Reasons for Selecting Joanna Eberhart as a Representative in the Film Stepford Wives

5

1250

During the year 1975 when the movie Stepford Wives was first released, it was widely regarded just as one of the chilling parables about men’s fears of feminism at the same time it was considered as a tale of horror which worked as a one of the social satire on bigotry. For sure, it struck a few women’s liberationists as a ham-fisted tried to cash in on the movements. Therefore it is curious that the term ‘Stepford’ wives that have really enjoyed such a strong meaning in our culture, is rarely used during a critique of sexism. The term has usually signified the kind of feminine perfectionism that is greatly evidenced in the domestic realm, though not necessarily in the services offered by husbands. &nbsp.This clearly evokes the existing critique freak rather than hopeless submission that women have over their husbands as seen in the new 2004 film. Therefore, Eberhart Joanna is chosen to clearly bring out the subject of the story to show how men transform their wives into some cookie-baking robots. On the other hand, another most sticking thing regarding the original Stepford Wives, both the movie and the novel is generally how children occupy a small place. The protagonist Eberhart Joanna and her husband move out of Manhattan to a suburban Connecticut partially due to the reason that schools were much better there, though there is nothing else much about that fact is made. A Stepford Wives that acts as a satire today would definitely be different from its predecessor. It would be just as less about the project of trying to perfect children like that of perfecting wives. At the same time, it would be the collaboration between the ambitious mothers and fathers who always believe so much in the meritocracy as well as doing whatever it takes in order to rig it in the attention of their own offspring’s Ivy League prospects. This would be about shameless kind of string-pulling so as to get kids into the right nursery schools.&nbsp.