Woman of the Year (1942)

The Worst Film Ever

Memorable, crazy movie

Good start, but then it gets ruined

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Woman of the Year is a reasonably good film, that engages but doesn't connect the whole way through.There is definitely a more serious romantic tone in this film, than the pairings other films. Spencer Tracy has significantly more screen time and I don't find him to ever be more than average, so that is a negative because it means less Katharine. Then for a fair portion of the film, Hepburn's character isn't very nice, so you have no choice but to side with Spencer's character. Most of the time spent before they get married is terrific and the ending also, but it drops off a bit for me in the middle.Some of the reviews here are quite funny claiming misogyny. The kitchen scene is simply Tess apologizing for her cold, heartless behavior. Showing that she wants to change and become a loving woman. It doesn't mean is she completely giving up her career and becoming a housewife, stop taking things things so literal. Like you would have Katharine Hepburn in the role if that was the case and what reason has Sam given you to think he would want her to do such a thing. His line about her not being a woman has nothing to do with work at all, it's about her actions and consideration towards him.

Wartime world war II was the struggle for the free world to keep their freedoms and aide nations whose freedoms were at risk or nations taken over to regain them. The roles of women in society had been changing slowly over the past few decades before that, so career women who dared to step up to what was normally the men's plate began to encourage other women to do the same. For popular columnist Tess Harding (Katharine Hepburn), her independence is all she knows, so so what if she can't make a pot of coffee or fry an egg? But a feud with a sports columnist is fixed with a risky solution: the best way to conquer an enemy is to marry them. Having ridiculed each other on the sly, Hepburn and Sam Craig (Spencer Tracy) begin to see each other socially, and impulsively, they get married. It's soon obvious that he is a traditionalist while she's a feminist, and obviously, neither of them want to change or compromise, and his frustration is quickly expanded. Their arguments become more aggressive after the initial amusement over their differences, and when she goes against her own ethics to try and become the traditional wife she thinks he wants, it has an even greater affect on her morale than it does on his digestion.You cannot compare gender issues of 1942 to post war year gender issues, let alone today's. Why a man would feel forced to change his ways in this era to appease his wife yet loose himself is as unacceptable now as it was then. The only difference now is that both sexes seem to be remaining single longer, while the war era created marriages on the spur of the moment that were regretted once the war was over. But Sam and Tess are career people at home together, who can discuss issues, and there's a lot of that. A ton of it, actually, and often, the intended comedy becomes intrusive drama that makes the two incompatible. Tess makes a fool out if herself in various ways, unable to make coffee or understand baseball, while Sam gets arrogant over her desire to keep her career as is. In a sense, it's very truthful, but it makes it difficult to root for either one without feeling sexist. Tracy and Hepburn are excellent in their first teaming together, and the writing often is brilliant. But you can't go into this with the idea that it's going to be a riotous comedy, because at times, it seems like it's written to create more battles between the sexes rather than try to create any type of understanding, let alone compromise.

. . . Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy pairings. Tracy's sports nut Sam Craig and Hepburn's highbrow social butterfly Tess Harding initially are believable as antagonists, but the love spark misfires here. Tess is interested in people ONLY for their ideas; she has virtually NO sense of human feelings, and must rely on cues from others to counterfeit the appearance of basic humanity. What she does to poor Chris, the Greek orphan she adopts after marrying Sam toward the end of the movie in order to "pad" her "woman of the year" credentials, is one of the biggest travesties against nature committed to film prior to 1950. The rewrite of the original ending was thought necessary to make Tess look more fallible. Well, most viewers have seen her as totally fallible all along, and her kitchen mishaps just make her look more pathetic. Sam, on the other hand, comes off as a total wimp; hardly a likable character himself. This movie has little to recommend it, other than being the worst pairing of this famed movie duo.

There is much to say about this movie than the poor summary: it is about two journalists and feminism but it is also about passion. And a devouring one, one that shines across screens and times.This was the debut of the famous Tracy-Hepburn couple and love is all you can see and everything you remember about this movie. And the script was so fun! Hepburn is refreshing playing a working girl when Tracy is naturally an easy guy, deeply fond on this woman at first sight.Public was laughing at the time and we are still doing the same now because time as change, society too but great movies don't seem to age like this star couple, still making us dream!