Bryan Forbes’ 1975 psychological thriller “The Stepford Wives” is a cautionary story for the ages. There is a campy component to the movie that solely sharpens its satirical edge, however when it does lean into its scathing commentary, the pathos is real. An adaptation of Ira Levin’s eponymous novel, “The Stepford Wives” has garnered constant cultural mileage over the a long time, inspiring newer thriller thrillers like “Do not Fear Darling” (which primarily duplicates the unique’s premise with out success or conviction).
Though Forbes’ story is extra layered than it initially appears, the core critique lies within the systemic subjugation of girls by means of patriarchal practices, the place they’re diminished to non-entities who’re subservient to the boys they’re married to. That is taken to infuriating extremes in Forbes’ movie, and when Joanna Eberhart (Katharine Ross) strikes to Stepford together with her husband, we get to understand the neighborhood’s odd social conduct by means of the eyes of a baffled skeptic. Joanna instantly notices that the ladies locally are obsessive about being picture-perfect housewives, whereas the boys are more than pleased to do the naked minimal and revel within the subservience of their wives.
The psychological horror side of the movie intensifies in direction of the tip, resulting in a slightly bleak ending. Though the story is nowhere close to excellent, it connects tradwife identification politics to rampant consumerism in some attention-grabbing methods. As culturally related as Forbes’ movie is, it’s a lesser-known undeniable fact that “The Stepford Wives” spawned three (!) related titles, forming a horror franchise that’s nonetheless overshadowed by the unique.
The Stepford Wives sequels are all made-for-television tales
The primary direct sequel in query is 1980’s “The Revenge of the Stepford Wives,” a made-for-TV horror thriller that takes place 10 years after the occasions of the unique movie. This little story examines the implications of {couples} wanting to depart Stepford, prompting TV reporter Kaye Foster (Sharon Gless) to go to the seemingly idyllic neighborhood for an investigation. The rapid indicators that one thing ominous is afoot are extra overt right here, as Kaye notices the ladies popping tablets a number of instances a day after a siren blares by means of the city audio system. Because the plot progresses, Kaye establishes herself as a pointy, resourceful protagonist devoted to the emancipation of the ladies trapped at Stepford, even after she learns the heinous reality. This is likely one of the higher entries within the franchise, regardless of sporting an ambiguous ending that does not absolutely discover the central trope of revenge.
Subsequent up, we’ve 1986’s “The Stepford Kids,” through which a pair strikes to Stepford with their youngsters, David (Randall Batinkoff) and Mary (Tammy Lauren). David and Mary’s father, Steven (Don Murray), appears bothered by their laidback and carefree spirits and joins the nefarious Males’s Affiliation to assimilate them into obedient, achieved robots with little to no sense of self. The youngsters, though unaware of this, change into spooked by the attitudes of the adults round them, who appear to be obsessive about monitoring their youngsters to assist them obtain a “excellent” social picture. Now, it is a first rate follow-up to “Revenge,” however lacks the finesse of its predecessors, together with the conviction to inform a narrative that is still dedicated to the themes of parental abuse and its repercussions.
You may’ve already sensed a theme right here, so it should not be shocking that the ultimate entry on this collection known as “The Stepford Husbands” (which opens with a person violently killing his spouse earlier than committing suicide). The story makes an attempt to flip the unique idea on its head by presenting the boys at Stepford being docile to their wives, with the Stepford Institute for Human Conduct being answerable for this shift. Shabby writing and uninspired performances apart, this inverted idea in “The Stepford Husbands” falls flat because of the obvious lack of real-life mirroring, as even the strongest model of misandry can not evaluate to the horrifying penalties of violent misogyny that have an effect on everybody in society. That is the shallowest rendition of a well-known premise, and essentially the most creatively bankrupt out of the trio.
Though nothing can eclipse the uncooked affect of the 1975 originals, these follow-ups (save for the third one) are first rate sufficient for a one-time watch.
