Stella Dallas (1937): judgment and compulsory motherhood
Some movies may be 70 or 80 years old, but they remain powerful, no matter the changes that happened in that time. I confess that I was distressed during most of “Stella Dallas”, and not only because it is a moving film. It is also an uncomfortable and sexist movie in many ways.
Stella Martin (Barbara Stanwyck) is a girl from the working class who sees a perfect opportunity to conquer the rich Stephen Dallas (John Boles) when he breaks up his engagement. Stella gets what she wants, marries Stephen and they have a daughter. However, our impression is that marriage and motherhood are goals set by society, but not ideal for Stella.
Stella wants to have fun! She leaves her newborn daughter at home and goes to a big ball, where she meets Ed Munn (Alan Hale). He becomes her constant pal, but Stephen is not happy with the fact that his wife wants to do both: have fun with her old friends and take care of her daughter. So, Stephen abandons Stella and little Laurel.
Stella worries a lot with Laurel’s upbringing, sews clothes for her and lives modestly, while Stephen gets back to his old girlfriend, now a widow. Stella still goes out sometimes with her friend Ed, but she becomes subject to gossip. Suddenly, Laurel has no more friends because her mother became persona non grata.
Laurel spends her vacation with her father and, in a very common case of emotional and economical blackmail that goes on between divorced couples, she is sent to Stephen’s new girlfriend’s house and enjoys life among the high society. Some months later, he decides to divorce Stella in order to remarry. For a divorced man, remarrying is no problem. For a woman, the situation is different. Stephen’s (extramarital! Bigamist!) relationship is seen as normal and even necessary for him to keep living. And please take note that his new girlfriend had t0 be a widow: if she was divorced or still legally married, as Stephen was, she would become a pariah.
First: all women have the right to have fun (no puns intended). When they have children they don’t stop being people with their own wishes and needs. They don’t lose their individuality. And not all women were born to be mothers, although Stella makes sacrifices for Laurel and loves her truly. Second: no child should suffer because of her parents’ mistakes. Mistreating Laurel only because her mother is not a high society woman is ridiculous, but unfortunately it’s something that still happens.
The sacrifice is the main theme in the movie. Laurel freaks out with the façade of high society and can’t stop dreaming of being one of them, and we get angry with such a naïve, annoying character. However, some scenes later she redeems herself when she shows how much she loves her mother and how much she hates seeing Stella being ridiculed. But the noblest sacrifice will be made by Stella only. She is the maximum example of the mother who lies and endures suffering in order to see her daughter triumph.
Maybe Stella could have been happier if she was childfree. Or even if she remained single. She is a typical example of a woman who wasn’t made to be a mother being forced by society and circumstances to become one. Whenever motherhood is mandatory, everybody suffers: the woman herself, her child who may be left aside and not taken care of properly, and the whole society, that now has another two less-than-perfectly-mentally-healthy member.
We can’t stand any longer the perpetuation of the idea that all mothers must stop living their own lives and become supporting players in their daughter’s lives. Of course, the movie wouldn’t exist without Stella’s sacrifice. Everybody admires Stella Dallas. But who wants to be like her in real life?
