Week-End Marriage (1932) User Reviews

Many Ironic Notes

[misctidsandbits · 5/10 · 28 December 2012]

The much mentioned pre-code date of this film seems not to matter in the essential message, only in incidentals. It basically represented the follies of a working wife in extreme examples. It's also ironic for Ms. Young since biographies, both authorized and other, reveal her to have been one of the most career-driven, image crafting women in the industry -- literally an absentee wife and mother. She reaped benefits in the area of her investment - film - and reprisals from where she didn't - her family. The husband and sons literally moved out and distanced themselves from her and the daughter literally wrenched herself away from her. As for her acting, that was not her problem, as she put all her eggs in that basket and was very respected in the industry on that score. She limited herself only by shunning what to her were immoral themes and venues as she went along, due to her espoused faith.

Regardless, the film was one of the more interesting ones of the era with some very good performances. Aline McM was always a cool number, no matter what she did, along with others like Eve Arden, Thelma Ritter -- they just had an unbeatable persona. All in all, this is no sillier in premise than any other Hollywood vehicle of its type and better in other ways than a lot.

Modern problems and a really muddled message

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 3 April 2011]

The film opens on a young couple (Loretta Young as Lola and Norman Foster as Ken) standing in line at the movies. The movie is, of course, a Warner Brothers film of the time - "Blessed Event". Jack Warner always got his money's worth out of any opportunity for self promotion. At any rate Ken is the old-fashioned type who won't marry unless he earns enough that his wife can stay at home. He's made it clear he wants to marry Lola, and also made it clear that he doesn't make enough to support the two. Then comes the news - Ken has a real opportunity at his job but he'll have to go for an extended trip to South America. Lola is heartbroken as regardless of what Ken says she feels this will be the end for the two of them. Along comes helpful sister-in-law Agnes played by the delightful Aline McMahon who writes out in short-hand some lines that will get Ken to propose - that along with a ruse that there is another suitor for Lola's hand and Lola saying that she may marry him if Ken goes away. The trick works. Ken doesn't go on the assignment, stays at his old job, and the two marry. But then the working man's version of "A Star is Born" syndrome sets in. Ken first gets a pay cut and then fired when he is absent from work due to being in jail on a bender. Meanwhile Lola gets promoted with a pay raise and then an opportunity to go with the boss to St. Louis and be his executive assistant - her current position is being eliminated so she is out of work if she does not go.

Lola has to go through the humiliation of bailing her husband out of the drunk tank - along with his blonde female companion - only to be told by Ken that this whole thing is her fault and she needs to quit her job to save their marriage. Now remember, Ken doesn't have a job anymore, this is the Great Depression, how practical is this request or should I say ultimatum? Lola goes to St. Louis anyways. I'll let you watch and see how and if everything pans out.

This film is interesting because of a couple of scenes. One is considered precode because of the fact that it shows a married couple in bed - not twin beds - starting to get frisky when their moment is interrupted by the tyranny of the alarm clock. The second scene is completely out of whack with the rest of the picture but very powerful. Lola has a friend whose brother is going to force her into an arranged marriage with a bootlegger years older than she. The friend asks her to come to her house to tell her brother that the friend does not have to marry the bootlegger and can do what she likes - this is America. The brutish brother begs to disagree, knocks his sister to the floor, makes you think he is about to do the same to Lola, and forces the frightened sister into the arms of the repulsive fiancé when he arrives. Lola looks away in frightened disgust.

Now this scene with the friend might make you think that maybe the film is trying to say that even in modern times a girl can't get a break from men who are unhappy and take it out on their women if there isn't enough money, and do the same if there is enough money because the woman pitches in with a job but then their socks aren't darned or the dishes need washing. However, later in the film there is a speech similar to that made by the brutish brother of Lola's friend except this time more articulate and by a respected member of the community - a doctor. Again, everything is all Lola's fault and the fault of all working women.

I'd recommend this one because of the unique precode look at marriage, because of the good performances, and because, regardless of what the message of this film is supposed to be, it is a window into another time when a girl often really couldn't get a break.

A little more balance needed

[overseer-3 · 7/10 · 11 January 2006]

I'm no radical feminist, but Week-End Marriage did seem to push its point a little too severely that married women should never work outside the home.

I couldn't help but wonder what audiences in 1932 thought of this film, most particularly, married women. Would they have nodded in silent agreement that Loretta Young made the right decision in the end, or would they have been outraged that she was pigeon-holed in a certain domestic mold? I think the truth would be somewhere in the middle. Women are never as inflexible and stereotypical as presented in any film, modern or vintage. Every woman is an individual and makes her own decisions which are best for her.

Women in 1932, as today in 2006, know that not one decision is best for everyone. There are benefits to being a homemaker, a wife, and mother, and there are benefits to being a career girl. Women can combine both, but just in time factor alone certain things might very well be sacrificed, even inadvertently, and unfortunately one of the things that can be sacrificed is a marriage.

Quantity time is important, along with quality time. If a husband is feeling neglected because his wife seems to prefer a career over him then the marriage is in trouble. If she makes him know clearly and firmly that she values him more than any job or a paycheck then that marriage will most likely survive. It's all in the balance of what you wish to achieve, your priorities. In that respect Week-end Marriage's ending isn't necessarily a cop-out, but simply a decision by the wife to save what she values more than anything else, her man. Sometimes that does take some - horrors! - SACRIFICE.

Performances here are all excellent. I agree that Aline simply steals this movie away from Loretta. Aline was in so many films with Loretta, yet always managed to steal the limelight away from Loretta, despite Aline's lack of physical beauty. Just goes to show that acting talent is separate and apart from physical looks. There is a much more substantial and profound foundation behind real acting talent, as opposed to just relying on a pretty face and figure.

Enough to make any woman ignite in anger

[vandino1 · 8 January 2006]

As with many "pre-code" Hollywood films of the early thirties, "Week-End Marriage" has its startling moments of naturalness (a couple sharing a bed rather than separate bunks divided by a nightstand, for instance) but its theme is so horribly dated and presented in such an awful stacked-deck way that any woman viewing it would likely explode with indignation before it ends. Honestly, this film purports to convey to the female audience that any serious attempt at working outside the home is a dereliction of duty to the care and feeding of men. We're presented with two shining examples of manhood in the characters of whiny Roscoe Karns, as Aline MacMahon's husband, or sniveling loser Norman Foster as Loretta Young's hubby. Neither husband seems to have the capacity to be a money maker, but rather than be pleased at the additional income provided by their working wives, they fume and complain about un-darned socks and un-done dishes. Oh, how can the poor dears possibly cope?! Well, they don't. Foster gets busted for public intoxication, loses his job, finds a mistress, gets horribly sick, but in the end this is all attributed to Loretta Young's success with her job... and it must be stopped! The filmmakers are so sickeningly chauvinistic that they even shoehorn-in a doctor who lays on a mean-spirited speech to Young about how women must be subservient caretakers of the menfolk otherwise civilization will flounder. And Young buys it! She wraps her arms around poor Foster and tells him she's quitting her job to take care of him (i.e. be his slave) so that he can gain back his self-respect. No mention of how they'll get by since he's a loser who can't hold down a job. Apparently her ability to do dishes and darn socks will revitalize his work performance in future. And keeping her out of the workplace will lessen the size of the cancerous tumor of working women that threatens the stability of a male dominated society. I'm a man reviewing this and even I'M appalled! The only bright spot in this otherwise offensive garbage is Aline MacMahon, in only her fourth film role, and she's a pistol. She lights up the screen with her forceful, sassy, but altogether warm-hearted performance as Young's sister-in-law. In fact, if the film had been more about MacMahon and Roscoe Karns it would have been quite a delightful comedy. I'd advise seeing it for her performance only, unless you feel a need to get wound up over dated sexism. Additional note: The film 'Saturday's Children' (1940) with John Garfield is attributed to the play of the same name by Maxwell Anderson, but it uses the same tricked-into-marriage set-up and the same job-in-South America idea as this film, as well as the sister & brother in law characters (in the 40 film that character is also played by Roscoe Karns!) There is plagiarism involved here. I haven't read the Faith Baldwin novel for this film, or the Anderson play, but the similarities are obvious.

Serious Pre-Code

[boblipton · 7/10 · 27 August 2023]

Norman Foster gives up his big opportunity to work in the business' branch in South America. Instead, he marries Loretta Young. Not a bad swap, you'd say, and it's fine at first. Then Miss Young gets a pay raise the same day Foster's salary is cut. There are strains in their companionate marriage, and it comes to a head when he is fired on the same day she gets an offer in St. Louis. Foster announces he's not going to be supported by a woman.

When people think of pre-code movies, they think of naked women and non-normative sex. People think the Production Code saved Hollywood from descending into smut. It did that, but it also cut short serious and adult movies like this one, in which it's made clear that marriage is a partnership, and women get the short end of the deal. Even if the ending is a bit of a cop-out, that part remains. With Aline MacMahon, George Brent, Grant Mitchell, J. Farrell MacDonald, and Roscoe Karns.

some big names in an early talky

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 28 September 2023]

Nineteen year old loretta young, who had already married and anulled costar grant withers. And made a film called "too young to marry" ! In the film, ken (norman foster) has lost his job, but resents the fact that his wife works, and is very successful. Some fun, familiar faces here... aline macmahon, grant mitchell, george brent. Sheila terry. Wikipedia tells us that the great depression was still in full force at this time, and the economy would take many years to recover. The story here shows the lack of jobs, as well as husbands resenting the fact that many wives were now the bread-winner for the family. It's well done! A dose of reality during a rough time for new couples. Directed by thornton freelander. He also directed the fun and successful "flying down to rio". Sadly, sheila terry died at 49 by suicide.

Boring and obnoxious Pre-Code mess

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 20 March 2008]

Despite starring Loretta Young and having George Brent as a supporting character, this film was a soggy dud. Despite being made during the so-called "Pre-Code Era", the film wasn't all that shocking (despite, GOSH, showing a man and wife in the SAME bed!!!). In fact, the film was very, very, very old fashioned and sexist in its moral values--insultingly old fashioned! The story beings with Loretta trying to sucker her boyfriend into marrying her instead of taking off for South America for a year. While this was tricky on her part, her husband spent the rest of the film sulking about this--whining and drinking heavily because "she stole his chance". Despite feeling sorry for himself, Loretta was a darn good wife and ends up eventually making more money than her weasel of a husband. But, because he had the ego of a petulant six year-old, he whined and expected her to quit work simply because she CAN'T earn more than her man!! Later, when he lost his job, he even expected her to quit hers so she wasn't the sole bread winner--and this was during the freakin' Depression when many people didn't have jobs or enough to eat!! While his brittle ego might have actually been an interesting story element, having the film essentially say HE WAS RIGHT was horrible. What a terrible message to tell women! The film also said clearly that women were NEVER to act smarter or be more successful than their husbands. And, if they were, then men were perfectly entitled to drink and cheat on the wives with floozies! This final "deathbed" scene was a joke--as the cheating drunk of a husband was lying there dying of a mystery disease one moment and healthy and safe only moments later--none the worse for the ordeal! YUCK!! Overall, lousy and totally sexist (as well as very, very stupid) writing sank this mess of a film. The acting was okay, but given the drivel they were asked to make work, their job was super-human to say the least. What a wretched film. I'd rather eat my leg than see this film again!

PS--I am a guy and NOT a rabid feminist and I also hate political correctness. However, I have two daughters and crap like this film offends me. I'd never want my girls to become human doormats just to keep an emotionally shallow and philandering alcoholic husband! I'd rather they never marry than make this sort of choice. Heck, I'd rather they marry a sheep than marry an awful guy like this!

Intolerable Message Movie with Some Pre-Code Appreciations

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 1 March 2015]

A Depression Era Message that Seems Unwise and Unwilling to Accept the Fact that People were Struggling Mightily to Make Ends Meet and Many Women were Attempting to Help by Attaining Jobs and Manage Marriage at the Same Time by Necessity.

The Preaching Here is Misguided and Unrealistic, Not to Mention Chauvinistic. It Says Basically that Women Need to Stay in the Home and Take Care of Their Husband's Needs No Matter What. It is the Same Argument Fundamentalist Make Concerning a Biblical Account that is Interpreted as "Women are Subservient".

The (in real life) Holier Than Thou and Hypocritical Loretta Young is the Wifely Beauty Here and Norm Foster is the Husband. Miss Young is Beautiful and has Acting Skills but Norman Foster Made a Good Career Choice Turning to Directing. His On Screen Performances Leave Much to be Desired.

There is a Good Supporting Cast and there are Some Pre-Code Era Moments to Appreciate, but the Movie's Message is Intolerable in Any Era.

A good study in the ultimate male chauvinism of the 1930's

[dtruxaw-2 · 2/10 · 15 March 2011]

The only value of this film is as propaganda showing the ultimate male chauvinism of the day. Loretta Young is a hard working business woman who needs her career to support an ungrateful, untalented and unloving husband. She works hard and tries to make her marriage work but her husband played by George Brent is unrelenting in his demands that she give up her career and be a normal housewife. Today it would be considered a tragedy of major scope.

I love watching Loretta Young with her loose and sexy dresses with plunging necklines and sexy pouty lips but it was torture to see her character subject herself to the outrageous demands of the people in her life to be less than human. The film presents this as not only appropriate behavior but the only acceptable behavior for a woman.

The only use this film has would be in a woman's study course to show the extremes of male chauvinism.

ghastly

[gretz-569-323863 · 3/10 · 6 January 2015]

when I did a search for "Week-end Marriage" on IMDb "Weekend at Bernie's" kept coming up instead (why, IMDb?). but I hated this movie so much I determined I would ADD IT MYSELF if need be, just so I could write this review.

I gave it 3 stars because heck, I did just watch the whole thing. and Loretta Young, as others have said, is truly gorgeous. it was also fun to see her be a "career gal" for the 30 seconds the film allows her to do so.

this is the kind of movie that makes women say "I'm not a feminist, but come ON!" a smart and successful Loretta Young is saddled with a no-good drunk for a husband, but when he's sick she comes running back--not only to nurse him back to health, but to tell him she got fired so he can feel better about himself. the tongue-lashing the doctor gives her about not having babies and taking care of her husband is incredibly offensive; even more so is the moment where Loretta is about to raise her voice in concern for her gravely ill husband, and the doctor puts his hand over her mouth!

I thought to myself: is this how black people feel when they watch 1930s movies that present them as shuckin' and jivin' menials? I feel their pain.

Wild pre-code melodrama, even features toilet paper!

[David-240 · 9/10 · 20 July 2001]

I don't think I've ever seen a 1930's film in which one of the characters buys toilet paper! In fact it wasn't until the 1960's that any film characters (except babies) seem to feel the need to use toilets at all. But in this wild pre-code melodrama "anything goes" (that's even a line in the film!).

It's all about women who want to work even (shock, horror!) after they get married! We are presented with three examples: a seemingly happily married couple in which the husband and wife (played by the dazzlingly funny ALINE MACMAHON) both work; a woman forced by her family to give up work and marry a man she doesn't love; and LORETTA YOUNG, who is having a very successful career while her husband's flounders. Young is terrific and looks sensational. NORMAN FOSTER is also very good as her troubled husband, with GEORGE BRENT providing his usual strong support as a rival for Loretta's hand. The film is very well directed by THORNTON FREELAND, with some magnificent tracking shots from cinematographer BARNEY MCGILL (especially considering how static the camera work in most early talkies is).

The film is hugely enjoyable, and fascinating for its look at the sexual politics of 1932. In fact, until its risible conclusion, the debate about who should "wear the pants" in the home is conducted with intelligence and sophistication. And you see things that really surprise - besides the toilet paper buying, you also see Young and Foster waking up in bed together and Foster rolling over for a bit of nookie! Of course, being a working girl, Loretta declines the advance because she has to go to work. It's a startling moment for a film of this period.

Make sure you see this picture - it's a fascinating little gem - what a shame they copped out at the end. The last five minutes are just horrible!

Could have been an interesting social commentary on the attitudes of the time if it had been made better

[1930s_Time_Machine · 3/10 · 23 August 2023]

Considering that Faith Baldwin wrote the fabulous SKYSCRAPER SOULS, I would have expected something better than this utter tripe she wrote a year later. Maybe it wasn't just her story, imbued as it was with the attitudes of the 1640s, which is bad. The screenplay, the direction, the editing even the acting (yes even Loretta Young's) is simply awful.

The theme of this film is that a married woman's place is in the home and if she is one of those crazy 'modern' women who want to work after they are married their lives will be ruined, their families will descend into utter misery and ultimately the entire fabric of American life will be destroyed (seriously, this last bit really is actually suggested!) Such "old fashioned" attitudes make uncomfortable viewing but this was written in the early thirties when for the vast majority of the population in the West, a married woman's place was in the home. This was the norm, it's nothing to get worked up about, it's just the way things were. From racial segregation, intolerance of other beliefs to burning of witches: we thought differently in that weird far away land called the past.

If this wasn't so poorly made it would be interesting to watch just for the incredibly clunky scenes which are made to bulldoze certain points across. The editing is done with the subtlety of Atilla The Hun with a hangover as scenes just stop to highlight some awful thing which has resulted from Loretta Young having a job. That's the job by the way which is actually paying the rent for the flat they're living in and the food they are eating after his own job goes down the pan. Some of the unforgivable atrocities she bestows on her poor husband are: - 1. She leaves the house without making the bed.

2. Her husband has holes in his socks because she hasn't darned them.

3. She doesn't have his dinner ready for him when he gets home from his work.

4. On one occasion he has to cook a meal himself.

5. He has to get a prostitute because his wife is too tired to satisfy him after going to work herself.

The poor man! And SHE apologises to HIM for being so awful....she even pays for his prostitute.....and he's still cross with her

As I'm showing it's very easy to slip in to judging this by our modern standards which is stupid because married women going to work really was unusual and of course would have caused problems like this. Working wives did disrupt society. It was so unusual that women weren't even included in the unemployment statistics until 1971 (here in the UK) so women going to work...or rather having to go to work is a relatively modern phenomenon. The only reason you fall into this trap is because this picture is just so poorly put together. Had it been made better it would have been a really interesting slice of early thirties social commentary but as it stands, it's laughably cheap and shabby.

Enjoyable and rather unusual pre-Code film

[mrb1980 · 8/10 · 26 March 2006]

When I watched this recently, I had a feeling that someone had inadvertently mixed two movies together. The first half is a light-hearted story of courtship and marriage, with Ken (Norman Foster) pursuing and marrying Lola (Loretta Young). After that, the movie becomes very serious, with Ken losing his job, having all sorts of objections to his wife having a professional job, then getting drunk, hanging around with another woman (Sheila Terry), and waiting for Lola to bail him out of jail. Lola is very disappointed in Ken (no kidding!) and leaves him to take an executive job in St. Louis. There, she meets and is pursued by George Brent, but rushes back to Ken's side when he's ill, even though he's living with the tramp who got him arrested. Ending is predictable, and I think it shouldn't have been that way.

The movie's good and has lots of pre-Code touches, like Ken and Lola actually sharing the same bed, and Ken cheating on Lola with a trampy blonde. Young is absolutely lovely, and Aline McMahon steals every scene she's in as Young's sister-in-law. Enjoyable pre-Code stuff, though the final message--and Doctor Grant Mitchell's lecture to Young--are woefully dated.

A fascinating film ahead of its time!

[axs4091601 · 8/10 · 11 January 2006]

I think the movie is well-cast and well-written and definitely worth the time it takes to watch it. Yes, it is biased but it is still fun to watch the story unfold.

On a sensual level: Loretta Young was simply beautiful. She is lovely to look at in this film and her voice is so easy on the ears. Despite, the fact that sound technology wasn't all that sophisticated at the time. Just take her husbands voice in this film as a comparison....yuk. Oh, if you like nice costumes, Lola/Loretta looks fabulous in her thirties outfits, slender and graceful, simply gorgeous. The apartment where Lola lives as a newlywed is adorable.

On a conceptual level: This film contains strong social commentary involving the tension between men and women in terms of courtship, marriage and the roles played by each member of the union. Of course, the writer(s) & director support the traditionally prescribed gender roles of men as breadwinner and woman as caretaker. No big surprise. Yet, the character of Lola is compelling because the author/screen writer infused her with the will of a modern woman AND an enduring love for the man she married (despite the fact he is a dork, excuse my word choice).

Another reason to take the time to watch this one if you have the chance is the script and the supporting cast. Lola and "what's his name" do not exist in a vacuum. They are a surrounded by adequately developed characters and events that describe the often subtle yet powerful transactions that take place between brothers & sisters; men & women; and married folks & their lovers. The film illustrates the daily parade of interactions and transactions that occur between partners in the business of long term relationships.

Don't let me forgot that the main focus of this story is the role of women and the power women have to choose their destiny, marriage, work and/or children. I'd like to think if this movie was remade today, it could provide Lola a more satisfactory ending.

Interesting Thirties Drama with contemptible message and one terrific scene

[bensonj · 21 September 2006]

Though significantly better and more interesting, largely because of the supporting talent (especially Aline MacMahon), this is a rehash of the Loretta Young vehicle of the previous year, BIG BUSINESS GIRL. Again, Loretta is saddled with her inferior in drive, ability and looks, and, again, she is chastised for trying to get ahead. Foster has his chance, a two year job in South America, but Loretta, prompted by her cynical sister-in-law Aline, convinces him to stay and marry her. From there, she goes up and he goes down, including a binge with a floozy. The very day she gets an offer to rise to the executive level, he's fired. Her job takes her to St. Louis, to a rewarding job, a professional class of friends, and the handsome boss's son. He stays in New York and nurses his pride with a bottle, but when he gets the flu, she has to come back home, take a royal tongue lashing from Grant Mitchell, and then, while the floozy packs her things, she has to lie to hubby that she was fired and she'll have to depend on him. What a contemptible tract! What possible marriage could succeed after this shaky re-start? Basically, she's blameless throughout, yet has to eat the most bitter crow because, after all, she's only a woman.

The film does have one truly great, unusual scene. Loretta's pal at the office has been seeking advice about her own problem: her brother wants her to marry a coarse bootlegger. Finally, she's decided to tell her brother she won't do it, and asks Loretta to come along for moral support. This happens to be the night that Loretta's hubby Foster decides to make a big dinner as a surprise, but Loretta has no choice but support her friend, and calls him. Then a cut to a shot of a man playing a violin. The shot is from below, as seen from a person in a sitting position. Whether momentary disorientation was intended, I don't know, but that's the effect. (Who is this man? Why is he playing the violin?) The camera then wanders about to reveal his audience. Two little girls sit lethargically in a big armchair; one shushes the other when her dolly cries. A young boy idly plays with his knife. And then Loretta and her friend. When the music finishes, the friend tells her brother (the violinist, J. Carroll Naish) that she won't marry the bootlegger; if necessary she'll continue to work. He says it's too bad she doesn't have to work in a sweatshop so she'd be grateful for the chance to cook for a husband and have babies. He knocks her to the floor, and threatens Loretta when she speaks up. With an iron grip on this sister's wrist, when the bootlegger arrives he accepts for her and forces her to kiss her new fiancé. The whole scene is brilliantly filmed, written and played, and the capper is that the unwanted suitor turns out to be Luis Alberni, a big friendly guileless slob, but no less a horrible fate for a young girl in spite of that. It's amazing that no one seems to notice that this sequence is in conflict with the theme of the film–it is, in fact, a sinister parody of the film's closing sequence with Grant Mitchell.

But the scenes surrounding this sequence are symptomatic of the film's failures. Naturally, when Loretta calls her husband, she doesn't explain the importance of her mission, and he doesn't say anything about his disappointment. Later, when she picks him up from the drunk tank, she never tells him of the horrific experience she just went through. These two never communicate; how could their marriage succeed?

Excellent cast in infuriating story

[morrisonhimself · 8/10 · 6 January 2015]

Yes, it's very well done, by some superb actors, but the premise that women exist primarily to serve their men, first, is infuriating and, second, was out of date for rational people even in 1932.

One of the most infuriating speeches I have ever heard was spoken by the doctor, and is quoted at length on the main page here at IMDb.

Far too many people, yes, even today, take Ephesians 5 to an extreme and interpret it to mean "women, lie down and be a doormat."

A Greek scholar I once worked for said the King James phrasing, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands ..." is not a very accurate translation, that the word translated as "submit" does not convey the original Greek. He said a better understanding is not that women are supposed to be subordinate, but that women -- and men -- get united into a couple.

So, not to give away the ending, I walked away from the TCM presentation directly to the computer to review this angrily.

Yes, I admired the production and the acting and everything else except the terrible message. And, yes, I hope everyone who likes classic movies will watch because it is, truly, a classic movie, illustrating its time and showcasing some remarkably talented people, including the beautiful Loretta Young.

We all need to remember the context, that "Week-End Marriage" was made in 1932, and to think about what people said and did and believed then, and make sure we don't make the same mistakes today, 2015.

Message sucks, watch at your own risk.

[viveca-powell · 26 August 2023]

I love old movies, especially pre-code films. I also Love Loretta Young. Beauty aside, she has sincerity, wit and range that make her so watchable and relatable. I am also a thrice divorced, black, female, retired attorney. I can watch many an old movie and still consider it good or entertaining despite a lot of undesirable content. But I can NOT abide this one. I am a woman of many words and this movie has left me speechless. I guess, to quote another reviewer, all it takes is sacrifice. Compromise would have made for a more realistic movie. Healthier too. This movie's message was not emotionally healthy for women in 1932 during the depression or anytime since then. Kinda afraid to start the next recorded movie.

Pre-Code Young

[Michael_Elliott · 28 February 2008]

Weekend Marriage (1932)

** (out of 4)

After their marriage, Loretta Young and her husband find troubles when she starts making more money than him. He didn't want her to work at all and now he begins to feel like the wife. Here's another early moral tale that's pretty slow moving throughout, although the leads offer good performances. This story was pretty normal for the Pre-Code years at Warner and I often wondered if they just used the same screenplay from previous films and changed them up a bit. Young is as beautiful as ever but she's done better films.