MovieChat Forums > The Stepford Wives (1975) Discussion > The most unbelievable part

The most unbelievable part

posted 12 years ago by flobiwan-1
22 replies | jump to latest

I know this film is satire, but the one part i find unbelievable is how Walter could be convinced to kill his wife within a month or so. Even given that he's a chauvinist, to actually kill another person is not something most people can do - even if they hate the person. And this wasn't even someone he hated. He apparently really did love his wife.

What would the men's association do if Walter had refused? I imagine they would have to do something with Walter to keep him from going to the cops. How would they explain it when the cops (not Stepford ones) started investigating the missing people?

[–] Squeeth2 10 years ago

They were frightened that Austin Powers was going to come and mojolate their wives. They turned them into fembots just in case.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] DodgersRule 8 years ago

Walter was weak-willed and greedy. A very bad combination.
When he tells JoAnna he loves her he is having an attack of conscience BUT that is not something he could not get over.
In the end, he knows what he wants.

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

'Even given that he's a chauvinist'
--------------------
why is it a given he's a chauvinist, aside from his decision to conspire (in order to have a plot)? Was he a chauvinist before than happened? Did Rosses' character say that? Was Nurse Ratched a female-chauvinist, then?

[–] flobiwan-1 8 years ago

The fact that he even considered killing (or "modifying") his wife against her will to make her more submissive is about as chauvinistic as you can get.

I know i'm probably going to get some backlash for this but i am a born-again Christian and i believe that God has given husbands and wives different roles. The husband has been given the responsibility of headship and the wife the role of helpmate. That does NOT mean that the wife is less valuable or less honorable than the husband. They are different roles. Part of the husband's job in his authority is to love the wife, honor her and cherish her. Unfortunately, the world has perverted this into a Ralph Kramden-esque type of thing where the husband barks orders at his wife who slaves away in the kitchen all day. This is NOT what God intends for husbands and wives.

I said all that to say that while i DO have a problem with women's lib as i believe it denigrates women by trying to force them into a role they were not made for and diminishes their glory, it would CERTAINLY be chauvinistic for a man to, in essence, chain his wife up and FORCE her to behave that way.

So even if the robotic women in Stepford were examples of Godly wives (which they weren't. God didn't intend for the wife to be a puppet with no individuality of her own), it would still be chauvinistic for the men to do what they did.

[–] InherentlyYours 8 years ago

'The fact that he even considered killing (or "modifying") his wife against her will to make her more submissive is about as chauvinistic as you can get.'
--------------------
That was afterwards. I am referring to their whole existence prior to that. Of course he killed his wife, to make her a subservient robot, or there would be no plot. That's not being a chauvinist, but a killer.

Shall I bring up all those films where a man is held captive or stalked by women against his will, or where the husband is killed by his conniving wife? It doesn't mean anything, it's just a movie.

[–] painter101 8 years ago

After Joanna has seen the psychiatrist, she should never have gone back to Stepford without help. Her children were not in danger. Joanna should have returned to get her children in the daytime with an army of friends.

[–] brent0509-933-777627 8 years ago

I just revisited this film and really got "into it" this time! It took my thoughts to a different level and actually made me cry! I know, sounds silly, but I have a tie for two of my favorite scenes.

The first is where Carol is explaining and apologizing for her "I'll just die if I don't get this recipe/tipsy behavior" and the tears and shocked expressions from Joanna and Bobbie were on point and so real with genuine emotion, a total contrast from Carol, who was already a Stepford Wife, but Joanns and Bobby had such compassion for Carol, especially when Bobbie says you don't have to apologize to us. Awesome scene!

The other was Joanna's moment of truth of what is happening when Bobbie greets her, ironically, from inside the refrigerator, and as soon as she greets Joanna, she knows instantly Bobbie is no longer Bobbie. Even the score was perfect and got me to actually cry! Her real loss of her best friend was so simply and perfectly acted to perfection. She even stops trying to talk with the "new and improved" Bobbie, knowing that she is not her actual friend any longer but a replaced robot without the humor and wit that made them instant best friends.

[–] Con-Deuce 8 years ago

Like "Rosemary's Baby" (Ira Levins other famous work), the plot in "The Stepford Wives" is fundamentally unbelievable in so many ways. But "Rosemary's Baby" was directed by one of the best directors of all time, Roman Polanski, and his skill helped to smooth over virtually all the most unbelievable aspects of the film. "The Stepford Wives" doesn't really work because the concept is even more of a stretch than in "Rosemary's Baby" and it doesn't help that the direction Bryan Forbes is lackluster (and he was a capable director). Something could be done with this material by a better director and screenplay.

BUT admittedly this version of "The Stepford Wives" does have it's moments and is not a total failure. The relationship between Joanna and Bobbie feels genuinely real. And Forbes pulls off one truly masterful sequence: the focus group for woman that Joanna, Bobbie and Charmaine put together. It's so good that you want it to go on longer. So the film isn't a total failure.