MovieChat Forums > Mary Tyler Moore (1970) Discussion > An Unbelievable Episode

An Unbelievable Episode

posted a year ago by [email protected] (5504)
21 replies | jump to latest

The third season "Put on a Happy Face" was a cute concept. Show Mary, the usual "little Miss Perfect" having a run of bad luck and looking like a real mess!

Okay, no one looks her best with a bad cold and red nose. Add to that, Mary was limping with a sprained ankle.

But I just don't buy the rest of the story. Mary's seemingly ONLY gown is ruined by the dry cleaner and she has to wear one of Rhoda's less flattering dresses to the Teddy Awards. Really? Mary, the woman with a closet full of long dresses and gowns, has nothing else to wear? Not buying it.

And what reputable dry cleaner would return a gown with a huge stain on it? Surely they'd know she would not want it in that condition.

And Mary's hair was a straggly mess because her hairdryer broke? She borrowed a dress from Rhoda. She couldn't borrow her hairdryer? Or borrow one from Phyllis or Bess?

I know the idea was that it would be humorous to see the perfectly put together Mary looking like a real mess. But I didn't buy into the details.

[–] DoctorThirteen (10318) a year ago

I don't think you're supposed to look that deeply into it.

[–] JosephQCat (706) a year ago

Agreed. SOP back in those days was each episode was stand alone meaning there is no implied continuity. Like Chuck from Happy Days disappearing after one episode and never mentioned again. Frustrating for those that love to track details.

[–] [email protected] (5504) a year ago

Yeah, frustrating. But there was SOME continuity in the series. Why else would Ted have told Mary in one episode that Georgette complained that Mary had a much bigger wardrobe than hers? Ted told Mary that he explained to Georgette that all Mary's dresses were reversible. lol

It was pretty obvious that Mary had many long gowns. And the hair dryer debacle. Just go borrow one from Rhoda or Phyllis!

For me it wasn't continuity but rather a lack of logic. They were trying very hard to make Mary look like a mess. I would have found it more believable if she showed up at the Teddy Awards covered in mud because it was raining outside and a truck went by as she was crossing the street and splashed her.

Mary possessing only one gown was just dumb and didn't fit in with the series.

[–] CarolTheDabbler (518) a year ago

I agree with all of you!

Sadly, television continuity was often neglected (and presumably still is), especially if the show was "only" a comedy. And unfortunately for this episode's basic premise, a lot of things that Mary might be painfully aware of wouldn't really show up on television, so they felt a need to exaggerate, leading to a style of humor more suitable for sketch comedy.

But that's a real-world reason for doing the episode that way, not an in-universe explanation for why Mary might have handled the situation the way she did. I generally prefer in-universe explanations, even if it takes a little work to figure out what they might be.

Mary would have been better off just wearing one of her dressier work outfits. And there are surely ways to style wet hair that look -- well, better than that!

I think pjpurple has the best idea: Go ahead and give her the cold and the sprained ankle, which are realistic enough and can be made plenty obvious by the actress. But then have the final straw happens at the very last minute, as she approaches the hotel. Even if they don't literally have *mud* puddles in downtown Minneapolis, surely there are some potholes or low spots full of dirty water that a truck could splash through, and Mary has lots of dresses that look far better clean and dry than soaked with dirty water!

[–] [email protected] (5504) a year ago

Yes, Mary did have a number of very nice outfits for work. I think one of those would've looked fine. Either that or couldn't she borrow one of Phyllis's gowns? She had some gorgeous outfits. Even the clothes she wore around the house were dressy.

The lack of continuity for characters on sitcoms continues to chafe me. LOL I know it's "only" fiction. But some shows actually do have an official "bible" that contains all the established info on the characters. The episodes are penned by many different writers, so to that end, couldn't the producers keep on eye on continuity?

[–] CarolTheDabbler (518) a year ago

Ideally, yes, they're careful about that sort of thing, and as you say some shows do have official writer's guides that cover the important stuff, and some also hire consulting firms to check continuity and a number of other things. But considering all the little details that go into each episode of a good series, it'd be a full-time job to keep absolutely everything straight.

On top of that (and probably the main cause of slip-ups), the production of American shows for network TV tends to be rushed, because of the need to complete twenty-some episodes per season. So the top priority is simply to get a usable episode in the can on a weekly basis, in order to keep the network and the sponsors happy.

The good shows generally do a pretty good job, considering.

[–] [email protected] (5504) a year ago

All you said is true about "rushing" shows into production. I've listened to commentaries of a number of shows and the producers and writers often lament the fact that, "We didn't have a lot of time" or "We were on a deadline".

That's precisely why a series would need someone like me, nitpicker extraordinaire! ha MTM wasn't too bad. But a well written show like The Dick van Dyke Show had dozens of inconsistencies and continuity errors. I even started a thread about it.

[–] CarolTheDabbler (518) a year ago

True -- especially if you (or someone like you) had been willing to volunteer for free, they might have been able to work you into their script-revision crew. That raises another question, though: Back then, you would presumably have seen each prior episode only once or twice (and even if you'd also been on set and/or at the dailies, it'd still be only a few times). So would you have had the mental encyclopedia that you do now from repeatedly watching the show in syndication and on DVDs over the course of many decades? What you may need is a time machine, to go back to the 1960s with all your current knowledge.

At least one of the inconsistencies was intentional, though, as I've already mentioned on another thread: When the series began, they were using MTM's married name (Meeker) as Laura's maiden name. But then MTM got divorced, so they changed Laura's family name to Meehan. And there may well have been behind-the-scenes reasons for some other inconsistencies -- so that they were still inconsistencies within the fictional universe, but they were necessary for whatever real-world reason.

Most of the time, though, it was a simple matter of wanting some little specific details in order to make the episode sound more like real life, but not having enough time to check out everything. And even today with all the opportunities to rewatch, how many people actually catch the inconsistencies? Even if the studios/networks/sponsors had known back then which shows were going to be big perennial hits, they might not have considered consistency-checking to be much of a priority. I suspect they would've been more likely to "improve" other factors -- such as hiring better-known actors to play Rob and (especially) Laura!

[–] [email protected] (5504) a year ago

FREE? Who said anything about doing it for free? LOL

Yes, my "mental encyclopedia" would be a lot thinner if I'd only seen an episode once or twice. However, I have a ridiculously good memory for the stuff that interests me, such as my favorite sitcoms. I can see an episode once and the next time a character or the storyline contradicts what I saw the last time, I jump on it!

The Meeker/Meehan name chane was intentional. It wasn't too bad of a change. However in the "All About Eavesdropping" episode when Rob is very angry at the Helpers, he rather formally adresses Jerry as "Gerald".

In the later episode "Long Journey's Day into Night", Jerry places a call and says to the operator, "This is Dr. Jerome Helper".
Didn't Rob know his best friend's name? ha!

But back to MTM, some inconsistencies can't be helped, like when a character is spun off, i.e. Rhoda.

In an early episode a character is trying to explain to Rhoda the significance of the yarmulke he is wearing (he'd attended a bar mitzvah). Rhoda says, "Yes I know, my brother..."

She and Mary also attended her sister Debbie's wedding in New York. Later on her own show, Rhoda had only one sibling, the unmarried Brenda.

[–] CarolTheDabbler (518) a year ago

There is a precedent of a fan-expert getting on a show's staff. Richard Arnold, who was the Research Consultant on Star Trek: Next Gen, was a Trek fan from childhood, having inherited it from his mother, Dency "Denny" Arnold of the Welcommittee. So hop in your time machine!

Regarding Gerald / Jerome -- because Rob is angry with Jerry, maybe he intentionally indulges in one of Jerry's pet peeves, people assuming that his full name is Gerald.

As for Rhoda's brother, he apparently had a bar mitzvah ceremony, which typically occurs around age 13, presumably well before we met Rhoda. Was it actually stated on the Rhoda show that Brenda was her only sibling? If not, maybe Debbie moved away after she got married, and the brother had moved away even earlier, so the only sibling we ever saw on that show was Brenda.

[–] [email protected] (5504) a year ago

I was a huge Trek fan , so I'm familiar with Richard Arnold. You know the old expression...If you can't say something nice about someone... I had a few run-ins with him, so the less said, the better!

That's a good explanation for Rob calling Jerry "Gerald"! (two thumbs up). I had a Trek pen pal who would solve inconsistencies like that. I'd pose questions for him dealing with inconsistencies or mysteries on Star Trek. He'd always come up with a good explanation.

As for Rhoda's brother, yes I know WHEN a bar mitzvah is performed. it's just that by the time Rhoda got her own show, she had no brother.

In the MTM episode of Debbie's wedding, Ida shows Rhoda the letter she wrote to her on the day of her birth. Martin sees it and says, "Oh, THE LETTER!" It was apparently a big deal to Ida. In it she refers to Rhoda as her firstborn.
As close as she is to Rhoda and Brenda, I'd find it very strange if she never mentioned any other children that she had.

In a later episode of Rhoda, she and Brenda have their weekly dinner with their parents. The four of them are bored, so Martin takes out the home movies. Only Rhoda and Brenda are in them. Again, it doesn't seem like the Morgansterns had other children.
But again, Rhoda was a spinoff and details do change. For example, on Maude (set in New York state), her maid Florida's husband was named Henry. When Florida got her own show, she had the same husband. But he was now called James and they were lifelong Chicago residents. New show, new facts!

[–] CarolTheDabbler (518) a year ago

Did they ever actually state in an episode that there were no brothers?

I can pretty easily come up with workarounds (the ones mentioned before) for everything except the home movies. For that one I'll have to assume that Ida holds grudges even better than I thought, and made Martin edit any scenes with their other kids out of the home movies -- OR -- how about this: Rhoda and Brenda are the oldest, then there's an age gap, and then Debbie and the nameless brother. So the home movies of Rhoda and Brenda as kids wouldn't show the other two, who hadn't been born yet.

As for why Brenda and the brother were neither seen nor mentioned in Debbie's wedding episode, I think Ida's definitely gonna have to hold grudges. And everybody else knows better than to mention the current black sheep of the family.

There's nothing wrong with your explanations, but they're real-world explanations, which can co-exist with in-universe explanations, but they're used for different purposes.

[–] [email protected] (5504) a year ago

Good explanations! I could understand that maybe Ida was mad at her other children and didn't want them mentioned.

But at the time of Debbie's wedding I think Brenda was still in high school or at least still living at home. They sort of imply that Brenda's living arrangements (on Rhoda) were a new development. Of course it could be explained that Brenda was an exchange student the year Debbie got married and it was a sore spot for Ida that she missed her sister's wedding. So no one brought it up!

[–] CarolTheDabbler (518) a year ago

I'll buy that!

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

FYI "a closet full of long dresses" doesn't mean she had more than one formal gown. In those days there were casual long sundresses, maxidresses meant for daywear, long hostess gowns and cocktail dresses, all of which were long but none of which were formal.

But the truth would be that if she had other formal gowns, she'd have worn them to earlier Teddy Awards. And some women would rather go naked than wear a gown that everyone there had already seen.

[–] [email protected] (5504) a year ago

But she did! lol Remember the second season episode "The Five Minute Dress"? Mary was dating, or attempting to date, the governor's assistant. But he kept standing her up when his boss called.

In one scene, Mary emerges from her closet in a great looking, long black dress. Rhoda and Phyllis are impressed. Mary leaves for her date and promptly returns when her date bails again.

Disappointed, Mary says, "All that money and the dress never even got off the block."

I'd agree that she probably didn't own a lot of really formal gowns or ball gowns. But she wore a number of things which would have been suitable for the Teddy Awards. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather wear a dress everyone had seen than that dress. she borrowed from Rhoda.

[–] Garyandfilm (513) 8 months ago

A one-joke episode from a surprisingly weak season.

[–] [email protected] (5504) 8 months ago

Interesting that you should call it a "one joke" episode. That's my main problem with Lucy's bicycle trip in Europe. The second half of the episode went on and on with Lucy unable to retrieve her passport. Those types p of episodes are just frustrating.

I looked over the season two DVD and there are a number of clunkers. One of the worst is Lou Grant's chain letters. I just don't see him sending those out to friends.

One of the high points is the episode with Rhoda's mom. Any episode with Nancy Walker is sure to be funny. But there were a lot of mediocre episodes.

[–] Garyandfilm (513) 8 months ago

I was referring to the third season.

[–] [email protected] (5504) 8 months ago

The "Five Minute Dress" was from the second season. I don't know, maybe you were mistaken or something.

The second season did have a number of weak episodes.

[–] Garyandfilm (513) 8 months ago

Check out my thread on season three.