Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta

Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky

Bakalářská diplomová práce

Věra Ognarová 2013

2013 Věra Ognarová

Hřbet

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Věra Ognarová

A Comparative Analysis of The Stepford Wives Novel and Both Film Adaptations Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Dr.

2013

1

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author‟s signature

2

Acknowledgement I would like to thank to doc. PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Dr. for his helpful advice and inspirational remarks.

3

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..5

1. Film Adaptation……………………………………………………………………...7 2. Historical Situation…………………………………………………………………..9 3. The Stepford Wives………………………………………………………………....11 3.1 The Stepford Wives Directed by Bryan Forbes……………………………17 3.2 The Stepford Wives Directed by Frank Oz………………………………...22 4. Comparison of Each Film Version and Responses………………………………….27 4.1. Comparison of the Principal Female Character and Key Scenes in Both Film Versions………………………………………………………...30 5. Gender Stereotypes…………………………………………………………………..35 6. Pleasure in Looking………………………………………………………………….37

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...39

English Résumé………………………………………………………………………...41 Czech Résumé………………………………………………………………………….41 Works Cited…………………………………………………………………………….42

4

Introduction

Stepford wives is a term known even by people who never heard of Ira Levin, the author of the book The Stepford Wives. They might know the film version made by

Frank Oz, and fewer of them know the first adaptation made by Bryan Forbes.

As the author revealed in article STYLE; Fashion For Dummies, written by himself, he had no idea that the term “Stepford“ have will have such an influence on a language. He had chosen this fictive name for a town because “it fell most easily from the lips and because, in its subliminal suggestions of a step being taken, I heard something faintly robotic. And robots, as you must know, were what those uppity wives were about to be replaced with by their technologically gifted husbands.”

Stepford became an adjective, the term Stepford wife entered dictionaries.

Macmillan English Dictionary For Advanced Learners states: “Stepford: adjective, doing what other people want without complaining or asking questions” (Macmillan

1466). But there are also many other, less common terms, like: Stepford cops, Stepford rats, and after the film remake even Stepford husbands.

The first part of the thesis chapter explains a theory of film adaptation and the historical situation of the 1970‟s in the United States of America. It was a period of the second wave feminism which strongly influenced the view of supporters of the women‟s liberation movement on the novel and the first film adaptation. It introduces the history of the National Organization for Women and Betty Friedan, one of its founders and an author of The Feminine Mystique. Both chapters help to understand the two different methods of film adaptation and the response of some feminist critics.

5 The third chapter is devoted to the book and both film adaptations. In each of the three parts of this chapter I will explain the plot of each version and in the parts concerned with films I will highlight the divergences. I will also provide information on the different views of the audience on the film adaptations.

The fourth chapter is analytical. I will analyse the differences of each film version and different reactions on each film. The second part of the fourth chapter will provide a detailed analysis of the principal female character and its change and analysis of the key scene, which is the scene of disentanglement, when Joanna and the spectator dislose the Stepford‟s secret.

The fifth chapter is devoted to the gender stereotypes in film and image of women in media in the 1970‟s. I worked with literary sources and my aim is to demonstrate the individual stereotypes on examples or characters from the films.

The last chapter is devoted to the pleasure in looking. It is a theoretical thesis working with visual pleasures offered by the cinema, where again will use examples from both film versions..

Except the comparison and analysis I will focus on the gender aspect of The

Stepford Wives because at the time of its first release feminism was a very up-to-date topic. The view of women‟s right changed during the thirty two years and it is interesting to compare the changes in the society via the comparison of the three versions of The Stepford Wives.

The aim of this thesis is to examine all versions of The Stepford Wives – the book and two film adaptations and to analyse the divergences of each version.

Furthermore I will analyse the atmosphere in the American society in the 1970‟s in particular the second wave feminism and women‟s liberation movement, because it is important to understand the tempestuous response of certain women engaged with the

6 feminist movement. In the conclusion I will also answer the crucial question: what message was sent to the society through The Stepford Wives in the 1970‟s and the year

2004 and did the society change?

1. Film Adaptation

Certain books are used as bases for film adaptations. According to Dudley

Andrew “over half of all commercial films have come from literary originals” (Andrews

29). Film adaptation is a transformation of the whole book or its part to a film. There are various books of different genres used for the film adaptation, both fictional and non- fictional. One of the most common genres used for film adaptation is a novel, which was also used in the case of The Stepford Wives adaptation.

Ira Levin belongs to the authors whose literary works has been frequently adapted for films. The first film version of The Stepford Wives is a faithful transformation of Levin‟s written work, whereas the second version used only a part of his novel as a basis and the film creators added their own ideas to change the plot, the message and especially the end of the story.

Some film critics believe that the film directors should not exactly copy the storyline, because a book and a film are two different entities. Such critics advocate so called reception theory. According to Stam, reception theory “indirectly authorizes more respect for adaptation as a form. For reception theory, a text is an event, whose indeterminacies are completed and actualized in the reading (or spectating).” (Stam 10).

In this sense, adaptation fills in the interspaces of the literary source. According to

Stam, reception theory “indirectly authorizes more respect for adaptation as a form.”

Other critics believe that the base should be accurately followed. Naturally even films that attempt to accurately follow the book cannot copy the book exactly ,as it is

7 generally technically impossible; therefore in most adaptations some changes are unavoidable.

Film adaptation is by certain critics and spectators considered as inferior to the novel. They feel that there is always something damaged or lost in the transition by the adaptation, for example the storyline is reduced or the characters are changed.

According to Stam there are eight reasons for hostility to film adaptation, which is sometimes considered as inferior to the literature. A prejudice that older arts are necessarily better arts, presumption of rivalry between literature and film, iconophobia, logophilia, anti-corporeality, the myth of facility, form of class prejudice. And in my opinion perhaps the most common is the charge of parasitism. Film critics often accuse film makers of stealing the vitality of the text, spoiling the original storyline or esprit. If the adapter choses to change a part of the story, or decides to render or to elide a scene, his work is considered to be unfaithful. Film is considered to be only a copy of an original piece of art.

Each film version of The Stepford Wives was adapted with the use of one of the above mentioned methods. They prove that both methods can be successfully used, although the remake was criticised by some critics, for example Peter Bradshaw, for being inferior to the original film.

The fidelity of the film adaptation or its parts is always being assessed by critics and readers who compare the literary original with the adaptation. Stam puts a question whether strict fidelity is even possible and according to him, literate fidelity is not desirable. The problem with fidelity or infidelity is the fact that it is always assessed by individual personal opinion and feeling. It depends on individual imagination. The feeling of infidelity roots from the fact that the reader‟s imagination is different than the imagination of the film makers.

8

2. The Historical Situation

To understand the plot of the novel and particularly the reactions of some critics it is necessary to explain the historical situation and context.

I feel it is important to briefly explain more about the second wave feminism, because it is important to understand the response of some women from the field of feminism to The Stepford Wives.

The novel and Forbes„ film were released at the time of so called second wave feminism. According to Judy Klemesrud The Stepford Wives film is “one of the first films to deal with feminism in any manner“. Second wave feminism started in 1960‟s and lasted through the early 1980‟s. It started in Northern America, but spread throughout the whole western world. While first wave feminism focused on legal gender equality, second wave feminism broadened the debate to another fields of issues.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed sex discrimination in the United States.

However, some women felt that this act actually did not change anything. In 1966 there was established a National Organization for Women (NOW). The aim of NOW was to bring the theory of no sex discrimination into practice. One of the founders and the first president was Betty Friedan who explained the purpose of NOW: "The purpose of

NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of

American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.” (NOW)

The members of NOW focused in particular on six main issues: ending sex discrimination, abortion and reproduction rights, lesbian rights, economic justice, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping violence against women.

9 Bliss Cua Lim wrote a critical essay Serial Time: Bluebeard in Stepford, where she compares two cases of marital homicide. She quotes the screenwriter of The

Stepford Wives, William Goldman. According to Goldman “The Stepford Wives must be seen in its historical specificity, as a response to and engagement with what has been called the “second wave feminism” of the 1960s and 1970” (Lim 172). Lim explains that the Stepford men felt betrayed by their wives and their disobedience. At the time when they married them their wives probably did not have so many doubts about their traditional roles self-realization, but the women‟s liberation opened their eyes. As Lim points out, the key motivation for the serial murder is nostalgia.

The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, who is considered to be one of the leaders of second wave feminism, was released in 1963. The Feminine Mystique deals with the life of an American woman, or more precisely – life of a middleclass American housewife. The book is considered to be one of the most important milestones in the second wave feminism. It is sometimes referred to as an eye-opener for women. Friedan introduces a famous term ”The problem that has no name“. It is a problem that is not visible. Middleclass women in the United States in 1960‟s were often leading a life of housewives. The society pictured housewives as happy women, who cared about their husbands, children and houses and devoted their lives to the happiness of their families.

So why were these real American women and fictional Stepford wives unhappy? They had husbands that cared for them and supported them financially. Yet they asked: ”is this all?“ According to Friedan, women ”were taught to pity the neurotic, unfeminine, unhappy women who wanted to be poets or physicists or presidents. They learned that truly feminine women do not want careers, higher education, political rights – the independence and the opportunities that the old-fashioned feminists fought for“.

(Friedan 13). But Friedan claimed that ”the resulting figure is childlike, empty, an

10 anonymous biological robot in a docile mass. She becomes less than a human“. Again, it sounds like a description of the Stepford wives. And the truth is that many housewives suffered from depression, because they felt inappropriate to feel unhappy with their role. Friedan and NOW tried to show women that there could be more in their lives if they chose to study or work.

The ”problem“ is identical with the problem of Stepford wives like Joanna and

Bobbie. They have everything – a husband who supports family financially, children, a house and no worries, but they still miss something. Men do not see any problem, they think that their wives should be just grateful for such wonderful lives. The Stepford wives were a picture of these middleclass women, not happy as a housewives and therefore they had to be changed by thein husbands. According to Kalene

Westmoreland, ”in her quest to spread the message of women‟s liberation and, in turn, find out why Stepford women are compulsively domestic, Joanna is constructed to resemble Friedan herself“ (Westmoreland 51).

3. The Stepford Wives

Ira Levin‟s novel The Stepford Wives was published in 1972. It is not Levin„s first book where the principal character is a woman who must fight for her life, but it is the first book which deals with feminist and chauvinist aspects and the role of women and men in the society, although it might had not been the author‟s plan. Levin‟s original intention was to write The Stepford Wives as a stage play, but when he realized that there are too many characters in the story he decided to write a novel.

The story begins on one September‟s day, when the Eberhart family moves to

Stepford, which seems to be a perfect place for a family life. The principal character,

Joanna Eberhart, is a housewife who hopes to get back to work and become a

11 professional photographer. Shortly after her moving to Stepford she is interviewed by a welcome lady who works for the local newspaper. Joanna tells her that she is a supporter of women„s liberation movement and so is her husband Walter. She hopes that her introduction will send a message to other women with the same interest.

The town seems a little bizarre to her. It is clean, old-fashioned and nostalgic, the neighbours are polite, but none of the beautiful women are interested in anything else but family and housework.

From the very start it is clear that Joanna is a feminist. Not only from the statement she gave to the welcome lady, but also from the routine of her household. ”It was Walter„s turn to do the dishes“ the author writes on page 13. Or on pages 22-23:

”As a matter of principle she wasn‟t going to do any housework. She wasn‟t to do any housework while he was there (Men„s Association) any more than he was going to do it when she was out somewhere.“ She is a housewife, but probably not voluntarily. Walter wants her to stay home and fulfil her wifely duties. Although she is a stay-at-home- mother, she does not think that doing all domestic chores is her duty. She wants to work and in 1970„s it was not desirable for a middleclass woman. Citing Westmoreland, ”for readers with feminist sensibilities, Joanna may positively represent how women might integrate feminism with marriage and motherhood.“ (Westmoreland 42). Unfortunately the town is very patriarchal and she cannot find a friend with similar interests.

Walter decides to join the local Men„s Association, which makes Joanna furious.

Men„s Association is the only organization in the town that makes important decisions about the life in the town. And it is strictly ”men only“. Joanna does not understand how

Walter could join and support such an archaic and old-fashioned organization, which still does not accept women, but Walter argues that he does not want to be away from all affairs and important decisions. He also promises that he will do everything he could

12 to convince other members of the Association to start accepting women as members. and if he fails, he will demonstrate together with Joanna. “Hold off a little while. If it„s not open to women in six months, I´ll quit and we„ll march together. Shoulder to shoulder. Sex, yes; sexism, no.“ (Levin 15). There is no sign of Walter‟s disagreement with Joanna„s beliefs, he seems to be a real supporter of women„s liberation.

Joanna is struggling to find friends among all the submissive housewives, until she meets Bobbie Markow. Bobbie does not care about housework whatsoever and unlike Joanna, she does not desire to build a career. But like Joanna she is also a former member of the National Organization for Women. They quickly become friends.

Together they decide to find more women of similar interest and perhaps to establish an organization for women that would allow them to participate on important decisions and social life in Stepford.

The only woman in the town, who is interested in meeting them, is Charmaine, a woman, who does not care about politics, she is more bored than interested in women‟s movement, but on the other hand as Bobbie says: “she is not married to her vacuum cleaner“. Like Bobbie„s and Joanna‟s husbands, also Charmaine‟s husband is a members of the Men„s Association.

Joanna finds an old issue of the local newpaper with a shocking article about a

Women„s club in Stepford. She finds out that many of the neighbours she approached and who refused to meet up and talk about anything else but housework used to be members of the club. In the past there were over fifty members of the club having a meeting with Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique. She also discovers that the Men‟s Association was established only six or seven years ago, exactly at the time when the Women‟s club was dissolved. She is surprised that what seemed to be an archaic and traditional organization was new and yet refusing to accept women. After

13 her discovery Joanna visits some of the former members of the Women„s club and ask them what happened with the club. Kit Sundersen, the former president of the club says that the Women„s club was dissolved, because the women lost interest in meetings. She personally realized that her place is in the house, where she cares about her family. She and her husband work as a unit, she explains. Her husband„s work is more important than her work was and he could not manage it without her help. While Kit was talking to Joanna, she could not stop doing laundry. Joanna thinks that Kit looks like a bad commercial actress; and that actually all Stepford women are: “actresses in commercials, pleased with detergents and floor wax, with cleanser, shampoos, and deodorants. Pretty actresses, big in the bosom but small in the talent, playing suburban housewives unconvincingly, too nicey-nice to be real.“ (Levin 59).

The idea of Stepford women looking and acting as commercial actresses reappears in the film. There is a scene of a meeting, where Joanna tries to encourage others to speak about their lives and the ladies change their meeting into a parody on commercial break.

Shortly after that Charmaine is the first of the three friends who changes. From self-confident, spoiled and pampered woman to attentive and loving mother and wife.

Bobbie becomes very worried about Charmaine„s complete change. She is afraid that if Charmaine changed as all the women who were former members of the Women„s

Club, anyone could. She decided to move away from Stepford. Joanna also considers moving out, not only for the reason that she is afraid of the possible change of herself, but because she does not want to stay in a town full of unsociable housewives. Walter promises her that they can move at the end of the school year and Joanna feels relieved.

Walter also convinces Joanna that he does not want her to be different. Bobbie is given

14 the same promise by her husband Mark. Neither Joanna nor Bobbie suspects their husbands. They would rather believe that they both became paranoid.

Bobbie spends a romantic weekend with her husband, just like Charmaine did before her change. On Sunday, when Bobbie and Mark are picking up their son from

Joanna‟s house, Joanna realizes Bobbie„s change. She looks superb and very happy, her worries about Stepford disappeared. Joanna suggests to Walter to also have a weekend alone. She wonders about one thing: Walter did not want to kiss Bobbie„s cheek before they said goodbye. He explains that he does not like cheek kissing. It is bizarre – the

Stepford men decided to spend their lives with robots instead of real women and here

Walter refuses to kiss one of them.

Two days later Joanna realizes that Bobbie also changed. She visits Bobbie personally and is shocked. Her formerly very messy house is all clean and polished and

Bobbie is still cleaning. She looks immaculate, her hair done, wearing make-up, much slimmer than she used to be. And she does not want to move out any more. Joanna calls

Walter and wants to move out immediately. She realizes that both her friends changed four months after they move to Stepford. It means that she has only one month left.

Walter refuses the possibility that Bobbie and Charmaine changed, he claims that they both were simply too messy and neglected their duties. The same Walter, who assured his wife so many times that he does not want her to change, suddenly criticizes her: “If

Bobbie„s taking an interest in her appearance, it„s about time. It wouldn„t hurt you to look in a mirror once in a while“ (Levin 113).

Joanna starts to suspect her husband of deliberate relocation from New York to

Stepford. Somehow he knew what happens to women who move to Stepford. From the beginning of the book the reader knows that moving to Stepford was Walter‟s idea.

Walter persuades her that she is getting insane and persuades her to see a psychiatrist.

15 Joanna finds a psychiatrist in a nearby town. She tells her about suspicion that all men in Stepford are behind the change of their wives. The psychiatrist offers Joanna her help. What Joanna has to do right now is to take her children and run away. On her way home Joanna stops at Stepford‟s library and studies old copies of local press. She finds out that all members of Men‟s Association are former employees of major technical companies. Suddenly she knows that she found the truth. The Stepford men bring their wives to the town, draw pictures of them, make them to tape their voice and after four months of preparation they kill them and replace them with robots.

When she comes home, her children are not there. Only Walter is there, waiting for her. Joanna is furious, because Walter does not want to tell her where are their children and he does not allow her to leave the house. Joanna feels that this is the moment when she has to do something, otherwise she would die. She secretly runs away and knows that this is her only chance to escape her doomed fate. Soon she is discovered by Stepford men. They take her to Bobbies house and ask Bobbie to prove that she is a human being. If she cuts her finger and it bleeds it is apparent that she is not a robot.

Bobbie already waits for Joanna. The men leave Bobbie and Joanna alone.

Joanna feels ridiculous, she is assuring herself that the theory of Stepford wives turned into robots is lunatic and tells Bobbie not to cut herself. But then Bobbie takes a huge kitchen knife. And at this moment Joanna realizes that she is lost. This is the most chilling moment of the novel. Joanna knows that she is going to die.

The final scene takes place in a supermarket. Joanna looks as perfect as ever.

She meets Ruthanne Hendry, a woman that moved to Stepford few days before

Bobbie‟s second-honeymoon. To Ruthanne‟s surprise Joanna does not remember that they wanted to meet up. Joanna apologizes that unfortunately she is too busy and cannot

16 meet Ruthanne any time soon. Ruthanne goes home and tells her husband how much she looks forward for their weekend alone. It is clear that the circle is not going to be broken this time.

3.1 The Stepford Wives Directed by Bryan Forbes

The first film version of The Stepford Wives was directed by Bryan Forbes and released just three years after the book. It was adapted into a science fiction thriller.

William Goldman, the screenwriter of The Stepford Wives reveals that the female actresses were supposed to look like Playboy bunnies, but when Forbes cast his wife

Nanette Newman, who was a talented actress, but in her age of forty one she was not in the Playboy bunny shape, the plans had to be changed. Therefore the ladies wore very flattering but decent dresses and hats. According to some critics it was a change for the worse, as it spoiled the perspective of the male fantasy of a perfect woman, who is a great housekeeper and a sexy goddess at the same time. On the other hand it could have been a purpose, because in the novel Levin mentions that the smell of transformed

Bobbie reminds Joanna a perfume of Walter‟s mother and the men actually wanted their wives to stay old-fashioned, devoted wives as their mothers were, the proper stay-at- home mothers and wives of the 1950‟s.

The story starts in noisy part of New York, where the Eberhart family loads the car and is ready to move. Spectator can already see that Joanna does not look happy at all. Susan Reimer wrote that Joanna “frustrates her husband to the breaking point because she can‟t articulate the unhappiness she expects him to relieve“. I disagree. In

Stepford Joanna asks Walter why did they move and makes clear that their relocation was all Walter‟s idea. Later it is also disclosed that he did not even ask about her opinion and made down the payment for the house.

17 It is possible that Walter knows why they moved to Stepford. Unlike his character in the novel, in the film he seems to know what is going on in Stepford, although he does not know all the details, which is proved in later scene when he comes back from the Men‟s Association‟s meeting, sweaty, terrified and drunk and assuring

Joanna that he really loves her and he does not want her to change. He also seems to know their neighbours. When Joanna and Walter unpack their stuff, Carol Van Sant, a neighbour, comes by and brings them a casserole, but she is not interested to meet

Joanna, who is inside the house. In the evening Walter walks a dog when he meets Ted

Van Sant and without any other words Walter tells him: “She cooks as good as she looks,“ which gives the impression that he already met Ted before.

After Walter‟s return from the first meeting in the Men‟s Association, it is clear that he was told how the process of transformation works. During the visit of Men‟s

Association‟s members at the Eberhart‟s house, Dale Coba, the president of the

Association, asks Walter: “you are not sure about Stepford Walter, are you?“ Although

Walter claims that he is, he probably still has doubts about murdering his wife.

A spectator who read the novel before watching the film recognizes the robots very soon. One of the transformed female neighbours acts as a malfunctioning electronic device after being involved into minor car accident. Joanna is a witness of two occasions when she repeats one sentence and even makes the same movements until her husband or another man stop her.

Joanna meets Bobbie. She is very similar to her character in the book, outgoing, amusing and energetic. They become friends and share their frustration from the perfect female neighbours. They fail in her endeavour to organize a meeting with other women, but they find Charmaine. When Joanna gets a visit from Claude Axhelm, who asks her

18 to tape her voice for his research, she agrees under one condition – Claude must persuade the women for one meet up.

The meeting is opened by Joanna, who encourages the women to talk about anything. She is followed by Charmaine, who talks about her marriage, which according to her is not happy, because her husband never loved her. The sad moment is broken by one of the women, who says that she did not bake anything yesterday. This scene is equally as hilarious as scary. The beautiful neighbours are not only looking but also acting like bad commercial actresses, as Joanna from the book thought.

Kit: “I didn‟t bake anything yesterday. It took me so long to get the upstairs

floor to shine, I didn‟t have any time to bake.”

Joanna: “Well, you don‟t have to bake, Kit. There‟s no law.”

Brunette neighbour: “Try Easy-On Spray Starch – it must save me half an hour a

day at least.

Carol: “I‟ve just been tempted so many times to try Easy-On!”

Brunette neighbour: “You‟ll never get short of time again, I guarantee it! If time

is your enemy, make friends with Easy-On, that‟s all I can tell you!”

Bobbie: “Wow!”

The brunette woman, whose name is not mentioned, recommending Easy-On, looks like a true commercial actress, representing the housekeeper‟s stereotype. She is so excited about the detergent, happily and enthusiastically revealing the secret of her perfectly cleaned household. And while Joanna and her friends stay speechless in disbelief, the other women change the meeting into a commercial break and finally look happy. Who cares about marital problems, if there are so many cleaning aids they can talk about!

According to Lim, “this incongruous scene may account for Betty Friedan‟s storming out of the theatre,” (Lim 168).

19 Joanna and Bobbie meet the welcome lady who tells them that a black family is moving to Stepford. She thinks it is a right thing, because Stepford is “the most liberal town around“, which makes Joanna and Bobbie laugh. But the welcome lady insists and argues that Stepford had the first women club around to ask liberation ladies to come and give a lecture. She claims that she was on a meeting, attended by at least fifty ladies. Joanna and Bobbie are staring in disbelief. They visit the neighbours again and ask about the club . The women explain that they just realized that without the club they would be better wives and mothers.

When Charmaine changes, Joanna and Bobbie start panicking. But before they get a chance to do anything, Bobbie changes too. Joanna persuades Walter to move away immediately, but he accuses her of being insane.

After seeing psychiatrist and realizing what is wrong with Stepford and Stepford men Joanna finds her doom in the Men‟s Association. She is tricked into going there and killed by her double.

The final scene takes place in the supermarket. All beautiful Stepford women including Joanna are doing their shopping and behind the shelves there is the new black family arguing about something. This couple is new in Stepford and gives a message, that there will be another woman, somebody‟s wife, who might be curious about the town‟s strange atmosphere, might start searching for the secret of the Stepford men and most likely she will also be replaced by a robot, because it seems that no woman would find the truth until it is too late for her.

The Stepford Wives film was a failure at the time of its release. But during the years it earned respect and became a cult movie, a significant part of the pop-culture.

According to Lilly Ann Boruzkowski one of the reasons why the film failed might have been the fact that “although women should be its most responsive audience (since the

20 film concerns sexual oppression in a patriarchal society), women do not form the majority of horror film aficionados”. Columbia Pictures even organized so called

“awareness session”, which should introduce the film to women, but it was also unsuccessful. Interestingly, the first adaptation was widely defended by the film critics after the release of the remake. The remake was compared to the first version and while the remake was labelled as inferior or burlesque, the first version was seen as superb, chilling and a precise adaptation of the novel.

The film‟s audience and critics recognized two different messages. One of them, seen in particular by some feminist critics, was the fear of the growing power of feminism, which was a very current topic at the time of the film release. These critics felt offended by the attempt to ridicule their effort to liberate women. The second point of view was the opposite – the criticism of the patriarchal suburban society, where men could not forget the nostalgic times of the 1950‟s. In fact they had shown the men as murderers and chauvinists who are not able to deal with strong and self-confident women. Even Forbes himself claimed that the film is not anti-women, but anti-men, which is proved by the uncomplimentary image of all Stepford men.

The film was also criticized for pushing men and women into the battle of sexes, which should have proved ho is better. Elyce Rae Helford quotes a sociologist Herbert

J. Gans in her study “It‟s a Rip-Off of the Women‟s Movement“: “the film sees the

[women‟] movement as setting women against men, thus ignoring the many feminists who have argued that women‟s liberation cannot be achieved without larger social change that also liberates men” (Helford 30).

21 3.2. The Stepford Wives Directed by Frank Oz

Herbert J. Gans. He predicted in 1975 that "years from now, if The Stepford

Wives is remembered at all, it will be only for its misogynous way of bringing women's liberation to the screen" (qtd. in Helford 30). How wrong he was.

The remake was made by Frank Oz, thirty two long years after the book and twenty nine years after the first version. Unlike the first version the critics of the second version did not really care about women‟s movement, but more about women‟s appearance and their looks. It is obvious that the topic of second wave feminism history was no longer present in the year 2004 and the way of thinking changed during the years. Women are no longer dependent on their husbands and nobody would believe that something like serial killing of wives in order to replacing them with robots could happen. Nowadays the Stepford men would marry obedient women who would love to lead a Stepford wives‟s lives.

Joanna played by Nicole Kidman is very different from the one played by

Katharine Ross and from the book character. She is not a housewife, but a very successful woman, a television star. As Jeanette Winterson wrote in her article “Living

Dolls“, this Joanna “has it all, she is what feminism promised“. Forget Joanna, whose greatest dream was to become a photographer, but who could not really make it, because her husband did not support her and she could not break the stereotypes. After a scandal she is fired and suffers a nervous breakdown. Her husband decides to take her away from the city, to a place, where the whole family can forget Joanna‟s past.

In this version the robots appear at the very moment when the family enters their new house. There is an electronic dog welcoming his new masters. Later on Joanna becomes a witness of a strange incident, when Sarah Sunderson, starts spinning in circles, makes strange noise and then she collapses. Women are pushed away by men,

22 who surround the women. Joanna sees how Mike tosses her head, there is a little lightning and that is it. She is fixed. There is a scene where this “fixed” woman is heard to have a loud and passionate sex with her husband. While listening to the noises, Roger finds a remote control with Sarah‟s name. He presses a button at the moment when

Sarah walks down the stairs. She stops, her breasts suddenly visibly grow up, and then she falls asleep and falls down. And during Walter‟s visit of the Men‟s Association, one of his fellow members‟ wife is introduced to him. She inserts a credit card into her mouth and gives a pile of banknotes to her husband. It is clear that there will be no shocking discovery of robots for the spectator.

What is interesting there is the fact that Walter did not know the Stepford secret.

He was honestly shocked at the moment of the discovery.

Again, the women in the town are primarily compulsive cleaners. Clare, the welcoming lady, takes Joanna to some kind of local women„s club, where she introduces her to other Stepford ladies. They give the impression of ethereal beings. The women in the first version were all good looking, but the new Stepford wives look more than beautiful. They are like fairies. It seems that they do not simply walk, they levitate.

Unlike the “old“ Stepford wives, these “new“ Stepford wives are not just cleaning their houses or cooking for their families, they meet other women (to discuss how to be the best wife, cleaning lady and a mother) or beauticians and talk about fashion. They have noticeably bigger breasts, reflecting the trend of plastic surgery.

At a celebration of the 4th of July Joanna meets Bobbie, who is not a housewife without professional ambitions, but a famous writer, her husband Mark, whose role is more significant in this version, and Roger Bannister, a homosexual architect. Roger become friends with Joanna and Bobbie and is replacing Charmaine‟s character in the storyline.

23 Bobbie and Mark have a stormy relationship. Mark is a man without a respect of his wife, and wishes his wife to be a proper housekeeper – real Stepford wife. There are number of scenes where the couple argues about womanly duties. Mark asks Bobbie whether she made some sandwiches. Bobbie replies by a question – did you? When they visit Walter and Joanna and Joanna is baking cakes, Mark asks Bobbie:

Mark: “Why don‟t you make stuff like this?“

Bobbie: “Why don‟t you?“

Mark: “Because I have a penis!”

Each of them has different ideas of male and female role in marriage. Bobbie makes clear what does she think about a women‟s role and so does Mark.

Walter is not happy in marriage with Joanna and he expresses his feelings.

Joanna feels guilty that her marriage does not work and promises Walter to change herself. What if this life is really better for her? She suggests to Bobbie and Roger to give a try to the Stepford‟s way of life.

At the same time Walter attends the meeting of the Men‟s Association. It is revealed that unlike the first version, Walter had no idea before they moved to Stepford that women in the town change. The men talk about his marriage. They laugh at

Walter‟s chimera that Joanna will become a better wife. One of the men calls his wife.

They show him one of the robot wives and Walter is wholeheartedly shocked.

The first transformed character in Oz‟ version is Roger. Bobbie and Joanna see him at a political meeting, where he is introduced as a new member of the Republican

Party. He tell them that he is happier than ever. “I discovered that being gay doesn‟t mean a men has to be feminine, or flamboyant, or sensitive.“ So not only women must be perfect wives to their husband in accordance with their traditional role, but also men should be perfect partners representing the image of “the right men“ (although gay).

24 Joanna wants to leave Stepford without any delay, claiming that it is not normal to be always happy and smiling. There must be something wrong with Stepford. At this moment Walter realizes that Joanna really will not change. They go to sleep, but in the middle of the night Joanna is woken by the robot dog, which wants to play and brings her a remote control with engraved name on it. Joanna‟s name. She jumps out of the bed and starts a research on the internet. In year 2004 she obviously does not have to go to the library searching for the old newspaper. She finds out that her female neighbours used to be very successful women, CEO‟s, managers and directors of major companies.

In the morning Joanna discovers that Bobbie is also different. She drives to the

Men‟s Association, where she is awaited by all Stepford men. She is explained that she will have a chip inserted into her brain which will “help” her to change too.

Again there is a scene taking place in the supermarket. This supermarket looks exactly the same as the supermarket from the Forbes„ version. Stepford‟s perfect women are doing shopping, among them Joanna. But this is not the end of the film and a spectator who does not know the original versions probably expects the denouement, which comes soon.

This film does not end up by transformation of Joanna and the supermarket scene. The most surprising scene takes place on a ball held by Clare and Mike. While

Joanna accompanies Mike, Walter deactivates the chips in women‟s brains. When women (and Roger) come to their senses, furious Mike attacks Walter. Joanna, who was not transformed at all, defends her husband and hits Mike over her head. Shockingly, his head falls of his body – he was a robot.

“He is a Stepford husband,“ Joanna gasps. Tearful Clare starts explaining. She used to be a scientist, successful and overworked. When she found out that Mike was unfaithful to her, she killed him and his lover. She then transformed Mike into a robot

25 and he was supposed to help her to create a better world. He was a man, which was her chance how to make other men listen to her – better said listen to her through him.

Together they transformed Stepford women into perfect housewives and Stepford men should have been the next in a row. “All I wanted was a better world, where men were men and women were cherished and loved“.

There is a strong gender aspect in this scene. Clare, a professionally successful woman, realizes that career is not important for a woman, if her marriage does not work. Therefore she decided to change not only herself, but also other women. If they do not see their right place, she will make them. Clare is the creator of the evil in

Stepford, not men, although there is nothing good to be said about them if they deliberately insert chips into their wives‟s brains.

After six months Joanna, Bobbie and Roger appear in a TV show. They are professionally more successful than ever and tell the broadcaster that the Stepford husbands are still under house arrest. Here I use the words of Susan Reimer, who wrote about the plot twist, that “this might finally cause Betty Friedan to dry her teas“

(Reimer).

As in the book and Forbes‟s version this film also ends by a scene in the supermarket. But here the husbands are doing the shopping monitored by women.

The remake was commercially unsuccessful. Its release was expected with a curiosity, but many film critics comparing the two film versions labelled the remake as burlesque and inferior to both the novel and the first adaptation. The expectations were too high. According to A.O. Scott, the remake never lived up to its satirical potential.

The film is shallow and too simple. “The Stepford Wives is, in other words, the opposite of satire. It is intended not to provoke but to soothe, to tell us, once again, that

26 we can have it all, that nobody's perfect, and that if there is trouble in the world, or in our own homes, it's nothing we need to worry our pretty little heads about” (Scott).

4. Comparison of Each Film Version and Response of the Public

Columbia Pictures, the distributor of The Stepford Wives, asked Eleanor Perry, a feminist screenwriter, to host a special screening of Forbes‟s The Stepford Wives with the aim to introduce the movie to women, who would like to watch movie that is concerned with women, not men. There were invited about hundred of women as opinion makers, among them Betty Friedan and other women that influenced the society

– actresses, critics, authors and others. This screening was called an awareness session and it was supposed to be ”an evening for wives and other women“ (Klemesrud).

Some of the opinion makers were furious with the movie, called it ridiculous, even junk. Friedan left the session after ten minutes with famous words: ”I think we should all leave here. I don‟t think we should help publicize this movie. It‟s a rip-off of the women‟s movement.“ (Klemesrud). But there were others, who actually liked the film. ”I loved it – those men were like a lot of men I‟ve known in my life. They really want wives who are robots,“ said Gael Greene. Perry also commented: ”The film presses buttons that make you furious – the fact that all the Stepford men wanted were big breasts, big bottoms, a clean house, fresh-perked coffee and sex.“ (Fresh-perked coffee was offered to Joanna by Bobbie, when she confronted her with the truth of the change in Forbes„ film)

In the 1970‟s when American feminists tried to convince women that they have more chances in their lives, they did not want to be seen as objects of visual or sexual pleasure. Naturally, feminist were not pleased that women in The Stepford Wives book and film were pictured as domestic goddesses, women, who look always beautiful no

27 matter what they were doing and their greatest dream and aim of their lives was to serve their husbands and children.

Some of the feminist activists felt that their effort of making women more free and respected is being destroyed, their movement ridiculed and that they are not taken seriously. The principal female character in the novel and Forbes‟s film uncovers the terrible truth of the serial killers in Stepford, but it is too late for her. She is not given a chance to escape and to disclose the truth to the world. The men are stronger and they conquer her, a silly woman, who thought that she could be intelligent and capable enough to be equal to men.

But the intentions of the author and film makers could have been different. What if they did not want to ridicule the women? What if on the contrary they wanted to wake up American women? After all, Forbes claimed that he is sympathetic with women and

The Stepford Wives is an anti-men movie. He strongly disagreed with the accusation of ridiculing women. He claimed that his intentions were misunderstood. The men in

Stepford are the creators of evil, serial killers who murder their wives without mercy, because they work together as a unit? They might want to show women that they should not always obey their husbands. The book and the film could have been a warning what could happen to passive and timid women if they will not trust their instincts and wisdom.

Release of the new version of The Stepford Wives was obviously expected with a curiosity. The fans of the original version compared version old with new version, but there were also people, who had never heard of the original Stepford Wives. Peter

Bradshaw criticised the remake for being “all-new, low-IQ version of Bryan Forbes's

1975 movie of the Ira Levin bestseller” (Bradshaw). According to him, the remake is

28 not satirising the male chauvinism or simple-mindedness of the suburb, but the original film, to which it is, in Bradshaw‟s opinion, inferior.

As the first version, the second versions also made some women angry.

Maureen Dowd wrote an article that focuses on the pressure put on women even after three decades. According to her, women are expected to look perfect and points out that today women are actually pushed into plastic surgery. The remake still makes a great thriller, she says. Why? Because women are returning back to the past, they do not appreciate enough of the fruit of feminism – freedom and free will for women. They

”puff their lips, baloon their breasts and suck fat from their hindquarters“ – all for men.

(Dowd).

In the year 2004 women were very liberated in comparison to 1970‟s. According to Winterson, Forbes was assaulted with an umbrella by a woman he described as a

“militant libber” (Winterson). It is obvious that Oz was not threatened by any feminist.

But some of the women stereotypes are still there. Joanna and Bobbie do not look exactly terrific, they are plain women that could be easily overseen in a crowd. But it changes during the film, they both are changed into classy ladies and again there is no old or ugly woman in the new Stepford. However, besides the looks the stereotypes were broken. The female characters were before their transformation smart, more successful than male characters, not only their counterparts, and at the end they won.

They “overpowered” the men and told them that no man can change them against their will.

29 4.1 Comparison of the Principal Female Character and Key Scenes in

Both Film Versions

The characters are different in each version. It is obvious when we take into account that between the release of the book and the second film version thirty two years have passed and the characters were more or less changed in accordance with the social change. I will now analyze the individual characters and their changes.

The image of the principal character, Joanna, is in the first film version depicted very accurately to her character in the book. She is a mother and a wife. She would like to change her life, earn more respect and fulfil her professional dreams. Unfortunately she is not strong enough to do so and act against her husband‟s wishes. She is the typical middleclass woman depicted in Friedan‟s The Feminine Mystique. A woman that has everything she could possibly wish for and still asks herself a crucial question: is it all? Yet she is a feminist and previously was an active member of the National

Organization for Women, which basically means that she knows what she wants and cannot be happy leading a life of a housewife. She is courageous and intelligent enough to find out what is wrong with the Stepford men (and women), perhaps the first woman in Stepford. To her greatest loss she trusts her husband and has no doubts about his intentions until it is too late.

Joanna in the second film version is a successful woman. She has everything that the “old” Joanna would ever dreamed of. She is a celebrity and loves her career. She is the breadwinner of her family and Walter actually works as her personal assistant. She represents everything a feminist in 1970‟s fought for. Until she suffers nervous breakdown. After that Walter takes control over their family and Joanna wants to change herself to make her family happy. She has no doubt about Walter or suspicion that there is something wrong in Stepford, until her friends are transformed. She does

30 not suffer from social isolation like the first Joanna, because she really wants to please

Walter and is trying to integrate into the Stepford‟s routine.

Let me also comment on the visual aspect of Joanna‟s character. Joanna played by Katharine Ross represents a woman in accordance with classic measures of a natural feminine beauty. With long hair, huge eyes, wearing flattering clothes is pleasing every male spectator‟s eye. She looked stunning even before her transformation. She only changed the fashion style of the dresses she was wearing and wore more make-up.

Joanna played by Nicole Kidman before her nervous breakdown looks neat but not feminine. She cannot measure herself with Ross. She wears short hair and black suits and although she is famous she wears clothes that do not fit her. But her change is therefore more significant. In comparison with her old self she looks like a blonde goddess and finally wears dresses in proper size and flattering shape.

A key scene of both film versions is the scene of disentanglement, when Joanna and the spectator find out what is going on in Stepford. I will depict both of them and compare them together.

In Forbes‟s version Joanna visits a psychiatrist. After her advice to leave Walter and run away, Joanna drives back home, it is dark and the weather is unpleasant and stormy. Before she gets home it starts raining. It is dark, outside and inside the house, where Walter is already awaiting her. The children are not home. After a fight Joanna runs into her bedroom. In a while she sneaks out of the house. She runs to Bobbie‟s house, because she hopes to find her children there. But Bobbie is home alone.

Joanna seems to still have a little hope in her heart that Bobbie did not really change, that her friend was not killed and simply changed her personality. But this hope quickly dies. Bobbie tells Joanna that she is making up things; there is no problem in

Stepford. Joanna is furious and desperate, realizing that Bobbie is not a real person, not

31 a human. The real Bobbie is dead. She takes a knife and plugs it into Bobbie‟s stomach.

There is no blood. Bobbie takes the knife, polishes it and is about to make a cup of coffee. She is surprised how Joanna could do it and keeps repeating one sentence and strange moves. There is a sound of “robotic” music during this scene, which really exemplifies the strange Bobbie‟s/robotic moves.

While Joanna is away, Walter calls the police and after the assurance of a police man that everybody is looking for Joanna, he goes calmly back to the house, drinks whisky and does not look like a man, whose wife is to be murdered in the following minutes. Joanna returns home, attacks Walter and he tells her that their children are in the Men‟s Association.

Next snapshot is on the Men‟s Association building. It is an old Victorian building and looks ghastly in the darkness, alight only by flashes. These all are typical horror archetypes. Joanna enters the dark building and starts her search. Suddenly she hears the voice of her child. But it is only taped voice from the magnetic tape. She meets Coba, who was expecting her. He tells Joanna, that she is very bright. Brighter than most. This statement shows that Joanna is not the first one who put things together, but unfortunately too late for her.

Joanna: “why?“

Coba: “Why? Because we can. We found the way of doing it and it‟s just

perfect. Perfect for us and perfect for you. See, think of it the other way around.

Wouldn‟t you like some perfect stud waiting on you around the house? Praising

you, servicing you? Whispering how your sagging flesh was beautiful no matter

how you looked?“

Joanna looks distantly away and Coba takes fireplace poker from her hand, which she took for her personal defence. Suddenly she comes to her senses, screams and runs

32 away. The door is locked, so she tries to find another place to hide. Coba is following her, walking calmly. She opens one of the doors and she steps into a room, which looks like her own bedroom. There is the same furniture and even her dog, which jumps into

Coba‟s arms. But the biggest shock is still to come. In the front of the mirror there sits

Joanna herself, combing her hair. Joanna stands in the room and does not move. The false Joanna stands up. She has no eyes, only black holes and she has noticeably bigger breasts. She smiles and takes a stocking and walks towards Joanna. Coba is standing in the corner, watching. Why does the robot have no eyes? This is not explained, but I see it as a metaphor. Eyes are said to be the Window to the soul and robots have none. After the cut there is a scene of the women shopping in the local supermarket. It is clear that

Joanna is dead.

Oz‟s version is different. Joanna is awoken in the middle of the night Joanna is woken by the robot dog, which wants to play and brings her a remote control with engraved name on it. Joanna‟s name. She jumps out of the bed and starts a research on the internet. In year 2004 she obviously does not have to go to the library searching for the old newspapers, like Joanna in the book. She finds out that her female neighbours used to be very successful women, CEO‟s, managers and directors of major companies.

The next morning she runs to Bobbie‟s house and discovers that Bobbie is transformed into a perfect housewife. There is a crazy scene, when Bobbie‟s sons are leaving for school and she hands them packed lunch prepared in accordance with their e-mail request. When one of the sons is displeased with his lunch, Bobbie gives him five hundred dollars.

Bobbie tries to persuade Joanna to reappraise her behaviour and to change herself too. While she speaks, she puts her hand into a fire on the hob. She does not

33 even realize it, which is strange as the transformed Stepford wives in Oz‟s film are not robots.

Joanna drives back home and even though it was morning when she left her house, it is dark now, starts raining and the thunder roars. Because her children are not in the daily camp, she drives straight to the Association. The building of the Association is the same one used in the Forbes‟s version. Here the men are awaiting her. Not only

Mike, the leader, it seems that all Stepford men are ther. Walter gives a speech:

Walter: “Ever since we met you beat me in everything. You‟re better educated,

you‟re stronger, you‟re faster, smarter, you‟re better dancer, a better tennis

player. You‟ve always earned at least six figures more than I could ever dream

of. You‟re better speaker, better executive. You are even better at sex, don‟t

deny it!“

Joanna: “I wasn‟t going to.”

Walter blames Joanna that she made him responsible for the raising of their children, for the money, he was her spokesman, he worked for her. The men are angry, they married

“wonderwomen, supergirls“ and they do not like it, they want to look after their wives and want to be pampered by them in return. Why did they marry managers if they are afraid of their independence is a good question, but Joanna does not ask about that.

These Stepford husbands are not murderers. Mike explains that they only help to improve their wives by inserting a metal chips into their brains and Joanna is shown a promotional video of so called Female Improvement System. The men introduce themselves by the company where they work. Mike – his name comes from Microsoft, others work for NASA, Disney, AOL and so on. They show Joanna a plastic figure with black holes instead of eyes – it should be probably her body.

34 Joanna is speechless and cries. She smiles on Walter and kisses him. It seems like a last kiss that should persuade him not to change her. He looks at Joanna and does not look like a man who wants her to be different. She, Walter and the body disappear under the floor where Joanna‟s transformation should be done.

This involution is very naïve and raises several questions. What do the men need the bodies for if they do not murder their wives? And how does every single husband manage to insert a chip into his wife‟s brain? How does the visual transformation work?

In the Forbes‟s scene every detail was there for a reason, but in Oz‟s version this details stays unexplained. After the cut we are in the supermarket again.

5. Gender Stereotypes

In 1970‟s there was nothing extraordinary on the fact that women were pictured primarily as mothers, housekeepers and wives on television and screen. Some of the feminist television critics were convinced that ”representations of women in the mass media had a real effect on the ways in which women were treated by, and can cooperate in, society“ (Hole 282). When women appeared in a film or television their roles usually represented female types, especially in comedies. Frequently there were the following types of women: a single woman, newly married woman, chaotic mothers and domineering middle-aged woman. Feminism and the concept of sisterhood were satirized. According to Helford, feminists were demonized by media “as abrasive, unattractive malcontents.” (Helford 26).

Sharon Smith claims that it is not surprising that women characters are generally shown as ”confused, helpless and in danger, passive, or as a purely sexual being“

(Smith 15) even if an actress represents a strong and central character. It is due to the

35 filmmaker‟s minds which still carry out stereotyping cliché‟s. The characters express the fantasies of their creators, mostly male creators.

According to Smith the film makers use female character with the aim to move the plot along and bring a laugh, for example when a woman does not know where her place is (mother, wife and sexual object) and tries to succeed in a field of science. Her character is ridiculed and reverts back to cliché motivations.

Smith also admits that male characters are also stereotyped, but their stereotypes are machos, rulers, strong men. They, although they could be destructive, are a symbol of power, the opposite of female characters. Smith claims that these stereotypes are unhealthy, because women characters are those who are used to call the attention of spectators, therefore they are frequently used as promotion (female perfect bodies on billboards promoting the film, there are never male characters) and if men or boys do not yet have prejudices, these aspects create them.

Feminists disliked the stereotype of women being filmed in the way they were filmed. The women in films are all beautiful and slim, wear flattering clothes, have perfect hairdo and make-up. But real women are not always good looking; some of them are fat, some of them old and many of them cannot afford to buy perfectly fitting clothes. In the first version of The Stepford Wiwes you will not see one single ugly woman. But according to feminists this stereotype was hurtful for all women. Female body was usually filmed with a sexual implicit meaning. This could mean that woman was not seen as serious, intelligent, smart or educated person, she was seen simply as a beauty. Her intelligence or character was not so important to the spectator. At the time of second wave feminism this was obviously not desirable by those feminists who were trying to change the stereotypes. Their aim was to bring a real woman‟s image to the screen.

36 Smith suggests to imagine the contrary of the women trying to be seen as intelligent and independent persons. Imagine ridiculing of male characters, shown as simple-minded sex objects, husbands and fathers, trying to break their stereotypes. Men, who are members of men‟s liberation movement, presenting them “as bunch of frustrated studs, deluded into thinking they can be women, burning their jockstraps and waving sings – but always ending up in the boudoir of condescending woman, always giving up the struggle and being happily subservient to her.” (Smith 18). If you imagine that it would be easier to understand the feelings of the feminist film critics.

According to Smith the only way to change the stereotypes is to change the film makers‟ minds. But Hole admits that television and film industry are business.

Therefore if the spectators are attracted to female beauty or the way in which female characters are represented, the companies have no reason to change it. It is a matter of economics.

6. Pleasure in Looking

According to Laura Mulvey, the cinema offers above all pleasures the pleasure in looking. Scopophilia (pleasure in looking at another person), which ”arises from pleasure in using another person as an object of sexual stimulation through sight“

(Mulvey 18). She also mentions another pleasure - in narcissistic aspect. Spectators want to see likeness and recognition; they want to identify themselves with the film character.

Mulvey claims that ”women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness“ (Mulvey 19) whereas men are the representatives of the power, man is ”the bearer of the look of the spectator“ (Mulvey 19). Therefore the

37 pleasure in looking is divided to passive (female) and active (male). It means that the man is the ruler of the film fantasy, it is him who decides on what the woman should look (and be) like, whereas he is the representative of power and authority. According to Mulvey the look of the camera is usually male and voyeuristic. Woman is the object of visual pleasure for male spectator.

Likewise Smith Mulvey also claims that male character‟s visage is not important, because unlike the female character, a man is the one can control story events and his ego and character aspects are crucial, not his appearance.

Forbes„s movie is full of visual pleasure for the male spectators. There are several scenes that picture women as objects of sexuality attractive primarily for men – for example first meeting of Walter and his new neighbour Carol Van Sant, when he just gazed at her as if she was an incredible creature from a different world, Joanna wearing a dinner gown when Walter hold a meeting of the Men‟s Association‟s members at their house, or any other Stepford woman, always very classy, wearing floral length dress and a hat. On the contrary there is nothing pleasurable on the look of the Stepford men. They are probably much older than their wives, middle aged, bald- headed, not even congenial. But it also confirms Mulvey‟s theory – the cinema is all about women, but not for women.

Oz‟s version also offers visual pleasure, at the beginning neither Joanna nor

Bobbie look very glamorous, but their female neighbours surely do. Their beauty changed during the years, as did the general ideal of beauty and flair in the society. It was even criticized by certain female critics (for example Maureen Dowd) for pushing ordinary female spectators to a plastic surgery, because the female characters look unrealistic.

38 The second aspect mentioned by Mulvey, narcissistic aspect, is different in accordance with spectator. In 1975 there were many American women happy as housewives and those probably were not offended by the image of Stepford wives.

7. Conclusion

The society changed and therefore the new film was adapted to the present. The characters and the jokes were very much up-to-date (for example when Joanna asks one of the Stepford men employed by AOL: “so that„s why the women are so slow?”). It is understandable that the lives of the principal female characters, their original inability to break the conventions and the way their husbands solved the problem appeal anachronistic in the new millennium. There is one mutual basic aspect in all versions – it is a war between men and women.

Levin„s book and both films are pictures of the society at the time of their release. According to Jeanette Winterson, the first film gives this message: “men would never cope with the new threat to their status, and women would be made to pay.

Murdering and turning us (women) into robots is the price for feminism“ (Winterson). It is also applicable to the novel.

The men wanted to show women where their place is. And if they are not willing to obey men, they will be forced at any cost. The Stepford women were murdered for a banal reason. They did not fulfil their wifely duties in accordance with their husband‟s wishes.

However, both Levin and Forbes disagree with the acussation that they created anti-women novel/film. Their intentions were not to ridicule or satirize women. In fact they criticized suburbian patriarchal society and men who are unable to cope with a self-confident women.

39 The message of the new Stepford wives is entirely different from the original one. These new Stepford women won the battle of sexes. Women know that the world changed. They cannot be pushed into anything. They are strong enough to show their will. Men and women are equal. And if men are not willing to accept the women‟s will, they will be surprised that even women can force them. The founders of the National

Organization of Women would be proud of their followers. As it was already said, the end of Oz‟ version would make Betty Friedan to dry her tears. Well, although the new version is criticized by some female critics for the female actresses looking a little too good and blaming them for making women feel inferior and thinking about plastic surgery, there is no doubt that the women„s liberation movement has done a good work.

But did the society really change? Joanna played by Ross and Joanna played by

Kidman ask themselves the same question: what if this way of life is the right one?

What if their life expectations are really something which is not desirable for women?

According to Reimer, this question is still more than present. Women still feel forced to make a choice whether to have a family or career. Even today, in year 2013, women are buying magazines called Good Housekeeping and watch TV shows like Domestic

Goddess. But the difference is that although there might be a pressure, a woman can decide to build a career and it is very unlikely that she will marry a man who would push her to spend her life as a housewife. So the answer is yes, the society did change and although many women today would love to live like a one of the Stepford wives, other women prefer careers. Both decisions are right. And this is the change – women have a choice.

40 English Résumé

The thesis is a comparative analysis of the literary version of The Stepford Wives and both film adaptations of the novel. The analysis concentrated above all on the differences of each version and response of the audience. The thesis is also devoted to the theory of film adaptation, historical situation which is signifiant to understand the response of some critics and audience, the gender stereotypes used in media and the way of filming women.

The thesis focuses on the aspect of feminism, which was a very current topic at the time of the release of the novel and the first film adaptation of The Stepford Wives and its influence is noticeable in particular in the public response to the Forbes‟s version.

Czech Résumé

Bakalářská práce je komparativní analýzou literární verze Stepfordských paniček a obou filmových adaptací. Analýza se zabývá především porovnáním rozdílů jednotlivých verzí a reakcí publika. Tato práce se také věnuje teorii adaptací, historické situaci, jíž je důležité porozumět, abychom pochopili reakce některých kritiků a diváků, genderovými stereotypy v médiích a způsoby filmování žen.

Práce je také zaměřena na aspekt feminismu, jenž byl v době vydání knihy a vstupu první filmové verze do kin velice aktuálním tématem. Jeho vliv je znát především na reakcích publika na Forbesovu verzi.

41 Works Cited:

Andrew, Dudley. “Adaptation”. Film Adaptation. Ed. James Naremore. London: The

Athlone Press, 2000. Print

Boruzkowski, Lilly Ann. “The Stepford Wives. The Re-create Woman. Jump Cut.

April 1987. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

Bradshaw, Peter. “The Stepford Wives”. The Guardian. July 30, 2004. Web. 29 Apr.

2013.

week/0,,1271869,00.html>

Dowd, Maureene. “Hot Zombie Love”. The New York Times. June 15, 2003. Web. 29

Apr. 2013.

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1982.

Print.

Helford, Elyce Rae. “I‟ts a Rip-Off of the Women‟s Movement.” Disco Divas: Women

and Popular Culture in the 1970s. Ed. Sherrie A. Inness. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. Print.

Hole, Ann. “Television.” Feminist Visual Culture. Ed. Fiona Carson and Claire

42 Pajaczkowska. New York: Routledge, 2001. Print.

“Honoring NOW‟s Founders and Pioneers.” National Organization for Women. N.p.

July. 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2013

Klemesrud, Judy. “Feminists Recoil at Film Designed to Related to Them”. The New

York Times. 26 February 1975. Print.

Levin, Ira. The Stepford Wives. New York: Random House, 1972. Print.

---. “STYLE, Fashion for Dummies”. The New York Times. December 7, 2003. Web.

29 Apr. 2013.

for-dummies.html>

Lim, Bliss Cua. “Serial Time: Bluebeard in Stepford”. Literature and Film: A Guide to

the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation. Ed. Robert Stam and Alessandra

Raengo. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005. Print

Mulvey, Laura. Visual and Other Pleasures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

1989. Print.

Orenstein, Catherine. “Stepford Is Us”. The New York Times. June 9, 2004. Web. 29

Apr. 2013.

Reimer, Susan. “Lessons from „Stepford Wives‟.” The Baltimore Sun. 15 June 2004.

Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

43

betty-friedan-wives>

Scott, A. O. “Living in Suburbia, Married to a Machine” The New York Times. June 11,

2004. Web. 29 Apr. 2013

Smith, Sharon. “The Image Of Women in Film: Some Suggestions For Future

Research.” Feminist Film Theory: A Reader. Ed. Sue Thornham. New York:

New York University Press, 1999. Print.

Stam, Robert and Raengo, Alessandra. Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and

Practice of Film Adaptation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005. Print.

Stepford Wife. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Stepford Wife. Macmillan English Dictionary For Advanced Learners. Oxford:

Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2007. Print.

The Stepford Wives. Dir. Bryan Forbes. Perf. Katharine Ross, Paula Prentiss, Peter

Masterson, Nanette Newman and Tina Louise. Columbia Pictures, 1975. Film.

The Stepford Wives. Dir. Frank Oz. Perf. Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette

44 Midler, Christopher Walken, Faith Hill and Glenn Close. Paramount Pictures,

2004. Film.

Westmoreland, Kalene. “Interior Revolutions: Doing Domesticity, Advocating

Feminism in Contemporary American Fiction.” Diss. Louisiana State University,

2006. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

Winterson Jeanette. “Living Dolls”. The Guardian. July 19, 2004. Web. 29 Apr. 2013.

45