Obliging Young Lady

This film had great potential, however, the screenplay left a lot to be desired. Young Miss Carroll is actually the better performer of all the folks who appear in it. Franklin Panghorn isn't that bad either. After these two forget it, which is a ashame. Eve Arden is wasted, such a talent deserved more than the tripe she was given in this one. Edmund O'Brian makes one ill just watching him handle his lines. I cannot bear to discuss the other parts. Joan Carroll had a lot of potential, but she like Ann Carter and Sharyn Moffet never were consistent child performers thanks to much of the inane scripts they were given. Carroll was the most talented of the three RKO child Starlets, but Moffet at least had a few pictures that were all her own. Obliging Young Lady shows Carroll was star material, this just wasn't a vehicle in which she was able to shine, still whatever redeeming value it has is carried by her.

This weirdly inept attempt at screwball comedy is undone by the casting of its three leads. Edmond O'Brien -- best remembered today as the desperate poisoning victim in the 1950 cult classic "D.O.A." and the alcoholic senator in "Seven Days In May" (1964) -- and Ruth Warrick -- known primarily for playing Charles Foster Kane's first wife in "Citizen Kane" and a long run on a TV soap opera -- were never known as adept farceurs. And moppet actress Joan Carroll has the kind of physical and verbal precocity that makes the audience wonder if perhaps she might not be a midget (OK, "little person," if we have not yet appropriately repudiated the silliness of political correctness). And she's a little person with a distracting tendency to let her mouth hang open in closeup reaction shots, at that.

The script -- rewritten (over Frank Ryan) by Bert Granet, suggesting that a certain paucity of talent may have been what redirected him to demi-success as a TV producer in the '50s and '60s -- is littered with what are presumably meant to be running gags, but bespeak a lack of understanding that to merit that classification, the shtik must be funny, not merely repetitive. These "runners" include the bizarre notion of a train's sound mimicking the name of a famous baseball player of the period, Heinie Manusch, and every passenger on the train getting the name stuck in their head, treating us to tedious extended sequences of extras chanting the name over and over again in syncopation with the chugging of the locomotive. There is also Carroll's character, Bridget, who repeatedly demands, for no apparent reason, "What's wrong with the name Bridget?"

This farrago of badly-executed ideas is ultimately ill-served by the direction of B movie hack Richard Wallace, whose coverage is so inadequate that the cutter is repeatedly forced to go from masters to two-shots in which actors' positions and expressions change radically, making startling jump cuts out of what should be seamless transitions. Wallace even manages to undermine the usually-redoubtable Eve Arden, evidently sabotaging her trademark talent for wringing laughs from the lamest one-liners by underplaying. It almost looks like Wallace coaxed her to overact. It's painful to watch...not unlike the film as a whole.

I could have decided not to watch this film since it was rated very low. Never judging a book by its cover, I thought I'd give it a chance. It caught me up in the romantic pursuit O'Brien after Ruth. The little girl was cute with her attraction for getting a thrill by putting tacks on seats. Believe me, I know from experience that this kind of act shouldn't be funny because it once happened to me in grade school. However, it is part of the movie that O'Brien can relate with when he meets the little girl on the train and how he did it too to people. PLEASE WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! Never be afraid of ratings because some movies haven't been out there to the public and need a chance. It is a movie THE WHOLE FAMILY CAN ENJOY! My Father (bless his heart!) reminds all his 10 children to just concentrate on watching ROMANTIC COMEDIES! I want to say that this would definitely be a movie that my Pop was talking about. As far as the Bird-calling scene, only true birders can understand and appreciate the comedy. I don't want to spoil anything else but real birders will obviously find errors in the actual bird that made the calls made by the actors.

This second feature from 1942, Obliging Young Lady, stars Ruth Warrick, Joan Carroll, and Edmund O'Brien.

Linda Norton (Warrick) takes a child (Carroll) involved in a custody case to a resort to keep the child hidden from reporters. Her nemesis, Red Reddy (O'Brien) is at the same resort. He saw her at another train station, fell for her, kissed her, and was slapped. She wants nothing to do with him.

The whole thing turns into a big mess, with Linda's boyfriend arriving, with Linda and Red posing as Bridget's parents. A private detective shows up, as well as a reporter (Eve Arden) who knows Red. And there's a bird lovers' convention. The participants are under the impression that Red is well- traveled and can give them information.

Cute and fast-moving, with a nice cast that also includes Franklin Pangborn and Charles Lane, who died in 2007, at the age of 92, and worked until he was 80.

Ruth Warrick was a pretty leading lady in the style of Rosalind Russell and does well here, but her big fame came years later as Phoebe Tyler in All My Children. Joan Carroll is very good - she's not a cloying, overly sweet child, nor is she obnoxious. O'Brien is up to the comedy, though he would be known later for film noir.

All in all, pleasant.

Linda Norton (Ruth Warrick) encounters strange guy, reporter "Red" Reddy (Edmond O'Brien), on the train back to New York City. She works for a lawyer who is handling a contentious divorce with the Potters. Their daughter Bridget Potter (Joan Carroll) is part of the contention. The Judge gives temporary custody of Bridget over to their lawyer friend. Linda takes her to a remote resort. They are followed by Red and chaos ensues.

It's a screwball comedy of schemes and misunderstandings. It's light, convoluted, and silly. By the time they get to the resort, I'm completely lost in all the confusing lies. They don't start with reason and logic. By then, non of that matters. It's a bundle of silliness. The bigger issue is the love triangle. Charles is a fine guy if a bit stiff. Red is no catch either. Sure, he's a cad but not always a fun one. The meet-cute has cute ideas but it's also very much stalking. This would work better without Charles. Linda could judge Red based solely on his own merits. I understand what the love triangle is trying to do but I don't think it works well enough. That's this movie's Achilles heel.