Stepford Wives (DVD)
Special Collector's Edition
APPROX. 93 MINS. - PROD. YEAR: 2004 - MPA RATING: PG-13
" Everything is superficial, from the actors' flat, two-note performances to the overall materialistic gloss that has nothing to say about contemporary values.
Connect to Facebook/Twitter, recommend via email and much more.
During the 1970s, Ira Levin's novel "The Stepford Wives" became a cultural phenomenon because of its daring suggestion that men would simply like to roboticize/lobotomize their wives into submissive trophy dolls. A movie adaptation starring Katharine Ross became a part of that phenomenon and offered viewers a creepy shot of Katharine Ross's eyeless (read: soulless) replacement. The book and the movie were noteworthy commentaries on the feminist movement.
For some reason, someone decided that it was a good idea to spend $90 million on a mis-guided and unnecessary movie re-make of "The Stepford Wives". The movie was re-written constantly during production. Paramount and DreamWorks kept audience-testing and re-editing the movie. Finally, everyone had to be called for re-shoots constantly, and the movie was probably finished barely in time for its theatrical release.
The 2004 version stars Nicole Kidman as Joanna Eberhart, a high-strung TV executive who gets fired when a volatile on-air incident leads to her becoming a network liability. Her subsequent mental breakdown leads her husband (Matthew Broderick) to move their family to Stepford, Connecticut, a sunny, cheery McMansion suburb filled with subservient blonde bimbos and unattractive geeky tech-men. When Joanna's only female friend in Stepford--an overweight, brunette, Jewish slob played by Bette Midler--becomes a blonde, slimmed-down servant to her husband and three sons, Joanna becomes determined to discover what exactly the Stepford men do to their wives.
Due to the fact that the moviemakers kept on changing the script, precious little story emerged. The movie relies on silly stereotypes without creating any substance. Everything is superficial, from the actors' flat, two-note performances to the overall materialistic gloss that has nothing to say about contemporary values. What's really bad is the fact that the movie doesn't know if the Stepford wives are supposed to be robots or people with chips in their heads. The story tries to have it both ways, but it seems awfully wasteful and idiotic to build robots if chips are going to be implanted in organic brains anyway. Finally, the movie has one of those "cute" endings that will elicit giggles of delight from unsophisticated and unthinking viewers. However, the ending is actually crass and groan-inducing; it is reverse essentialism.
About the only thing "innovative" in this movie is the introduction of a male homosexual couple. However, beyond having a male homosexual pair, the movie doesn't bother doing any commentary on gender politics. Much has changed since the 1970s, but the 2004 movie version is nothing but milquetoast pandering that does not run the risk of offending anyone's moral principles. Therefore, the project lacks timeliness and offends plenty of artistic principles.
