Mom and Dad (1945) Poster

(1945)

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
The most notorious Exploitation/Sex Hygiene film ever made!
czar-101 November 2000
Mom and Dad is far the most successful exploitation/sex-hygiene film ever made, and not because of it's subject matter or it's production value. The main reason this little $65.000 film made over 22 million dollars in just under 11 years was because of Howard W. "Kroger" Babb, his carny like showmanship and unwavering promotion would always get 'em in the door, or as he would say "you gotta tell 'em to sell 'em". Shot by William "One Shot" Beaudine on a old Monogram lot in Hollywood over the course of a week, This film would go on to make Kroger Babbs tons of money.

The story is a simple one that would be copied by many others afterwards to capitalize on it's popularity. It's a story about a high school student who gets pregnant by a airplane pilot, he dies in a plane crash. Knowing she's in trouble and about to give birth, she confides in her high school teacher, but the teacher rats her out to her parents, and her parents get the teacher fired because she answered sex hygiene question in class?!?!. So, mother and daughter run away to another town to have the kid, the teacher gets re-hired and starts a class on hygiene. Experts are brought with films on childbirth and VD to the school to teach the little kiddies!! But to foil a happy ending the girl who was pregnant gives birth to a stillborn child, and I guess everyone lives happily ever after.

Although this film is nothing special or sensational, it was the marketing of it that made everyone come to it. The shows were segregated by gender, attendants posed as nurses and handed out booklets on sexual hygiene, all this added to the expectation that what audiences would see is something special. When audiences were sometimes letdown, a square up reel was shown (a square up reel is another short film afterwards, typically something really hot). Usually the square up reel was a live childbirth scene, (or something more sensational) that more than likely gave the audiences some satisfaction in seeing this film.
29 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Gobsmacking slice of 40's exploitation
Red-Barracuda6 June 2022
Its incredible but this $67,000 film made between $40-100 million at the box office! Thats Star Wars money in the 40's. In fact, it was difficult not to know about it back then. Its an old school exploitation film of the, believe it or not, 'sex hygiene' sub-genre. It faced many legal challenges and was even condemned by the National Legion of Decency. It used the tried and tested method of circumventing censorship laws by positioning itself as an educational film. It was never allowed to play in the big cinemas, it instead played mainly as a travelling show at various towns, with separate screenings for women and men.

Its storyline is melodramatic nonsense about a girl who falls pregnant to an older boy. She can't tell her mother, as mum's morals are stuck so firmly in the Victorian era that she gathers a posse and gets a teacher at the school fired for teaching sex education! Needless to say, things get worse before they get better.

But so what you might think? Where's the money shot in all this carry on? Well, towards the end an obstetrician is wheeled out and he shows some films to a class of teenage girls and this is where things get psychotronic. There is graphic footage of live births - one natural and one Caesarian. The latter is endurance testing stuff I can tell you....ugh! Then there are various images of body parts mutilated with syphilis and venereal disease! Horrible scars, rotting teeth, infected genitals and oozing open sores are the order or the day! There is no build up or warning for any of this stuff! Its all there to educate of course.

A proper curiosity piece this one. Well worth watching if you are at all interested in the stranger corners of the cinematic world.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Both well meaning and well done....and terrible at the same time!
planktonrules3 February 2021
"Mom and Dad" is a so-called 'Roadshow Movie" and was rarely shown in actual movie theaters. Instead, the folks would travel the country with the film, showing it in various auditoriums. Why? Because the film is a sex education drama...and most theaters refused to show such 'filth'! Of course, many folks really WANTED to see the films...either to educate themselves or, more often, because they heard it was a 'dirty' film and wanted to see more! Many Roadshow movies weren't the least bit educational and were there simply to titillate. Others, like "Mom and Dad", were more well-meaning and educational.

Because this film was made in the 1940s and folks were extremely phobic about talking about sex AND because a 'sex film' MIGHT get you prosecuted by local authorities, the film, though well meaning, also hedges its bets. Many common words about sexuality simply aren't in the movie and euphemisms are often used. The only portion that is really educational is late in the movie when there is a very dry movie within the movie and it shows footage about childbirth and various STDs.

As for the rest of the story, it's about a nice girl whose mother is about as phobic and hung up about sexuality as possible. And, when the girl becomes pregnant, she cannot go to her parents to tell them what's happened because of this. Thanks to a nice ex-teacher who was fired for actually talking about 'social hygiene' (the euphemism the film uses for sex), the parents attend to the girl and everything works out fine...though, just to drive home how bad sex is, the girl and baby almost die!!

Overall, a film that is NOT bold nor shocking (words the film uses at the end) because of the time in which it was made. But for an exploitation film, it's pretty tame and actually has some decent production values for a cheap sex ed film of the mid-1940s. Not very good....nor all that bad. An interesting curio.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Better Than Most Films Like It
Michael_Elliott14 May 2016
Mom and Dad (1945)

** (out of 4)

Joan Blake (June Carlson) is a sweet and innocent teenager who sadly has a mom (Lois Austin) who refuses to talk to her about grown up things. This includes sex and before long Joan is dating a man who talks her into having it. Soon after Joan learns that she is pregnant.

MOM AND DAD is the notorious film that broke all sorts of grounds when it was originally released. Director William Beaudine was known for countless "B" and "C" movies and he actually does a very good job in his role here. Exploitation movies were all around throughout the 30s and 40s but this one here tried to go a bit further. For starters, this one was aimed at the mainstream and it managed to make a lot of money even with its controversial subject. The biggest "shock" for people at the time comes towards the end of the film when we get what would basically become the educational short showing an actual child birth.

But outside the controversy, how is the film? I actually thought it was much better made than countless other films that came before it. Stuff like REEFER MADNESS, SEX MADNESS and CHILD BRIDE were trashy films and they were also very poorly made. This film here tries to be educational in the same way but this here is much better made and at least tries to tell a serious story. It film certainly isn't a masterpiece but you can at least say it was better made than most films like it.

The performances are pretty much what you'd expect, although none of them are too awful. The film does have some campy moments including the mother played by Lois Austin. Her mindset is so silly and campy that you can't help but laugh at her and her thoughts on what should or shouldn't be taught to children. At 97 minutes the film runs on a bit long but for the most part it's mildly entertaining.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Important
BandSAboutMovies17 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Howard W. "Kroger" Babb called himself America's Fearless Young Showman and lived by the belief, "You gotta tell 'em to sell 'em." The name Kroger either came from working at the grocery store as a kid or the fact that his dad loved B. H. Kroger coffee. He worked numerous other jobs all through his teens, even showing up in Ripley's Believe It Or Not for refereeing a record number of games. After working as a reporter, he did publicity for the Chakeres-Warners movie theaters and found out he had a gift for working people into the movies.

In the early 1940s, Babb joined Cox and Underwood. This distributor bought movies too controversial to advertise and took them on the road, four-walling theaters. Babb went on the road to sell Dust to Dust, which was High School Girl with a childbirth scene added. He made Cox and Underwood so much money that they retired. He decided to make his own company, Hygienic Productions.

After Babb somehow was invited to a meeting that discussed how many young girls were getting pregnant by soldiers from Sheppard Air Force Base, he worked with his future wife Mildred Horn to write a screenplay. He got twenty investors and Willian "One Shot" Beaudine to direct the movie.

Costing $62,000 to film and make 300 prints, it went on the road, often with Babb presenting the movie. He had a devotion to profit: expenses were estimated at 5% for selling and distribution overhead was 7%, resulting in some of the highest returns in movies. He believed that it made $63,000 for every $1,000 the twenty investors put in, while the Los Angeles Times estimated in 1977 that it made $40 million to $100 million in profit.

He also had renowned educator Elliot Forbes show up, along with a shapely nurse, to talk during the movie and sell books about hygiene. There wasn't really an Elliot Forbes but there were at least a hundred of the man with that name constantly going around the country for decades showing the film. Depending on the morality of each city, Mom and Dad could be shown as a cautionary film, a controversial one, an educational opportunity or the chance for men to see a woman's private parts. The fact that a baby was coming out of them was just the price perverts paid to see a vagina bare on the big screen.

The book that was sold, Man and Boy and Woman and Girl, cost 8 cents to make. He sold it for a dollar, making around $40 million. The IRS came after him throughout his life and he was always sure to never give the same figures. He also claimed he lost a hundred pounds on the Astounding Swedish Ice Cream Diet, so Babb was the best of what I love about old movies: a carny flim-flam snake oil salesman who was always looking to make money and was always selling.

Sure, he got sued 428 over the movie, but wasn't it all worth it?

Mom and Dad is about Joan Blake (June Carlson), a good young girl who sleeps with pilot Jack Griffin (Bob Lowell) after he sweet talks her into the backseat of his car. She's soon pregnant and her parents, Sarah (Lois Austin) and Dan (George Eldredge) can barely pay attention to her. Her brother (Jimmy Clark) finally gets her to talk to Carl Blackburn (Hardie Albright), a teacher kicked out for teaching sex education, and explaining what is happening to her.

Depending on the print that was in your theater, you also saw a variety of sex hygiene movies, including one that showed childbirth, whether normal or caesarean, as well as one that graphically shows what syphilis does to the human body. Also, your ending would either have Joan have the baby, lose it when it was stillborn or have it adopted. If you saw the film in a black theater, Olympic athlete Jesse Owens would be there.

Exploitation films would not be what they were without Kroger Babb.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surprisingly progressive!
dangeroussway7 January 2024
Billed as an educational product by Hygienic Productions- this film is surprisingly progressive! Viewing pearl-clutching mothers very critically and being firmly anti-abstinance-only education and pro-knowledge, this seems like the antithesis to Reefer Madness with actual awareness of reality and a willingness to say the parents are to blame for their children's ignorance.

The narrative half of this movie has some genuinely good character dynamics; a believable brother-sister relationship, one character that is the picture of sleazy fuckboys and a teacher that only wants the best for his students. It also deals with attempted suicide and frank discussions of sex.

The educational half has some shocking moments, most famously depicting actual footage of live human births, including a C-Section that is just as graphic now as it was then. Also images of venereal diseases with uncensored footage of infected penises and vaginas- it's so impactful to see it in a mainstream movie in the mid-40's!

There is some strange musical tones this movie has, like the music is so classic-Hollywood, it clashes with the realism the film is trying to convey, it seems to attempt to drown out the sorrow the main actress has when she realizes she's pregnant and other realistic dramatic and brutal moments.

Still a genuinely provocative movie for its time and now!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
EXCELLENT PROMOTION of a Simple Low Budget Movie.
vitaleralphlouis16 July 2005
Using carnival-like methods of promotion, combined with word-of-mouth advertising, this movie exploited sex hygiene et cetera with incredible success. When I was 16 (a long time ago) this movie was in re-issue and a group of us drive 50 miles each way to the drive-in theater playing it exclusively. On a work night, suburban Washington DC's biggest drive-in was sold out. It was a "roadshow" one-theater attraction and they came with a carnival-like crew because at some point the film was stopped and they hawked sexual hygiene books to the audience. There was a rumor I'd heard many times over many years that the film contained an actual scene of sexual intercourse (untrue, but worth talking up.) The movie itself was pretty good, and the entire experience, including the carnival-hustle, made an unforgettable experience.
29 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One Of The First Cult Films.
rmax3048237 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this as a kid in a movie theater on Springfield Avenue in Irvington, New Jersey, too young at the time to realize that genitalia had more than decorative value.

I can't recall a line or a single scene from the movie except I recall the overall impression it left was one of boredom.

The film was boring, not the audience. The audience, mostly young men, were riotous, laughing and shouting, making rude comments about the goings on. I was surprised to see several helium-filled condoms float to the ceiling. I thought they were balloons.

If you have a chance, by all means see this. It will cure you of your perversions, help you stop smoking, and take away the pain from that upper-right-quadrant that's been bothering you.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A well-deserved National Film Registry!!!
EdgarST27 April 2024
William Beaudine's masterpiece had to wait in line until today, after being purchased many months ago. It is a great time capsule, a lot of fun, with unintentional humor and real concern for the characters' dilemmas. A high school girl gets pregnant by her pilot friend, but the boy unexpectedly dies, she doesn't know what to do, her mother doesn't help and a teacher shows her educational material to prevent her from any sexually transmitted disease... The plot is a simple excuse to include educational material with sexual content, for exploitative purposes. If we think that we have gotten rid of this kind of behavior, this morale and these social attitudes, don't be mistaken. They are still going strong, hidden behind PC. Masks. The bonus shorts and the sexploitation trailers included in the DVD edition are also good.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed