I Do and I Don't: A History of Marriage in the Movies
by Jeanine Basinger
As a film major, I was eager to devour this book; the title and the cover biased my liking before cracking open the spine. What a fantastic idea, I thought, to write a book about screen marriages and the evolution of the portrayal of marriage through the decades. Perhaps she would dedicate a section of the book to her favorite pairings. Undoubtedly she would discuss the Hays Code and how it influenced a film’s representation of a marriage.
Unfortunately for me, and for anyone else who enthusiastically dove into Jeanine Basinger’s book with similar expectations, I ended up with a 432-paged disappointment. Basinger’s basic premise was a complaint about the lack of a “marriage movie”: a film in which a normal married couple exists without any outside conflict. She grumbles almost incessantly about Hollywood’s unfair treatment of real life marriages. According to Basinger, Hollywood either makes marriage the goal—the “happily ever after” ending—or complicates the plot with divorce, murder, or hardships, such as the death of a child or an affair. She would prefer a film in which two people either start off married or get married fairly early on, and then have a perfectly boring life. No affairs, no deaths in the family, no horrendous fights that lead to attempted or accidental murder, and nothing to take precedence over the marriage, such as a focus on either spouse’s career, a focus on their children’s troubles, self-discovery, an outside friendship. . . You get the idea.
As a student of film, I found myself so frustrated with her complaints and arguments, I actually began talking back to her while reading. Films are supposed to have a plot. A plot, by filmic definition, has conflict. Without conflict, a screenplay cannot be sold, a movie cannot be made, and audiences will be unable to see it. Thus, this perfectly stagnant plot that Ms. Basinger envisions will never be filmed. She complains about this, too, frustrated that audiences wouldn’t be interested in seeing a realistic film. Again, I spoke to her, reminding her of the Great Depression, a time when millions of Americans were penniless but still managed to make Hollywood a booming industry. Movies are entertainment. People go to the movies to escape their lives for two hours. Many of the people who need such an escape are married. If they sat in a darkened theater and watched their own lives on the screen, they’d probably ask for a refund. Audiences—aka people who pay to make Hollywood’s existence possible—want plot. What is plot again? Oh yes, conflict.
Ms. Basinger published her work in 2013. I would hope she was well aware of independent films, which have never been more popular or widely accessible. However, she completely ignores the popular indie genre “slice of life” movies, in which couples are portrayed exactly as she would have them. If this book were written in the 1950s, before the demise of the Hays Code and before the rise of indie movies, I would cut her arguments much more slack.
Ah, the Hays Code. For those of you who don’t know what it is, I encourage you to read a book on it or take a film history class. It really is a fascinating document to study. Sufficed to say, it was a moral code in place from 1934-1958, dictating what could and couldn’t be shown and said in films. Because of this code, many films couldn’t represent real life. Every time Ms. Basinger used an old movie as an example, I couldn’t help but think she was ignorant of the restraints put in place during that time frame. She couldn’t possibly know the contents of the code and still expect a realistic portrayal of a marriage.
Lastly, I have one more complaint, albeit a small one. Basinger spoils the plot of every movie she mentions in her book, without warning. I am an ardent lover of classic films, so when she referenced an old movie, I had not only seen it, but usually seen it several times and studied it in college. Unless you’ve seen a plethora of movies, old and new, you will probably be sorry you read this book, and not just because of her exasperating arguments.
Unfortunately for me, and for anyone else who enthusiastically dove into Jeanine Basinger’s book with similar expectations, I ended up with a 432-paged disappointment. Basinger’s basic premise was a complaint about the lack of a “marriage movie”: a film in which a normal married couple exists without any outside conflict. She grumbles almost incessantly about Hollywood’s unfair treatment of real life marriages. According to Basinger, Hollywood either makes marriage the goal—the “happily ever after” ending—or complicates the plot with divorce, murder, or hardships, such as the death of a child or an affair. She would prefer a film in which two people either start off married or get married fairly early on, and then have a perfectly boring life. No affairs, no deaths in the family, no horrendous fights that lead to attempted or accidental murder, and nothing to take precedence over the marriage, such as a focus on either spouse’s career, a focus on their children’s troubles, self-discovery, an outside friendship. . . You get the idea.
As a student of film, I found myself so frustrated with her complaints and arguments, I actually began talking back to her while reading. Films are supposed to have a plot. A plot, by filmic definition, has conflict. Without conflict, a screenplay cannot be sold, a movie cannot be made, and audiences will be unable to see it. Thus, this perfectly stagnant plot that Ms. Basinger envisions will never be filmed. She complains about this, too, frustrated that audiences wouldn’t be interested in seeing a realistic film. Again, I spoke to her, reminding her of the Great Depression, a time when millions of Americans were penniless but still managed to make Hollywood a booming industry. Movies are entertainment. People go to the movies to escape their lives for two hours. Many of the people who need such an escape are married. If they sat in a darkened theater and watched their own lives on the screen, they’d probably ask for a refund. Audiences—aka people who pay to make Hollywood’s existence possible—want plot. What is plot again? Oh yes, conflict.
Ms. Basinger published her work in 2013. I would hope she was well aware of independent films, which have never been more popular or widely accessible. However, she completely ignores the popular indie genre “slice of life” movies, in which couples are portrayed exactly as she would have them. If this book were written in the 1950s, before the demise of the Hays Code and before the rise of indie movies, I would cut her arguments much more slack.
Ah, the Hays Code. For those of you who don’t know what it is, I encourage you to read a book on it or take a film history class. It really is a fascinating document to study. Sufficed to say, it was a moral code in place from 1934-1958, dictating what could and couldn’t be shown and said in films. Because of this code, many films couldn’t represent real life. Every time Ms. Basinger used an old movie as an example, I couldn’t help but think she was ignorant of the restraints put in place during that time frame. She couldn’t possibly know the contents of the code and still expect a realistic portrayal of a marriage.
Lastly, I have one more complaint, albeit a small one. Basinger spoils the plot of every movie she mentions in her book, without warning. I am an ardent lover of classic films, so when she referenced an old movie, I had not only seen it, but usually seen it several times and studied it in college. Unless you’ve seen a plethora of movies, old and new, you will probably be sorry you read this book, and not just because of her exasperating arguments.