Papai Batuta

I saw this movie on our local PBS station last night. I had never seen it before, and sat there sorta wondering why on earth I wasn't changing the channel. As I watched the characters develop, and the continued background scenery of spacious houses and country that looked much different than what we see now - I understood why I couldn't change the channel. This film makes you think. It makes you realize how spoon-fed we are. We are spoon-fed movies, plots, stories, violence, sex, etc.

A film such as this allows us to stop being spoon-fed, and lets us pick and choose what we want from the story, from the film.

It is amusing to me that most of the posts against this fine film appear to be posted while watching the film through 2004-style glasses. It isn't a pretty thing, but women weren't held in the same position that they are today - and the film portrayed this wonderfully. Did it make the wife in the film any less admirable? I think it showed the inner strength that women had to have, making a remarkable statement about women of the era - that even though they might not be able to be out in the forefront - they had every bit as much (if not more) strength then the men. Even the father couldn't handle all the children - but the mother could -WHILE having a profession to boot!!

While the father wasn't necessarily warm, and you didn't get that fuzzy feeling modern movies give us - I believe the character was very true to life when put in the context of the 1920s. I have spoken a great deal with many people I know, that had lived through that time period. I can tell you now, that many people in the early 1900s never experienced the type of love and closeness we feel today. Survival wasn't a near-guarantee back then, and harshness, crassness, and distance from others was more common. Children died at an alarming rate . . . adults too.

History is what it is - and it is NOT subject to change, regardless of the nature of today's political attempts. Slavery happened, women weren't seen as equals, people were lynched by mobs of overzealous citizens, people starved, the dust bowl occurred. None of these events are wonderful, but they are our history, and there should be no shame in discussing - or accurately portraying / conveying these topics. I think this film is what it is too - a look at the life of an average family (perhaps an above average number of children - but even that wasn't all that rare).

Enjoy this film - but please, be prepared to leave your glasses smudged with 2004 politics and standards behind - this is a treasure where we can get a glimpse of the type of characters that lived with our grand parents, great grand parents, and the like. If you like to be spoon-fed, please DON'T watch this movie.

I have seen the 1950 version of "Cheaper By the Dozen" perhaps a dozen times! It is a delightful glimpse of influential family life in the 1920's.

There are too many children, but this movie is funny because of Clifton Webb, who was a master of comedy in his detached, upper crust style, as in other movies such as another classic, "Mr. Belvedere." Seems like "we" have gotten too sophisticated these days to appreciate the innocence of movies like this one. There was laughter, a little love-interest, problems with kids, certainly sadness, and coping with so many children. But, it is appealing because there is no blood and guts, no explicit sex scenes and no foul language. This movie is a classic!

Clifton Webb is a joy in this delightful film, based on a true story, of an eccentric genius and his twelve children. The color is gorgeous, and the interior design of the family's New Jersey home ought to have won an Oscar. Myrna Loy is solid as Webb's patient, loving wife, and Jeanne Crain energetic as his spunky daughter. There isn't much story here, as events unfold naturally, as they do in life, and one isn't always sure where the film is going. Early twentieth century America is captured in all its overstuffed, art nouveau-ish glory, as the film's plot, irregular, often going off on odd tangents, perfectly mimics that style of design so popular at the time. The movie is really about the end of an era, as we see the very tail end of the Gilded Age turning into the roaring twenties, and with it the death of the old paternalism, at times stiff, occasionally charming, perfectly embodied by Mr. Webb; and there is an awesome sadness at the film's conclusion, as we see a man and his era pass into history.

While some might be critical of this movie for being "overly cheerful and sappy", I find "Cheaper by the Dozen" and movies like it of their time a haven in today's sexualized, blow 'em up assortment of trash. This movie is pure entertainment. You don't have to think. Just sit back, laugh and enjoy.

Amusing family drama, set in the 1920's, and immensely popular on first release. No wonder, since the movie presents an idealized family portrait that goes humorously beyond the usual two or three kids. Here, of course, it's a dozen. With that many offspring, all kinds of kid hi- jinks are possible to fill out the screenplay. Nonetheless, it's the prickly Webb at the height of his popularity who dominates, along with a bemused Loy looking on. There's really no plot, just a series of ordinary family episodes centering around Mom, Dad, and the two eldest girls (Crain & Bates).

Still, there is something of a socially conservative subtext behind the scattered goings-on. Importantly, it's one that doesn't harm the generally humorous results. Take the way the family-planning lady (Natwick) is gently mocked when Dad parades his army of offspring before her. This was, after all, back in the day when contestants on quiz shows with bigger families got bigger applause. Or take the prom scene where young Tom (Hill) pointedly affirms to teen-age Ann (Crain) what her dad has already explained to her—namely, that boys only marry "good girls". This scene, however, appears aimed specifically at the audience and is a bit awkward for such an otherwise smooth production.

Despite the one scene, this is not an in-your-face subtext, but it is present and quite consonant with the times. After all, idealized families were not unusual for either movies or TV of the 50's, unlike today's often ribald variety. However, I am curious how in such a sunny movie the unexpectedly dark development suddenly occurs near the end. I guess its inclusion was to maintain the facts of the real life family on which the movie is based. At the same time, the development prevents things from getting too sentimental, always a pitfall for movies like this. Nonetheless, it is understandably passed over quickly and at a distance.

All in all, the movie remains warmly amusing, thanks mainly to another of Webb's prickly but likable characters. Then too, the kids are cute without being cutesy; at the same time, the lovely Crain looks a little long in the tooth to be playing a teenager. However, I'm still wondering how Mom can bear all of twelve kids and still look like Myrna Loy. Oh well, just another of Hollywood's enduring mysteries.