MovieChat Forums > Penny Serenade (1941) Discussion > Beulah Bondi's sleazy adoption agency

Beulah Bondi's sleazy adoption agency


Just what kind of an adoption agency was Miss Oliver running, anyway? Her
judgment was certainly questionable--she meets a couple who have no income,
no experience with children, and probably couldn't be trusted to raise a cactus
plant, and she decides, apparently on a whim, to award them with an especially
tiny, fragile infant. Later, when the couple loses the malnourished-looking
girl to illness and are considering ending their marriage (the child was
apparently the only thing keeping them together), she steps in to "replace"
her with a new baby! Hmmmm, perhaps Child Services should be investigating her.

What is it about this movie that seems "off?" Almost all the performances
seem awkward, scenes seem to end abruptly, the "love" between the two leads
lacks warmth (they don't seem to particularly like each other at times), and
even the imdb cast list includes an excessive number of actors in deleted
scenes. Were there problems in the making of this movie? The only performer
who seems comfortable here is Edgar Buchanan, who steals the whole film
(especially in the baby-bathing scene:Awwwwwwwwwww!)

reply

I agree. It was very unrealistic that they would get a second baby so easily..Had they even asked for one?...There were not that many babies for adoption back then and there would have surely been many couples on the waiting list.

And if that's what it took to keep them together, then they had no marriage at all. They didn't seem to have any love left even before the child died.

reply

The film isn't unrealistic for it's time setting of 1941. There weren't then the social services available to cushion a family's economic disasters and shuffling one's kids off to a relative or an "orphanage" was very common. No one was paying for, or importing, children for adoption. Lots of homes already had "adopted" aunts/uncles/grandparents sharing the living space. It's just too different to compare then with now.

No one, except other parents can be aware of the feelings of inadequacy one experiences when they bring their own first-born home. It's a "now what do we do moment" that's felt and overcome by all those who want to be parents. The family depicted in the film has everything they need to succeed. Early death was also much more common in those days=what happened to the little girl was not that rare.

The 1940s were not years of unrestrained gluttony like today. Look at some old pics and note how thin those people were. If anything in this film is "off" it's that the adult characters are TOO well-fed.

reply

Thank you for your informed and well thought out reply.
-packrat1

reply

I have to laugh at hipsters who think they know something about my mother's generation. Read up on a few facts before you go off like this on a web board where someone who doesn't know might take you seriously.

The women in my mother's family, and the men in my dad's family, were not "unrestrained gluttons". They were also not thin. And we're talking ordinary people here -- not wealthy. In fact, my father's family were dirt poor and worked extremely hard -- physical labor. Back then, being heavy was not shameful. It ran in families, and that's just the way things were. There are plenty of photos from that period showing overweight people. You're probably thinking of the Arthur Rothstein Dust Bowl photos. You think they all lived like that?

Early death is extremely common in America today, and goes mostly unreported. Most working people have little or no insurance. In Detroit, babies die at the same rate as Honduras.

Children were often adopted from other countries. They were called war orphans (whether or not they were actual orphans) or DPs - displaced persons.

And where on earth did you get the idea that people did not pay for adoptions? People would pay a lot of money for a baby, and legitimate adoption services knew it -- and so did the non-legitimate, crooked outfits, or haven't you ever heard of Georgia Tann?

Let's just say that God doesn't believe in me.

reply

Me? Hipster? Sorry, Molly. I'm probably older than your mother but old enough in any event to know that your personal experience can't out-weigh the factual data that tells us we've become a nation of gluttons.

My 7 oz bottle of Coke cost a nickel in 1948; what's a 32 oz Super Blaster cost today? Over weight people in the 40s were uncommon enough to be the subject of ridicule or, like one neighborhood kid, tagged with a nickname like 'Hambone'. The 'fat kid' was singled out as a 'type' in the 'Little Rascals'; thin kids were not; they were the norm.

Orphanages weren't even full of orphans. Most of those kids had at least one parent who, because of employment, marital, or death of a spouse, usually the mother, couldn't be adequately cared for at home.

Childhood diseases like Scarlet Fever, Rheumatic Fever, and Diptheria were part of the common experience. Small Pox wasn't a distant memory. Surgery on the heart was something I first heard about here in the 50s. Death was always considered closer at hand than it is today, especially for children.

Lastly, I know what I had to eat in the school provided lunch of the early 50s and I know what my grand-children are served at their school cafeteria today. Worlds apart, Molly. Worlds.

reply

If that's the case, maybe we're both right. I think there are also ethnic factors at work.

I still don't think we're talking about "gluttony", though. I think the sin is greed on the part of corporations that handle our food production and processing. Factory farming, pesticides, battery cages, chemicals, additives, hormones, blech. It's like Upton Sinclair and The Jungle.

Let's just say that God doesn't believe in me.

reply

I do suppose now that 'gluttony' is a word that implies blame; I don't blame people for being overweight. They were born into a world just as we were, only their world is different.

Filmmakers can't throw the historical 'kitchen sink' into every screenplay so it helps a viewer interested in setting to know what else existed in the world being partially portrayed on screen.

We had Poor Houses, Paupers graves, a Home for the Friendless (can you imagine?!), a TB Sanitarium, Mental Defectives (actual classification for slow learners by the School Board), Gypsy camps blamed for any crime the cops couldn't solve, and my favorite: Holiday Highway Death Tolls where the carnage was totaled up like a PBS Fund Drive.

Obstetrics? Some kids looked like they were wrenched from the womb with grappling hooks. Someone in your circle of friends had a 'mental defective' in their family. Pediatrics? If you were born cross-eyed, pigeon-toed, knock-kneed, splay-footed, buck-toothed, or hare-lipped, you stayed that way.

Life wasn't so much a blessing; rather it was like a test taken to prove one worthy of advancement into a better world. I think the goodness of Julie, Roger, and Miss Oliver just wonderful for their time and place.

reply

Yeah, but a lot of those things still exist but they give them different names, is all. The public is not supposed to know. Cover up the disgrace and blame the victims. Make the psychiatric institutions look nice and call them centers, not hospitals or institutions because that scares parents off from putting their kid in there. But all the same things go on inside. Blaming the gypsies is replaced with blaming the illegal immigrants and the terrorists, just so there's people that can be portrayed as a big threat. Same old garbage in a new package.

Let's just say that God doesn't believe in me.

reply

The difference, from my perspective, was the religious/cultural ethic of accepting one's lot in life without complaint that was part of the post-depression years in my little part of America.

I see some of that in Penny Serenade and appreciate it. And I see as well Stevens message of hope for a future that's not necessarily pre-ordained and must be accepted without complaint. I like that Julie doesn't give up and I like that it's her 'spine' that supports Roger when he's got very little of it left.

reply

That's got to be it, then. Because the religious-cultural ethic in my heritage says nothing is preordained and you should complain a lot. You can say "Enough already, God!" (or even swear at him -- he's heard it all) and work hard to better your condition and your children's, setting a good example, but also ensuring they won't have to go through as much *beep!* as you did. And -- very important -- you bring unfairness to the attention of those who can change it. Our family motto should be "The squeaky wheel gets the grease." Either that or "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this any more."

I like that about Julie, too. I've had my share of having to be that way.

Let's just say that God doesn't believe in me.

reply

About 17 years ago, I worked in a psych hospital (and it was called a hospital). It had a separate building for children and adolescents. I was appalled that the census when up at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and during Spring Break. The reason? School was out and the parents just couldn't 'deal'. These children went to a public school every day and were home after school or, but the parents couldn't be bothered during school holidays. I know it's off topic, but it does sort of put today's mental health care in perspective.

reply

It's only a movie.

I was born when she kissed me
I died when she left me
I lived a few weeks while she loved me

reply

in those days adoption wasn't the big hoop jumping thing that it is today. social workers actually used their common sense when placing children. And obviously her common sense told her that the childless couple may not have alot of money but would love a child unconditionally.

As a person who lost a child to death. I can tell you that it can definitly rip apart a marriage. as a matter of fact statistically most marriages don't make it through such a tragedy. it has nothing to do with how stable the marriage was prior to the death of a child.

reply

What if Miss Oliver saw beyond the income of prospective mothers and fathers? What if Trina’s blood carried a genetic defect that wouldn’t allow her to live more than ten years or so? Suppose that this was the reason her biological mother gave her up for adoption. The tragedy of burying a child is the most profound grief in the world.

Since Roger and Julie already suffered through the tragedy of losing their unborn baby, they would be prime candidates to love a terminally ill child. Having done such a wonderful job with Trina, I can even see how Miss Oliver would present Julie and Roger with the opportunity to have another baby in the end.

I might have agreed that at times, the chemistry between Julie and Roger seemed cool… watch closely at the scene where they bring Trina home for the very first time. It is an awkward moment. They try to be as quiet as possible so they don’t wake the baby up. The boxes in Roger’s arms are tumbling and he drops them to hold Julie while she holds the bundled baby. Then she stops half way up the stairs to remove her shoes to prevent the floorboards from creaking. Everything in that scene is symbolic of their relationship. It indicates that Roger and Julie can’t function alone. They depend on each other for support. The strength they provide for each other carry’s the baby. It might be true that they lack passion for each other, but as partners, they also find solutions which keeps them moving forward.

Falling in love and having a baby isn’t as simple as it seems.


Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast

reply

What if Trina’s blood carried a genetic defect that wouldn’t allow her to live more than ten years or so? Suppose that this was the reason her biological mother gave her up for adoption.
Wow. Even if they had the technology to determine something like this, and the poor child's heartless mother gave her up for adoption because she couldn't handle it, don't you think that this would have to be disclosed to Roger and Julie?
Since Roger and Julie already suffered through the tragedy of losing their unborn baby, they would be prime candidates to love a terminally ill child.
Prime candidates? Seriously? That would be just plain cruel! "You already have experience loving a child that died, so we're going to give you another one! And you get to raise him and love him and go through the pain of losing another child because you're so good at it!"

I honestly had to read your post twice to make sure I was reading it right. Wow.

reply

tmaj48 - as many have said, it was a very different time. Women couldn't vote, sit on juries, or even, as shown in this movie, discuss with a judge the future of the child you've adopted and loved as your own. It must have been the longest wait in Julie's life, waiting for Roger to come home and tell her whether they were allowed to "own her outright" (I just loved that line - like she was a car that they'd just made the final payment on. Too cute!) When Roger and Julie had the miscarriage, Roger wasn't allowed to see his wife for 2 days, unlike today where most fathers are in the delivery room. And young women who got pregnant before marriage - well that was the worst thing that could possibly happen. Many families disowned their daughters, or at least sent them away to a home for unwed mothers. Keeping a child out of wedlock was unheard of. And, as said in other posts, losing a child takes a toll on a marriage, no matter how strong it was prior to the death.

As for Miss Oliver, she was way ahead of her time. A woman running her own business! I certainly don't think it was a "sleazy adoption agency". She was very good at her job, and knew intuitively that Roger and Julie would make excellent parents. And she was as hurt as Roger and Julie when she read of Trina's death and the troubles that the couple were having.

reply

Re: lpproductions

Shoot...my mother had my sister in an unwed mother's home in San Diego and that was in 1976 (AND she was 21 years old, so clearly not a teenager in high school that her parents were trying to hide away). I wonder when that changed in the U.S. I can imagine in certain communities that people still would try to keep a child conceived out of wedlock a secret today, but when did the general attitude change? (note: not being judgmental, just curious from a sociological viewpoint)

reply

Talk to your Mom about her experience. I was on the East Coast in that time period, and in high school, but unwed mothers were not just generally accepted by our culture at the time. A single Mom moved into our neighborhood and seemed to date a lot, and there was talk among the adults in the neighborhood about her. She may have been a divorcee, but if so, she never mentioned it.

reply

lp productions, women in the U.S. were granted the federal right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1920. This movie was released 21 years after that.

A woman running her own business was not way ahead of its time. It was easier for women who needed to earn a living to run their own enterprise than to break into nontraditional professions mostly closed to them.

The past is not an unbroken march from "no rights" to "equal rights." There are many subtle changes and retrenchments that happen along the way. Films can sometimes illuminate those subtleties of life, which is one of the things that makes their preservation so important.

reply

Mrs. Oliver simply looked beyond their lack of funds at the time (Roger did have prospects after all of making the paper pay) and their inexperience. She sees what the viewers are supposed to see - a loving couple who would really be wonderful parents to some fortunate child. I love Beaulah Bondi's face when she is questioning them. At first she is concerned about their lack of money, but as the interview progresses, she becomes convinced they will make good parents. The careful viewer can see this change in her face - it is called acting. Many actors and actresses of today can't express any emotion in their faces.

reply

[deleted]

I think it's a lot harder to adopt now. I've been sad to see what friends have had to go through to adopt. And some of those were turned down for their ages/health, even though their health issues were being well managed.






"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

reply

Have you ever heard of "Suspension of disbelief" for crying out loud. It's a freaking MOVIE not a documentary on adoption in the 40's. .

Get over it. You remind me of The Big Bang Theory guys arguing whether Superman could catch Lois Lane based on her acceleration. The movie is \ about two charming people in love that end up great parents because of their love and intent.

reply

"Many actors and actresses of today can't express any emotion in their faces."

wow you really hit that one on the head, I'm appalled by what people today consider to be "acting". These zero talent, non expressive faces that are nothing more than over rated celebrities can't hold a candle compared to the classic film actors. Jennifer Aniston looks like she's waiting for her cell phone to ring off camera while she's delivering her lines for crying out loud.

reply

Apparently, dancing is verboten... but, if you promise to give the kid a nice bedroom, then all is forgiven, and you'll be able to do whatever you want, after that...






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

reply

I was 12 in 1972 when my 16 year old sister got pregnant by this guy she barely knew. My parents completely freaked out, it simply wasn't something that happened to nice middle-class people like us. As soon as my sister started showing she was pregnant, she was yanked out of school. I didn't see her for the last month of the pregnancy, she was sent away to an aunt, who oversaw her having the baby. The baby was adopted after being alive for less than a week, my sister has never seen him nor heard about him since, he just disappeared. That was 43 years ago! Note: this took place in Los Angeles, not some rural small town.

I can't even imagine what it was like for girls like my sister in 1941.

reply

karnevilelp says > I can't even imagine what it was like for girls like my sister in 1941.
Thanks for sharing that story. I'm sure it was a difficult time for your sister and your entire family. In the 1940s and in prior decades it would have been even harder. I suspect it's still no cake walk today though the stigma is gone.

All throughout the ages young women have found themselves in similar predicaments and most managed to go on with their lives. Whether their mothers kept them or not, the babies did pretty well too; they were born. Today, these girls are pressured into terminating their pregnancies. Millions and millions of children have lost their lives as a result. Along with those kids, society has also paid the price.


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

reply