Week-End Marriage

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.