Room for One More

It was one of those nights. I was too tired to do anything productive or even to concentrate on a book. It was too early to go to sleep. I succumbed to the lure of technology and through a library program found and watched a movie from 1952. Surely, it would be a safe bet. And it was.

Room for One More, starring Cary Grant and others whose names I didn’t recognize, was enjoyable and uplifting, a decent and pleasant movie. The next morning, when I was more awake, I also found it thought-provoking.

This black and white film could serve as a Public Service Announcement for becoming a foster parent of older children. There are no unexpected twists, so I will share the plot. A middle-class couple with three children temporarily takes in two troubled foster children, first a girl and then a boy. By the end of the movie, both have become beloved members of the family.

What interests me is that the story must have been believable in its day. Viewers would have dismissed it if it bore no resemblance to reality. Although it wasn’t a blockbuster, it was a financial and critical success. It depicts people who would have been broadly recognizable.

I would like to unpack some of what the film portrays that resonated with audiences of 1952.

1. Unlike feminist depictions of the domineering patriarch of the 1950s, the father of the family (Cary Grant) cooks breakfast and has a warm and loving relationship with his wife and children. He goes off to work each day, supporting not only his own family but also the stray animal and human waifs that his wife welcomes.
2. The wife is the soft touch who is unable to turn her back on needy children. She is wise and loving. Building a home is her career.
3. While the family isn’t overtly Christian, the family does say a blessing before eating.
4. The neighbors’ concern over bringing in two children of questionable backgrounds is represented. However, the dangers are nowhere near what might cause hesitation today. The foster boy wallops the family’s daughter at one point and smashes the bicycle of one of the sons. Whether naive or not, the parents do not worry about sexual deviancy, pornography, drug abuse, or other serious threats these children might pose. The young ones need love and guidance, not therapy.
5. The Boy Scouts serves as a vehicle for rehabilitation. The troop is single gender—all boys, just as the name implies. Being upright and serving others is emphasized. So is patriotism. I smiled when the Pledge of Allegiance was recited without the words “under God’ that were added only later in 1954 during the Eisenhower administration.
6. Life is not depicted as all rosy. The movie addresses the financial strain of adding two more children.
7. The film also addresses, quite openly, the husband/father’s sadness at losing some of his wife’s physical and emotional attention. He does not have an affair, abuse any of the children, or act otherwise inappropriately in response.

Room for One More paints a picture of a healthier time in the United States. It was not meant to be a portrayal of the entire country with all its subgroups and complexities, but rather a piece of the whole. Advances in transportation and the advent of technology, including TV that was just beginning to be widespread in 1952, would soon lead to a more homogeneous country.

Other than some small pockets of strong, isolated communities, areas with distinct and individual natures are less common. Organizations like the Boy Scouts have strayed from their foundations. Government policies and changing cultural norms have weakened families. This has created more broken and non-functioning families and children whose problems are more complex. Fewer families remain as strong stalwarts able to help those in need.

The film was uplifting in the evening—but the next morning added some sadness for what we have lost.

Appreciated this article? Feel free to share it using this link: https://rabbidaniellapin.com/room-for-one-more/

---

---