Woman of the Year (1942)

Director: George Stevens

Actors: Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy.

114 mins, U cert.

At a first glance, this film looks like any other 1940s Hollywood rom-com you could care to mention; I assure you that this isn't the case with Woman of the Year.

The first film in the nine film series starring the famed Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn pairing sees the couple playing a married couple whose relationship hits a bump with the realisation that Katharine Hepburn's character, Tessie, is not like any normal housewife; she's a devoted career-woman.

At the beginning of the film, Tessie is an amazing example of a strong female force in the workplace; she displays unabashed determination in anything she sets out to do, including wooing Sam (Spencer Tracy), a colleague at the newspaper Tessie works for. She seemingly takes on the masculine gender role in the dating process – she placates Sam after upsetting him at a party with buying him a bottle of scotch. In turn, Sam adopts feminine roles, such as cooking for both Tessie and her assistant, pushing the idea of marriage. As the film progresses, Sam grows weary of Tessie’s devotion to her job and he leaves just before Tessie wins the Woman of the Year award. It is not until Tessie witnesses her father’s wedding does she realise that the key to a happy, successful marriage is co-operation. She returns to Sam and she tries to adopt the role of a typical housewife, to disastrous results. Sam, after telling her that he was never been more disappointed in her, takes her back.

The film, on a whole, is a fun, playful look at the way problems can occur when interests in marriage and career are opposed against each other. The scenes where Tessie and Sam are dating are charmingly funny, especially when Tessie accompanies Sam to a baseball match on which he is reporting; at first, Tessie sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the jeering supporters, but after she learns the rules of the sport, she becomes one of the crowd. It cannot go unsaid that this is the first Spencer Tracy/Katharine Hepburn collaboration, and it is during this film in which they became romantically involved - you can honestly see the sparks flying in certain scenes of Woman of the Year, and this in itself makes the film worthwhile.

Of course this film shows a true feminist streak which, unfortunately, is compromised by the ending; this ending has the ability to split audiences down the middle. Some will say that it is a happy ending for Tessie, others with strongly disagree. Does Sam accept her for being a strong career woman after the camera stops rolling, or will the same arguments occur throughout their marriage? Or does Tessie step back from her job to placate Sam? Either way, it is fairly safe to say that Tessie has been ‘domesticated’, and that she has to sacrifice a part of either herself or her career to be happily married. Now, we understand that this film is very much a product of the 1940s - where feminism was still in its baby stages, barely blinking open her eyes to focus her blurry gaze on issues it will later tackle for many years. We know this, and so any deconstruction on the sexist undertones and overscore is void.

However, what we can do is look at the leading lady, the fabulous Katharine Hepburn (a figure who I gleefully fangirl over to this day). Hepburn was always the strong lead character, cutting her way through the silver screen in heels and suits, a statement that struck me as a child growing up on an unsteady diet of The Wizard of Oz's Dorothy and Disney princesses. No matter how much love I have for Hepburn, I can't help but feel let down when I watch Woman of the Year. You might say that I'm probably taking this too personally, but I can't disagree more, dear reader! It's fairly safe to assume that, with most of Hepburn's films, she takes more than just an acting role. Admittedly, I haven't yet read the ins and outs of the production of this film, so I cannot say for sure if she had her hand in the production of this particular film. I just hope that she had her own personal grumbles about the ending too.

Up (2009)

Dir: Brad Docter, Bob Peterson (co-director).

Voice Actors: Edward Asner, Jordan Nagai, Christopher Plummer, Bob Peterson.

96 mins, U cert.

Disney Pixar’s latest offering, Up, is a perfect example of a family friendly movie revolving around cute characters with a thinly veiled moral message laced with sentimentality. The film’s protagonist, Carl Fredrickson (voiced by Edward Asner), a 78 year old, decides to fulfil his promise to his late wife (Ellie), which sees him tie thousands of balloons to his house in order to fly it to Paradise Falls. However, his grand plans are compromised by a young stowaway, Russell (voiced by newcomer, Jordan Nagai), a boy scout who was on Carl’s porch at the time of take-off.

The film begins with a montage detailing Carl’s life with Ellie, revealing the couple’s ups and downs throughout their life together. This montage so early in the film takes Pixar’s token tear-jerker scene out of the way straight away; the typical weepy scene of Pixar films are usually the pivotal part of the film, such as Buzz Lightyear’s crushing realisation that he’ll never be able to fly in Toy Story (1995), or that Sully will never see his beloved Boo again in Monsters Inc. (2001). That being said, don’t let this tear-jerker montage lull you into a false sense of security, there are plenty more tears that could be shed later in the film, but none so powerful than the first five minutes.

With Pixar being the animated family film powerhouse it is, the strain to live up to expectations raised by the successes of earlier films means that the threat of a film not living up to the hype is always there. While the adventure and the charming characters in Up are enough to keep interest until the end of the film, something seems to be lacking; the end ‘boss fight’ between Russell and the villainous Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer) seems too rushed to really get audiences engaged in the action. Up is a great film, showcasing the talents of the animators in the exotic scenery and characters, as well as humour that lends itself to the adults alongside the child audiences, However, the narrative just doesn’t live up to the former brilliance of Toy Story, Finding Nemo (2003) or WALL.E (2008).