When most people think of villains, they’re envisioning cloven hoofs and murderous intents. Stephen Dallas (John Boles), the husband of self-sacrificial mother, Stella Dallas (1937), would be unlikely to appear on any list of classic villains. Some might even consider him a nice guy—if they weren’t paying attention.
But on my latest viewing of the tearjerker, I wasn’t struck, as I usually am, by Stella’s modernity and her society’s desire to punish her for it. No, this time I kept observing just how completely AWFUL this man is, and how with a less monstrous husband, Stella (Barbara Stanywck) would have spent her middle age in daughter Laurel’s (Anne Shirley’s) sweet company, instead of off on her lonely, destitute own. Let’s review just how villainous this creep is:
- Ummm, Child Support?
Sure, Stephen splurges on his daughter, but only when she’s with him. When Stella and Laurel are on their own, their homespun clothing and Stella’s frequent repairs to it make evident they’re just scrimping by on the arrears of his salary, despite the fact that Stella and he never divorced.
Meanwhile, he’s living it up in fine clothes with his wealthy girlfriend in New York, with his daughter only looking smart when she’s with him.
When Stella decides to experience the high life for a weekend, it’s not just her daughter’s embarrassment at her gauche behavior that’s crushing. It’s that she doesn’t get to enjoy the one time she gets something from her still-married-to-her husband. Watch her satisfaction as she takes care of herself after years of only spending money on her daughter:
And it’s all going to end with her shame, and her loss.
- He Wants to Change His Wife’s Character, But Thinks His Own Stuffy Self Perfect
Maybe going dancing right after childbirth was pushing it, but Stella’s efforts to enjoy herself afterward stem from her love for company and music and fun. Stephen; acting disgusted by the lack of refinement of others, but really stung with jealousy; can’t keep himself from looking down on those who entertain his wife.
The fact that he makes zero effort to amuse her himself doesn’t seem to cross his mind; apparently, his tedious business acquaintances are the only company he’ll allow his wife. Instead, he wants to correct her manners, her clothes, her wording. “I’ll take my usual lecture,” she says when she returns from the brief dance he allows her. As she rightly points out, he could use some correction himself. Surely, everyday kindness is good etiquette, right spoilsport? As she points out after he starts condescending to her (saying she needs to correct herself, “adapt” in order to be someone), apparently treatment she’s been enduring since their marriage: “How would it be for you to do a little adapting for a change? I don’t see you giving up anything.”
- He Invites His Daughter to Stay with Him & His Mistress
Dressed up in finery and wealth or not, Helen Morrison (Barbara O’Neil) is romancing a married man. Her little boys being around may be intended to make her overtures to adulterer Stephen more palatable, but I found it creepy. And how about the surprise of springing the mistress on his daughter, saying where they were going was a secret, but this place (her home) was “the most beautiful place in the world,” and letting his daughter just take the invitation as a nice time with a nice lady?
Laurel’s utter obliviousness to the inappropriateness of the arrangement just makes her seem naïve, and her gushing about it to her mother afterward unbelievably (if unintentionally) cruel. I’ll admit to some puzzlement here; I don’t know what Stephen and Stella’s arrangement was, and of course I know straying husbands didn’t suffer the societal wrath a woman’s betrayal would cause. But why exactly are we to believe the surrounding society is cool with Helen’s actions, thinks her refined and classy? It’s a mystery to me. Even if her wealth is enough to make her survive the gossip, gossip there surely would be–much more than for Stella after some itching powder jokes! Are Stella and Stephen officially separated? Stella doesn’t seem to act as if they are. Regardless, springing a girlfriend and her kids on a visiting daughter is sketchy at best.
- He Steals His Daughter away at Christmas
Stephen shows up for a surprise Christmas visit to lure his daughter away with an hour’s notice, leaving Stella alone. He has a second of compassion for his wife, even admits he’s selfish.
But then his nemesis Ed (Alan Hale) shows up, and he’s too pissed to be kind anymore, assuming Stella is hooking up with him. Cause Stephen isn’t, I dunno, living with his mistress or anything himself, which is where he’s taking his daughter for the holidays, as he unashamedly admits to his wife. Wow.
- He Doesn’t Dissuade Stella from Giving Up Her Daughter
Laurel may be more refined in dress and manners than her mother, but she’s got a beating heart, unlike her lizard father. And sooner or later, the smugness of this beyond boring classy family she’s marrying into (and seriously, is it possible for these people to be more clichéd and dull?) is going to get to someone who was reared in a very different way. She’ll need her mom then to rip on their airs, and where will that mom be? Gone. Because Stella’s husband has so crushed his wife’s self-esteem over the years, evaluating her for her lack of fashion knowledge and proper deportment rather than for the more important qualities of love and empathy. (Her decision not to move to NYC with this jerk is the only thing that enabled her to retain her self-worth.)
The fact that only his new woman even gets Stella’s stupid lie to conceal her self-sacrificial motives says so much about his small-minded soul. I think psychologists would agree abandonment ain’t exactly for the good of a kid, even an adult one, and Stephen ought to know Laurel well enough to recognize how well Stella’s raised her. But why would we expect that? Or that he’d care? He’s got a pretty daughter on his arm. Why should he bother figuring out what makes her happy, much less spare an once of sympathy for his long-suffering ex-wife?
A villain, plain and simple.
For great posts on villains, check out entries in the Great Villain blogathon, hosted by Ruth of Silver Screenings, Karen of Shadows & Satin and Kristina of Speakeasy.
This is brilliant. You’ve described EXACTLY what’s going on in this film, and you’ve done so eloquently. I never liked the husband in this film, but never thought much about it. But, as I was reading your post, I was saying – out loud – “Yeah, that’s right!” and “You said it!” and “Preach it, sister!”
Thank you for joining the blogathon and for sharing your insightful essay with us. I’m going to be writing about Stella Dallas in a couple of weeks, and I am definitely linking to this post.
Thank you! It’s always so much fun to be part of this event. Thanks so much for co-hosting it. It’s nice to know I’m not alone in squirming every time he’s on the screen. And every time I see the film, I love her more. She’s such a warm-hearted, fun, spunky woman. And of course, Stanywck helps make us love her! And to end up with HIM. So wrong.
I agree. I think this is my favorite post of the blogathon. Just really smart and perceptive and fun reading to boot!
Thanks so much!
Great choice for the blogathon! I appreciate this film, mainly because of Stanwyck’s performance, but I’ve always been uncomfortable with it, too. The theme of the woman being made to sacrifice everything she cares for while her husband gets everything without having to really work for it…yeah, it doesn’t sit well with me.
I often find myself wondering what happens to the characters in a film after the credits roll. What becomes of Stella—what does the future hold for her? Is there any chance she will ever reconcile with her daughter?
Yes, her performance is stunning. I’d forgotten until I rewatched it just how good she is in it. Really upsets me she didn’t get the Oscar. It’s funny you say that. I kept finding myself thinking the same. Maybe Laurel will initiate a visit, find her mom. She’s not the most perceptive soul, but in time, surely, she’d catch on.
Stephen Dallas had better hope he doesn’t run into you in a dark alley some night!
That cracks me up.:)
I absolutely love this! First of all, this entire time, until I saw John Boles’s picture, I thought you were referring to Alan Hale’s character! So when I realized my mistake, I couldn’t wait to see what you had to say — and, boy, was I not disappointed! I’ve always rather abhored Stephen Dallas, and now I know exactly why. I am figuratively standing up and cheering for your first-rate post, Leah — it was the bomb dot com. Thanks so much for contributing it to our blogathon!
Thank you! And thanks for another great blogathon! I actually like Alan Hale’s character. He’s weak and causes problems for Stella, but he’s also a sweet guy whose heart is in the right place. Not so for the husband. No heart at all:)
This was a treat. I’ve always thought Stephen Dallas was a self-centered boob. You outlined his boobishness perfectly. I think this may be my favorite of the blogathon. Stephen Dallas isn’t your obvious movie villain, but a more subtle kind, which in some ways makes his actions more painful and devious. Can’t wait until next year’s choice. Good job!
Thank you! Yes, the villains you don’t see coming (or don’t see for who they are) are often the worst.
Hi Leah-this post was so refreshingly perceptive! I really like your astute take on the film, and look forward to your future posts.
Thank you, Amy! It’s a film that bears repeat viewings. I wish my annoyance with the end hadn’t kept me from re-viewing it for so long. And wow. Stanwyck’s performance is stunning. She IS that character.
I totally agree with your wonderful, dead-on assessment of Stephen Dallas. When I first saw this film in my teens, I didn’t understand why it annoyed me even though I enjoyed it. Years later, with more life experience and awareness, I got it.
Thank you! Yes, it’s tough to take. There are redeemable aspects, of course: Her character is very well developed and entertaining. I just need to blot the rest of it out:)
Aaaaaaa – finally someone who understands my hatred towards this movie. Stella isn’t a saint who sacrifices herself, she is the victim of her asshole husband! I loved, loved your post and I agree with each word in it.
Kisses!
Le
Thank you, Le! I definitely hate the message of the movie, and how it’s been interpreted. But I love the character of Stella, and Stanwyck’s performance of it—only thing that gets me through it. But how differently I’d feel about it, if the goal were to show how manipulative a spouse can be!