One might suspect that there would be a problem with this film from the fact that it was completed on Nov. 15, 1949, screened with a preview audience on Dec. 31, but then wasn't released until March 2, 1950 in Los Angeles. "Dear Wife" had a couple of lukewarm favorable reviews, but more than 150 films finished ahead of it at the box office that year. And at a mere $1.7 million in tickets sales, it must have been a box office flop and lost Paramount money.
The film is an intended sequel to the very successful, "Dear Ruth," of 1947. But it falls far short on comedy. The plot had potential for some very good comedy - a man and his son-in-law running for the same office. But, unfortunately, the writing team tried to write the comedy mostly around Miriam Wilkins, the young daughter and sister-in-law. Comedy films for about a decade - from the early 1950s, frequently had teenagers who were social rebels on the non-violent and calmer, but still belligerent side. Most often these were girls who were setting out to make the world a better place. There aren't any particularly memorable films of that ilk, but in their day most of them were moderately successful. So, my hunch is that the writers were trying to milk that aspect of this film for all its worth.
The problem with it was that the two male leads, played by William Holden and Edward Arnold, were mostly left with light drama and an otherwise legitimate and serious voting issue that generated nary a chuckle. And, Miriam, on the other hand, comes off as a constantly interfering, naïve, well-meaning, and soon irritating character. So, I don't think that would have appealed to many of the young audience of the day, while many of the mature and older audience may have seen in her the signs that were just starting to become apparent - about a spoiled generation. Even though she was a little older and had been born before the war, there were many in that baby-boomer generation, who were born and grew up in the generation after WW II that were spoiled - somewhat intentionally but unwisely by the servicemen and spouses who had struggled through the Great Depression, fought and worked hard and sacrificed for the war. Many of them didn't want their children to have it so rough, and that translated to pretty much giving them free reign.
Even Billy De Wolfe's Albert Kummer didn't have any dialog or scenes with any humor. I suspect that with the mature and older audiences of the day, this film was somewhat disturbing. People living today may not notice it or think anything of it, until seeing this film. For all of her interfering and measures that create the problems in this movie - even to the breaking up of the marriage of her sister and brother-in-law, Miriam never once is held accountable. Nothing more than a couple of verbal statements to keep out of it, or don't get involved. Yet, all of the problems that occur, none of which are funny, are because of her. She was disrespectful most of the time. I think audiences then saw her as a brat who needed to be bridled.
This is an example of a film in which the writing, especially of humor, is so critical. Because, had there been a great deal of comedy with all the others, one could laugh at Miriam's maneuvers. But, because they led to nothing funny, her role can't be seen as comedy, but as nuisance and misbehaving - and quickly irritable..
Still, I rate this film six stars - for two reasons. First is that it makes a good study of the type of writing and plot development that doesn't work for comedy. And the other is for Edward Arnold and his performance alone. Somehow that accomplished and excellent actor of many fine movies in some leading roles but mostly large supporting roles, raised himself above the droning of this story. He had the right sense of humor at the right time, the right light-heartedness when needed, and the right portrayal otherwise throughout the film. While William Holden and Joann Caulfield were the top-billed couple, they didn't show any sparkle or oomph in their roles. And, their didn't seem to be any chemistry with them. Edward Arnold's Judge Harry Wilkins really carried this film.
I don't think many people in the 21st century would be entertained by this film.
The film is an intended sequel to the very successful, "Dear Ruth," of 1947. But it falls far short on comedy. The plot had potential for some very good comedy - a man and his son-in-law running for the same office. But, unfortunately, the writing team tried to write the comedy mostly around Miriam Wilkins, the young daughter and sister-in-law. Comedy films for about a decade - from the early 1950s, frequently had teenagers who were social rebels on the non-violent and calmer, but still belligerent side. Most often these were girls who were setting out to make the world a better place. There aren't any particularly memorable films of that ilk, but in their day most of them were moderately successful. So, my hunch is that the writers were trying to milk that aspect of this film for all its worth.
The problem with it was that the two male leads, played by William Holden and Edward Arnold, were mostly left with light drama and an otherwise legitimate and serious voting issue that generated nary a chuckle. And, Miriam, on the other hand, comes off as a constantly interfering, naïve, well-meaning, and soon irritating character. So, I don't think that would have appealed to many of the young audience of the day, while many of the mature and older audience may have seen in her the signs that were just starting to become apparent - about a spoiled generation. Even though she was a little older and had been born before the war, there were many in that baby-boomer generation, who were born and grew up in the generation after WW II that were spoiled - somewhat intentionally but unwisely by the servicemen and spouses who had struggled through the Great Depression, fought and worked hard and sacrificed for the war. Many of them didn't want their children to have it so rough, and that translated to pretty much giving them free reign.
Even Billy De Wolfe's Albert Kummer didn't have any dialog or scenes with any humor. I suspect that with the mature and older audiences of the day, this film was somewhat disturbing. People living today may not notice it or think anything of it, until seeing this film. For all of her interfering and measures that create the problems in this movie - even to the breaking up of the marriage of her sister and brother-in-law, Miriam never once is held accountable. Nothing more than a couple of verbal statements to keep out of it, or don't get involved. Yet, all of the problems that occur, none of which are funny, are because of her. She was disrespectful most of the time. I think audiences then saw her as a brat who needed to be bridled.
This is an example of a film in which the writing, especially of humor, is so critical. Because, had there been a great deal of comedy with all the others, one could laugh at Miriam's maneuvers. But, because they led to nothing funny, her role can't be seen as comedy, but as nuisance and misbehaving - and quickly irritable..
Still, I rate this film six stars - for two reasons. First is that it makes a good study of the type of writing and plot development that doesn't work for comedy. And the other is for Edward Arnold and his performance alone. Somehow that accomplished and excellent actor of many fine movies in some leading roles but mostly large supporting roles, raised himself above the droning of this story. He had the right sense of humor at the right time, the right light-heartedness when needed, and the right portrayal otherwise throughout the film. While William Holden and Joann Caulfield were the top-billed couple, they didn't show any sparkle or oomph in their roles. And, their didn't seem to be any chemistry with them. Edward Arnold's Judge Harry Wilkins really carried this film.
I don't think many people in the 21st century would be entertained by this film.