Movies are an escape to other worlds where sometimes the stories are a reflection of people’s lives. Film history helps to understand the changes that filmmakers have made from the early ages of Hollywood to now. You might not believe that there were certain themes in Hollywood that were banned from being brought onto the big screen but filmmakers then did not have the kind of freedom to write deep and emotional stories, especially explicit stories about everyday life.
As the silent film era came to an end and sound technology was introduced, filmmakers were introduced to a whole new world of cinema. Some influential and powerful people outside of the industry were afraid that moviegoers might be influenced by what was seen on screen. To make cinema more conservative, the Catholic church decided to suppress some of the themes seen throughout films that they deemed to be harmful. Through the creation of the Motion Picture Production Code, more widely known as the Hays Code, certain themes could be excluded from being screened, including: criminal violence, suicide, birth control, abortion, racial relations, homosexuality, and divorce.
The Hays Code was created by Will H. Hays, the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), to monitor and censor films in order to bind them to Christian values. Hays and two contributors, a Catholic layman, Michael Quigley and a Jesuit priest, Father Daniel A. Lord created a rule book that was adapted by the MPPDA in 1934. Lord was convinced that the introduction of sound movies would harm children and drafted a code of standards. Once the Hays Code came into effect, the Production Code Administration’s president, Joseph Breen handled and reviewed all aspects of the movie’s production. Breen and his team evaluated the scripts, costumes, sets, lyrics and even shot alternative endings to films.
In the case of divorce films, Production Code Administration (PCA) wanted to erase the physical and mental toll of marital breakdown and divorce on screen, preferring instead to show a version where divorce does not exist. It was believed that “the sanctity of the institution of marriage and home” was essential. It meant that filmmakers were not allowed to depict any themes of divorce in their movies unless it was necessary. Divorce films were wildly misrepresented during the Code era and focused on upholding the ‘sanctity of marriage’ through romantic comedy films.
Once the Hays Code ended in the 1960s, filmmakers were able to explore more explicit themes around divorce. Previously, alternate endings such as annulments, infidelity, murder, and suicides were used as a way of terminating the marriage but these themes were not used as the main conflict after the 1960s. The door was open to show a more realistic portrayal of divorce without reuniting the characters at the end of the movie. Of course, it would take ten years for such a thing to be featured in a Hollywood movie.
In the late 1970s, films about divorce were very popular. A film that famously centered around the subject of divorce was Robert Benton’s Kramer vs. Kramer. There was a reason why Kramer vs. Kramer stood apart from the rest of the Code era divorce films. It did not explore controversial themes such as infidelity and the unhappy couple never had to reunite at the end of the movie. It stands alone as one of the best divorce films that explores the conventional and realistic portrayal of marriage and divorce.
Rather than having nonsensical characters that have no empathy towards the characters around them and not worrying about children, post-Code divorce films focus more on human behaviour and emotions. Stories about cheating, murdering, and annulling relationships with their partners are not strong stories anymore. Kramer vs. Kramer features strong characters and a relationship between a father and son, both of whom are seen as empathetic.
According to Michael Asimov, marriage and divorce should be based on a strong story and empathetic characters. Exploring the issues that go into or surround a divorce makes films about them more realistic. These issues include: gender issues, the economic aspects of splitting one household into two, the effect of divorce on children, single parenthood and non-custodial parenthood, social and relational problems encountered by newly-divorced spouses, outdated family law doctrines, the legal process of divorce and the problems of lawyer-client relationships in family law. While many post-Code divorce films described the problems of divorce and marital breakdown, Kramer vs. Kramer was the only film that explored all of these issues.
In Kramer vs. Kramer, Joanne (Meryl Streep) does not leave because Ted (Dustin Hoffman) cheats on her. Her decision to leave was because she was in a passionless marriage and felt suffocated in the relationship, confined only to completing household chores and caring for her husband and son, Billy (Justin Henry). Ted is utterly oblivious to her unhappiness and does not understand what made her upset. When Joanne suggests that she should get a job, Ted dismissed her immediately. He begged Joanne to come back but she leaves her husband and son.
Kramer vs. Kramer also explored an element that had previously never been shown on film — Billy’s perspective on how his parent’s separation was affecting him. Billy does not understand why his mother left and the whole experience leaves him desperately missing her. While he initially found it challenging to get along with his father, both of them eventually learn to understand each other. When his mother reappears after one and a half years, Billy is confused. He does not understand the custody battle between his parents but the audience can see how he reacts during the process.
The differences from the Code era to the post-Code era divorce films are evident. Filmmakers started writing more empathetic characters and realistic stories that deal with the different perspectives of the family and the relationship. Kramer vs. Kramer was the first step in the right direction and the films that followed in the next decades showed new complex stories of divorced couples and the disintegration of their marriages. Sam Mendes’ Revolutionary Road, Paul Dano’s Wildlife, and Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story are all movies that revolve around the failure of a marriage.
Revolutionary Road is set in the 1950s, centered around a married couple, Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) and April Wheeler (Kate Winslet). Both of them want to leave their suburban lifestyle and move to Paris, where Frank will try and figure out what he wants to do in life. Frank and April are momentarily happy but an unplanned pregnancy changes their plans to move to Paris. The disintegration of their marriage happens slowly as Frank and April cheat on each other without any repercussions. Frank and April start to quarrel about the unplanned pregnancy that ends their move to Paris and their unhappiness leads them into further chaos. They’re both selfish who want different things in life and become frustrated with how their lives have ended.
In the movie, Frank and April’s unhappiness is seen from each of their perspectives. The reason for the breakdown of their relationship is quite clear — they both resent each other and are unhappy in the marriage. Frank hates his job and dreams of searching for something new to do, while April depends on Frank after failing as an actress but resents his inability to follow his dreams. An element of standard divorce films that is not included in Revolutionary Road, however, is the involvement of their children. The film fails to consider the effect that divorce has on children.
Another divorce film, Wildlife, focuses on Jerry (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Jeannette Brinson (Carey Mulligan), and their son, Joe (Ed Oxenbould). When Jerry gets sacked from his job at the golf course, his confidence starts to falter and he gets depressed. In order for the family to pay the bills, Jeannette gets a job as a swimming instructor. Their marital breakdown begins when Jerry leaves his family to take a low-paying firefighting job in the hills. What follows is Jeannette’s struggle with her new reality in a single-parent household. In desperation, she befriends Warren Miller (Bill Camp) and they start a relationship together. When Jerry returns, he comes back to a fractured family and a wife who wants to follow other aspirations in life.
Even though Wildlife focuses on Jerry and Jeannette’s relationship and eventual marital breakdown, Joe’s perspective is more dominating in the movie. He does not react to what is happening with his parents but observes the chaos around him. There is not much of a reaction from Joe when he finds out that his mother has started a new relationship with Warren. He is confused by his mother’s new forged reality and his parent’s behaviour as they sleep in separate rooms. He is powerless to his parent’s marital breakdown and does not know where he stands in all of it.
In both Revolutionary Road and Wildlife, the filmmakers have constructed a story with complex characters that deal with real-life situations. The elements of a classic divorce film like Kramer vs. Kramer are not always evident but some of these issues are still depicted. Neither of these films show the legal process of divorce and none of the characters within them ever reunite at the end — there is no reason for them to. Their marital breakdowns are clearly explored and do not make the same ridiculous excuses of remarriages or reunions compared to the Code era films. These films focus on their internal conflicts and gender issues, breaking away from the constraints of marriage with a realistic approach.
Marriage Story starts with the marital breakdown of Charlie (Adam Driver) and Nicole (Scarlett Johansson). While the actions leading up to this breakdown is not shown in the movie, it is explained later as Nicole tells the story of her disappointing marriage to her divorce lawyer. Compared to the other films that are mentioned in this essay, Marriage Story revolves mostly around the divorce proceedings. Both of the characters are trying to figure out the custody of their son, Henry (Azhy Robertson). Brutal attacks by their lawyers around the care of their son puts a strain on them, and both Charlie and Nicole are dissatisfied with the long and legal process of divorce proceedings.
What this movie does perfectly is showing the perspectives of both Charlie and Nicole without villainizing them. What side is the audience supposed to take? What side is the director taking? Is it a case of the director vs the audience? Charlie and Nicole love each other a lot. At the beginning of the film, both of them read aloud what they love about each other but they never say it to each other. They are fond of the memories that they made but what leads to the breakdown of their relationship, ultimately, is not understanding each other’s perspective. Although Charlie has an extra-marital affair, that is not the main reason for the end of the relationship.
When Charlie and Nicole confront each other, it turns into a vile and rude argument. Charlie does not try to see her perspective because he is selfish and self-centered, while Nicole listens to him and complains but gets frustrated when Charlie is not on the same level as her. Their aspirations in life parted ways somewhere during the relationship and they fell out of love with each other. The film perfectly summarizes an imbalance in the relationship without trying to prove that one of the characters is in the wrong. There is no antagonist and choosing sides is only meant to be left with the audience. Charlie and Nicole do not hate each other and they part knowing that being separated is much better for each of them.
The divorce films during the Code era were a misrepresentation of marital breakdowns. Despite the restrictions, it is important to note the many changes that divorce films have gone through over the decades. While infidelity is a theme that is present in the post-Code era films, there are much bigger problems for separation. Marital breakdown and divorces deal with emotion, mental illness, values, betrayals, financial problems and changes in lifestyle due to the circumstances that they face. All of these elements are explored in movies and it is bizarre that they were almost erased from the movies for 30 years.
Censorship in movies distorts the reality that people face. The return of the serious and realistic treatment of divorce films was an awakening for filmmakers to explore the elements on a deeper level. Kramer vs. Kramer sets the standard for a classic divorce film. The movies that followed after that era take on divorce with complex materials that deal with consequences, the legal process of divorce, the effects that it has on children and parents more critically.
