Adventure in Baltimore

I wasn't that impressed by the first half or so of this film. Shirley Temple plays Dinah Sheldon--a very liberated and modern young woman who ruffles many folks' feathers in this turn of the 20th century slice of life film. Now Dinah is never bad--just way ahead of her time and the narrow-minded folks back in 1905 couldn't stand a woman pushing for equal rights. Much of this portion seemed kooky and silly--and very inconsequential. Fortunately, midway through the film, things picked up. Dinah enters a very nice picture in a contest--and the local gossips begin ripping her apart and impugning her good name. This is particularly hard for her father, the Reverend (Robert Young)--as stands firmly behind Dinah regardless of the consequences to himself. He plays a guy very much like Jim Anderson from "Father Knows Best"--very wise, gentle and kind. This portion was both heartwarming and interesting--far more than the earlier part of the film. Overall, a nice little family film that starts slowly (and a bit too kooky) and ends on a very high note.

Mild sitcom, from a story by Christopher Isherwood of all people, about a pastor's rebellious daughter in the stuffy upper-middle-class Baltimore of 1905. Though it's handsomely photographed, there's no Baltimore atmosphere here; it could as easily be Milwaukee or St. Louis, and in fact, the strong-family-ties theme, aggressive nostalgia, boy-next-door puppy love, and sleeve-tugging sentimentality play like a less well-written "Meet Me in St. Louis." Robert Young, top-billed and with a mustache and silly hair, does a tolerable warmup for "Father Knows Best"; he furrows his brow a lot and makes pronouncements. (But the height of the plot arc, in which he delivers a give-'em-hell sermon to his hypocritical congregation, is unaccountably omitted from the script.) The only real surprise of the movie is how amazingly uninteresting a 21-year-old Shirley Temple is. She simpers, she searches for her key light to be never anything but as attractive as possible, she tries to convey adolescent feistiness, but her line readings are monotonously alike, and she has no inner life. Nor is it wise to pair her with then-husband John Agar, in what's essentially the Tom Drake role; he's as dull as Tom Drake. The script puts the two through some very contrived roadblocks on the road to love, including a hard-to-believe episode of her unintentionally instigating a riot, a harder-to-believe one of him reading a speech of hers out loud and forgetting to change the pronouns, and an unpalatable one of her lying to him about painting his portrait. I wouldn't even root for such a selfish young miss. RKO must have figured, well, she's Shirley Temple, the audience will be on her side no matter what. I wasn't, and while the denouement is rushed to the point of incoherence, I wasn't sorry to see this one end.

Plot-- A reverend's 1905 family must find a way to adjust to the eldest daughter's instincts for equality at a time when women were denied many opportunities. Meanwhile, Dad may lose his chance to become a bishop because of town gossip over his daughter.

Looks like the misleading title and Shirley's rebellious upstart were meant to provide some edge to her squeaky-clean image. However, the results are what could be expected of the Temple brand—a wholesome little family drama, on the order of Father Knows Best. As daughter Dinah, Shirley manages to keep her feminist instincts within appealing bounds; at the same time, she defies confining norms placed on 1905 women. The rebellious context is carefully calibrated so as to be acceptable to 1949 audiences without offending the values of that later time. Note how in the movie Dinah's desire for women's suffrage is endorsed, but not her inclination for a career as a painter. That accords with norms of the late-40's when women still weren't expected to have careers. Careers would come later in the 1960's.

As Pastor Sheldon, Young is likably bland in the type role soon to define him. More importantly, as the voice of reason and church authority, he gives official approval to his daughter's actions. So the audience knows she's more than just rebellious— she's on the right track. On the other hand, too bad the studio didn't hire a more appealing swain than the dull- as-cement John Agar. But then he's certainly no competition for his then real life wife.

On the whole, the movie tells us more about Temple's career and the social norms of two historical periods than anything else. However, I'm still wondering how this revealing slice of fluff escaped from RKO's dream factory that was then turning out noirs by the dozen.

I'm not sure what kind of adventure folks were having in 1905 Baltimore, but it's clear to me that RKO was trying to cash in on a bit of the nostalgia gold that MGM found with Meet Me In St. Louis. There's no musical score in Adventure In Baltimore, but Shirley Temple taking the place of Judy Garland provides a nice wholesome image of a young woman who was questioning just what woman's place was in society as so many thousands of others were doing in America in 1905.

Shirley's a preacher's kid and her father is an amused and tolerant, but slightly put out Robert Young. The film opens with her returning to Baltimore because she's been expelled from a Ladies Finishing School, the kind of places that would shortly go out of date and style. She's been espousing such radical ideas as woman's suffrage and she wants to be an artist.

In addition to a slightly exasperated father, Shirley's also got a more than slightly exasperated young man who is interested in her in her then real life husband John Agar. One of the funniest scenes in the film is Agar at an oratorical society meeting delivering a speech expressing Temple's progressive ideas. The problem is she did not change the pronouns and poor Agar is making a big old fool of himself. Later on a 'scandalous' painting Temple does of Agar causes great concern and is used against Young who is being touted for the position of Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Baltimore.

Robert Young was made up to look a great deal older than he was at the time the film was made. With his graying hair and with it curled the way it was, Young looks like Robert Donat as he was in Goodbye Mr. Chips. It made me think that Donat might have been who RKO had in mind originally for the plot. Nevertheless Young does fine in the role and his scenes with Shirley have some real tenderness to them.

Adventure In Baltimore is not as good as Meet Me In St. Louis, but the film is nice family entertainment.

I totally agree with the first post! I never could understand why people didn't think she was a great actress as an adult too. She was terrific and I appreciate her enough to make up for all the fools who don't. She is my favorite actress ever. I'm so sorry she quit acting at such a young age. What we've missed because of it! I wish Shirley would get back into show business now even after all these years! After all she has accomplished in her life she deserves take it easy at this age but sorry, as a great fan, I want more Shirley even now! I hope she doesn't stay away because of feeling unappreciated, it would make me cry if she did. I can't help but make a comment on Shirley the child... It would have been enough just to look at her pretty face, beautiful hair, sweet giggly voice, infectious smile and dimples, but it's amazing that on top of all that, she was so smart, had more poise than most adults, could dance fantastic, sing, act, remember lines and lyrics (all simultaneously) It is still totally amazing to me. And watching her movies when I was a child, I couldn't appreciate how easy she made it all look. Now that I'm an adult who has raised my own child, I fully realize how extraordinary Shirley really was. I don't know HOW she did it. I know this sounds like a small thing, but even if you watch her hands ... how expressive they were. I love how she use to put on her mad face and stamp her little foot! Best of all the little Shirley makes me smile just watching her put on a big smile and she can also bring me to tears. How many other people can do that?