The Stepford Wives (1975)

[ClassyCo]

I finally watched the original version of THE STEPFORD WIVES (1975) today. I've heard a lot about it over the years (especially the popular culture references made on shows like DESIGNING WOMEN), and it was good to finally get it in the can.

I thought Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss gave good performances, and it was neat to see Tina Louise outside the guise of Ginger Grant. For a tidbit of trivia (which many probably already know), actress Judith Baldwin -- who played Ginger in the made-for-TV movies -- plays a very small role as one of the wives.

The movie has its own twists and turns and I enjoyed it.

 

[ClassyCo]

 

[DallasFanForever]

I finally watched the original version of THE STEPFORD WIVES (1975) today.

I’ve never seen the original but I did see the 2004 version, which I thought was fair.

Have you seen that one? I was wondering if it’s worth going back and watch the original considering I wasn’t really a big fan of the remake. I’m not exactly sure how similar they were.

 

[TaranofPrydain]

I’ve never seen the original but I did see the 2004 version, which I thought was fair.

Have you seen that one? I was wondering if it’s worth going back and watch the original considering I wasn’t really a big fan of the remake. I’m not exactly sure how similar they were.

I haven't seen the remake, but I know from the trailers that that one was played for broad comedy, whereas the 1975 one, which I have seen, is bleak Greek Tragedy material with an unhappy ending, and deep, sad emotional currents. Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss give great performances in it.

 

[ClassyCo]

I’ve never seen the original but I did see the 2004 version, which I thought was fair.

Have you seen that one? I was wondering if it’s worth going back and watch the original considering I wasn’t really a big fan of the remake. I’m not exactly sure how similar they were.

I keep thinking I've seen the 2004 remake, but I'm positive now that I've mixed that film up with the remake of THE WOMEN (2008), written and directed by MURPHY BROWN creator Diane English.

But, based on what I've read and heard, THE STEPFORD WIVES remake won't be my cup of tea. I don't like movies intentionally made to be campy. For one thing, they never work out like they're intended to. The best "camp" movies are those not made to be that way, like VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and MOMMIE DEAREST. The "camp for camp's sake" movies usually end up being drab and empty of anything remotely entertaining. That's one of the things that drove DYNASTY off the rails in the mid-to-late-80s when it desperately tried to play into its own campiness, which did not work in its favor.

I seriously doubt I'd watch the 2004 remake of the 1975 original. To be honest, I have slight interest in newer movies -- and yes, I know the remake is now 20 years old. There isn't anyone in the cast (that I am aware of) that I particularly like, with the possible exception of Bette Midler, but I typically only like her '80s comedies, like BIG BUSINESS and OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE.

So, to wrap-up this ramble, I haven't any personal desire to watch the 21st-century "take" on THE STEPFORD WIVES.

 

[ClassyCo]

haven't seen the remake, but I know from the trailers that that one was played for broad comedy, whereas the 1975 one, which I have seen, is bleak Greek Tragedy material with an unhappy ending, and deep, sad emotional currents.

That is the biggest thing I hear against the 2004 film -- the fact they play it for comedy and get rid of the sci-fi thriller angle that helps push the original story along. For that reason alone, I am weary of wanting to watch the remake.

 

[DallasFanForever]

So, to wrap-up this ramble, I haven't any personal desire to watch the 21st-century "take" on THE STEPFORD WIVES

Well, you really didn’t miss much. I think I was so disappointed that it’s probably the reason I’ve never gone back and watched the original. I think I will now that I know just how different they are though.

 

[Willie Oleson]

the fact they play it for comedy and get rid of the sci-fi thriller angle that helps push the original story along. For that reason alone, I am weary of wanting to watch the remake.

The final (and new) twist kinda brings it back to the OTT bizarreness that the original was, but of course it happens way too late to save the film.
To remake it as a comedy was the easiest way to do it, and that makes it such a weak film.

And then there's scenes like this

 

[Crimson]

A few years back, I read the original novel and watched both film versions.

The 2004 film is absolutely abysmal. Intentionally "campy" -- which, as noted above, never works -- and "satirical" with no clarity on what it's satirizing.

Although it's much more effective, I wasn't wild about the '75 film either; while a reasonably entertaining sci-fi thriller, it just didn't work for me. All fiction, especially of the fantastical variety, requires suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience, but the story also has to earn that suspension of disbelief. This story has two plot points that are tough to swallow: that an entire town of men would murder their wives to replace them with robots and that technology in the mid-70s could create entirely lifelike androids. For me, it was a story with no foundation. Seems like using brainwashing as a plot device would have been less convoluted and more thematically appropriate; and I understand that was the premise of the TV-movie sequel (which I haven't seen).

 

[Willie Oleson]

This story has two plot points that are tough to swallow: that an entire town of men would murder their wives to replace them with robots and that technology in the mid-70s could create entirely lifelike androids.

To me it looks like a highly exaggerated "what if" scenario rather than a story that tries to be convincing. If it was told from a male perspective it would have been all too obvious but that wouldn't serve the film very well.
How far will people go to create perfect happiness should it ever become an opportunity, how do we feel about clones and robots as potential partners, individualism versus tribalism, spirituality versus consumerism - I think it offers enough to read into but it also looks very much like a quasi-conspiracy product of its time.

A.I. is creeping up on us and we aren't even the slightest bit concerned. Damage first, tears later (as per usual).

That this was actually based on a novel makes it all the more bizarre - how does it look on paper?

 

[ClassyCo]

I read the original novel

Was it a good read? How is the original film in comparison with the novel? Since my viewing of the movie, I've toyed with trying to get my hands on a cheap copy.

Although it's much more effective, I wasn't wild about the '75 film either; while a reasonably entertaining sci-fi thriller, it just didn't work for me. All fiction, especially of the fantastical variety, requires suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience, but the story also has to earn that suspension of disbelief. This story has two plot points that are tough to swallow: that an entire town of men would murder their wives to replace them with robots and that technology in the mid-70s could create entirely lifelike androids. For me, it was a story with no foundation. Seems like using brainwashing as a plot device would have been less convoluted and more thematically appropriate; and I understand that was the premise of the TV-movie sequel (which I haven't seen).

Watching the movie through the right lens, I get what you're saying here, but ....

To me it looks like a highly exaggerated "what if" scenario rather than a story that tries to be convincing

.... I have to side with Willie here. I see the original movie as something along the lines of a TWILIGHT ZONE episode. It takes place in an alternate universe and there for would applied to the reality of suburbia in 1975 doesn't apply to the alternate reality of Stepford, Connecticut.

 

[ClassyCo]

So my three-year-old niece comes into my in-laws' house tonight wearing a sleeveless sun dress and flower hat. I ask my sister-in-law, "Why in the world is she dressed like a Stepford Wife?" My sister-in-law replied, "She's three, and tonight she dressed herself."

I instantly thought of the final scene from the original film: