Wellesley College Meets ‘Mona Lisa Smile’: Domestic Portrayal & Feminine Betrayal

“The most conservative college in the nation”: wellesley college meets ‘mona lisa smile’

BY IVY BUCK ’25

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

I. BACKGROUND

Julia Roberts as Katherine Watson in Mona Lisa Smile

In December of 2003, much to the apparent dismay of many Wellesley College alumni and then-current students alike, Revolution Studios & Columbia Pictures released the infamous drama Mona Lisa Smile, a look into the lives of fictional female students and faculty studying and working at Wellesley College during the 1950s. Starring Julia Roberts, Julia Stiles, Kirsten Dunst, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Marcia Gay Harden, and Ginnifer Goodwin, Mona Lisa Smile tells the tale of Katherine Watson (played by Roberts), a liberal 30-something California-hailing professor who moves to Wellesley for an art history position at the college. To Katherine’s surprise, despite it being the ‘land of ladies’, Wellesley is a rigidly conservative place, drawing only the most upper-crust of young women to its nearly gothic architecture and prestigious academic culture. Katherine finds it hard to adjust to life at Wellesley, for not only have her students memorized the syllabus in its entirety, preventing her from adequately teaching, but many have their future firmly set in stone – and this future, with its explicit focus on housewifery and motherhood, does not have room for a career outside of the home. Katherine spars with her students, learning that not all of them have eyes only for a life in the home, but that the conservative voices are far louder than the more liberal ones Katherine is used to. As the school year continues, Katherine bonds with her students, forcing them to look outside of the box of traditional art history, while at the same time stirring debate about female power and female position. The film, despite its mixed reviews (which I will delve into later) was a financial success, paying Julia Roberts over $25 million for her role, which at the time was the highest amount of money ever earned by a film actress.

Mona Lisa Smile dives deep into themes of gendered domestic expectation, sexual politics, and teacher/student dynamics, but paints quite a shallow, domesticated portrait of Wellesley itself. While the film does not claim to be nonfictional, even fictional portrayals can have real-world influence upon what they represent. This case study will look at Mona Lisa Smile from the perspective of reviewers, real Wellesley alumnae, and current Wellesley students (including myself), considering through written reviews, spoken interviews, and various press releases the following key questions:

How do fictitious portrayals of real-life settings and cultures influence the subject off-screen?, and more specifically, how was Wellesley affected by its portrayal in Mona Lisa Smile?
Do historical fiction films have a responsibility to accurately portray subjects that still exist in real life?
How did Mona Lisa Smile reflect and betray, simultaneously, post-war expectations of femininity and domesticity?
What place does Mona Lisa Smile have in the film canon today?
How does Mona Lisa Smile influence the public perception of private space?

“Wellesley girls who are married have become quite adept at balancing their obligations. One hears such comments as, “I’m able to baste the chicken with one hand and outline the paper with the other.”

Mona Lisa Smile (2003)

II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT: GENDER AND POST-WAR EXPECTATION

As former Wellesley College President Diana Chapman Walsh wrote in a press release regarding the impact of Mona Lisa Smile on the Wellesley community (detailed later in this research), “the film does attempt to raise genuine questions about women’s life choices: whether one must choose between career and family and how to find one’s own path when it may conflict with society’s expectations or those of parents, professors, friends”. Mona Lisa Smile is set in the early 1950s, a time of grand social, economic, and political change in the United States. The country was redefining what exactly it meant to be American, and with the influx of wealth, growth of domestic consumerism, and advent of television, America was on its way to becoming a nation defined partially by its domestic culture. Of course, that is not the whole story. Inequality amongst racial and gender groups was rampant, and the “American” way of life being sold by popular culture was straight, white, and middle-class not by chance, but by design. Mona Lisa Smile interacts with the themes of reinforced domesticity in quite an interesting way. It is not exactly a feminist film, despite Katherine Watson’s role as the “liberal outlier” but it does speak explicitly to the domestic culture and expectations surrounding young, white, and presumably affluent women during the 1950s. In Make Room for TV, author Lynn Spigel details the culture of American domesticity surrounding the rising popularity of television during the post-war years. Quoting Tyler May from Homeward Bound, Spigel writes this:

“Tyler May explains that “college enrollments increased for women during the postwar years, but not at the same rate as for men.” Since “college degrees did not guarantee the same entry into well-paying jobs and careers for women as they did for men,” many “white women were likely to drop out of college in order to marry.” Conversely, while much fewer black women were enrolled in college, those who were enrolled tended to finish their degrees. Black women did so, May argues, because they expected to be employed and expected that college degrees would improve their job prospects (pp. 78–79). (Spigel 257).

Above: Julia Roberts & Julia Stiles in Mona Lisa Smile, among others

Mona Lisa Smile does not explicitly critique the conditions referenced above, but displays them through the actions of the main characters, all of whom (with the exception of Katherine) are part of the true ‘Wellesley sphere’. They all feel the pressure to marry not merely after college, but for some like Betty Warren, during college. The film speaks to the nature of race only in its exclusion of race-related conversations from its narrative. Though Katherine Watson eventually critiques the 50s housewife standard vocally to her students, challenging them to think outside of what they have been taught previously, the film does not work to break these stereotypes fully down, as even the students critiquing this expectation end up marrying by the film’s end. It perfectly reflects Tyler May’s above analysis of female economic prospects: jobs were not widely available for women in the 1950s, so marriage was inherently a more secure option, specifically for many white women. Had we been given a storyline involving Black or other Wellesley students of color, and the film reflected their experiences accurately, we might have seen varying points of view regarding the value of obtaining a college degree.

Ultimately, Mona Lisa Smile is quite reflective of the pressure to marry and settle down that many American women felt during the 1950s and beyond (its portrayal of Wellesley aside). During an era of rigid domesticity, with the family at the center of everything, social culture placed no high value on educated women if their first goal did not concern the home. In watching a film whose entire presence rests on the lives and experiences of extremely educated and intelligent young women, there is much to be said for the film’s utilization of contextual realities.

Women were not invited into the public sphere to work, they were often displayed in the public sphere as advertisements for the private sphere they came to represent.

“While masculine domesticity presented a more “compassionate” model of marriage where men supposedly shared domestic responsibilities with women, it did nothing to encourage women’s equal participation in the public sphere” (Spigel 126).

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

III. ALUMNi REACTION

Having discussed the background of the film and its larger historical context, I find it important to also discuss the reactions of the influenced, and Mona Lisa Smile is nothing if not controversial. I came across the idea of researching Mona Lisa Smile in-depth after I discovered a New York Times article published soon after the movie’s release titled “Critique from 50’s Wellesley Grads”. Being a current Wellesley student who had at the time (embarrassingly) never watched Mona Lisa Smile, I dove into the article and found that despite it taking place at Wellesley during the 1950s, the movie was coldly received by many women who actually studied and lived at the college during the time period. Norma Solimene Raffaele, class of 1954, said:

“If I were 18 and I saw this move I’d never want to go there.”

And honestly, neither would I. Mona Lisa Smile intentionally paints its Wellesley student population as a group of snobbish entitled brats to contrast with the Katherine Watson character, who seems to be anything but. The film’s narrative develops along the premise that because Katherine refuses to conform to the ‘Wellesley standard’, she will become able to ‘properly educate’ her students about the benefits of pursuing a job after college rather than just marriage.

“I Think part of our reaction to the movie was sheer embarrassment. Who would want to be associated with a college like that?”

–– Gene Billow Haddon, retired Wellesley alumnae

Betty Warren and her husband Spencer, played by Kirsten Dunst and Jordan Bridges

In the Times article, written by Wellesley alum Marian Burros, she notes that many of the interviewed alumni who graduated in the 1950s did get married right after college – “Mr. Newell [the film’s director] got that part right,” Burros writes. One of the central conflicts in Mona Lisa Smile revolves around Betty Warren, a staunch conservative, who among writing smear editorials for the Wellesley News about the circulation of contraception around campus, leaves school temporarily to get married – much to Katherine’s dismay. Though the film examines multiple points of view around the subject of post-graduation plans, the underlying current is one of conformity. Joan Brandwyn, a student of Katherine, dreams of graduate school in hopes of becoming a lawyer – she eventually decides to forgo this plan and marry her boyfriend, adopting the traditional role of housewife. In real-world Wellesley during the 1950s, not everyone pursued marriage over career, as Burros explains. Speaking to Wellesley alum Ann Oppenheimer Hamilton who pursued a post-grad career, Hamilton says “the social aspects of marriage versus career, that conflict I thought they had down pat, but for some gratuitous reason they introduced all this political conservatism.”

“We raised eyebrows when Wellesley was described as the ”most conservative college in the nation,” a place populated by know-it-all East Coast snobs. More eyebrows were raised when Wellesley was called ”a finishing school disguised as a college.” That piling on was reinforced by a scene in which a teacher of ”poise and elocution” explained to students how to set and seat a table to further the careers of their future husbands. And the students were wearing little organza aprons” (Burros).

Above: the ladies of Mona Lisa Smile during an art history lesson

“Nor did we wear girdles to class. No pearls and earrings, either. Mr. Newell might be surprised to know that many women wore jeans and sweatshirts” (Burros).

The political conservatism and Mona Lisa Smile’s reliance upon it to build both narrative plot and environmental aesthetic has critics and alums alike divided on their feelings towards this film and its current place in the Wellesley ‘canon’. We’ve heard from ’50s Wellesley alum who saw what was assumed to be their college experience on-screen. But how did Wellesley College itself handle the release of the film?

IV. WELLESLEY REACTION

In a college press release from December of 2003 titled “Wellesley College Is Among the Stars of the Film, “Mona Lisa Smile”, author Mary Ann Hill details Wellesley’s official affiliation with the film, giving a background of the film as well as noting that portions of the film, such as scenic establishing shots, were filmed on the Wellesley campus. Interestingly, she writes that “in addition, the script seemed well-researched, emphasized the intelligence of Wellesley students and highlighted the close mentoring relationships that develop between our faculty and students, which is as true of Wellesley today as it was 50 years ago” (Hill 2003).

In a college press release from January of 2004 titled “Message from the President to Wellesley College alumnae concerning the film, Mona Lisa Smile” then-college President Diana Chapman Walsh takes almost an opposite point of view. The tone of this address (linked here and shown above) is clear: the Wellesley community mostly did not appreciate what Walsh called “the distorted and demeaning portrayal of our alma mater”. Walsh does not reference the “well-researched” script that Mary Ann Hill complimented, but spoke mostly to many students and staff feeling that they needed to defend the college and its integrity following the release of the movie. Walsh notes that “opinion has been ranging widely” regarding just how accurately Mona Lisa Smile portrayed 1950s Wellesley culture. As referenced earlier, Walsh writes that “Though many professional critics have faulted the film for a lack of subtlety, the film does attempt to raise genuine questions about women’s life choices: whether one must choose between career and family and how to find one’s own path when it may conflict with society’s expectations or those of parents, professors, friends”. Walsh goes on to note that the college had no control over the narrative portrayal of itself in Mona Lisa, and despite the large support for Wellesley communities present and past, “I do very much regret, however, the distress it has caused many alumnae, and especially alumnae who were students in the Fifties.”

Above: Wellesley in real-life, 1953 & 1949

All of this begs the question of just how harmful a partially-inaccurate portrayal of a community can be. In a broader sense, I doubt that the film deeply harmed the overall reputation of Wellesley in tangible ways: after all, as Walsh stated, “it’s important to keep in perspective the fact that the film is a Hollywood fantasy set in an imaginary 1953-1954 academic year.” However, that does not imply that the film is not worthy of speculation or analysis. Historical fiction films have, of course, no physical obligation to accurately represent what they portray if the content is labeled as “fiction” for entertainment purposes. While there is debate as to just how exaggerated the portrayal of Wellesley culture was in Mona Lisa Smile, the film did not claim any wild falsities as truth – but it did contribute to negative stereotypes that can be everlasting.

In talking to a friend of mine who, like me, is a first-year student at Wellesley, I discovered that she learned about Wellesley College through Mona Lisa Smile. In regards to the portrayal of Wellesley students as uptight know-it-alls, she made a comment along the lines of “it made me never want to go here!”. While that feeling was later overshadowed by her gaining more knowledge of the college and having genuine desire to apply and attend, the film nevertheless left an impact. And knowing that I am apparently among the minority who didn’t watch the movie before coming to Wellesley, I wonder how different my experience would have been if I had encountered the film prior to knowing what the Wellesley environment is truly like. Though the culture at Wellesley in 2022 is no doubt different from 1953, Mona Lisa Smile’s existence aside, the college does not escape stereotypes. As a notably prestigious, historically-women’s institution of higher education, some of the labels utilized in the movie stick in real life. Mona Lisa Smile takes liberties to highly exaggerate this environment of academic excellence for the sake of negatively dramatic cinema, but Wellesley is truly nothing if not a place for intelligent, driven individuals – that part of the portrayal is nothing but accurate.

V. CONCLUSIONS & CONNECTIONS

In researching this film and its many extensions to the real-life Wellesley community, I have found that it holds a unique place within the ‘private’ sphere of Wellesley – a sphere which in many ways, has become publicized due to this film’s popularity and cult-ish status. Despite its centering of Wellesley in its narrative, it is not well-loved by Wellesley women past and present. However, it does have an important place in history. Not only did the film bring to light questions of pre-feminist domestic expectation, reflected in the characters’ many struggles to either marry or pursue a career (but as the language goes, certainly not both), but it caused the real-life Wellesley community to reckon with a less-than-accurate portrayal of the place so many (including myself) call home. Mona Lisa Smile has a place in the film canon today, but not as something we should look towards for feminist inspiration. I have come to believe that the film lacks feminist inspiration entirely, both due to its conventional narrative and its stereotypical, nearly offensive portrayals of women seeking higher education. However, it starts important conversations about the way we view women both on and off-screen, and as Diana Chapman Walsh wrote in her press release regarding the film’s controversy, “students, faculty and staff have been analyzing the movie from every conceivable angle and will doubtless continue to do so in the months and years ahead”. She isn’t wrong: like many ‘typical’ Wellesley students might, I will continue to do just that.

VI. REFERENCES

Information:

Burros, Marian. 2003. “Critique From 50’S Wellesley Grads”. Nytimes.Com. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/29/movies/critique-from-50-s-wellesley-grads.html.

Hill, Mary Ann. 2003. “Wellesley College Is Among The Stars Of “Mona Lisa Smile””. Web.Wellesley.Edu. http://web.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Releases/2003/120303.html#:~:text=Filming%20of%20%22Mona%20Lisa%20Smile%22%20at%20Wellesley%20College&text=The%20producers%20filmed%20on%20the,up%20after%20filming%20was%20completed.

Newell, Mike. 2003. Mona Lisa Smile. Film. Wellesley, Massachusetts & New York, New York: Revolution Studios & Columbia Pictures.

Perkins, Linda M. “The Racial Integration of the Seven Sister Colleges.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 19 (1998): 104–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/2998936.

Pollitt, Katha. 2003. “FILM; Young Ladies On The Verge Of A Breakthrough (Published 2003)”. Nytimes.Com. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/movies/film-young-ladies-on-the-verge-of-a-breakthrough.html.

Sarris, Andrew. 2003. “Inspired By Hillary Rodham Clinton, Smile Bares Wellesley’S Quaint Past”. Observer. https://observer.com/2003/12/inspired-by-hillary-rodham-clinton-smile-bares-wellesleys-quaint-past/.

Spigel, Lynn. Make Room For TV. 1st ed., University Of Chicago Press, 1992.

Walsh, Diana Chapman. 2004. “Message From The President To Wellesley College Alumnae Concerning The Film, Mona Lisa Smile”. Web.Wellesley.Edu. http://web.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/President/DCW/Announcements/monalisasmile.html.

PHOTOS:

Screencaps from Pinterest &Tumblr, all other images from The Little Things and The Vintage Inn (originally in LIFE Magazine)