MovieChat Forums > In Name Only (1939) Discussion > spoiler--the Code and the other woman

spoiler--the Code and the other woman

posted 13 years ago by skiddoo
4 replies | jump to latest

It is widely believed, and often written on IMDb comments, that the Code prevented storylines where the extramarital couple found happiness together at the end with a divorce plainly in view. Clearly, that was not true or this couldn't have been made as it was. Either Grant or Lombard would have had to die for their "sins" or renounce love and this had an upbeat ending with love triumphing over all, even the wicked witch of a wife. I want to remember this movie as an example when people confidently state that the Code would not permit this scenario. It is obvious that the writers, studio heads, etc were the ones calling the shots on this issue. (Previously I referenced the romance in The Best Years of their Lives from 1946 of a man going away to get a divorce from a woman with whom he had nothing in common and coming back for the happy ending.)

[–] gribfritz2 13 years ago

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Adultery must not be presented attractively. Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful. It must not be made to seem right and permissible (thanks mdonln).

The adultery certainly wasn't attractive. It tore Julie apart. The important part is the wife only married him for his money. Their affair was permissible because she did not love her husband and never did. Without reminding the audience several times that she never loved Alec, Alec (under the code) would not be deemed in the right to leave his wife. But since they showed she never loved her husband, was scheming, manipulative, and would rather see her husband dead then to lose his father's fortune, this justifies Alec. I assume "impure love" in the context of the code refers to a variety of things including adultery, but they loved to put vague language in there.

Now if an "other woman" were to break up an otherwise happy home, that would have been a completely different story.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

gribfritz2 says > The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Adultery must not be presented attractively. Impure love must not be presented as attractive and beautiful. It must be made to seem right and permissible.

I assume you cited this information from the Code's guidelines but, unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems you omitted the word 'not' from the last sentence. Anyway, I may be one of the very few people who does not have a problem with the Code. I believe it served a purpose in upholding societal values. I wouldn't mind it being reinstated today.

We can see what happened after the Code was replaced with the rating system. Things seemed to have gone off the rails; completely crazy. A lot of people have no morals and values of their own so they imitate what they see in the media. They have little or no respect for the institution of marriage; they consider sex no more than a handshake and do it with anyone who crosses their path, etc. it's outrageous.

The Code was put in place to rein in some of the movie makers who would have put all sorts of things in movies that would have been offensive to most people; like they do today. Some people complain a lot about the Code but overall I think it forced the filmmakers of the time to be more creative. That's probably why I prefer the movies made then much more than I like the ones being made today.

I can't just blame today's bad movies on the lack of a code. I think the advent of special effects has also helped to ruin the movie industry. Usually, the more special effects are in a movie, the worst the plot and the script (dialogue) will be.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] gribfritz2 8 years ago

it seems you omitted the word 'not' from the last sentence.

It seems you are correct...lol. I just realized my original post is 5 years old so the film itself is merely a vague and hazy memory so there's not much else I can add other than fixing my original post.