MovieChat Forums > Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion > Girdle Theory

Girdle Theory

posted 14 years ago by djrosenblatt
14 replies | jump to latest

I really should know this by now, but as a dumb male, I'm confused. When Jimmy Stewart pulls Lee Remick out of the nightclub, admonishing her to keep up more of an appearance of a meek, devoted housewife, he instructs her on what she should be wearing: horn-rimmed spectacles, low-heeled shoes, a skirt, and a girdle - "especially a girdle".

Now, for all my considerable number of post-pubescent years, I've thought girdles were things that allowed less-than-svelte women to cram more mass into less volume, thus appearing thinner and more attractive. Could someone please explain to me how a girdle, in this case, would work to make a lovely young thing like a 20-something Lee Remick look more, well, ordinary?

This may well be the greatest aspect of the anonymity of the internet - the ability to fearlessly ask stupid questions!

[–] shadowman1115824 14 years ago

There were various comments about being bare legged and pantiless. I think the concept of a girdle was meant to have something between the bare flesh and outer garment and how it would be more lady like.

[–] alangalpert 14 years ago

As intimated (no pun intended) by a previous poster, Paul's concern was that Laura appeared too sexy. During his cross-examination of Alphonse, the sensual movement of Laura's hips is specifically referred to. Paul thought that a girdle would minimize the "jiggle" effect. Ironically, in this case a girdle is employed to make a woman less, rather than more, attractive.

[–] djrosenblatt 14 years ago

Hmmm. Well, obviously this is something that's going to require some closer direct investigation on my part.

[–] normalou 14 years ago

The girdle, in her case, would be to make her flesh "jiggle" less. As with brassieres, sometimes "undergarments" are worn merely to hide the female anatomy, as with nipples. A proper woman should hide her body from movement so that she is less noticeable, and less enticing to a man, i.e. less provocative. It's a bit Victorian, but an idea in place still today.

[–] bababear 14 years ago

Also, let's not overlook the obvious. A girdle would be a formidable obstacle to a would-be rapist. Panties are flimsy and easily torn away, especially by a man of some physical strength. Girdles, on the other hand, are a substantial barrier.

[–] normalou 14 years ago

Ah, but the old fashioned girdles did not have a panel in the crotch, they just held in the hips and buttocks.

[–] hankpac 12 years ago

There are all kinds of girdles, including mere corsets, and full pant girdles.
there are modern purveyors of foundation garments, and in those days, women wore several layers of armor so to speak. Not only underpants, and a girdle, but also hose, garter belt, and bra, as well as at least one possibly more petticoats/slips.

All that went to the wayside in the 60's. there are modern companies that still sell all that stuff.
In the times, it was quite unacceptable to be dressed in less. Women dressed fully including a dress and hat to go to the store.

[–] doroberts-1 12 years ago

I'm old enough to remember when "ladies" wore girdles, especially when they were dressed to go shopping, to church, etc. As other posters have mentioned, yes, the girdle prevented "jiggling". But it did more than that; it compressed the hip/ buttock area into a very firm unit that flattened the cheeks of the buttocks into a sort of "mono-butt". It WAS kind of like armor, making the flesh it contained almost rock-hard. The scene in "Niagara" where Marilyn Monroe walks over to the record player would never have been possible if MM was wearing a girdle !

[–] Zanza8 12 years ago

Well, Paul did say that he appreciated a jiggle as much as the next man-he obviously didn't want that jiggle in court. Remember back then a rape victim's appearance was fair game and that an attractive woman might be considered as asking for a man to "make advances."

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] Foxlair45 12 years ago

Yup.....a lady never went anywhere without "a girdle, gloves, and smile."

[–] freerun250 12 years ago

The girdle also held up the stocking, as there was no panty hose back then. I think they came out in the 70s.

[–] fullserve 9 years ago

You have to remember this film was made during the conservative 1950s when the prevailing opinion was that only 'bad' girls didn't wear the proper undergarments such as girdles, and 'bad' girls also had a reputation for not wearing stockings, so Lee Remick was living up to that reputation with her behavior. Times have changed tremendously. The majority of women today wouldn't think of putting on a girdle, or something like it, or nylon stockings.

[–] au561 9 years ago

"The majority of women today wouldn't think of putting on a girdle, or something like it, or nylon stockings."
Really? Ever heard of Spanx?

[–] fullserve 9 years ago

I have and I bet the majority of women today wouldn't think of wearing them. Just visit my office and what I see in the stores, restaurants, etc. and many women look like they're about to give birth even thought they're not expecting. I think everyone that needs Spanxs should wear them but that's not reality.