MovieChat Forums > The Apartment (1960) Discussion > Weak Aspects of the Film

Weak Aspects of the Film

posted 11 years ago by hermann-eric
19 replies | jump to latest

The portrayal of all men as scheming, misogynistic adulterers is a bit over the top--at least as off-putting as the portrayal of women as ditzes and fragile flowers.

I also think the basic plot contrivance--executives using this guy's apartment for their dalliances--doesn't really make sense: They're executives. Can't they rent a hotel room?

The suicide recovery scene I find tedious and dull. The vomiting, face-slapping, coffee drinking, etc. got pretty old. Add to that the histrionic mensch doctor and Lemmon's exaggerated acting and I felt like skipping forward.

I think the best scene is the very last. The two characters share a genuine and wonderful smile. And Shirley Maclaine is beautiful.

Overall, a good film with some weak aspects in terms of plot and script.

[–] westal_sage 11 years ago

Can't really see how you could possibly say you think it was a good film. You've called out just about every facet of it to be weak.

[–] ecarle 11 years ago

Here I think we have a circumstance in which we really have to "time transport" ourselves to...1960.

The men and women may have been caricatures even then, but feminism had not yet taken force...and well-to-do men tended to marry "women from good families" and seek mistresses from the working (secretarial) classes. (Though often, if a pretty secretary played her cards right -- she could move up to the Mrs. job. See "Mad Men.")

It was considered quite shocking for a movie that began with the broad comedy of "The Apartment" to segue not only into a suicide attempt, but the "aftermath" -- with poor, poor Baxter being blamed for everything by both Dr. Dreyfus(who shifts from comic relief to dead serious doctor and back again) and Fran's two-fisted brother in law.

"The Apartment" won Best Picture of 1960. It wouldn't win Best Picture of 2014.

[–] roncerabona 11 years ago

It probably wouldn't be MADE in 2014, at least not like that, partly for the reasons you cite, plus different moral standards, less stigma about divorce, more likelihood of "alternative" venues for affairs, that sort of thing.

[–] FilmMuscle 10 years ago

In classless 2014, yes, it would've been far different.

[–] DelovelyX 9 years ago

In contrast to the extra-marital affairs and exploiting/blackmailing a man at the bottom of the ladder in 1960? You're right, where did that class go, ugh!

http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvbx9bGoj71qm2xu4o1_1280.jpg

[–] howardkoor 9 years ago

Yes. I agree. It still holds up. Of course the times were different but their chemistry was sensational !

[–] markfilipak 11 years ago

You wrote: "I also think the basic plot contrivance--executives using this guy's apartment for their dalliances--doesn't really make sense: They're executives. Can't they rent a hotel room?" The simple answer is: No, they couldn't rent a hotel room.

In 1959 when this script was written, adultery was prosecuted and premium hotels, the kind of hotels New York executives would inhabit, had hotel detectives to investigate brief occupancies.

In that environment, those same New York executives wouldn't want to risk being seen bringing a woman to a sleazy hotel.

Bud's coworkers needed a safe place and Bud's apartment served the purpose.

-Edit-
Paragraphs 2+3+4 used to be one paragraph.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stevekaczynski 9 years ago

Yes, in The Big Sleep, made a decade and a half earlier, Bacall's character learns Bogie's is a private detective and she assumes he spends his time snooping around hotel corridors trying to catch people out in adultery. Because that kind of work was the meat and drink of private dicks.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] FrameXFrame 10 years ago

I've thought about the aspect of the executives using hotel rooms. Yes there were detectives back then, but I'm pretty sure some hotels would discreetly look the other way when guests were checking in. The money for a good hotel might be the issue for the adulterers--company expenses were watched closely, presumably, and weekly amounts for a decent hotel might be hard to conceal. Ditto for personal expenses--that amount of money taken weekly from the family's budget would be noticed by the wife.

[–] gary_w_trott 8 years ago

Showing up at the hotel without luggage is definitely going to raise the eyebrows of the hotel staff. They would probably assume that he was looking for room he could bring a prostitute to. I think that the real reason however is simply the cost of a hotel versus that of Baxter's apartment or a nephew's Volkswagen. These guys are middle level managers and can't afford to spend a whole lot of money on their mistresses. From what we saw in the movie, outside of Sheldrake none of them even took the woman out for dinner or drinks which are also costly items.

[–] IMDB_Vits 10 years ago

The portrayal of all men as scheming, misogynistic adulterers is a bit over the top--at least as off-putting as the portrayal of women as ditzes and fragile flowers.

It's not a coincidence, since almost every character works in the same place. Also, DR. DREYFUSS wasn't like that.

I also think the basic plot contrivance--executives using this guy's apartment for their dalliances--doesn't really make sense: They're executives. Can't they rent a hotel room?

Of course, but why pay for something if you come across a way to do it for free*? Also, thanks to the deal, they could do it more often than usual (remember BAXTER's calendar).

*Legally, I mean.

[–] hammer4 10 years ago

There have been some good points pro and con as to whether the essential plot element (using Baxter's apartment) is a contrivance. I can accept it as a contrivance as it's not totally implausible.

I think Sheldrake's wanting the apartment is in keeping with his phony,manipulative character. He probably reasoned that by providing something of a "homey" environment for Fran she'd feel more receptive to an ongoing sexual relationship.

[–] calpurnia-62329 9 years ago

On EVERY SINGLE film message board on this website the word MISOGYNISTIC is thrown around. I'm getting pretty tired of it. I cannot find a single discussion about a single film where someone isn't complaining about misogyny. Enough already! I'm a woman too who enjoys watching old films. Lighten up Francis (from Stripes another misogynistic movie)

[–] stevekaczynski 9 years ago

I would say its views were quite advanced for 1960. Wilder had a keen eye for human foibles, but misogynistic, no. If anything the film is harder on men.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

I think the point being made was that the characters were displaying as misogynistic, whitch is true - some of the characters were. This however does not make the movie itself misogynistic.

------------------------------------------------
Resistance is impolite, Friendship is mandatory.

[–] marktayloruk (2502) 2 years ago

How is wanting to make love to a woman misogynistic?

[–] TheArgentinian (7070) 4 years ago

Executives are still power-abusing pigs, from Hollywood to Wall Street, so the portrayal still holds up.

The pumping scene was so realistic and ahead of its time because it didn't glamorize the effects of suicide attempts.