Easily made my list of most insultingly bad movies -- and I have tried to not be a negative guy. But, to put it all in one line, this film doesn't even seem to be an honest treatment of what actually is a good idea, and is a slap in the face of feminism and a slap in the face of the office of the presidency.
Even considering that it predates the feminine revolution, it represents the worst of the pre-1968 culture that thought women were silly things that had to stay in the kitchen keeping pots and pans bright and shiny.
If you wonder about a female president, read up instead about the presidential campaigns of folks like Patricia Schroeder, Hillary Clinton, or Elizabeth Dole. See "Commander-in-Chief" starring Geena Davis.
If, instead, you wonder what it would be like to be First Husband, take a look at the life of Prince Philip, who has already lived this role in real life. Read about a powerful man who marries a princess, and finds himself given a free hand in raising the kids while his wife runs an empire.
But you are still thinking of watching this movie? Here are my opinions. I will warn you when the spoilers start.
* * * * *
"A woman, Polly Bergen, as president?" I asked. "And a macho star like Fred MacMurray as First Lady?" This had all the signs of being a first class 'what-if'.
And it could have been. Its first minutes seemed a really good take on "What Would Be Different?" She'd have to clutch her mink coat while taking the oath, she'd have trouble with a couple of bigots at least, and the husband would have some adjusting to do.
There is a very nice scene in which the Vice-President commiserates with the First Husband about being on the sidelines.
And there is then some really good stuff about "What Would Be The Same?" The Soviets give the new president some grief, and Polly Bergen (a successful businesswoman in real life) proceeds to kick Russian Communist butt -- the Soviets settle down, exactly as if she were Margaret Thatcher, or Golda Meir, or Indira Ghandi. The film seems to think a woman president could be great.
But, then ... the writers seem to poop out. They run out of good ideas, and fall back upon really insultingly bad old-style stereotypes. And yes they change their stance, they seem to think a woman president would self-destruct immediately.
Spoilers, Warning. As if they said "Oh the girls would really love this" the film dwells more and more on how neat it is to live in the White House with a full staff. Yes, butlers and maids running around with fancy suits and white gloves. A permanent vacation from housework, how could the female audience resist! (But you thought this was a film about democracy and government? So did I. Apparently Hollywood thought the average female would get bored with things like global crises.)
The final shot, when the president has to leave the White House after resigning, is of the White House butlers and maids bowing deeply to the camera ... The End.
What the ...? "Resigning"? Oh, yeah ... the first female president, according to 1964 Hollywood, would have to resign because she fainted. Yes, the woman fainted. And why did she faint? Because she got pregnant, of course she would faint, wouldn't she? And of course, you can't have a fainting, pregnant president, so she resigns and the butlers and maids bow to her as she leaves.
Utterly unbelievable. Nobody becomes president who would willingly resign for such stupid reasons. We had almost two hundred years of government here before a president resigned. And women don't faint and give up when they get pregnant -- some women have had babies in the wild. Governor Jane Swift of Massachusetts went right through labor and had her kid without even turning over the office of governor temporarily.
It's insulting even to modern day MEN like myself to think that a female president would pull a Victorian swoon and resign, after spending years of campaigning to cap a life's political career as president to just resign.
Look ... I watched this movie because it might have been an interesting speculation about an American 'Queen Victoria'-type, but it turned into a horrible piece of sterotyping that defied belief.
Really. It took me a while afterwards to pick my jaw off the floor. Monumental bad taste.
Even considering that it predates the feminine revolution, it represents the worst of the pre-1968 culture that thought women were silly things that had to stay in the kitchen keeping pots and pans bright and shiny.
If you wonder about a female president, read up instead about the presidential campaigns of folks like Patricia Schroeder, Hillary Clinton, or Elizabeth Dole. See "Commander-in-Chief" starring Geena Davis.
If, instead, you wonder what it would be like to be First Husband, take a look at the life of Prince Philip, who has already lived this role in real life. Read about a powerful man who marries a princess, and finds himself given a free hand in raising the kids while his wife runs an empire.
But you are still thinking of watching this movie? Here are my opinions. I will warn you when the spoilers start.
* * * * *
"A woman, Polly Bergen, as president?" I asked. "And a macho star like Fred MacMurray as First Lady?" This had all the signs of being a first class 'what-if'.
And it could have been. Its first minutes seemed a really good take on "What Would Be Different?" She'd have to clutch her mink coat while taking the oath, she'd have trouble with a couple of bigots at least, and the husband would have some adjusting to do.
There is a very nice scene in which the Vice-President commiserates with the First Husband about being on the sidelines.
And there is then some really good stuff about "What Would Be The Same?" The Soviets give the new president some grief, and Polly Bergen (a successful businesswoman in real life) proceeds to kick Russian Communist butt -- the Soviets settle down, exactly as if she were Margaret Thatcher, or Golda Meir, or Indira Ghandi. The film seems to think a woman president could be great.
But, then ... the writers seem to poop out. They run out of good ideas, and fall back upon really insultingly bad old-style stereotypes. And yes they change their stance, they seem to think a woman president would self-destruct immediately.
Spoilers, Warning. As if they said "Oh the girls would really love this" the film dwells more and more on how neat it is to live in the White House with a full staff. Yes, butlers and maids running around with fancy suits and white gloves. A permanent vacation from housework, how could the female audience resist! (But you thought this was a film about democracy and government? So did I. Apparently Hollywood thought the average female would get bored with things like global crises.)
The final shot, when the president has to leave the White House after resigning, is of the White House butlers and maids bowing deeply to the camera ... The End.
What the ...? "Resigning"? Oh, yeah ... the first female president, according to 1964 Hollywood, would have to resign because she fainted. Yes, the woman fainted. And why did she faint? Because she got pregnant, of course she would faint, wouldn't she? And of course, you can't have a fainting, pregnant president, so she resigns and the butlers and maids bow to her as she leaves.
Utterly unbelievable. Nobody becomes president who would willingly resign for such stupid reasons. We had almost two hundred years of government here before a president resigned. And women don't faint and give up when they get pregnant -- some women have had babies in the wild. Governor Jane Swift of Massachusetts went right through labor and had her kid without even turning over the office of governor temporarily.
It's insulting even to modern day MEN like myself to think that a female president would pull a Victorian swoon and resign, after spending years of campaigning to cap a life's political career as president to just resign.
Look ... I watched this movie because it might have been an interesting speculation about an American 'Queen Victoria'-type, but it turned into a horrible piece of sterotyping that defied belief.
Really. It took me a while afterwards to pick my jaw off the floor. Monumental bad taste.