Opiniones de usuarios

Though lacking the enchantment of "Claudia," this sequel, "Claudia and David," is still enjoyable, with Dorothy McGuire and Robert Young successfully playing their characters a second time. Fritz and Bertha are still around, and there's a new addition, little Bobby.

Claudia is still marching to her own, distant drum, but as a young mother, she's a tad more earthbound. And, as in "Claudia," she again gets a dose of reality that requires her to move up to an new level of maturity.

The original film must have been a great success, because this time, the actors are surrounded by more of a name cast: Mary Astor, John Sutton, Gail Patrick (replacing Jean Howard as David's sister-in-law), and Rose Hobart. Astor and Patrick really add some sophisticated glamor to the proceedings.

As with "Claudia," "Claudia and David" is style and characters over substance, i.e., there's not much of a story. Instead of being attached to her mother, now David is trying to get Claudia to relax about their son.

Also, at a party, a psychic (Jerome Cowan) gives her a message from her mother that David will have an accident when he travels, so Claudia tries to dissuade David from taking a business trip to California.

Definitely life was simpler then, and observing their country life, one can't help being a little bit jealous of Claudia and David. Entertaining with good performances.

Though this is considered a comedy, it has tragic undertones. A child grows very ill while its parents are at a party. At the party, a naive wife is wooed by a dashing neighbor. The neighbor's wife (beautifully played by Rose Hobart) turns out to have serious emotional problems. These were caused by the loss of a child.

We watch Maguire as she reacts to Young's attentions to new neighbor Mary Astor. And Astor at this point could have woo'd the birds from the trees! This all takes place in suburban Connecticut. People are well off. They are professions -- architects, lawyers, doctors. The title couple have what appear to be live-in servants. But there are worms in the apple pie.

The sweet tone of the original "Claudia" is maintained. But shadows are added to it. It might seem to some a soap opera. To me it has the makings of a tragedy. With a few slightly different turns, it could have been -- and surely no one wanted it to be -- a film noir.

When we first meet Claudia in the movie of the same title from 1943, she is either very simple or has a borderline intelligence. She depends on David for everyday work as keeping house accounts, moves and acts childishly, and seems quite unconscious of the consequences of her behavior -which on one side makes one wonders why are they together, and on the other side is part of her charm. Now, after the events that they went through, she has come into age (which points to the first explanation), and she is another person. Completely. It is not that she has lost that clumsiness and that her hair now remains on place; it´s that she is the usual kind of wife that might be expected, effectively caring for her husband, managing the farm (not a hint of house accounts) and dining out with neighbors. She is a loving if overconcerned mother, a bit supersticious, and people refers to her as being different, but she is not. Now she can effectively deal with life as it is, even help a jealous woman in a marriage crises with her own intrinsic honesty. Pain is replaced by jealousy, and so the couple goes on fairly well. David was already the grown-up and reasonable one, so now they are even and we can see how their marriage flows. In fact, he has here some humoresque moments that greatly add to the impression of a happy marriage, as both their acting in these scenes shows the simple reality of what a loving couple may share. Claudia´s mother, a wonderful performance by Ina Claire, conveyed much of the interest in the first part, and is here much missed. The continuity of the servant´s couple makes easier to understand that Claudia and David are the same couple we met before. Only, it isn´t very believable to some of us.

No hint here of the big war that had just ended. I expect audiences wanted a return to peacetime normality as soon as possible, and what focus could be more encouraging than a gentrified young couple like David and Claudia. They're prosperous, with a big house, servants, and a circle of attractive, sophisticated friends. Maybe they're not your average real couple, but they are the kind that young wives could read about in popular magazines like Town and Country. More importantly, such dreams might now be within everyone's reach thanks to a burgeoning post-war economy.

The comedy comes in the first 5 minutes. After that, it's high-class soap opera with an outstanding cast. Was there ever a more winning screen personality than McGuire or a more comfortable pipe smoker than Young. Together, they're nearly ideal. We know that despite their clichéd trials and tribulations, they'll emerge together in the end. Two scenes stay with me. When Young starts tickling wife on top their bed, we know what follows-- rather suggestive for the time. Still, it's done with such unforced naturalness and good humor, who could object. The other is the deeply felt confrontation between McGuire and Mrs. Dexter (Hobart). It's one of the more touchingly humane scenes of that period and stands as the movie's well-wrought centerpiece. All in all, this brief 73 minutes is a prime example of how effectively Hollywood could turn out slick little programmers during its illustrious studio period.

super-fretting mother again, comedy AND death/drama

Back in 1943, Dorothy McGuire and Robert Young made an incredibly odd film, "Claudia". The title character (played by McGuire) was a ditsy lady who almost needed her mother and father to take care of her because she was so dependent and slow-witted. It seemed like a comedy through much of the film...yet it also was about death! Now, three years later the pair are back for "Claudia and David" and once again it's a very strange combination of moods. The beginning finds Claudia a comical lady who drives like a complete idiot and is totally scatterbrained. Yet, after a while, her son nearly dies from the Measels and her husband is nearly killed in an accident. Along the way, all sorts of angst occurs--stuff you'd NEVER expect given the film's set-up. Overall, I found the film baffling and not altogether enjoyable. A strange melange, that's for sure.

This 1946 sequel to the 1943 film "Claudia" depends largely on the charm of its stars Dorothy McGuire and Robert Young, and on that score it succeeds beautifully. Based on the popular 1940's novel by Rose Franken (who also wrote the screenplay) "Claudia and David" proves to be a brief, albeit good adaptation. There's nothing particularly thrilling or exciting in the story. It's more a quiet comedy with some dramatic elements, as it follows the trials and tribulations of this young married couple with a young child, as they experience life on their Connecticut farm. All in all, nothing spectacular, but quite worthwhile; the type of movie that is perfect for a rainy Saturday afternoon.

I agree with the other six user reviewers about this baffling, inconsistency-laden film that somehow became a smash hit in the late 1940s, just as the world was rising from the ashes of World War II. As one reviewer stated, the film no doubt was a welcome relief after the dangers, trials, and concerns Americans had endured during the war years.

Most reviewers have recognized Claudia as a rather immature, dim-witted young woman who needed someone to look after her. Personally, I recognized her as an upper-class, fashionable, and younger version of "Edith Bunker." Apparently Claudia had been protected and watched over by her parents and never had to fend for herself. Once on her own, except for the "snoopervision" of her husband David, she takes unwise and dangerous chances and has to face the fact that tragedy and death loom all around her but are unseen in her idyllic world. She does begin to grow up when she acknowledges the pain she felt over her father's death and her mother's unfortunate diagnosis and eventual death. She further matures when she becomes the mother of little Bobby and must deal with a childhood disease that could have proven fatal to her precious child. She also shows maturity when she sympathizes with Mrs. Dexter about the tragic death of the Dexters' only child, an event that has caused emotional problems for the bereaved Dexter couple.

While watching the film, I was appalled by the self-centeredness and "know-it-all" attitude exhibited by David, something other reviewers did not mention. As a viewer, I was angered by the way he chided Claudia for her motherly concern and made light of Bobby's serious illness. To me, it seemed he saw the child as the latest toy or source of entertainment for Claudia and something he personally saw as a nuisance and an annoyance. Quite a few times he criticized Claudia for paying attention to the child, and his words and actions struck me as terribly childish, selfish, insensitive, and irresponsible. I thought of the caring, supportive father Robert Young later portrayed in the "Father Knows Best" TV series, and that is why I gave my review the title that reads "Father DOES NOT know best!"

While it is true that the film shows the limited gender roles accepted and exhibited by the young adults of the World War II generation, the film leads today's viewers to realize how the generations since that time have benefited from world-wide communication, practical approaches to education in public school, counseling, parenting classes, and the new ideas about gender roles and the concept of marriage and responsibility. Yes, we all have come a long way and are much more grown up now.