MovieChat Forums > The Partridge Family (1970) Discussion > What is something dark about the Partrid...

What is something dark about the Partridge Family that everyone seems to forget?


https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-dark-about-the-Partridge-Family-that-everyone-seems-to-forget/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

The death of the father character must have been relatively recent as neither Tracy, nor Chris, (the youngest children) weren’t very old, but the entire family rarely discusses it - Happy, sad, or indifferent, the father Partridge seems to be an off limits topic, despite his death having to have been a relatively recent event.

It’s difficult to imagine a pairing that would turn out such a diverse looking group of children, especially Tracy and Danny - Probably due to casting reasons, the series didn’t bother to assemble a family that actually looked as if they were related, biologically. Both Danny and Tracy have hair colors and freckles that don’t correlate with Shirley Jones’ Mom character or that would fit in with Keith and Laurie’s darker hair. It’s unclear if the missing father figure was indeed the biological parent of some of the Partridge children and how the mother explained that.

The Partridge mother, Shirley, was remarkably cheap - Despite her family being a group successful enough to appear on television and in concerts around the United States, she employed neither household help to offset the time that would be needed for the children to practice, go to school, or simply rest. Nor did she have a tutor for her children, as their going to school and performing on the road would have been nearly impossible. If they weren’t making enough to hire those people, why keep performing?

Reuben Kincaid was probably embezzling - The Partridge Family was supposed to be a successful musical act, yet they lived in a rather small suburban home, Shirley the mother drove them to concerts in an old school bus, and they didn’t seem to enjoy the trappings of success (Keith had a car, Lori didn’t, for example). The Partridge family finances don’t “add up”, and the main person to blame for that seems to have been Reuben.

Despite being a successful singing group, the family’s security was rather sh*tless - They lived in a house in San Pablo which could have easily been broken into by crazed fans and stalkers, which definitely happened to famous personalities in the 1970s. Shirley even opened the door without checking to see if it was a woman with a knife trying to seal her eternal love with Keith”, or a middle-aged man trying to make Laurie (or worse, Tracy) his “bride”.

Shirley’s concern for her children was spotty, at best - She drove a bus that wasn’t meant for long trips…on long trips, she had two children under ten years of age performing on the road, she doesn’t seem to have very much business acumen so her children were performing for minimal amounts of money, the apparently idea was that the FAMILY earned whatever they were paid and that it wasn’t divided along the lines of accomplishment or fan draw; and she seemed to be more worried about minor infractions at home rather than what was going to happen to the kids when their career in show business came to an end. Basically, the narrative had Shirley Partridge act as a woefully neglectful parent who decided to take her children on the road to satisfy her dreams of fame and success.

Despite being contaminated after their dog was sprayed by a skunk, Shirley had the family band perform in a hospital setting - This didn’t strike until I was older and witnessed what it’s like to have a dog sprayed by a skunk. If you are around that, the LAST thing that you want do is play musical instruments or sing. Yet Shirley had the family perform the concert instead of cancelling and rescheduling.

There was a questionable episode that made fun of feminism and women seeking equal rights - Basically, a young woman, who had some valid points about sexism and misogyny, was made the butt of jokes by the writers and even seems to have been the antagonist for no other reason than she wanted to be treated as an equal. Worse Shirley and Laurie seem to have had relatively few arguments about it. Worse that THAT, the series never returns to storyline, despite it leaving several bad impressions.

There was an episode where Danny stole Keith’s personal things and sold them - Worse than that, Danny LIES about it. Worse than THAT, he sells them to Keith’s groupies, who weren’t shown to be a stable group anyway. At the end of the show everything is reset back to the beginning, even after what was a serious breach of trust.

The kids have few problems with criminal behavior, and not just misdemeanor acts - They make a plan to break in the high school to retrieve Laurie’s purloined diary, they break into a company which may or may not have intentionally overcharged their mother and they use a computer to send her a check for $50k; and Danny defrauds Keith’s fans by selling them items that he stole from Keith (See also #9). Basically the Partridges having no problem with breaking the law until they get caught.

reply

It Was the early 70s...,what can I say!?😅

reply

I think the kids had different fathers. Laurie and Keith have the same Dad, Danny has his own Dad, and the two youngest have their own Dads. The patchwork Mondrian bus is symbolic of their diverse heredity. Shirley was a band singer in the ‘60s. She probably had a bunch of affairs on the road during the free love ‘60s. She was like the Mom in Mama Mia.

reply

But they ALL used the last name Partridge! Was that Shirley's maiden name? Hmmm.. no wonder "Dad' or "Dads" were never mentioned.

I read that they originally wanted The Cowsills to star in the show. Now at least they were real siblings and looked it. But the network didn't want their mother to do the show.

I was never too bothered by the lack of physical resemblance among the siblings. TV shows do that all the time. How about Two and a Half Men? Did you ever see two men who look LESS like brothers? And they had to go and do a show with Martin Sheen guest starring as their neighbor Rose's father. He stood next to Charlie Sheen on the show and they looked like twins.

The only show I can think of with actors who looked like siblings was The Waltons.

reply

The PF and Waltons are beloved classic family shows from a bygone era, who cares if the kids did not favor, someone has too much time on their hands.

reply

I heard about the reasons the producers nixed using the Cowsills, very sad.

reply

Does San Pablo actually exist in CA? I was a small child then, I never knew the name of the town.

reply

There's a San Pablo in the SF Bay Area, next to Berkeley, but didn't the family live in the LA Basin? If so, the town was made up for the show.

I always felt sorry for the older kids, back when I was a teen who I had nothing better to watch, here they were pop stars... but couldn't enjoy it at all because they were still completely under their mother's thumb.

reply

What is the L A. Basin?

reply

The greater Los Angeles urban sprawl.

reply

Thanks for letting me know.

reply

What do you mean but not being able to enjoy their fame? Keith and Laurie did normal teen things like date, engage in school activities, and have parties at home. Did you want them to engage in wild, reckless behavior? I think that would gave reflected badly on Shirley. In addition, it was suppose to be a wholesome 70's family show despite being a little edgier than the Brady Bunch.

reply

Yes, apparently the two older kids were famous enough to play Vegas and make TV appearances... and then once they'd performed, they had to go back to living the boring limited life of regular suburban teens... when they could have been crashing Elton John's parties or something! I was a teen in the seventies, and believe me, every kid I knew wanted to get the hell away from Suburbia and see the world. Okay, maybe they were better off going back to San Podunk than partying with Led Zeppelin or anyone really dangerous, it just seemed totally unnatural that they had zero interests beyond traveling with their mother and going back to school.

I disagree that the show was any edgier than "The Brady Bunch", both shows were as edgy as an amoeba.

reply

The show did deal with topical issues at the time with a little more depth than their rivals, the BB. For example; sex ed class, women and racial minority issues, etc.




reply

I just watched the episode regarding Shirley and the creditors screwing her over. I missed something, when did Keith learn how to a computer? How did he get the password?

reply

that they are still alive in the year 2200 a.d.

reply

I never we saw the cartoon.

reply

it's great

reply

Now,, I have reason to rewatch. The darker Patridge Family sounds interesting.

reply

The skunk one's a bit of a stretch. Our dog was sprayed by a skunk, and yeah, it smelled pretty bad, but it didn't cause any of us to give up our normal routine.

Here's another one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oThoa20MgYA

Love that song, but I cringe every time I see those kids standing and playing instruments on top of the school bus. Especially the little one on the drums. And unlike the OP, this has nothing to do with the storyline, but instead the makers of the show putting the actors in danger. I guess they could've had some kind of safety netting our of sight, but considering the general tenor of the times, probably not.

Coincidentally, that episode was the one where Danny was stealing Keith's stuff.

reply

Not sure how the child labor laws stood in the 1970s but some were in place. Each kid would have to have their earnings put into a custodial account (called UTMA accounts now). There would also be restrictions on the amount of hours they could perform per day. If they went on tour, concert promoters would have to hire tutors to make sure the kids were keeping up with their education.

We saw no evidence of this on The Patridge Family, although the show itself had to abide by these laws.

reply