The Bechdel Cast - Stepford Wives (1975 and 2004) with Zoe Ligon

Episode Date: March 18, 2021

For this episode, Jamie, Caitlin, and special guest Zoe Ligon have been turned into robots so they can flawlessly analyze The Stepford Wives, both the 1975 and 2004 versions!(This episode contains spoilers)For Bechdel bonuses, sign up for our Patreon at patreon.com/bechdelcast.Follow @thongria Twitter. While you're there, you should also follow @BechdelCast, @caitlindurante and @jamieloftusHELP  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese investigative journalist who on October 16th 2017 was assassinated. Crooks Everywhere unearthed the plot to murder a one-woman WikiLeaks. She exposed the culture of crime and corruption that were turning her beloved country into a mafia state. Listen to Crooks Everywhere on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. To listen to new episodes one week early and 100% ad-free, subscribe to the iHeart True Crime Plus channel, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. In California during the summer of 1975, within the span of 17 days and less than 90 miles, two women did something no other woman had done before, try to assassinate the president of the United States. One was the protege of Charles Manson.

26-year-old Lynette Fromm, nicknamed Squeaky. The other, a middle-aged housewife working undercover for the FBI. Identified by police as Sarah Jean Moore. The story of one strange and violent summer, this season on the new podcast, Rip Current. Hear episodes of Rip Current early and completely ad-free and receive exclusive bonus content by subscribing to iHeart True Crime Plus, only on Apple Podcasts.

I'm Joe Gatto. I'm Steve Byrne. We are two cool moms. We certainly are. And guess where we could find us now? Oh, I don't know. The iHeart Podcast Network? That's right.

We're an official iHeart podcast, and I'm super excited about it. I am too. I thought Two Cool Moms was such a fun podcast, but now it's even more funner and cooler and heartier. That's right. It's more iHeartier. I knew it. Check your heart rate. We're here at iHeart. Yeah, you can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts It's more iHeartier. I knew it! Check your heart rate. We're here at iHeart. Yeah, you can find us wherever you listen to your

podcasts or on the iHeartRadio app. On the Bechdelcast, the questions asked if movies have women in them. Are all their discussions just boyfriends and husbands, or do they have individualism? The patriarchy's effin' vast. Start changing it with the Bechdel cast.

Caitlin. Yes? Why would you do this? I thought you were my friend. And I was just about to make you some coffee. Oh, jeez. Well, woman, get back in the kitchen. Wait, am I your husband or am I your friend in this scenario?

No, you're my friend who just stabbed me. I'm your friend. Okay, right, right. Oh, right, right, right oh and i didn't believe just wanted to make you some coffee why would you do that truly high comedy well i was gonna try i should have added the word like a word like podcast into that there there could have been a transformative joke and it didn't come hey but this is the Bechdel cast here's the thing uh I've been I've been switched out with uh an inferior model and that's why I

did that the way I did yeah well I here's the thing I love you so much more now thank you so much I've given up my dreams of being a photographer and um I am wearing a sheer nightie at all times she cooks as good as she looks today's episode I feel like has been a kind of a long time coming we've been getting this request pretty steadily over the years so i'm excited to talk about it this is the bechdel cast my name is jamie loftus my name is caitlin dorante and this is our podcast where we examine movies through an intersectional feminist lens using the bechdel test simply as a jumping off point and that what is it even i don't i don't even know i'm i've been i've been turned into a robot

and I don't remember the things I used to know. Oh my God. Oh, okay. The 70s robot is so much scarier than the 2004 robot. I'm just saying the alien eyes. Okay. The Bechdel test is a media metric originally created by queer cartoonist, Alison Bechdel, sometimes called the Bechdel-Wallace test, that for the purposes of our show, requires that two people of a marginalized gender with names talk to each other for, well, I guess we're kind of changing this. They're talking to, they have to talk to each other about not a man.

And we're switching it up, aren't we, Caitlin? I mean, that we have i guess two different reasons because we used to say for two lines of dialogue but then we're making a change so that it's like some sort of plot impactful interaction yeah so as to get rid of the like what would you like for dinner cheese like you know like non-interactions kind of yeah i hadn't that was like uh something that i was going to pay attention to yeah if we but if we want to implement it for the whole show i'm down yeah i feel like it could just be canon because we let there's been so many movies over the years that have gotten away with some really like heinous ones that like and sometimes they're

really funny but i i feel like um yeah it should at least like i don't know i guess it's kind of the like you'll know it when you hear it like it doesn't need to be like influencing the next plot point but it just a meaningful interaction whatever meaningful means. What an interesting movie to apply the test to because arguably the conversations they are having most of the time are about what nefarious plans the men have and or they're already robots so if they've already been impacted by the men can they really have a conversation about anything that isn't related to house cleaning yeah let's take this let's take this new version for a spin yeah yeah sounds good to me and with that let's properly introduce our guest hello she is a sex edutainer she is the owner of spectrum boutique and author of carnal knowledge it's zoe liggen hello thanks for having me been so excited to to talk about this well these films uh i'm a huge horror and thriller fan and while the 2000s version of this film is hardly spooky um you know it plays on some very real world fears you know that the men in our

lives are secretly plotting against us at all times like could be some truth to it hard to say this is also one of the um i would say one of the better larry and so so okay we're talking about originally we were gonna just talk about the 2004 movie but then we all watched both so it's an episode about both yeah but uh i would say that this is one of my top larry king cameos oh not on b larry king in b movie level i think that's kind of the golden standard for yeah larry king cameos but this was a pretty good one at the end i thought agree that it's nowhere near his his peak which is of course in b movie i mean unbelievable we have christopher walken get christopher what i just uh so many good at middler so many good good like wonderful actors in this 2004 version and like but they're just like they're not given very much. No, they are not.

Zoe, what is your history with The Stepford Wives? Just overall, any of the movies interacting with the property in general? Absolutely. I watched the 2004 movie probably right when it came out. I then was such a fan that I owned it on dvd watched it many times i was so excited to re-watch it for this podcast because i knew it was going to be one of those films that was like deeply embedded in my psyche and it and it was exactly as i expected there was like little moments that like i like unlocked parts of my memory like especially the do-si-do scene where she's twirling out of control I was just like oh I'll never forget

this part oh my god I hadn't seen the uh 75 version and decided to watch it the night before I watched the 2004 version. And I am so glad I did because what a different film. I mean, same premise. I mean, the main difference between a comedy and a horror is people living versus people dying. So, you know, very different outcomes, similar premise. And now I want to read the book yeah i haven't read it same yeah same same this is the second adapted i mean like really famous adapted property from this author because this is the same author as rosemary's baby oh that we've covered yeah covered a couple years ago um ira 11 so kind of an iconic uh

writer who very often wrote about the expectations of women um so there you go yeah um caitlin what's your history with this stuff for wives i saw the 2004 movie at a drive-in movie theater in 2004 right when it came out this is a good drive-in movie yeah yeah i had just graduated high school because it came out june 2004 so i think i probably like went with either some friends or my mom who knows but i saw it at the drive-in and i think that was the only time i had ever seen it and I did not I had not seen the 1975 version but I did watch it the other night so I'm fully prepped to talk about there's just oh my gosh there's so much to cover Jamie what about you uh mine I think kind of similar i remember watching the 2004 one at a sleepover

shortly after it came out good sleepover movie yeah yeah and really liking it and i remember being like oh it's like i don't know being like young enough that i was like oh it's inspector gadget and cruella deville and the lady from the lan rouge um and oh i remember my aunt being like faith hill in a movie because she uh people really if this was uh the 2004 one was a fun rewatch for the um high volume of 2004 themed jokes in it like a Viggo Mortensen joke Orlando Bloom Orlando Bloom Meredith Vieira is has a really strong cameo like early 2000s reality shows just a kind of a lot of stuff I did that felt was like normal at the time that I'm like oh this is dated I'm yeah really getting old and then I saw the the um 70s when over the summer I kind of just like watched it on a whim and like really, really, really liked it.

And it was like it was fun to go back and watch again because they feel like it. I don't know. It's the strengths that these adaptations have are very different where it's like it feels like the 2004 one, the pacing of it and the look of it. It's like it keeps it moving. It goes quick. The 70s one can drag a little bit. But then, I mean, I'm very excited to talk about how the 2004 one got studio notes into saying nothing by the end.

Like, oh, God. I honestly forgot. So many twists yeah i i forgot how the 2004 one ended so differently so i was like damn they really thought they were doing something there that's wild um yeah yeah and i should read the book but i simply we don't read books on this podcast we've said it before we'll say it again i almost reread the da vinci code but it wasn't Yeah, and I should read the book, but I simply have it. We don't read books on this podcast. We've said it before. We'll say it again.

I almost reread the Da Vinci Code, but it wasn't available at the library in my defense. You're too busy with your rhinestone swordfish. My rhinestone swordfish is killing me. I'm so late on so many things, I have you know I have like two hours left of my rent and stone swordfish and then I can move on with my life so what I've done for this is I'll recap the 2004 one but I feel like then we can just go into in our discussion we can just like note the differences and similarities and stuff like that that I love that. That's my plan. Okay, so the 2004 adaptation of Stepford Wives opens on Joanna Eberhardt. That's Nicole Kidman.

She's the president of a TV network. She's literally dressed like Elizabeth Holmes. It's like girl boss. Wild. She's in full girl boss mode. She's at an awards show presenting a few popular reality shows that she has worked on. But everything goes haywire when a man who had been screwed over by one of her programs. Yes.

I Can Do Better is the name of the reality show. I can't believe they made Ned Schneebly the assassin. What a move. What a plot line to just throw in there. Really? What happens is that he shows up and tries to shoot Joanna and had also shot his wife and several of her lovers. That she met on the reality and it's like all of all of joanna's reality shows are very early 2000s in that they're like the theme is a very rigid gender binary like and that's the whole show but the movie wants you to think like oh look how empowering

these shows are for women but it's like by early 2000s standards so see i wasn't even sure like there was so many moments in this movie where i was like is this like i know that they is it satire to them or is it am i supposed to like it's so totally confusing because it like looks like a satire everything's so over the top and how it's stylized and presented but then like most of the story doesn't it's so confusing because i was like oh they're like you know like you know parodying this era of reality tv at an 11 but like i don't i didn't understand what my takeaway was supposed to be right uh so basically the the, not wanting to be associated with Joanna any longer, they fire her. And being fired gives her a nervous breakdown. And her husband, Walter Cresby, played by Matthew Broderick, comes to visit her in the hospital, and she tells him that she wants to get away and start over. So Joanna, Walter, and their two kids move to Stepford, Connecticut,

which is this extremely wealthy, extremely white, gated community. They arrive and are greeted by Claire Wellington, played by Glenn Close. She shows them around the neighborhood. And she points out the men's association, which is this like giant country club type place where the men of the community hang out. And then she says that the women slash wives of the community hang out in this day spa so joanna meets all of them and they are all rocking this like 1950s housewife aesthetic they're creepy they're weird except for one woman who she meets uh who appears to be normal bobby markowitz and her husband her husband Dave played by John Lovitz and John John John 2004 makes me think of high school high

and then they also meet a gay couple Jerry and Roger and Joanna and Bobby befriend Roger. But then something happens at this 4th of July party where one of the wives, Sarah Sunderson, that's Faith Hill, right? I think. Yes. Yeah. I could not pick Faith Hill out of a lineup to save my life. That's kind of her thing. She is. My aunt was obsessed with Faith Hill, so I've got the radar. Got it, got it, got it. So Sarah Sunderson, she can't stop spinning around. This is like the whole do-si-do. Do-si-do.

And it's almost as if she's a robot who's malfunctioning. That was another thing that struck me about the 2004 one they give it away so early they really do there's no mystery to it at all like you find out in the first scene you're like oh yeah faith hill's clearly a robot so well i have a theory about that so yeah the the main narrative device in the 2004 one is suspense whereas the 1975 one is mystery and for anyone for any listeners out there who were like what's the difference basically suspense is when the audience knows more than the characters and mystery is when the characters and audience know the same amount of or know or don't know the same amount of

information i love that distinction thank you so much um i teach screenwriting classes anyway i would just start i mean i just think that it fails in this one it's so well my my theory for that is that because stepford wives as a concept was already so familiar to everyone there's no point in trying to like make it a mystery in this in this movie by 2004 even as a tween i knew i knew what i was signing up for going into it right so they were like well let's just do it suspense um because everyone already knows has a general idea of what a stepford wife is so that's i'm guessing why they did that but anyway so mike wellington aka christopher walken shows up and he fixes sarah sunderson um but joanna is like what the fuck um she's also wearing like all black to

this like fourth of july party that's covered in pastels and she looks she's like wearing like a cocktail dress that's right i do love it and then joanna's husband walter gaslights her and makes her think that everything's fine and that she has to change herself and fit into this community so joanna starts wearing pastels and doing household chores and then she bobby and roger go to visit sarah sunderson to see if she's all right and they find what is clearly a remote control that controls sarah i would love to have one of these just like a replica prop at my home that would be such a good one the golden remote it's a good one. The golden remote. It's a good prop.

It is. Yeah. And they're toying around with it. And we see Sarah being controlled by it in the background. But they are not privy to what's happening. So they still don't know. It's still suspense. Meanwhile, Walter does learn what's going on, which is that the Stepford women are robots.

But we find out that that's not even true, that they've just been like nano chipped in their brain. Way more friendly, too, because, you know, there is no death and murder occurring. It's like, oh, we just modified your brain. This is a comedy now. Because in the book and in the 70s version, the wives are being murdered and then replaced with lookalike. And like androids that only have like huge pupils for eyes. They're so scary. Yeah. But anyway, so the Stepford women or Stepford wives are being turned into these like perfect little housewives that look hot and wait on the men hand and foot. So Joanna and Bobby, they know something strange is going on. So they sneak into the men's association to investigate, but they get caught and have to run away. But then it seems that Roger, their friend Roger, has gotten the step for treatment because he's suddenly completely different. He's running for political office now, even though he's an architect. Yeah, he's suddenly a Republican.

To appease his husband yes yeah and what is the husband wanted from him all along and another republican husband oh god so scary and then joanna is like that's it walter we're leaving and he's like okay we'll leave tomorrow. And that night, Joanna finds the remote control with her name on it. And so she starts to do some research and she discovers that all of these Stepford women were formerly powerful career women. They were CEOs, they were judges, they were a bunch of girl bosses. But obviously they are completely different persona wise, looks wise, etc. from who they are now. So Joanna goes to warn Bobby.

But oh, no, they've already gotten to Bobby. Yeah, Bobby's portrayed as like borderline hoarder when we first meet Bobby to really emphasize the dichotomy. I mean, you know, not that bad. But there's this dramatic scene of like, oh, the floor I can't see the floor right yeah it looks like she's like a freshman in college yeah more like a freshman in college yeah um so the next thing that Joanna knows she is surrounded by all the men. And Walter's like, I'm tired of you being better than me at everything. And then Mike Wellington, Christopher Walken,

explains the whole process where they take the women, they insert nanochips into their brains and program them to be these complacent trophy wife women. They then do the process to Joanna and turn her into a Stepford wife or so we think oh let's see this is where it's like what is going on that scene that scene where it's like i will get there i was so i was so frustrated by the end of this movie yes oh yeah but then walter i guess realizes the error of his ways or something they make out they they kiss and which like upsets me because i'm like

oh you just learned your husband wants to make you a robot and you just go kiss him right like this but this is what wakes him up and he's's like, oh, I shouldn't have done. Like, all of a sudden, it's like, wait a minute. I love my wife. Nothing. Yeah. But it's like, when they're sinking into the floor, we have to think that Joanna does think she's about to be turned into a robot. Yes.

Correct. It's not like they telepathically communicated. And he's like, actually, I'm not. It's like, Jamie, a kiss is telepathic communication come on if it's true love between a husband and wife of course oh my god i was like how is she not breaking up with him he was so ready to turn her into a robot yeah like so why isn't she running away no consequences here right oh there's yeah there's so much to talk about there um but anyway so there's this big ball that happens and walter sneaks away and hacks into the mainframe and starts reversing all of these stepford programming in the women's brains and

it turns out that joanna had not actually been transformed into a Stepford wife. She was just faking it to, I guess, create a diversion. And then Mike Wellington is like, Walter, you suck. And he goes to attack him. But then Joanna hits Mike and knocks his... This is iconic. This is amazing. She knocks Mike Wellington, Christopher Walken's head off because it turns

out he's a robot this was more fun this was like more fun yeah this this is a fun moment yeah so it turns out that claire wellington had programmed her robot husband mike to do her bidding. The whole Stepford wife thing was her idea. She like explains her master plan and her motivations and stuff. It mostly makes sense, kind of. How she managed to get away with a double homicide

and then take over a small town is just we don't know. We don't know. I mean, you have to hand it to her. Suspension of disbelief women are powerful um and i approve feminist icon when you think about it um then she accidentally electrocutes herself to death i think by kissing christopher Walken's robot head. Oh, yeah. The disembodied head.

Yes. This is hilarious. Then we cut to six months later where Joanna, Bobby and Roger are guests on Larry King. Otherwise known as Be Larry King. Be Larry King. They've done this whole like expose about the Stepford community. And then we cut to the men of Stepford now doing all of the domestic chores because they're like under house arrest. And then now they they're the ones who go grocery shopping. The end.

Let's take a quick break and then we'll come back to discuss. Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese investigative journalist who on October 16th, 2017, was murdered. There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate. My name is Manuel Delia. I am one of the hosts of Crooks Everywhere, a podcast that unhurts the plot to murder a one-woman WikiLeaks. Daphne exposed the culture of crime and corruption that were turning her beloved country

into a mafia state. And she paid the ultimate price. Listen to Crooks Everywhere on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. To listen to new episodes one week early and 100% ad-free, subscribe to the iHeart True Crime Plus channel, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. This summer, the nation watched as the Republican nominee for president was the target of two assassination attempts, separated by two months.

These events were mirrored nearly 50 years ago, when President Gerald Ford faced two attempts on his life in less than three weeks. President Gerald R. Ford came stunningly close to being the victim of an assassin today. And these are the only two times we know of that a woman has tried to assassinate a U.S. president. One was the protege of infamous cult leader Charles Manson. I always felt like Lynette was kind of his right-hand woman. The other, a middle-aged housewife working undercover for the FBI in a violent revolutionary underground. Identified by police as Sarah Jean Moore. The story of one strange and violent summer. This is Rip Current, available now with new episodes every Thursday.

Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Teddy Mellencamp and Tamara Judge, better known as the Twats. Yep. You heard that right. We're the hosts of Two Teas in a Pod. For all the housewife lovers out there, every week we break down every episode and give you our opinions. We cover it all. OC, Jersey, Beverly Hills, New York City, Dubai. As we always say, you're only as good as last week's episode. Plus, we're talking to all your favorite Bravo celebrities and not just housewives. We're putting your favorite people in the twat seat and getting the juicy stories everybody wants to know.

So join us as we stir the pot and get ourselves into some trouble. Okay, maybe a lot of trouble. It's not really trouble when it's truthful. Let's just say we can be a little twatty. Listen to Two Teas in a Pod on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back! We're back. Should we go over just kind of some of the broader

differences between the two movies before we kind of jump in? Yeah. Caitlin, you like broke down perfectly how the genres are different and how it's you know, unless you had read the book, you know, you like broke down perfectly how the genres are different. Yeah. And how it's, you know, unless you had read the book, you know, you would go into the 1975 movie not knowing that the women is robots now. Right. And so it really like builds that tension throughout of more about the 1975 one is that you get to like know

the people who live there in a meaningful way and so it's it just like i think that that's like the main that and the way that it ends is like oh this is clearly satire this is clearly satire. This is clearly saying something. Because at the end of the 75 movie, there is no secret. Walter was good the whole time. She's turned into a Stepford wife. That's how it ends. She's murdered by her alien double, which is super fucking scary.

And she becomes a Stepford wife. And it is like this, you know, commentary on womanhood at this time. And there's, you know, it certainly has its flaws, but at least it's like there's a clear point. There's I feel like you got a lot more out of the Joanna Bobby friendship in the 75 one as well, because they are like actively investigating what's going on for the whole. Like they like try to start a women's club and they like and and i also thought that joanna's i don't know i'm curious what you what you both think here i thought that joanna's job situation made more sense to me in the 75 one

as well like i i think it's funny that they chose for her to be a high-powered reality show producer in the 2004 one. But it doesn't really come in anywhere. Like where in the 70s one, Joanna is an aspiring photographer. And it felt to me kind of like she was not yet successful. She's kind of negged by her husband for having this dream. She's insecure about it. And it's like a part of her character and then she she like gets closer to her goals and the closer she gets to her goals the more her husband resents

it and like it just has like an active part of the story I mean there weren't as many women CEOs in 1975 also I think you're 100% right that it's a sign of the times and how it was portrayed. Yeah. The other thing is the one thing I do like about the 2004 version, which, as you would expect from a movie made in 2004, doesn't get this quite right or go all the way. Yeah. But the 2004 version focuses more on like the commentary being made because both movies are providing commentary to varying degrees of, you know, efficacy and success. But the 2004 version focuses on male fragility and like comments on male fragility in terms of like the men feel inferior to and emasculated by their powerful wives. So they basically turn the women into these complacent trophy wife, like domestic robots with no personality and no autonomy, so that they can feel superior again. And that's like a very real thing,

because the patriarchy conditions men to think that they should be superior. And if they like if they make less money, or if they don't have as impressive or powerful as a job, then they are inferior to, you know, the women in their lives. So yeah, there's a power imbalance in the right 2004 one that doesn't exist in the 70s version. Yeah, right. And I think that's like an interesting and worthwhile thing to comment on but again like the 2004 one makes a bunch of other really weird choices that make this like not the most effective commentary yeah i felt with like on this rewatch i felt i was kind of bummed i left like not liking

the 2004 one as much as i feel like i poked a, my little nostalgia balloon for it because it's just, I feel like we really don't know that much about any of the characters to the point where it's like, even when they're making those like really, you know, clear points about like, you know, Walter feels emasculated and like all this other stuff. It just, the pacing of how we got there felt really strange. Like the way the characters reacted to things was like, just kind of, I don't know. It felt off where Joanna, you know, Walter is like, I need you to completely change who you are.

And Joanna, who we're led to believe is this like really headstrong person is like oh my god you're right okay and then all of a sudden like Walter flips to superfilling really quickly and it's like I just wish I knew a little more about both of them to understand like how that happened it just felt like I don't know even even though it's it makes sense that you need to update the roles and try you know try to like reflect where gender roles were at in the year the movie's being made like of course it should be different from the 70s one but it just felt like i don't know like things just happened so like clunkily i like when he was were either of you thrown off when matthew

was like you can't wear black anymore. And then she's like, okay, I guess I'm never going to wear black again. I'm like, this isn't who I was told this character was. What is this? He says only high powered neurotic castrating Manhattan career bitches wear black. Is that what you want to be? And she says, ever since i was a little girl yeah which is funny i'm like okay that's like girl boss canon okay that's horrific but also

it's like who fuck like it's i don't know it's it seems like and i guess reading about the production of the 2004 one it seemed it seems like frank oz who also this movie was directed by yoda um the dark crystal um it seems like he really wanted to go full satire in lines like that you're like okay that's like where the full satire is but then it it uh scholarly journal wikipedia indicates that paramount was like really not okay with the level of satire he wanted to do and the level of over the topiness and so they made him change the entire ending which kind of undercuts everything and I would I mean it I bet that there's like a funny satirical movie that was like shot but it just like was not released edited yeah I ended

up on the chopping floor yeah whatever just a bummer because it's like there's a ton of like patent i would i would like to understand their relationship a little better because it it ended up kind of like i don't know i liked that scene where walter was like i feel emasculated and threatened by you and I liked that Joanna in that scene didn't apologize and she was like yeah like you're really lucky to be married to me you're lucky and I am better at sex and I was not going to deny that yeah that's a line I remember from the original watching as well like that's so funny I I just wish I understood more about their relation or their relationship made more sense to me I don't know because like yeah how could

the husband turn on you know it's like if we're going to believe okay like he could turn on her in this instant like I want to know more context for what that relationship was like if they have kids together clearly they've been together a few years at least and they also disappear their children in this one oh my gosh I was like why did you even bother having them but also like Walter it doesn't make sense because he leaves his also very high-powered job as a tv network vice president. Right. He's just like one step below her. Also, if he leaves that job, how do they afford living in this mansion? But anyway, like, why would he?

They got good severance after Ned Schneebly came after them. But if his whole thing was like, I want to be more powerful than my wife, like, wouldn't he keep his powerful? Anyway, more importantly, I think the problem here is that in the 2004 version which i didn't see in the 1975 version was that joanna's character is so wildly inconsistent yeah in the 2004 version because like first she gets fired and then she's like maybe the man who tried to shoot me was right. Maybe I've become the wrong kind of woman. And it's just like, OK, well, like there's nothing wrong with self-reflection.

But like for you to be like the man who shot me, he was right, is confusing. She's unbothered right after it happened as well. Yeah. Completely unbothered. Yeah. Like two minutes after she's like, oh, my God, I'm totally fine. I'm fine. i'm like what is going on like you need to sit down honey it's like capitalism has enshrouded me in a bulletproof vest

of money like it's so i i i thought that maybe what my guess was of what they were going for was that like she's a very high-powered executive but she also has this deep insecurity, which is like that's worth exploring. But it just it doesn't come through and it does come out as like inconsistent. Right. Because the next thing is they arrive in Stepford. She like right away notices that things are weird, especially with the women. But Walter's like, no, things are actually really normal. And like, part of this is like, I don't want to fault her because she's very clearly being gaslit by her husband. But she just keeps kind of flip flopping where like, yeah, then she's like,

okay, you're right. I'm a mess. I'm going to start, you know, wearing pink and doing and like baking cupcakes. But then a few scenes later she's like no wait things are really weird and then a few scenes later she's like no i'm gonna join the book club and then a few scenes later she's like no i should investigate like it's just like yeah she's just going on this like loop of doing 180s all the time yeah but in the 1975 version the joanna character is like consistently like something is really fucked up about this community. She doesn't like ever waver from trying to figure out what's going on or like thinking that something is amiss. So I think it's just like kind of a poor writing choice to make Joanna so inconsistent. I agree. Even though it's like, I mean, in the 70s

when we're clearly in, you know, second wave feminism, and it there, there are so many elements of it that are kind of dated, but it I just liked her journey a little more because it was even though there are moments in the 2000 or in the 1970s one where she does kind of try to appease her husband she's like i'm sorry like i i didn't but it makes sense in context at least like it's it doesn't seem like she's just like doing a 180 for no reason it's like oh she feels guilty because her husband is telling her she should feel guilty and like just kind of this like the subtle negging that takes place in their relationship over time, I thought was like pretty effective and like more realistic than, than,

you know, how the 2004 characters interact with each other. The 75 one, it's also set up in a, such a way where the Walter was plotting all along to have her turned into a robot. There's this revelation in the 75 one that he'd already put a down payment on the house before she had even signed off on the house.

And she brings that up as, you know, their dirty laundry that they've clearly, you know, been having arguments about. But it's very clear that he was pulling strings to influence her to move out to Stepford. Whereas in the 2004 one, it seems like, you know, there was no ulterior motive all along. And they just stumble into this world of robots instead of like, I'm going to blackmail my wife and convince her to move out to the country.

Yeah. And also, we don't really have any context as to why they leave New York in the 75 one. We see this scene in the beginning of the 75 one where they're loading into the car. Some random person is carrying a mannequin around in New York City. And one of the kids goes like, I just saw a guy carrying a naked lady daddy or something like that and uh one of them goes yep that's why we're moving to Stepford so we don't have to see that anymore like it's like the depravity of New York is what has scared them away into the safe suburbs almost yeah I kind

of was wondering it was like I wonder I sort of assumed that that was like a commentary of the time of like the suburban culture of the 70ies and like the ways that people would like the reasons people would have for justifying a move like that. And even it's like, it's interesting to watch Joanna kind of slowly be like, I didn't want, or she's kind of right away. Like,

I don't really want to be here. And like, I can't pursue my dreams the way I want to here. And he's kind of like away like I don't really want to be here and like I can't pursue my dreams the way I want to here and he's kind of like no no no you did this was like basically your idea and this is a good idea and you can take pictures wherever so like shut up and go to bed yeah we can make a dark room for you like right right and like it's i don't know i i thought that i mean the the 1975 one is like a william goldman script so it's like also i think just in the hands of a really iconic and capable writer but like the the deterioration of their relationship is more trackable i don't

like i don't understand why she's married to him but I never understand why why straight couples are married so it's like that's kind of a wash but in the in the 2004 one I totally agree though it's like the fact that Walter is not clued in from the beginning kind of like makes his character really confusing like I don't know it just right they go from playing battle bots in the men's club they literally have these battle bot robots and then directly following that again in the 2004 one another one of the guys like hey let me show you a party trick hey wife come on over here and then we have the infamous scene that is what stands out in my mind the most from my original viewing is inserting a credit card into the wife's mouth or a debit card, you know, and withdrawing cash.

All of a sudden, all the men look to Walter to like see how he's going to react because this is the big reveal. Like, look, our wives are robots, which also makes no sense with the fact that they're not really robots. They just have chips in their brain correct so why is she an atm but so then they're after a long pregnant pause he goes she she gives singles and then everyone like you know bursts into laughter because oh thank god he's uh one of the boys and he gets it you know and then with him he he they give him this redemption arc because even though he's been gaslighting and just awful to joanna throughout the whole movie in both movies but i'm talking specifically about the 2004 version yeah he again

we touch on this but so weird that joanna is just like willingly going to go down into like whatever the the lab where she is going to be turned into a stepford wife she's just like well i kissed my husband and i guess now i'd idk she just yeah so for her to like again so much that's another part of like the inconsistency of her character where like she's going like oh something's weird actually no i should assimilate and then to the point where she's like all right i'm gonna go down here and get turned into a stepford wife whatever i guess i accept my fate and then at the end where she goes i forget what the exchange is but it's so corny and like

nicole kibben's like that's a man talking about how her husband did not turn her into a robot like oh my god yeah because he's a real man yeah what is this yardstick we're using what a disaster yeah this is okay the bar is set so low for our husbands now. It's subterranean. It's in the robot basement is where the bar is. That made me furious because so I like, I get why, well, I don't like it, but I understand why this choice was made from like a screenwriting point of view where like, they need the reveal that Joanna isn't actually a Stepford wife. She was just faking it but what that does is it gives

Walter the opportunity to like basically redeem himself and then like it just gives him more agency because he's the one going around and like liberating all of the women while Joanna's just kind of like sidelined and then like you said like it gives he's like i i didn't marry someone something from radio shack and then christopher walken goes like oh that's a shame and then nicole kidman's like no that's a man you're like why'd you make her say that but yeah the movie wants you to be like wow feminist icon walter what a hero and we're like no like why is he getting this redemption arc he's a piece of shit it's so like it's I

don't even super mind because it's like we're going into this the 2000s one with with like a cultural understanding of what a Stamford wife is we need to like find a new way to like the reveal can't be that they're robots because we know that if we go to see the movie

but this choice specifically is like oh my god like the the early 2000s was such a I feel like as a lot of media is coming out right now the late 90s and early 2000s was such a horrible time for for really like any marginalized group But it's like stuff like this. I'm like, wow, we were like 30 years prior, there was so much more productive discussion in this same story about gender role expectations. Equal Rights Amendment was happening right then. The book was written in 72.

And I don't know when the 75 one was filmed. But, you know, there was this discussion and like revival of the Equal Rights Amendment for the first time since the 20s. And, you know, here we are. And there really hasn't been any revisitation of the Equal Rights Amendment up until the Harvey Weinstein Me Too era. So it's almost like in the early 2000s, there was this idea that we were so much further ahead than we really were, I think. It's interesting because it's like I so we've covered these two Ira Levin adaptations and it's his I really like I don't know anything about him personally i hope he's not horrible he's dead but in terms of like these two stories i do think his approach is pretty consistent in that he writes these stories that are that make pretty sharp commentary about

the expectations of women in this time and also in his stories the women normally lose they like fight valiantly against the oppressive patriarchal force and in both stories they fail yeah and it's and we like had this discussion a couple years ago on the rosemary's baby episode where it's like we were like well what does that mean and it's like i think it just kind of unfortunately was like a reflection of yeah a lot of efforts for equality and like it's not that you know rosemary or joanna were not capable and it wasn't that they were like you know not intelligent or able to figure out what was going on it was that great point in both of those stories even when they figure out what's going on they just have that knowledge and then they're crushed by the opposing force anyways which is like really bleak but it feels

like a more like it's just saying something whereas like this update of the story is like saying what i don't know here's what it's saying it's saying that because what happens is claire wellington becomes the villainous mastermind of this project and her and her motivation she explains her motivation and it's that um my my husband cheated on me with a younger woman. So I had to kill them. And then I had to punish every woman I've ever met ever since then. I liked this better when it was Velma Kelly in Chicago. I mean, and I see what they're trying to do. If I want to give them credit and be like, oh, what's this commentary saying? It's like, yes, women can be a huge opposing force, you know, against the liberation of feminism, et cetera.

So totally. But just like such poor execution, if that was indeed the intended takeaway. Right. intended takeaway right yeah or like even like story-wise like i honestly it's like corny and it's not really accomplishing what it's trying to but like the glenn close reveal at the end i'm like fine sure like it kind of reminded me of like the killing was what's the like the cabin in the woods reveal at the end where you're like it was this woman the whole time isn't it sigourney weaver at the end of cabin in the woods where she's like i'm the bad i'm the spy and you're like all right i guess um like it's not it's glenn close and she's clutching you know

christopher walken's like decapitated head like android head exposed wires sparking which makes no sense again if it's brain chips like yes right how does any of this happen again gotta suspend your disbelief here yeah it's so i just wish like even story-wise there unless i truly was like watching this at zero percent uh like i don't i didn't feel like there were really many clues given that that it just come for me it came like out of nowhere i was like yeah like there's no foreshadowing for that twist which you would think the movie would benefit from i don't know but yeah like zoe you were saying there are women who are very much a part of like upholding rigid gender roles and like patriarchal standards like that is unfortunately something that still happens but and i don't know if this i don't think this movie

is even trying to comment on that or if it is it doesn't know how no because like joanna's doing the same thing with her fucking girl boss act it's true it's like inadvertent messaging perhaps well it's that thing that we always talk about where like there have been a bunch of movies written by men that show women being just like really petty and jealous and in competition and like catty toward each other but they don't take a like even step one to examine why that might be and they competition and like catty toward each other but they don't take a like even step one to examine why that might be and they're just like well women are petty so obviously they hate each other it's the same kind of thing where like and i mean i don't even know enough about this about like why certain people you know just have ideologies or like vote in certain ways that are in direct opposition of their own self-interest

like that's a very complicated issue i have theories about why but like a lot of factors involved yeah yeah there's a lot of things um but this movie only goes so far as to say well glenn cloke claire wellington loves romance and beauty and chiffon and her husband cheated on her so yeah so now she just wants to turn every woman into a beautiful robot lady who will never misbehave it doesn't yeah like it's a very like i was like we should have put this justification through a few more drafts like because it's i i don't if we have to get to glenn close is the big bad and like and we have this like woman who's working against the interests of other women fine but it's like well just come up with a different story that was such a a weak justification but i guess she dies two

seconds later i don't i don't know yeah i don't know it's so it don't know. It's so, it's like so, this movie is so like campy and fun. And then it can't be, but then plot wise, it's so boring and confusing. It's, it doesn't make sense. It's a very, yeah.

Bizarre movie. I did appreciate that Glenn closest character says that she created robot Mike because she says that she, I, here's what it is. She kills real life like her husband and like her husband's mistress or whatever and then she turned she does create a robot because she was like an engineer and brain surgeon or something like that in the former world high power ceos and surgeons another another girl boss, I guess. But, um,

so she, another also like vilifying a woman in STEM. Um, yeah, I was going to say, yeah. Um, but so she creates a robot version of her husband. So I think he's the only one who is like a real robot except for the ATM lady.

I don't know if it's confusing. Or boob inflation lady. Oh yeah. Because is it Faith? Yeah, I think it's Faith. When they find her remote, they play around with the buttons. And in the background, they're not able to see this. But Faith's boobs are inflating and deflating.

And she's being controlled by it. I think my impression was that they were all robots. Not all the men because they're like oh the men are next but yeah he's like the one male robot all the women are becoming robots and then she's gonna put to the men i mean it doesn't make sense and like it just this i guess like i kind of struggle to understand where the 2000s movie lands on women in position of powers in the end. Like it is just, again, a thing that's really inconsistent because it's like, oh, well, everyone in the movie seems to agree that neutralizing a powerful woman's brain is bad. But it's also implied that Joanna being really into her job was bad.

And it's implied that or it's like, I mean, the Glenn Close's character clearly feels and there's no time to challenge it because then the movie is over. That her being too invested in her career led her to murder somebody, which is something that happens to Glenn Close in movies all the time. Yes, I feel for her so much she's like just thrust into the fatal attraction shit all the time for sure yeah i it is super confusing about like are these women just like humans who have been nano chipped because when like matthew broderick's character liberates them at the end they seem to like go back to their human cell yeah like the technology disengages all of a sudden which is why you know it can't be both so i don't know right so it's

like which what is it movie full robot or part robot i don't know but i did appreciate when claire wellington is like explaining her whole master plan she's like well then i created my robot husband mike because i needed a man that other men would listen to and it's like fair yeah true that reminds me of um oh that story with penelope gazon from like five or so years ago when she was starting her clothing company or when she was starting when she was working on a project called witch see which is like a um shopping site like as an experiment she and her business partner um and i might be butchering this anecdote but she and her business partner like did an experiment where they answered some vendors as themselves and others with this fake male ceo they made up

and the responsiveness that they got to the, I think like they were, they would just sign their emails, Ken, and the way people would talk to them was like a hundred percent different. They got way better results. And they're like, thank God for Ken. Because I mean, as a CEO myself, I can't tell you how many emails I get that begin dear sir um all the time you know and it'll be like a mass email but it's always dear sir you know oh my gosh yep or people you know people make all kinds of assumptions about me as a ceo like you know people think oh you know I must have a money man or oh like who's the guy who made this happen you know it's it's wild all the assumptions people make about yeah it's so frustrating there was that other story

there was this story that came out where like a man and a woman had the same job at the same company but people were always getting frustrated with the woman because she didn't seem to be as efficient as her like male counterpart and then they like looked into why this was and it was because her correspondence with people because people like were like oh i'm dealing with a woman so i have to like i don't trust her that she's like saying the right thing or like so there was just so much more like back and forth whereas that's when the man was corresponding with with people people were just inclined to be like, all right, if that's what you say, then OK. And so he was able to be more efficient in his job.

That's not even. Yeah, that's not. God, I hate that there are so many examples of this. Yeah. A provable track record. Well, that was so OK. Good points for points for what's her name? Beef Wellington for that. Right. For that. But but that's almost just like a throwaway line. Anyway, let's take a quick break and then we'll come back for more discussion. Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese investigative journalist who on October 16, 2017, was murdered. There are crooks everywhere you look now.

The situation is desperate. My name is Manuel Delia. I am one of the hosts of Crooks Everywhere, a podcast that unhurts the plot to murder a one-woman Wikileaks. Daphne exposed the culture of crime

and corruption that were turning her beloved country into a mafia state. And she paid the ultimate price. Listen to Crooks Everywhere on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. To listen to new episodes one week early and 100% ad-free, subscribe to the iHeart True Crime Plus channel, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. podcasts. This summer, the nation watched as the Republican nominee for president was the target of two assassination attempts separated by two months. These events were mirrored nearly 50 years ago when President Gerald Ford faced two attempts on his life in less than three weeks. President Gerald R. Ford came stunningly close to being the victim of an assassin today. And these are the only two times we know of that a woman has tried to assassinate a U.S. president. One was the protege of infamous cult leader Charles Manson. I always

felt like Lynette was kind of his right-hand woman. The other, a middle-aged housewife working undercover for the FBI in a violent revolutionary underground. Identified by police as Sarah Jean Moore. The story of one strange and violent summer. This is Rip Current, available now with new episodes every Thursday. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Teddy Mellencamp. And Tamara Judge, better known as the Twats.

Yep, you heard that right. We're the hosts of Two Teeth in a Pod. For all the housewife lovers out there, every week we break down every episode and give you our opinions. We cover it all. OC, Jersey, Beverly Hills, New York City, Dubai. As we always say, you're only as good as last week's episode.

Plus, we're talking to all your favorite Bravo celebrities and not just housewives. We're putting your favorite people in the twat seat and getting the juicy stories everybody wants to know. So join us as we stir the pot and get ourselves into some trouble. Okay, maybe a lot of trouble. It's not really trouble when it's truthful.

Let's just say we can be a little twatty. Listen to Two Teas in a Pod on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back i really want to talk about the inclusion of a gay couple in the 2004 one which there is not in the 70s it's tina louise in the 70s yeah i again while i have not read the book i was researching the differences between the book and the movie. And the book actually has a plot point that was left out of the 70s rendition. So in the book, there is the first and only black residents of Stepford, Royal and Ruthann.

And they are not included in the 2004 one either. That plot line has changed into Roger and Jerry. And while I think it was likely chosen to change that because it was 2004 like the cultural moment of talking about lgbtq plus rights etc but that's also like clearly we know that the issue of racism, I personally felt would have, I wanted, I mean, I didn't want to see that tackled, certainly by either of these adaptations. But I did find it interesting that there is a very clear point made about the whiteness of Stepford in the book that seems to be completely left out of both film adaptations. That's, I wasn't aware of that i it's the in terms of the i think that

the fact that there is a black family moving to stepford is in one like it's mentioned in the 70s mentioned yeah but you then that's okay that makes more sense to me because it's like then you never meet those characters right uh that Uh, that's, that's sucks. I mean, it's not, I mean, obviously Ira Levin is probably not the most qualified person to be, um,

leading that discussion, but the fact that there were black characters and obviously like the extreme whiteness of the Connecticut suburbs, it's like there is more than enough opportunity to have a productive discussion there. If either of these movies were actually hiring black creators that could speak to it, um,

which neither did. Um, Oh, that's, that's so frustrating. Yeah. I mean, and again, it's like, yeah, they tried to change it into shining a light on homophobia instead of shining a light upon racism. But it really didn't even have that much to say about homophobia, to be quite honest.

It was just like, oh, let's just randomly include a gay couple. Okay. And in fact, it just does a homophobic thing where the movie suggests that, like kind of reinforces this problematic notion that in a gay couple, there's still like one person's the man and the other person is the wife. And because like Roger is kind of like foisted into this like Stepford wife role because he's he gets the treatment. He gets changed. His husband, his husband. What's I forget his name. Jerry.

Jerry like wants him to like tone down his just like. Be more conservative. Yeah. And like he wants him to kind of assimilate into this straight heteronormative Stepford lifestyle. This made my head hurt because it was like the way that Roger was treated. First of all, he's played by Roger Bart, who is a straight actor who has played a number of iconic, very stereotypical gay roles. He also played, I don't remember the name of the character, but the guy from The Producers.

Oh, yeah. The gay character in The Producers, that's also Roger Bart. So I don't know. I'm sure that there's a wide variety of opinions, but it seems that Roger Bart is very commonly cast to play a stereotypical gay character. He is not a gay actor uh right so there's there's some shit going on there uh and and the fact that there's just like

roger as he's written in the movie is like a very stereotyped character um definitely and then it's sometimes the person making the point of like like at when he's post step stepforded and now he's a gay republican uh then the person who makes the point of like wow this character was really stereotyped are the people you're supposed to be angry at like there's that moment where walter is kind of gaslighting joanna because joanna's like roger's different like they got to roger and he's like well what do you mean you know it's a don't stereotype him blah blah blah and it's like yeah huh it was so weird like the flaming hoops yeah it was mind-boggling An interesting thing that I read reading about the differences between book and movie, and this is from a blog called Beyond the Front Cover.

It seems like one commentary that is made in the book, and again, I haven't read it, so this is just this blog's take on it, is that Ruthann, the black woman who has moved to Stepford, thinks that the wives are being cold to her, not because they have turned into robots, but because she is black. So she believes that the reason they are so antisocial is because she's black, not because they are robots, which I don't know how I would be very curious to see how that's written into the book. Again, summary from a blog I literally just googled but you know that seems like it's more than just a cursory like oh let's just randomly include a a non-white

couple let's include a a non-straight couple etc it seems like maybe there was a little bit of thought put into it but again have to read the book to get to do my homework it seems like I mean it's like yeah again we we're not a book reading podcast here but it does it does seem like our 11 has a good track record as a writer of including social issues thoughtfully and it's oh it's so telling that yeah that that was just in both 1975 and 2004. Like, eh. Not included. We're just going to skip that. I don't know.

It's really hard to watch movies with, and let's be real, so many, like, look at the Golden Globes or the Oscars. It's all white nominees. But it's like watching these films that, you know, whiteness is such a large part of the oppressive suburb conformity and that is just a whole chunk of it completely left out right which is frustrating because the setup of this story is uniquely suited to comment on like oppressive whiteness you're in a fucking kinetic a rich connecticut suburb like where is a better place to kind of make those points which is where i feel like it you know even when both of these movies are

making the occasional like feminist point it's still very centered in upwardly mobile white women the way that you know most movies um tend to be when they get this far like it's just really it's uh i kept writing down like this is the perfect setting to address like this topic and they just don't even try like yeah jordan peele said that he was largely inspired by this property by the like stepford wives kind of premise in get out and i feel like you know that's obviously a movie that like does i see that yeah because there are some pretty um interesting similarities between you know stepford wives and get out i mean the creepiness of conformity and And I love watching Stepford Wives as someone who like I definitely as someone who sells sex toys for a living. And, you know, I have an unusual career. But when I was a teenager, all I wanted to do was fit in and be normal.

I just wanted to wear Uggs and a North Face and be normal. And, you know, and then I became a little alternative later on but uh I I think that's such the beauty of it is I think so many of us are either aware of or are trying to fit in or we are aware of how painfully we don't fit in and there's so much to explore with this concept it's a wonderful premise I would love to see further adaptations and I know that there were some like 80s and 90s spin-off like the Stepford children the Stepford husbands that were like tv series I think um so TBD on like what is or is not explored there i'm not gonna hold my hopes high but it's i think it has stood the test of time or you know at least 40 50 years because there's so many universal themes of uh otherness of perfection being something impossible to attain as a human, yet we try to do that anyway. And also just having that be something that's synonymous with a very narrow way of living your life.

Yeah. And conformity, even in the way you make your home, you know, there's a lot there. there well while the movie these movies don't tackle well the one thing that they do is very lightly mention um how bobby markowitz is jewish in a community that is largely probably like protestant christian um and the 2004 movie more than so in the 1975 version, Bobby introduces herself to Joanna as Barbie Marco and then says something like it's like the upwardly mobile version of Markowitz. So she's basically like Christianizing her name. Interesting. I missed that. And then with Bette Midler in the 2004 version, there's that whole scene where they're like talking about like the Christmas collectibles book at their book club. And she's making a bunch of jokes about how she's like unapologetically Jewish. And then all of the other women are like, well, you can make a menorah out of pine cones.

And like they're just like not getting it um but that's really all the movies do as far as like commenting on any kind of diversity or lack thereof it's like one mention one mention one joke and then it never kind of comes back right i also thought it was kind of i mean it was at least even if you know we've talked a lot about like the level of effectiveness. But I think that it's possible one of the reasons that this story endures as well as it kind of like is, I don't know. I feel like gender, like expectations of gender, even though they change over time and they've become fortunately far less binary over time. And there's a larger discussion being had but there is kind of like this I don't know like historical tendency of like that you see like different versions of the same

theme popping up in the 70s and the 2000s at least I mean in the US and then I think generally I'm not a historian I don't know if I'm a comedian so throw an egg at my head if I'm wrong but like a tendency of when society is like kind of at a quote-unquote low there's a recession there's a war going on women and marginalized people in general get more power because it's like oh we all need to band together and then when there's times of kind of excess and economic growth um the binary kind of creeps back in a in a pretty insidious way and it's like you see that in like world war two years and then in the 50s when there's this big economic boom all of a sudden women are back in the house and you see it again in the 80s and then you know in the 90s and 2000s the economy is in a slightly better place and you see these like stories about you know just domesticity and like

expectations for women kind of come back and as much as like I think we've like moved certainly in the right direction over the years it's like almost depressing to be like oh i understand why these two movies like i understand why this movie would make a comeback in the early to mid 2000s it seems like a time where those like pressures were kind of making a return i mean even just like with black history month we're now in women's history month and is like as long as you need a you know history month for it's it's you know as long as that is something it means that yep there's still a power imbalance and shit is still fucked up if you know we're gonna just emphasize this one marginalized group during a certain period of time you know there's a lot and with the 2000s it's like the movie does reflect that women have more

power than they did in the mid-70s but the the you know reaction from the patriarchy is worse and they're like right you know taking going to even further extremes and they're like, you know, taking going to even further extremes. And they're like, you know, threatened to a greater extent than like, my wife wants to take a picture on her Nikon. Should I kill her? Like, yeah, it makes it a lot more. It's a difficult pill to swallow that there was like really. I mean, again, not that being a CEO means you deserve to be turned into a robot. But at least at least we're like, oh, he was feeling emasculated and had to set the record straight versus like, ah, my wife who already was pretty much a housewife, I'm going to make into even more of a housewife. Right.

Well, I imagine that part of it was that Joanna in the 75 version mentions that she was dabbling in women's lib when she was living in New York. And it seems like a lot of the women in the community were into women's lib before they were murdered and turned into robots. Yeah. Because there are mentions of different women either leading or participating in like a woman's group in stepford right and their husbands were clearly threatened by that hence turning them into robots because a lot of men do not like women having freedom and autonomy yep um i made a list classic me i made a list. Classic me. I made a little chart. Some of these we've already touched on, but I wanted to just kind of go through the differences between the 2004 and 1975 versions of the movies. keeps trying to assimilate and adopt the Stepford Wives lifestyle, even before there's any indication that, oh, did she or didn't she get actually converted? But she keeps being like, no, I am going to wear pink and I am going to bake a million cupcakes and I'm going to do like she's

like trying to assimilate power of positive thinking. Right. for like for question mark reasons we're never quite sure why part of this is also that she expresses no interest in trying to return to her career or do professional work of any kind there's no like well maybe the tv thing wasn't actually for me but i'd like to pick up this other thing there's just like absolutely no whereas in the 1975 version which i feel like is more realistic or at least more consistent with the character that joanna has been established to be that she does continue to pursue her like career ambitions and her passion for photography she and bobby try to start like a women's group to help liberate the women of the community that and and i really one of the scenes that stuck out to me about the 1975 one i really

do i love frank oz i love the production design on the 2004 one but it's the 70s one is like i don't know i just like it so much better that the scene in, I also like that Joanna almost cheats on her husband in the, in the first one too, even though it kind of goes nowhere and they make it seem like it's Raymond Chandler, but that also it was confusing, but yeah, the scene in,

in the first one where she is talking with the gallery owner, she's trying to like, she's really nervous. She's feeling really insecure about her work. He's kind to like she's really nervous she's feeling really insecure about her work he's kind of like even though he's like i like your work he's kind of dismissing her as like being hysterical to an extent but she like says really clearly this thing that it was like oh my god like it just she says like i just don't want to be forgotten like i i want my like she just wants her life to have meant something beyond being someone's mom and someone's wife which is like

you don't get that moment for like that updated moment for nicole kidman joanna and i feel like you could really use it and it could have like made an interesting statement on the time period it was coming out definitely and then yeah just like the a large chunk of the movie is joanna and bobby like going around to the different women in the community being like hey we're forming this women's liberation group basically like a place where we can bond with each other and speak freely about you know our issues and concerns but it it ends up fizzling out because the women who join only want to talk about cleaning and baking um because unbeknownst to them these women are actually robots but like they put so much more effort basically this whole

list is like reasons why the 1975 version of this movie is better but like they actually like put in effort and like joanna is a more consistent character throughout another thing we touched on but like walter gets a redemption arc yeah for no reason and like is the one to like liberate the wives and save the day whereas in the 1975 one like walter becomes abusive and it's clear that he's bad and he is and then that one she gets to hit him in the head with a fire poker and that's fun yes and then that kind of connects to like the main villain in the 2004 one is this woman who wants to punish all women because her husband cheated on her with a younger woman whereas the main villain in the 1975 one is the men's association aka the patriarchy which makes more sense to me yeah let's see i think we've yeah we've gone over everything else pretty in depth. I have some notes from the 75 one.

I'm looking at my notes on each movie, and the notes I took on the 1975 one just make more sense. It feels like I'm looking at a more complete piece of work here because it was more subtle imagery. The whole thing is a little bit more subtle. But like one thing that really stood out to me is right when they move into the new house, Walter in the 75 one, he is just like, oh, what if we have you ever had sex in front of a fireplace? Oh, like what if like let's christen every room in the house.

And like there's this really big theme of like I view you as a sexual object and that is in line with me basically wanting to turn you into a human sex doll um that is living and breathing and you know again as a sex toy salesperson I think the idea of sex dolls uh is definitely something that just kept popping up in my brain. How a Stepford wife is like the, you know, I'm not saying that people who buy end-use sex dolls are looking for anything remotely like a Stepford experience, but I think it raises questions in the average person that are much similar. It's like, oh, well, you know, why would you want a full-size doll like what does it say about how you feel about women if you want this doll um another thing I noticed in the 75 one is that the things that qualify as accidents seem very mundane like there's a scene where

uh there's like that fender bender in the parking lot in the 75 one and they're like oh call the ambulance and you just get the sense that like nothing bad ever happens here like ever like the most delicate issue is a 911 call which I think you know that's the suburbs and then um finally a line I wrote down from the 75 one and I believe this is Joanna talking to Bobby earlier on when they're kind of like trying to figure out what's going on Joanna says it's perfect how could you not like it but I don't like it and I love that line because she's like not able to put her finger on what's creepy about it and recognizing like yes this is idyllic and like I know I'm supposed to want this. Why don't I want this? Right.

I just thought it was a very telling line that was really well written. And I don't know if that was directly out of the book or whoever adapted the script wrote that. But I thought that was a beautiful line that is kind of the pinnacle of the creepiness of suburbia. I totally agree. Yeah. creepiness of suburbia i totally agree yeah there's just uh there there's just so many elements in in this in the 75 one that just felt more thoughtful and like subtle in a different and it's like well you know the frank oz movie is not trying to be subtle that's not its mission but i just thought it worked well and i wish something that I think could have carried over into the 2004 adaptation but didn't was the fact that like Joanna and Bobby are like really good friends in the 70s when you like understand like you get to see them kind of form this bond.

They're very much on the same page. They're very complimentary to each other. They're like rooting for each other they're kind of each other's main source of like you know just feeling like commiseration reality yeah yeah and it's and so i feel like in the 70s version when bobby turns and she's stepforded you really feel it and you're like like you you can feel how devastating this would be for joanna but when it's funny when bet middler turns but you just don't have that same level of relationship they're kind of never on the same page because nicole kidman can't keep her she's too inconsistent seconds so they don't really get that bond because they're they're never really on the same page um yeah i don't know was there any other um

stuff we wanted to cover does it pass the bechdel test both movies do they do they do and i think i think even with our with our new caveat of meaningful conversations that do not um mention men i think it happens much more in the 70s one but it does happen in both right definitely yes i i will say that and i said this earlier on when we were talking about it it's like funny to put the bechdel test to a movie where there is like this you know even if you are talking to a robot about cooking and cleaning, it's like, well, the brain is their brain is being controlled by a man. So are you really talking to, you know, so it's like, that's a fun little caveat to throw in there. Sure, sure. And then there's, I mean, there's plenty of conversations between

two women who have not been yet turned into robots. Oh, yes, definitely. two women who have not been yet turned into oh yes robots yeah about it's mostly about do you think we'll be robots soon i don't know but but in the 70s when they talk about like joanna's career ambitions they talk about like hey i was a women's libber like there's like a lot of shit going on like you get good they talk about their kids they talk about like talk about a lot of good stuff oh i guess that was my like i guess the way that the kids are treated and that i think they just should have written the kids out of the yeah there shouldn't be i mean even in the 70s when the kids kind of also disappear a little

bit true i feel like it was like kind of telling i think that there is this like i can't describe but like there is this impulse caitlin i feel like maybe we've talked about this before where if you're like if your female lead is a mother she has to be like a really good mother and it has to be pointed out by the story like i think that that's something that kind of happens a lot i don't know what it is it's not necessarily bad but it's just i okay like yeah if you're if you're listening to this and you're like that makes sense to me i feel like i've read about this somewhere before where no that makes sense yeah it's like pointing out that like not only is she our hero she's an amazing flawless mother like Because that's how the patriarchy sees women.

You're a mother or you're a daughter or you're a sister or you're a lover. But never all at once. Madonna whore complex, for sure. Yeah. And then I guess it's coves without saying, unfortunately, that

both of these movies were written and directed by men. Yes. Why is this? I honestly think this is a story that could be adapted well again. Definitely. By people who would have any insight into what this could feel like. Truly. Yeah. what this could feel like. Truly, yeah. I guess that brings us to our nipple scale,

which is our scale of 0 to 5 nipples based on how the movie fares looking at it through an intersectional feminist lens. I think I have to give two different scores for the two different movies here. While I appreciate that both movies attempt to comment on the kind of rigidity of women's expected roles in society under like what the patriarchy expects of women and how that's like a very interesting thing that is

extremely ripe for discussion for our show especially uh the 75 version while it's not perfect and there's some you know things that it leaves out and it is both movies are very much like these white families, ignoring any kind of what a black family's experience would be or any family of colors experience would be living in a predominantly white suburb. So, yeah, there's there's there's things that it could have handled better. But for the 75 one, I want to give it like a, maybe even like a three. Yeah, it's hard. I was trying to think what I'd give it. I don't know. I think like a three or three and a half, especially for like a movie, like kind of

adjusted for like time inflation, since it's like a 1975 movie i think it has a lot of really interesting points to make and just it handles like the satire and the allegory and the tone of it all way more effectively whereas the 2004 version i think i would only give like a 1.5 or maybe a two like i think there are again the examination of like male fragility and like the fragile male egos of like all the husbands who couldn't live up to their wives and who felt threatened and emasculated by them that's a real thing that happens and and that's worth you know examining but again the movie is just like well but you know the patriarchy isn't actually to blame you know who's to blame glenn close yeah i do i am never like a big fan of that decision it works for me in the 2004 one because of like well this you know all the other points failed so i guess this one

should at least fail in a way that is funny to me um yeah i'm gonna go three and a half on the 70s one and one and a half on the 2004 one for for mainly the reasons described i'm honestly i'm like maybe i i i'm just a big fan of the 70s one I almost want to rate it a little higher but I think for its time especially it's kind of like that rare one where it's like a movie written and directed by a man adapted by a book written by a man

about women that somehow didn't end up being deeply condescending and horrible to women our bar again is set so low i mean it's like i give i give uh the new one a half nipple and i give uh the 70s one like one and a half nipples because while it's addressing like like the women's rights aspect it's just like there's so many I think if I read about what was left out that really just rocks my my judgment of that as well um the fact that it was written into the book

and then and you know seemingly intentionally left out or maybe edited out who knows but uh yeah I'm I'm a generous reviewer so I've've been trying to batten down the hatches and be a tougher reviewer these days. I do. Love it. I think it's worth mentioning that on Letterboxd, which I am an avid user of, the 70s one has an average rating of three and a half stars. And the 2004 has an average rating of two and a half stars. So it's a full star less so okay the average viewer would agree that the 70s one is overall uh

the rotten tomatoes score for the 2004 movie the critics score is 26 percent on rotten tomatoes so quite rotten and only only a 30 percent for the audience score so audiences also don't like this yeah i don't think people liked this i think that like we i think like nostalgia for us maybe yeah nostalgia nostalgia and like i like yeah i liked sleepovers i like to drive in movie theaters the best thing about the frank oswin for me is like the set design it's so cool and so like gorgeous and like dated in kind of ways that are appealing to me um so i think like yeah the set design is way better in the new one it's really expensive looking and it had a ridiculous budget it had like a 90 million dollar budget. Oh my god. And made only about that much at the

box office. I know. It was not a big profit Turner. Turns out like generally you know it's women do like movies that are promised to be about them to actually be about them and not this bizarro

Matthew Broderick redemption arc. How many times am I going to have to watch a Matthew Broderick redemption arc? I also read that the set of the 2004 movie was really tense and no one liked each other, which is kind of fun. I read that too. Oh my God, juicy. And Frank Oz was kind of throwing shade. He's like, well, I wish Bette Midler wasn't bringing her problems on to the set i was like okay sir okay there's uh who knows who knows but it seems

like no one liked each other and matthew broderick has also bad mouthed the movie no one enjoyed it oh i did not know that i know right it kind of made me a little more attached to it i'm like oh well so this was hell for you as well as uh me watching it now yeah chaos on and off screen yeah oh truly zoe thank you so much for joining us to talk about i genuinely thank you so much for having me i love to getting to do this deep dive and really like think critically about the films I watch instead of just like, Oh God, I've been watching so many movies that taking notes intentionally on them was

really a nice change of pace for me. Thank you. You're so welcome. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. This has been a, what,

what a, what a wild journey this property has been through over the years i feel like i've been turned into a robot and then turned back uh so we where can where can people check out your stuff follow you online etc great question i am thongria on social media. So the word thong with R-I-A after it. My sex toy store is Shop Spectrum Boutique on Instagram. And a new thing that I, a journey I've been embarking upon lately, which may appeal to some of you listeners, is a disturbing movie discord, which I've been calling the Fed up movie heads thread uh so if you want to join

that discord please feel free we'd love to have you uh talk about some weird movies that uh disturb us nice we'll we'll link to it oh you can follow us on social media twitter and instagram at bechtel cast you can subscribe to our patreon aka matreon it's five dollars a month it gets you access to two bonus episodes every month plus the entire back catalog which is up to nearly 80 bonus episodes now wow it's out of control it is um and uh yeah i would say um check out the 1975 suffered wives if you've never seen it free on youtube and uh and also give get out another watch yeah just for the hell of it yeah skip skip the frank oswin i had to pay three dollars to watch it and i'm never gonna get over it i'm so sorry ridiculous um you can check out our merch at tpublic.com slash the bechdel cast you can get masks you can get stuff you can live your life or not we won't know um true and uh on

that note i'm gonna go down to my basement and just pull my head off oh yeah i'm gonna figure out how to get an atm and i'm gonna get a cash system set up in my stomach just spit up 21 yeah i'm um i'm a feminist icon so i'm gonna find a man robot and'm going to make him do all my bidding for me. Wow. Love it. I'm going to go tell my boyfriend to pick up the groceries at Costco, just like the end of the actual 2004 movie. I'm going to go say, hey, go get all my groceries for me.

You're a man. And it's time for the tables to turn. Things are a little different these days. I know. I'm like, what a shitty punishment. I'm like, the grocery store rocks. It's fun. Yeah, come on.

We all love you. Anyway. Anyway. See you next time. Bye. Bye-bye. In California during the summer of 1975, within the span of 17 days and less than 90 miles,

two women did something no other woman had done before, try to assassinate the president of the United States. One was the protege of Charles Manson. 26-year-old Lynette Fromm, nicknamed Squeaky. The other, a middle-aged housewife working undercover for the FBI. Identified by police as Sarah Jean Moore. The story of one strange and violent summer, this season on the new podcast Rip Current. Hear episodes of Rip Current early and completely

ad-free and receive exclusive bonus content by subscribing to iHeart True Crime Plus, only on Apple Podcasts. Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese investigative journalist who on October 16th, 2017, was assassinated. Crooks Everywhere unearths the plot to murder a one-woman WikiLeaks. She exposed the culture of crime and corruption that were turning her beloved country into a mafia state. Listen to Crooks Everywhere on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

To listen to new episodes one week early and 100% ad-free, subscribe to the iHeart True Crime Plus channel, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. I'm Joe Gatto. I'm Steve Byrne. We are two cool moms. We certainly are. And guess where we could find us now? Oh, I don't know.

The iHeart Podcast Network? That's right. We're an official iHeart podcast, and I'm super excited about it. I am too. I thought Two Cool Moms was such a fun podcast, but now it's even more funner and cooler and heartier. That's right. It's more iHeartier. I knew it.

Check your heart rate. We're here at I heart. Yeah. You can find us wherever you listen to your podcasts or on the I heart radio app.