigo Mortenson joke, Orlando Bloom, Orlando Bloom, Meredith
Speaker 1: Vieira Is has a really strong cameo like early two
Speaker 1: thousands reality shows, just a kind of a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff I did that felt was like normal at the
Speaker 1: time that I'm like, whoa, this is David. I'm really
Speaker 1: getting old. Um. And then I saw the seventies when
Speaker 1: over the summer, I kind of just like watched it
Speaker 1: on a whim and like really really really liked it, um,
Speaker 1: And it was like it was fun to go back
Speaker 1: and watch again because they feel like it. I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's it's the strengths that these adaptations have are very different.
Speaker 1: Where it's like it feels like the two thousand four
Speaker 1: when the pacing of it, in the look of it,
Speaker 1: it's like it keeps it moving. It's it goes quick.
Speaker 1: The seventies one can drag a little bit. But then
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm are excited to talk about how the
Speaker 1: like the two thousand four one got studio notes into
Speaker 1: saying nothing by the end, Like God, I honestly forgot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I forgot how the two thousand four one ended so differently.
Speaker 1: I was like, damn, they really thought they were doing
Speaker 1: something there. That's wild. Um. Yeah, And I should read
Speaker 1: the book, but I simply we don't read books on
Speaker 1: this podcast. Before we'll stay it again. I almost reread
Speaker 1: the Da Vinci Code, but it wasn't It wasn't available
Speaker 1: at the library, and they're too busy with your rhinestone Swordfish.
Speaker 1: My rhine Stone Swordfish is killing me. Like I'm so,
Speaker 1: I'm so late on so many things. But I have
Speaker 1: you know, I have like two hours left of my
Speaker 1: rent Stone Swordfish and then I can move on with
Speaker 1: my life. So what I've done for this is I'll
Speaker 1: recap the two thousand four one. But I feel like
Speaker 1: then we can just go into in our discussion, we
Speaker 1: can just like note the differences and similarities and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. That's that's my plan. Okay. So the two
Speaker 1: thousand four adaptation of Stepford Wives opens on Joanna Eberhart.
Speaker 1: That's Nicole Kidman. She's the president of a TV network.
Speaker 1: She's literally dressed like Elizabeth Holmes. It's like the girl
Speaker 1: Boss while she's in full girl Boss made. She's at
Speaker 1: an awards show presenting a few like popular reality shows
Speaker 1: that she has worked on. Um but everything goes hey
Speaker 1: wire when a man who had been screwed over by
Speaker 1: one of her programs, Yes, I can do better the show.
Speaker 1: I can't believe they made Nedge s Neebly the Assassin
Speaker 1: to move. What a plot line that just throw in there, really,
Speaker 1: because hell, what happens is that he shows up and
Speaker 1: tries to shoot Joanna and had also shot his wife
Speaker 1: and several of her lovers that she met on the
Speaker 1: reality And it's like all of all of Joanna's reality
Speaker 1: shows are very early two thousands in that they're like
Speaker 1: the theme is a very rigid gender binary like and
Speaker 1: that's the whole show. But the movie wants you to think, like, oh,
Speaker 1: look how empowering these shows are for women, But it's
Speaker 1: like by early two thousands standards. So see, I wasn't
Speaker 1: even sure. Like there was so many moments in this
Speaker 1: movie where I was like, is this like I know
Speaker 1: that they is it satire to them? Or is it
Speaker 1: am I supposed to? Like? It's so totally confusing because
Speaker 1: it's like looks like a satire. Everything is so over
Speaker 1: the top and how it's stylized and presented, but then
Speaker 1: like most of the story doesn't. It's so confusing because
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, they're like you know, like you know,
Speaker 1: pair readying this era of reality TV at an eleven,
Speaker 1: but like I don't. I didn't understand what my takeaway
Speaker 1: was supposed to be. Right. Uh So, basically, the network
Speaker 1: not wanting to be associated with Joanna any longer, they
Speaker 1: fire her, and being fired gives her a nervous breakdown,
Speaker 1: and her husband, her husband Uh Walter Cresby played by
Speaker 1: Matthew Brodrick, comes to visit her in the hospital and
Speaker 1: she tells him that she wants to get away and
Speaker 1: start over. So Joanna Walter and their two kids moved
Speaker 1: to Stepford, Connecticut, which is this extremely wealthy, extremely white,
Speaker 1: gated community. They arrive and are greeted by Claire Wellington
Speaker 1: played by Glenn Close. She shows them around the neighborhood
Speaker 1: and she points out the Men's Association, which is this
Speaker 1: giant country club type place where the men of the
Speaker 1: community hang out. Uh and then she says that the
Speaker 1: women slash wives of the community hang out in this
Speaker 1: day spa. So Joanna meets all of them and they
Speaker 1: are all rocking this like nineteen fifties housewife aesthetic. They're creepy,
Speaker 1: they're weird, except for one woman who she meets who
Speaker 1: appears to be normal. Bobby marco Witz and her her
Speaker 1: husband Dave played by John Lovetts and John high school
Speaker 1: high um. And then they also meet a gay couple
Speaker 1: Jerry and Roger, and Joanna and Bobby befriend Roger, but
Speaker 1: then something happens at this Fourth of July party where
Speaker 1: one of the wives Sarah Sunderson, that's Faith Hill, right,
Speaker 1: I think, yes, yeah, I could not pick Faith Hill
Speaker 1: out of a lineup to save my life. That's kind
Speaker 1: of her thing. She is. My aunt was obsessed with
Speaker 1: Faith Hill. So I've got I've got the radar, God,
Speaker 1: i gotta got it. So Sarah Sunderson, she can't stop
Speaker 1: spinning around this is and it's almost as if she's
Speaker 1: a robot whose malfunction. That was another thing that struck
Speaker 1: me about the two thousand four when they give it
Speaker 1: away so early there's no mystery to it at all.
Speaker 1: To find that in the first scene, you're like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: Faith Hill is clearly a robot. Well I have a
Speaker 1: theory about that. So yeah, the main narrative device and
Speaker 1: the two one is suspense, whereas the is mystery. And
Speaker 1: for anyone, for any listeners out there who were like,
Speaker 1: what's the difference, but satically suspenses when the audience knows
Speaker 1: more than the characters, and mysteries, when the characters an
Speaker 1: audience know the same amount of or no or don't
Speaker 1: know the same amount of information, that distinction. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Um I teach the screenwriting classes. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: would just starting. I mean, I just think that it
Speaker 1: fails in this one. It's well. My my theory for
Speaker 1: that is that because Stepford Wives as a concept was
Speaker 1: already so familiar to everyone, there's no point in trying
Speaker 1: to like make it a mystery in this in this
Speaker 1: movie by two thousand four, even as a tween, I knew,
Speaker 1: I knew what I was signing up for going into it, right,
Speaker 1: So they were like, well, let's just do it suspense
Speaker 1: because everyone already knows has a general idea of what
Speaker 1: a Stepford Wife is. So that's I'm guessing why they
Speaker 1: did that. But anyway, so Mike Wellington ak Christopher Walkin
Speaker 1: shows up and he fixes Sarah Sunderson. Um, Joanna is like,
Speaker 1: what the fuck? Um, she's also wearing like all black
Speaker 1: to this like Fourth of July party where that's covered
Speaker 1: in pastels, and she looks she's like wearing like a
Speaker 1: cocktail dress. That's right, I do love it. And then
Speaker 1: Joanna's husband, Walter gaslights her and makes her think that
Speaker 1: everything's fine and that she has to change herself and
Speaker 1: fit into this community. So Joanna starts wearing pastels and
Speaker 1: doing household chores. And then she, Bobby and Roger go
Speaker 1: to visit Sarah Sunderson to see if she's all right,
Speaker 1: and they find what is clearly a remote control that
Speaker 1: controls Sarah. I would love to have one of these,
Speaker 1: just like a replica prop at remote. It's a good
Speaker 1: prop it is, yeah, But they're like and they're toying
Speaker 1: around with it, and we see like Sarah b controlled
Speaker 1: by it in the background, but they are not privy
Speaker 1: to what's happening, so they still don't know. It's still suspense. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Walter does learn what's going on, which is that the
Speaker 1: Stepford women are robots, but we find out that that's
Speaker 1: not even true, that they've just been like nano chipped
Speaker 1: in their brain way more way, more friendly too, because
Speaker 1: you know, there is no death and murder occurring. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: it just modified your brain. This is a comedy now, right,
Speaker 1: because in the in the book and in the seventies version,
Speaker 1: the wives are being murdered and then replaced with lookalike
Speaker 1: and like androids that only have like huge pupils for eyes.
Speaker 1: They're so scary. Yeah. Um, but anyway, so the Stepford
Speaker 1: women or Stepford wives are being turned into these like
Speaker 1: perfect little housewives that look hot and wait on the
Speaker 1: men hand and foot. So Joanna and Bobby they know
Speaker 1: something strange is going on, so they sneak into the
Speaker 1: men's association to investigate, but they get caught and have
Speaker 1: to run away. But then it seems that Roger, their
Speaker 1: friend Roger, has gotten the like step for treatment because
Speaker 1: he's suddenly completely different. He's running for political office now,
Speaker 1: even though he's an architect. He's a yeah, he's suddenly
Speaker 1: a Republican. Yeah, to appease his husband, yes, what is
Speaker 1: the husband wanted from him all along? And another Republican
Speaker 1: husband never? Oh god, so scary. And then Joanna is like,
Speaker 1: that's it, Walter, we're leaving, and he's like, okay, we'll
Speaker 1: leave tomorrow. And that night Joanna finds the remote control
Speaker 1: with her name on it, and so she starts to
Speaker 1: do some research and she discovers that all of these
Speaker 1: Stepford women were formerly powerful career women. They were CEOs,
Speaker 1: they were judges, there were a bunch of girl bosses.
Speaker 1: But obviously they are completely different persona wise, looks wise,
Speaker 1: et cetera from who they are now. So Joanna goes
Speaker 1: to Warren Bobby, but oh no, they've already gotten to Bobby. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Bobby's portrayed as like borderline horder when we first meet Bobby,
Speaker 1: to really emphasize the dichotomy, I mean, you know, not
Speaker 1: that bad. But there's this dramatic scene. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: where's the floor. I can't see the floor. It looks
Speaker 1: like she's like a freshman in college. More like a
Speaker 1: freshman in college. Yeah. Um. So the next thing that
Speaker 1: Joanna knows, she is surrounded by all the men, and
Speaker 1: Walter's like, I'm tired of you being better than me
Speaker 1: at everything. And then Mike Wellington Christopher Walkin explains the
Speaker 1: whole process or they take the women, they insert nano
Speaker 1: chips into their brains and program them to be these
Speaker 1: complacent trophy wife women. They then do the process to
Speaker 1: Joanna and turn her into a Stepford wife, or so
Speaker 1: we think this scene, this is where it's like, what
Speaker 1: is going on? That scene? That scene where it's imagined
Speaker 1: like I will get there. I was so I was
Speaker 1: so frustrated by the end of this movie. Yes, but
Speaker 1: then Walter, I guess, realizes the error of his ways
Speaker 1: or something. They make out. They kiss, and which like
Speaker 1: upsets me because I'm like, oh, you just learned your
Speaker 1: husband wants to make you a robot and you just
Speaker 1: go kiss him like this. But this is what wakes
Speaker 1: him up, and he's like, oh, I shouldn't have gone
Speaker 1: like all of a sudden, it's like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: I love my wife nothing yet, like for even that.
Speaker 1: But it's like when they're sinking into the floor, we
Speaker 1: have to think that Joanna does think she's about to
Speaker 1: be turned into a row. There's telepathically communicated, and he's like, actually,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna It's like Jamie, a kiss is telepathic communication.
Speaker 1: If it's true love between a husband and wife, of
Speaker 1: course it's oh my god. I was like, how is
Speaker 1: she not breaking up with him? He was so ready
Speaker 1: to turn her into a robot? Like, so why is
Speaker 1: it she running away? No consequences here, right, Oh there's yeah,
Speaker 1: there's so much to talk about their um but anyway,
Speaker 1: so there's this big ball that happens, and Walter speaks
Speaker 1: away and hacks into the main frame and starts reversing
Speaker 1: all of these stufford programming in the women's brains, and
Speaker 1: it turns out that Joanna had not actually been transformed
Speaker 1: into a Stepford wife. She was just faking it too.
Speaker 1: I guess, create a diversion. Um. And then Mike Wellington
Speaker 1: is like, well to you suck and he goes to
Speaker 1: attack him. But then Joanna hits Mike not coming. Um.
Speaker 1: She she knocks Mike Wellington Christopher Walkins head off because
Speaker 1: it turns out he's a robot. This was more fun.
Speaker 1: This was like more fun. Yeah, this this is a
Speaker 1: fun moment. So it turns out that Claire Wellington had
Speaker 1: programmed her robot husband Mike to do her bidding. The
Speaker 1: whole Stepford wife thing was her idea. She like explains
Speaker 1: her master plan and her motivations and stuff. It mostly
Speaker 1: makes sense kind of. How she managed to get away
Speaker 1: with a double homicide and then take over a small
Speaker 1: town is just we don't know. We don't know what
Speaker 1: I mean. You have to hand it to her. Women
Speaker 1: are powerful, um and I have fruit feminist icon when
Speaker 1: you think about it. Um. Then she accidentally electrocutes herself
Speaker 1: to death I think by kissing Christopher Watkins robot head.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the disembodied head. Yes, this is hilarious. Then
Speaker 1: we cut two six months later, where Joanna, Bobby and
Speaker 1: Roger are guests on Larry King at the rest known
Speaker 1: as b Larry King be Larry King. Um. They've done
Speaker 1: this whole like expose about the Stepford community. Um. And
Speaker 1: then we cut to the men of Stepford now doing
Speaker 1: all of the domestic chores because they're like under house arrest.
Speaker 1: And then now they they're the ones who go grocery
Speaker 1: shopping bern the And let's take a quick break and
Speaker 1: then we'll come back to discuss and we're back. We're back.
Speaker 1: Should we go over just kind of like the some
Speaker 1: of the broader differences between the two movies before we
Speaker 1: kind of jump in because they Kaitlie, you like broke
Speaker 1: down perfectly how the genres are different and how it's
Speaker 1: you know, unless you had rent the book, you know,
Speaker 1: you would go into the movie not knowing that the
Speaker 1: women is robots now and so it really like builds
Speaker 1: that tension throughout of like, well what is going on here?
Speaker 1: But I really like what I liked so much more
Speaker 1: about the one is that you get to like know
Speaker 1: the people who live there in a meaningful way. And
Speaker 1: so it's it just like I think that that's like
Speaker 1: the main that and the way that it ends is like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is clearly satire. This is clearly saying something. Because
Speaker 1: at the end of the seventy five movie, um, there
Speaker 1: is no secret Walter was good the whole time, and
Speaker 1: she's turned into a Stepford wife. That's how it ends.
Speaker 1: She's murdered by her alien double, which is super fucking scary,
Speaker 1: and she becomes a Stepford wife and it is like this,
Speaker 1: you know, commentary on womanhood at this time, and there's
Speaker 1: you know it. It certainly has its flaws, but at
Speaker 1: least it's like there's a clear point, uh there's I
Speaker 1: feel like you got a lot more out of the
Speaker 1: Joanna Bobby friendship in the seventy one as well, because
Speaker 1: they are like actively investigating what's going on for the
Speaker 1: whole like they like try to start a women's club
Speaker 1: and they and I also thought that Joanna's I don't know,
Speaker 1: I'm curious what you what you both think here. I
Speaker 1: thought that Joanna's job situation made more sense to me
Speaker 1: in the seventy one as well, Like, I think it's
Speaker 1: funny that they chose for her to be a high
Speaker 1: powered reality show producer in the two thousand four one,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't really come in anywhere like where in
Speaker 1: the seventies one. Joanna isn't a aspiring photographer, and it
Speaker 1: felt to me kind of like she she was not
Speaker 1: yet successful. She's kind of nagged by her husband for
Speaker 1: having this dream. She's insecure about it, and it's like
Speaker 1: a part of her character. And then she she like
Speaker 1: gets closer to her goals, and the closer she gets
Speaker 1: to her goals, the more her husband resents it like
Speaker 1: it just has like an active part of the story.
Speaker 1: I mean, there weren't as many women's CEOs in nineteen Also,
Speaker 1: I think you're a percent right that it's a sign
Speaker 1: of the times and how it was portrayed. Yeah. The
Speaker 1: other thing is the one thing I do like about
Speaker 1: the two thousand four version, which, as you would expect
Speaker 1: from a movie made in two thousand four, doesn't get
Speaker 1: this quite right or go all the way. But the
Speaker 1: two thousand four version focuses more on like the commentary
Speaker 1: being made, because both movies are providing commentary to varying
Speaker 1: degrees of you know, efficacy and success. But the two
Speaker 1: thousand four version focuses on male fragility and like comments
Speaker 1: on male fragility in terms of like the men feel
Speaker 1: inferior to and emasculated by their powerful wives, so they
Speaker 1: basically turn the women into these complacent, trophy wife like
Speaker 1: domestic robots with no personality and no autonomy so that
Speaker 1: they can feel superior again. And that's like a very
Speaker 1: real thing because you know, the patriarchy conditions men to
Speaker 1: think that they should be like superior and if they, like,
Speaker 1: if they make less money or if they don't have
Speaker 1: as impressive or powerful as a job, then they are
Speaker 1: inferior to you know, the women in their lives. So yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a power imbalance in the two thousand and four
Speaker 1: one that doesn't exist in the seventies version, right, And
Speaker 1: I think that's like an interesting and worthwhile thing to
Speaker 1: comment on. But again, like the two thousand four one
Speaker 1: makes a bunch of other really weird choices that make
Speaker 1: this like not the most effective. Jerry, Yeah, I felt
Speaker 1: like on this rewatch, I felt I was kind of bummed.
Speaker 1: I left like not liking the two thousand four one
Speaker 1: as much as I feel like I poked a little
Speaker 1: my little nostalgia balloon for it, because it's just I
Speaker 1: feel like we we really don't know that much about
Speaker 1: any of the characters to the point where it's like,
Speaker 1: even when they're making those like really you know, clear
Speaker 1: points about like you know, Walter feels emasculated and like
Speaker 1: all this other stuff, it just the pacing of how
Speaker 1: we got there felt really strange. Like the way the
Speaker 1: characters reacted to things was like just kind of I
Speaker 1: don't know, it felt off where Joanna, you know, Walter
Speaker 1: is like I need you to completely change who you are,
Speaker 1: and Joanna, who we are led to believe is this
Speaker 1: like really headstrong person, is like, oh my god, you're
Speaker 1: right okay, and then all of a sudden, like Walter
Speaker 1: flips to super filling really quickly, and it's like I
Speaker 1: just wish I knew a little more about both of
Speaker 1: them to understand like how that happened. It just felt like,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Even even though it's it makes sense
Speaker 1: that you need to update the roles and try, you know,
Speaker 1: try to like reflect where gender roles were at in
Speaker 1: the year the movies being made, like of course it
Speaker 1: should be different from the seventies one, but it just
Speaker 1: felt like, I don't know, like things just happened so
Speaker 1: like clunquily, like when he was were either of you
Speaker 1: thrown off when Matthew Brodrick was like, you can't wear
Speaker 1: black anymore, and and then she's like, okay, I guess
Speaker 1: I'm never going to wear black again. I'm like, this
Speaker 1: isn't who I was told this character was. Like. He says,
Speaker 1: only high powered, neurotic castrating Manhattan career bitches where black,
Speaker 1: It's that what you want to be. And she says,
Speaker 1: ever since I was a little girl, which is funny.
Speaker 1: I'm like, okay, that's like girl Boss canon. Okay, that's horrific,
Speaker 1: but also it's like who funck Like it's I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's it seems like and I guess. Reading about the
Speaker 1: production of the two thousand four one, it seems it
Speaker 1: seems like Frank Oz who also this movie was directed
Speaker 1: by Yoda Um crystal Um, it seems like he really
Speaker 1: wanted to go full satire in lines like that, You're like, okay,
Speaker 1: that's like where the full satire is, but then it
Speaker 1: it Scholarly journal Wikipedia indicates that Paramount was like, really
Speaker 1: not okay with the level of satire he wanted to
Speaker 1: do in the level of over the toppiness, and so
Speaker 1: they made him change the entire ending, which kind of
Speaker 1: undercuts everything. And I would, I mean it, I bet
Speaker 1: that there's like a funny satirical movie that was like
Speaker 1: shot but it just like was not really ended up
Speaker 1: on the chopping floor. Whatever's bummer because it's like there's
Speaker 1: a ton of like potent. I would. I would like
Speaker 1: to understand their relationship a little better because it it
Speaker 1: end up kind of like I don't know. I liked
Speaker 1: that scene where Walter was like, I feel emasculated and
Speaker 1: threatened by you, And I liked that Joanna in that
Speaker 1: scene didn't apologize and she was like, yeah, like you're
Speaker 1: really lucky to be married to me. You're lucky and
Speaker 1: I am better at sex and I was not going
Speaker 1: to didn't mine that the line I remember from the
Speaker 1: original watching as well, that's so funny. I just wish
Speaker 1: I understood more about their relationship, or their relationship made
Speaker 1: more sense to me. I don't know, because like, how
Speaker 1: could the husband turn on you know, it's like if
Speaker 1: we're going to believe, okay, like he could turn on
Speaker 1: her in this instant, Like I want to know more
Speaker 1: context for what that relationship was like if they have
Speaker 1: kids together, Clearly they've been together a few years at least,
Speaker 1: and they also disappear their children in this one, I
Speaker 1: was like, what did you even bother having them? But also,
Speaker 1: like Walter, it doesn't make sense because he leaves his
Speaker 1: also very high powered job as a TV network vice president.
Speaker 1: He's just like one step below her. Also, if he
Speaker 1: leaves that job, how do they afford living in this mansion?
Speaker 1: But anyway, like why would he got good severance after
Speaker 1: ed sneeply came after? But if his whole thing was
Speaker 1: like I want to be more powerful than my wife, like,
Speaker 1: wouldn't he keep his powerful anyway? More importantly, I think
Speaker 1: the problem here is that in the two thousand four version,
Speaker 1: which I didn't see in the nineteen version, was that
Speaker 1: Joanna's character is so wildly inconsistent in the two thousand
Speaker 1: four versions because like, first she gets fired and then
Speaker 1: she's like, maybe the man who tried to shoot me
Speaker 1: was right, Maybe I've become the wrong kind of woman,
Speaker 1: And it's just like, okay, well, like there's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with self reflection, but like for you to be like
Speaker 1: the man who shot me he was right, uh, is
Speaker 1: because she's unbothered right after it happened, as well as
Speaker 1: unbothered to like two minutes after, she's like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: I'm totally fine, going like you need to sit down, honey,
Speaker 1: just like capitalism has enshrouded me and a bulletproof vest
Speaker 1: of money. Like it's so I I thought that maybe
Speaker 1: what my guest was of what they were going for
Speaker 1: was that like, she's a very high powered executive, but
Speaker 1: she also has this deep insecurity, which is like that's
Speaker 1: worth exploring, but it just it doesn't come through, and
Speaker 1: it does come out as like inconsistent, right because the
Speaker 1: next thing is they arrive in Stepford, she like right
Speaker 1: away notices that things are weird, especially with the women,
Speaker 1: but Walter's like, no, things are actually really normal, and
Speaker 1: like part of this is like I don't want to
Speaker 1: fault her because she's very clearly being gas lit by
Speaker 1: her husband, but she just keeps kind of flip flopping
Speaker 1: where like then she's like, Okay, you're right, I'm a mess.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna start, you know, wearing pink and doing and
Speaker 1: like baking cupcakes. But then a few scenes later she's like, no, way,
Speaker 1: things are really weird. And then a few scenes later
Speaker 1: she's like, no, I'm going to join the book club
Speaker 1: and then a few scenes later she's like, no, I
Speaker 1: should investigate, Like it's just like she's just going on
Speaker 1: this like loop of doing one eighties all the time.
Speaker 1: But in the version, the Joanna character is like consistently
Speaker 1: like something is really fucked up about this community. She
Speaker 1: doesn't like ever waiver from trying to figure out what's
Speaker 1: going on or like thinking that something is amiss. So
Speaker 1: I think it's just like kind of a poor writing
Speaker 1: choice to make Joanna so inconsistent. I agree, even though
Speaker 1: it's like, I mean, in the seventies when we're clearly
Speaker 1: in you know, second wave feminism, and there are so
Speaker 1: many elements of it that kind of dated. But it's
Speaker 1: I just liked her journey a little more because it
Speaker 1: was even though there are moments in the two or
Speaker 1: in the nine seventies one where she does kind of
Speaker 1: try to appease her husband. She's like, I'm sorry, like
Speaker 1: I I didn't, but it makes sense in context at least,
Speaker 1: Like it's it doesn't seem like she's just like doing
Speaker 1: a one eighty for no reason. It's like, oh, she
Speaker 1: feels guilty because her husband is telling her she should
Speaker 1: feel guilty, and like just kind of this like the
Speaker 1: subtle negging that takes place in their relationship over time,
Speaker 1: I thought was like pretty effective and like more realistic
Speaker 1: than than you know, how the two thousand four characters
Speaker 1: interact with each other one. It's also set up in
Speaker 1: such a way where the husband Walter was plotting all
Speaker 1: along to have her turned into a robot. There's this
Speaker 1: revelation in the one that he'd already put a down
Speaker 1: payment on the house before she had even signed off
Speaker 1: on the house, and she brings that up as you know,
Speaker 1: their dirty laundry that they've clearly, you know, been having
Speaker 1: arguments about. But it's very clear that he was pulling
Speaker 1: strings to influence her to move out to Stepford, whereas
Speaker 1: in the two thousand and four one it seems like,
Speaker 1: you know, there was no ulterior motive all along, and
Speaker 1: it just they just stumble into this world of robots
Speaker 1: instead of like, I'm gonna blackmail my wife and convince
Speaker 1: her to move out to the country. And also we
Speaker 1: don't really have any contexts for as to why they
Speaker 1: leave New York in the one. We see this scene
Speaker 1: in the beginning of one where they're loading into the car.
Speaker 1: Somewhat random person is carrying a mannequin around in New
Speaker 1: York City and one of the kids goes like, I
Speaker 1: just saw a guy carrying a naked lady daddy or
Speaker 1: something like that, and one of them goes, Yep, that's
Speaker 1: why we're moving to Stepford, so we don't have to
Speaker 1: see that anymore. Like it's like the depraved city of
Speaker 1: New York is what has scared them away into the
Speaker 1: safe suburbs. Almost. Yeah, I kind of was wondering. It
Speaker 1: was like I wonder I sort of assumed that that
Speaker 1: was like a commentary of the time of like the
Speaker 1: suburban culture of the seventies and like the ways that
Speaker 1: people would like the reasons people would have for justifying
Speaker 1: a move like that, and even it's like it's interesting
Speaker 1: to watch Joanna kind of slowly be like I didn't
Speaker 1: want or that. She's kind of right away like I
Speaker 1: don't really want to be here and like I can't
Speaker 1: pursue my dreams the way I want to here, and
Speaker 1: he's kind of like, no, no, no, you did this
Speaker 1: was like basically your idea, and this is a good idea,
Speaker 1: and you can take pictures wherever, so like shut up
Speaker 1: and go to bed. Yeah, we can make a dark
Speaker 1: room for you, like right right, and like it's I
Speaker 1: don't know, I thought that. I mean, the one is
Speaker 1: like a William Goldman script, so it's like also, I think,
Speaker 1: just in the hands of a really icon incapable writer.
Speaker 1: But like the deterioration of their relationship is more trackable.
Speaker 1: I don't like, I don't understand why she's married to him,
Speaker 1: but I never understand why, why why straight couples are married.
Speaker 1: So it's like that's kind of a wash. But in
Speaker 1: the in the two thousand four one, I totally agree.
Speaker 1: So it's like the fact that Walter is not clued
Speaker 1: in from the beginning kind of like makes his character
Speaker 1: really confusing, Like I don't know it just they go
Speaker 1: from playing battle bots in the men's club, they literally
Speaker 1: have these battle bot robots, and then directly following that
Speaker 1: and again in the two thousand and four one, another
Speaker 1: one of the guys like, hey, let me show you
Speaker 1: a party trick. Hey, wife, come on over here, and
Speaker 1: then we have the infamous scene that is what stands
Speaker 1: out in my mind the most from my original viewing,
Speaker 1: is inserting a credit card into the wife's now a card,
Speaker 1: you know, and with drawing cash all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: all the men look to Walter to like see how
Speaker 1: he's going to react, because this is the big reveal
Speaker 1: like look our wives or robots um, which also makes
Speaker 1: no sense with the fact that they're not really robots,
Speaker 1: they just chips in their brain. But so then after
Speaker 1: a long pregnant pause, he goes she she gives singles,
Speaker 1: and then everyone like you know, bursts into laughter because oh,
Speaker 1: thank god he's one of the boys and he gets it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And then with him he he they give him this
Speaker 1: redemption arc because even though he's been gaslighting and just
Speaker 1: awful to Joanna throughout the whole movie in both movies,
Speaker 1: but I'm talking specifically about the two thousand four version.
Speaker 1: He again, will you touch on this, but so weird
Speaker 1: that Joanna is just like willingly going to go down
Speaker 1: into like whatever the the lab or she is going
Speaker 1: to be turned into a Stepford wive. She's just like, well,
Speaker 1: I kissed my husband and I guess now she just yeah.
Speaker 1: So for her to like again so much, that's another
Speaker 1: part of the inconsistency of her character, where like she's
Speaker 1: going like, oh, something's weird. Actually no, I should assimilate
Speaker 1: and then to the point where she's like, all right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go down here and get turned into a
Speaker 1: Stepford wive. Whatever. I guess, I accept my fate. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And then at the end where she got I forget
Speaker 1: what the exchanges. But it's so corny and like Nicole
Speaker 1: Kidman's like that's a man talking about did not turn
Speaker 1: her into a robot? Like, oh my god, because he's
Speaker 1: a real man. Yeah, what is this the artist stick?
Speaker 1: Where he using? What a disaster? Yeah? This is the
Speaker 1: bar is that's so low for our husbands. Now it's subterranean.
Speaker 1: It's in the robot basement. Is where the bars. That
Speaker 1: made me furious because so I like, I get I well,
Speaker 1: I don't like it, but I understand why this choice
Speaker 1: was made from like a screenwriting point of view, where
Speaker 1: like they need the reveal that Joanna isn't actually a
Speaker 1: Stepford wife, she was just faking it. But what that
Speaker 1: does is it gives Walter the opportunity to like basically
Speaker 1: redeem himself and then like it just gives him more
Speaker 1: agency because he's the one going around and like liberating
Speaker 1: all of the women while Joanna is just kind of
Speaker 1: like sidelined. And then like you said, like it gives
Speaker 1: He's like, I didn't marry someone something from Radio Shack,
Speaker 1: and then Christopher Walkin goes like, oh, that's a shame.
Speaker 1: And then Nicole Kidman is like, no, that's a man.
Speaker 1: Why should make her say that? But yeah, the movie
Speaker 1: wants you to be like wow, feminist icon Walter, what
Speaker 1: a hero, and we're like no, Like why is he
Speaker 1: getting this redemption arc? He's a piece of shit. It's
Speaker 1: so like it's I I don't even super mind. It's
Speaker 1: like we're going into this the two thousand's one with
Speaker 1: with like a cultural understanding of what a Stepford wife is.
Speaker 1: We need to find a new way to like the
Speaker 1: reveal can't be that their robots, because we know that
Speaker 1: if we go to see the movie. But this choice
Speaker 1: specifically is like, oh my god. Like the early two
Speaker 1: thousands was such a I feel like, as a lot
Speaker 1: of media is coming out right now, the late nineties
Speaker 1: and early two thousands was such a horrible time for
Speaker 1: for really like any marginalized group. But it's like stuff
Speaker 1: like this the I'm like, wow, we were like thirty
Speaker 1: years prior, there was so much more productive discussion in
Speaker 1: this same story about you know, gender roal expectations, Equal
Speaker 1: Rights Amendment was happening right then. The book was written
Speaker 1: in seventy two, and you know, I don't know when
Speaker 1: one was filmed, but you know, there was this discussion
Speaker 1: and like revival of the Equal Rights Amendment for the
Speaker 1: first time since the twenties. And you know, here we are,
Speaker 1: and there really hasn't been any revisitation of the Equal
Speaker 1: Rights Amendment up until the Harvey Weinstein Me Too era.
Speaker 1: So it's almost like in the early two thousands there
Speaker 1: was this idea that we were so much further ahead
Speaker 1: than we really were. I think it's interesting because it's like,
Speaker 1: I so we've covered these two IRA eleven adaptations, and
Speaker 1: it's his I really like, I don't know anything about
Speaker 1: him personally. I hope he's not horriful he's dead. But
Speaker 1: in terms of like these two stories, I do think
Speaker 1: his approach is pretty consistent in that he writes these
Speaker 1: stories that are that make pretty sharp commentary about the
Speaker 1: expectations of women in this time. And also in his stories,
Speaker 1: the women normally lose. They like fight valiantly against the
Speaker 1: oppressive patriarchal force, and in both stories they fail, and
Speaker 1: it's and We like had this discussion a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago on the Resemaries Baby episode where it's like
Speaker 1: we were like, well, what does that mean? And it's like,
Speaker 1: I think it just kind of unfortunately was like a
Speaker 1: reflection of a lot of efforts for equality, and like
Speaker 1: it's not that you know, Rosemary or Joanna were not capable,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't that they were like you know, not intelligent,
Speaker 1: were able to figure out what was going on. It
Speaker 1: was the great point in both of those stories. Even
Speaker 1: when they figure out what's going on, they just have
Speaker 1: that knowledge and then they're crushed by the opposing force anyways,
Speaker 1: which is like really bleak, but it feels like a
Speaker 1: more like it's just saying something, whereas like this update
Speaker 1: of the story is like saying what I don't know,
Speaker 1: here's what it's saying. It's saying that because what happens
Speaker 1: is Claire Wellington becomes the villain, this mastermind of this
Speaker 1: project in her in her motivation, she explains her motivation
Speaker 1: and it's then m my, my husband cheated on me
Speaker 1: with a younger woman, so I had to kill them,
Speaker 1: and then I had to punish every woman I've ever
Speaker 1: met ever since then I liked this better when it
Speaker 1: was vill mkelly in Chicago. That I mean, and I
Speaker 1: see what they're trying to if you if I want
Speaker 1: to give them credit and be like, oh, what's this
Speaker 1: commentary saying it's like, yes, women can be a huge
Speaker 1: opposing force, uh, you know, against the liberation of and feminism, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Um so totally, but just like such poor execution if
Speaker 1: that was indeed the intended takeaway, right, yeah, we're like
Speaker 1: even like story wise, like I honestly it's like corny
Speaker 1: and it's not really accomplishing what it's trying to. But
Speaker 1: the Glenn Close reveal at the end, I'm like, fine, sure,
Speaker 1: Like it kind of reminded me of like the caitl
Speaker 1: was was the like the Cabin in the Woods reveal
Speaker 1: at the end where you're like, it was this woman
Speaker 1: the tie, isn't it Sgourney Weaver at the end of
Speaker 1: Cabin in the Woods where she was like, I'm the
Speaker 1: bad I'm the spy, and you're like, alright, I guess, um,
Speaker 1: like it's not. It's Glenn Close and she's clutching you know,
Speaker 1: Christopher Watkins like decapitated head, like android head, exposed wires, sparking,
Speaker 1: which makes no sense again if it's brain chips, Like,
Speaker 1: how does any of this happen against gotta suspend your
Speaker 1: disbelief here. Yeah, it's so I just wish like even
Speaker 1: story wise there unless I truly was like watching this
Speaker 1: at zero percent, uh, Like I don't. I didn't feel
Speaker 1: like there were really many clues given that it just
Speaker 1: come for me. It came like out of nowhere. I
Speaker 1: was like, like, there's no foreshadowing for that twist, which
Speaker 1: you would think the movie would benefit from. But yeah,
Speaker 1: like Zoe, you were saying, there are women who are
Speaker 1: very much a part of like upholding rigid gender roles
Speaker 1: and like patriarchal standards, like that is unfortunately something that
Speaker 1: still happens. But and I don't know if this I
Speaker 1: don't think this movie is even trying to comment on that,
Speaker 1: or if it is, it doesn't know how because like
Speaker 1: Joanna is doing the same thing with her fucking girl
Speaker 1: Boss acts. It's like inadvertent perhaps, Well it's that thing
Speaker 1: that we always talk about where like there have been
Speaker 1: a bunch of movies written by men that show women
Speaker 1: being just like really petty and jealous and in competition
Speaker 1: and like catty toward each other, but they don't take
Speaker 1: a like even step one to examine why that might be.
Speaker 1: And they're just like, well, women are petty, so obviously
Speaker 1: they hate each other. It's the same kind of thing
Speaker 1: were like. And I mean I don't even know enough
Speaker 1: about this about like why certain people, you know, just
Speaker 1: have ideologies or like vote in certain ways that are
Speaker 1: in direct opposition of their own self interests. Like that's
Speaker 1: a very complicated issue. I have theories about why, but
Speaker 1: like it's a lot of factors involved. Yeah, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of things. Um, but this movie only goes
Speaker 1: so far as to say, well, Glenn Cloak Claire Wellington
Speaker 1: loves romance and beauty and Chiffon and her husband cheated
Speaker 1: on her. So yeah, so now she just wants to
Speaker 1: turn every woman into a beautiful robot lady who will
Speaker 1: never misbehave it says, yeah, Like it's a very like
Speaker 1: I was like, we should have put this justification through
Speaker 1: a few more drafts, like because it's I don't if
Speaker 1: we have to get to Glenn close is the big bed,
Speaker 1: like and we have this like woman who's working against
Speaker 1: the interests of other women. Find but it's like just
Speaker 1: come up with a different story that was such a
Speaker 1: week justification. But I guess she dies two seconds later.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. It's
Speaker 1: so it's like, so this movie is so like campy
Speaker 1: and fun and then but then plot wise it's so boring.
Speaker 1: I'm confusing. It doesn't make sense. Very yeah, bizarre movie.
Speaker 1: I did appreciate the Glenn closest character says that she
Speaker 1: created robot Mike because she says that she here's what
Speaker 1: it is. She kills real life like her husband and
Speaker 1: like her husband's mistress or whatever, and then she turned
Speaker 1: she does create a robot because she was like an
Speaker 1: engineer and brain surgeon or something like that in the
Speaker 1: former world Higher and another another girl boss, I guess.
Speaker 1: But she another also like vilifying a woman in stem Um.
Speaker 1: But I was gonna say, yeah, um. But so she
Speaker 1: creates a robot version of her husband, So I think
Speaker 1: he's the only one who's like a real robot except
Speaker 1: for the A T M Lady. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's confused, we're boob inflation lady. Oh is it faith? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I think it's faith. Like she there's when they find
Speaker 1: her remote they like play around with the buttons and
Speaker 1: in the background they're not able to see this, but
Speaker 1: Faith's boobs are like inflating and deflating and like being
Speaker 1: controlled by it. I think my impression was that they
Speaker 1: were all robot, Like it's not all the men because
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, the men are next, but yeah, he's
Speaker 1: like the one male robot. All the women are becoming
Speaker 1: robots and then she's gonna but to the men. I mean,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make sense, and like it just this. I guess,
Speaker 1: like I kind of struggle to understand where the two
Speaker 1: thousands movie lands on women in position of powers in
Speaker 1: the end, like it is it just again a friend
Speaker 1: that's really inconsistent because it's like, well, everyone in the
Speaker 1: movie seems to agree that um neutralizing a powerful woman's
Speaker 1: brain is bad, but it's also implied that Joanna being
Speaker 1: really into her job was bad, and it's implied that
Speaker 1: or it's like, I mean, the Glenn closest character clearly
Speaker 1: feels and there's no time to challenge it because then
Speaker 1: the movie is over that her being too invested in
Speaker 1: her career lead her to murder somebody, which is something
Speaker 1: that happens to Glenn close in movies all the time.
Speaker 1: I like, I feel for her so much. She's like
Speaker 1: just thrust into the fatal attraction ship all the time
Speaker 1: for sure. Yeah. I it is super confusing about like
Speaker 1: are these women just like humans who have been nano chipped?
Speaker 1: Because when like Matthew Brodwick's character liberates them at the end,
Speaker 1: they seem to like go back to their human self.
Speaker 1: It's like the technology disengages all of a sudden, which
Speaker 1: is why you know it can't be both. So I
Speaker 1: don't know. So which what isn't movie robot? I don't know,
Speaker 1: But I did appreciate when Claire Wellington is like explaining
Speaker 1: her whole master plan. She's like, well, then I created
Speaker 1: my robot husband, Mike because I needed a man that
Speaker 1: other men would listen to. And it's like fair. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that reminds me of um oh, that story with Penelope
Speaker 1: gaze in from like five or so years ago when
Speaker 1: she was starting her clothing or when she was starting
Speaker 1: when she was working on a project called which C,
Speaker 1: which is like a UM shopping site, like as an experiment,
Speaker 1: she and her business partner um and I might be
Speaker 1: butchering this anecdote, but she and her business partner, like
Speaker 1: didn't experiment where they answered some vendors as themselves and
Speaker 1: others with this fake male CEO they made up. And
Speaker 1: the responsiveness that they got to the I think like
Speaker 1: they they would just sign their emails Ken and the
Speaker 1: way and the white people would talk to them was
Speaker 1: like different way, better results, and they're like, thank God
Speaker 1: for Ken, because I mean, as a CEO myself, I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how many emails I get that begin
Speaker 1: dear sir all the time, you know, and it will
Speaker 1: be like a mass email, but it's always dear sir,
Speaker 1: you know, oh my gosh, yeah. Or people, you know,
Speaker 1: people make all kinds of assumptions about me as a CEO,
Speaker 1: Like you know, people think, oh, you know, I must
Speaker 1: have a money man, or oh, like, who's the guy
Speaker 1: who need this happen? You know, it's it's wild all
Speaker 1: the assumptions people make about you so frustrating. There was
Speaker 1: that other story. There's this story that came out where
Speaker 1: like a man and a woman had the same job
Speaker 1: at the same company, but people were always getting frustrated
Speaker 1: with the woman because she didn't seem to be as
Speaker 1: efficient as her like male counterpart. And then they looked
Speaker 1: into why this was, and it was because her correspondence
Speaker 1: with people, because people like, we're like, oh, I'm dealing
Speaker 1: with a woman, so I have to like, I don't
Speaker 1: trust her that she's like saying the right thing or like.
Speaker 1: So there was just so much more like back and forth,
Speaker 1: whereas when the man was corresponding with with people, people
Speaker 1: were just inclined to be like, all right, if that's
Speaker 1: what you say, then okay. Um, And so he was
Speaker 1: able to be more efficient in his job. That's not
Speaker 1: even yeah, that's not even God. I hate that. There
Speaker 1: are so many examples of this that it's approvable track record.
Speaker 1: Well that was so okay, good points for points for um,
Speaker 1: what's their name, Beef Wellington? Uh for that for that.
Speaker 1: But but that's almost just like a throwaway line. Um. Anyway,
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break and then we'll come back
Speaker 1: for more discussion. And we're back. I really want to
Speaker 1: talk about the inclusion of a gay couple in the
Speaker 1: two thousand and four one, which there is not in
Speaker 1: the seventies. It's Tina Louise in the seven Yeah. I again,
Speaker 1: while I have not read the book, I was researching
Speaker 1: the differences between the book and the movie, and the
Speaker 1: book actually has a plot point that was left out
Speaker 1: of the seventies rendition. So in the book there is
Speaker 1: the first and only black residence of Stepford, Royal and Ruthan,
Speaker 1: and they are not included in the two thousand and
Speaker 1: four one either. That plot line has changed into Roger
Speaker 1: and Jerry. And while I think it was likely chosen
Speaker 1: to change that because it was two thousand and four,
Speaker 1: like the cultural moment of talking about lgbt Q plus rights, etcetera,
Speaker 1: but that's also like, clearly we know that the issue
Speaker 1: of racism I personally have felt would I wanted, I mean,
Speaker 1: I didn't want to see that tackled certainly by either
Speaker 1: of these adaptations. But I did find it in interesting
Speaker 1: that there is a very clear point made about the
Speaker 1: whiteness of Stepford in the book that seems to be
Speaker 1: completely left out of both film adaptations. That's why I
Speaker 1: wasn't aware of that. It's the in terms of the
Speaker 1: I think that the fact that there is a black
Speaker 1: family moving to Stepford is in one like it's mentioned
Speaker 1: in the seventies mention. But then that's okay, that makes
Speaker 1: more sense to me because it's like then you never
Speaker 1: meet those characters. Uh, that's that sucks. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not I mean, obviously, Hira Leven is probably not the
Speaker 1: most qualified person to be um leading that discussion, but
Speaker 1: the fact that there were black characters and obviously like
Speaker 1: the extreme whiteness of the Connecticut suburbs, it's like there
Speaker 1: is more than enough opportunity to have a productive discussion
Speaker 1: there if either of these movies were actually the hiring
Speaker 1: black creators that could speak to it. Um, which neither did. Um,
Speaker 1: that's that's so frustrating. Yeah, I mean, and again it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: they tried to change it into shining a light on
Speaker 1: homophobia instead of shining a light upon racism, but it
Speaker 1: really didn't even have that much to say about homophobia,
Speaker 1: to be quite honest. It was just like, oh, let's
Speaker 1: randomly include a gay couple, okay, and in fact it
Speaker 1: just does a homophobic thing where the movie suggests that
Speaker 1: it's like kind of reinforces this problematic notion that in
Speaker 1: a gay couple there's still like one person's the man
Speaker 1: and the other person is the wife, because like Roger
Speaker 1: is kind of like foisted into this like Stepford wife
Speaker 1: role because he's he gets the treatment, he gets changed
Speaker 1: his his husband husband, Um, uh, what's I forget his name,
Speaker 1: Jerry like wants him to like tone down his just
Speaker 1: like more conservative. Yeah, and like he wants him to
Speaker 1: kind of assimilate into this straight, heteronormative Stepford lifestyle. This
Speaker 1: made my head hurt because it was like the way
Speaker 1: that Roger was treated. First of all, he's played by
Speaker 1: Roger Bart, who is a street actor who has played
Speaker 1: a number of iconic, very stereotypical gay roles. He also played, um,
Speaker 1: the I don't remember the name of the character, but
Speaker 1: the guy from the Producers, the gay character in the Producers,
Speaker 1: that's also Roger Bart. So I don't know, it's I'm
Speaker 1: sure that there's a wide variety of opinions, but it
Speaker 1: seems that Roger Bart is very commonly cast to play
Speaker 1: a stereotypical gay character. He is not a gay actor,
Speaker 1: So there's there's some ship going on there. Uh. And
Speaker 1: and the fact that there's just like Roger as he's
Speaker 1: written in the movie is like a Vario stereotyped character. Um, definitely.
Speaker 1: And then it's sometimes the person making the point of
Speaker 1: like like when he's post stepforded and now he's a
Speaker 1: gay Republican. Uh. Then the person who makes the point
Speaker 1: of like, wow, this character was really stereotyped. Are the
Speaker 1: people you're supposed to be angry at. Like there's that
Speaker 1: moment where Walter is kind of gaslighting Joanna because Joanna
Speaker 1: is like Rogers different, like they got to Roger and
Speaker 1: he's like, well, what do you mean. You know it's
Speaker 1: a don't stereotype him, blah blah blah, and it's like
Speaker 1: it was so weird, like the flaming hoops. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: was mind boggling. An interesting thing that I read reading
Speaker 1: about the differences between book and movie, and this is
Speaker 1: from a blog called Beyond the Front Cover. It seems
Speaker 1: like one commentary that is made in the book, and
Speaker 1: again I haven't read it, so this is just this
Speaker 1: blog's take on it, is that ruth Anne, the black
Speaker 1: woman who has moved to Stepford, thinks that the wives
Speaker 1: are being cold to her, not because they have turned
Speaker 1: into robots, but because she is black. So she believes
Speaker 1: that the reason they are so anti social is because
Speaker 1: she's black, not because they are robots, which I don't
Speaker 1: know how I would be very curious to see how
Speaker 1: that's written into the book. Again summary from a blog
Speaker 1: I literally just googled. But you know, that seems like
Speaker 1: it's more than just a cursory like, oh, let's just
Speaker 1: randomly include a non white couple, let's include a non
Speaker 1: straight couple, etcetera. It seems like maybe there was a
Speaker 1: little bit of thought put into it. But again, I
Speaker 1: have to read the book to get to do my homework.
Speaker 1: It seems like, I mean, it's like, yeah, again, we
Speaker 1: were not a book reading podcast here, but it does.
Speaker 1: It does seem like Ira Levin has a good track
Speaker 1: record as a writer of including social issues thoughtfully, and
Speaker 1: it's it's so telling that, yeah, that that was just
Speaker 1: in both nineteen and two thousand four, like had included
Speaker 1: we're not gonna we're just gonna skip that. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I I it's really hard to watch movies with and
Speaker 1: let's be real, so many like look at the Golden
Speaker 1: Globes or the Oscars, it's all white nominees. But it's
Speaker 1: like watching these films that you know, whiteness is such
Speaker 1: a large part of the oppressive suburb conformity, and that
Speaker 1: is just a whole chunk of it completely left out right,
Speaker 1: which is frustrating because the setup of this story is
Speaker 1: uniquely suited to comment on like oppressive whiteness. You're in
Speaker 1: a Connecticut, a rich Connecticut suburbs, Like where is a
Speaker 1: better place to kind of make those points? Which is
Speaker 1: where I feel like it. You know, even when both
Speaker 1: of these movies are making the occasional like feminist point,
Speaker 1: it's still very centered in upwardly mobile white women the
Speaker 1: way that you know, most movies UM tend to be
Speaker 1: when they get this far, Like it's just really it's
Speaker 1: I kept writing down, like this is the perfect setting
Speaker 1: to address like this so much, and they just don't
Speaker 1: even try, Like yeah. Jordan's Peel said that he was
Speaker 1: largely inspired by this property by the like Stepford Wives
Speaker 1: kind of premise and get Out, And I feel like,
Speaker 1: you know, that's obviously a movie that like does yeah,
Speaker 1: because there are some pretty um interesting similarities between you know,
Speaker 1: Stepford Wives and get Out, um the creepiness of conformity.
Speaker 1: And I love watching Stepford Wives as someone who like
Speaker 1: I definitely as someone who sells sex toys for a
Speaker 1: living m A. You know, I have an unusual career,
Speaker 1: but when I was a teenager, all I wanted to
Speaker 1: do was fit in and be normal. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to wear ugs and a north face and be normal,
Speaker 1: and you know, and then I became a little alternative
Speaker 1: later on. But uh, I think that's such the beauty
Speaker 1: of it is. I think so many of us are
Speaker 1: either aware of or are trying to fit in, or
Speaker 1: we are aware of how painfully we don't fit in.
Speaker 1: And there's so much to explore with this concept. It's
Speaker 1: a wonderful premise. I would love to see you further adaptations.
Speaker 1: And I know that there were some like eighties and
Speaker 1: nineties spin off like The Stepford Children, the Stepford Husbands
Speaker 1: that were like TV series. I think, um so t
Speaker 1: B d on Like what is or is not explored there?
Speaker 1: I'm not going to hold my hopes high, but it's
Speaker 1: I think it has stood the test of time or
Speaker 1: you know, at least forty fifty years, because there's so
Speaker 1: many universal themes of otherness, of perfection being something impossible
Speaker 1: to attain as a human yet we try to do
Speaker 1: that anyway. Um, and also just having that be something
Speaker 1: that's synonymous with a very narrow way of living your
Speaker 1: life and conformity even in the way you make your
Speaker 1: home you know that's there's a lot there. Well, while
Speaker 1: the movie, these movies don't tackle well, the one thing
Speaker 1: that they do is very lightly mentioned how Bobby Markowitz
Speaker 1: is Jewish in a community that is largely probably like
Speaker 1: Protestant Christian um and the two four movie more than so.
Speaker 1: In the nineteen version, Bobby introduces herself to Joanna as
Speaker 1: Barbie Marco and then say something like it's like the
Speaker 1: upwardly mobile version of Marco Witz, so she's basically like
Speaker 1: christianizing her name. I missed that, um. And then in
Speaker 1: with that Middler in the two thousand four version, there's
Speaker 1: that whole scene where they're like talking about like the
Speaker 1: Christmas Collectibles book at their book club, and she's making
Speaker 1: a bunch of jokes about how she's like unapologetically Jewish,
Speaker 1: and then all of the other women are like, well,
Speaker 1: you can make a minora out of pine cones, and
Speaker 1: like they're just like not getting it. Um. But that's
Speaker 1: really all the movies do as far as like commenting
Speaker 1: on any kind of diversity or lack thereof. It's like
Speaker 1: one mentioned, one mentioned, one joke, and then it never
Speaker 1: kind of comes back. I al thought it was kind
Speaker 1: of I mean it was at least even if you know,
Speaker 1: we've talked a lot about like the level of effectiveness,
Speaker 1: but I think that it's possible. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: that this story endures as well as it kind of
Speaker 1: like is I don't know, I feel like gender, like
Speaker 1: expectations of gender, even though they change over time, and
Speaker 1: they have become fortunately far less binary over time, and
Speaker 1: there's a larger discussion being had, but there is kind
Speaker 1: of like this I don't know, like historical tendency of
Speaker 1: like that you see like different versions of the same
Speaker 1: theme popping up in the seventies and the two thousands
Speaker 1: of at least I mean in the US. And then
Speaker 1: I think, generally I'm not a historian. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I'm a comedian, So throw an egg in my head
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong, But like a tendency of when society
Speaker 1: is like kind of at quote unquote low, there's a recession,
Speaker 1: there's a war going on, women and marginalized people in
Speaker 1: general get more power because it's like, oh, we all
Speaker 1: need to band together. And then when there's times of
Speaker 1: kind of excess and economic growth, um, the binary kind
Speaker 1: of creeps back in a in a pretty inside yes, way,
Speaker 1: and it's like you see that in like World War
Speaker 1: two years and then in the fifties when there's this
Speaker 1: big economic boom, all of a sudden, women are back
Speaker 1: in the house, and you see it again in the eighties,
Speaker 1: and then you know, in the nineties and two thousands,
Speaker 1: the economies in a slightly better place, and you see
Speaker 1: these like stories about you know, just domesticity and like
Speaker 1: expectations for women kind of come back. And as much
Speaker 1: as like I think we've like moved certainly in the
Speaker 1: right direction over the years, it's like almost depressing to
Speaker 1: be like, oh, I understand why these two move, Like
Speaker 1: I understand why this movie would make a comeback. In
Speaker 1: the early to mid two thousand's, it seems like a
Speaker 1: time where those like pressures were kind of making a return.
Speaker 1: I mean, even just like with Black History Month, where
Speaker 1: now in Women's History Month, and as like as long
Speaker 1: as you need a you know, history month for it's
Speaker 1: it's you know, as long as that is something, it
Speaker 1: means that yep, there's still a power and balance and
Speaker 1: ship is still fucked up. If you know, we're gonna
Speaker 1: just emphasize this one marginalized group during a certain period
Speaker 1: of time, you know, yeah, there's and with the two thousands,
Speaker 1: it's like the movie does reflect that women have more
Speaker 1: power than they did in the mid seventies, but the
Speaker 1: the you know, reaction from the patriarchy is worse, and
Speaker 1: they're like, you know, taking going to even further extremes,
Speaker 1: and they're like, you know, threatened to a greater extent
Speaker 1: than like my wife wants to take a picture on
Speaker 1: her nicon, should I kill her? Like, yeah, that makes
Speaker 1: it a lot more. Uh, it's a difficult pil to
Speaker 1: swallow that there was like really, I mean again, not
Speaker 1: that being a CEO means you deserve to be turned
Speaker 1: into a robot, but at least at least we're like, oh,
Speaker 1: he was feeling emasculated and had to set the record
Speaker 1: straight versus like my wife, who already was pretty much
Speaker 1: a housewife, I'm going to make into even more of
Speaker 1: a housewife. Right. Well, I imagine that part of it
Speaker 1: was that Joanna in the seventy five version mentions that
Speaker 1: she was dabbling in women's lib when she was living
Speaker 1: in New York, And it seems like a lot of
Speaker 1: the women in the community were into women's lib before
Speaker 1: they were murdered and turned into robots. Um, because there
Speaker 1: are mentions of different women either leading or participating in
Speaker 1: like a woman's group in Stepford, and their husbands were
Speaker 1: clearly threatened by that, hence turning them into robots because
Speaker 1: a lot of men do not like women having freedom
Speaker 1: and autonomy. Um. I made a list, classic me, I
Speaker 1: made a little charge. Um. Some of these we've already
Speaker 1: touched on, but I wanted to just kind of go
Speaker 1: through the differences between the two thousand four in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy five versions of the movies, just kind of reiterating
Speaker 1: that Joanna in the two thousand four one keeps trying
Speaker 1: to like assimilate and adopt the Stepford Wives lifestyle, even
Speaker 1: before there's any indication that oh, did she or didn't
Speaker 1: she gets like actually converted, but she keeps being like, no,
Speaker 1: I am going to wear pink, and I am going
Speaker 1: to make a million cupcakes and I'm gonna do like
Speaker 1: She's like trying to assimilate power of positive thinking right
Speaker 1: for like four question mark reasons. We're never quite sure why.
Speaker 1: Part of this is also that she expresses no interest
Speaker 1: in trying to return to her career or do professional
Speaker 1: work of any kind. There's no like, well, maybe the
Speaker 1: TV thing wasn't actually for me, but I'd like to
Speaker 1: pick up this other thing. There's just like absolutely no
Speaker 1: whereas in the nineteen seventy five version, which I feel
Speaker 1: like is more realistic or at least more consistent with
Speaker 1: the character that joe Anna has been established to be,
Speaker 1: that she does continue to pursue her like career ambitions
Speaker 1: and her passion for photography. She and Bobby try to
Speaker 1: start like a women's group to help liberate the women
Speaker 1: of the community. And I really one of the scenes
Speaker 1: that stuck out to me about the one, I really
Speaker 1: do I love frank Oz, I love the production design
Speaker 1: on the tooth as of her one, but the seventies
Speaker 1: one is like, I don't know, I just like it
Speaker 1: so much better that this scene in. I also like
Speaker 1: the Joanna almost cheats on her husband in the in
Speaker 1: the first one too, even though it kind of goes
Speaker 1: nowhere and they make it seem like it's Raymond Chandler.
Speaker 1: But that also it was confusing. But the scene in
Speaker 1: in the first one where she is talking with the
Speaker 1: gallery owner, she's trying to like she's really nervous, she's
Speaker 1: feeling really insecure about her work. He's kind of like,
Speaker 1: even though he's like, I like your work, he's kind
Speaker 1: of dismissing her as like being hysterical to an extent.
Speaker 1: But she like says really clearly this thing that it
Speaker 1: was like, oh my god, Like it doesn't. She says like,
Speaker 1: I just don't want to be forgotten, like I I
Speaker 1: want my Like she just wants her life to have
Speaker 1: meant something beyond being someone's mom and someone's wife, which
Speaker 1: is like, you don't get that moment for like that
Speaker 1: updated moment for Nicole Kidman Joanna, and I feel like
Speaker 1: you could really use it and it could have made
Speaker 1: an interesting statement on the time period it was coming out, definitely,
Speaker 1: And then yeah, just like the large chunk of the
Speaker 1: movie is Joanna and Bobby like going around to the
Speaker 1: different women in the community being like, hey, we're forming
Speaker 1: this women's liberation group basically like a place where we
Speaker 1: can bond with each other and speak freely about, you know,
Speaker 1: our issues and concerns. But it it ends up fizzling
Speaker 1: out because the women who join only want to talk
Speaker 1: about cleaning and baking um because is unbeknownst to them,
Speaker 1: these women are actually robots. But like they put so
Speaker 1: much more effort. Basically, this whole list is like reasons
Speaker 1: why the nineteen version of this movie is better, but
Speaker 1: like they actually like put in effort, and like Joanna
Speaker 1: is a more consistent character throughout another than we touched on,
Speaker 1: but like Walter gets a redemption arc for no reason,
Speaker 1: and like is the one to like liberate the wives
Speaker 1: and save the day, Whereas in the nineteen one, like
Speaker 1: Walter becomes abusive and it's clear that he's bad, and
Speaker 1: he is, and in that way she gets a hit
Speaker 1: him in the head with a fire poker and that's fun, yes,
Speaker 1: And then that kind of connects to like the main
Speaker 1: villain in the two thousand four one is this woman
Speaker 1: who wants to punish all women because her husband cheated
Speaker 1: on her with a younger woman, Whereas the main villain
Speaker 1: in the n is the Men's Association an a k a.
Speaker 1: The patriarchy, which makes more sense to me. Yeah, let's see,
Speaker 1: I think we've Yeah, we've gone over everything else pretty
Speaker 1: in depth. I have some notes from the one that
Speaker 1: I'm looking at my notes on each movie, and the
Speaker 1: notes I took on the nineteen just like are just
Speaker 1: make more sense it feels like I'm like looking at
Speaker 1: like a more complete like piece of work here, because um,
Speaker 1: there was like more subtle imagery. The whole thing is
Speaker 1: a little bit more subtle. But like one thing that
Speaker 1: really stood out to me is right when they move
Speaker 1: into the new house, Walter in he is just like,
Speaker 1: oh what if we have have you ever had sex
Speaker 1: in front of a fireplace? Oh? Like what if? Like
Speaker 1: let's christen every room in the house. And like there's
Speaker 1: this really big theme of like I view you as
Speaker 1: a sexual object, and that is in line with me
Speaker 1: basically wanting to turn you into a human sex all
Speaker 1: um that is living and breathing, and you know, again
Speaker 1: as a sex toy salesperson. I think the idea of
Speaker 1: sex dolls is definitely something that just kept popping up
Speaker 1: in my brain. Um, how a Stepford wife is like
Speaker 1: the You know, I'm not saying that people who buy
Speaker 1: end use sex dolls are looking for anything remotely like
Speaker 1: a Stepford experience, but I think it raises questions in
Speaker 1: the average person that are much similar. It's like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, why would you want a full size doll?
Speaker 1: Like what does it say about how you feel about women?
Speaker 1: If you want this, doll um. Another thing I noticed
Speaker 1: in the seventy one is that the things that qualify
Speaker 1: as accidents seem very mundane. Like there's a scene where
Speaker 1: there's like that fender bender in the parking lot in
Speaker 1: the and they're like, oh, call the ambulance, and you
Speaker 1: just get the sense that like, nothing bad ever happens here,
Speaker 1: Like like the most delicate issue is a one call
Speaker 1: which I think, you know, boz us the suburbs. And
Speaker 1: then um, finally a line I wrote down from the
Speaker 1: see and I believe this is Joanna talking to Bobby
Speaker 1: earlier on when they're kind of like trying to figure
Speaker 1: out what's going on. Joanna says, it's perfect. How could
Speaker 1: you not like it? But I don't like it? And
Speaker 1: I love that line because she's like not able to
Speaker 1: put her finger on what's creepy about it and recognizing like, yes,
Speaker 1: this is idyllic, and like, I know I'm supposed to
Speaker 1: want this, why don't I want this this? I just
Speaker 1: thought it was a very telling line that was really
Speaker 1: well written. And I don't know if that was directly
Speaker 1: out of the book or whoever adapted the script wrote that,
Speaker 1: but I thought that was a beautiful line that is
Speaker 1: kind of the pinnacle of the creepiness of Suburbia. I
Speaker 1: totally agree. Yeah, there's just there, there's just so many
Speaker 1: elements in the in this in one that just felt
Speaker 1: more botful and like subtle in a different and it's like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, the Frank ozz movie is not trying to
Speaker 1: be subtle. That's not its mission. But I just thought
Speaker 1: it worked well and I wish something that I think
Speaker 1: could have carried over into the two thousand for adaptation
Speaker 1: but didn't was the fact that, like Joanna and Bobby
Speaker 1: are like really good friends in the seventies when you
Speaker 1: like understand like you get to see them kind of
Speaker 1: form this bond. They're very much on the same page.
Speaker 1: They're very complimentary to each other, They're like rooting for
Speaker 1: each other. They're kind of each other's main source of
Speaker 1: like you know, just feeling like reality. Yeah, and it's
Speaker 1: and so I feel like in the seventies version, when
Speaker 1: Bobby turns and she's Stepford, it you really feel it,
Speaker 1: and you're like like you can feel how devastating this
Speaker 1: would be for Joanna. But when it's funny, when that
Speaker 1: middler turns, but you just don't have that same level
Speaker 1: of relationships. They're kind of ever on the same page
Speaker 1: because Nicole Kidman can't she's too inconsistent seconds. So they
Speaker 1: don't really get that bond because they're they're never really
Speaker 1: on the same page. Um yeah, I don't know. Was
Speaker 1: there any other stuff we want to Does it pass
Speaker 1: the back del test? And I think I think even
Speaker 1: with our with our new caveat of meaningful conversations that
Speaker 1: do not um mentioned men, I think it happens much
Speaker 1: more in the seventies one. But it does happen in
Speaker 1: both definite. I will say that. And I said this
Speaker 1: earlier on when we're talking about it. It's like funny
Speaker 1: to put the back dealt test to a movie where
Speaker 1: there is like this, you know, even if you are
Speaker 1: talking to a robot about cooking and cleaning, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: the brain is their brain is being controlled by a man,
Speaker 1: so are you really talking to you know? So it's
Speaker 1: like that's a fun little caveats to throw in there. Sure, Sure,
Speaker 1: And then there's I mean, there's plenty of conversations between
Speaker 1: two women who have not been yet turned into right
Speaker 1: robots about it's mostly about do you think we'll be
Speaker 1: robots soon. But in the in the seventies, when they
Speaker 1: talk about like Joanna's career ambitions, they talk about like, hey,
Speaker 1: I was a women's libert like there's like a lot
Speaker 1: of ship going on, like you get good. They talk
Speaker 1: about their kids, they talk about like talk about a
Speaker 1: lot of good stuff. Oh, I guess that was my
Speaker 1: Like I guess the way that the kids are treated
Speaker 1: and that I think they just should have written the
Speaker 1: kids out of this. There shouldn't be I mean even
Speaker 1: in the seventies when the kids kind of also disappear
Speaker 1: a little bit, I feel like it was like kind
Speaker 1: of telling you. I think that there is this like
Speaker 1: I can't describe it, like there is this impulse. I
Speaker 1: feel like maybe we've talked about this before where if
Speaker 1: you're like, if your female lead is a mother, she
Speaker 1: has to be like a really good mother and it
Speaker 1: has to be pointed out by the story. Like I
Speaker 1: think that that's something that kind of happens a lot.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it is. It's not necessarily bad,
Speaker 1: but it's just okay. Like yeah, if you're if you're
Speaker 1: listening to this and you're like that makes sense to me.
Speaker 1: I feel like I've read about this somewhere before, where Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like pointing out that, like, not only is she
Speaker 1: our hero, she's an amazing, flawless mother, like because that's
Speaker 1: how the patriarchy sees went in, Right, you're a mother,
Speaker 1: or you're a daughter, or you're a sister, or you're
Speaker 1: a lover, but never all at once. Madonna whore complex
Speaker 1: for sure. Yeah. Yeah, and then I guess I guess
Speaker 1: it's cos without saying unfortunately that both of these movies
Speaker 1: were written and directed by then um, why is this?
Speaker 1: I honestly think this is a story that could be
Speaker 1: adapted well again, definitely by people who would have any
Speaker 1: insight into what this could feel like. Truly. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess that brings us to our nipple scale, which is
Speaker 1: our scale of zero to five nipples based on how
Speaker 1: the movie fares. Looking at it through an intersectional feminist lens,
Speaker 1: I I think I have to like give two different
Speaker 1: scores for the two different movies here. While I appreciate
Speaker 1: that both movies attempt to comment on the kind of
Speaker 1: rigidity of women's expected roles in society under like what
Speaker 1: the patriarchy expects of women and how that's like a
Speaker 1: very interesting thing that is extremely ripe for discussion for
Speaker 1: our show, especially uh seventy version, while it's not perfect
Speaker 1: and there's some you know, things that it leaves out,
Speaker 1: and it is both movies are very much like these
Speaker 1: white families, ignoring any kind of what a black family's
Speaker 1: family's experience would be, or any family of colors experience
Speaker 1: would be living in a predominantly white suburb. So yeah,
Speaker 1: there's there's there's things that it could have handled better.
Speaker 1: But for the seventy one, um, I want to give
Speaker 1: it like a maybe even like a free h Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's hard. I was trying to think what I'd give it.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think like a three or three
Speaker 1: and a half, especially for for like a movie like
Speaker 1: kind of adjusted for like time inflation, since it's like
Speaker 1: a nineteen movie. I think it has a lot of
Speaker 1: really interesting points to make and just it handles like
Speaker 1: the satire in the allegory, in the tone of it
Speaker 1: all way more effectively. Whereas the two thousand four version,
Speaker 1: I think I would only give like a one point
Speaker 1: five or maybe a two. Like I think there are
Speaker 1: again the examination of like male fragility and like the
Speaker 1: fragile male egos of like all the husbands who couldn't
Speaker 1: live up to their wives and who felt threatened and
Speaker 1: emasculated by them. That's a real thing that happens, and
Speaker 1: that's worth you know, examining. But again the movie it's
Speaker 1: just like, well, but you know, the patriarchy isn't actually
Speaker 1: to blame. You know who's to blame, Glenn Close, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I did. I am never like a big fan of
Speaker 1: that decision. It works for me in the two thousand
Speaker 1: four one because of like, well this, you know, all
Speaker 1: the other points failed, so I guess it's one ship
Speaker 1: should at least fail in a way that is funny
Speaker 1: to me. Um, yeah, I'm gonna go three and a
Speaker 1: have on the seventies one and one and a half
Speaker 1: on the two thousand and four one for for mainly
Speaker 1: the reasons described. I'm honestly, I'm like, maybe I'm just
Speaker 1: a big fan of the seventies one. I almost want
Speaker 1: to read it a little higher. But I think for
Speaker 1: for its time especially, you know, it's kind of like
Speaker 1: that rare, rare one where it's like a movie written
Speaker 1: and directed by a man, adapted by a book written
Speaker 1: by a man about women that somehow didn't end up
Speaker 1: being deeply condescending and horrible to women. Our bar again
Speaker 1: is such so low. I mean it's like I give
Speaker 1: I give the New one a half nipple, and I
Speaker 1: give the seventies one like one and a half nipples,
Speaker 1: because while it's addressing, like like the women's rights aspect,
Speaker 1: it's just like there's so many I think if I
Speaker 1: read about what was left out, that really just rocks
Speaker 1: my my judgment of that as well, um the fact
Speaker 1: that it was written into the book and then you know,
Speaker 1: seemingly intentionally left out or maybe edited out, who knows,
Speaker 1: but uh, yeah, I'm I'm a generous reviewer, so I've
Speaker 1: been trying to like batten down the hatches and be
Speaker 1: a tougher reviewer these days. I do. I think it's
Speaker 1: worth mentioning that on letterbox, which I am an avid user,
Speaker 1: of the seventies one has like an average rating of
Speaker 1: three and a half stars and the two thousand and
Speaker 1: four has an average rating of two and a half stars,
Speaker 1: so it's a full star less so average viewer would
Speaker 1: agree that the seventies one is overall uh the Rotten
Speaker 1: Tomatoes score for the two four movie the critics scores
Speaker 1: on Rotten Tomatoes so quite rotten that and only only
Speaker 1: a thirty percent for the audience score. So audiences also
Speaker 1: don't like this movie. Yeah, I don't think people liked this.
Speaker 1: I think that like we we I think like Stalgia
Speaker 1: for us, maybe yeah, nostalgia nostalgia and like I like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I liked Sleepover, I liked driving movie theaters. The best
Speaker 1: thing about the frank Oswind for me is like the
Speaker 1: set design. It's so cool and so like gorgeous and
Speaker 1: like dated and kind of ways that are appealing tonight. Um,
Speaker 1: so I think, like, yeah, that that design is way
Speaker 1: better in the new one. It's really expensive looking, and
Speaker 1: it had a ridiculous budget, had like a ninety million
Speaker 1: dollar buy and made only about that much at the
Speaker 1: box office, like it was a big profit turner. Turns
Speaker 1: out like generally, you know, it's uh, Women do like
Speaker 1: movies that are promised to be about them, to actually
Speaker 1: be about them and not this bizarro matth Matthew Broderick
Speaker 1: Redemption arc. How many times am I going to have
Speaker 1: to watch a Matthew Broderick Redemption arc. I also read that, um,
Speaker 1: the set of the two thousand four movie was really
Speaker 1: tense and no one liked each other. Yeah, I read
Speaker 1: that too, Oh my god, juicy Frank Ozz was kind
Speaker 1: of throwing shade. He's like, well, I wish Bette Midler
Speaker 1: wasn't bringing her problems onto the session. Like okay, sir, okay,
Speaker 1: there's who knows, who knows, but it seems like no
Speaker 1: one liked each other. And Matthew Broderick has also bad
Speaker 1: mouth the movie. No one enjoyed it? Oh I did
Speaker 1: not know that, I know, right. It kind of made
Speaker 1: me a little more attached to it. I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: was so this was hell for you as well as
Speaker 1: uh me watching it now chaos on off screen? Yea, truly, Zoe,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us to talk about
Speaker 1: I genuinely thank you so much for having me. I
Speaker 1: loved getting to do this deep dive and really like
Speaker 1: think critically about the films I watched instead of just
Speaker 1: like god, I've been watching so many movies that taking
Speaker 1: notes intentionally on them was really a nice change of
Speaker 1: pace for me. Thank you. You're so Welcomeme. Yeah, thanks,
Speaker 1: thank you. This has been uh what what a what
Speaker 1: a wild journey this property has been through over the years.
Speaker 1: I feel like I've been turned into a robot and
Speaker 1: then turned back. So we workn Where can people check
Speaker 1: out your stuff, follow you online? Et cetera? Great question.
Speaker 1: I am thong Gia on social media, so the word
Speaker 1: thong with r I A after it. Uh. My sex
Speaker 1: Way store is shop Spectrum boutique on Instagram. And a
Speaker 1: new thing that I a journey of an embarking upon lately,
Speaker 1: which may appeal to some of you listeners, is a
Speaker 1: Disturbing movie discord, which I've been calling the ft up
Speaker 1: movie heads thread. So if you want to join that discord,
Speaker 1: please feel free. We'd love to have you talk about
Speaker 1: some weird movies that disturb us. Nice well, we'll link
Speaker 1: to it. You can follow us on social media Twitter
Speaker 1: and Instagram at Bechtel Cast. You can subscribe to our
Speaker 1: Patreon a k a. Matreon. It's five dollars a month.
Speaker 1: It gets you access to two bonus episodes every month,
Speaker 1: plus the entire back catalog, which is up to nearly
Speaker 1: eighty bonus episodes. Now it's out of control. It is
Speaker 1: um and uh yeah, I would say um. Check out
Speaker 1: The Suffered Wives if you've never seen it on YouTube
Speaker 1: and and also get out another watch just for the
Speaker 1: hell of it. Skip Skip the Frank oz One. I
Speaker 1: had to pay three dollars to watch it, and I'm
Speaker 1: never gonna get over it. Sorry, ridiculous. Um. You can
Speaker 1: check out our march at t public dot com slash
Speaker 1: at the Epactel cost You can get masks, you can
Speaker 1: get stuff. You can live your life or not, we
Speaker 1: won't know. Um. And on that note, I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: down to my basement and just pull my head off.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I'm gonna figure out how to get an
Speaker 1: eight GM and I want to get a cash system
Speaker 1: set up in my stomach. Just spit up. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: a feminist icon. So I'm gonna find a man robot
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna make him do all my bidding for me. Wow,
Speaker 1: I love it. I'm gonna go tell my boyfriend to
Speaker 1: pick up the groceries at Costco, just like the end
Speaker 1: of the actual two thousand and four movie. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go say, hey, go get all my groceries for me. You'round, man,
Speaker 1: and it's time for that tables to turn things. They
Speaker 1: are a little different these days, I know. I'm like,
Speaker 1: that's what a shitty punishment like the grocery store rocks.
Speaker 1: It's fun. Yeah, Colm, We all love anyway anyway, you
Speaker 1: know why? Fine, Bye bye