MovieChat Forums > The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947) Discussion > Letting Susan in the Apartment, was wron...

Letting Susan in the Apartment, was wrong.


It was apparent that Nugent lived in a security building if his visitors had to announce they were there to see him, as in the case with Susan. The Bellboy unlocking the door and letting her in the apartment without Nugent being there, should have gotten him terminated from his job. The only way Susan should have been allowed in was if, Nugent told him he was expecting a visitor which he obviously didn't since the Bellboy didn't know why she was there.

reply

The bellboy was 15 years old, with keys to the apartments? High security I think not.

Nothing about this movie makes sense.

reply

Right. That kid's a-- would have been shown the door before I left the building.

No way does that happen in real life. Then again, a significant plot point would have been lost.


Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken

reply

Of course the film doesn't get into what might have happened if Jerry had complained to the building management. It wasn't part of the story, but if he had, it is reasonable to expect the bellboy would have in fact been fired.

He was fifteen. We don't know how long he'd worked there, and people make mistakes.

Not a plot hole.

reply

rj-27 says > No way does that happen in real life. Then again, a significant plot point would have been lost.
I think you guys are forgetting it was 1947. It was a different time. I didn't see it as a stretch. In older movies I notice it happens often. People are let in into other people's homes and apartments without much regard for who they are or why they're there. I know it's a plot point but I see it so often I have to assume it was being done and acceptable in real life. Trying to sneak someone in, now that would be looked on with suspicion.

Susan presented herself as one of Nugent's models. Think about it. He probably made previous arrangements for his 'model's to be escorted in quickly so as not to draw attention to the fact young women were frequenting his apartment. Surely the building wouldn't want other tenants to get the impression this was not a decent dwelling and they were condoning such activity. Management retained a key, so the tenant would never really know when they'd come barging in to make sure everything was above board.

The kid is also trying to impress Susan and win favor with her. She seems innocent enough so he wouldn't have had reason for concern. What could she do? Whoever the guest was, it might have even been seen as a courtesy to the tenant to have their guest wait in the comfort of their space rather than hanging around standing in the lobby.

Theirs was a very different mindset. Even in today's climate, someone so harmless looking, who claims to be a business associate might be let in. We assume buildings with concierge or door service has special security but usually the people are there for convenience; to greet and announce guests; to let people into the space; to retrieve things the owner may need, to arrange other services like cleaning, etc.

Homes in which there are servants, people were used to having servants in the home. These people managing apartment buildings and other residences should be seen in that context not as security. Instead of being attached to one home, they were shared within common spaces. As we know, most residential staff would do the same; let anyone in. They might also assume the mere fact they'd encountered someone; someone knew they were or had been there it would prevent them from doing anything illegal. As I said, it was a different time. They would be more concerned about being raided by the vice cops rather than worry about other crime which was more rare.


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

reply

While you make a number of valid points, it seems to me you are over thinking it. A famous artist as Nugent surely was would have a lot of wannabe's trying to make his acquaintance. All the more reason to ensure the bellhop is one who can be trusted not to have his privacy violated.

I would still have him fired no matter what time period it was.


Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. H.L. Mencken

reply

It's a light comedy, not a stern documentary about what real life was like in 1947. Suspending disbelief is one of the keys to enjoying movies.

reply