Cheaper by the Dozen

I have seen the 1950 version of "Cheaper By the Dozen" perhaps a dozen times! It is a delightful glimpse of influential family life in the 1920's.

There are too many children, but this movie is funny because of Clifton Webb, who was a master of comedy in his detached, upper crust style, as in other movies such as another classic, "Mr. Belvedere." Seems like "we" have gotten too sophisticated these days to appreciate the innocence of movies like this one. There was laughter, a little love-interest, problems with kids, certainly sadness, and coping with so many children. But, it is appealing because there is no blood and guts, no explicit sex scenes and no foul language. This movie is a classic!

If you want a treat, watch this movie. Watch it with your kids, despite the movie being made 50 years ago I bet they enjoy it. It is truly Clifton Webb ( as Mr. Gilbreth ) at his best. A shame he never won an Academy Award despite three nominations in his career. You can't help but enjoy the High School dance scenes. Edgar Buchanan's brief scenes as the family physician are also a treat. It's 85 minutes you won't regret spending.

While some might be critical of this movie for being "overly cheerful and sappy", I find "Cheaper by the Dozen" and movies like it of their time a haven in today's sexualized, blow 'em up assortment of trash. This movie is pure entertainment. You don't have to think. Just sit back, laugh and enjoy.

Once again, this is a movie in which the original is better than the re-make, even though the latter was a decent, popular film.

What the two films offered, however, was another stark contrast in how the culture (and Hollywood) has changed. In this original version, unlike today's films: 1 - The father rules the roost; 2 - the kids are nice kids. They actually behave and are respectful; 3 - The general atmosphere is a far more kind and gentle one than scene in today's "family films."

In other words, this is a real throwback to an era of nice family films, when they really were truly that. It reminded me of "Life With Father." If you liked that film, you'd enjoy this.

Clifton Webb was fun to watch as the strict father. Myrna Loy's role as the mother wasn't as much as one would expect. Perhaps if the title hadn't already been taken, this would have been more aptly named "Life With Father" since Loy's part was so minor. The kids were pretty wholesome and believable for that era except Jeanne Crain was far too old to be playing a 17-year-old.

If the film could be described in one word, it would be CHARM. It doesn't provide a lot of big laughs but it's pleasant, and at 86 minutes doesn't overstay its welcome.

I saw this movie on our local PBS station last night. I had never seen it before, and sat there sorta wondering why on earth I wasn't changing the channel. As I watched the characters develop, and the continued background scenery of spacious houses and country that looked much different than what we see now - I understood why I couldn't change the channel. This film makes you think. It makes you realize how spoon-fed we are. We are spoon-fed movies, plots, stories, violence, sex, etc.

A film such as this allows us to stop being spoon-fed, and lets us pick and choose what we want from the story, from the film.

It is amusing to me that most of the posts against this fine film appear to be posted while watching the film through 2004-style glasses. It isn't a pretty thing, but women weren't held in the same position that they are today - and the film portrayed this wonderfully. Did it make the wife in the film any less admirable? I think it showed the inner strength that women had to have, making a remarkable statement about women of the era - that even though they might not be able to be out in the forefront - they had every bit as much (if not more) strength then the men. Even the father couldn't handle all the children - but the mother could -WHILE having a profession to boot!!

While the father wasn't necessarily warm, and you didn't get that fuzzy feeling modern movies give us - I believe the character was very true to life when put in the context of the 1920s. I have spoken a great deal with many people I know, that had lived through that time period. I can tell you now, that many people in the early 1900s never experienced the type of love and closeness we feel today. Survival wasn't a near-guarantee back then, and harshness, crassness, and distance from others was more common. Children died at an alarming rate . . . adults too.

History is what it is - and it is NOT subject to change, regardless of the nature of today's political attempts. Slavery happened, women weren't seen as equals, people were lynched by mobs of overzealous citizens, people starved, the dust bowl occurred. None of these events are wonderful, but they are our history, and there should be no shame in discussing - or accurately portraying / conveying these topics. I think this film is what it is too - a look at the life of an average family (perhaps an above average number of children - but even that wasn't all that rare).

Enjoy this film - but please, be prepared to leave your glasses smudged with 2004 politics and standards behind - this is a treasure where we can get a glimpse of the type of characters that lived with our grand parents, great grand parents, and the like. If you like to be spoon-fed, please DON'T watch this movie.