This is where it all starts, the first of nine film collaborations of Tracy and Hepburn, whose off-screen, extramarital romance would continue until Tracy’s death quarter a century later.
Naturally, one would not expect a 40s Hollywood studio rom-com to be progressively egalitarian on the front of gender politics, although George Stevens’ picture holds a grand promise by allowing Tess Harding (Hepburn), a polyglot, international affairs correspondent and Sam Craig (Tracy), her fellow fourth estate practitioner, a homespun sports journalist, falling for each other, which accentuates the rub, Sam’s consternation and frustration living under the shadow of Tess, who defies every possible definition of what an American wife traditionally means, especially after she is bestowed with the title as “America’s Outstanding Woman of the Year”, can Sam live up to the standard of the husband of “the Woman of the Year”?
No, this film is not a whirlwind screwball inundated by ceaseless banters and repartee, in lieu a standard meet-cute that jostles the funny bone when Tess and Sam fumble in their respective new territories which are the other’s turfs, opposite attracts, that is the axiom. But clearly, male chauvinism inexorably sneaks in when the plot makes Tess do many a gormless thing to irk Sam to a fault, not least by adopting a 6-year-old Greek refuge boy Charlie (Kezas) without giving Sam a heads-up, and finally suffixed with a reshoot ending that compromises the movie’s initial liberal-minded stance, not every woman is a natural to the kitchen chores, if that simple fact can be construed as a laughing matter constructed with painstaking lengths, the movie forsooth has trouble to find empathy in today’s audience.
Be that as it may, Hepburn is Oscar-nominated for her quintessential capacity of turning on the waterworks and ignites some magical chemistry with an avuncular if somewhat grumpy Tracy, who in the final scene, leaves Tess’s scene-stealing secretary Gerald (Dan Tobin) at the receiving end of his petty protest, if that is not thinly-veiled male chauvinism, why on earth a man who is simply very good at doing his job (as a woman’s secretary) deserves to be in the butt of the joke?
referential entries: Stevens’ PENNY SERENADE (1941, 7.0/10); Stanley Kramer’s GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER (1967, 7.6/10).
“神女生涯原是梦,小姑居处本无郎。”这个译名有点东西的。
看屈塞那一脸无奈的样子,甚有喜感~
在42年美国参战之后,乔治斯帝文斯很应景的拍出这一片,用赫本和斯宾塞的夫妻家事,折射理想主义/国际主义和 孤立主义/独狼精神在美国政坛上的角力。不过就这一片看,导演还是保守偏右的:国际名媛赫本最后还得跑去斯宾塞的狗窝给他做早饭-----就算美国要在国际舞台充大哥,也须恪守美国佬的方式。
chigi要演这部舞台剧了,提前预热一下,剧本不做评论,各花入个眼,当然它不是我的茶,这种御姐范儿估计很适合chigi,当然剧情在某种程度上也很适合,chigi的演技撑起这一部剧还是放心的
这部看得我很困惑,前半段似乎过于激进,后半段又转入保守。未来或许会写个长评……
职业女性所面临的问题!
Woman.of.the.Year.1942.1080p.BluRay.X264-AMIABLE
本片的前半部分其实还是非常有趣的,作为一部喜剧片本片前半部分有很多让人忍俊不禁的地方,尤其是男主参加女主的演讲那场戏确实非常有趣。但是影片的后半段就非常平庸了,而且后半段很多剧情逻辑上都不太成立,编剧也是为了让女主转变而转变,最后的戏份感觉编剧是想制造一些喜剧色彩,但这种方式换来的喜剧色彩着实是有点让人笑不出来,编剧是不是把女主写的太蠢了一点,拔电源都不会也太夸张了,不过还好男主没有直接要求女主当家庭主妇而是让她权衡工作和生活,不然我可能会翻白眼。凯瑟琳赫本非常适合这个角色,感觉演的就是她本人,屈塞的表现也是非常不错的,中间部分隐忍和不耐烦演得非常到位
没觉得K赫本演技好。幕后的Tracy与赫本相爱比影片本身有意义多了
神女生涯原是梦,小姑居处本无郎。
做早饭的桥段简直又臭又长。从那个时候开始就各种宣扬女人应该放弃事业回归家庭了么。。。那才是第一波女权主义运动啊喂 总有人问女性如何平衡事业与家庭 为什么同样的问题不问男性呢 以及 就凭电影里的人设 女主能看上男主也是编剧说要有光啊 电影外倒是势均力敌的佳偶
价值观肯定是不入流了,但凯瑟琳赫本和斯宾塞屈赛的经典荧幕情侣档还是不错看。结尾厨房那段对手戏很绝的,长达五分钟俩人什么话也不说,全凭眼神神态和肢体语言,无形中交流对话。斯宾塞的男主是本片的“绝对”中心,也算是表达了那个时代美国男性面,对逐渐占据优势和主动权的女性,感到困惑不安和焦虑。
本来开头还在想爱情线好突兀,后面才发现这部影片想讨论的不在前面。一个极具事业心的女性如何处理家庭婚姻关系?丈夫的离开也并不意味着妻子本应做家庭主妇,毕竟丈夫生活和工作是可以自理协调好的,而“杰出女性”还需要仆人来照顾。女性有事业心有能力可以说是很值得的事,但是丧失了最基本的生活能力和家庭观念(有点言重了),这对女权运动不是一件益事。
“年度女性”不像个女人,享受成就依然不完整。还是比较传统的来表述及看待职业女性。不过在表现特色及矛盾时,不管喜剧式的还是略惆怅的,都很生动。结尾并没有提供答案,女主从一个极端到另一个极端,并非解决之道。三星半
独立女强人的一腔柔情反而更容易打动观众。第一次见到如此温柔的凯特,她含着热泪对屈塞说I love you, will you marry me的时候完全是真情流露啊。大团圆结尾也说不上狗血,可以视作短暂的妥协=,=
恋爱、结婚后的相处,如果还能发现对方的可爱之处,对看不惯的,还能够容忍,这样两个人的关系才能够继续吧。
厨房一幕太逗了,很有于勒舅舅的味道
挺有味道的,而且现在看来依然具有前瞻性。
娶了女强人,成了男主夫,门不当户不对的爱情,真心接受也成了真爱了参加演讲和厨房戏等幽默戏码真好玩
女主角的转变也太快了吧,这样一个女强人只因为听了几句神父的结婚誓言就会一改往日女强人风范甘心做个家庭主妇了吗?而现实中的史宾赛.屈塞,也没有那么窝囊,要真那么窝囊K.赫本怎么会看上呢,K.赫本是出名的喜欢强势的男人的。