Filthiest House on the Block
-
spike71 — 17 years ago(September 16, 2008 06:35 PM)
I'm going to have to go back and watch these episodes you are speaking of. I'm working my way through the 1st and 2nd seasons and I just finished the episode where Doug's father brings home a girlfriend at Christmas. I've never noticed this dirt. I've seen some wear but not this dirt. Back then, that's how it was. The middle class family (and I'd tag the Lawrence's at middle class, possibly upper middle-class) had a home that was lived in, decent yet considered nice. They weren't in debt in order to have a flashy house that would impress others yet couldn't afford. I always took the kitchen to be an old kitchen on the country-style side, so I expected some wear and tear. But again, I never saw this dirt you are speaking of. Not saying it's not there, I just need to go back and see what I've missed.
-
-
adam-1589 — 17 years ago(September 18, 2008 12:38 AM)
Yes I've thought the same thing as I've watched it. I wonder if the house was already that dirty when they started filming, or if an over zealous set designer did it. The thing is though, we probably couldn't see that sort of detail on those old TV sets in the 70's!
Wellington, New Zealand -
acockroft — 17 years ago(September 18, 2008 06:06 AM)
That's something I hadn't thought of. Maybe they just assumed it wouldn't show on the televistion sets of the time. Thanks!
Funny thing: Now the DVD is making the rounds at the office. People wanted to see "the dirty 70's house". I'm curious to see what other people think. -
lux7-578-527347 — 13 years ago(January 10, 2013 06:41 PM)
Oh for God's sakes people, that's the best you can come up with regarding this show? Who has OCD regarding marks on the wall, dirt in the kitchen.shouldn't you be focusing on the relationships of the people instead of how much they clean the house? Too Funny!
-
ethersmum — 17 years ago(September 18, 2008 03:08 PM)
I'm pretty sure they were trying to give the show an overall "grittiness". The story lines were stark and, at that time, very real; authentic. This is the house Doug grew up in and I always took it to have been a kind of farm house. People weren't into the sterilized, scraped-down white boxes that people are obsessed with today. I agree, though, that it is a bit much (a woman like Kate Lawrence would never let her house get that worn down, even though she was farm girl at heart) that it was probably an over-zealous set designer.
Notice after the first 5 or so episodes, they gave not only the kitchen a
makeover, but Kate and Nancy as well: Kate got a red-brown dye-job, a haircut and the use of hair rollers, and Nancy went from brunette to blond, LOL!
Even the theme song was "spruced up", becoming more lively and less melancholic. I preferred the old theme song, and the meaner, grittier Kate. She was cooler. Even Elaine Heilveil feels more "genuine" to me. Look at her deep, sad, brown eyes: that's Kate's daughter! They brought Baxter-Birney in for her "jiggle factor", trust me. -
isisdawonder — 17 years ago(October 01, 2008 07:26 PM)
Yeah but also Meredith played Nancy with a bit more B**** factor as well.and she looked more like she could be DOUG'S daughter.since she was a daddy's girland Buddy seemed to be a "Mama's baby".so you get two girls with opposite looks and mannerisms.
Re: Kateshe also lost weight between the pilot ep and ep 2 which I believe was filmed months later.
I liked the Pilot Kate alsohowever I LOVE the Kate we got to see the rest of the series.
And the themeI prefer the second one over the firstbut I like the first one.
Success is nothing without someone you love to share it with. Brian to Tracy in Mahogany -
jf_moran49 — 9 years ago(January 04, 2017 06:47 PM)
I agree with some of what you wrote about the acclaimed 1970s ABC dramatic television series
Family
. But as for the "jiggle factor" of Meredith Baxter-Birney, perhaps it was one factor for her having been hired as a replacement for the original actress (Elayne Heilveil) in the role of "Nancy Lawrence Maitland." But the then-Mrs. Baxter-Birney was also a terrific actress, whose mother, the equally attractive Whitney Blake, had portrayed "Mrs. Dorothy Baxter" in the hit NBC (later CBS) sitcom
Hazel
, a vehicle for Broadway and film actress Shirley Booth, in her portrayal of a domestic based on the Ted Key comic strip from
The Saturday Evening Post
a decade previous to
Family
. Whitney Blake later went on to co-create and co-produce (with her then-husband Allan Mannings) the CBS hit sitcom
One Day at a Time
, for Norman Lear's Tandem Productions, that series based, in part, on Blake's own raising (as a single working mother) of three children.
And Baxter-Birney had already proven her acting chops by the time of
Family
, having been co-star (with her then-husband, David Birney) of the CBS sitcom
Bridget Loves Bernie
. Later on, as many will know, Baxter-Birney was also a co-star of the equally acclaimed and long-running NBC sitcom
Family Ties
, which made a star out of Michael J. Fox, who also appeared in an episode of
Family
, as a school friend of Letitia "Buddy" Lawrence (Kristy McNichol) named "Richard Topol," in the series' final season episode "Such a Fine Line." I don't wish to be a spoiler for that episode. But the plot-line involving Fox's character is an amusing one.
Also, even if Baxter-Birney had been hired on account of her physical attributes, she would certainly not have been the first actress in Hollywood to have been hired based on more than her ability to convincingly convey a character and read lines. Some of those who are now considered among our greatest actors and actresses (including Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Joan Crawford, Katharine Hepburn, and Vivien Leigh) were also hired, at least partly, based on their looks.
Anyway, my larger point in response to one of yours is I don't think it fair to diminish or discredit a person (in this case Meredith Baxter-Birney) simply because he/she is physically good-looking, anymore than it is proper to diminish or discredit a person who is not good-looking, involving what some today are calling "looksism." And so-called
looksism
works both ways. After all, a gal or guy can't help it if she/he is born
gorgeous
(or works real hard to get
that way
), anymore than a person may not help it if he/she is born ugly.
Lastly, I think we may both agree (whatever fine-tunings were made after the first, short season)
Family
was one great TV series that deserves to see all its episodes available on home video, whether for digital download or on DVD. It is now long overdue since the release of the first two seasons by Sony on DVD in 2006, and time to release the final three seasons of what, at the time, was considered one of the best dramatic series' ever to have aired on broadcast TV.
Sada Thompson, James Broderick and Gary Frank were all top-notch stage-trained actors. And Baxter-Birney and McNichol were no slouches either. In fact, at the time, I can recall McNichol's character of "Buddy" received much praise for a more realistic "tomboy" interpretation, a bit different from all the
girly girls
who had been portrayed by young actresses in television theretofore (with the possible exception of Shelia James' "Zelda Gilroy" in
The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis
). -
cathyanne1 — 17 years ago(January 13, 2009 08:50 AM)
I've read that the pilot was filmed in the real house and the remaining eps were filmed on a set. I do see the dirt and wear and tear in the pilot, but don't see it in any remaining episodes, so I guess we have to blame the housekeeping skills of the real homeowner.
-
ed4evr — 16 years ago(December 03, 2009 05:24 PM)
I don't remember thinking of it as dirty, I always thought it was a beautiful home. As far as "the house being dirty already", I seriously doubt that they did much filming inside the house in Pasadena. I'm pretty sure it was a set on a soundstage. The exteriors of that same house were used in the Candice Bergen movie "Mary & Tim" (which was a remake of an Australian movie starring Piper Laurie and a very young Mel Gibson), but it didn't look the same inside.
-
ActualSighs — 16 years ago(December 18, 2009 09:44 AM)
I noticed some backlit cobwebs lurking in the corner of a shot looking up at the top of the stairs in episode 3.
The thing is though, we probably couldn't see that sort of detail on those old TV sets in the 70's!
That's it exactly. It wasn't a concern back then. I worked in television in the late 80s and even then we were saying not to worry about dirt in the background of sets because "they'll never see that at home." Now with giant HD screens, we can see it at home!
Also, the video transfer on these DVDs is truly fabulous, considering the technology of the mid 70s, and I believe that exaggerates the flaws. It looks like there's not a speck of dust or any scratches or noise on the prints they used. I'm blown away by how good this show looks on these DVDs! -
bullwinkle64 — 16 years ago(February 25, 2010 12:28 PM)
Ok..let me try and explain the "dirt factor". I work in the Art Dept. as an assistant set decorator for t.v. and movies. The "dirt" you're talking about is actually just paint that the production designer tells the painters to "age the walls down just a bit". Now this is done for several reasons, the main one being..this is supposed to be a house that is lived in, and for a long time, remember, this is the house that Doug grew up in as a child. Since the interiors are obviously shot on a soundstage at ABC Studios in Los Feliz, CA. and not at the exteriors in Pasadena. You have to remember that we put up new wallpaper, and new carpeting, fresh paint, etc..so it looks too NEW.not someplace that a family has livedin short, it's to give it a "lived in look." Alot of times the painters go overboard and apply too much, but it's hard to adjust because when we're working dressing a set, alot of times the lighting used to shoot the set isn't on, and we're working from work lamps, etc. Actually the sets on this show are pretty accurate and very well done, not dirty at all..just gives it a lived in look, and captures the decade of the mid 70's perfectly. Anyway, hope this helps.
-
rickhurst3186 — 10 years ago(March 01, 2016 06:05 AM)
Thanks for the insight! I would love to hear more about your career!!! I love "behind the scenes" stuff. Please contact me if you have more to share. rickhurst3186@gmail.com
-
astrojet — 15 years ago(November 02, 2010 08:00 PM)
I think a lot of houses in the 70s were like this. Not that it was dirty (see what the set decorator said about "aging the walls.") but it was an old house that was lived in. Back then, people didn't spend tons of money on granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. Yes, the Lawrences were rich and could have, but it just wasn't done then. South Pasadena was/is a very affluent, yet dated, suburb of Los Angeleskind of like the Connecticut of So. Cal.and I believe the interior of the home reflected S. Pasadena at the time quite accurately.
I believe the pilot was shot in the house, and the rest filmed in a soundstage at Fox. If you watch closely, you'll see that the floor plan of the interior matches perfectly the exteriorright down to the window placement and wall juxtoposition in the rare back yard shots. Not many shows bother matching the interior to whatever real home they use as an exteriorthink Brady Bunch and Golden Girls and All in the Family.
As a previous poster said, I too had a surreal moment when I drove past the real house on Milan Avenue in 1982. I could only imagine the cast filming some of the exterior shots, which I imagine they only did a few weeks out of each season. I wonder how many times that home has been sold since then. Any personal information from the current/previous owners or neighbors would be greatly appreciated! -
jefgg — 13 years ago(November 07, 2012 12:59 PM)
I would love to see what the original poster's home looks like.
When I was growing up our home wasn't the cleanest. Why? Both my parents worked long hours at full time jobs. Whatever my mother lacked in cleaning she more than compensated for with her cooking. -
Chiisu61 — 12 years ago(August 02, 2013 01:29 AM)
I just watched the pilot episode on DVD and made the same observation. The painted woodwork, kitchen cabinets and wallpaper were all pretty dingy and showed wear. I also noticed that the painting over the fireplace in the living room was improperly stretched and wavy looking, one of the ones on the wall going up the staircase had a tear in it, and there was dust on the tops of the frames. In one scene, in the hallway outside of Buddy's bedroom, there was a crack in the wall. Most of these things wouldn't have been noticeable in the original broadcast, but large screen HD TVs and the even the just the better clarity of DVD makes these things apparent. It also seems that they shot the pilot in the actual house, which may have been aged with stagecraft or was just as worn/dirty as it looked. In the regular episodes they filmed on soundstage sets, the kitchen is well painted (Kate would never have had kitchen cabinets that looked like the ones in the pilot), with a slightly different floorplan than in the pilot. I always thought the interiors in this show were excellent, and added to the high production values. The linen slipcovered living room furniture is pretty timeless, the kitchen with it's antique stove and butcher block island still make me envious.
-
terryshilo — 11 years ago(November 29, 2014 09:40 AM)
Because I read your OP; and 1976 being a bit too far back to remember the state of upkeep in the home, I recently watched the pilot.. YOU ARE CORRECT. I can only think set decorators obviously went overkill with the older home, needs paint and clean up. It certainly seems for the time they were considered upper middle class.. I don't remember seeing this much grime on walls, doors and cabinets being pervasive at the time, and I saw several unkept homes back in the day. Once I looked for it, I couldn't miss it. Thanks.. it was all I was watching for.. heh heh. Still a very good show starting in my mid teens.
