Representation of women

For me, The Postman Always Rings Twice is unflattering to all its characters; the cop is less a detective than the D.A., the lawyers gamble over justice, and Cora lacks the intelligence to subdue her jealousy. Yet it is a thoroughly enjoyable film.

That said, its treatment of women is, even by 1940's standards, crude. Each woman with even a hint of character is unlikable (Cora, Madge, the woman who wants Cora's autograph). Cora is portrayed as incapable of self reliance. She resists Frank to the point of expressing disgust at the film's start and her dialogue essentially begs her oblivious husband to protect her from the temptation that Frank represents. She asks Nick to fire him, refuses to dance with him, rejects his suggestions, but Nick is entirely trusting and fails to recognize the new man as a threat. While this establishes Frank's identity as a charming, dottering old-fool, it does so by destroying a sense of Cora's self-discipline. The idea that she cannot 'help herself' is a subtle condemnation of women's sexuality.

While Postman is an enjoyable film, its criminal sophistication is less than, say, Double Indemnity where Stanwyck's villainous traits are a moral choice. Phyllis Dietrichson, it is shown, recognizes violence as a legitimate tactic to win status in the world. She confesses to other crimes and displays abject indifference to the suffering of others (step-daughter, former patients, her husband). She is a kind of psychopath. Although the two stories are from the same source, Cora's willingness to murder is from a defensive rather than offensive nature. Phyllis murders from a lack of creativity and from an inner coldness. Her sexuality is just one of the weapons in her arsenal.

Cora's ambition is an interesting component. Her steadfast resolve to succeed in business, in the world, brings about the pinch. Her refusal to leave that for which she has worked so hard creates the impossible position for herself and Nick. Yet the ambition itself is not overtly sinister. When she owns the Twin Oaks she is not shy from the drudgery and work. Full of ideas and inspiration, the business eventually flourishes under her care and her wardrobe does not improve. She scrubs dishes and serves customers with gusto. Resorting to murder, I feel, is not portrayed as the inevitable consequence of a woman's ambition per say, but as something (like love, beauty, and other virtues) corrupted by a woman's fundamental sexual nature. And I do believe there is something a little sinister in that. Cora murders, the film seems to imply, because she is a sexual being. It is the touch of Eve (or Lillith?): a sexual being who brings chaos. She just happens to be wearing an entrepreneur's hat for some of the film.

Cora's ambition is very specific; she wants the Twin Oaks to succeed through her talent. Her weaknesses are less specific and seem to be a condemnation not of her as an individual, but women in general. It is sexual immaturity, sexual jealousy, and lack of discipline. The cop's discussion of the pretty, dumb kitty cat as representing all cats, the lawyer's easy manipulation of her emotions, the D.A.'s easy reading of her motives, the taste for revenge she develops after finding Nick's lover all implicate 'womens'' behavior as a category, rather than 'Cora' as an individual. The implication is very unflattering. This is the trace of misogyny. Film noir prides itself on moral vagueries. That was one of the attractions of the genre in an era where women's roles were just starting to unsettle.

In China,women are very aware of their sexual power and use it.North American women hate to be branded as promiscuous while oriental ones see it as an option with desirable consequences.
I don't think women are presented as either the creation of a misogynist or a role model of any kind,really,in the film.Both men and women are capable of being the sometimes the enthusiastic wielders of power,regardless of conventional ethics.Men have always been drawn to women who rise above traditionally sanctioned behavior.Consider Therese Raquin(Zola),the beautifully crafted lady Macbeth and the sexy,seductive Kelly Ellard whose vicious destructiveness is perhaps still awaiting release.We are naturally more intrigued by the above group than we are by the virtuous Desdemona,Cordelia and the unflawed androgeny of St. Joan.We prefer the indecipherable,albeit luridly drawn women who know just how much we love the evil society forces us to simply acknowledge.We're much more comfortable with gutsy imperfection,having learned long ago that we'll be looking for years for the haystack needle of "lil Miss Sugar and Spice."No one gives a damn about Jean Arthur's decency in "Shane" when Gloria Grahame's lounging around laughing at Robert Mitchum,the young doctor who is captivated by the sexy,well-dressed tramp in "Not As A Stranger."
Women who use men successfully to achieve their ends know the frailty and vulnerability of men and take full advantage of these.They have no intention of going through life as victims--even highly paid ones who see the value in the mea culpa autobiography.We admire them their ability to thumb their nose at the world and marvel at our inability to match them.The great man is the one who can fight them as an equal without feeling intimidated or "threatened" by their immeasurable sexuality.Garfield in "Postman") would be an idiot to sympathise with this Emma Bovary who has more moves than your average ecstaxy-stoned kid.We fancy ourselves as the one to rescue the exceptional women from boredom while she is already debating whether we're worth keeping once we're droned out in the name(or beside the body)of the queen.
One of the writers finds Turner's role to lack intelligence as she will gladly murder the dumb immigrant guy whose claim to fame after 10:00p.m. is nocturnal snoring.I'd be inclined to question the intelligence of someone who doesn't scoff at the idea of suffering being ennobling.Ms.Turner would have no pity for the bored,ineffectual doormat doomed to have the dinner ready and the kids clothed.She'd naturally respect Salome's contempt for men who stupidly believe a high-class woman is ownable and polishable as a flaunted trophy.
The imperfect find each other attractive because of sex,of course,but also because of having a constantly surreal imagination closer to hotfudge topping on a vanilla blandcone/bloodcone.
Fictional,unforgettable characters don't overpower us with their in-your-face,tragic victimisation but in their granity refusal to give in to the dead aphorisms that most people live by.Their scars,often unseen,are badges of self-respect,confidence and pride.They aren't interested in what history does with their reputations.We love them for their feistiness and their antipathy to things predictable.

In China,women are very aware of their sexual power and use it.North American women hate to be branded as promiscuous while oriental ones see it as an option with desirable consequences.
I don't think women are presented as either the creation of a misogynist or a role model of any kind,really,in the film.Both men and women are capable of being the sometimes enthusiastic wielders of power,regardless of conventional ethics.Men have always been drawn to women who rise above traditionally sanctioned behavior.Consider Therese Raquin(Zola),the beautifully crafted lady Macbeth and the sexy,seductive Kelly Ellard whose vicious destructiveness is perhaps still awaiting release.We are naturally more intrigued by the above group than we are by the virtuous Desdemona,Cordelia and the unflawed androgeny of St. Joan.We prefer the indecipherable,albeit luridly drawn women who know just how much we love the evil society forces us to simply acknowledge.We're much more comfortable with gutsy imperfection,having learned long ago that we'll be looking for years for the haystack needle's presence of "lil Miss Sugar and Spice."No one gives a damn about Jean Arthur's decency in "Shane" when Gloria Grahame's lounging around laughing at Robert Mitchum,the young doctor who is captivated by the sexy,well-dressed tramp in "Not As A Stranger."
Women who use men successfully to achieve their ends know the frailty and vulnerability of men and take full advantage of these.They have no intention of going through life as victims--even highly paid ones who see the value in the mea culpa autobiography.We admire them their ability to thumb their nose at the world and marvel at our inability to match them.The great man is the one who can fight them as an equal without feeling intimidated or "threatened" by their immeasurable sexuality.Garfield( in "Postman") would be an idiot to sympathise with this Emma Bovary who has more moves than your average ecstaxy-stoned kid.We fancy ourselves as the one to rescue the exceptional women from boredom while she is already debating whether we're worth keeping once we're droned out in the name(or beside the body)of the queen.
One of the writers finds Turner's role to lack intelligence as she will gladly murder the dumb immigrant guy whose claim to fame after 10:00p.m. is nocturnal snoring.I'd be inclined to question the intelligence of someone who doesn't scoff at the idea of suffering being ennobling.Ms.Turner would have no pity for the bored,ineffectual doormat doomed to have the dinner ready and the kids clothed.She'd naturally respect Salome's contempt for men who stupidly believe a high-class woman is ownable and polishable as a flaunted trophy.
The imperfect find each other attractive because of sex,of course,but also because of having a constantly surreal imagination closer to hotfudge topping on a vanilla blandcone/bloodcone.
Fictional,unforgettable characters don't overpower us with their in-your-face,tragic victimisation but in their granity refusal to give in to the dead aphorisms that most people live by.Their scars,often unseen,are badges of self-respect,confidence and pride.They aren't interested in what history does with their reputations.We love them for their feistiness and their antipathy to things predictable.