MovieChat Forums > One Day at a Time (1975) Discussion > Topics the show never took on, which you...

Topics the show never took on, which you would have liked to see

posted 8 years ago by rivkahchaya-372-42432
24 replies | jump to latest

I don't recall them ever having a gay character on the show, and it would have been interesting to see how the dynamics were handled. Since All in the Family took it on, it wasn't too hot for Norman Lear, and I seem to remember an off-hand comment by, IIRC, Ann, that was notably non-homophobic for the time. Since feminist theory was bandying about the idea (the first person to write for the general population on it was Letty Cottin Pogrebin in a Ms. Magazine article, again, IIRC) that homophobia was the conjoined twin of fixed gender roles. It wouldn't have been out of line for Ann to realize this in a nice two-parter.

I would also have liked to see Ed's reaction to the girl's sexuality, especially Ed's learning that Julie wasn't a virgin before she was married. We never did know Ann's inner feelings on the subject, except that she took it in stride, and didn't act disappointed in Julie. We never know what Ed inferred after Julie ran away, or what he may have discussed with Ann, but Barbara and Julie were still his little girls, even when they were teenagers, so this step for Julie may have been very difficult for him.

I also would have liked it if, in the episode where Julie is contemplating sleeping with her boyfriend (she's still a virgin at this point), and Ann lectures her on several things, from self-esteem to knowing her own mind, she never mentions birth control. I so much wish she had.

[–] ronaldt49 8 years ago

Topics the show never took on were the same topics advertisers never took on.

Just think about the commercials we see now, even when children might be watching.
Does an 8 year old really need to be informed of Erectile Dysfunction?

If the program was current, Julie might have had an abortion. Even Ann might have gone that route. They were available, but not widely discussed. Maude became pregnant but it never was mentioned how the pregnancy was handled. It was hinted there was an abortion, but no one ever openly discussed the outcome.

Perhaps the "little blue pill" or the morning after pill would have been addressed. Ed was remarried to a much younger woman and probably sometimes needed the blue pill.

In the beginning Ann had a relationship with her lawyer David who probably didn't need any pills. Being about 8 years younger than Ann, he probably brought excitement to her in a way she hadn't known with Ed.

Would Julie and Barbara have indulged in a little mate-swapping? Barbara and Max had feelings for each other. As often as Schneider used his pass-key, he was bound to walk in on Ann or one of the girls not exactly fully dressed. Would the pervert in him take over? At least where Ann might be concerned, that is?

The show went off the air shortly before Dynasty and Dallas became big hits. Can we imagine the program becoming more like those shows?

That staggers the imagination.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

No, I meant in the context of its own time.

And Maude did have an abortion, it was very clear.

[–] amyghost 8 years ago

Would Julie and Barbara have indulged in a little mate-swapping? Barbara and Max had feelings for each other. As often as Schneider used his pass-key, he was bound to walk in on Ann or one of the girls not exactly fully dressed. Would the pervert in him take over? At least where Ann might be concerned, that is?

Slightly OT, but I sometimes pick up the vibe, in watching the reruns, that Pat Harrington and Mackenzie Phillips seemed to have some real affection for one another, which might have implied that they were 'just good friends' or maybe really just good friends. No way the show at that time would have taken on the idea of the two of them having romantic feelings toward one another--and just imagine Ann's reaction to that--but it's something to think about. And of course I always thought it was pretty cool that the writers never fell into the expected trap of having Ann and Dwayne experience that Big Moment, though they obviously toyed with the notion a few times.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

He obviously had a huge, unreciprocated, crush on Ann.

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

Yes, Dwayne had also come in the apartment while Ann was in yoga tights, well before she gained weight. He showed an "interest" in her workout, which she carried on, (she was covered to the ankles, wrists, and neck after all). He showed keen interest in some of the poses and exercises though, usually from behind her.
BTW, any youngsters know when Spandex was first invented and on the market for things like yoga outfits, swimsuits and the like? That was around the time the show was running.
(Spanx are a far more recent creation than the show. Girdles were made with actual elastic (small) bands woven into the material. Small wonder younger women were foregoing bras back then.)

As far as "Julie" goes, (Mac'), the actress's autobiography book talks about how she and her father shared booze, drugs, and a bed... frequently. I never got "the vibe" of 'Mac' as a virgin on the show (IRL), but the scripts played it that way.

[–] tmaj48 8 years ago

I'm not sure if discussion of birth control (especially the female version) was even allowed back in '70s TV shows. There were a few references on All in the Family and an oblique one on The Mary Tyler Moore Show, but those involved adult women on adult-oriented sitcoms. Teenage birth control was a more
taboo subject--in 1978, an episode of NBC's James at 16 stirred up controversy when it was learned that the title character, James, talked about using a condom for his first time. The reference had to be changed to something
vague, such as "are you prepared?" or something like that, before the show could air. Ann would probably not be allowed to discuss the "Pill" with her daughter.

It wasn't until after the AIDS crisis began in the early '80s that condom use began to be prevalent in movies and TV shows, and even then, it had to be pointed out that the condoms were meant for protection from STDs, and NOT as birth control.
Ads for birth control came only years later, IIRC.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

You're probably right to an extent, but it wasn't very long after that episode that they did the one where Barbara's friend shows up with a baby, so they did address the consequences of sex a little. More importantly, in the episode "Pressure," which was in 1979, before the AIDS crisis, Barbara is thinking about having sex, and says "I know enough not to get pregnant," then stops by Julie's clinic the next day, and comes back with something in a box that is obviously a diaphragm, even though they call it "the thing." So she is using birth control as birth control, not to prevent STDs-- diaphragms don't prevent STDs.

I can't believe in a really frank discussion about sex Ann can't say to Julie "And have you thought what would happen if you got pregnant?" and Julie could say "Chuck is prepared for that. Believe me, he's planned every detail," or something like that.

Of course, I don't know what might have been cut from the original script, but I saw the episode when I was 11 or 12, and it was just a couple of years old, and it still seemed odd to me even then that Ann is silent on the matter.

[–] blakgard 8 years ago

Well, there was, in fact, an episode dealing with "the pill."

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

For a little perspective regarding "the pill", the Jane Fonda movie, BARBARELLA(1968), was rated "X" when it was released, (that would be "NC-17" these days, or just "UNRATED"). It included 'free love' and a "sex pill" that was brought to the planet by the evil scientist Duran Duran. (TRIVIA: Yes, the band of the same name took its name from the movie scientist!) The same movie is being sold in WalMarts for about $5 these days, (DVD), and the movie was re-rated to "PG". Big change in public attitudes since its release.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062711/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Just as a point of information, the Sandra Bullock, Sylvester Stallone movie, DEMOLITION MAN(1993), had something of a 'nod' to the BARBARELLA "sex pill" with the "sex headsets" Bullock and Stallone use in her retro apartment, and like BARBARELLA, of course no touching was used in the process. If you haven't seen that movie yet, it is pretty funny as well as pretty violent with Wesley Snipes. Watch for the references to the "three seashells"!
Oh, it is rated "R" for non-stop violent action, and 'harsh language' which is a running gag through the movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1

FYI, both of those movies have been released on DVD and BluRay formats.

[–] bluebird7 8 years ago

Being a single, dating woman in the free wheeling 70's, Ann being sexually assaulted would have been interesting and realistic to see. On one hand, I can see how it would probably have been deemed too heavy a subject for it's time, but "All in the Family" successfully depicted Edith's nightmarish rape attempt in 1978.

I think with Ann's character, it would have been much more realistic since she was actively dating and even visited that single's bar where Ginny worked. Many opportunities to throw her character into that precarious position.

I know the subject of the post is what you would have "liked" to see, and not that it's something i'd have liked, but I think it could have been dealt with tastefully and I definitely believe Bonnie Franklin would have tackled that kind of dramatic story wonderfully.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

You know, not even assault, it could have been interesting to see Ann dealing with a man pressuring her to have sex earlier in the relationship than she felt was right. She was good at telling the girls to go with their feelings, but we never saw Ann wrestling with the same problem.

Might have been interesting if she'd had a pregnancy scare. I know those are cliche now, and a pregnancy scare that ends in a negative test is an episode hardly worth making anymore, but Ann could have been the first TV character to use a home pregnancy test (I'm not sure who the first was, but they were around when the show aired, even if people didn't use them much).

[–] bluebird7 8 years ago

Wasn't David pressuring her to have sex early in the series and she was the one who put him off? Or better yet, she pretty much wanted to have her cake and eat it too with him since she was seeing him, yet not sleeping with him but was jealous when he slept with the neighbor.

So they did touch on the subject of Ann not being ready for sex yet, but I agree they could have dove deeper into that plot. I like the idea of Ann having a pregnancy scare.
In hindsight, it's surprising they didn't go there as it could have been a wonderful and timely story arc, but advertisers probably would have balked at something like that.

But then again, they did have the story of 17 year old Julie dating the 42 year old man...which even in 2016 is shocking and gross. Of course, she didn't sleep with him, but the very idea is probably even more taboo today then in the free love 70's era.

Which makes me think of another topic altogether now...Are there stories they DID do back then that they WOULDN'T be able to show today's ultra PC television landscape?

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

I think Julie DID sleep with him. I'm also pretty sure the party with the beer couldn't be done, at least not the way it was done, where they weren't supposed to have beer, but the fact that they did wasn't OMG! they might as well have murdered someone! which is sort of the way it's treated now. And, I think if David had chaperoned the party so badly in 2016, Ann would have broken off the relationship-- not that a real parent would have handled the situation that way, but I think that it's how the media would have been forced to handle it-- it would have been an event horizon in their relationship that the girls and their friends got hold of alcohol while under his supervision.

[–] bluebird7 8 years ago

Yeah, I can't see that beer episode playing out today the same way without serious repercussions.
And your theory of how Ann would have reacted in 2016 is interesting over how the 1976 Ann acted. This is why i'm SO against this Netflix remake. I just know they're going to take this classic character and "update" her to live in today's PC era and I really don't want to see a 2016 version of Ann Romano. She's going to be someone I loathe.
To me, Ann was a character depicting a single mother during a specific window of time in the 20th century and has absolutely no place in this one.

Which actually goes back to your original thread title of topics not shown back then...i'm sure there's going to be a lot of new stuff thrown in that weren't done back them....I can see an episode where Julie gets a tramp stamp and Ann hits the roof LOL.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

My theory, as you put it, of Ann having to break up with David because the beer thing was an event horizon is a producer/advertiser call, and not something that fits Ann's character.

Of course, the whole premise of Ann marrying right out of high school and having to babies in quick succession, and not ever having been on her own is a little thin all by itself in 2016. If Ann is 34 in 2016, then she was born in 1982, and married in 1999, as opposed to the original, where she was born in 1941, and married in 1958. Even people with "Oops" pregnancies didn't necessarily get married in 1999. They're going to need some kind of contrivance, like an immigrant family, or a very strict religious-bordering-on-cult family.

[–] bluebird7 8 years ago

Exactly. The whole premise of "One Day" was relevant for the 1970's, but completely unrealistic for 2016.
They'll have to veer far away from that premise with contrivances to "update" things, but that then takes it away from the original and therefore makes it a whole new show.
So why attach the classic name to it? And wasn't ABC's failed sitcom last year "Cristela" about multi generational Latinos living in the same house?
This is just Cristela again, with the Lear title slapped onto it and probably (and horrifically) the beloved theme song too.

They're going to have to make Ann a lesbian transvestite, with an alcohol problem, stuck with 2 kids she doesn't really want, with a Republican conservative bible thumping super that continuously tries to throw her out of the building. THAT would be a relevant 2016 sitcom story of today's Ann Romano!

Speaking of the super, and back to the original question, I think it would have been good to eventually get Schneider and Ann together. I think I read your post in another thread how he was in love with her, and I think they genuinely could have explored that with the characters.

At the very least, I wish they had given Schneider a character to date long term and marry. It's sad how they just kept him single and living in that boiler room all by himself for 9 seasons.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

Oh, I think Schneider liked Ann, but I don't think she returned his feelings, and I think getting them together would have been a mistake, but it would have been nice if Schneider had dated the same woman twice once in a while.

[–] bluebird7 8 years ago

In a way they were kindred spirits. I love the early episode where Schneider isn't invited to Ann's party and the two have a serious conversation about each other's loneliness. They really clicked together in that episode on a deep level and forged a connection with each other.

But you're probably right that it wouldn't have worked on a romantic level. I would have also liked to have seen a long term love interest for Schneider. Every character got one but him which is sad.

[–] ronaldt49 8 years ago

Drinking age was 18 until about 1984 so at least Julie if not Barbara may have been able to legally drink.

Back when I turned 18 in 1967 several of my classmates cut class and I was designated driver and purchaser. Clerk at one convenience store I stopped at looked at me and said "You're getting started kind of early, aren't you?" It was about 9:00 in the morning!!!

Couldn't vote until 21.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

Drinking age was 18 until about 1984 so at least Julie if not Barbara may have been able to legally drink.

Not in Indiana. In Indiana, the drinking age has been 21 for a long time. My uncle was a college professor in Indiana beginning in the mid-1970s, so I'm sure of this. Illinois and Ohio had 18-year-old drinking ages in the 70s and early 80s, so people in Indiana drove to the border and bought booze and brought it back, which wasn't so bad-- more of a problem was people who drove across the border, got drunk in a bar, and drove back. Anyway, it has been established that Julie was 17 when she graduated from high school. She was 17 when she had the affair with the vet, and was already a high school graduate.

However, the very fact that the neighboring states had lower ages was one of the reasons that the 21-year-old drinking age wasn't taken very seriously in Indiana. Before 21 became national, penalties for drinking when you were under 21 but over 18 were very mild. As long as you didn't get caught driving, no one much cared, and even drinking among younger people wasn't seen as so terrible. You'd see parents in restaurants pour a tablespoon of wine into a 12- or 13-yar-old's soft drink, and no one cared. Now it's child abuse.

Also, the 26th amendment was ratified in 1971, so the voting age was 18 before Julie and Barbara turned that age.

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

Now it's child abuse.

In Europe, (and at least some of South America), the drinking age test is:
What do you want and can you pay for it?

(My wife and I hosted several high school age foreign exchange students, so we know.)
With the lack of prohibition, the students had no interest in alcohol. However, all the students had been warned about drugs being common in the USA. Imagine that. I should add that these students were here as academic exchange students, and most were in the top 15% of their class.

Smoking was a different story though. Two of the European students smoked cigarettes. (BTW, European cigarettes are very different than American 'coffin nails'.) The American versions use different tobacco, and are laced with additives to make the nicotine more potent, and more addictive. (just the facts, ma'am.)
Did ODAAT have a smoking episode? I know I have not seen all the episodes, but I do not remember that topic.

When we started the USA Christmas Eve traditional "milk and cookies for Santa Claus", the Spanish student told us about their tradition of a glass of red, rose, and white wine instead of cookies and milk. That was the sum total of the students' interest in alcohol.

(It's not good, it's not bad, it's just different. That was an idea the exchange program taught the students.)

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 8 years ago

I don't know where you are from, but drinking ages varied by state until 1986, when the national minimum became 21. Indiana is a very conservative state when it comes to alcohol, with all sales prohibited on Sunday, and several counties completely dry. From the end of prohibition in 1933, the state minimum age has been 21. The show was set in Indianapolis.

Now, I grant that the show's producers may not have been aware of the state drinking age, because they make several flubs where they assume something in California is just like it is in Indiana.

The 26th amendment was ratified in 1971, four years before the show premiered. The 26th amendment lowered the national voting age to 18. Before that it was 21. The impetus was the Vietnam war: if people could be drafted at 18, the thinking went, they should be able to vote then as well. If you turned 18 before 1971, you couldn't vote at 18, but the show premiered in 1975, and both Barbara and Julie were not yet 18.

Again, Julie was 17 when she graduated from high school, because she was STILL 17 when she had the affair with the older man.

It was stated at least once that the two girls are 17 months apart, and Barbara's birthday is in January-- the armed robbery episode premiered in late January, and it is Barbara's birthday. Everyone remarks on how cold it is. Indianapolis is at its coldest in January and early February. If the girls are 17 months apart, Julie's birthday is in late August. That makes sense. She would just have had her fifth birthday before starting kindergarten, and not have had her 18th at her high school graduation.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

Which makes me think of another topic altogether now...Are there stories they DID do back then that they WOULDN'T be able to show today's ultra PC television landscape?

Well, one of the restrictions in ODAAT was the single episode, single topic general format. Not many of the stories had multi-episode arcs. Maybe the first big one was when Julie ran away, and that did take several episodes.

That pretty much left out the topic of sexual assaults or date rape. The aftermath of those topics would/should have taken too long. These days, inappropriate photo sharing might be a one episode topic, but the show ran before any of that technical capability was really available. I don't remember any episode with Ann finding an "adult magazine" in one of the kid's rooms. (part of growing up?)

There was an episode of sexual harassment of Ann's friend, and included Ann threatening the woman's boss with pulling up her/their top(s) and screaming "Rape". Being the 70's, Ann was not wearing a bra of course. That is about as close as the series got to that topic, but it did show the concept of "equal, except...". One episode did have Ann sexually harass a new employee, and I'm not sure if that would "fly" today...

There was no real "child abuse" in the harsher sense of heavy physical abuse, food deprivation, locked in a closet, or sexual abuse. All of those are probably far too "heavy" for an ODAAT style show, unless it happened to a friend of one of the kids. Then it would be a question of "what-to-do-if" episode.

Even the episode "WICKED ANN" barely touched on the aftermath of parents' divorce, but it did show a LOT! Alex resented his mother being 'replaced' by Ann, he acted out to try to break up Ann and his Father, and Barbara revealed to Ann, apparently for the first time, how she had been affected by Ann and Ed's divorce. Oh, and the "Wicked Ann" part referred to Ann slapping Alex, corporal punishment that Alex's parents had not used on him. WOW!!
And to reduce the heaviness of that episode, Barbara was taking a bubble bath, and Alex walked into the bathroom to 'hide from the world', and was so troubled that he was oblivious to Barbara in the tub. Then more people came into the bathroom; no big deal, there were plenty of bubbles... TV, remember?

With Alex and the girls not being blood relatives, the new show could have him become a "curious" Peeping Tom, or ask them what a woman looked like, sex-education classes notwithstanding, (or worse, girl of age interested in boy child - that was not done). There could also be one of Ann's friends interested in "initiating" a boy, but the show did have the reverse with Alex developing a crush on the flirty Francine, and handled that variation of the topic. The topic of one of Alex's teachers approaching him could be done these days, "ripped right from the headlines", except it would be a "how to resist/what to do if" single episode story line the ODAAT way.

Would the story arc where Ann fell in love with a teacher that both she and Barbara liked count as the topic of teacher-student romantic involvement? Barbara was initially unhappy that Ann got the teacher's attention, but got over it pretty quickly. The teacher was careful to point out that it was improper for him to get involved with one of his students, WHILE HE WAS ACTUALLY HER TEACHER, even though they were both adults, and after the class was over he asked her to go to a "dig site" with him for a year...

I know Julie and her boyfriend had their van stolen when they ran away, but did any of the kids steal a car, or something of significant value? It does not quite count, but the actor that played Alex played a pickpocket in an episode of THE LOVE BOAT, and gave some of the jewelry loot to the Captain's daughter to impress her...

Come to think of it, there was a partial "smoking" episode with Alex and his friend smoking and accidentally burning Schneider's camper, but not exactly a "smoking " episode, or a "stealing something serious" episode, but I vaguely remember maybe Ann's Mom had a problem with shoplifting(?).