Week-End Marriage

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!