Volume II: Filmography

BABIES PROHIBITED

Lila Chester and Harry Benham in BABIES PROHIBITED, released March 16, 1913. (Courtesy of Ralph Graham, M.D.)

March 16, 1913 (Sunday)

Length: 1 reel

Character: Comedy

Cast: Lila Chester, Harry Benham (the husband), Mignon Anderson

Notes: 1. Beginning with advertisements for this film, Thanhouser listed key players in its trade notices; in contrast to the occasional mention of a player, or no mention of players, earlier. This policy of player publicity lasted for several weeks, until early April 1913, after which time anonymity was the rule once again. 2. The September 1913 issue of The Moving Picture Story Magazine stated that G.M. Anderson (Broncho Billy) was in this film. This is exceedingly unlikely, for Anderson had no known connection with Thanhouser at any time and, in fact, was an owner of Essanay, a rival firm.

SYNOPSIS, The Moving Picture World, March 22, 1913:

The young couple always lived in the country and were very well satisfied with their little home until their baby came. They were thoroughly convinced that he was the most remarkable child in the world, and they were determined that the city was the proper place to bring up such a wonderful child. But when they arrived at the metropolis they found the general public not only indifferent to their darling, but, in some instances positively hostile. The passengers in the streetcar objected when the baby cried. The couple were refused admission to places of amusement because of their child, and the various pretty apartments they admired were not for them, because babies were prohibited. The wife, desperate, left the baby with her husband, and went alone to inspect a very desirable apartment. It was just what she wanted, but the sign in the door said, 'Babies Prohibited,' and the stern-faced janitor declared that the edict would be enforced. The poor woman was tired after a day of wanderings about a great city. Can anyone blame her if she prevaricated to the sour old janitor? Well, anyway, that's what she did. She told him that she and her husband were alone in the world, and thus artfully secured possession of the rooms. The baby was to arrive later, the wife having arranged to have it secretly delivered with her groceries. And it seemed as if the family had at last found a happy home. The janitor was on the alert, however, frustrated the plot to introduce a child into the apartment and with righteous indignation disposed of the infant as he was accustomed to with other rubbish. He then evicted the family, not in the spirit of anger, but as one who is inflicting judicial punishment. He permitted the guilty couple to remove their offspring from the ash barrel and uttered no protest when they slunk off down to the street apparently thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The couple returned to their old home in the country, joyfully and thankfully.

REVIEW, The Morning Telegraph, March 23, 1913:

As a lesson against city dwelling for young parents, this is an amusing satire on urban life. It shows the trials and predicaments of a couple who believe their infant should be brought up in the city, where it can have all of the advantages of the metropolis. But they fail to find even a roof to shelter the tender head, because none of the apartment houses will permit families with babies, and from one to another the poor father and finally the distracted mother, journey. At last she prevaricates and attempts to get the baby in by stealth, but the plot is discovered by the janitor, and the infant is treated sorely. In the end the couple return to the country, happy in their final decision, and secure their realization of actual comfort. It is a photo-play of merit both as to staging and acting.

REVIEW, The Moving Picture World, March 22, 1913:

The troubles experienced by a young couple from the country who come with their baby to the city. They are turned away from various places because of the child, and finally return home and are delighted to get there. A portion of this film is based on actual conditions, and it is exaggerated just enough to give it a number of amusing moments.

REVIEW, The Moving Picture News, March 15, 1913:

Somewhat farfetched in one or two particulars. Some of its comedy is good, and plays around the subject of the prohibition of children in the modern New York flat.

# # #