1939 – Cukor, The Women / 1956 – Miller, The Opposite Sex

Film trailer – The Women (1939)

Film trailer – The Opposite Sex (1956)

Introduction

W

hen The Women opened on Broadway in 1936, audiences were treated to an acerbic commentary on the lives of Manhattan’s wealthiest socialites, penned “in venom” by playwright Clare Boothe (Nugent, 32).  Filled with feline wit and unbridled malice, the comedy of manners was a smash hit with audiences and played 666 performances in its triumphant run at the Ethel Barrymore Theatre (American Film Institute).  Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer purchased the rights to make a film adaptation, using their illustrious roster of contract players to create an all-star, all-female cast.  Writers Anita Loos and Jane Murfin adapted the script for the screen, which told the story of a trusting Park Avenue socialite who loses her husband to a scheming shop girl, thanks to the “terrible collection of women” she calls her friends.  Moviegoers relished in seeing their favorite stars go on “a glorious cat-clawing rampage,” and The Women was praised as an amusing “sociological investigation of the scalpel-tongued Park Avenue set” (Nugent, 32).  The film would be remade as a Technicolor musical by the same studio in 1956, this time with the title —and actors of—The Opposite Sex.  Since then, the fiendish comedy has enjoyed reincarnations on both stage and screen, with a Broadway revival in 2001 and a modern film adaptation in 2008.  While these recent efforts have failed to garner the same critical acclaim as their original 1930s counterparts, the piece has garnered enduring appeal—due, in part, to “the rowdy spectacle of ladies being anything but ladylike” (Brantley, New York Times).  The legacy of Clare Boothe’s work, however, rests heavily on the original 1939 film, which has since acted as the esteemed touchstone for all later iterations of the deliciously poisonous piece.

Film Analysis: The Women (1939)

The film opened to critical acclaim, and its stars delivered career-changing performances under the direction of George Cukor.  The screen adaptation of the Broadway play had a significant focus on fashion, due in part to the elaborate creations of MGM costume designer, Adrian.  However, the most noteworthy aspect of the picture—the Technicolor fashion show which featured designs by Adrian and thirty-five models from the New York World’s Fair—received universal scorn from film critics (Gutner, 176).  In his New York Times review, Frank S. Nugent wrote that the “style show in Technicolor which may be lovely—at least that’s what most of the women around us seemed to think” had “no place in the picture,” and was “the only mark against George Cukor’s otherwise shrewd and sentient direction” (Nugent, 32).  Despite this criticism, Adrian’s costume parade was adored by the fashion press.  Women’s Wear Daily dutifully covered his designs for the leading actresses (fig. 3), but eagerly discussed the clothing featured in the Technicolor fashion show with the same, if not greater, emphasis.  The retail industry also delighted in the film’s focus on fashion.  Department stores used the film’s premiere as a marketing opportunity, running concurrent ads that featured stills from the movie and such text: “Macy’s salutes a great film and a great gender…depend on us to bring you practical clothes inspired by the most glamorous picture of the year” (The Women Makes Promotion Headline, 32).  That season, Macy’s Cinema Shops offered fashion-minded moviegoers the opportunity to purchase adaptations of four evening gowns, one daytime ensemble, three hats, and a negligee from the hit film (Gutner, 182).

After he left MGM in 1941, his clothes still often appeared on screen—purchased either from his couture house or from his ready-to-wear line, “Adrian Originals,” based on Seventh Avenue in New York.  He would go on to run a successful business for ten years, until he was forced to retire following a heart attack in 1952. Adrian returned to MGM early the same year to design his final film, Lovely to Look At.  He died in 1959, and left behind a legacy as one of film’s greatest costume designers—instrumental in creating the unmistakable flavor of glamour of Hollywood’s golden age.

Costume and Production Design

Though based on a society rooted in a specific time and place, The Women resides in a fantasy world where all clothes are Adrian-designed, and all interiors exist to complement them.  Under the art direction of Cedric Gibbons, the film brings to life a luxurious playground for the idle rich.  The opening scene takes place at Sydney’s, a palatial beauty salon whose reception area more closely resembles the deck of ocean liner—with its sweeping modernist staircase, geometric floor designs, and idyllic outdoor vista painted on the back wall (fig. 6).  The production design of the film was not only a visual treat for the moviegoers of 1939, but also a valuable resource to present-day fashion historians, for “the bright light it sheds on the exclusive retail industry, from fanciful fashion show to the beauty salon” (“Fashion Significances,” 4).

The stylized sets were populated by a cast of 135 women (plus female dogs and monkeys), for whom Adrian designed a staggering 237 costumes (Vieira, 127).  Because of the nature of the piece and the sheer number of characters that needed to remain distinctive from one another, “each actress had to be dressed to type and sometimes exaggerated to make the point more forceful” (“Adrian Clothes for The Women,” 3).  In his designs, Adrian adeptly uses clothing to communicate the characteristics of each player, creating visual foils and complements for each woman on the screen.  The true genius of his work lies in his skillful treatment of contemporary trends in a way that serves both the individual characters and the production as a whole.  While some of his more imaginative designs may border on fashion fantasy, the clothes shown in the film never crossed into the realms of costume or camp; what resulted was a meticulously crafted spectacle that acted as a platform for real-life designs that felt current and distantly attainable.  To the delight of fashion journalists, “the costuming was up to the minute with fitted waistlines, flared skirts, front fullness in evening skirts, bustles, little hats, the very high crowned visor hat, tiered evening skirts” (“Adrian Clothes for The Women,” 32).  Chief among the most enviable designs in The Women were those worn by the film’s three stars whose names appeared above the title.  Adrian created costumes for Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, and Rosalind Russell under three distinctive design philosophies which served their characters—each unique, yet glamorous all (fig. 7).

Character Costume Analysis

Mary Haines (played by Norma Shearer)

N

orma Shearer, the reigning queen of the MGM lot, played the leading role of Mary Haines—the virtuous protagonist who discovers she has been living in a fool’s paradise upon learning of her husband’s affair with a conniving shop girl.  As a devoted wife and mother, her style is considerably less ostentatious in comparison to her catty counterparts.  While the other Park Avenue matrons swathe themselves in flamboyant fashions that seem to evince their dubious morality, the wholesome Mary Haines is mostly outfitted in sensible suits.  The defining essence of Adrian’s designs for Norma Shearer’s character is verbalized early in the film, when her daughter helps her dress for a luncheon with her friends, saying, “Mother, let me pick out your dress for you. They’ll all be so fancy…why don’t you be plain?”  In the case of selling the film’s fashions to eager moviegoers, “plain” actually translates to “wearable”—with the costumes worn by Norma Shearer inspiring the bulk of the collection for sale in Macy’s Cinema Shops (Gutner, 184).

Another tailored ensemble worn by Norma Shearer in The Women (fig. 11) was featured in a “News About Suits” fashion spread in Photoplay: a bright blue woolen suit with “a short, cutaway jacket that is collarless with a small rolled reverse—the youthful collar of the white piqué waistcoat blouse finishes the neckline. The bias skirt has four flared gores” (Photoplay Fashions, 49).  Designs such as this one “prefigured many of the ready-to-wear and custom-made clothes [Adrian] would design for his own couture house in years to come” (Gutner, 184).  A similar suit in the collection of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art which dates to c.1950 (fig. 12) is a testament to the lasting power of Adrian’s designs, and shows that he had managed to craft a “signature style” as a fashion designer even before he made a career as one.

Mary Haines is allowed a moment of true Adrian glamour in the final scene, when she grows “Jungle Red” claws and finally matches the malice of the other women in an attempt to win back her husband.  Photoplay’s Fashion Section describes the costume as “a cloth-of-gold evening coat, which falls from the shoulders, like a great 15th century cloak, and forms a slight train at the back” (Walters, 70).  This costume dramatizes Mary’s transformation, as she boldly claims center stage for the first time in the film.  In the final shot (fig. 13), the audience gets a close-up look at the luxurious metallic textile and the stylistically structured shoulders for which Adrian was known.

Crystal Allen (played by Joan Crawford)

Adrian is said to have built his career on Joan Crawford’s broad shoulders; and as the malicious shop girl Crystal Allen, Crawford’s shoulders are broader than ever.  The actress lobbied relentlessly for the role, despite the fact that Crystal only appears in four scenes of The Women—one in which she wears a nondescript department store uniform and another in which she sits naked in a bubble bath.  Dubbed “the cinema’s leading wearer of clothes” by journalist Walter Winchell just two years before, it seemed odd that Crawford would be given so few costumes in what was considered MGM’s greatest fashion film (Gutner, 185).  Nevertheless, she managed to make the small role dynamic and memorable, while Adrian delivered the impression of high-fashion glamour in just three looks.

Crystal Allen makes her first appearance wearing her department store uniform, as the nosy Sylvia Fowler brings her friend to the perfume counter at Blacks Fifth Avenue in an attempt to get a glimpse of the “beazel” having an affair with Stephen Haines (fig. 14).  They see a sales girl with her back turned—hair fashionably styled—and mistake her for Crystal until she turns around an reveals herself as an older woman.  They immediately pinpoint the correct sales girl when the undeniably beautiful Crawford enters.  She wears the same hairstyle: short and tightly curled, which called for an intensive permanent prior to filming (fig. 15).  Fan magazines took notice, and commented that the short hair trend was “slowly gaining momentum,” and that “the man who started it all, Sydney Guilaroff, M-G-M’s hair stylist, [clinched] it with his hairdresses for ‘The Women’” (Walters, 79).  Outfitted in a simple black dress for her first appearance, Crawford must communicate all the allure that the character demands from the neck up.  However, even her shop girl uniform bears the distinctive Adrian shoulder pads that she helped to make famous.

Joan Crawford’s final costume is the most overtly stylized, and clearly designed to encourage audiences to villainize her character.  Consequently, it was the costume in which she was most photographed for the film’s publicity campaign (fig. 19).  The gown was described by Photoplay magazine as a “brassiere top and a very full circular skirt are done entirely in gold sequins, and a wide belt is emerald-jeweled and embroidered in gold” (Walters, 79)  With its exposed midriff, the dress is the sexiest garment that Crystal wears in the film.  Such two-piece evening gowns were fashionable throughout the 1930s, introduced by Madeleine Vionnet in her spring/summer 1932 collection (fig. 20). However, within the context of the film, the skin-baring ensemble comes across as particularly salacious—and every bit as “typical” as Mary and her friends would expect a woman of Crystal’s character would wear.  At the same time, the sequins give off a scintillating shimmer that underscores Crystal’s biting words as she exits the film in a blaze of vicious glory—a perfectly tasty cinematic moment crafted by both actress and designer.

Sylvia Fowler (played by Rosalind Russell)

Surprisingly, Adrian’s most successful designs in The Women are not for the two principal actresses, but for Rosalind Russell as the amusingly mischievous Sylvia Fowler.  His playful interpretation of fashionable dress provided a comical coating to Sylvia’s viciousness.  Subtle exaggerations of silhouette combined with whimsical accessories lent a delightfully cockeyed touch to the character, making her an instant audience favorite.  At first, Russell was thought to be too beautiful for the role; producer Hunt Stromberg wanted “somebody to look funny, to get a laugh every time she pokes her head around a door” (Vieira, 123).  Adrian’s designs aided in delivering the desired comedy—like her character, Russell’s marvelous millinery is a-twitter with flighty veils, trembling feathers, and erratic sprays of flowers.  A seasoned comedienne, she knew how to manipulate her performance to amplify the eccentricities afforded by Adrian’s costuming, which “caricatured fashions by going to the absurd extremes of newness that were unbecoming and silly looking…but this, too, was a commentary on fashions very much a part of the modern picture” (“Fashion Significances,” 32).

Sylvia’s evening wear, too, bears eccentric design features that tend to correspond with Rosalind Russell’s physicality in each scene.  When she visits her “friend” Crystal, she slinks into her palatial bathroom wearing a beige wool crepe dress with a dramatically draped head wrap, and playfully topped with a small “monkey” hat (“Wool Jersey and Crepe in Draped Evening Gowns,” 9).  Like her jaunty chapeau, Sylvia gingerly perches at the edge of Crystal’s bathtub (fig. 24).  In the final scene, Sylvia wears a strapless gown of black tulle—her shoulders swathed in a matching net shawl, in which she becomes entangled when Mary and her friends lock her in the powder room closet.  A tuft of tulle hovers above her head, in a flighty headpiece that also includes a cluster of tiny wing-shaped feathers (fig. 25).  Though the costume was designed to play up Rosalind Russell’s comedic performance in the final scene, it was still considered highly fashionable and cited as the source of inspiration for a similar black tulle evening gown available for purchase in Macy’s Cinema Shops following the film’s release (Gutner, 182).

Ensemble Costume Analysis

Throughout the picture, the three leading ladies are consistently flanked by supporting actresses wearing dynamic Adrian-designed ensembles that perfectly deliver each character’s personality traits on sight.  This is especially evident in the last scene of The Women, in which the entire cast is dressed in their finest gowns for the final showdown in an opulent powder room (fig. 26). One on side, is the alluring Paulette Goddard in a one-shouldered, figure-skimming gown with embellished border trim; and on the other, the sweet Joan Fontaine in a demure white ensemble resembling a glamorized version of a quilted dressing gown.  Famed gossip columnist Hedda Hopper makes an appearance as a character very much inspired by herself, wearing a quirky chapeau with curled “antennae”—as if transmitting “dirt” on the feuding women to her eager readers in real time.  The viewers see every character side by side, and are presented the full spectrum of Adrian’s designs for the wild assortment of women.  Though seen in black and white, the assemblage provides a visual delight of contrasting silhouettes, eye-catching textiles, and varied textures.  Amazingly, The Women is still every bit as glamorous now as it was in 1939, which can be credited to Adrian’s deft amalgamation of trends specific to the time period and hallmarks of timeless glamour.

Film Analysis: The Opposite Sex (1956)

Overview

W

hen MGM decided to do a musical remake of The Women in 1956, producer Joe Pasternak and director David Miller assembled another all-star cast, of comparable caliber to that of the original 1939 film (fig. 27).  The remake starred June Allyson, Joan Collins, Dolores Grey, Anne Sheridan, Anne Miller, Joan Blondell, and Agnes Moorehead.  Unlike the 1939 film and the original play on which it was based, this version of the story included male characters—and thus, it was retitled The Opposite Sex.  Upon its release, many critics “compared the picture unfavorably to the earlier film version, stating that the biting humor of the original had been lost” (American Film Institute).  Screen writers Kay and Michael Fanin took the Park Avenue set and relocated them to Broadway, where the idle Manhattan socialites were recast show business wives.  However, the remake managed to retain the fashion focus, inspiring reviewers to say, “The Opposite Sex, indeed, is as much a fashion show as it is a musical” (Gertner, 1).  As they did in the 1939 film, MGM’s publicity department used fashion to market the picture, sending three models “touring the country…[putting] on fashion shows in leading department stores, with audiences of women rapt with attention” (“Two Perennials,” 13).

Costume and Production Design

From the opening title sequence, the audience is immediately placed in the fashionable world of the 1950s, with a close-up vignette that features an unmistakable New Look-inspired bodice (fig. 30).  The Opposite Sex had the advantage of having the same art director and set decorator that realized the world of The Women in 1939.  They updated Sydney’s to accommodate the aesthetics of the 1950s—with powder pink drapery and swirling marble statuary replacing the original salon’s geometric forms and glass-topped furniture (fig. 31).  The Opposite Sex had the aesthetic advantage of being shot in Cinemascope and Metrocolor, “both of which serve to enhance the dazzling gowns the actresses wear and the lavish decor in which they parade them” (Gertner, 1).  Art director Cedric Gibbons and costume designer Helen Rose used these technological advances to create cohesive images that achieved harmony through hue, in addition to form (fig. 32).  Color would play an important role in Helen Rose’s design approaches to the three leading characters, played by June Allyson, Joan Collins, and Dolores Gray.

Character Costume Analysis

Crystal Allen (played by Joan Collins)

Unlike Joan Crawford in the original film, Joan Collins is overtly sexualized as Crystal Allen in The Opposite Sex.  In this later film, the seductive villainess is recast as a conniving chorus girl in producer Steven Hilliard’s Broadway show (fig. 38).  Due to her change of profession—or, perhaps a symptom of shifting attitudes regarding feminine beauty and sexuality—each of Crystal Allen’s costumes in The Opposite Sex emphasizes her voluptuous figure and presents her as a physical threat to the comparatively petite Kay Hilliard.  During their rancorous dressing room showdown, Crystal strips down to her underwear, as if to assert her sexual dominance over her prudish adversary (fig. 39).  Women’s Wear Daily eagerly reported on the one-piece leotard foundation that “[served] as a combination bra, waist cincher, and pantie-girdle” (“Leotard Foundation in New Film,” 4).  The same article also mentions a “black velvet leotard of similar appearance over a boned foundation” briefly shown in one of Crystal’s early scenes, as she changes out of her costume after a dance number (fig. 40).  Costume designer Helen Rose allegedly received several inquiries from women wishing to purchase the black leotard, despite the fact that it was actually part of a dance costume (fig. 41).

Although Russell’s costumes were brightly colored in the original film, they only ever appeared on screen in black and white (“Photoplay Fashions: Color,” 51).  In the 1956 remake, the full magnitude of Sylvia Fowler’s bold style is brought to life by Technicolor—most notably when she attends Kay’s anniversary wearing a shockingly bright teal taffeta gown with voluminous hip ruffles and a matching cocktail hat (fig. 45).  The garish color and ostentatious accessories make this ensemble all the more contrary to Kay’s delicate blush chiffon gown, illustrating the stark contrast between the two characters.  Even Sylvia’s comparatively understated daywear bears the hallmark of her flamboyant style.  She arrives in Reno wearing a leopard print vest over a sleek, fitted black dress with a high-neck that transitions into another one of her signature head-coverings (fig. 46).  She carries a matching leopard-print purse, —reminiscent of Rosalind Russell’s coordinating printed knitting bag—a perfect example of ensemble dressing, which was at the height of its popularity in 1956.  This is Helen Rose’s most literal design, appropriately worn during Sylvia’s famous “catfight” scene with her soon-to-be-ex-husband’s new fiancé.  Upon her return to New York, Sylvia pays a visit to Crystal Allen wearing a monochromatic cobalt blue ensemble, complete with fitted cocoon coat trimmed with a magnificent dyed fox fur (fig. 47)—as delightfully absurd as the jaunty “monkey” hat worn by her 1939 counterpart.  For the final scene, Sylvia arrives wearing an eccentric evening dress of black lace over a nude base with dramatic triple-tiered tulle skirt.  The silhouette echoes the effervescent tulle gown sold as part of The Women’s collection at the Macy’s Cinema Shop in 1939.  Even the kinetic feathered headpiece that tops Dolores Gray’s coiffed hair quivers in a similar way to Rosalind Russell’s original headpiece.  The most unusual feature of this final costume is the half “hood” that extends from the nape of the gown and cups the back of the head (fig. 48).  This unique detail perfectly encapsulates Sylvia’s style throughout the film, which vacillates between that of elevated chic and uninhibited absurdity.

Ensemble Costume Analysis

This prevailing standard of fashionable dress is most evident in the final scene, especially when compared to the final scene of The Women.  When viewed as an ensemble, there is noticeably less variation in design amongst the gowns worn by the 1956 cast; however, similar textiles and consistent silhouettes are effectively transformed by Technicolor, resulting in a confection of varied hues (fig. 50).

Comparison and Conclusion

When comparing the costumes in The Women with those in The Opposite Sex, one can observe the dramatic evolution of the fashionable silhouette after seventeen years and a world war.  Where Adrian’s designs place emphasis squarely on the shoulders, Helen Rose’s designs consistently feature the slimness of the waist—signifying the shift in erogenous zones from 1939 to 1956.  The approaches taken by each film’s publicity departments also illustrates the changes seen by the studio system during this time.  The advertising for The Women relied heavily on the star power of the three leading actresses—their names commanding the most space (and value) on movie posters in 1939 (fig. 51).  The Opposite Sex took an entirely different approach, by posing its stars as playful pin-ups, with their names hardly a quarter of the size of the title’s typeface in a promotional pamphlet distributed prior to the film’s premiere (fig. 52).

Audiences had also evolved significantly between the two films.  Where a ten minute Technicolor fashion show (fig. 53) was enough to create a spectacle in 1939, MGM’s audiences were demanding flashy musical numbers by 1956.  Moreover, the presentation of fashion alone was no longer enough to inspire the enthusiasm of movie-goers; The Opposite Sex resorts to a stylized “striptease” to capture the attention of audiences in the film’s “fashion” sequence (fig. 54).  Ultimately, what differences in costuming can not attributed to changing ideals or cultural evolution lie in the disparate frameworks that surround the two films.  The Women is a commentary on fashionable society, and therefore centers around fashionable dress.  The Opposite Sex is set in the world of show business, and therefore is heavily influenced by show costumes.  But regardless of whether any adaptation of Clare Boothe’s original work chooses to focus on either fashion or costume, the core of the piece ultimately rests in the absence of men—who disrupt the illusion of the ultimate fashion fantasy for women.  This has ultimately become the legacy of The Women, which, despite its poisonous narrative, remains a delicious visual spectacle. 

References: