Stepford Wives’s original film generated a forgotten horror franchise

Bryan Forbes’ Psychological Thriller “The Stepford Wives” is a warning story for the ages. There is a Campy element in the film that only sharpens its satirical advantage, but when it leans in its scathing comment, the pathos is genuine. An adaptation of the Ira Levin Ira novel, “The Stepford Wives” has obtained a consistent cultural mileage consumption throughout the decades, inspiring the most recent mysterious thrillers such as “Don’t Whath Darling” (which essentially doubles the premise of the original without success or conviction).

Although the history of Forbes is more in layers of what it seems initially, central criticism lies in the systemic subjugation of women through patriarchal practices, where they are reduced to not entities that are subordinated to men with whom they are married. This is taken to the irregularity of the extremes in the Forbes film, and when Joanna Eberhart (Katharine Ross) moves to Stepford with her husband, we can perceive the strange social behavior of the community through the eyes of a bewildered skeptic. Joanna immediately realizes that the women of the community are obsessed with being perfect housewives, while men are more than happy to make the minimum and enjoy the subordination of their wives.

The film’s psychological horror appears intensifies towards the end, which leads to a rather bleak end. Although history is not perfect, it connects the identity policy of companies with unbridled consumerism in some interesting way. As culturally relevant as the Forbes film is a less known fact that “The Stepford Wives” generated three (!) Associated titles (!), Forming a horror franchise that is still eclipsed by the original.

The first direct sequel in question is “The Revenge of the Stepford Wives” from 1980, a terror thriller made for television that takes place 10 years after the events of the original film. This little story examines the consequences of couples who want to leave Stepford, which leads to television reporter Kaye Foster (Sharon Gless) to visit the apparently idyllic community for an investigation. The immediate signals that something sinister is underway here is more open here, since Kaye realizes that women revoke the pills several times a day after a siren appears through the city speakers. As the plot progresses, Kaye is established as an acute and ingenious protagonist dedicated to the emancipation of women trapped in Stepford, even after she learns the atrocious truth. This is one of the best entrances in the franchise, despite wearing an ambiguous ending that does not completely explore the central trope of revenge.

Next, we have “The Stepford Children” from 1986, in which a couple moves Stepford with his children, David (Randall Batinkoff) and Mary (Tammy Lauren). David and Mary’s father, Steven (Don Murray), seems annoying for his relaxed and carefree spirits and joins the dire association of men to assimilate them to obedient and consummated robots with little or no sense of himself. Children, although they don’t know this, are scared of the attitudes of adults around them, who seem to be obsessed with monitoring their children to help them achieve a “perfect” social image. Now, this is a decent monitoring of “revenge”, but lacks the delicacy of its predecessors, together with the conviction of telling a story that remains committed to the issues of the abuse of parents and their repercussions.

It is possible that you have already felt a topic here, so it should not be surprising that the final entry of this series is called “The Stepford Husbands” (who begins with a man who violently kills his wife before committing suicide). The story tries to turn the original concept about their head presenting men in Stepford being docile to their wives, and the Stepford Institute of Human Behavior is responsible for this change. Leaving writing in poor condition and actions without inspiration, this concept invested in “The Stepford Husbands” falls due to the obvious lack of reflection of real life, since even the strongest brand of Misandry cannot be compared to the horrible consequences of violent misogyny that affect all In society. This is the most superficial interpretation of a family premise, and the most creative bankruptcy of the trio.

Although nothing can eclipse the gross impact of the original 1975, these follow -ups (except for the third) are decent enough for a unique clock.