Week-End Marriage

Weekend Marriage (1932)

** (out of 4)

After their marriage, Loretta Young and her husband find troubles when she starts making more money than him. He didn't want her to work at all and now he begins to feel like the wife. Here's another early moral tale that's pretty slow moving throughout, although the leads offer good performances. This story was pretty normal for the Pre-Code years at Warner and I often wondered if they just used the same screenplay from previous films and changed them up a bit. Young is as beautiful as ever but she's done better films.

The film opens on a young couple (Loretta Young as Lola and Norman Foster as Ken) standing in line at the movies. The movie is, of course, a Warner Brothers film of the time - "Blessed Event". Jack Warner always got his money's worth out of any opportunity for self promotion. At any rate Ken is the old-fashioned type who won't marry unless he earns enough that his wife can stay at home. He's made it clear he wants to marry Lola, and also made it clear that he doesn't make enough to support the two. Then comes the news - Ken has a real opportunity at his job but he'll have to go for an extended trip to South America. Lola is heartbroken as regardless of what Ken says she feels this will be the end for the two of them. Along comes helpful sister-in-law Agnes played by the delightful Aline McMahon who writes out in short-hand some lines that will get Ken to propose - that along with a ruse that there is another suitor for Lola's hand and Lola saying that she may marry him if Ken goes away. The trick works. Ken doesn't go on the assignment, stays at his old job, and the two marry. But then the working man's version of "A Star is Born" syndrome sets in. Ken first gets a pay cut and then fired when he is absent from work due to being in jail on a bender. Meanwhile Lola gets promoted with a pay raise and then an opportunity to go with the boss to St. Louis and be his executive assistant - her current position is being eliminated so she is out of work if she does not go.

Lola has to go through the humiliation of bailing her husband out of the drunk tank - along with his blonde female companion - only to be told by Ken that this whole thing is her fault and she needs to quit her job to save their marriage. Now remember, Ken doesn't have a job anymore, this is the Great Depression, how practical is this request or should I say ultimatum? Lola goes to St. Louis anyways. I'll let you watch and see how and if everything pans out.

This film is interesting because of a couple of scenes. One is considered precode because of the fact that it shows a married couple in bed - not twin beds - starting to get frisky when their moment is interrupted by the tyranny of the alarm clock. The second scene is completely out of whack with the rest of the picture but very powerful. Lola has a friend whose brother is going to force her into an arranged marriage with a bootlegger years older than she. The friend asks her to come to her house to tell her brother that the friend does not have to marry the bootlegger and can do what she likes - this is America. The brutish brother begs to disagree, knocks his sister to the floor, makes you think he is about to do the same to Lola, and forces the frightened sister into the arms of the repulsive fiancé when he arrives. Lola looks away in frightened disgust.

Now this scene with the friend might make you think that maybe the film is trying to say that even in modern times a girl can't get a break from men who are unhappy and take it out on their women if there isn't enough money, and do the same if there is enough money because the woman pitches in with a job but then their socks aren't darned or the dishes need washing. However, later in the film there is a speech similar to that made by the brutish brother of Lola's friend except this time more articulate and by a respected member of the community - a doctor. Again, everything is all Lola's fault and the fault of all working women.

I'd recommend this one because of the unique precode look at marriage, because of the good performances, and because, regardless of what the message of this film is supposed to be, it is a window into another time when a girl often really couldn't get a break.

As with many "pre-code" Hollywood films of the early thirties, "Week-End Marriage" has its startling moments of naturalness (a couple sharing a bed rather than separate bunks divided by a nightstand, for instance) but its theme is so horribly dated and presented in such an awful stacked-deck way that any woman viewing it would likely explode with indignation before it ends. Honestly, this film purports to convey to the female audience that any serious attempt at working outside the home is a dereliction of duty to the care and feeding of men. We're presented with two shining examples of manhood in the characters of whiny Roscoe Karns, as Aline MacMahon's husband, or sniveling loser Norman Foster as Loretta Young's hubby. Neither husband seems to have the capacity to be a money maker, but rather than be pleased at the additional income provided by their working wives, they fume and complain about un-darned socks and un-done dishes. Oh, how can the poor dears possibly cope?! Well, they don't. Foster gets busted for public intoxication, loses his job, finds a mistress, gets horribly sick, but in the end this is all attributed to Loretta Young's success with her job... and it must be stopped! The filmmakers are so sickeningly chauvinistic that they even shoehorn-in a doctor who lays on a mean-spirited speech to Young about how women must be subservient caretakers of the menfolk otherwise civilization will flounder. And Young buys it! She wraps her arms around poor Foster and tells him she's quitting her job to take care of him (i.e. be his slave) so that he can gain back his self-respect. No mention of how they'll get by since he's a loser who can't hold down a job. Apparently her ability to do dishes and darn socks will revitalize his work performance in future. And keeping her out of the workplace will lessen the size of the cancerous tumor of working women that threatens the stability of a male dominated society. I'm a man reviewing this and even I'M appalled! The only bright spot in this otherwise offensive garbage is Aline MacMahon, in only her fourth film role, and she's a pistol. She lights up the screen with her forceful, sassy, but altogether warm-hearted performance as Young's sister-in-law. In fact, if the film had been more about MacMahon and Roscoe Karns it would have been quite a delightful comedy. I'd advise seeing it for her performance only, unless you feel a need to get wound up over dated sexism. Additional note: The film 'Saturday's Children' (1940) with John Garfield is attributed to the play of the same name by Maxwell Anderson, but it uses the same tricked-into-marriage set-up and the same job-in-South America idea as this film, as well as the sister & brother in law characters (in the 40 film that character is also played by Roscoe Karns!) There is plagiarism involved here. I haven't read the Faith Baldwin novel for this film, or the Anderson play, but the similarities are obvious.

I don't think I've ever seen a 1930's film in which one of the characters buys toilet paper! In fact it wasn't until the 1960's that any film characters (except babies) seem to feel the need to use toilets at all. But in this wild pre-code melodrama "anything goes" (that's even a line in the film!).

It's all about women who want to work even (shock, horror!) after they get married! We are presented with three examples: a seemingly happily married couple in which the husband and wife (played by the dazzlingly funny ALINE MACMAHON) both work; a woman forced by her family to give up work and marry a man she doesn't love; and LORETTA YOUNG, who is having a very successful career while her husband's flounders. Young is terrific and looks sensational. NORMAN FOSTER is also very good as her troubled husband, with GEORGE BRENT providing his usual strong support as a rival for Loretta's hand. The film is very well directed by THORNTON FREELAND, with some magnificent tracking shots from cinematographer BARNEY MCGILL (especially considering how static the camera work in most early talkies is).

The film is hugely enjoyable, and fascinating for its look at the sexual politics of 1932. In fact, until its risible conclusion, the debate about who should "wear the pants" in the home is conducted with intelligence and sophistication. And you see things that really surprise - besides the toilet paper buying, you also see Young and Foster waking up in bed together and Foster rolling over for a bit of nookie! Of course, being a working girl, Loretta declines the advance because she has to go to work. It's a startling moment for a film of this period.

Make sure you see this picture - it's a fascinating little gem - what a shame they copped out at the end. The last five minutes are just horrible!

Yes, it's very well done, by some superb actors, but the premise that women exist primarily to serve their men, first, is infuriating and, second, was out of date for rational people even in 1932.

One of the most infuriating speeches I have ever heard was spoken by the doctor, and is quoted at length on the main page here at IMDb.

Far too many people, yes, even today, take Ephesians 5 to an extreme and interpret it to mean "women, lie down and be a doormat."

A Greek scholar I once worked for said the King James phrasing, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands ..." is not a very accurate translation, that the word translated as "submit" does not convey the original Greek. He said a better understanding is not that women are supposed to be subordinate, but that women -- and men -- get united into a couple.

So, not to give away the ending, I walked away from the TCM presentation directly to the computer to review this angrily.

Yes, I admired the production and the acting and everything else except the terrible message. And, yes, I hope everyone who likes classic movies will watch because it is, truly, a classic movie, illustrating its time and showcasing some remarkably talented people, including the beautiful Loretta Young.

We all need to remember the context, that "Week-End Marriage" was made in 1932, and to think about what people said and did and believed then, and make sure we don't make the same mistakes today, 2015.