Surname 1

Name

Course

Instructor

Date

Adam's Rib is a comedy that seeks to explore the prevalent inequalities between men

and women, specifically within the parameters of marriage and the justice system. The concrete

content of the film is predicated on the actions of Doris Attinger, a housewife who attempts to

murder her husband Warren Attinger for infidelity. Assistant District Attorney Adam Bonner is

assigned to prosecute Mrs. Attinger while his wife Amanda, a defense lawyer, seizes the role of

representing the accused. The disparity in ideology between Mr. and Mrs. Bonner regarding the

matrimonial role of women ultimately culminates in a battle for female equality in the

courtroom, the press and the Bonner household.

The explicit meaning of the film is that women are predisposed to prejudice by society,

with double standards applied to female infidelity. In addition, the film implies that women have

both the physical and intellectual capabilities similar to those of men, though society

conventionally relegates women to mundane tasks and household duties. Through the

interaction of form and content, an implicit meaning can also be derived from the film which

specifically underscores the detrimental effect of male pride and ego to the family. The film also

highlights the conception that every individual regardless of gender is equal before the law,

though this notion is gradually misconstrued in the case against Mrs. Attinger leading to the

defensive argument of women rights in society rather than gender parity before the law. This

essay discusses the specific elements of narrative and cinematic form in the film that facilitate
 Surname 2

the impartment meaning, with reference to derivatives from Feminist anthropologist Elizabeth

Cowie’s 1978 essay “Woman as Sign.”

Expression of Explicit Meaning

The explicit meaning which is analogous to the symptomatic meaning is revealed early in

the film when Amanda asks her assistant Grace on her views on an unfaithful man and woman.

For the unfaithful man, Grace states he’s “not nice” while she denotes the unfaithful woman as

“something terrible”. When Amanda questions the difference in judgment for men and women,

Grace states “I don’t make the rules” to which Amanda rejoins, “Sure you do, we all do”. This

dialogue highlights the established social scale where male infidelity is overlooked while

infidelity by a woman is shunned upon. This is buttressed by Amanda’s remark to Grace that “A

boy sows a wild oat or two and the world winks. A girl does the same…scandal”. According to

Elizabeth Cowie, the double standards applied to women are attributable to the kinship systems

which place an economic value to the anthropological role of women hence reducing the

female status to a ‘sign’ which “conveys an understanding of subordination and enables her to

be exchanged physically among men” (Cowie 60). Indeed the paradigm school of thought

illustrated throughout the film is of male superiority with women’s potential often being

questioned or expressed negatively. For instance during the selection of jurors, Amanda uses

the question “Do you believe in equal rights for women?” to vet members of the jury in which

she justifies her criterion by stating that, “I submit that I cannot hope to argue this line before

minds hostile to and prejudiced against the female sex”.

 Surname 3

The competence of women to accomplish similar achievements to those of men is also

primary in the film with stereotypes against women being repeatedly expressed. For example

the opening scene at the New York subway after 5pm shows a majority of the white collar

workers are men. Similarly, when Amanda cuts off a cab, the driver yells, “Oh you lady drivers,

you'll put me away yet!" Contrast is illustrated through motifs such as the characters of Doris

Attinger, Beryl Caighn and Warren Attinger where by narration and language, the female

characters are conveyed as affectionate but unintelligent; while the male character is shown to

be callous but also intelligent and witty which is in line with Cowie’s observation. According to

Cowie, “Women, as a fully human form, have almost completely been left out of film… That is,

from its very beginning they were present but not in characterizations any self-respecting

person could identify with” (Cowie 72). Another significant contrast is seen on the exterior of

the court building where the phrase "Equal and Exact Justice to All Men of Whatever State or

Persuasion" is curved; intimating that justice to women may not be of similar calibration.

However, characters such as Amanda negate the conformist female stereotype by displaying

veracity in their intelligence and capabilities though actions that yield results. For instance

Amanda’s witnesses, Dr. Margaret Brodeigh, Mrs. McGrath and Miss Olympia LaPere display

exceptional academic, vocational and physical qualifications which supersede the qualification

of most men of similar stature.

Expression of Implicit Meaning

After the apparent convincing argument by Amanda at the courtroom during which Miss

Olympia LaPere lifts and humiliates Mr. Bonner, Adam’s pride and ego are examined. Difference
 Surname 4

as form is created by Amanda who for once comes home late from work, a behavior previously

displayed by Adam. However unlike Amanda who excitedly waits for Adam, offers him a glass of

wine on arrival and gladly accepts his apologetic gifts for being late, Adam is enraged and

reclusive. Adam’s anger is kernelled in his pride and ego partly due to the embarrassing incident

at the courthouse and partly due to the prospect that he might lose the case to Amanda. It is

nevertheless clear that Adam is enraged by the fact that he has been outsmarted by not only a

woman but his wife. This is perceptible when they have a disagreement in which Adam states,

“I’m Old-fashioned I like two sexes... All of a sudden I don't like being married to what is known

as a 'new woman.' I want a wife, not a competitor! Competitor! Competitor! If you want to be a

big he-woman go ahead and be it, but not with me!” Adam is also aware of the fact that

Amanda’s legal basis for her case is misconstrued since Amanda has subjected the case to

women rights causes rather than the direct implications of assault. It is with this regard that

Adam exclaims, “You think the law is something that you can get over or get under or get

around or just plain flaunt… The law is the law, whether it's good or bad. If it's bad the thing to

do is to change it... You start with one law, then pretty soon it's all laws, pretty soon it's

everything - then it's me. You've got no respect for me, have you?...What is marriage? Tell me,

that...It's a contract, it's the law”.

Adam is enraged by the discernment that Amanda has the capacity to manipulate the

law in order to win the case which according to Adam is indicative of her capability to also

manipulate their marriage. This precipitates Adam’s major concern that women may be favored

by law if the argument on women rights is replicated in similar cases against women. The

evening after the jury grants Doris an acquittal, Adam preplans to chance upon his wife in a
 Surname 5

compromising situation with their neighbor Kip, similar to a re-enactment of the Attinger case.

Adam walks in on them and threatens to shoot them; citing Amanda’s closing statement that

“anyone is capable of attack if provoked”. Amanda is then compelled to recant her statement by

claiming “Stop it, Adam. Stop it! You've no right! You can't do what you're doing! You've no

right!” Adam points out this contradiction and asserts that “no one has a right to break the law -

that your client had no right." According to Cowie, anthropological discourse is the main force

that perpetuates the “sexist notion that Woman and Man consist of different unequal

substances” (Cowie 57). This is evident in the ideological disparity between Adam and Amanda,

where Adam is of the view that both men and women are equal before the law with society

granting women some advantages, while Amanda claims women need equality not favors.

Amanda goes on to assert that the Attinger case is a case against the rights of women which is

fundamentally incorrect.

Conclusion

Adam's Rib not only examines the social differences between men and women, but it is

a film that also underscores the philosophical disparities between the two genders. The Bonner

household is the center of the struggle between women rights and parity before the law in

dereference to the Attinger case. Although in the end it emerges that Adam is right in view of

the Attinger case, Amanda is able to compile an effective defense that leads to the acquittal of

her client. However, Amanda ultimately acknowledges that there is a little difference between

men and women to which Adam celebrates by stating, "Vive la difference...Hurray for that little

difference!" It is this difference that Elizabeth Cowie seeks to disqualify with the aid of works by
 Surname 6

Levi-Strauss through her anthropological study of kinship systems. According to Cowie, kin

linkages are the qualities and agents that engender people. She identifies the family as the

major kinship structure which is responsible for producing women as subjectivities, rather than

social or biological predispositions. As a consequence, Cowie’s conclusive argument is that “the

sign ‘woman’ in exogamy is not exchanged but produced in the exchange of actual women”

(Cowie 62-62). This argument can be superimposed on the film by stating that society dictates

who a woman is and is therefore responsible for the formation of the woman, as ratified by

statements in the film such as Amanda’s observation, “We all make the rules” or Doris’ assertion

that “it is not feminine” for women to smoke.

 Surname 7

Works Cited

Adam's Rib. Dir. George Cukor. Perf. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. Metro-Goldwyn-

Mayer, 1949. Film.

Cowie, Elizabeth. Woman as sign. New York: Croll, 1978. Print.