Wow, I don't know where to begin - don't read this if you like this film

Grant and Dunne give terrific performances, but the film is VERY selective about the events it shows versus the events it leaves out... Perhaps that is the point; to show us that when our memories are tied too closely to music, they end up something of a muddled mess...

The script spends ages on silly sequences with creaking staircases and a baby being given a bath (much as I loved the character of Applejack, the scene doesn't need to go on so long to show the audience that he is a more 'instinctive' parent than either one of our main couple prove to be... ) and yet, the most meaty plot development - the death of a child is handled IN A LETTER?! Perhaps the Hays Code couldn't be too graphic, but surely there are more poignant ways of communicating such a tragedy?

It's the same with the resolution, too - they are broken up by the loss until they get the offer of a second child... and then the movie acts as though this is the fix that cures everything!! We've invested our time in a kid you're prepared to forget about as soon as another one comes along; another one that we DON'T EVEN GET TO SEE!

Pick a tone and stick with it; it's by turns both screwball and tragic - and it does neither one of them very well.

There're a lot of good scenes played well by the main couple, but they don't seem to belong in the same movie, together.




"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply share

add reply

formatting help

SusanJL says > - why did that adoption agency lady give them preference - twice - over other waiting couples??? I mean, the script needed to explain that (perhaps the waiting couple suddenly found out they were expecting a child of their own?). Instead it just seemed these other waiting couples were thrown under the bus for no good reason!!!

I thought that point was explained in the movie. Mrs. Oliver had a good feeling about Julie and Roger. They were a little misguided when they first came in but they were sincere. It may have seemed unfair to the other couple but she felt, given her experience, that they would make better parents and shouldn't be denied a child simply because another couple happened to be ahead of them on the waiting list. She made a judgment call.

Some people may have a problem with what she did but, in my opinion, placing a child in a home should NOT be handled using a checklist or by 'the' book. That's the point Roger made to the judge. Determining what's best for a child is not a simple equation that can be solved but adding up points; more needs to go into it.

Mrs. Oliver clearly understood that. That's why she went to bat for them at the hearing even though she knew they had no income at the time. It was a requirement but other things carried greater weight. The judge scolded her for letting the case get as far as his desk but she was convinced they would love and provide for their child no matter what and deserved to be heard. In other words, she was doing her job.

Just because a child is up for adoption doesn't mean they should be given to anyone who wants a child and/or can't have one any other way. The concept of any home is better than none is ridiculous. The parents do have to meet certain criteria but what matters most is the child's best interests. They parents should be good, decent people who will love the child and raise him to be happy, well-adjusted, contributing members of society. Having applied first, having a better job, more money, a nicer home, etc. should not take precedence over other, more important traits.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply share

add reply

formatting help

SusanJL says > I am a HUGE Cary Grant fan, my all-time favorite movie star. But this is by far the worst film I've seen him in!!!!!

I agree with loving Cary Grant but not about this being his worse film. If he's in a movie I tend to like it for that reason alone so if he's been in a bad movie I haven't noticed. I also like Irene Dunne and I liked the theme of the movie.

Both leads were too old for their parts as young newlyweds dealing with a newborn - Dunne was 42 and Grant was 37 in 1941 - way too old to be so ridiculously flustered about things like 20-year-old newbies.

I love babies and have been holding and caring for them from a very young age. I was surprised the first time I learned that some adults had never so much as held a baby in their entire lives. How sad for them I thought. I think I've seen Grant and Dunne handle babies in other movies but in their personal lives both had children pretty late in life. At about forty Dunne adopted a four year so she would have missed the baby years and Grant had his only child at sixty-two. It sounds to me like they were perfect for these roles!

The child actresses were the worst I've seen!!! Maybe I'm being petty, but that wasn't the most spectacular baby I've ever seen, either. Which wouldn't have even caught my attention except that the adoption agency woman kept raving about what a special baby it was - "like NO OTHER"!!

Again, I LOVE babies and children in general, so I love seeing kids in movies. I think they’re adorable and I can appreciate their work. They probably don't fully understand what they’re doing yet they manage to pretend to be the child of people they don't know and say whatever lines they're told to deliver. It’s not easy for adults so when a child does it they deserve credit.

In regards to the agency woman's rave about the baby I'd say that was accurate. I feel ALL babies and children are spectacular little beings. They each unique so what she said was true; none of them are like any other. This is how Miss Oliver wanted the couple to see and think of the child and they did. Had they questioned her words upon meeting the child, as you have done, she would have known they were probably not the right choice.

it was so unrealistic you never heard about or saw any other family members - didn't these people have fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, or any friends besides Buchanan? Did they have any faith in God - a church family & pastor to counsel them? That's how wise people cope with tragedy; faith & family & friends' support.

As I recall they had moved to a new town and hadn't made many contacts. They were also low on funds so I can see how they were probably not from wealthy families. In those days most people barely ever saw or spoke with relatives who lived far away. It was expensive to call long distance and traveling was cumbersome; slow, inefficient, complicated, and expensive for those who were low on funds. As we saw in the movie, letters were the primary means of communication. We can't assume they didn't have friends and family; it just wasn't shown. People living far away would not necessarily have been much support and it's possible they didn't want to burden them with their troubles. That's how some families are even today.

Not everyone is religious. That does make it harder to get to know people in a new area and it would make coping with life’s problems harder too. Being isolated would mean they depended a great deal on each other for support. When they were each struggling to cope with Trina’s death they pulled away from each other and were suddenly all alone. Buchanan tried to help but couldn’t.

Another thing that bugged me - why did that adoption agency lady give them preference - twice - over other waiting couples??? I mean, the script needed to explain that (perhaps the waiting couple suddenly found out they were expecting a child of their own?). Instead it just seemed these other waiting couples were thrown under the bus for no good reason!!!

A lot of people have raised that very point but I think what you're forgetting is these couples were not standing in line to buy a loaf of bread or concert tickets. When it comes to placing babies in a home with their potential parents, the agency staff should use a lot of discretion and not just rely on what's on paper. This is the point Miss Oliver made to the judge.

A couple could meet all the qualifications and be at the head of the line but they may not be the best fit for whichever child was currently available. It's also possible they already had other children, were younger and could afford to wait, or were adamant in their preference for a certain 'type' of child.

All-in-all I thought this was a good movie. It was overly sad but also well worth watching.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Agreed except for one thing: wise people and faith??
Wise people don't believe in god.

reply share

add reply

formatting help