dearliza
01-25-2003, 02:39 PM
I agree that after Roxie and Velma take to the stage in a double act, the characters within the movie as well as the members of the movie audience are applauding what seems to be a series of crimes, lies, deceitful acts, materialistic machinations, and so forth.
However, let's put this movie into historical and gender perspective. The movie and musical were both set in the 1920s, but women didn't even have the right to vote until late August 1920. How much of a choice did any of the women in that cell block have to change their lives? From a power perspective, few women had any, and if they did have power, they tried their hardest to hold on to it (Mama Morton - a prime example). Most of the power, if not all, was held by the men, as was seen in the characters of Billy Flynn and Amos. Amos even says in the movie that Roxie asked him for help saying, "Help me, Amos, it's my goddamn hour of need!" and that he would be more likely to get off for the murder. Those who were not the latest craze in the newspapers or personal favorites of Billy Flynn, would hang, as is seen in the case of the foreign girl.
Also, there is a case to be made that only the women who were willing to lie and adapt to circumstances had any hope. The foreign girl hung - she had no help from Billy Flynn, had no popularity in the press, and had no willingness or ability to lie or act her way out of her situation. The two women most capable of lying and acting, Roxie and Velma, did alright and we cheer them at the end...but as far as we know none of the other women made it off the block.
As for the women committing crime in the first place, women had practically no options for changing their circumstances. If a woman found out her man was already married six times, that he was ruthlessly jealous, or that in "finding" himself he found a lot of women and some men, her only option would be divorce, which would leave her with no paying job and nowhere to go, not to mention social hatred. For the women whose men popped their gum and were otherwise not all that attentive or appreciative at all of their wives or their work in the house - in 1920, like today, women still do not even make a cent keeping house or raising children, and there certainly is no social respect for the amount of hard work they do. When men reach the breaking point and take action, we feel sorry for the men and wonder how things could have gotten that bad. When women reach the breaking point and take action, we find it scandalous, intriguing, and wrong.
I'm wondering what's so wrong about cheering (and feeling good doing it) at a movie where women take back their lives, take control over what happens to them, make sure that they are not taken advantage of, and explain a whole generation of women's rights (or lack thereof)? I understand the issue of crime, but let's start questioning what the real crimes in the movie are.
However, let's put this movie into historical and gender perspective. The movie and musical were both set in the 1920s, but women didn't even have the right to vote until late August 1920. How much of a choice did any of the women in that cell block have to change their lives? From a power perspective, few women had any, and if they did have power, they tried their hardest to hold on to it (Mama Morton - a prime example). Most of the power, if not all, was held by the men, as was seen in the characters of Billy Flynn and Amos. Amos even says in the movie that Roxie asked him for help saying, "Help me, Amos, it's my goddamn hour of need!" and that he would be more likely to get off for the murder. Those who were not the latest craze in the newspapers or personal favorites of Billy Flynn, would hang, as is seen in the case of the foreign girl.
Also, there is a case to be made that only the women who were willing to lie and adapt to circumstances had any hope. The foreign girl hung - she had no help from Billy Flynn, had no popularity in the press, and had no willingness or ability to lie or act her way out of her situation. The two women most capable of lying and acting, Roxie and Velma, did alright and we cheer them at the end...but as far as we know none of the other women made it off the block.
As for the women committing crime in the first place, women had practically no options for changing their circumstances. If a woman found out her man was already married six times, that he was ruthlessly jealous, or that in "finding" himself he found a lot of women and some men, her only option would be divorce, which would leave her with no paying job and nowhere to go, not to mention social hatred. For the women whose men popped their gum and were otherwise not all that attentive or appreciative at all of their wives or their work in the house - in 1920, like today, women still do not even make a cent keeping house or raising children, and there certainly is no social respect for the amount of hard work they do. When men reach the breaking point and take action, we feel sorry for the men and wonder how things could have gotten that bad. When women reach the breaking point and take action, we find it scandalous, intriguing, and wrong.
I'm wondering what's so wrong about cheering (and feeling good doing it) at a movie where women take back their lives, take control over what happens to them, make sure that they are not taken advantage of, and explain a whole generation of women's rights (or lack thereof)? I understand the issue of crime, but let's start questioning what the real crimes in the movie are.