In the third episode of this season, I look at the second adaptation of The Women entitled "The Opposite Sex," hitting the silver screen in 1956. After giving details about the production, I also provide some reviews of the film at the time.
In the second part of the episode, I am joined by Harrison Chute (a man!) as we discuss various aspects of the film and ask the big question of whether it is feminist or misogynist. As always, I conclude the discussion with revealing whether the film follows the law or the spirit of The Women.
- Subscribe on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dear-reader-a-jane-eyre-podcast/id1585429797
- Don’t use iTunes? Use this link for your podcast catcher: https://feeds.feedburner.com/dear-reader-podcast
- Also available on Spotify, Stitcher, Amazon Music and Google Podcasts
- Follow DEAR READER on TWITTER: https://twitter.com/batgirltooracle
Put down your comics, pick up your first editions, and subscribe to DEAR READER!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
It sounds to me like “The Opposite Sex” is a dumbed down version of “The Women” that was made for a male audience. (As an aside, would “dumbed down” and “made for a male audience” be considered an oxymoron?) That would explain why Steven is portrayed in such a sympathetic light (i.e., as an innocent victim of Crystal’s seductive charms, rather than as a willing participant in the affair). That would also explain why the movie lacks internal consistency. As you mentioned. there is absolutely no reason why this version of Steven would marry Crystal, except that the plot (from the original play, in which Steven is culpable for his actions) demands it.
I appreciated and enjoyed your coverage of this film, but don’t think I’ll be watching it myself. I’m looking forward to the next and final [sheds tear] episode.
I was trying to be humorous, but failed because I used the wrong 50-cent word. I meant to say that calling something “dumbed down” and ” made for a male audience” is redundant. My apologies for the confusion.