Papai Batuta

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.

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.

Amusing family drama, set in the 1920's, and immensely popular on first release. No wonder, since the movie presents an idealized family portrait that goes humorously beyond the usual two or three kids. Here, of course, it's a dozen. With that many offspring, all kinds of kid hi- jinks are possible to fill out the screenplay. Nonetheless, it's the prickly Webb at the height of his popularity who dominates, along with a bemused Loy looking on. There's really no plot, just a series of ordinary family episodes centering around Mom, Dad, and the two eldest girls (Crain & Bates).

Still, there is something of a socially conservative subtext behind the scattered goings-on. Importantly, it's one that doesn't harm the generally humorous results. Take the way the family-planning lady (Natwick) is gently mocked when Dad parades his army of offspring before her. This was, after all, back in the day when contestants on quiz shows with bigger families got bigger applause. Or take the prom scene where young Tom (Hill) pointedly affirms to teen-age Ann (Crain) what her dad has already explained to her—namely, that boys only marry "good girls". This scene, however, appears aimed specifically at the audience and is a bit awkward for such an otherwise smooth production.

Despite the one scene, this is not an in-your-face subtext, but it is present and quite consonant with the times. After all, idealized families were not unusual for either movies or TV of the 50's, unlike today's often ribald variety. However, I am curious how in such a sunny movie the unexpectedly dark development suddenly occurs near the end. I guess its inclusion was to maintain the facts of the real life family on which the movie is based. At the same time, the development prevents things from getting too sentimental, always a pitfall for movies like this. Nonetheless, it is understandably passed over quickly and at a distance.

All in all, the movie remains warmly amusing, thanks mainly to another of Webb's prickly but likable characters. Then too, the kids are cute without being cutesy; at the same time, the lovely Crain looks a little long in the tooth to be playing a teenager. However, I'm still wondering how Mom can bear all of twelve kids and still look like Myrna Loy. Oh well, just another of Hollywood's enduring mysteries.

One of my favorite characters is Mr. Belvedere as played by Clifton Webb. A man that is a genius and knows everything about anything including raising children but very little patience for kids. So the idea of Webb raising a dozen little ones was interesting. The film about the Gilbreth family, in the early 20th century turns into a wonderful family picture as Webb is Mr Frank Gilbreth, a man concerned with efficiency. A role perfect for Webb. Gilbreth is a very strict and opinionated man about how to do things quicker and faster. Gilbreth even has opinions about the quickest way to operate on tonsils, even though he is not a doctor. The best way to prove his theory is to film the mass operation of eleven children and himself. The whole film truly centers on the love of a man for his family and Webb is the perfect person for this picture. The ending is a sad event because the film takes the time to develop lovable characters that you care about. A film well worth the time to sit and have a bag of popcorn and "soda pop" and don't forget your dog. Enjoy!

Forget the mediocre Steve Martin remake, this film is the Cheaper By the Dozen to see. Jeannie Crain is a little too old for her role as the oldest daughter that I have to agree with. The rest however is delightful entertainment. There is nothing hilarious here, but some lines and scenes are funny and very pleasant, plus some moments are touching. The film looks great, has a beautiful soundtrack and a story to warm the heart, and it has a script that has its humorous and sweet parts. The film is short but not too short, and it is snappily paced. The children are very believable, Myrna Loy doesn't have as much to do but is suitably warm and sympathetic and Clifton Webb is absolutely wonderful. All in all, still a joy. 8/10 Bethany Cox