One of the more infamous ‘public health films’ of the 1940s, ‘Mom and Dad’ was the brain child of Kroger Babb and William Beaudine and managed to maintain its reputation by being one of the first ‘hayes era’ films to feature full frontal nudity…It achieved this however in the form of showing a live birth (almost entirely unedited and VERY graphic) alongside several images of both male and female full frontal nudity as victims of severe infections from Ghonnerea and Syphillis.
To say that, even by modern standards I was not quite prepared for just HOW graphic and bloody this film would get in showing a cesearian birth or several shots of gnarled and mangled genitles/heavily deformed babies, I hope that sets an expectation of what your letting yourself in for.
The film presents itself as an educational film aiming to educate the youth of today about the dangers of ‘relations’ with an opening caption claiming that ‘Innocence isnt ensured by ignorance’ and that ‘Knowledge is power!’ before telling the cautionary tale of Joan Blake, a young woman just about in her teens, who’s mother is totally against Joan learning ANYTHING about ‘that kind of thing’ and a father who’s basically relying on the mother to ‘fill in the gaps’.
As you can imagine, the film then inevitably gets right to the point when Joan heads to her highschools annual dance and meets and young man by the name Carl Blake. a slightly freer and looser spirit who drinks beer, jitterbugs! AND is into premarital SEX!
Well, Joan doesnt know about the birds and the bees and soon finds herself without Carl AND very much pregnant.
And, from there? the film basically kind of splits in two, with 50% of the runtime continuing the cautionary tale, but 50% being given over to a series of sexual health lectures detailing menstrual cycles, how conception happens, fertility, the birth cycle AND for good measure, how births occur and the risk of unprotected ‘relations’ and the ‘social diseases’ that can occur as a result.
And…I think what sets this film apart from the likes of ‘Reefer Madness’ and ‘Child Bride’ is that, this film feels INCREDIBLY awkward and clunky…But theres a real slathering of melodramatic ham thrown into the mix that ultimately was what kept me tuned in.
The script itself is kind of basic, the pacings pretty good to start with, but around the mid point theres a break in the film where a real world clinician was supposed to walk into the theater and give a lecture + Q&A on sexual wellness, before the second half of the film starts up (obviously, that doesnt happen in the home release…or i’d be wondering how a clinician got into my house at damn near 10pm on a Tuesday.)
Its the second half where the momentum begins to get a bit squiffy as the film gets bogged down in 20 minutes of a class watching a health film INSIDE the main picture (so we’re watching a movie inside a movie at this point) and then the film kind of realises that it DID have a plot before we went to an intermission, so it hastily writes up a resolution that left me feeling a little unsatisfied and ended VERY abruptly.
Honestly? this film, while trying to give the appearence of a professional and considered Hygiene film. Realistically comes off as if a slightly drunken dad was trying to explain sex to his kids, while REALLY not wanting to talk about ANYTHING to do with sex. thats the kind of tone and vibe this thing radiates. Which I found VERY strange, but VERY funny.
I will also say that the opening half has a LOT of padding in the form of lounge singers, dancers and gymnasts…I dont know why they’re there…I assume its to make sure the audience are still awake. But I found it to be a bit of a double edged sword, as…on the one hand they dont even TRY to pretend these moments arnt filler…But then at the same time, the sheer absurdity of having 3 happy clappy gymnasts bouncing around in the middle of a film that, some 30 minutes later, will be showing ACTUAL blood, guts and gore alongside imagery of rotting penises…Was something that I just had to bleakly laugh at.
The whole thing is ABSOLUTELY tone deaf. and its good intentions are the thing that ultimately saves it from becoming just a fairly dry sexual health film. It feels like exploitation cinema, and if John Waters and David F. Friedman are to be believed it ABSOLUTELY is. (I will not dispute this)
The film looks fine on a direction standpoint, its a little on the cheap side, but it still looks pretty sleek given this kind of cinema was often reserved for Poverty row. theres a clear and clean visual vision present here and the film does get quite creative at times. which was nice.
For the 40s, the cine is quite impressive too. A lot of it reminded me of Ed Woods ‘The Violent Years’ only…Eds film was 11 years later than this and didnt feature live births…But composition here is solid, they work a good range of sequence structuring…the transitions on the edit are a little slack which is a shame, but I think this easily holds together better than a lot of the health films that were doing the rounds at the time.
As mentioned, the performances are melodramatic, over the top hammy goodness. Everyones either a ‘Chipper’ 50s stereotype, or about a hairs breadth from throwing their pinny over their face, screeching and running out of the room. Its easily one of the better aspects of the film and definitely an element that kept me watching!
‘Mom and Dad’ I reckon would STILL turn some kids heads these days, and its absolutely NO wonder that it got banned for 11 years for what it shows. As far as PSA health films go? its one of the more graphic, more interesting and more entertaining. DEFINITELY not for the squeemish. If you like cheesy public information films, this ones definitely worth checking out.
TYTD Reviews 