Avis des utilisateurs

The much mentioned pre-code date of this film seems not to matter in the essential message, only in incidentals. It basically represented the follies of a working wife in extreme examples. It's also ironic for Ms. Young since biographies, both authorized and other, reveal her to have been one of the most career-driven, image crafting women in the industry -- literally an absentee wife and mother. She reaped benefits in the area of her investment - film - and reprisals from where she didn't - her family. The husband and sons literally moved out and distanced themselves from her and the daughter literally wrenched herself away from her. As for her acting, that was not her problem, as she put all her eggs in that basket and was very respected in the industry on that score. She limited herself only by shunning what to her were immoral themes and venues as she went along, due to her espoused faith.

Regardless, the film was one of the more interesting ones of the era with some very good performances. Aline McM was always a cool number, no matter what she did, along with others like Eve Arden, Thelma Ritter -- they just had an unbeatable persona. All in all, this is no sillier in premise than any other Hollywood vehicle of its type and better in other ways than a lot.

I'm no radical feminist, but Week-End Marriage did seem to push its point a little too severely that married women should never work outside the home.

I couldn't help but wonder what audiences in 1932 thought of this film, most particularly, married women. Would they have nodded in silent agreement that Loretta Young made the right decision in the end, or would they have been outraged that she was pigeon-holed in a certain domestic mold? I think the truth would be somewhere in the middle. Women are never as inflexible and stereotypical as presented in any film, modern or vintage. Every woman is an individual and makes her own decisions which are best for her.

Women in 1932, as today in 2006, know that not one decision is best for everyone. There are benefits to being a homemaker, a wife, and mother, and there are benefits to being a career girl. Women can combine both, but just in time factor alone certain things might very well be sacrificed, even inadvertently, and unfortunately one of the things that can be sacrificed is a marriage.

Quantity time is important, along with quality time. If a husband is feeling neglected because his wife seems to prefer a career over him then the marriage is in trouble. If she makes him know clearly and firmly that she values him more than any job or a paycheck then that marriage will most likely survive. It's all in the balance of what you wish to achieve, your priorities. In that respect Week-end Marriage's ending isn't necessarily a cop-out, but simply a decision by the wife to save what she values more than anything else, her man. Sometimes that does take some - horrors! - SACRIFICE.

Performances here are all excellent. I agree that Aline simply steals this movie away from Loretta. Aline was in so many films with Loretta, yet always managed to steal the limelight away from Loretta, despite Aline's lack of physical beauty. Just goes to show that acting talent is separate and apart from physical looks. There is a much more substantial and profound foundation behind real acting talent, as opposed to just relying on a pretty face and figure.

The film opens on a young couple (Loretta Young as Lola and Norman Foster as Ken) standing in line at the movies. The movie is, of course, a Warner Brothers film of the time - "Blessed Event". Jack Warner always got his money's worth out of any opportunity for self promotion. At any rate Ken is the old-fashioned type who won't marry unless he earns enough that his wife can stay at home. He's made it clear he wants to marry Lola, and also made it clear that he doesn't make enough to support the two. Then comes the news - Ken has a real opportunity at his job but he'll have to go for an extended trip to South America. Lola is heartbroken as regardless of what Ken says she feels this will be the end for the two of them. Along comes helpful sister-in-law Agnes played by the delightful Aline McMahon who writes out in short-hand some lines that will get Ken to propose - that along with a ruse that there is another suitor for Lola's hand and Lola saying that she may marry him if Ken goes away. The trick works. Ken doesn't go on the assignment, stays at his old job, and the two marry. But then the working man's version of "A Star is Born" syndrome sets in. Ken first gets a pay cut and then fired when he is absent from work due to being in jail on a bender. Meanwhile Lola gets promoted with a pay raise and then an opportunity to go with the boss to St. Louis and be his executive assistant - her current position is being eliminated so she is out of work if she does not go.

Lola has to go through the humiliation of bailing her husband out of the drunk tank - along with his blonde female companion - only to be told by Ken that this whole thing is her fault and she needs to quit her job to save their marriage. Now remember, Ken doesn't have a job anymore, this is the Great Depression, how practical is this request or should I say ultimatum? Lola goes to St. Louis anyways. I'll let you watch and see how and if everything pans out.

This film is interesting because of a couple of scenes. One is considered precode because of the fact that it shows a married couple in bed - not twin beds - starting to get frisky when their moment is interrupted by the tyranny of the alarm clock. The second scene is completely out of whack with the rest of the picture but very powerful. Lola has a friend whose brother is going to force her into an arranged marriage with a bootlegger years older than she. The friend asks her to come to her house to tell her brother that the friend does not have to marry the bootlegger and can do what she likes - this is America. The brutish brother begs to disagree, knocks his sister to the floor, makes you think he is about to do the same to Lola, and forces the frightened sister into the arms of the repulsive fiancé when he arrives. Lola looks away in frightened disgust.

Now this scene with the friend might make you think that maybe the film is trying to say that even in modern times a girl can't get a break from men who are unhappy and take it out on their women if there isn't enough money, and do the same if there is enough money because the woman pitches in with a job but then their socks aren't darned or the dishes need washing. However, later in the film there is a speech similar to that made by the brutish brother of Lola's friend except this time more articulate and by a respected member of the community - a doctor. Again, everything is all Lola's fault and the fault of all working women.

I'd recommend this one because of the unique precode look at marriage, because of the good performances, and because, regardless of what the message of this film is supposed to be, it is a window into another time when a girl often really couldn't get a break.

As with many "pre-code" Hollywood films of the early thirties, "Week-End Marriage" has its startling moments of naturalness (a couple sharing a bed rather than separate bunks divided by a nightstand, for instance) but its theme is so horribly dated and presented in such an awful stacked-deck way that any woman viewing it would likely explode with indignation before it ends. Honestly, this film purports to convey to the female audience that any serious attempt at working outside the home is a dereliction of duty to the care and feeding of men. We're presented with two shining examples of manhood in the characters of whiny Roscoe Karns, as Aline MacMahon's husband, or sniveling loser Norman Foster as Loretta Young's hubby. Neither husband seems to have the capacity to be a money maker, but rather than be pleased at the additional income provided by their working wives, they fume and complain about un-darned socks and un-done dishes. Oh, how can the poor dears possibly cope?! Well, they don't. Foster gets busted for public intoxication, loses his job, finds a mistress, gets horribly sick, but in the end this is all attributed to Loretta Young's success with her job... and it must be stopped! The filmmakers are so sickeningly chauvinistic that they even shoehorn-in a doctor who lays on a mean-spirited speech to Young about how women must be subservient caretakers of the menfolk otherwise civilization will flounder. And Young buys it! She wraps her arms around poor Foster and tells him she's quitting her job to take care of him (i.e. be his slave) so that he can gain back his self-respect. No mention of how they'll get by since he's a loser who can't hold down a job. Apparently her ability to do dishes and darn socks will revitalize his work performance in future. And keeping her out of the workplace will lessen the size of the cancerous tumor of working women that threatens the stability of a male dominated society. I'm a man reviewing this and even I'M appalled! The only bright spot in this otherwise offensive garbage is Aline MacMahon, in only her fourth film role, and she's a pistol. She lights up the screen with her forceful, sassy, but altogether warm-hearted performance as Young's sister-in-law. In fact, if the film had been more about MacMahon and Roscoe Karns it would have been quite a delightful comedy. I'd advise seeing it for her performance only, unless you feel a need to get wound up over dated sexism. Additional note: The film 'Saturday's Children' (1940) with John Garfield is attributed to the play of the same name by Maxwell Anderson, but it uses the same tricked-into-marriage set-up and the same job-in-South America idea as this film, as well as the sister & brother in law characters (in the 40 film that character is also played by Roscoe Karns!) There is plagiarism involved here. I haven't read the Faith Baldwin novel for this film, or the Anderson play, but the similarities are obvious.

Norman Foster gives up his big opportunity to work in the business' branch in South America. Instead, he marries Loretta Young. Not a bad swap, you'd say, and it's fine at first. Then Miss Young gets a pay raise the same day Foster's salary is cut. There are strains in their companionate marriage, and it comes to a head when he is fired on the same day she gets an offer in St. Louis. Foster announces he's not going to be supported by a woman.

When people think of pre-code movies, they think of naked women and non-normative sex. People think the Production Code saved Hollywood from descending into smut. It did that, but it also cut short serious and adult movies like this one, in which it's made clear that marriage is a partnership, and women get the short end of the deal. Even if the ending is a bit of a cop-out, that part remains. With Aline MacMahon, George Brent, Grant Mitchell, J. Farrell MacDonald, and Roscoe Karns.

A Depression Era Message that Seems Unwise and Unwilling to Accept the Fact that People were Struggling Mightily to Make Ends Meet and Many Women were Attempting to Help by Attaining Jobs and Manage Marriage at the Same Time by Necessity.

The Preaching Here is Misguided and Unrealistic, Not to Mention Chauvinistic. It Says Basically that Women Need to Stay in the Home and Take Care of Their Husband's Needs No Matter What. It is the Same Argument Fundamentalist Make Concerning a Biblical Account that is Interpreted as "Women are Subservient".

The (in real life) Holier Than Thou and Hypocritical Loretta Young is the Wifely Beauty Here and Norm Foster is the Husband. Miss Young is Beautiful and has Acting Skills but Norman Foster Made a Good Career Choice Turning to Directing. His On Screen Performances Leave Much to be Desired.

There is a Good Supporting Cast and there are Some Pre-Code Era Moments to Appreciate, but the Movie's Message is Intolerable in Any Era.

Nineteen year old loretta young, who had already married and anulled costar grant withers. And made a film called "too young to marry" ! In the film, ken (norman foster) has lost his job, but resents the fact that his wife works, and is very successful. Some fun, familiar faces here... aline macmahon, grant mitchell, george brent. Sheila terry. Wikipedia tells us that the great depression was still in full force at this time, and the economy would take many years to recover. The story here shows the lack of jobs, as well as husbands resenting the fact that many wives were now the bread-winner for the family. It's well done! A dose of reality during a rough time for new couples. Directed by thornton freelander. He also directed the fun and successful "flying down to rio". Sadly, sheila terry died at 49 by suicide.

The only value of this film is as propaganda showing the ultimate male chauvinism of the day. Loretta Young is a hard working business woman who needs her career to support an ungrateful, untalented and unloving husband. She works hard and tries to make her marriage work but her husband played by George Brent is unrelenting in his demands that she give up her career and be a normal housewife. Today it would be considered a tragedy of major scope.

I love watching Loretta Young with her loose and sexy dresses with plunging necklines and sexy pouty lips but it was torture to see her character subject herself to the outrageous demands of the people in her life to be less than human. The film presents this as not only appropriate behavior but the only acceptable behavior for a woman.

The only use this film has would be in a woman's study course to show the extremes of male chauvinism.

I don't think I've ever seen a 1930's film in which one of the characters buys toilet paper! In fact it wasn't until the 1960's that any film characters (except babies) seem to feel the need to use toilets at all. But in this wild pre-code melodrama "anything goes" (that's even a line in the film!).

It's all about women who want to work even (shock, horror!) after they get married! We are presented with three examples: a seemingly happily married couple in which the husband and wife (played by the dazzlingly funny ALINE MACMAHON) both work; a woman forced by her family to give up work and marry a man she doesn't love; and LORETTA YOUNG, who is having a very successful career while her husband's flounders. Young is terrific and looks sensational. NORMAN FOSTER is also very good as her troubled husband, with GEORGE BRENT providing his usual strong support as a rival for Loretta's hand. The film is very well directed by THORNTON FREELAND, with some magnificent tracking shots from cinematographer BARNEY MCGILL (especially considering how static the camera work in most early talkies is).

The film is hugely enjoyable, and fascinating for its look at the sexual politics of 1932. In fact, until its risible conclusion, the debate about who should "wear the pants" in the home is conducted with intelligence and sophistication. And you see things that really surprise - besides the toilet paper buying, you also see Young and Foster waking up in bed together and Foster rolling over for a bit of nookie! Of course, being a working girl, Loretta declines the advance because she has to go to work. It's a startling moment for a film of this period.

Make sure you see this picture - it's a fascinating little gem - what a shame they copped out at the end. The last five minutes are just horrible!

Considering that Faith Baldwin wrote the fabulous SKYSCRAPER SOULS, I would have expected something better than this utter tripe she wrote a year later. Maybe it wasn't just her story, imbued as it was with the attitudes of the 1640s, which is bad. The screenplay, the direction, the editing even the acting (yes even Loretta Young's) is simply awful.

The theme of this film is that a married woman's place is in the home and if she is one of those crazy 'modern' women who want to work after they are married their lives will be ruined, their families will descend into utter misery and ultimately the entire fabric of American life will be destroyed (seriously, this last bit really is actually suggested!) Such "old fashioned" attitudes make uncomfortable viewing but this was written in the early thirties when for the vast majority of the population in the West, a married woman's place was in the home. This was the norm, it's nothing to get worked up about, it's just the way things were. From racial segregation, intolerance of other beliefs to burning of witches: we thought differently in that weird far away land called the past.

If this wasn't so poorly made it would be interesting to watch just for the incredibly clunky scenes which are made to bulldoze certain points across. The editing is done with the subtlety of Atilla The Hun with a hangover as scenes just stop to highlight some awful thing which has resulted from Loretta Young having a job. That's the job by the way which is actually paying the rent for the flat they're living in and the food they are eating after his own job goes down the pan. Some of the unforgivable atrocities she bestows on her poor husband are: - 1. She leaves the house without making the bed.

2. Her husband has holes in his socks because she hasn't darned them.

3. She doesn't have his dinner ready for him when he gets home from his work.

4. On one occasion he has to cook a meal himself.

5. He has to get a prostitute because his wife is too tired to satisfy him after going to work herself.

The poor man! And SHE apologises to HIM for being so awful....she even pays for his prostitute.....and he's still cross with her

As I'm showing it's very easy to slip in to judging this by our modern standards which is stupid because married women going to work really was unusual and of course would have caused problems like this. Working wives did disrupt society. It was so unusual that women weren't even included in the unemployment statistics until 1971 (here in the UK) so women going to work...or rather having to go to work is a relatively modern phenomenon. The only reason you fall into this trap is because this picture is just so poorly put together. Had it been made better it would have been a really interesting slice of early thirties social commentary but as it stands, it's laughably cheap and shabby.

When I watched this recently, I had a feeling that someone had inadvertently mixed two movies together. The first half is a light-hearted story of courtship and marriage, with Ken (Norman Foster) pursuing and marrying Lola (Loretta Young). After that, the movie becomes very serious, with Ken losing his job, having all sorts of objections to his wife having a professional job, then getting drunk, hanging around with another woman (Sheila Terry), and waiting for Lola to bail him out of jail. Lola is very disappointed in Ken (no kidding!) and leaves him to take an executive job in St. Louis. There, she meets and is pursued by George Brent, but rushes back to Ken's side when he's ill, even though he's living with the tramp who got him arrested. Ending is predictable, and I think it shouldn't have been that way.

The movie's good and has lots of pre-Code touches, like Ken and Lola actually sharing the same bed, and Ken cheating on Lola with a trampy blonde. Young is absolutely lovely, and Aline McMahon steals every scene she's in as Young's sister-in-law. Enjoyable pre-Code stuff, though the final message--and Doctor Grant Mitchell's lecture to Young--are woefully dated.

I think the movie is well-cast and well-written and definitely worth the time it takes to watch it. Yes, it is biased but it is still fun to watch the story unfold.

On a sensual level: Loretta Young was simply beautiful. She is lovely to look at in this film and her voice is so easy on the ears. Despite, the fact that sound technology wasn't all that sophisticated at the time. Just take her husbands voice in this film as a comparison....yuk. Oh, if you like nice costumes, Lola/Loretta looks fabulous in her thirties outfits, slender and graceful, simply gorgeous. The apartment where Lola lives as a newlywed is adorable.

On a conceptual level: This film contains strong social commentary involving the tension between men and women in terms of courtship, marriage and the roles played by each member of the union. Of course, the writer(s) & director support the traditionally prescribed gender roles of men as breadwinner and woman as caretaker. No big surprise. Yet, the character of Lola is compelling because the author/screen writer infused her with the will of a modern woman AND an enduring love for the man she married (despite the fact he is a dork, excuse my word choice).

Another reason to take the time to watch this one if you have the chance is the script and the supporting cast. Lola and "what's his name" do not exist in a vacuum. They are a surrounded by adequately developed characters and events that describe the often subtle yet powerful transactions that take place between brothers & sisters; men & women; and married folks & their lovers. The film illustrates the daily parade of interactions and transactions that occur between partners in the business of long term relationships.

Don't let me forgot that the main focus of this story is the role of women and the power women have to choose their destiny, marriage, work and/or children. I'd like to think if this movie was remade today, it could provide Lola a more satisfactory ending.

Yes, it's very well done, by some superb actors, but the premise that women exist primarily to serve their men, first, is infuriating and, second, was out of date for rational people even in 1932.

One of the most infuriating speeches I have ever heard was spoken by the doctor, and is quoted at length on the main page here at IMDb.

Far too many people, yes, even today, take Ephesians 5 to an extreme and interpret it to mean "women, lie down and be a doormat."

A Greek scholar I once worked for said the King James phrasing, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands ..." is not a very accurate translation, that the word translated as "submit" does not convey the original Greek. He said a better understanding is not that women are supposed to be subordinate, but that women -- and men -- get united into a couple.

So, not to give away the ending, I walked away from the TCM presentation directly to the computer to review this angrily.

Yes, I admired the production and the acting and everything else except the terrible message. And, yes, I hope everyone who likes classic movies will watch because it is, truly, a classic movie, illustrating its time and showcasing some remarkably talented people, including the beautiful Loretta Young.

We all need to remember the context, that "Week-End Marriage" was made in 1932, and to think about what people said and did and believed then, and make sure we don't make the same mistakes today, 2015.

I love old movies, especially pre-code films. I also Love Loretta Young. Beauty aside, she has sincerity, wit and range that make her so watchable and relatable. I am also a thrice divorced, black, female, retired attorney. I can watch many an old movie and still consider it good or entertaining despite a lot of undesirable content. But I can NOT abide this one. I am a woman of many words and this movie has left me speechless. I guess, to quote another reviewer, all it takes is sacrifice. Compromise would have made for a more realistic movie. Healthier too. This movie's message was not emotionally healthy for women in 1932 during the depression or anytime since then. Kinda afraid to start the next recorded movie.

Weekend Marriage (1932)

** (out of 4)

After their marriage, Loretta Young and her husband find troubles when she starts making more money than him. He didn't want her to work at all and now he begins to feel like the wife. Here's another early moral tale that's pretty slow moving throughout, although the leads offer good performances. This story was pretty normal for the Pre-Code years at Warner and I often wondered if they just used the same screenplay from previous films and changed them up a bit. Young is as beautiful as ever but she's done better films.