TNMC

This site’s design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Stepford Columnist

If there's something you shouldn't miss tonight, it's the season finale of 24. I personally can't wait to see what they have in store for us. It has become by a landslide my favorite show on television. Expect another column this week featuring the returning of the lovable Dr. Strangelove...

The Stepford Wives Script Review

Can a classic movie be perfected? Does dressing over an old movie with a sleek contemporary feel really make for a better picture? In this case, more yes than no. Tweaking the feminist classic to be more relevant to the present day certainly made for an easy read and, undoubtedly, will make its issues easier to relate to for its younger audience. Still, there's just something about that original recipe that manages to remain victorious even when all else falls short, i.e. Revenge of the Stepford Wives, Stepford Husbands, etc. Paul Rudnick's Stepford Wives doesn't necessarily fall short, though. In fact, it's massively entertaining and insanely hilarious in the way that it critiques many facets of modern day society. It takes the original story much further probably because there's just so many more issues available for critiquing in this day and age, but also because he demystifies what audiences really wanted to know in the original. Rudnick's version doesn't exactly win out in my opinion because of those same things it uses to make it entertaining. In a sentence, the 2004 Stepford Wives gave me an appreciation for the simplicity of William Goldman's original script. There is power in simplicity. The joy in Goldman's Stepford Wives is in its uncertainty. The audience isn't 100% sure how the evil deeds are being done; we aren't sure what the evil doers are doing in their club house; we aren't sure what happens after the movie ends because issues aren't resolved; and we aren't sure whether the same evil forces or ideas, at least, are present and working in the world around us. Rudnick's version answers all of those questions. And honestly, I like how Rudnick answered them. I'm pleased with the comedic as opposed to ominous approach he took in answering those questions, but I also like the power of mystery. That is, the power of forcing the audience to think for themselves.

I suppose I should step back up and explain what exactly this script is about. The Stepford Wives is based on a book by Ira Levin that delves into the idea of a perfect partner, where perfect is defined as fitting neatly and exclusively into your societal sex role. That is, strong blue manly men bringing home the bacon or tofurkey, and feminine pink womanly women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. The technically inclined men of a quaint, perfect suburb of Connecticut called Stepford have managed to build the perfect woman. If you want one, all you have to do is join an evil Men's Association and be relatively comfortable with killing your human wife. In exchange for those simple demands, you will receive a robotic wife who does everything your heart desires. The catch is, a couple of new transplants to Stepford, Joanna and her new bestfriend Bobbie, have uncovered the massive jive and would like to stop the madness before their husbands, Walter and Dave (respectively), have them killed. The meat of the story is in watching all of these facts unfold, and afterward, being challenged by the typical notion of a perfect woman or perfect husband.

Rudnick's script builds on that general story first by using female corporate megamoguls or top business execs instead of using generic freespirited women as Goldman did. Those images are seen as the furthest from the natural course of femininity so Rudnick's men seek to tame their shrews. Rudnick also critiques awkward or disturbing social dynamics in the home, in the workplace, and in the television medium by exaggerating them, putting them blatantly in front of our faces so that there is no possibility of missing the questions he's trying to ask. What are good children? What are the boundaries of TV? What is normal? Those are also the questions he tries to answer, indirectly.

I must say, though, that on the whole the characters in the newer version are much more entertaining and lively. Bobbie is still a diehard feminist. She's still upbeat, blunt, and lovable. Joanna's children are older and more Addam's Family-esque. Walter is still boring old incompetent Walter. And the last addition of a vivrant witty homosexual man, Roger, doesn't exactly make Stepford 2004 so Leave It To Beaver anymore, which certainly made room for a little spunk and pizzaz. Actually, I think I liked all the characters more than the one that is supposed to drive the action and the audience, Joanna. Joanna in this case seems to be a lot more of a wimp. During one conversation one night with her husband, she loses almost all of the flare and attitude and curiosity she had in the beginning. Her attempt at manually changing herself into a housewife was so drastic that, I suppose, I just had a hard time either accepting it or believing it. Either way, thank God Bobbie and Roger came along. I don't think I could have made it through the end of this script without them.

In the end everyone does live happily ever after which is a tad disappointing. In fact, the last few pages of this script were so forcefully constructed to create a happy scenario for everyone involved that I honestly just had to skim them to get the ordeal over with faster. It was a let down, a total cop out. Rudnick took the ending in almost every direction in an attempt to solve everyone's and society's problems. That's definitely worthy and all, but as a result, the story loses the strength it would have had if it chose a more clear cut message. It's hard to disagree with the convenience of a neat, happy ending, but with this sort of film, I was hoping for something a bit more provocative and memorable. I was sure that I would be left with something brain waking or soul stirring, in the style of Stepford 1975. That didn't happen. What I was left with was Rudnick's idea that everyone, male or female, should have a wife in order to truly be happy. That was one of Joanna's last lines in the screenplay. I do hope someone changes that, or at least, gives her something more sensible to say and be remembered by.

Nicole Kidman is set to play Joanna, and even though she's won the Academy Award..twice, I'm still uncertain as to how she'll fair in this comical role. Since Joan Cusack backed out of her role as Bobbie, Bette Midler has stepped up. That change alone is enough to make me question whether the movie is even worth seeing now. John Cusack, who was to play Walter, has also backed out and will be replaced by Matthew Broderick. Glenn Close, Christopher Walken (undoubtedly playing the scariest most evil man in the pic), Roger Bart, and Faith Hill who will make a film acting debut are also on the roster. Still, I'm questioning whether the movie is worth seeing. But, because I love the first Stepford Wives so much, I will have to see what director Frank Oz has done with this script. He gave Addams Family Values a nice comedic motive, so I have confidence in his ability to work a dark comedy like this one. But, producers and casting agency involved with this project, Bette Midler as Bobbie?!?

(Review by Miss Jones, next time I won't be gone so long...)

Stay tuned...

That's all folks...

Jean-François Allaire (aka DeadPool)

Questions, comments, praise etc. Email me at deadpool@tnmc.org

SEND ME A SCOOP!!

Jean-François Allaire is TNMC's first columnist. At only 24 years old he has become a respected entertainment journalist, with his columns appearing in Corona's Coming Attractions and Scr(i)pt magazine. He also writes a monthly column in Screenwriters Monthly entitled 'The Last Word.' Hailing from Montreal this young writer is determined to dig up all the details on the movies before they hit your local theater. If you're part of a movie production then you really need to be talking to him.