In the 1950s, Women Were Really, Really Daring!... 'One and Only' Trivializes 50s Women

My One and Only

Review: 1.5/5

There is a sordid assertion beneath My One and Only's deliberately ostentatious veneer, manifesting in gaudy costume and set design, all superfluously coated in warm tints and tones; most likely an attempt to emphasize what the filmmakers believed to be a lighthearted, innocuous little film. Director Richard Loncraine's newest film starring Renee Zellweger as Anne Deveraux, a '1950s-woman' caricature who abandons her husband on a whim, abducts her sons (one from a previous marriage) and travels off to, well, who knows. According to Deveraux, "Everything will work out the way it should."

In these first 15 minutes, Ms. Deveraux is portrayed as culturally-defiant, and non-conformist (I would accurately assume the traditional role of women in the 1950s was essentially suppressive - stay home, make dinner for husband, etc). Yet the film then immediately contradicts its initial exposition, focusing on Deveraux and her search for a husband. No longer culturally-defiant, Zellweger's character careens through the film with a calculatedly histrionic Deveraux, affronting the spectator with each supposed whimsical remark and casual flirtation, intent on finding a wealthy man - his personality or type doesn't matter to Deveraux. Only the money.

Okay, okay now I know in the 1950s this may have been a relatively common practice, as unfortunate as that may be. Fine. What the film does wrong is it knowingly misleads the viewer during the film's set-up, and expects the audience to accept the illogical contradiction in the guise of a lighthearted road film. It's almost repulsive (as is Deveraux's treatment of her children - extra baggage in her self-indulgent journey).

Which brings me to another issue. Every potential husband in this film is wildly stereotyped, from the retired military officer who wears his uniform everyday, everywhere, to the mentally handicapped businessman who proposes to Anne. Oh, she just can't win can she? Here's an idea, even if you are going to find a new, rich businessman that you can swindle out of money as your husband: FIND ONE THAT DOESN'T WEAR THE SAME THING EVERY DAY. Why is the spectator supposed to tolerate this blatantly intentional temerity? Shouldn't Deveraux's good senses have kicked in by now? Apparently not. And they never do. 

I won't give away the ending, but suffice it to say, Deveraux is hardly the courageous woman she is initially presented to be.