Analysis of The Women - 1939original and 2008remake

Name: The Women
Director: Diane English
Writers: Diane English (screenplay); Clare Boothe Luce (play)
Release Date: 12th September 2008 [UK]

Name: The Women
Director: George Cukor
Writers: Anita Loos (screenplay); Clare Boothe Luce (play)
Release Date: 1st September 1939 [USA]

Synopsis: THE WOMEN is a smart, sparkling comedy about contemporary womanhood and the power of female relationships. It whisks us into a busy pocket of Manhattan society, where the publishing, fashion and finance industries play. At the center of the tale is Ryan’s character, Mary Haines, a thoroughly modern woman suddenly confronted with an age-old dilemma: a cheating husband. The ladies in her life swiftly rally to Mary’s side, led by her best friend, Sylvie Fowler, a dynamic magazine editor played by Bening. But when Sylvie betrays Mary in a Faustian bargain, the entire group is shaken to the core – and two women face the most painful breakup of all - their friendship.


Both the remake and the original film are similar, however one stark difference is the directors. In the 2008 remake the director is Diane English and in the 1939 original the director is George Cukor, this would suggest that possibly the way in which women are portrayed would differ; as the male director would, perhaps, objectify women more in a way that would be appealing to the male sector of the audience, whereas English would focus more on the strength of women and portraying them in a better light to both the male and female sectors of the audience. However, if English is strengthening the women’s power within the film and is going against the male gaze theory, it has to be seen that she doesn’t discriminate against men in the way in which the film industry do so to females.

The 2008 remake, received critical reviews; these reviews weren’t only critical of the film but of English’s ability and that perhaps it was her lack of ability that made the remake “a major dud” [Peter Travers, Rolling Stone]. The critical response suggests that there isn’t many places in the film industry for a female director, also perhaps there isn’t any chance for a director of TV to become a film director “English knows how to get good performances out of her cast, but her pacing is languid and sloppy, so much so that one is tempted to believe that for all she knows about pacing a 30-minute sitcom, English isn't quite ready to tackle the longer form." [David Wiegand, San Francisco Chronicle]; Wiegand critical response almost reinforces the male gaze, and suggests that it isn’t only incorporated within films, but also happens outside of films and within the music industry.

However, this may not always be the case, because the screenwriter for the 1939 version of “the women” was in fact a woman, “It's a testament to the actresses' skill that The Women is in any way watchable. The script is as funny as a deeply misogynist revenge tragi-farce romp could be - […] Anita Loos furnished the wisecracks. I did laugh. At it. Helplessly, sometimes.” [Al Kennedy, The Guardian]; also Kennedy is stating that it is just as funny as something misogynistic which suggests that, although the male gaze is portrayed as amusing which is a negative thought, just because something isn’t misogynistic doesn’t mean that it can’t be funny. Whereas, in a review of the English’s remake [written in the same year, 2008] “Seth Rogen asserts that weed 'makes shitty movies better', and how I longed to test this out during The Women, a generally excruciating remake of George Cukor's 1939 catty classic” [Jason Solomons, The Observer]. Jason Solomon notes that it is “excruciating” to watch, however there is no indication this is because he feels that it is because a woman has done a bad job, though this could be implied as he doesn’t just mention that is a remake of the 1939 film, he mentions the directors name “remake of George Cukor’s 1939 catty classic” but there is no mention of the female director; he doesn’t say longed to test this out during Diane English’s version of The Women.

Many of the reviews for, both the remake and the original have been written by men hence the film is being viewed through male eyes. The critical reviews could therefore have been written because the male audiences were frustrated by the lack of male dominance and male characters and this made it hard for them to relate to this; also due to the characters all being female, when they have issues – for instance, a husband cheating on his wife – it is women sorting it out with no assistance from the men, this could potentially make a male audience feel inadequate. With the 1939 classic, the male audience had the director to relate to, although there wasn’t any cameo roles and they didn’t see him, George Cukor would have had control over the female cast and would’ve been able to tell them what to do, whereas with the remake, not only is the cast and the screenwriter all female – similar to the original – but the director is also female, and therefore there isn’t any definite male input into the film.