Discussion:
Ken Osmond, 76, "Leave It to Beaver"
Add Reply
That Derek
2020-05-18 18:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Developing>...

Developing ...
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/ken-osmond-dead-leave-it-to-beaver-eddie-haskell-dies-actor-1234609639/
Louis Epstein
2020-05-18 18:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by That Derek
Developing>...
Developing ...
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/ken-osmond-dead-leave-it-to-beaver-eddie-haskell-dies-actor-1234609639/
So he has left Beaver!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
That Derek
2020-05-18 18:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/ken-osmond-dead-leave-it-to-beaver-eddie-haskell-dies-actor-1234609639/

Home TV News

May 18, 2020 10:54am PT

Ken Osmond, ‘Leave It to Beaver’ Star Who Played Eddie Haskell, Dies at 76

By Dave McNary

Ken Osmond, best known for his role as the troublemaker Eddie Haskell on the television comedy “Leave It to Beaver,” died on Monday morning. He was 76.

Sources tell Variety Osmond died at his Los Angeles home surrounded by family members. The cause of death is unknown.

Henry Lane, Osmond’s former partner at the Los Angeles Police Department, also confirmed the news and said he had suffered from respiratory issues.

After “Leave it to Beaver” finished its run in 1963, Osmond returned for the telefilm “Still the Beaver” in 1983 and for the revival series “The New Leave it to Beaver.” His sons on the series were played by his real-life sons Eric and Christian. He returned to the role a final time in 1997’s feature film “Leave it to Beaver.”

Osmond, a native of Glendale, Calif., began his career as a child actor with his first speaking part at age 9 in the film “So Big,” starring Jane Wyman and Sterling Hayden, followed by “Good Morning Miss Dove,” and “Everything But the Truth.” He also guest-starred on television series including “Lassie,” “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet,” “Wagon Train,” “Fury” and “The Loretta Young Show.”

In 1957, Osmond auditioned for the the Eddie Haskell role, which was originally intended to be a guest appearance, but those involved with the show were so impressed with Osmond’s portrayal that the character became a key component of the series throughout its six-season run of 234 episodes.

Osmond portrayed Haskell as sycophantic to grownups while making fun of them behind their backs. He was a high school friend of Wally Cleaver, older brother of Theodore “The Beaver” Cleaver, and constantly trying to entice his friends into activities that would get them into trouble. During the final years of the show, Osmond was in the U.S. Army Reserve.

When the series ended, Osmond continued working as an actor, appearing on “Petticoat Junction,” “The Munsters,” and a return appearance on “Lassie.” He appeared in feature films “C’mon Let’s Live a Little” and “With Six You Get Eggroll” but found himself typecast as Eddie Haskell.

Osmond joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1970 and grew a mustache to be less recognizable. In 1980, Osmond was shot in a chase with a suspected car thief, though he was saved by his bulletproof vest. He was put on disability and retired from the force in 1988.

Osmond filed a class-action lawsuit in 2007 against the Screen Actors Guild, asserting that SAG had over-stepped its authority in collecting foreign royalties without disclosing the collection agreements until he and Jack Klugman threatened to file suit. The action was settled in 2010.

He is survived by his wife, Sandra, and two sons, Christian and Eric.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-18 19:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I never saw the show until sometime in the last two years, when a local station started running it.

And I wasn't impressed. I can only hope that most intelligent adults who were born after its demise would be able to figure out that it wasn't realistic for its time, in multiple ways.

It just plain lacked depth, as did the characters. Why watch it, especially post-1988, when you could watch "The Wonder Years" instead? (One critic described that show as " 'Leave it to Beaver' with bite.")

I think Peter McWilliams wrote about its unrealism in one chapter of his 1990s book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."



Lenona.
m***@gmail.com
2020-05-18 19:57:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I never saw the show until sometime in the last two years, when a local station started running it.
And I wasn't impressed. I can only hope that most intelligent adults who were born after its demise would be able to figure out that it wasn't realistic for its time, in multiple ways.
It just plain lacked depth, as did the characters. Why watch it, especially post-1988, when you could watch "The Wonder Years" instead? (One critic described that show as " 'Leave it to Beaver' with bite.")
I think Peter McWilliams wrote about its unrealism in one chapter of his 1990s book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."
Lenona.
If you had seen it in real time, you wouldn't have that opinion.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-18 21:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Then what prompted McWilliams and historian Stephanie Coontz to call it unrealistic?

(She was born in 1944. Her 1992 book was "The Way We Never Were: American Families & the Nostalgia Trap.")
m***@gmail.com
2020-05-18 21:33:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Then what prompted McWilliams and historian Stephanie Coontz to call it unrealistic?
(She was born in 1944. Her 1992 book was "The Way We Never Were: American Families & the Nostalgia Trap.")
I don't know.
Dug
2020-05-18 21:45:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Then what prompted McWilliams and historian Stephanie Coontz to call it unrealistic?
(She was born in 1944. Her 1992 book was "The Way We Never Were: American Families & the Nostalgia Trap.")
Because June wore pearls and did housework in a dress. That's always been the main contention but now that part is camp. The kids were real, the parent's reactions were real, and we really did learn lessons back then when we did something wrong.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-18 22:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I didn't mean details like that. I meant, what prompted McWilliams and Coontz to write chapters like the following if they weren't true?

http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/4040.htm

Hint: suburbia was NOT an unusual location for legal drug addiction and alcoholism - they were just taboo subjects on 1950s sitcoms. As were stepfamilies (those caused by divorce, especially), dropouts, infidelity, racism, polio, unemployment, domestic violence, the atom bomb, etc.

Plus, as Coontz famously said, "young people in the 1950s were not taught how to 'say no,' they were simply handed wedding rings." Also, " 'Staying together for the children' surpassed baseball as the national pastime."


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-18 23:35:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And in the hardcover edition of McWilliams' book, in a footnote, it says:

"Eddie was SUPPOSED to be the sleazy character in the show, the example of what NOT to do. He was, however, just about everyone's favorite."

I didn't watch enough episodes to see him, and Wikipedia says little about Eddie's family. But what it does say is telling.

S4-E38 "Beaver's Doll Buggy" may explain how Eddie's scheming character came to be. He related a story from kindergarten, when a caregiver sent him to school with a home permanent (hair style). When he told his father about it, his father made a big joke about it. Eddie claims that was the last time he told his dad anything. Then he adds "If you can make the other guy feel like a goon first, then you don't feel so much like a goon."


So it sounds as though Eddie, like a perfectly normal kid, stopped worshipping his parents and believing every little lesson they tried to teach, once his father revealed a certain lack of sympathy and compassion. But even parents who are nicer than that have to admit, sooner or later, that they don't have all the answers to social problems - I.e., that sometimes they don't know any more than their kids do. This is something practically every kid learns before age ten or so, which is another thing that makes the Cleaver boys' deference hard to believe.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-18 23:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Speaking of the unsustainability of parental superiority and perfection...from Utne Reader Magazine, 1992:

"...my friend Pauline...at the age of 8...had found that eating ice cream made her teeth hurt and asked her father whether Eskimos had the same problem. 'No,' he said. 'They have rubber teeth.' Pauline repeated this information in a geography lesson and found herself the laughing stock of the class. That was how she learned that a man, even if he is your own father, would rather make up an answer than admit to his ignorance."



Lenona.
m***@gmail.com
2020-05-19 02:43:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"Eddie was SUPPOSED to be the sleazy character in the show, the example of what NOT to do. He was, however, just about everyone's favorite."
I didn't watch enough episodes to see him, and Wikipedia says little about Eddie's family. But what it does say is telling.
S4-E38 "Beaver's Doll Buggy" may explain how Eddie's scheming character came to be. He related a story from kindergarten, when a caregiver sent him to school with a home permanent (hair style). When he told his father about it, his father made a big joke about it. Eddie claims that was the last time he told his dad anything. Then he adds "If you can make the other guy feel like a goon first, then you don't feel so much like a goon."
So it sounds as though Eddie, like a perfectly normal kid, stopped worshipping his parents and believing every little lesson they tried to teach, once his father revealed a certain lack of sympathy and compassion. But even parents who are nicer than that have to admit, sooner or later, that they don't have all the answers to social problems - I.e., that sometimes they don't know any more than their kids do. This is something practically every kid learns before age ten or so, which is another thing that makes the Cleaver boys' deference hard to believe.
No offense, but you are reading too much (or expecting too much) into "Leave It To Beaver". It was a 1950s sitcom from the kids' perspectives. How they thought about things etc., and that made it a bit different than most at that time. Why didn't they address substantial social issues...because kids are thinking about bringing frogs home in their pockets and making money from get-rich-quick ads in the back of comic books.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-19 04:36:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
And even in the 1950s, they were capable of writing plays and movies, at least, from children's points of view - that is, children who weren't living in the happiest of circumstances. Think "The Member of the Wedding," for one. OK, so that wasn't a comedy - but it wasn't a tragedy either.

(Which reminds me of a writer born in 1949 who went to Catholic school, was raised in a two-parent family, and considered becoming a nun, but also routinely got beatings from her mother, which got ignored by her father. She once complained bitterly about shows like "Father Knows Best," saying "whoever had a family like that?")

Bottom line is, while I had quite a few loving elderly relatives and older cousins whom I saw a few times a year, and so we didn't really know each other in great depth, personality-wise, they were still far more three-dimensional to me than any adult on LITB. How hard COULD it have been to flesh them out a little?


Lenona.
W.C. Green
2020-05-19 10:29:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
And even in the 1950s, they were capable of writing plays and movies, at least, from children's points of view - that is, children who weren't living in the happiest of circumstances. Think "The Member of the Wedding," for one. OK, so that wasn't a comedy - but it wasn't a tragedy either.
(Which reminds me of a writer born in 1949 who went to Catholic school, was raised in a two-parent family, and considered becoming a nun, but also routinely got beatings from her mother, which got ignored by her father. She once complained bitterly about shows like "Father Knows Best," saying "whoever had a family like that?")
Bottom line is, while I had quite a few loving elderly relatives and older cousins whom I saw a few times a year, and so we didn't really know each other in great depth, personality-wise, they were still far more three-dimensional to me than any adult on LITB. How hard COULD it have been to flesh them out a little?
The show was very popular with viewers and advertisers without that
extra effort. Your question is akin to asking "Why aren't paper plates
as finely made as Wedgewood dinner sets?"
--
Wendy Chatley Green
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-19 18:33:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wendy, thank you for admitting that. Same thanks to Bill.

For all I know, the boomers born in the 1950s enjoyed the show more than their parents did, since the show was more about children than adults. Plus, of course, back then, kids didn't have anything similar to "The Wonder Years" to compare it to - only shows like "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." (Which had a much longer run.)

But IF adults were a big part of the audience, I would wonder why, since, again, there were better family movies in the past to compare it to. Take the 1947 William Powell movie, "Life With Father," which was based on the Broadway play, which was based on Clarence Day's 1920 memoir. My grandmother likely read the book after she became an adult, or maybe a bit later, in the 1940s. (I say that because her copy was clearly a second-hand copy of a 1936 edition.) At any rate, I remember her laughing at the movie when it was on TV. The movie shows, in part, how life wasn't constantly cheerful and orderly even for rich families.

"In late 19th-century New York City, stockbroker Clarence Day (William Powell) strives to maintain order in his bustling household. Despite his attempts to be the chief authority over his four sons, his wife, Vinnie (Irene Dunne), is the one who truly keeps order in their home, much to Clarence's chagrin. To gain more respect, Clarence reluctantly considers making changes that will benefit everyone, including his own baptism. This slice-of-life comedy was based on a popular Broadway play."

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0039566/reviews?ref_=tt_ql_3


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-19 18:47:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mind you, Clarence Day Sr. is NOT a buffoon, IIRC. But I haven't seen it in at least 20 years.

Clarence Day Jr. was played by Jimmy Lydon, who is still with us. The cast included...15-year-old Elizabeth Taylor.
W.C. Green
2020-05-19 20:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Wendy, thank you for admitting that. Same thanks to Bill.
Admit means I agree that your argument is true. What is true is that I
don't understand why you are so disappointed in something so ephemeral.
I hope you never encounter 'My Mother the Car.'

'Leave It to Beaver' was meant to fill 30 minutes (less ad time) with
light entertainment. It made money for its producers, the network, and
the advertisers. That it is still shown a half-century later would
surprise everyone involved.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
t***@iwvisp.com
2020-05-19 21:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Lenona, You have an unreasonable grudge against LITB. Did Tony Dow not respond to your teenaged request for an autographed photo? I can make a call!
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-20 00:44:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You essentially admitted that the show was the equivalent of paper plates. I agree.

What I found kind of appalling was that AVERAGE viewers of the late 1950s would fall in love with it when, as I mentioned, there were at least two other 1950s TV shows with far more charismatic characters and believable dialogue - even if the plots weren't often realistic. Not to mention that those two sitcoms have stood the test of time, to say the least. Even an adult who's unfamiliar with them can become a fan.

(Whereas, unfortunately, "The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show," for all its old-fashioned charm and wit, will only survive if its elderly fans gently persuade their grandchildren to watch it with them, repeatedly, starting very early. Critic Ty Burr, in his guide for families, said pretty much the same thing about Danny Kaye's comedies; he said you have to start showing them to the kids before they turn 8, or they'll be too jaded by then. That's Danny Kaye, mind you, not Danny Thomas.)


Lenona.
W.C. Green
2020-05-20 11:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
You essentially admitted that the show was the equivalent of paper plates. I agree.
What I found kind of appalling was that AVERAGE viewers of the late 1950s would fall in love with it when, as I mentioned, there were at least two other 1950s TV shows with far more charismatic characters and believable dialogue - even if the plots weren't often realistic. Not to mention that those two sitcoms have stood the test of time, to say the least. Even an adult who's unfamiliar with them can become a fan.
(Whereas, unfortunately, "The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show," for all its old-fashioned charm and wit, will only survive if its elderly fans gently persuade their grandchildren to watch it with them, repeatedly, starting very early. Critic Ty Burr, in his guide for families, said pretty much the same thing about Danny Kaye's comedies; he said you have to start showing them to the kids before they turn 8, or they'll be too jaded by then. That's Danny Kaye, mind you, not Danny Thomas.)
You think constant condescending behavior towards under-educated women
is charming?

Yes, I know Gracie Allen was acting, but so were the actors on "Leave It
to Beaver.' To object to the phoniness of one and not the other is as
odd to me as demanding paper plates be as durable and beautiful as fine
china.
--
Wendy Chatley Green
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-20 14:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If they changed something about Gracie's character for the show, I didn't hear about it. (I didn't see more than a couple of episodes, either.) After all, not being "educated" really has nothing to do with lines like this:

"My sister just had a baby."

"Boy or girl?"

"I don't know, but I'm dying to find out if I'm an aunt or an uncle."


And just because, back in the 1930s, everyone claimed they "knew someone just like her," that didn't mean any of those women were really dumb or crazy. The show was sort of the same set-up as "I Love Lucy."

But it's perfectly possible that some movies featuring her, which I saw - such as "International House" (pre-Code) or "A Damsel in Distress" would be preferable to the TV show. I don't know.

At any rate, I love Burns' book "Gracie." (Even if he did trick her into marrying him. But that wasn't part of the act, of course.)



Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-20 14:53:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Not to mention there was nothing, IIRC, in TGBAGAS to suggest either that "this is real married life for MOST men" or "if this isn't realistic, it should be." (Same with "I Love Lucy.")



Lenona.
m***@gmail.com
2020-05-19 23:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Wendy, thank you for admitting that. Same thanks to Bill.
For all I know, the boomers born in the 1950s enjoyed the show more than their parents did, since the show was more about children than adults. Plus, of course, back then, kids didn't have anything similar to "The Wonder Years" to compare it to - only shows like "The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." (Which had a much longer run.)
But IF adults were a big part of the audience, I would wonder why, since, again, there were better family movies in the past to compare it to. Take the 1947 William Powell movie, "Life With Father," which was based on the Broadway play, which was based on Clarence Day's 1920 memoir. My grandmother likely read the book after she became an adult, or maybe a bit later, in the 1940s. (I say that because her copy was clearly a second-hand copy of a 1936 edition.) At any rate, I remember her laughing at the movie when it was on TV. The movie shows, in part, how life wasn't constantly cheerful and orderly even for rich families.
"In late 19th-century New York City, stockbroker Clarence Day (William Powell) strives to maintain order in his bustling household. Despite his attempts to be the chief authority over his four sons, his wife, Vinnie (Irene Dunne), is the one who truly keeps order in their home, much to Clarence's chagrin. To gain more respect, Clarence reluctantly considers making changes that will benefit everyone, including his own baptism. This slice-of-life comedy was based on a popular Broadway play."
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0039566/reviews?ref_=tt_ql_3
Lenona.
It's futile to criticize a movie or TV show from 60 years ago because it doesn't adhere to standards or styles that evolved later.

That would be like me saying in terms of "Casablanca" that Rick should have said about Ilsa:

"Get that bitch out of my club !"
Louis Epstein
2020-05-19 04:20:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
"Eddie was SUPPOSED to be the sleazy character in the show, the example of what
NOT to do. He was, however, just about everyone's favorite."
The ur-Fonz?


-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Matthew Kruk
2020-05-19 01:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Still were taboo in the 70's - Brady Bunch, Partridge Family.

<***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a56454db-71e8-4c20-baf3-***@googlegroups.com...
I didn't mean details like that. I meant, what prompted McWilliams and Coontz to
write chapters like the following if they weren't true?

http://www.drugsense.org/mcwilliams/www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/4040.htm

Hint: suburbia was NOT an unusual location for legal drug addiction and
alcoholism - they were just taboo subjects on 1950s sitcoms. As were
stepfamilies (those caused by divorce, especially), dropouts, infidelity,
racism, polio, unemployment, domestic violence, the atom bomb, etc.

Plus, as Coontz famously said, "young people in the 1950s were not taught how to
'say no,' they were simply handed wedding rings." Also, " 'Staying together for
the children' surpassed baseball as the national pastime."


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-19 02:27:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Re the Brady Bunch - absolutely! Which is just one reason it got spoofed, fewer than two decades after it ended.

(Not to mention, how many widows and widowers were born circa 1935, had children from the 1950s through the 1960s, but didn't become widowed until they turned 30 or so? Had everyone been born ten years later, Vietnam might have made that more plausible - the average draftee was 19 - but back then, the more likely backstory for a single parent was, of course, divorce.)

It's amazing, as one critic put it, how many people accepted EVERYTHING about the show without question, back then.

From the New York Times, 1990 (I assume the writer, Nicole Hollander, is the cartoonist creator of "Sylvia"):

http://www.btifilms.com/smp_press_NYT_Bradys.html
(includes photo of the stage cast)

...A new episode of "The Real Live Brady Bunch" is staged every two weeks. The TV show's production values were bland and tacky: the bright colors and even lighting— there were no shadows in the Brady house— gave the show the flat look of a cartoon. Sets for the stage version are cheesier still, reduced to a chair, a table, a cup.

The dialogue comes word for word from the TV show, but it's the bald presentation, the inflections, the just slightly odd-the-mark execution, that make the play so funny. "Let's go tell Greg we're sorry for acting like selfish brats," Marcia says in one episode. When lines like this are delivered in the setting of the Annoyance Theater, they sound both surrealistic and hilarious.

The audience returns again and again. After all, this is the whiter white-bread version of their real lives. Now that it's the 90's, there's the added fillip of astonishment that they ever swallowed the Bradys whole. But they love it. They scream when Marcia flips her hair. They laugh and shout, their enthusiasm fanned by the party atmosphere in the theater.

"The Real Live Brady Bunch" was created by two sisters, Jill and Faith Soloway, for the Metraform Theater Company, which specializes in plays created from the improvisation of their group members. Like their audience, the Soloway sisters are in their mid-20's. They say they are amazed by the success of the show. At the beginning of the run, they would go up to the roof of the theater just to marvel at the length of the lines below.

The years of reruns allowed millions of children like the Soloway sisters to come home from school, turn on the set and share their after-school snacks with the Brady brunch. Jill and Faith, along with countless others of their generation, watched the Bradys in reruns every day and continued to tune in through high school and college. Why did they like "The Brady Bunch," better than other family shows?

Jill Soloway has a theory. "You couldn't have a fantasy about 'The Partridge Family', after ail, they were related. Keith and Laurie couldn't be in a romance because they were brother and sister, and they acted like brother and sister. But Marcia and Greg flirted all the time, consciously or unconsciously...

(snip)


Lenona.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-18 23:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
More specifically, whenever I watched an episode, I got the impression that neither the kids, or even the parents, had ever even HEARD of any of the issues I listed. That's what made them seem so unreal. It was too easy for the parents to act as though children were the ONLY imperfect - or even unlikeable - people in the world - and too easy for kids to believe that and be humble learners at the knee of their All-Knowing parents.


Lenona.
m***@gmail.com
2020-05-19 02:35:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
More specifically, whenever I watched an episode, I got the impression that neither the kids, or even the parents, had ever even HEARD of any of the issues I listed. That's what made them seem so unreal. It was too easy for the parents to act as though children were the ONLY imperfect - or even unlikeable - people in the world - and too easy for kids to believe that and be humble learners at the knee of their All-Knowing parents.
Lenona.
It was the 1950s !!!...no sitcom tackled those subjects in any real depth until "All In The Family" in 1971.
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-19 03:47:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
More specifically, whenever I watched an episode, I got the impression that neither the kids, or even the parents, had ever even HEARD of any of the issues I listed. That's what made them seem so unreal. It was too easy for the parents to act as though children were the ONLY imperfect - or even unlikeable - people in the world - and too easy for kids to believe that and be humble learners at the knee of their All-Knowing parents.
Lenona.
It was the 1950s !!!...no sitcom tackled those subjects in any real depth until "All In The Family" in 1971.


Please read that again. Maybe I should have spelled it out a little more, but the point was, with the right acting and good dialogue, TV characters can seem realistic and three-dimensional, even WITHOUT bringing up any controversial subject directly. Look at all the movies made in the three decades of the Hays Code that manage to win the high praises of the critics. There were all sorts of subjects that couldn't be dealt with directly, so directors had to look for all kinds of loopholes to make their characters truly interesting, flesh-and-blood people, while at the same time never doing anything that would make any one of their movies the equivalent of a modern PG movie. When I watched LITB, all I could think was, there was no way I would ever have paid to watch this.

To put it another way, while "I Love Lucy" was sheer slapstick by comparison, I somehow had no trouble believing that such crazy adult characters could exist in real life - and probably did. Same for "The Honeymooners," which I didn't see until the 1990s or so - I was already well into my 20s. Neither show dealt with very serious issues, as a rule - other than money. But THOSE people were undeniably three-dimensional, and I would have happily paid to watch them if I had to. Among other things, they didn't pretend that loving couples never argue loudly.

As a well-known Yale artist once said: "If it isn't good enough for adults, it isn't good enough for children."


Lenona.
RH Draney
2020-05-19 11:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
More specifically, whenever I watched an episode, I got the impression that neither the kids, or even the parents, had ever even HEARD of any of the issues I listed. That's what made them seem so unreal. It was too easy for the parents to act as though children were the ONLY imperfect - or even unlikeable - people in the world - and too easy for kids to believe that and be humble learners at the knee of their All-Knowing parents.
It was the 1950s !!!...no sitcom tackled those subjects in any real depth until "All In The Family" in 1971.
If you get the chance, check out a 1964 episode of The Dick Van Dyke
Show called "The Lady and the Tiger and the Lawyer"...in it, guest star
Anthony Eisley plays a new unattached neighbor of the Petries who decide
to match him up with both Laura's bookish cousin and fun-loving Sally
Rogers to see who he goes for...when he fails to ask either woman for a
second date, they finally invite him back over to ask what gives....

Turns out his previous marriage ended because he was violently abusive
to women he loves, and he's decided to forego any serious relationships
until he gets his temper under control....

One of the creepiest sitcom moments in those unrealistic days of early
TV....r
John M.
2020-05-20 01:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
More specifically, whenever I watched an episode, I got the impression that neither the kids, or even the parents, had ever even HEARD of any of the issues I listed. That's what made them seem so unreal. It was too easy for the parents to act as though children were the ONLY imperfect - or even unlikeable - people in the world - and too easy for kids to believe that and be humble learners at the knee of their All-Knowing parents.
It was the 1950s !!!...no sitcom tackled those subjects in any real depth until "All In The Family" in 1971.
If you get the chance, check out a 1964 episode of The Dick Van Dyke
Show called "The Lady and the Tiger and the Lawyer"...in it, guest star
Anthony Eisley plays a new unattached neighbor of the Petries who decide
to match him up with both Laura's bookish cousin and fun-loving Sally
Rogers to see who he goes for...when he fails to ask either woman for a
second date, they finally invite him back over to ask what gives....
Turns out his previous marriage ended because he was violently abusive
to women he loves, and he's decided to forego any serious relationships
until he gets his temper under control....
One of the creepiest sitcom moments in those unrealistic days of early
TV....r
Then there's this on on LITB:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630181/reference
John M.
2020-05-20 01:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John M.
Post by RH Draney
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by l***@yahoo.com
More specifically, whenever I watched an episode, I got the impression that neither the kids, or even the parents, had ever even HEARD of any of the issues I listed. That's what made them seem so unreal. It was too easy for the parents to act as though children were the ONLY imperfect - or even unlikeable - people in the world - and too easy for kids to believe that and be humble learners at the knee of their All-Knowing parents.
It was the 1950s !!!...no sitcom tackled those subjects in any real depth until "All In The Family" in 1971.
If you get the chance, check out a 1964 episode of The Dick Van Dyke
Show called "The Lady and the Tiger and the Lawyer"...in it, guest star
Anthony Eisley plays a new unattached neighbor of the Petries who decide
to match him up with both Laura's bookish cousin and fun-loving Sally
Rogers to see who he goes for...when he fails to ask either woman for a
second date, they finally invite him back over to ask what gives....
Turns out his previous marriage ended because he was violently abusive
to women he loves, and he's decided to forego any serious relationships
until he gets his temper under control....
One of the creepiest sitcom moments in those unrealistic days of early
TV....r
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630181/reference
And this one which covers all kinds of serious issues:


David Carson
2020-05-18 21:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I never saw the show until sometime in the last two years, when a local station started running it.
And I wasn't impressed. I can only hope that most intelligent adults who were born after its demise would be able to figure out that it wasn't realistic for its time, in multiple ways.
It just plain lacked depth, as did the characters. Why watch it, especially post-1988, when you could watch "The Wonder Years" instead? (One critic described that show as " 'Leave it to Beaver' with bite.")
One doesn't usually hear "realism" expressed as a desirable component
of comedy.
MJ Emigh
2020-05-18 23:22:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
it wasn't realistic for its time, in multiple ways.
I'm not sure how essential realism is in TV comedy, but that show seemed very realistic when compared to my neighborhood. Quite a few of the situations were SO real that it felt like we were being watched by the writers.

Of course, there was a lot of exaggeration, but I suspect that was for comic effect. Without exception, the family dynamic paralleled the quarter mile or so that our neighborhood took in. The postwar stay-at-home mom, included. But no, I don't think I knew any who wore pearls and heels to run the vacuum.
b***@shaw.ca
2020-05-19 06:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I never saw the show until sometime in the last two years, when a local station started running it.
And I wasn't impressed. I can only hope that most intelligent adults who were born after its demise would be able to figure out that it wasn't realistic for its time, in multiple ways.
It just plain lacked depth, as did the characters. Why watch it, especially post-1988, when you could watch "The Wonder Years" instead? (One critic described that show as " 'Leave it to Beaver' with bite.")
I think Peter McWilliams wrote about its unrealism in one chapter of his 1990s book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."
Of course you weren't impressed. "Leave it to Beaver" is a 1950s sit-com,
and it was aiming at a 1958 audience, give or take. It has a bit of nostalgic
value for those who saw it "live" or in the early rounds of syndication, but
it is in no way an example of good television. "Popular in its day" is about
as good as it gets.

bill
Scott Brady
2020-05-19 13:48:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Of course you weren't impressed. "Leave it to Beaver" is a 1950s sit-com,
and it was aiming at a 1958 audience, give or take. It has a bit of nostalgic
value for those who saw it "live" or in the early rounds of syndication, but
it is in no way an example of good television. "Popular in its day" is about
as good as it gets.
Name a funnier current sitcom.
b***@shaw.ca
2020-05-19 18:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Brady
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Of course you weren't impressed. "Leave it to Beaver" is a 1950s sit-com,
and it was aiming at a 1958 audience, give or take. It has a bit of nostalgic
value for those who saw it "live" or in the early rounds of syndication, but
it is in no way an example of good television. "Popular in its day" is about
as good as it gets.
Name a funnier current sitcom.
I don't watch any current sitcoms.

bill
v***@yahoo.com
2020-05-20 01:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It was a situation comedy. it’s purpose was to entertain the audience, which it did for fIve seasons and then 56 yrs and counting in syndication. It was not intended to be “realistic”
m***@gmail.com
2020-05-18 20:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by That Derek
Developing>...
Developing ...
https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/ken-osmond-dead-leave-it-to-beaver-eddie-haskell-dies-actor-1234609639/
Sad day. "Leave It To Beaver" was one of my favorite shows. I so identified with it. In my neigborhood, I was "Beaver" and my best friend, who lived next door, was "Eddie Haskell".

When I was an adult and saw the shows on TV Land, I was able to see them through the eyes of Ward and June.

Some may think the shows were corny, but they still stand up
d***@gmail.com
2020-05-19 00:04:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Marc:
“Sad day. "Leave It To Beaver" was one of my favorite shows. I so identified with it. In my neigborhood, I was "Beaver" and my best friend, who lived next door, was "Eddie Haskell".

When I was an adult and saw the shows on TV Land, I was able to see them through the eyes of Ward and June.

Some may think the shows were corny, but they still stand up ”

I love this show. Sad Eddie is gone.

June was the perfect mom.
d***@gmail.com
2020-05-19 09:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Okay. I’ll pick it up.

Me: “I love this show. Sad Eddie is gone. June was the perfect mom.”

Sheesh. June spoke Jive and always implored Ward “Don’t be too hard on the boys.”

I wish my mom had intervened. 😳
That Derek
2020-05-19 02:13:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
There was a brutal honesty about "Leave It to Beaver" whenever the dialogue went something like "Can I go to my room now, Dad, or do you want to yell at me some more?"

Actually, I like the latter seasons of Beaver more so than the early cutesy ones. By the final season, Beaver/Theodore/Mathers was at an awkward age replete with a puberty-leaning cracking voice. He also became more obnoxious with a vengeful streak in the event Eddie or Lumpy played a dirty trick on him.

There was, indeed, an episode that tackled alcoholism. Ward hired a neighbourhood odd-jobs man to do some painting. However, Ward and June kept dancing around the gentleman's "problem" without mentioning it to Beaver. Said itinerant conned Beaver into providing him some brandy - hey, Beaver only knew it as something his mom poured over sponge cake. For some unknown reason, the episode begins and ends with Beaver singing "Oh, My Darling Clementine."

This episode tackled the subject somewhat maudlinly; however, I seriously doubt it was billboarded by ABC with the 1980s cliched come-on "Tonight on a very special episode of 'Leave It to Beaver' ... "

On a totally unrelated note: during the early 1980s I was obsessed with J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the RYe." Its central character Holden Caulfield is described as being tall, thin, lanky, and having a full head of red hair. This made me speculate that if "Catcher" had ever been turned into a movie circa 1963, then Ken Osmond, then at roughly the same age as Caulfield, would have been a perfect choice to portray Holden. Can you imagine Eddie Haskell-as-Holden delivering lines like "I wouldn't have you in my family," calling his old girlfriend "a royal pain in the ass," and describing the Natural History Museum's "long goddamned Indian canoe"?

A Gomalco Pruction
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-19 03:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Oh, and Derek - thanks for that information - those episodes just MIGHT be worth watching!
Scott Brady
2020-05-19 13:42:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by That Derek
There was, indeed, an episode that tackled alcoholism.
Also divorce:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630212/
m***@gmail.com
2020-05-19 15:29:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Brady
Post by That Derek
There was, indeed, an episode that tackled alcoholism.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630212/
I remember an episode in which Larry Mondello (beaver's friend) sleeps overnight at the Cleavers and wakes up in the middle of the night with a tummy ache. Ward takes over trying to calm him down. When Ward comes back to bed, June asks how Larry is. Ward says he is doing fine and June asks how Larry got rid of his stomach ache. Ward replies (I'm paraphrasing) "Oh he took care of his stomach ache the way it's usually done."

A 1958 sitcom mentioning a bowel movement !!!

Talk about three dimensional characters. LOL
d***@gmail.com
2020-05-19 18:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Marc:

Antenna TV had a LITB Marathon.

No kidding, I stayed up 36 hrs straight so I wouldnt miss any. There are fun episodes that mirror our 50s life such as The Hair Cut, Soup Bowl billboard, Baby pictures and the slip.

Then, serious episodes where Beaver was moving or needing surgery, both never came through. Frankly, how does a child deal w such embarrassment?!
l***@yahoo.com
2020-05-20 04:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Brady
Post by That Derek
There was, indeed, an episode that tackled alcoholism.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0630212/
I'd be very interested see both, I admit.

I was fascinated by the IMDb comments, re the divorce episode.

Btw, re addiction, many people don't remember that the Rolling Stones' song "Mother's Little Helper" didn't spring out of nowhere - or that, despite its 1966 release, it would have been just as relevant 10 years earlier. As Stephanie Coontz wrote in "The Way We Never Were," page 9:

"Like most visions of a 'golden age,' the 'traditional family' my students describe evaporates on closer examination. It is an ahistorical amalgam of structures, values, and behaviors that never coexisted in the same time and place. The notion that traditional families fostered intense intimacy between husbands and wives while creating mothers who were totally available to their children, for example, is an idea that combines some characteristics of the white, middle-class family in the mid-nineteenth century and some of a rival family ideal first articulated in the 1920s. The first family revolved emotionally around the mother-child axis, leaving the husband-wife relationship stilted and formal. The second focused on an eroticized couple relationship, demanding that mothers curb emotional 'overinvestment' in their children. The hybrid idea that a woman can be fully absorbed with her youngsters while simultaneously maintaining passionate sexual excitement with her husband was a 1950s invention that drove thousands of women to therapists, tranquilizers, or alcohol when they actually tried to live up to it."

And regarding the 1920s and "curbing," here's an infamous 1928 piece of advice from "Psychological Care of Infant and Child" by John B. Watson, the "father of behaviorism"):

"Treat them as though they were young adults. Dress them; bathe them with care and circumspection. Let your behavior always be objective and kindly firm. Never hug and kiss them, never let them sit on your lap. If you must, kiss them once on the forehead when they say goodnight. Shake hands with them in the morning. Give them a pat on the head if they have made an extraordinary good job of a difficult task."


Lenona.
That Derek
2020-05-20 01:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Leave It to Beaver's creators, producers, and primary writers were Joseph Connelly and Bob Mosher. They both got their start writing for the radio version of "Amos 'n' Andy" for their mentors Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll.

Joe and Bob cast Correll's son Richard to portray Beaver's recalcitrant friend Richard. Legend has it that it was Richard who inspired Connelly and Mosher to create "The Munsters."

It seemed young Richard was on set assembling a Frankenstein model kit, one of commercially available products licensed from the Universal. Upon further investigation, Richard explained that TV re-airings of these old monster movies were popular among kids. Since Beaver was produced by Universal's production arm MCA-TV, it was probably quite easy to co-opt the Universal monsters into an unlikely sitcom.

For anyone who considers LItB to be vapid and banal, consider that it, at least, yielded the more creative Munsters.

During the early 1960s prime-time network animation craze inspired by the success of the Flintstones, Connelly and Mosher possessed the track record and gravitas to adapt "Amos 'n' Andy" as the cartoon "Calvin and the Colonel," in which Gosden and the elder Correll repurposed their A'n'A characters Kingfish and Andy as Calvin, a large dimwitted bear, and the Colonel, a crafty and quick-thinking fox, respectively.

Calvin/Colonel only lasted one season and the episodes have never been commercially released. Other than bootlegs, the only chance to see C&C is in the Munsters episode involving a Herman doppelganger named Johan, who, at one point, is watching it on TV for about five seconds.

Here's a YouTube link to the Gosden-Correll-Connelly-Mosher little-known "Calvin and the Colonel":



http://youtu.be/B4Y-MlOkiDo
That Derek
2020-05-20 16:05:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You think constant condescending behavior towards under-educated women is charming?
I never thought so. Gracie Allen's voice drove me up the wall! And that goes double for Jane Ace, who played a similar feather-brained character with an annoying voice, from her husband's "Mr. and Mrs. Ace" radio show.

The one funny shtick George and Gracie gave us was when George is complimenting Gracie on a nice vase of flowers. When he inquired of her where she acquired them, Gracie replied [paraphrasing] "I took your advice when I told you I was going to visit my girlfriend in the hospital; you said to 'take her flowers' ... and that's what I did."

Quite funny in its simplicity. However, it is also too silly and "throwaway" to get all worked up about without going into how stupid the writers were making her look.

I don't remember ever seeing Gracie Allen not being "on." Maybe there's an Edward R. Murrow "Person to Person" where she broke character.
Loading...