Review: The Parent Trap (1961) (DMC #36)
Let’s get together (yeah, yeah, yeah) to talk about The Parent Trap! Last night we watched the original 1961 film starring Hayley Mills (and Hayley Mills). If you need a refresher, read through the synopsis below. Otherwise, jump right ahead to our review!
Synopsis
Sharon McKendrick leaves her home in Boston to spend the summer at Miss Inch’s Summer Camp for Girls. At lunch in the mess hall, Sharon runs into a girl named Susan, who looks just like her. Susan immediately dislikes Sharon, and a rivalry begins. Miss Inch announces that there will be a dance with the boys’ camp, but only girls who keep their cabins tidy will be allowed to attend. Susan and her friends sneak into Sharon’s cabin and booby trap it. When Miss Inch and the other counselors arrive the next morning, they discover Sharon’s cabin in total disarray, and declare that Sharon, Betsy, and Ursula are not allowed to attend the dance. At the dance, Sharon retaliates by cutting Susan’s dress while she is talking to a boy. This embarrasses Susan, who attacks Sharon in a rage. The fight ruins the dance. As punishment, Miss Inch forces the two girls to share a cabin together for the remainder of camp. One day, during a heavy storm, the two girls begin to bond and soon realize that not only do they look alike, but the have the same birthday, and each only grew up with one parent. When Sharon reveals a photo of her mother, Susan realizes that’s her mother, too—they’re twins! They forge a plan to switch places so Susan can meet their mother, Sharon can meet their father, and they can force their parents to meet again. Susan cuts Sharon’s hair to match hers, and after weeks of planning the girls officially switch on the last day of camp.
Susan, pretending to be Sharon, goes to Boston and meets her mother, Margaret, for the first time, as well as her grandmother and grandfather. “Sharon” is able to get Margaret to talk about her father, and what their first date was like. Meanwhile, in California, Sharon (pretending to be Susan) meets her father, Mitch, the ranch hand, Hecky, and the housemaid Verbena. Sharon learns that her father has been seeing a much younger woman named Vicky. Verbena believes Vicky is nothing but a gold-digger, and Sharon is worried this new relationship will mess up her and Susan’s plan. Sharon calls Susan that night and tells her she has to bring their mother immediately in order to stop Mitch’s relationship. Susan wants more time alone with Margaret, however, and refuses. The next day, Sharon as “Susan” tries to talk to her father about her mother, but he awkwardly misunderstands her. Later, while out horse riding, Mitch asks “Susan” her opinion of Vicky, and tells “Susan” he wants to marry Vicky. “Susan” is outraged, and Vicky decides to talk to “Susan” herself. Vicky outright shows her dislike of “Susan” who calls Vicky out as a gold-digger. Vicky states she will marry Mitch whether “Susan” likes it or not. Sharon calls the real Susan and this time persuades Susan to return to California. Back in Boston, grandfather overhears the phone call and convinces Susan to share the news. The next morning, “Sharon” drops the disguise and reveals the switch. After a proper reunion between mother and daughter, Margaret agrees to fly to California to meet with her ex-husband and retrieve Sharon.
Margaret and Susan fly to California and arrive at the ranch. Mitch and Vicky prepare for the wedding, but Mitch is unaware that both the real Susan and Margaret are even in his house. While planning the ceremony, Mitch catches a glimpse of Margaret out in the yard. He accidentally falls into the nearby lake in all the confusion, and goes inside where he comes face to face with Margaret. They immediately begin to argue, but when he sees both daughters in the room he is overcome with joy at being properly reunited with Sharon. The reunion is brief, and Mitch and Margaret continue to argue. Margaret is angry that he is marrying someone so young. That evening, the girls re-create their parents’ first date in order to spark romance. While it does break some tension, both parents admit they would never work out as a couple. Margaret says she will fly home with Sharon the next morning, and they’ll allow the girls to see each other while each parent keeps them both for 6 months out of the year. The next day, Susan and Sharon dress alike and perfectly match each other’s mannerisms so that neither parent can tell them apart. They force their parents to go on a camping trip with them, saying they will reveal which twin is who afterwards. The parents agree, but Margaret tricks Vicky into going camping in her place, saying she should be spending time with her future husband. Vicky hates camping and is further annoyed by Sharon and Susan’s pranks. Their final prank, booby-trapping Vicky’s tent, causes Vicky to snap, wrecking the camp and slapping one of the girls, at which point Mitch calls off the engagement. Susan, Sharon, and Mitch return home. Margaret and Mitch have dinner alone. Although there is still tension, Mitch says he misses her too much to let her out of his life again. They realize they still love each other, and finally rekindle their romance. Susan bolts awake, telling Sharon she just had a dream about their parents getting married. We see Mitch and Margaret walking down the aisle with both daughters as flower girls.
Thoughts Before Watching
Kevin: There’s a song in this movie called “Let’s Get Together” and it’s just about the only thing I remember from this movie. I’ve seen it just once before, while I’ve watched the 1998 version at least a few times.
Megan: Much like Kevin, the only thing I really remember about this movie is the song, “Let’s Get Together.” I know the first time (perhaps only time?) I saw this film, it was after seeing the remake starring Lindsay Lohan, and I remember thinking as a kid that the newer movie was far better than the original. I’ve seen the 1998 film more times than I can count, and actually re-watched it a few weeks ago, so it’ll be interesting to see how the original holds up.
Thoughts After Watching
It passes the Bechdel test! But…
Megan: This shouldn’t be surprising since it’s a film about twin girls, but the film easily passes the Bechdel test! The whole film is essentially one conversation after another between sisters Susan and Sharon, and while some of those conversations are indeed about male characters, a lot of those conversations are about each other, their mother, and conspiring to reunite their parents.
Beyond that, however, there is still quite a lot of sexism throughout the entire film. For one thing, the summer camp they attend might as well be a finishing school. The girls’ camp counselor, Miss Inch, often chides the girls for “unladylike” behavior, and announces early on that “Untidy little girls won’t go to the dance” with the boys’ camp. While Susan and Sharon get into all sorts of mischievous trouble with their friends, and even end up in a wrestling match with each other, they’re punished for these infractions not simply because of the damage they cause, but because their actions are unbecoming of young girls.
Megan: The environment in Boston is no different. When Susan goes to Boston pretending to be Sharon, Grandmother is immediately critical of “Sharon’s” short hair, asking “are you a boy or a girl?” She is incredibly critical of “Sharon,” correcting her posture, evaluating her appearance, and dictating what activities she should participate in. When Susan finally reveals herself as Susan, not Sharon, it’s no wonder she’s so confrontational with Grandmother! Living with her father she had a bit more freedom, and as “Sharon” she’s faced with the weight of Grandmother’s restrictions, as though Grandmother is still living in a distant past where women had even fewer rights. Grandfather initially seems to be more lenient, and perhaps more modern, yet he is the one who makes not-so-subtle jabs at Margaret’s choice of clothing and hairstyle as she’s packing to see her ex for the first time in years. While his intention is that his daughter look amazing to meet her ex-husband, his method of calling Margaret’s hair style and clothing out of style or unattractive is incredibly insulting and sexist. To make matters worse, he then says “you’re flying off the handle” when Margaret (rightfully) gets upset at him for insulting her.
Megan: The situation in California, where Sharon is pretending to be Susan, isn’t much better. While we do see Verbena calling out how ridiculous it is that Mitch is chasing after Vicky, she also immediately vilifies Vicky before the audience has a chance to make their own evaluation. Vicky, for her part, is not nearly as immediately vindictive as her counterpart Meredith Blake in the ‘90s remake, who is clearly up to no good from the first time we see her. However, Vicky’s character development is entirely one-dimensional; she’s nothing but a gold-digger. In the California scenes we also see how incredibly uncomfortable Mitch—a father of two daughters—is about “female” topics. He gets incredibly awkward when he thinks “Susan” wants to have the sex talk. Later, when he finds Margaret’s bra hanging from his shower, he believes it to be Susan’s, and goes to ask her about it, but then thinks better of it. When Mitch makes a mess of telling “Susan” how he and Vicky are engaged, Vicky takes over, telling Mitch “women understand these things better.” The thing is, if women are constantly having emotional conversations on behalf of men, then men never get to practice having those sometimes difficult conversations, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women become better at emotional conversations through practice. Meanwhile, men are often told through films like this that they aren’t good at the emotional stuff, and so they shouldn’t bother trying. Thus we’re left with Mitch scolding Susan (the real Susan this time, though he doesn’t know it), telling her how not talking to someone because you’re mad at them is “feminine” and “the worst part of being feminine, too,” when really he should be trying to apologize to her or asking her to share what she’s feeling.
The parents are incredibly selfish
Kevin: I’m not the first person to say it and won’t be the last, but in both versions of the film the parents are selfish, and I believe even more so in this one. It’s one thing to get divorced because your marriage isn’t working, but something totally different and outrageous to separate siblings, let alone twins, just because you don’t want to see each other anymore. The best explanation we get is a typical message about parents not getting along, but again, there is no explanation for why the divorce had to include separating the girls.
Megan: And separating them at one year old, no less! That’s old enough to miss having your sibling!
Kevin: I’m guessing the parents made up some excuse about it being the only way they could avoid each other entirely while still getting to be with one of their children, perhaps thinking that since the girls were babies when they separated they will never remember each other anyway. That’s incredibly self-centered. I really wonder what family judge would have allowed this arrangement. I have a twin brother (although fraternal in both looks and personality, so we definitely could not pull off a switcheroo of any sort even if we wanted to) and although we don’t always get along, I wouldn’t trade him for anything. For both Susan and Sharon to grow up not knowing they were a twin of the other is not just sad, but horrible knowing that their parents probably had to come up with a lie or two to keep it a secret. Even Susan calls it out to Margaret during the scene where she finally drops the bomb:
SUSAN: Mother, I think what you and daddy did to us children is lousy! In fact, I think it stinks!
Darn right, it stinks! I appreciate that Susan raises her voice, practically shouting here. This is one thing this film did better than the ‘90s version; we really needed to see the anger and hurt the girls feel at finding out the truth. On that note, I also think this moment is too short-lived. Indeed, after her outburst and several more shouted words, Susan apologizes to her mother for the ploy even though I quite frankly don’t believe she owes Margaret an apology in the slightest. Granted, I understand that this is the moment where Susan finally gets to be herself around her mother, and she probably can’t bring herself to continue to be angry, but I have to give her props. If I were in their situation, as much as I know I’d also be happy to see the parent I never knew, at some point I’d also be filled with a lot of resentment over such a secret being kept. I wish both films explored this plot thread just a bit more.
Kevin: Did Mitch and Margaret even once consider the girls’ well-being when they made the arrangement? Were they ever going to tell them someday? The answer to both questions appears to be no. The separation was done entirely for Mitch and Margaret’s comfort and not at all to do with the needs of their children. They may not have intended to harm their daughters, but they robbed the girls of a childhood of experiences simply because they couldn’t stand each other, and it truly is lousy and terrible. In fact, given how Mitch and Margaret act toward each other when they meet again, I actually completely buy why they divorced, and I can buy why they don’t want to see each other.
Not sure it achieves the “anti-divorce” message it was going for
Megan: The film opens with a cross-stitched “Bless Our Broken Home” which personally struck me as odd. Firstly, I don’t know that anyone would actually hang something in their home that says “Bless Our Broken Home,” but that visual along with the opening theme song also immediately reminded me that this was a film of the ‘60s where divorce was far more taboo than it is today. With this opening, and the eventual reunion of the parents at the end of the film, it would appear the film is making an argument against divorce. However, watching the film today, I find the portrayal of the parents to be an argument for divorce. Clearly Margaret and Mitch broke things off for a good reason. They can’t stop arguing with each other! In nearly every scene with the two of them, we see that they haven’t changed—they’re still just as argumentative as they were years ago when they decided to split. As such, it’s hard to root for the parents to be together. Sure, I want the sisters to be together, but their parents just don’t seem like a good match for each other.
Kevin: Agreed completely. They’re far more argumentative and aggressive, even to the point of getting physical, and it’s outright stated that their fights before the divorce had become physical as well. With the way the Margaret and Mitch act, it’s totally understandable why their marriage didn’t work out, and it makes me think their relationship was fraught with tension long before they got married. Because of that, I wonder if they got married only because they discovered Margaret was pregnant? Unfortunately, their bitterness results in a separation so extreme that their children don’t know each other, and I can’t see any good that comes of that long term. The total lack of any intimate chemistry is obvious here. There’s a lot to think about with this one, but ultimately, they just don’t fit well together.
The ending isn’t believable
Megan: I think the parents’ constant arguing is partly why the final reunion between the parents feels off. For one thing, why is Margaret crying during that dinner scene? It’s not set up to be the same I’m-so-happy-I’m-gonna-cry tears we see in the ‘90s remake. Is she crying because she knows it’s not going to work out? The emotion doesn’t quite land right. Mitch, too, doesn’t seem to have great motivation in wooing his ex-wife. Literally hours before having dinner with Margaret, he ended things with Vicky. (And really saying “he” ended it is giving him a bit more credit than he deserves, since he seemed happy to just keep going along with the status quo until Vicky’s final outburst forced him to make a decision.) He doesn’t end things with Vicky because he’s in love with his ex, but because Vicky has shown her true colors. Thus, when he starts flirting with Margaret in the kitchen, it comes off more like a man who’s chasing the next available female, rather than truly being in love with her for who she is. Especially with this exchange:
MITCH: I like you in bare feet.
MARGARET: It puts a woman at a disadvantage.
MITCH: Cheers to your disadvantage.
While perhaps intended to be romantic, this comes off as incredibly sleazy. Is he only interested in her because he has power over her? Is the sexist “ideal” of a woman barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen what makes him suddenly find her so attractive in this moment where she’s barefoot in the kitchen? Clearly a man wrote this script, because I can’t think of any woman who would have that be the line that wins a woman over.
Do Mitch and Margaret actually get married at the end of the film?
Megan: The final wedding scene is left open to interpretation. Since the scene is introduced as Susan’s dream, one could argue that’s all it was—the wishful dream of a child who wishes their family would be back together again. However, it’s also possible the filmmakers’ intention was to say that yes, Susan had a dream about the wedding, but then the wedding actually happened. In any case, it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. If the wedding actually did happen, how did Mitch and Margaret overcome their penchant for arguing between that moment in the kitchen and the wedding? Or have they not overcome it and this wedding is as doomed as the first? If the wedding was only a dream, then are we to believe that Mitch and Margaret never fully reconciled? Perhaps they were on good terms enough for the girls to see more of each other, but not enough to make a marriage work? Since the film ends with “Bless Our Happy Home” I think the filmmakers intended us to believe that the wedding actually happened, but I, for one, am not convinced. I much prefer the ending of the ‘90s remake where the dad makes the huge romantic gesture of flying across the country to chase after the mom and we’re left to believe that everything will work out in the end.
Hayley Mills kills it here!
Kevin: Just like Lindsay Lohan, Haley Mills does a highly excellent job portraying the roles of Sharon and Susan. I thought she was good in Pollyanna, but she shines in this movie! Even though I know she was playing two characters, she gives each girl a personality of their own that you can still tell which girl is which. She also pulls off the moments when the twins are intentionally acting similar to throw people off that I couldn’t tell them apart. It’s no wonder she was given a lot of praise for this. She shows off her acting chops at a young age, and from what I’ve looked into it sounds like she always received great reviews for her work. I’m looking forward to seeing more of her movies. Also, props to the crew and post-production teams for pulling off the “twin” effect as well!
The jokes are great, but the emotions don’t always land
Megan: The humor in this film is great! There are several fun moments throughout the film, and it’s easy to see why those scenes and gags were carried over into the remake. However, having recently re-watched the ‘90s version, I have to say that the emontionality of scenes in the original don’t land as strongly as they do in the remake. For example, when Susan and Sharon realize they’re sisters in the original film, the scene’s slow revelation isn’t nearly as impactful or emotional as it is in the ‘90s film, and that’s one of the most pivotal scenes in the entire movie! Similarly, I don’t buy the sisters’ initial animosity in the original film. The girls meet each other very early on, and in that very moment it’s “The nerve! Coming here with your face!” There is no reason for them to dislike each other, but Susan in particular immediately decides that someone who looks just like her has to be an enemy. I much prefer how the antagonistic relationship is established in the remake, where the girls first face off in a fencing match while wearing masks, and only after Annie beats Hallie does the feud begin.
Kevin: What I was amused about was seeing just how many beats are repeated in the remake. There were several times I kept saying “oh, this one did it, too!” but really, it was the remake who copied the first, not the other way around. I’m also amused that even many dialogue choices were carried over. Remakes can be hit or miss, and they’re especially a bit of a miss when they play out exactly the same as the original (lookin’ at you, The Lion King 2019…). In this case, however, the ‘90s version did much better taking some of those moments and putting a lot more heart into them. This version doesn’t feel nearly as sentimental as the ‘90s remake, but it’s still a fun story with a lot of wonderful humor. In particular, can we just give a shout out to Reverend Mosby? The man is so chill, having such a wonderful time as he watches the bizarre events happen around him as Mitch and Margaret fight, and with no compunction about requesting a double bourbon after Mitch offers a drink. He’s probably the most likable character here.
Megan: Reverend Mosby is hilarious, and he adds a ton of comedic relief in the scenes where Vicky and Margaret are exchanging forced pleasantries and Mitch and Margaret are arguing. However, I do have to point out that the Reverend is also trying to hit on Margaret the whole time—while she’s in a robe, no less. While we laughed at these scenes, I couldn’t help but notice how sexist some of his lines were.
How does no one at the camp notice the two girls’ behavior?
Kevin: I realize much of what I’m talking about in this review is applicable to the remake as well, but it’s just too easy to compare the two. Anyway, something I’ve wondered about the remake and now this one is how no one in the camp seems to realize the odd behavior from the girls. I mean, they pick up on the fact that the two clearly look alike and Miss Inch assumes (correctly) that they’re sisters. After Susan and Sharon discover the truth, they hatch a plan to switch places by learning each other’s lives, personalities, and quirks, going so far as for Susan to cut Sharon’s hair to match her own. Even the friends they made at the camp don’t seem to say or notice anything. It’s not necessarily bizarre for two people who start off disliking each other to eventually become friends, but it’s a complete 180 in a short span of time. Sure, the two girls sit at the “Isolation Table” and are meant to be left alone as punishment, but doesn’t anyone find it strange that the girls look almost exactly the same now and begin mimicking each other? When the last day of camp arrives and Susan and Sharon officially switch, Susan has a hilarious exchange with Miss Inch in which she pronounces words like “can’t,” “shan’t,” and “aunt” in an awkward attempt at Sharon’s Boston accent, but she delivers them so forcefully that it very clearly confuses Miss Inch. Honestly, if Miss Inch had caught on, I think it’s possible their plan might have failed before it started, unless they were able to let her in on the secret and she was willing to go along with it and help them.
The people behind the camera make a huge difference
Megan: It’s hard to watch this film and not compare it to the remake, especially since I LOVE the ‘90s version! I think, for me personally, a lot of what I reacted to in watching this original film comes from having a mostly male team behind the scenes of the movie. Yes, it passes the Bechdel test, but this film still suffers from a limited male perspective of the female experience. Since the ‘90s remake had both men and women working behind the scenes (and, you know, it was written and directed by a woman instead of a man), it feels far more authentic and believable. (And it doesn’t hurt that the ‘90s version is a more modern take on the story). I still enjoy watching this film, since without it we never would have had a remake, but this is one of those things where the remake actually surpassed the original for me.
Verdict
Megan: 6
Kevin: 6
Final Score: 6
What did you think of the 1961 version of The Parent Trap? If you’ve seen the 1998 remake as well, how do they compare? Share your thoughts with us in the comments!
