Femme Revenge Film, as Reviewed by Men

They met in church, fell in love, lived together, got married, had a son. By all outward appearances, the couple we’ll call Frank and Mary seemed more or less happy. But they knew better. Frank knew he loved his wife, but he hated the way the smallest dispute could spark the bitter arguments and then stony silences.

Then one day Frank opened the mail and saw a canceled check for some $300 to a family planning clinic in Orange County. Oh that, Mary said. Then she told Frank about the day she spent lending emotional support to an old friend who was having an abortion and happened to forget her checkbook.

Over time and trouble the truth spilled out. Mary admitted to the affair, the pregnancy, the abortion. She asked for forgiveness and a divorce. Frank agreed to the latter.

That was three years ago. The other day, I called Frank to ask if he’d seen “The First Wives Club.”

He said he had no interest whatsoever in seeing that movie.

*

He’d seen a preview and that was plenty. It didn’t matter to Frank that “The First Wives Club,” the triumphant tale of three affluent, fortysomething wives dumped for younger, sexier women, is a hot pop phenomenon--or at least that it was last week.

The convergence of family values, feminism and Hollywood glitter inspired Time magazine to put stars Goldie Hawn, Bette Midler and Diane Keaton on its cover. Time described how the movie has provided a cathartic revenge fantasy for wronged women--of how, in Minneapolis, a group of 15 women arrived at the cinema in stretch limos and evening gowns, and how a North Carolina radio station filled its airwaves with women sharing divorce stories from hell and dreams of retribution. Lorena Bobbitt didn’t become a folk heroine for nothing.

“First Wives” raked in $18.9 million in its opening weekend, “the highest ever for a so-called women’s film,” Time noted. And this, the magazine suggested, proves that the film “is dipping into a bottomless well of shared female rage.”

It all makes Frank groan. In the interest of fairness, I decided to pry. Had he ever cheated on his wife? Nope, he said, never. He understands that many people won’t believe him; he’s got that Y chromosome, after all.

Frank suggested I talk to Jack, a friend from church who recently filed for divorce from his wife of 12 years. Ten months ago she explained that the marriage wasn’t working. She was going to move out and take their three daughters with her. A few months later, she did just that.

“Nothing spectacularly unique” is how Jack described the collapse of his marriage. He shared no tale of adultery, by either himself or his wife. There were, he suggests, probably 21 reasons things fell apart, not the least of which was his temper. There was no physical abuse, but Jack says he understands why his wife suffered emotionally. But, he adds, there were other problems too, and his wife is hardly free of blame.

When I asked Jack whether he had “fooled around,” his answer was the same as Frank’s. Who knows? Maybe they’re telling the truth.

Jack is a film editor who lives in Studio City and therefore knows something about the Hollywood hustle. And that, to him, is what “The First Wives Club” is all about: turning tragedy into comedy and comedy into big box office sales.

“I’m really not interested in seeing the movie. It’s a Hollywood version that takes a simplistic, shallow, myopic view of a rather complicated, multidimensional issue. . . . It’s about retribution and revenge and making light and fun of an inherent bitterness. . . . It’s simplistic and exploitative. It’s a situation comedy. You need to make fun of a situation and exploit it. . . . And it is male-bashing season in our culture, is it not?’ ”

No argument here. But how could Jack condemn a movie he hasn’t seen? Isn’t this the Bob Dole school of criticism?

Jack explained that, being in The Biz, the preview and the poster told him all he needed to know.

Unlike Jack and Frank, I’ve seen this flick. I pointed out that there’s nothing funny at all about the story’s beginning. What brings these first wives together is the funeral of their old college friend who committed suicide after her husband abandoned her.

Jack, in his cynical way, suggested that this shows the film’s manipulative cynicism.

“It’s a headline-stealing, banner-waving, semi-half-baked-issue kind of movie. . . . They’re on a mission of retribution and we want to get them to laugh every 15 or 30 seconds. It’s got to snap. If you’ve got the audience laughing, you start counting your money. . . .

“It’s simplistic and exploitative because all the jokes emanate from that tragedy.”

Here Jack remembered the expression that comedy is just tragedy plus time.

“How long does the first joke come after suicide?”

*

Maybe, with time, Jack and Frank would give this comedy a chance. But now, clearly, the nerves are too raw.

“Thelma and Louise” was hyped as a pro-woman, anti-male kind of movie. When I saw it, I wondered what the fuss was about. Sure, it featured a would-be rapist who got killed, a worthless husband and a profane trucker. But the three best male roles--the detective, the boyfriend, even the thief--were either heroic or had redeeming qualities.

Just the same, when I saw “The First Wives Club,” I felt a little more uneasy, being a potential target of that bottomless well of female rage I’d read about. For perspective, and because there’s safety in numbers, I went with a guy who survived two rotten marriages.

For what it’s worth, we fell victim to the manipulation. We both like the movie. But as with “Thelma and Louise,” it seemed puzzling that it would inspire so much fuss. And so for the Franks and Jacks of the world who might dare buy a ticket, a little advice:

Just keep telling yourself: “It’s only a movie. It’s only a movie. . . .”

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to Harris at The Times Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Please include a phone number.