Dear Ruth Graduates to Dear Wife
A Paramount Idea of Family Comedy
Push that panic button, here comes another irrepressible 40's teen! Households seemed overrun with them, Edward Arnold often a beleaguered Dad undergoing embarrassment brought on by precocious offspring. He'd spawn Virginia Weidler in The Youngest Profession (1944), Joyce Reynolds in Janie, and later Joan Leslie in the sequel Janie Gets Married, then, and most repeatedly, Mona Freeman for a series of domestic comedies utterly forgotten today, Dear Ruth (1947), Dear Wife (1950), and Dear Brat (1951). Two thirds of the latters are, at least were, accessible on Amazon streaming, Dear Wife and Dear Brat, both owned by Paramount. Dear Ruth went with the 1958 dump of pre-49 Paras to MCA, and has been out of circulation for years.
Joan Caulfield and William Holden were centered in the first two, but did not participate in the third. Edward Arnold and Mary Philips (a former Bogart wife) appeared as parents in all three, Mona Freeman the ongoing cause of misunderstanding and family disaster. She's in fact worse than a "brat"… today you'd be advised to put her on Ritalin and have done with the problem. Holden did these at point of gun that was his Paramount contract, Dear Wife bringing down curtain on his "Smiling Jim" ordeal for the studio, his next a salvation that was Sunset Boulevard. Fun comes of swipes at local politics, obnoxious radio programming, and what'll kids think of next before they took up rock and roll and became a real problem for grown-ups. The Wilkins family isn't rich, but they have a live-in maid, and they always dress for dinner. Pain in the rear that daughter is, she's never insolent or surly with Mom or Dad, movies maintaining as of 1950 that parents and child could reason together. That would end with a thud before long.
8 Comments:
It's two stars' last names inspired J.D. Salinger...
Wasn't the Ruth character based on Groucho's daughter Miriam?
Back in the 70s saw a small community theater production of "Dear Ruth". This was when you could still drum up a cast -- and an audience -- for obscure little comedies, usually set in sitcom living rooms. I'm guessing the royalties were lower than for early Neil Simon, and period wardrobe was still cheap and/or lingering in closets.
Anyway, one detail stuck with me. There is, of course, a stodgy rival for Ruth's hand. The fact that he's a civilian in 1944 is casually made a reason to root against him (I think the father made some remark about a medical deferment, hinting it was bogus).
Some other Innocent Brats:
-- Bonita Granville as Nancy Drew. It's not her father who's long-suffering. He can be as annoying as she is. It's her not-officially-a-boyfriend Ted, played by Frankie Thomas, who grumbles constantly but lets her shove him into embarrassing and dangerous situations.
-- Hayley Mills at Disney. In "The Parent Trap" she's twins breaking up Dad's remarriage; in "Summer Magic" she secures an idyllic farmhouse through dramatic lies; in "That Darn Cat" she aggressively interferes with a kidnapping investigation. It's been a while, but I think "The Moonspinners" was another case of dangerous meddling. One can argue that "Pollyanna" was fiercely passive-aggressive, walloping contentedly anti-social folk with niceness.
-- MGM-period Mickey Rooney, usually a Good Boy who's just too cocky and hyper for anybody's good.
-- The Archie Comics gang, up until pretty recently. Some years ago somebody did a mock movie trailer placing the Riverdale High kids in a gritty, sex-and-angst teen drama. Then it was hilariously improbable. Now it's an unironic TV show, and there are "realistic" Archie Comics that take the same tack.
I am amazed that the obnoxious Billy DeWolfe had a lengthy career. He drives me nuts.
"It's two stars' last names inspired J.D. Salinger..."
Alas, someone looked into the timing and he was already using the name Holden Caulfield well before this movie came out.
"he 1958 dump of pre-49 Paras to MCA." I still find it amazing that Paramount had so little regard for its legacy.
I always considered the "dump" by the studios to tv distribution to be shortsighted. Why not set up your own studio's tv distribution arm and keep all the rental profit for yourself. Sure, you made money on the sale in 1958, but what do you do for 1959 when the rent comes due?
Reg Hartt's comment is interesting - 1958 was nine short years after 1949 - that would be like Disney washing its hands of all of its pre-2012 product today.
That this scenario is so unthinkable must be because of the changes in both technology and general societal attitudes in the years from 1959 to today. Simply stated, our values have changed. But I think articulating precisely how and in what way they have changed would require a much more complicated analysis.
Post a Comment
<< Home