“The rules of hair care are simple and finite. Any Cosmo girl would have known” (Legally Blonde). Elle Woods, from the film Legally Blonde, wins the case for her client because she observes what many would call “trifles,” such as the proper treatment of perms. Kelly Marsh notices how the lessons taught by Triflesby Susan Glaspell, written in 1916, still resonates with the public today in her article “Dead Husbands and Other ‘Girls’ Stuff’: The Trifles in Legally Blonde.” Despite the numerous advances in women’s rights since the play was written, Marsh argues that it continues to provide “a warning that transcends time and class: relegating women’s interests to the status of ‘trifles’ is problematic, even dangerous” (Marsh). Legally Blonde is the thematic progeny of Trifles, but Marsh fails to address how Trifles allows the women to be more subversive while Elle works within the legal system already in place.
In recent years, the issue of a pay gap between men and women has come to the forefront in the struggle for equality in Western countries, and recent studies prove that as women begin to dominate a previously male field, the pay drops. No longer can claims be made that women are paid less simply because they take different jobs or are less educated. Systems are in place that routinely disenfranchise women – suddenly the “trifles” women care about do not seem as insignificant. Both Legally Blonde and Trifles capitalize on this, by portraying the small details that only women notice as the most significant clues in each respective murder case. While the minutia women are socialized to focus on changes, the male condescension does not. The women in Trifles concern themselves with housekeeping details, while Elle looks at beauty and fashion, showing how societal expectations for what women should care about have changed from homemaking to vanity. Marsh succinctly captures the tension in the film, explaining that “the reason Elle is consistently underestimated and denied the sympathy of those around her is that she exercises her considerable intellect on matters that they consider trivial: fashion, her lap dog, her exercise routine, her fingernails, and toilet paper that does not ‘chafe.’ On one level, the viewer is inclined to agree, but the film reprises Susan Glaspell’s insight that significance can inhere in small things, as women’s things are so often designated” (Marsh). Viewers might be annoyed by Elle’s predilection for fashion, especially when it seems to detract from her career trajectory, and yet if she was not as attentive to beauty trends, an innocent woman would have gone to jail. Both pieces ask the audience to question why women receive punished for caring about the things they are told to value by society. Dismissing these women as the sheriff does in the play by mockingly commenting “they wonder if she was going to quilt it or just knot it,” or when Elle’s boyfriend breaks up with her, remarking that if he’s going to be a senator, he “need to marry a Jackie, not a Marilyn,” ends up backfiring for the men (Glaspell 1160, Legally Blonde). In the play, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters uncover Mrs. Wright’s mental state through observing things like the knotted quilt and broken preserves which lead them to wonder “what do you suppose she was so nervous about?” and to the ultimate conclusion that she killed her husband after he pushed her to her limits. (Glaspell 1161). The men are foolish to dismiss their intelligence just because it is not directed towards the things men believe to be worthy of intellect.
The women in Trifles are judge and jury, defense and prosecutor, and ultimately acquit the guilty party, while Elle proves the innocence of her client without entering the morally grey ground of taking the court system into her own hands. Elle works within the system, going to law school and discovering the truth within a courtroom. Trifles, in this way, makes a stronger statement by giving the women the last word on the murderer’s future and not looking toward any authority for guidance. In the play, men portray the system and it is clear that the women would have no say. Mrs. Peters argues that if they were to show their “evidence” to the men to make their case for the abused wife, the county attorney will “make fun of her” to the jury and not give her the respect Mrs. Peters thinks she deserves (Glaspell 1160). These women are disenfranchised to the point of having no say in the system. Elle, on the other hand, is clearly wealthy enough to afford law school. Marsh claims that “class in the film is only ever a side issue” yet fails to address that Elle is only able to work within the system because of her preexisting class privilege. Of course, despite her socioeconomic position, Elle must still work to be taken seriously and prove her worth in ways her male peers do not have to.
Trifles introduced a theme that remains relevant to this day. Society still looks down on the “trivial” things women care about, but not all women are condemned in the more recent Legally Blonde. Women who give up their femininity receive respect in the film, introducing a new conflict that presents itself well in the tension between lingering second wave feminism and third wave feminism: should women imitate men in order to be successful, or should women empower themselves through their unique femininity? The film offers an optimistic answer to this question, insinuating that the how does not matter, only the end achievement. Trifles tries to answer a different question, asking if the subversion the two women will actually have any effect and be radical in its consequences. I argue that by hiding the motive, the women are at least lessening the sentence on Mrs. Wright, as the attorney says, “but you know juries when it comes to women. If there was some definite thing. Something to show” (Glaspell 1164). While Elle achieved something concrete, she did not change the system which discredited her for her femininity. Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale most likely also created change, but acted completely outside of the system, presenting a more subversive narrative for anyone who watched the play.
Works Cited
Glaspell, Susan. Trifles. The Norton Introduction to Literature. Ed. Kelly Mays. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. W.W. Norton & Company. NY, New York. 2016. P. 1155-1165. Print.
Legally Blonde. Dir. Robert Luketic. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 2001. Film.
Marsh, Kelly. “Dead Husbands and Other ‘Girls’ Stuff’: The Trifles in Legally Blonde.” Literature Film Quarterly. Vol 33. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
