# The Stepford Wives - The Movie (the new one) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 8, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138 "2004-03-08T16:36:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/21 "2004-05-27T14:11:16Z")
And why only one copy of your wife? Wouldn’t you have like three or four? And her little sister? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/22 "2004-05-27T14:23:39Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > I always thought the original was making fun of the women’s libbers not the men. . . . Oh, I absolutely disagree. Joanna’s character holds 100% of the audience’s sympathy; the husband is seen as a snivelling weakling who makes the wrong choices out of fear and sexual greed. (Hm; see \*Rosemary’s Baby \* for a Levin leitmotif.) Each woman’s defeat and replacement is framed as exactly that: a defeat; a loss. It’s 100% clear where Levin’s true sympathies lie: he has tremendous respect for the women, and absolutely none for the men. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/23 "2004-05-27T14:41:51Z")
Yes, the men are the villians but the very idea of The Stepford Wives is so ridiculous that it makes most of the JKF or UFO theories sound plausible. I’ve never read the book and it’s been awhile since I saw the original film. (3 years?) But come on, _they’re_ turnig us into robots? Most people can accomplish that on their own. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/24 "2004-05-27T14:51:08Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Thinking about it, setting “The Stepford Wives” in some Middle Eastern country would add a little … authenticity to it. Never happen of course, and would probably run counter to the “perfect suburbia” theme of the original. Not to mention that the sand would make maintenance a nightmare. I agree with Eve that Prentiss is the best thing the first movie has going for it. Haven’t read the book, but the movie’s a bit obvious in its execution, and the satire is muted for the thriller aspects. I don’t really believe (like Equipoise does) that this will be a genuinely black comedy. It seems far too jokey in the trailers, and the fact that Frank Oz tends to steamroll his comedies into the broadest conceivable shape means that I suspect there will be little room for subtlety (plus, I’m guessing there will be some cop-out happy ending to boot–at least the original didn’t have that). ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/25 "2004-05-27T14:53:05Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Oh, I absolutely disagree. Joanna’s character holds 100% of the audience’s sympathy; the husband is seen as a snivelling weakling who makes the wrong choices out of fear and sexual greed. (Hm; see \*Rosemary’s Baby \* for a Levin leitmotif.) Each woman’s defeat and replacement is framed as exactly that: a defeat; a loss. It’s 100% clear where Levin’s true sympathies lie: he has tremendous respect for the women, and absolutely none for the men. Read “A Kiss Before Dying” for a real “sniverlling weakling who makes the wrong choices out of fear and greed.” ---
**Author:** ![cher3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/da6949/32.png) [@cher3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cher3)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/26 "2004-05-27T15:30:52Z")
A review I read this morning made the amusing point that today it seems kind of pointless to kill women in order to get them to trade real body parts for plastic ones when so many women are willingly paying for the privilege. “Hey, honey, do you want to go see the new _Stepford Wives_ or stay home and watch _Extreme Makeover_?” ---
**Author:** ![shy\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@shy\_guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shy_guy)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/27 "2004-05-27T16:14:28Z")
I read the book recently and one big change that I’ve noticed in the previews for the new movie (I’ve never seen the old) is that all the Stepford wives were apperantly hyper-successful and driven before, well, being replaced by robots, and that Matthew Broderick is mostly jealous of his wife’s success. I don’t remember everything about the book, but I know that wasn’t the case. In the new movie, Nicole Kidman is a TV executive or something as opposed to a casual freelance photographer. I actually think it takes the creepiness of the story away - in the new movie, her husband has an underlying motive of jealousy for wanting to replace her, in the book, he’s doing it just because it’s convenient. I think it could be interesting that they’re playing it as a comedy, but I have a feeling it won’t be black enough. I think Faith Hill is some inspired casting, though. ---
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/28 "2004-05-27T17:10:26Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Read “A Kiss Before Dying.” What a great book! Levin isn’t that prolific, but the sheer skill of his plotting and his super-readable prose put him waay ahead of so many thriller writers. (With the exception of maybe _Son of Rosemary._ :smack: ) ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/29 "2004-05-27T19:30:23Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > And why only one copy of your wife? > > Wouldn’t you have like three or four? And her little sister? No, all the guys would want multiple copies of _Ted’s_ wife, because she’s **hot!** 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/30 "2004-05-27T20:15:05Z")
> [@Equipoise](#): > > I’m keeping my hopes up. Sorry to say, advance word has been pretty bad. Director Frank Oz isn’t exactly consistent, and from what I understand Matthew Broderick was a last-minute replacement for the guy they originally wanted (whose casting was the reason Kidman agreed to the film, as she wanted to work with him, but she found herself unable to drop the movie when that original actor left; can’t remember who it was, unfortunately). The production has “train wreck” written all over it. That’s not a guarantee, of course, but the signs are not good. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/31 "2004-05-27T20:21:41Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I gotta say that I thought the original was pretty dumb, . How can you say that, when I was just about to give you some coffee? (bump) How can you say that, when I was just about to give you some coffee? (bump) How can you say that, when I was just abouit to give you some coffee? (bump) How can you say that… ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/32 "2004-05-28T11:44:19Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Sorry to say, advance word has been pretty bad. Director Frank Oz isn’t exactly consistent, and from what I understand Matthew Broderick was a last-minute replacement for the guy they originally wanted (whose casting was the reason Kidman agreed to the film, as she wanted to work with him, but she found herself unable to drop the movie when that original actor left; can’t remember who it was, unfortunately). The production has “train wreck” written all over it. That’s not a guarantee, of course, but the signs are not good. According to [this](http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/netcal/?netcal=1007), her husband was originally to have been played by John Cusack. Now that would’ve been interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/33 "2004-05-28T16:32:28Z")
Why _The Stepford Wives_ originally needed to be written, capsulized in a single paragraph. Quoted in [The Great Boom 1950-2000 : How a Generation of Americans Created the World’s Most Prosperous Society, by Robert Sobel](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312288999/qid=1085761640/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-8285447-3862505?v=glance&s=books): > [@](#): > > Life will not be a burden for me at thirty-five because I will be securely anchored in my family. My main emotional ties will center on my wife and family – remember, I hope for five children. Yes, I can describe my wife. She will be the Grace Kelly, camel’s-hair-coat type. Feet on the ground, and not an empty shell or fake. Although an Ivy League type, she will also be centered in the home, a housewife. Perhaps at forty-five, with the children gown up, she will go in for hospital work, and so on… > > - A Princeton Senior, Class of 1955 ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/34 "2004-05-28T17:43:51Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > her husband was originally to have been played by John Cusack Yes, that’s it, thanks. So say what you will about Kidman as an actor, she’s at least got good taste in who she wants to co-star with. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/35 "2004-05-31T14:27:25Z")
I happened to come across a copy of the _Stepford Wives_ novel in the English section of the bookstore the other day, and thinking of this thread I browsed through it a bit. From what I read, it seemed that in the novel it’s not made explicit that the women really are being replaced by robots. As the book ends [spoiler]Joanna seems at least momentarily convinced that Bobbie is still a human woman, and doesn’t demand that she cut herself to prove that she can bleed. Then the men get her. When Ruthanne meets Joanna later she’s been “Stepfordized”, but we don’t see what happens in-between. So, in the book, _are_ the Stepford women robots for sure, or is the possibility open that something else happened to them? And if they are robots, were the original women _replaced_ with robots or _turned into_ robots by having their brains and bodies tinkered with? In the movie it must have been the former, since Joanna saw her own robot double. In the novel, the men’s behavior at the end and the things they say to Joanna about the difficulties of making a convincing robot replica of a real woman suggest the latter to me. Which is much scarier IMHO, and is actually the ending I thought the movie was going for before Joanna met her double.[/spoiler] ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2004, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/36 "2004-06-01T06:47:14Z")
> [@shy guy](#): > > In the new movie, Nicole Kidman is a TV executive or something as opposed to a casual freelance photographer. I actually think it takes the creepiness of the story away - in the new movie, her husband has an underlying motive of jealousy for wanting to replace her, in the book, he’s doing it just because it’s convenient. Yes, it does take some of the creepiness away, but I think your point also makes it clear exactly why they’re doing a remake. Sure, the original was very much a product of its times, but so is the new version. As I remember it, the original played on women’s insecurities about the equal rights movement. It’s all told from a woman’s perspective, and the men are pretty much just standard villains – we don’t get a whole lot of insight into their motivations for doing it other than, as you say, because it’s convenient. The movie and book satirized the idea that a woman should know her place and be careful not to overstep her bounds, or else she’ll lose her identity. The new version plays on _men’s_ insecurities. The trailer has a bit that suggests that it’s not just Kidman’s character who’s a powerful executive; _all_ of the Stepford women are successful businesswomen. Basically, they’ve already won the battle of the sexes and the men have to put them back in their place. It’s a lot less subtle than the original, but it could still be fairly interesting as long as it doesn’t make the men’s club scenes too predictable and trite. I’m hoping that since they cast Christopher Walken, they’re not going to waste him. I also hope that they include a little bit about the latest insecurity I’m hearing from a lot of my women friends who are married with kids. The ideal that was pushed so much while we were growing up – that of a successful woman with a high-level career _and_ a perfect home life with a family – is actually extremely difficult to keep up. It’s not just men keeping opportunities away from women, it’s that there’s just no time to do everything. I don’t know if that has any place in the new movie, though. > [@shy guy](#): > > I think it could be interesting that they’re playing it as a comedy, but I have a feeling it won’t be black enough. I think Faith Hill is some inspired casting, though. Agreed. If only they could’ve gotten Jessica Simpson as well. So far, the casting is what’s impressed me the most about this movie – great choices all around, assuming that it’s going more for comedy and less for the satire that was in the original. Nicole Kidman is just perfect as the impossibly beautiful woman who’s also an overachiever because, well, she is. The teaser trailer, which was done like a Lexus or BMW commercial and ended with Kidman in full-on Stepford wardrobe doing a sex-kitten routine, did it for me. She’s perfect. (I wonder if that trailer will end up being better than the movie itself, though.) Matthew Broderick is much, much better casting than John Cusack – Cusack is more of an everyman, while Broderick seems more like an initially nice guy who could easily be threatened by his wife’s success (and height) that he’d go to extremes to overcompensate. I’m cautiously optimistic, especially since I found out Frank Oz is directing. He built up so much good will with me by making _Dirty Rotten Scoundrels_ that he hasn’t used it up yet, even with stuff like _In and Out_. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/37 "2004-06-12T16:59:22Z")
I haven’t read the thread, but I actually paid attention to one of the commercials yesterday. _The Stepford Wives_ is a **comedy?** I saw the original when I was very young, and I thought it was a little scary. (On the other hand, it’s the first time I remember seeing titties in a film. Or maybe it was just a guy looking down a woman’s blouse.) ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/38 "2004-06-12T20:28:43Z")
Well, I went to see it last night with a friend from work, and, well, it was a pretty enjoyable film–if you took it as a bit of camp, rather than a suspense thriller or horror movie. It was internally inconsistent, not horribly well written, and a complete waste of Jon Lovitz, but it was still a pretty enjoyable film. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/39 "2004-06-13T00:06:51Z")
> [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > It was internally inconsistent. To say the least–like that 15-minute panic ending they re-shot, which _completely contradicts_ several major plot points which have already been established . . . ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138/40 "2004-06-13T05:21:25Z")
I like what Andrew Sullivan wrote: > [@](#): > > If you’re thinking about going to see _The Stepford Wives_, I advise against it. Comparing this lame, sitcom-style, utterly unbelievable re-make with the sinister, subversive original is almost a case-study in the dumbing down of popular culture. It also contains the usual assumptions of the Hollywood gay-written movie: women are generally morally superior to men, and the only true heroes are career women, Jewish lefties and effeminate gay men. Please. It didn’t even come close to being camp. Ms Sontag decided long ago that camp has to take itself seriously. This movie merely takes its own smugness seriously. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-stepford-wives-the-movie-the-new-one/233138.md?page=3)