Reviews

Many of the comments here have mentioned Dr. Clark's (Lancaster) belief that the children should not be given love (which would indeed be heinous). I saw it a different way. I didn't think he objected to love so much as coddling and not enforcing a gentle discipline; the first time we see him in the institution with Reuben (Ritchie) and Reuben misbehaves, he applies discipline - which to Miss Hanson (Garland) seems unkind and extreme. Her wish is to protect the children from the world - from all hurts, all responsibilities. Clark even states that without learning some sort of discipline, the children have no hope of learning anything else.

Miss Hanson's philosophy is echoed in Reuben's father's (Hill) wish to remove Reuben from the institution and have him privately cared for, where he could have anything he wants, and didn't "have to do anything he didn't want to." As a former educator, I think it's possible to truly love your students and show them that you do, without foregoing the gentle discipline it will take to help them prepare for the world.

As a film, I wasn't too impressed. I too felt that Garland's performance was lacking and that she looked older than her years, though her sedate performance did seem to fit in with the character she was playing. I felt that several scenes were either mechanisms for forwarding Miss Hanson's "education," or devices to elicit sympathy. Still, it was a very thought-provoking film.

A bit about me before you read my comment: I am 37, female, American, and feminist (just in case I'm accused of being anything other) :) Many viewers (on IMDb and elsewhere)have commented that "Woman of the Year," while excellent and charming, is an anathema to our modern sensibilities regarding the role of women in family and society. If the message of the film really was that "traditional" roles provide more fulfillment for both husbands and wives, or that professional success as a woman makes one less of a woman, I would heartily agree. But this is not how I viewed the film and its message at all, and I'd like to share my view with you.

In my view, Craig was seeking not dominance over his wife, but a partnership in marriage - a marriage in which he was as important to Tess (Katherine Hepburn) as her outside responsibilities were. I don't think he felt that he came second in her life, I think he felt he was coming in last. He never asked her to give up her career, or even to cook him breakfast - these were things she offered him b/c she thought that was what he wanted. But he states that this ISN'T what he wants - he wants her to be successful and have her own life, but he wants her as a partner too. He explains that she always goes to extremes, and he wants her to be somewhere in the middle.

I hope some of this makes sense, and I have one last observation. After watching the film I asked myself what my reaction would have been if the roles had been reversed - if Craig had been the busy one and Tess had been wanting more involvement. I decided that it really didn't matter; Hepburn and Tracy could've switched roles and the film would have remained the same, the message would remain the same. So perhaps (at least in my view) this film isn't as anti-feminist as it first appears. Perhaps the film is asking us to value our partnerships, to seek moderation in our societal and personal roles, to communicate with our partners and consider their happiness as well as our own. So, in my view, the message of the film is not out-dated; but rather is as relevant today - for men AND women - as it was years ago.