In our discussion we noted Veda seems
to fit the femme fatale role in Mildred Pierce. It's her “dangerous”
sexuality that leads to the fatality in the film. Mildred fatal flaw
is her inability to be a “proper” mother to her daughters. The
overt problem is her indulgent attitude and favoritism toward Veda,
but the more subtle criticism insinuated in the film is Mildred's
inability to be a “proper woman.”
Unlike the usual femme fatale whose
dangerous attitude toward sex endangers normality (i.e., the
family—Kathie in Out of the Past vs. Ann and the implied future
family life she and Jeff would have had), Mildred endangers her
family through her devotion to work and success, to her career.
Part of the appearance of noir and
the centrality of the femme fatale has always been attributed to the
shifting place of women in American society during WWII. The time
frame of the novel was the thirties. In the film, it's left much
less definite, though Monty's offhanded reference to the scarcity of
nylons for “the duration” (another term for wartime, which was
now in its fourth year). Mildred, like many other women of the era,
then, moves out of the home and into the workplace. Mildred,
significantly, doesn't take up a factory job producing munitions or
airplanes (as Bert eventually does), but adapts her womanly skills as
a homemaker to serving others meals into a business, Mildred, Inc.,
the name of her company that she eventually loses control (much as
she loses control of her family through her indulgence of Veda).
 |
Dominant Breadwinner |
 |
Smoking, hard-drinking Executive of Mildred, Inc.
In other words, for the film, the
threat Mildred poses to the family derives from her perversion of the
family through her warping of her proper familial role as homemaker.
By the time she's become an obsessed, hard-working, executive
overseeing her empire of Mildred, Inc. the “problem” is obvious,
but, as Bert tellingly points out, she's been headed toward trouble
even earlier in usurping his proper place as family breadwinner.
Mildred had already been supporting her family through her pie
business which she had started in her own kitchen. The income from
her domestic business, a nascent form of Mildred, Inc., is what
enables her independence from Bert and leads her to realize she can
support her family on her own. From our view, this criticism
directed toward Mildred looks unfair—and ignores the obvious need
her income fulfills (somewhat in the way Veda eventually accepts her
mother's money, but disapproves of its “greasy” origins in the
restaurant). However, clearly the film see the bigger picture (again
in its terms anwyay), Mildred's problem all along has been her
pursuit of outside income, an improper feminine pursuit that will
destroy the family. Not accidentally, once Mildred has lost the
business (and her monstrous, uncontrollable daughter), the path is
cleared for her to regain her proper place at the now properly
employed Bert Pierce's side. The implication is that she had never
given Bert the chance he needed—as a husband or as a breadwinner.
Bert told her from the beginning when the time comes, he'll get a
job. Her impatience (not financial need), the implication seems, has
undermined his masculinity and made him unable to fulfill his proper
role as family provider. When Bert and Mildred walk into the sunset
of their restored world, notice the seemingly superfluous washerwomen
prominently displayed in the corner of the frame, emphasizing
Mildred's own restoration to her proper (subordinate) place.


|
I am still under the impression that Mildred fits into the role of the a Bailey character. She is a loner. Just like all of the women in the detective story treats the detective unfairly and discreetly, so do the men here. She isn't meant to be with anyone, just like a Walter or Gittis isn't.
ReplyDeleteOK I would have to say I almost disagree with this comment above. She was blinded by so many things with Bert he was a cheater and ungrateful for the life she was trying to build with him and the children. They should have been able to compromise on such a small argument but instead he took his frustrations out in the bedroom with another woman. She KNEW Monte was not good but yet and still against married him trying to please others once again ( Veda) when the whole time Wally was there being her confidant, friend, support and business partner but just wasn't good enough to be her man ....in a way she was a bit like (Veda). Thought she was too good for certain things sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI like the notion that Mildred is like Veda after all, but just in a more socially acceptable fashion. As for her similarity to Jeff, being a fatal (or at least dangerous) woman who is forced back into the fold at the end, doesn't disqualify her from seeing her as Jeff. For that to be the case, Jeff would only have to survive and go off with Ann at the end. This points out one of the major differences between MP and other noir--it has a relatively happy ending. Order is restored in a way that we're ok with--Veda goes to jail, but she deserves it. Mildred gets a guy (maybe not a great one, but the best available) and walks off into the sunrise of a new day.
ReplyDeleteProfessor, I love your point about the washerwomen prominently displayed in the corner of the frame. I had completely missed that, and I agree it is making a bold statement about Mildred's 'place.'
ReplyDeleteThese are some of the reasons some people had criticized Joan Crawford's role of Mildred Pierce as being anti-feminist.
I personally thought Mildred was inspiring - with her hard work and business success...until she shifted her priority back to Veda. Then everything went haywire.
-PK-
I am having trouble posting my powerpoint to the blog and I am following the directions issued but I dont get the same options or the same screen when trying to find google docs. If anyone can help me with this please email me, it would be much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I agree with this notion of her downfall being attributed to her notions of femininity throughout the film, especially as they morph and twist into one that is more feminist (than valuing the traditional roles and values that a woman of that time period). Like I have discussed throughout the semester (and as Dr. Kaufmann has also mentioned) I think it’s interesting to note her appearance throughout the film as well as her actions. Like the scholar who mentions the dresses in the film as being an important aspect of the narrative, Mildred’s clothing also nods at her growing status as a modern woman. At the beginning of the film, she is dressed in an apron and a frock, all suggesting her role as a housewife. When she is the most unhappy (or the least progressed through the film) she is dressed in a uniform, one that mimics the other woman and their positions, which are presented in the film as being very lowly (especially by Veda’s dirty trick with her uniform and their house maid). As she evolves into a rich woman who is very clearly attempting to climb the social ladders her daughter so desires, she is draped in finery (like the overt and loud fur coat she wears after the murder). As far as commentary goes, I wonder if the film maker tries to show the merits of being a middle class house wife, at a time when (perhaps) women would need to be reminded of that lifestyle after years of being in the work force. Just a thought . . .
ReplyDelete