MovieChat Forums > Family (1976) Discussion > Filthiest House on the Block

Filthiest House on the Block


I just started watching Family - trying to bone up on some of the 1970's series of note that I missed. I liked the pilot, but one thing really bothered me.

Why was this seemingly upper middle class house so dirty? Even the casual viewer will notice that there is DIRT all over the place. The white walls clearly show handprints and that type of dirt all over the house. Especially around doorknobs etc. A big example is the scene in which Buddy is sitting on the stairs listening to her parents conversation - the corner of the wall is seriously caked with dirt. In the same scene, the kitchen cabinets have the same filth around the handles. What's up with that?

Right off the bat we see Kate scrubbing garbage cans, and are told that she has 'help', so why can't one of those two wipe the walls. I realize it was the 70's and people were into being a little greasy and 'earthy', but this is ridiculous.

Any thoughts on this would be great. :)




reply

I'm going to have to go back and watch these episodes you are speaking of. I'm working my way through the 1st and 2nd seasons and I just finished the episode where Doug's father brings home a girlfriend at Christmas. I've never noticed this dirt. I've seen some wear but not this dirt. Back then, that's how it was. The middle class family (and I'd tag the Lawrence's at middle class, possibly upper middle-class) had a home that was lived in, decent yet considered nice. They weren't in debt in order to have a flashy house that would impress others yet couldn't afford. I always took the kitchen to be an old kitchen on the country-style side, so I expected some wear and tear. But again, I never saw this dirt you are speaking of. Not saying it's not there, I just need to go back and see what I've missed.

reply

Absolutely. I agree with your description of the house etc. and I really like that house (albeit without the 70's decor) But PLEASE let me know if you see this dirt. lol Maybe I'm a little crazy. :)

reply

Yes I've thought the same thing as I've watched it. I wonder if the house was already that dirty when they started filming, or if an over zealous set designer did it. The thing is though, we probably couldn't see that sort of detail on those old TV sets in the 70's!

Wellington, New Zealand

reply

That's something I hadn't thought of. Maybe they just assumed it wouldn't show on the televistion sets of the time. Thanks!

Funny thing: Now the DVD is making the rounds at the office. People wanted to see "the dirty 70's house". I'm curious to see what other people think.

reply

Oh for God's sakes people, that's the best you can come up with regarding this show? Who has OCD regarding marks on the wall, dirt in the kitchen....shouldn't you be focusing on the relationships of the people instead of how much they clean the house? Too Funny!

reply

I'm pretty sure they were trying to give the show an overall "grittiness". The story lines were stark and, at that time, very real; authentic. This is the house Doug grew up in and I always took it to have been a kind of farm house. People weren't into the sterilized, scraped-down white boxes that people are obsessed with today. I agree, though, that it is a bit much (a woman like Kate Lawrence would never let her house get that worn down, even though she was farm girl at heart) that it was probably an over-zealous set designer.

Notice after the first 5 or so episodes, they gave not only the kitchen a
makeover, but Kate and Nancy as well: Kate got a red-brown dye-job, a haircut and the use of hair rollers, and Nancy went from brunette to blond, LOL!

Even the theme song was "spruced up", becoming more lively and less melancholic. I preferred the old theme song, and the meaner, grittier Kate. She was cooler. Even Elaine Heilveil feels more "genuine" to me. Look at her deep, sad, brown eyes: that's Kate's daughter! They brought Baxter-Birney in for her "jiggle factor", trust me.

reply

Yeah but also Meredith played Nancy with a bit more B**** factor as well....and she looked more like she could be DOUG'S daughter....since she was a daddy's girl...and Buddy seemed to be a "Mama's baby"....so you get two girls with opposite looks and mannerisms.

Re: Kate...she also lost weight between the pilot ep and ep 2 which I believe was filmed months later.

I liked the Pilot Kate also...however I LOVE the Kate we got to see the rest of the series.

And the theme...I prefer the second one over the first...but I like the first one.

“Success is nothing without someone you love to share it with.” –Brian to Tracy in Mahogany

reply

I agree with some of what you wrote about the acclaimed 1970s ABC dramatic television series Family. But as for the "jiggle factor" of Meredith Baxter-Birney, perhaps it was one factor for her having been hired as a replacement for the original actress (Elayne Heilveil) in the role of "Nancy Lawrence Maitland." But the then-Mrs. Baxter-Birney was also a terrific actress, whose mother, the equally attractive Whitney Blake, had portrayed "Mrs. Dorothy Baxter" in the hit NBC (later CBS) sitcom Hazel, a vehicle for Broadway and film actress Shirley Booth, in her portrayal of a domestic based on the Ted Key comic strip from The Saturday Evening Post a decade previous to Family. Whitney Blake later went on to co-create and co-produce (with her then-husband Allan Mannings) the CBS hit sitcom One Day at a Time, for Norman Lear's Tandem Productions, that series based, in part, on Blake's own raising (as a single working mother) of three children.

And Baxter-Birney had already proven her acting chops by the time of Family, having been co-star (with her then-husband, David Birney) of the CBS sitcom Bridget Loves Bernie. Later on, as many will know, Baxter-Birney was also a co-star of the equally acclaimed and long-running NBC sitcom Family Ties, which made a star out of Michael J. Fox, who also appeared in an episode of Family, as a school friend of Letitia "Buddy" Lawrence (Kristy McNichol) named "Richard Topol," in the series' final season episode "Such a Fine Line." I don't wish to be a spoiler for that episode. But the plot-line involving Fox's character is an amusing one.

Also, even if Baxter-Birney had been hired on account of her physical attributes, she would certainly not have been the first actress in Hollywood to have been hired based on more than her ability to convincingly convey a character and read lines. Some of those who are now considered among our greatest actors and actresses (including Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Joan Crawford, Katharine Hepburn, and Vivien Leigh) were also hired, at least partly, based on their looks.

Anyway, my larger point in response to one of yours is I don't think it fair to diminish or discredit a person (in this case Meredith Baxter-Birney) simply because he/she is physically good-looking, anymore than it is proper to diminish or discredit a person who is not good-looking, involving what some today are calling "looksism." And so-called looksism works both ways. After all, a gal or guy can't help it if she/he is born gorgeous (or works real hard to get that way), anymore than a person may not help it if he/she is born ugly.

Lastly, I think we may both agree (whatever fine-tunings were made after the first, short season) Family was one great TV series that deserves to see all its episodes available on home video, whether for digital download or on DVD. It is now long overdue since the release of the first two seasons by Sony on DVD in 2006, and time to release the final three seasons of what, at the time, was considered one of the best dramatic series' ever to have aired on broadcast TV.

Sada Thompson, James Broderick and Gary Frank were all top-notch stage-trained actors. And Baxter-Birney and McNichol were no slouches either. In fact, at the time, I can recall McNichol's character of "Buddy" received much praise for a more realistic "tomboy" interpretation, a bit different from all the girly girls who had been portrayed by young actresses in television theretofore (with the possible exception of Shelia James' "Zelda Gilroy" in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis).

reply

I've read that the pilot was filmed in the real house and the remaining eps were filmed on a set. I do see the dirt and wear and tear in the pilot, but don't see it in any remaining episodes, so I guess we have to blame the housekeeping skills of the real homeowner.

reply

I don't remember thinking of it as dirty, I always thought it was a beautiful home. As far as "the house being dirty already", I seriously doubt that they did much filming inside the house in Pasadena. I'm pretty sure it was a set on a soundstage. The exteriors of that same house were used in the Candice Bergen movie "Mary & Tim" (which was a remake of an Australian movie starring Piper Laurie and a very young Mel Gibson), but it didn't look the same inside.

reply

I agree, the Lawrence home looked lovely & immaculate to me.,, Tidy, orderly & clean

reply

I noticed some backlit cobwebs lurking in the corner of a shot looking up at the top of the stairs in episode 3.

The thing is though, we probably couldn't see that sort of detail on those old TV sets in the 70's!
That's it exactly. It wasn't a concern back then. I worked in television in the late 80s and even then we were saying not to worry about dirt in the background of sets because "they'll never see that at home." Now with giant HD screens, we can see it at home!

Also, the video transfer on these DVDs is truly fabulous, considering the technology of the mid 70s, and I believe that exaggerates the flaws. It looks like there's not a speck of dust or any scratches or noise on the prints they used. I'm blown away by how good this show looks on these DVDs!

reply

Ok..let me try and explain the "dirt factor". I work in the Art Dept. as an assistant set decorator for t.v. and movies. The "dirt" you're talking about is actually just paint that the production designer tells the painters to "age the walls down just a bit". Now this is done for several reasons, the main one being..this is supposed to be a house that is lived in, and for a long time, remember, this is the house that Doug grew up in as a child. Since the interiors are obviously shot on a soundstage at ABC Studios in Los Feliz, CA. and not at the exteriors in Pasadena. You have to remember that we put up new wallpaper, and new carpeting, fresh paint, etc..so it looks too NEW....not someplace that a family has lived...in short, it's to give it a "lived in look." Alot of times the painters go overboard and apply too much, but it's hard to adjust because when we're working dressing a set, alot of times the lighting used to shoot the set isn't on, and we're working from work lamps, etc. Actually the sets on this show are pretty accurate and very well done, not dirty at all..just gives it a lived in look, and captures the decade of the mid 70's perfectly. Anyway, hope this helps.

reply

Thanks for the insight! I would love to hear more about your career!!! I love "behind the scenes" stuff. Please contact me if you have more to share. [email protected]

reply

Hahahaha I never noticed that. I will have to pay attention and be on the lookout for that.

reply

I think a lot of houses in the 70s were like this. Not that it was dirty (see what the set decorator said about "aging the walls.") but it was an old house that was lived in. Back then, people didn't spend tons of money on granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. Yes, the Lawrences were rich and could have, but it just wasn't done then. South Pasadena was/is a very affluent, yet dated, suburb of Los Angeles--kind of like the Connecticut of So. Cal.--and I believe the interior of the home reflected S. Pasadena at the time quite accurately.

I believe the pilot was shot in the house, and the rest filmed in a soundstage at Fox. If you watch closely, you'll see that the floor plan of the interior matches perfectly the exterior--right down to the window placement and wall juxtoposition in the rare back yard shots. Not many shows bother matching the interior to whatever real home they use as an exterior--think Brady Bunch and Golden Girls and All in the Family.

As a previous poster said, I too had a surreal moment when I drove past the real house on Milan Avenue in 1982. I could only imagine the cast filming some of the exterior shots, which I imagine they only did a few weeks out of each season. I wonder how many times that home has been sold since then. Any personal information from the current/previous owners or neighbors would be greatly appreciated!

reply