Selfish Family - Meet Me in St. Louis Discussion

[–] HoferPM-1 17 years ago

Her older sisters are pampering her to death. No wonder she is a brat !!!

reply

[–] b_pastel 17 years ago

she's rather macabre. in these days, she'd be in therapy for hacking off the snowmen's heads.

reply

[–] roghache 17 years ago

All the original poster's points are excellent but I think the whole point was that this entire family was very happy in St. Louis. It was their hometown, their home, and none of them (apart from the father for the promotion) wanted to move to New York, including the mother. Tootie killing her snow people merely crystallized all this in the father's head. This family seemed quite affluent -- beautiful home, housemaid etc. It's not as though they would have been suffering too much financially if the father didn't accept this NYC promotion.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarlowMGM 17 years ago

But is this remotely realistic - I mean how many people would not move because their 10-year-old was so unhappy about it. It's not like Tootie couldn't have made new friends in New York - in a short time she would have completely gotten over it.

Remembering JANE WYMAN (1917-2007), BETTY HUTTON (1921-2007), YVONNE DE CARLO (1922-2007)

reply

[–] OlLineRebel 17 years ago

It is very realistic! They had a choice, essentially. As someone said, it's not as if they "needed the money" so much.

So, if you had a big family, you would just ignore all their misgivings about leaving what they loved? We're talking 2 parents, a grandparent, and 5 offspring! And this is a huge move in 1903!

BTW, don't count on Rose or Esther "leaving". This was when families stayed together - there was no carping about "mooching off daddy" back then (ironically, the teens/young adults acted much more adult then than now when we say anyone who stays with parents is a moocher and slacker). For women it was preferred they live with their family until they were ready to make their own. Lon might leave because he's a man, but doubtful the women would. As it is, it seems they were all centered on the family home, regardless, as even Lon was living at home when not at college.

reply

[–] HarlowMGM 14 years ago

It is very realistic! They had a choice, essentially. As someone said, it's not as if they "needed the money" so much.

So, if you had a big family, you would just ignore all their misgivings about leaving what they loved? We're talking 2 parents, a grandparent, and 5 offspring! And this is a huge move in 1903!

Well, call me old-fashioned but I say the parents get to call the shots about where the family lives and what job positions the father (or mother) takes. I cannot imagine very many parents even in 2010 declining a major promotion in their careers just because their kids don't want to leave the neighborhood or be uprooted, so yes you do ignore the misgivings of minor children on matters concerning the family's finances and upper mobility .

BTW, don't count on Rose or Esther "leaving". This was when families stayed together - there was no carping about "mooching off daddy" back then (ironically, the teens/young adults acted much more adult then than now when we say anyone who stays with parents is a moocher and slacker). For women it was preferred they live with their family until they were ready to make their own. Lon might leave because he's a man, but doubtful the women would. As it is, it seems they were all centered on the family home, regardless, as even Lon was living at home when not at college.

Indeed, Rose and Esther would never move out on their own at the turn of the 20th century but they both are clearly ready and eager to get married, as was extremely common for young women in their age range. Most young women at the time did marry in their late teens and very early 20's. Women in that era did not have that long window between high school graduation and marriage as most do today; a woman in her middle 20's and single was thought pretty much to be a "spinster" (see or read Miss Lulu Bett ) and if she was single and 30 she was definately considered an "old maid" and unlikely to ever be married. This was two decades before women had the vote and had many options - getting married ASAP was the thing to do and clearly both older daughters are "ready" for families of their own at the conclusion of the picture.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarlowMGM 14 years ago

There is a difference between calling the shots and ignoring something that clearly meant a lot to the rest of the family.

What responsible parent lets a child have a voice on whether or not they move or whether or not they take a job? A parent who gives in to a child is doing them no favors for they will grow up into arrogant, entitled jerks believing they can do no wrong and everyone must do things their way. Children need to learn at an early age that the world just doesn't turn for them and sometimes one has disappointments. Is this family so unadjusted they couldn't make new friends in a new town or have happy lives there?

The family was not only surviving on what they had but living well. The promotion was not necessary.

That's your arguement???? In that case, nobody who is comfortable should ever bother with a promotion!! That is so unrealistic I am curious how old you are. It's hard to believe any adult would feel that way.

Mr. Smith put his family's happiness before his own, which is a parent's responsibility.

It is NOT a parent's responsibility to coddle their children; it only leads to spoiled brats (Tootie being rather graphic proof). It's a parent's responsbility to ensure the security and welfare of a family which is what the father was doing. Again, a parent who goes around making sure their child always gets their way and is "happy" is doing a poor job of preparing them for life as an adult.

The real life Smith family did eventually move to New York sometime after the 1904 fair

Which underlines how unrealistic the movie is.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

The welfare of the children also involves not uprooting their entire life at certain periods. The arguments of the older daughters are valid and should be CONSIDERED, not necessarily the deciding factor. Many military families today face the same sort of decision resulting in requesting orders early, requesting extensions, or the separation of the family while a child finishes a certain segment of their education. Junior or Senior year is a terrible time to transfer.

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

The mother doesn't wish to leave; and if the home is her family home as has been mentioned in other threads, that is a major point. Knowing that the daughters are likely to wed and stay in St. Louis is also a reason for her to not wish to leave.

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

Since the two eldest had serious beaus, it is likely they would be marrying them (as the engagements at the end confirm) and unless the young men had prospects elsewhere would be staying in St. Louis. Families preferred to be fairly close at that time. My Dad and Mom were really the first in their families to 'leave' except for my elder Uncle who was in the military and was at the time expected to come back eventually.

reply

[–] Melpy 14 years ago

Tootie was 5 years old.

My family moved when I was 7 years old and it took at least 4 years to get over it. It wasn't until I was 11 or so that I was able to make friends, which I had no problem doing before. I haven't been able to make friends well since and am still best friends with those girls from when I was 11. I made 1 friend in college. When I was 9 I had to be in a special group that the school guidance counselor would pull out of class for children who had trouble making friends, along with some homeless girls and some mentally retarded girls. Moving can be very traumatic.

I don't think this movie is realistic either and I agree she probably would have gotten over it, but maybe not.

reply

[–] TheDuchessofM 14 years ago

I moved across the country when I was 16 and it took me a few years to recover from that! So I found the extreme disappointment and sorrow at the thought of moving to New York incredibly realistic, especially when they worried over where they would live (a nice house like the one in St Louis would have been incredibly expensive even in the New York suburbs).

reply

[–] sueb1863 14 years ago

As has been pointed out, in real life the Smith family moved to New York and never returned for the Fair.

But that's a pretty downer ending for a big budget MGM musical, so of course they changed it to be a happy one. I don't see how they could have pulled off the actual ending to the situation.

Sally Benson, the author of the original autobiographical stories, was in on the production, and she was apparently OK with the change. That's good enough for me!

reply

[–] thelordofhell 17 years ago

If it's any consolation, the original stories this movie was based on had them moving to New York.

"Son-of-a-bitch must pay!!"

reply

[–] eastofeden87 17 years ago

I think more people should make decisions based on what makes them and their families happy, rather than a constant pursuit to make more and more money.

reply

[–] grlcookie5 17 years ago

exactly, the dad was being selfish .. nobody wanted to leave their lives and live in the rather impersonal new york. in the end hes picking their happiness over a few extra bucks

reply

[–] nimue808 17 years ago

In all fairness I agree with the original poster that in real life you would not base your families finacial descisiona on the tantrums of a six year old girl but there is background to the story. The original author worte the book based on her own life and of having to move from St Louis to new York right before the worlds fair. In reality, however the family actually did move and the author never did get to the fair that year. In my opinion she wrote it like that because she would have liked her family to listen to her even if now it does come across as she was just pitching a fit lol

I just want to say: over the years, I have come to regard you as ... people I met.

reply

[–] blue_sock_monkey 12 years ago

I'm resurrecting this thread to clear up a misconception that I've seen on both IMDB and other places around the web.

I don't now where the claim started that the Smith family moved to Manhattan in early 1904, thereby missing the St Louis World's Fair--but it isn't true. The Smith family was indeed still living in St Louis at the time of the 1904 Fair: They moved to New York City sometime after Rose's marriage (to a Yale man, of course) in St Louis in April 1908 and before the taking of the 1910 federal census (by which time they were living in Manhattan). The real Alonzo Smith was a cotton broker, by the way, not a lawyer; in St Louis he worked for the wholesale dry-goods firm Ferguson-McKinney. After the move to New York he had his own firm, located in lower Manhattan. It's perfectly plausible that he considered then rejected a move to NYC in 1904.

The final sequence of the film is more poignant if you know that Grandpa Prophater died in January 1905, just six weeks after the Fair closed. According to his obituary in the New York Times, the funeral took place from the family residence at 5135 Kensington Avenue.

By the time Sally ("Tootie") Benson wrote her stories for the New Yorker 1941-1942, the Smith family had experienced considerable loss and sorrow: All four of Sally's grandparents were dead by then; so were her father (who died in 1923) and her ukulele-strumming brother (who died suddenly from a cerebral hemorrhage in 1929). Rose's marriage had ended in divorce, as had Sally's own. So it's understandable if she looked back on her childhood, especially that summer of the Fair, with considerable nostalgia.

One reason I enjoy the evil morbid Tootie moments in both the stories and the film so much: They provide a sharp bite to counteract any saccharine tendencies.

"If it's not in frame, it doesn't exist."

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

Great point! As long as the funds to properly clothe, feed and care for the family are available, happiness is important.

reply

[–] OwMyFeet 14 years ago

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Smiths didn't need to move.
The Oakies in The Grapes of Wrath needed to move.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vermontfudge 14 years ago

Hi TFE!

I hate it when reality interferes with my fantasy life.

Then by all means don't look at pictures of the real house they lived in St. Louis (since torn down)

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vermontfudge 14 years ago

That's funny about the shampoo, and downtown was probably a trip. Yeah, I'm kind of a fan of plumbing myself. Didn't they show the Grandpa in the bathroom in MMISL, right at the beginning, like running a bath? Think I saw a toilet too. I know Dad insisted on a bath, so they were up to date in that neighborhood! Yeah, wonder if that was one of the things the Hays Code proscribed, then again things were so wacky on their own, I know you weren't supposed to talk about women being pregnant and I think pregnant women weren't supposed to be out too much, so maybe there was a general reluctance to discuss a lot of stuff.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vermontfudge 14 years ago

That is so funny! I'd never heard of tipping outhouses, and with a little old lady in one! That must be a family classic! If there was anything like that in my family they didn't share it with us. Eh, the good old days, when people found ways to entertain themselves.

I was just thinking about the Smith's wearing all those fussy clothes in a sweltering St. Louis summer, those outfits could only look crisp and clean in a movie. And yeah, "morning breath" only exists in commmercials.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PSVillas 14 years ago

I'm not so sure the family is selfish but the father is obviously out of touch about what's going on with them and how they would feel about such a move. An important point to consider before you make such a large change in everyones life. The movie had made the point that the father didn't really know what was going on in the household such as in the scene where Rose receives the long distance call from Warren Sheffield. Also from the reaction from his wife she had no idea about the promotion or the move. Shouldn't he have discussed it with his wife first?! How's that for being selfish.

I also find it amusing how selfish some people seem to find these children as if that isn't a problem today. As a teacher it seems to be a huge problem about how parent indulge their children and do everything they can to cater to them. But I'm sure none of you are doing that. In 1904 I think generally children and their wishes were probably given a lot less weight than they are given now.

reply

[–] angelofvic 14 years ago

Tootie wasn't the only one who didn't want to move. None of the extended family except for the father wanted the move -- and that only because it would bring in a bit more money. Life is about more than money, as the movie shows. Life is about friends and family and loved ones and neighbors, and about being happy -- not making more money when you don't really need it.

Not sure why anyone would call Tootie a spoiled brat and selfish. Although she does get into some weird pranks like any mischievous child, she is the heart and soul of the movie, and without her it would be meaningless, flat, and shallow.

There are also lots of other considerations. For a Southern family (and St. Louis is a cross between Southern and Midwestern), New York City is like prison or worse. I grew up in the South and I used to always wonder how Yankees (especially New Yorkers) ever had any friends, because they sounded so horribly rude and mean from the tales I heard. So no one in their right mind from St. Louis would want to movie there, or from a grand huge house and yard to a tiny miserable shoebox flat. Any out-of-state move is uncomfortable for any family, but in particular a move that is to a completely different and alien region and lifestyle. For this family, moving to New York would have been like moving to Siberia.
.

reply

[–] Chesler 13 years ago

To angelofvic

I always wondered how African Americans survived in the south. I can't imagine not being allowed to vote or go to a good school due to such severe racial prejudice. A lot escaped to the "hellish New York" you just described. If the people are so horrible please explain why water fountains in the Bronx, were never labeled "White Only"...

Btw, salaries in NYC are higher than St. Louis. With an added promotion, that family would never have had to live in a shoebox flat. I can understand not wanting to leave family and friends behind, but it is doubtful that this family would have been living in a slum. Maybe the author should have been honest and included the family's fear of different people. At that time, New York City was filled with immigrants from all over the world. Pretty scary to "white bread" folks...

Finally, angelofvic-- I have a question. Were the people of New York City "rude and mean" on September 11, 2001 (aka 9/11)?

reply

[–] angelofvic 13 years ago

Oh good grief, what a load of spurious and irrelevant questions. By the way I've lived in Manhattan for 12 years.

I think you should watch the movie again. It's quite clear why they don't want to move. For the same reason that my New York Jewish high-school boyfriend hated his father for moving the family to South Carolina for a better-paying job.
.

reply

[–] donofthedial 12 years ago

Now if this had been a 20th Century-Fox film, they would have had a glorious apartment once they moved to NYC a la LAURA, JUNIOR MISS and even A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN.

reply

[–] kaskait 13 years ago

Well, in reality, the NY opportunity was not passed up. But because the film was a fantasy, they changed it to happily ever after in St. Louis.

But Minnelli did not ignore the implications in the "sweet" change. At the end, ever since I first saw it, I wondered about the fallout Mr. Smith had to deal with at work due to backing out of the move. I mean, law firms just don't send ANYONE to their head offices (yes the main office, the tip top of the organization). Despite the tantrums of the family, they never would have been living in a tenement nor would they be socializing with hoodlums. The move to NY would have put them close to the top of society since Smith had firm connections and he would have been paid more money.

Esther and Rose would have met very eligible young men above the class of the men they knew in St. Louis. And I'm sure Lon would have been fast tracked into the firm because of his father.

That is all given up and it is felt in the film.

Sometimes I can't even say the last shot of the film is truly happy. Because the way the film showcases the actual fair looks chintzy. As if to make people say, THIS is what Esther & Co threw a tantrum for? This is what they made their father give up the biggest opportunity of his life for?

reply

[–] Gubbio 13 years ago

That is all given up and it is felt in the film.

Really? I didn't "feel" it. But then, I tend NOT to wonder about the characters' lives after a film ends. Nor, do I analyze what would have happened if they made "this" choice over "that" one. But, that's just me.

Because the way the film showcases the actual fair looks chintzy.

I'll give you the "chintzy" look. I noticed it, too.

But, I took this as A REPRESENTATION of a great fair; a suggestion of one; an abstract. What was MGM supposed to do? Build a gigantic fair for 3 minutes of film?

As if to make people say, THIS is what Esther & Co threw a tantrum for? This is what they made their father give up the biggest opportunity of his life for?

Obviously, that's the way you saw it.

If you think the fair represents the only reason the Smith family wanted to stay in St. Louis, you're trivializing the entire point of the film. The fair was just the centerpiece on which to build the film. Each family member has his/her own reason for wanting to stay in St. Louis.

You're free to dislike it, but frankly, I think you're over analyzing it.

reply

[–] kaskait 13 years ago

"If you think the fair represents the only reason the Smith family wanted to stay in St. Louis, you're trivializing the entire point of the film. The fair was just the centerpiece on which to build the film. Each family member has his/her own reason for wanting to stay in St. Louis."

The only reason they stayed in St. Louis was because the studio wanted them to stay in St. Louis.

The real family, Tootie and all moved lock, stock and barrel to New York. The father didn't give up the biggest promotion of his life and the best decision for his family.

Because the studio required the father to make a silly decision at the 11th hour does hurt the film. It's silly that there is no fallout from it.

As far as the real fair goes, it was all made from plaster of paris and literally rotted under everyone's feet during the event itself. Exciting? Yes. But not really worth the huge tantrum the family gave to force their father's hand and gimping his career.

None of this is over thinking the story. It is pointing out a real logical flaw in the film itself.

reply

[–] Gubbio 13 years ago

The real family, Tootie and all moved lock, stock and barrel to New York. The father didn't give up the biggest promotion of his life and the best decision for his family.

Because the studio required the father to make a silly decision at the 11th hour does hurt the film. It's silly that there is no fallout from it.

I could understand your angst if the movie was supposed to be a factual representation of a real family. It's only based on Sally Benson's memoirs of her own family. And as such, it's nothing more than a fantasy, an MGM confection.

My God, even Hollywood biographies of well known people spin the facts (LIE) to make a better story. What's so different about this little story?

So, the real Smith family moved to NY. I'll bet they didn't run around the house and the town singing at the drop of a baton either. (No, that was Garland and company.) Should the songs have been written out because they weren't factual, could not have been sung -- because many of them were written FOR this movie?

I still disagree that the Fair is why they wanted to stay. It was only a device to hang the movie on. And, I'll bet somewhere, some time, someone made the same decision as the movie Mr. Smith. It's not so unbelievable -- and even more believable in a frothy musical.

What's silly is your insistence that a movie follow YOUR rules of what would logically happen in real life.

It's only a movie. A bit of light entertainment. Lighten up.

reply

[–] kaskait 13 years ago

What is equally silly is YOUR insistence that films don't have to adhere to a logical storyline just because they are worthless musical fluff.

If this wacked out setup worked in the film, there would be no thread discussing it.

I agree the movie was entertaining but it certainly wasn't "light". Not when it included two children attempting involuntary manslaughter to trolley passengers.

reply

[–] Gubbio 13 years ago

So, the moral of this thread is that if you can't suspend disbelief, expect complete logic, and expect everything to fit air tight, you should never watch an MGM Musical -- or any other movie, for that matter.

Happy Holidays!

reply

[–] kaskait 13 years ago

Good story telling with good logic is what makes great films.

Singing in the Rain edges out Meet in St. Louis EVERY TIME and in all aspects. Even Gigi is consistent.

Meet Me in St. Louis does attempt to be gritty but the studio wanted sugar coating. So the picture at times is going in all different directions. That leads to dropped balls like the father inexplicably deciding the biggest promotion of his life is nothing compared to a plaster of paris fair.

And fans are allowed to dissect and critique. Hence this thread.

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 13 years ago

Even if the studio wanted "sugar coating", Minnelli was able to subvert this by showing some real anger and fear, reflecting American society in 1944, the war nearing its end, soldiers returning, many not, the future America, and the American family, in doubt. This is, I think, the emotional core of the film.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

reply

[–] Gubbio 13 years ago

Hi Freddy..... Interesting theory about Minnelli projecting something about the war years.

I've seen a documentary which takes the position that "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" is much less about the fictional Smith family, and much more about what America was feeling during the war -- Something Minnelli was suggesting, slipping into the film: A longing for good times and being with family and friends.

It really became an anthem for soldiers/families in the vein of "I'll Be Home for Christmas."

reply