8 Comments

  1. Phyl

    Just an observation: You’re blog seems to have a feeling of negativity to it. You have discussed several of my favorite movies but in a way that may make others not want to watch them, for example, in you’re very first post you say that “Gidget” is a bad choice. I love Gidget! And every review I’ve read praises it. If you were talking about “Gidget Goes to Rome” it would be a different story as it really is horrible. I only write about movies I love. If I do dislike something or someone it’s usually because of the circumstances – wrong “first” film or was too young. I have found that when I give someone a second chance I like it better.

    I don’t mean this in a mean way at all. Just wanted to share that thought. 🙂

  2. Richard Aldington

    I completely disagree with your reading of Maugham. His writing brims over with misogynistic and reductive depictions of women. Yes, he sees the character faults in men, but his women conform to all the typical stereotypes: wily, vain, ignorant, obsessed with physical appearance, stuck-up. He is a slick writer who toes the line by disguising chauvinism as truth-telling. Consider his critique in Cakes and Ale of Ted Driffield’s rounded female characters – “We know of course that women are habitually constipated, but to represent them in fiction as being altogether devoid of a back passage seems to me really an excess of chivalry. I am surprised they care to see themselves thus limned.” This is not a book intended to be read by women. Women are (‘as we all know’ – ‘we’ being men, ‘they’ being women, i.e. not the intended readers of this book) stuck-up, anally retentive; a description that could (if we choose to read this passage reparatively) just be a literal description of human bodily functions (but is never only that). The carnivalesque is a strategy Maugham uses to enable his misogyny to slip by under the radar. Even his surprise that women ‘care’ to see themselves thus limned seems to hold women responsible for their literary depictions by men, or frame them as wallflowers for not intervening in reductive depictions despite the absence of any contemporary platform for women to voice critical opinions about literature. The notion that Maugham’s women are rich characters is a dangerous one to perpetuate. His male protagonists have self-awareness about their character faults (class snobbery, for instance) they do not recognize their own misogyny, therefore it would be a mistake to suggest their attitudes to women is somehow apart from Maugham’s own.

    • I understand your reading, and agree that there are sexist tones to many of his characterizations of women. Isabel in The Razor’s Edge is depicted as being of value largely because of her looks, for example. And Cakes and Ale is disturbing in many ways–especially the depiction of Ted’s current wife. But I don’t read this quote in the same way. I think it is sexist to see women as above the physical needs of men. He makes us human. Many men of his era (and even more before) did not. His characterizations of women are rarely thin; he fleshes them out and makes them interesting and compelling and not just window dressing. I am reluctant to dismiss male writers of past eras for not being as progressive as we would be. (I also don’t always think of his narrators as reliable.) With many writers of the past, there are moments of sexism and moments of feminism (or what would pass for it then).

      It’s true now too, I’m afraid. I’m relieved to see ANY character development of a woman in an action flick. Even if it’s not wholly positive, at least she’s given some voice–though I obviously think in this era there should be much more. I think Maugham is interesting in part because he’s elusive. You can interpret his texts in many ways. I see him as much more feminist than sexist, especially for his time, but I’m not surprised that we didn’t read him the same way given the ambiguity of his portrayals. What’s interesting to me in terms of film is what can be DONE with his work. With such emphasis on women, you can definitely create films that pass the bechdel test.

      • Richard Aldington

        Of course, we hold writers to different standards now. But we can compare Maugham to the standards of contemporary writers, and still see how unforgiving he is. Maugham’s idea of a good woman seems to boil down to the nice, buxom farm wife who is good with children and doesn’t bother the men when they are talking (cf. Human Bondage…) There are many writers of Maugham’s era whose portrayals of women are much more fleshed out and fleshy – E.M. Forster, Joyce, even Hardy cares about women beyond their roles as good wives and mothers. But I think what bothered me most about this article is the premise that Maugham is owed a ‘debt’ by actresses. Is more nuanced representation a gift that women should be grateful for? If this were said about any other historically subordinated group, it would be profoundly insulting.

        • I understand that. No, I don’t think women owe a debt to men for representing us in a nuanced way, and I respect your concern. I meant it more literally–women got Oscars they likely wouldn’t have gotten without his stories, and that’s quite a number of Oscars for one novelist. I think it depends on your readings which of those authors you find more understanding of women. I liked Forster and Hardy (Joyce I can’t take), but none of their women come across as real on the page to me as Maugham’s, and I disagree that Maugham only likes buxom farm wives. I find him often very sympathetic toward women’s unrealized yearnings–The Painted Veil is just one example. I do understand your reading, and certainly many readers dislike Maugham. I suspect our views are similar on the importance of fair representation—we just differ on our reading of this author.

          By the way, I must say it’s nice to talk with someone who HAS read enough Maugham to have such a strong opinion. He’s definitely not popular anymore, and I meet few who’ve read any of his most famous works, much less Cakes and Ale!

  3. Richard Aldington

    Sure, I agree to disagree on Maugham’s women (and likewise I’m sure plenty of people would disagree with me!) But you got me thinking about him in a different way, and I appreciate your perspective. I don’t think I’m going to be sold on the causal relation between the novelist and the performance, but we’re free to read those statistics differently, too!

    • Thank you so much for writing! Makes me think I’d have loved a class on Maugham. So many ways to interpret him. I don’t think he deserves ALL the credit, of course, but there aren’t enough interesting lead roles for women–never have been. Here’s to hoping more truly feminist texts end up being source material for movies soon….

Leave a Reply