“The wives of Stepford have a secret. Are you a Stepford wife? Are you a Stepford husband? Couple, ask yourselves: would you move to Stepford?”

Credit

In many ways the 2004 remake of the iconic 70’s horror masterpiece The Stepford Wives, from the original novel by Ira Levin, has a lot in common with the Nicholas Cage led, Neil Labute directed, remake of The Wicker Man. Both are remakes of seminal horror masterworks from the 70’s, built around intense character drama, with incredible scripts and a fervently astonishing lead performance surrounded by an ensemble of marvellously villainous creeps. The 70’s versions of both films are some of my favourite horror films of all time, with Robin Hardy’s Wicker Man being a firm position in my all time horror top ten. However when both films received their 2000’s remakes, the new takes on these stories were met with extreme critical revilement for their gutting of the purposes of the original stories in place of absurdist new commentaries and over-the-top performances. But here’s the thing... 2004’s Stepford is an intentional absurdist dark comedy and works on almost every level. However Cage and Labute’s comments after the fact that their Wicker Man was always meant to be an absurdist comedy, just come off as ridiculous back peddling, it is very much clear that Frank oz and Paul Rudnick set out to make a clever, but over-the-top, farce based around Levin’s original concept of Stepford. Let’s get into what I see as an underrated early 00’s comedic gem that should be returned to and reevaluated immediately.

Credit

This splendidly absurdist comedic remake of the classic 70’s horror, from the novel by Ira Levin, directed by the wonderful Frank Oz (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Little Shop of Horrors) and the remarkably underrated writing talent of Paul Rudnick (Addams Family Values and In and Out), offers some of Kidman’s best comedic work. By all accounts it was an absolutely horrifically troubled shoot  with reportedly acrimonious relationships between Oz and two of his leading ladies, Kidman and Bette Midler (also on top form). However all in all I’d have to side against the critics on this one, who roundly believed it to be a complete bastardisation of both the original text and film by all accounts. I on the other hand adore it and think that despite it being a very different beast from the seminal and also excellent 70’s original, the film serves its own purpose and delivers and all of the satire and message of the original through a new medium – intensely absurd dark comedy, and is just as successful in its intentions as the original. Frank Oz’s own comment on the film (to “Ain’t it cool news”)  is that “[he] f*cked up” and that he “had too much money” and was ultimtaly “too responsible and concerned for Paramount” and “the producers”, positing that the main problem was that he “didn’t follow his instincts”. And Oz’s instincts are excellent, with a previous fantastic partnering with Rudnick for the similarly hilarious absurdist comedy In and Out. I once again have to disagree with Oz, for although there are a few gags here and there that may seem dated to the modern viewer, I really don’t think that this film is the travesty that it was made out to be. Firstly, it’s just plain funny. Secondly, Oz and Rudnick do more of what they are exceptional at. Finally, we have an absolute murderer’s row of comedic and dramatic talent just going to town and having a ball, and believe me when I say that their implicit joy is infectious. Even if reportedly in Middler and Kidman’s case it was fictional.  

Credit

Kidman may not be the standout for this film, but she certainly is another splendid addition to the piece. Ruefully deconstructing the dimensions of the town of Stepford, before embodying all of its worst possibilities herself (albeit if only as a further ruse). Kidman has great work here and as aforementioned, it’s some of the best comedic work I’ve ever seen her do. Comedy that is completely in the world of comedy, without leaning into darkness, which we know she can do very well indeed. Despite their later troubles, one of Kidman’s biggest reasons for joining the film was to work with Oz, as he is afterall the voice of Miss Piggy, who Kidman is a huge fan of. Commenting that it would be the closest that she would ever get to “working with her”. But no wonder Kidman isn’t the standout, with casting director’s Juliet Taylor and Laura Rosenthal truly out-doing themselves this time. Bette Midler and Roger Bart are hilarious as Kidman’s close friends, eventually both also sucked up by the horrors of Stepford, both highlighting their immense comedic chops and variety with their earliest scenes and later scenes with their transformed selves. With Bart’s character of an effeminate gay man, Rudnick also brings in other less hetero-normative factors into the Stepford bubble and hence makes the film more so a comment on the entirety of patriarchal obsession within suburban heterosexual relationships, and rather an indictment of all facets of Republican suburbia. For a 90 minute farcical comedy slated by critics, the film really does contain multitudes. Mathew Broderick is intentionally dull and wimpy as Kidman’s husband, bringing the background extras of the original film and their nature into the forefront. Christopher Walken is sensational as always giving the exact brand of line delivery that you’d expect, making the most bland lines of millitarian exposition, some of the funnier things you’ll hear in a film for a while. The set stresses reportedly also spread to issues between Oz and Walken, Close and Bart, all of which were spread repeatedly in the press at the time. Oz would confirm that he “had words” with Walken and that his issues with Middler arose from her stresses regarding litany of other projects she was involved with at the time. “She made the mistake of bringing her stress on the set”.

Credit

David Arnold’s pulsating waltz score perfectly adds to the film’s grand clinical opulence, punctuated by the wickedly snappy (but often tense) editing of Jay Rabinowitz. All in the ultimate effort to bring Rudnick’s marvellous script to life. Rudnick has always been a figure that I really don’t think ever got the respect that they deserved, with Addams Family Values genuinely for me being one of the most perfect scripts ever written, comedy or otherwise. This does not reach the level of that revelatory masterpiece, but this certainly is another great filmic offering into his cannon. All of the zingers and witty remarks are there, along with some very nice scenes of drama and tension. But Rudnick’s master-stroke, whether it be through rewrite after the fact or not, is his adaptation of the novel’s ending. Although I am in no way saying that this tops the iconic and forever unsettling supermarket climax of the original, a forever indelible image in my mind. I do strongly believe that his final scene with Close is a revelation for the ages, brought to the screen by some of the best, if not most hammy, acting that Close has ever done. It certainly feels like a victory lap for her fabulous turn as Cruella DeVill. Rudnick is one of the tightest and most economic screenwriters in comedy that I think of often as underrated, I really do feel that there is something to be said for his 90 minute wonders, such as this, Addams and In and Out. Rudnick brings the story to the screen with great comedic flare and a biting satire, that although more absurd and on the nose than the original, and perhaps less cutting and unsettling in that regard, is still a sensational commentary on themes that were relevant in the 60’s, 70’s, 00’s and in many ways, still today. With Kidman, Broderick and producer Scott Rudin all commenting on their regret with the movie, it does make me wonder what they originally envisioned this piece as, or rather more so if the original script and product everyone had in mind was even more wonderful than the one we got.  However I have to say in conclusion that despite the enormity of troubles and script rewrites, I couldn’t be happier with the final product that we got and a morbid interest for viewing the initial product withstanding, quite frankly I don’t think I’d want it any other way. Sorry Nicole, you know I love you.

-          - Thomas Carruthers