Auntie Mame and 1950s Femininity 

Read the books by Patrick Dennis first. Then watch the adapted film version. No-one but Rosalind Russell could have played Auntie Mame. Forget the musical version except to see Bea Arthur's Vera Charles. Even as a child watching this film I understood the connotations & not-so-subtle innuendos, probably because I'm gay & grew up lower middle class suburbs. Def one of my top 5 fav films!!

The party scene guests were meant to represent to literary and cultural circles of the 1920s (when the scene was set.) The two women in men's attire are a direct reference to Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. Audiences at the time would have known that.

I watch auntie Mame every Christmas since the late sixties. She reminds me of my mom, except we weren’t rich. I love Rosalind Russel as Auntie Mame.

Mame Dennis is my grandmother who was born in 1910. The 1920s shaped who she was. She wasn't rich but she never doubted herself or cared what anyone said or thought about her. She shaped my expectations of how a woman is. I ran from women who acted clingy or dependent. BTW, Auntie Mame is set in the 1920s. How does this reflect 1950s femininity? My female relatives were angry when universal child care funded by the Federal Government disappeared after WW2 and they were forced back into the home. That definitely shaped their view of femininity in the 1950s!

I have to watch this movie at least once a year (Christmas) if not twice. I don't find Ito's portrayal hard to watch. He's one of the sweetest characters on there and has the biggest heart! People are so quick to judge things from the past. Their intention was never to make fun of him, but to have fun, with him and yes, we would not have that character portrayed in that way now, but back then it was a different time and they at least had him pretty much front and center and never in a bad light.

Just watched this last night. First time. LOVED IT !!!

The bigotry by today's standards are a sign of the times. The movie was set in a plantation which probably would have had black servants in the 1920's and 1930's. They weren't thinking about racism back then while making the movie. They were most likely trying to make it more realistic. I love this movie.

I don't think Ito was really meant to be insulting. The way they portrayed it was a cute and innocent character in my opinion. My immigrant co-worker from China is the same way. She's sweet, speaks broken English and sticks with the bosses, working hard for them longer than anyone else at my work. This movie did a benefit to asian immigrants who speak broken enlgish because it gave people a positive representation, as Ito was hard working and loyal. so when someone saw this movie, it taught people to have a positive perception. He wasn't dehumanized. Both the nanny & butler have accents and both are loyal friends rather than servants. the south was depicted in that way because the audience is still in the 50's. they don't wanna draw attention from the main plot. and it probably wasn't written with them having more lines or appearances in the first place. In Giant with Elizabeth Taylor & Rock Hudson, they depicted the South in a similar way, with black servants for a rich household and the story of Giant takes place around the same time as Auntie Mame and both movies were made in the same decade. Giant's plot was about the racism and bigotry that took place in Texas against the native Latino population (Tejanos) that resided there as Americans and went to WW2 to die as Americans. The movie depicted them as Americans that received unfair treatment by society yet the overwhelming sacrifice that surpassed many gringos. It was the subplot of the movie and one of the social issues tackled. Movies focused on different issues however the South being depicted that way was normal, when they weren't to draw so much attention to the setting from the plot.

As someone who has read the book and watched the movie from a young age and returned with long breaks over the years, I enjoyed the Insights. To the point I can say I even had one novel insight, which is extremely rare. However, the last part of the video, while I can see it as well intentioned, isn’t as strong. I appreciate the effort to cover other aspects such as race, ethnicity, and class, But in this particular context, there doesn’t seem to be as much to say of depth. A woman in the 50s, a childless single woman raising a boy, or just simply being herself at all, that was so much more of a radical thing in itself. So I think it makes sense for this to be more dominated by and other aspects like race and racial diversity, and their interactions with gender and gender roles aren’t featured as deeply or in as sophisticated a manner - and that that would only be expected for the time, context, and the scope of the work.. I still enjoyed thinking about some of the more implicit aspects of this work and what it says about society and cultural factors at large and fid them fascinating. I don’t disagree that there are other areas that these factors play a pArt in and those are also important and their intersection and interactions. I don’t mean this to be in anyway negative but all constructive, and this is just my opinion and that’s subjective. Thank you for your work. I really enjoyed it!

If anything the mid 40s thru mid 50s represented a conservative interruption of cultural change. Things started changing at the turn of the century and was well on it's way in the 20s and 30s. However, there was a post war propaganda campaign to put women back into the home and make it difficult to compete in the workforce and cultural homogeneity was encouraged to make things appear stable.

Great movie. Very good essay.

Bravo! Excellent commentary! Best of luck, though it appears your talent does not require luck!

One of my favorite movies ❤

very good job on a very good movie

Oh please spare me with your woke comments! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Suit lady from the birds also

While all the political correctness or incorrectness is true, the bottom line is that it is a damn good story full of great laughs. In the end, the story and the laughs always win. Look at Gone With the Wind - racist, sympathetic to KKK, but it is full of American history, romances, color, life, and a great story. Who will NOT watch GWTW or Aunty Mame?

What a great narration on my favorite movie

Thank you🙂

"African Americans are completely absent from the film outside a few:" I knew somewhere in this the narrator would start in with race. Don't psychoanalyze the movie and compare the times it's set in to 2024. Just watch the movie, laugh and don't let social norms of the time offend you. People need to lighten up and stop puckering their assholes. Take Mame's line to heart, "Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death".

M American minority depictions from the mid-20th century and earlier can't simply be written off as insensitive stereotypes...at least not collectively. Until well into the 20th century, the different cultures of the world had an awareness, but not an incisive understanding, of each other...each regarded the others with an almost mystical exoticism. Unfamiliarity isn't ignorance, nor is it bigotry...stereotypes are an inevitability of centuries of limited exposure. With only historical academic and literary depictions to draw from, it stands to reason that our notions of each other would be imprecise and one-dimentional...a transitional phase which was awkward, but unavoidable.

I loved this movie but Kinsey was a compilation of PRISONERS....

Most poor suckers are starving to death I love that line

Read the book. It’s far racier.

It wasn't a Black movie. The Asian is playing an Asian.

This is Carrie Faith Dehls With God first how is it homosexuality is so misunderstood? Personally, I've been put to think to myself " I have issues, that's not one of them. " Being heterosexual, it's something I know exists just don't relate so much. But all this go green and tiny housing and sustainable living peeked my common sense when put to God. Homosexuality , must be as natural as heterosexuality, and to support this realization I can offer that, God of course , would have population in his plan. The differences are ? Both sexes in both type relationships, same , or opposite, desire a life partner, a marriage between consenting adults, same sex may procreate but to do so, one would go outside of the marriage, then be a natural parent. This might be a choice but to adopt is one keeping relationship balanced. Heterosexual marriage procreates and with that choice they chance on a healthy baby. Adoption , couples may or may not take that risk. Even choose babies need special care. God does not condemn love, people do. If your not God, then how can you say different? My two cents. America needs to own it's sexuality before it owns America. God bless USA amen

I hate to tell you this, but if your get pregnant from having unprotected sex, it’s not an “unplanned” pregnancy, it’s engaging in planed pregnancy behavior. Society hasn’t seem any benefits from sexual promiscuity or children born to unmarried women, in fact just the opposite. Also, to say this is modern or removal of repression, shows you are historically ignorant. Many +7kturals over the last 3,000 years engaged in promiscuity, and such moral decay often occurred before a society collapsed e.g. the Roman Empire. So history is just repeating itself, as people abandon the tried and true benefits of heterosexual marriage and the family as being the stabilizing foundation of a society.