I have mixed feelings after watching this short film. As babies they were obviously cute, but the story behind it seems very inappropriate. I wonder what the makers of this film were thinking. I don't feel 100% comfortable with it. Directed by Charles Lamont, War Babies is the second in a series of eight one-reelers that satirized adult films called the Baby Burlesks. War Babies is a spoof of the 1926's World War I film, 'What Price Glory'? It was originally titled 'What Price Gloria'?. The film is set in Buttermilk Pete's Cafe where half naked toddler performers dance, play music, and drink milk as if it was an adult bar. The movie is about two baby soldiers played by Georgie Smith & Eugene Butler trying to woo the club dancer, Charmaine played by Shirley Temple. The movie has Shirley Temple spoof the shallow Dolores Del Rio character from the original source material so that means that she was deeply eroticized. I do not understand how anyone can ignore this fact. Shirley Temple, unknowingly, acts as a prostitute who sells herself for sweets. It's just an awful way of talking about sex, using kids. In the end, it's not a good thing to do. I agree with Shirley Temple Black quote from her autobiography about describing how the Baby Burlesk pretty much exploit their childish innocence. By then, it might seem like childhood fun, but looking back at it in a modern sense, it doesn't make it right. The short films were often very sexist. Not only that; the Baby Burlesk producers were often crude to the children. Rehearsals took place over a week or two for each film, with no pay, and then were shot quickly in two days, meaning long hours of work. They barred the mothers from the set and treated the kids badly for laughs, tripping them to make them fall or whatever, along with locking them in a dark box if they misbehaved. Shirley ended up in the dark box a lot. She was also told her mother was kidnapped so she would cry on cue. Her dad paid off her contract for a mere $25.00 to get away from them. Thank Goodness, because we wouldn't get the films that Shirley Temple was meant to created. Children right groups would have a field day today, if a short film like this was produced today. I know some critics might defend it by saying it was made during an innocent time where sex wasn't so hypersexual, but let's get to the truth of the subject. The 1930s weren't innocent times. This was a time when blacks were segregated and abused, women were subjugated to their men, the Great Depression was starving out people and World War 2 was about to kill millions. I don't know why people get the idea that there wasn't as many child abusers back then as there is now. The answer is that there has always been just as many then as now except now they are exposed. This film puts a serious subject like: war, into a cute and harmless format for the people of the time period. It was also commission by the Warren Commission to teach soldiers how the weakness of the flesh can separate brothers and put risks to soldiers. This is meant to be a comedic and satirical sketch showing children portraying 3rd class beer guzzling, promiscuous adults that would have hung around bars during war times. It's kinda insulting to a lot of World War 1 vets at the time. The film is also very racist. The film is very much lampooned the supposed stupidity of black people, by having the black boy dance like in a minstrel show. The music numbers were pretty awful. Since the short film has no singing from Shirley Temple and lack of great tap dancing. It really seem, unwatchable. The movie does have some humor. Sadly, most of it, were misses than hits to the funny bone for me. I do have to give the movie, so props for trying to make this concept work. Even if it didn't. While, the film is disturbing. It's indeed seriously tame compare to today's standards. Overall: Making small children act like adults trying to get laid makes for creepy viewing indeed. Very profound and very controversial. Not a great watch at all. Don't recommended for children to watch at all.
24 Reviews
War babies is like an old diaper. Very dirty & awful.
ironhorse_iv28 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
An odd little film indeed.
Anonymous_Maxine6 January 2005
While claiming that this film borders on kiddie porn may be something of a stretch, it's not much of a stretch. It is certainly odd to consider the parents agreeing to let their kids perform in such a movie, which is racy, to say the least. The spectacle of Shirley Temple swinging her four-year-old hips around for a crowd of hooting four-year-old boys is disturbing indeed. This is one of Shirley Temple's earliest works for which the modern audience, or at least the few people who still manage or bother to see it, are most unimpressed, if not outright offended.
The movie is a stark illustration of some of the difference between 1930s society and today's, as this film would not have the slightest chance of getting made in the 21st Century, and I like to see that I'm not the only person who's glad for that. Nonetheless, it seems that her appearance in this film, as well as the three that she appeared in previous to it, played a significant part in the explosion of her career as a child actor. Here's this girl who started acting at age four, stopped before her 20th birthday, and there she is appearing in all manner of glamorousness at the 1998 Academy Awards, four decades after her last performance as an actress.
The extent of her popularity and success is clearly apparent, but this movie is more of a look at how differently movies were made in the 1930s as opposed to today, rather than an enlightening look at what it was about Shirley Temple that made her so tremendously popular. It seems clear that War Babies was an unintelligent film that exploited what must have been Temple's staggering cuteness. I can certainly understand that, because I have a sister who is 5 years old and she absolutely floors me, but the thought of her dancing around like Shirley does in this movie is not cute in the slightest. What is probably most odd about this movie is that all of the parents of the kids that appeared in it probably absolutely loved it.
I imagine that not many of these parents are around anymore, so sadly it becomes all the more apparent as to why the film has such a small audience, and its obscurity I don't think can be chalked up entirely to the fact that it is more than 70 years old. Normally I am bothered by the fact that there are so many people in today's audience that refuse to watch older movies, simply because they are black and white. Imagine someone refusing to watch Schindler's List because it wasn't in color. Unbelievable. In this case, however, I don't find it upsetting in the least that this movie has become so rarely seen, because a movie that features a scene as disturbing as the finale of this one (in which a little boy holds up an over-sized bobby-pin, making a genuinely disturbing implication to another little boy) is not exactly a classic not to be overlooked.
Quite the contrary. Overlook at will.
The movie is a stark illustration of some of the difference between 1930s society and today's, as this film would not have the slightest chance of getting made in the 21st Century, and I like to see that I'm not the only person who's glad for that. Nonetheless, it seems that her appearance in this film, as well as the three that she appeared in previous to it, played a significant part in the explosion of her career as a child actor. Here's this girl who started acting at age four, stopped before her 20th birthday, and there she is appearing in all manner of glamorousness at the 1998 Academy Awards, four decades after her last performance as an actress.
The extent of her popularity and success is clearly apparent, but this movie is more of a look at how differently movies were made in the 1930s as opposed to today, rather than an enlightening look at what it was about Shirley Temple that made her so tremendously popular. It seems clear that War Babies was an unintelligent film that exploited what must have been Temple's staggering cuteness. I can certainly understand that, because I have a sister who is 5 years old and she absolutely floors me, but the thought of her dancing around like Shirley does in this movie is not cute in the slightest. What is probably most odd about this movie is that all of the parents of the kids that appeared in it probably absolutely loved it.
I imagine that not many of these parents are around anymore, so sadly it becomes all the more apparent as to why the film has such a small audience, and its obscurity I don't think can be chalked up entirely to the fact that it is more than 70 years old. Normally I am bothered by the fact that there are so many people in today's audience that refuse to watch older movies, simply because they are black and white. Imagine someone refusing to watch Schindler's List because it wasn't in color. Unbelievable. In this case, however, I don't find it upsetting in the least that this movie has become so rarely seen, because a movie that features a scene as disturbing as the finale of this one (in which a little boy holds up an over-sized bobby-pin, making a genuinely disturbing implication to another little boy) is not exactly a classic not to be overlooked.
Quite the contrary. Overlook at will.
Goofy and stupid!
srmccarthy6 December 2003
I don't know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business! This movie (short) is gross (to say the least)! It is a bunch of 5-7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins, acting like adults (and too much so!). However, it is interesting because it is a good example of how "the good old days" may not have been so good after all! (Thank GOD we have laws against this kind of material now!)
{This is one short from the "Shirley Temple Festival"}
{This is one short from the "Shirley Temple Festival"}
Very odd little film
cricket-149 April 1999
[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]
This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".
Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.
Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".
Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).
What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?
This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".
Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.
Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".
Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).
What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?
Peculiar & Rather Uncomfortable To Watch
Snow Leopard9 January 2006
This is a peculiar and rather uncomfortable feature from the early days of Shirley Temple's career. It's rather strange to see such a complete contrast between the innocent, almost syrupy tone of her best-known full-length movies and the risqué, often rather inappropriate nature of many of her early short features. If nothing else, it provides some interesting examples of how the perspectives of the time differed from those of today.
Temple, at four years of age, is part of a cast consisting entirely of equally young children (as was also the case in many of her earliest short movies). She plays a dancer who entertains a group of soldiers in a café, soon becoming the source of a rivalry between two of them. Besides the basic story line, there are a lot of isolated gag ideas, many of them using milk in one way or another.
The children are depicted as thoroughly amoral characters, leading to a lot of situations that the vast majority of today's viewers would find uncomfortable or even disturbing. Certainly, no film-maker today could film such material using children without suffering irrevocable consequences to his or her career. Setting aside whatever one's personal feelings may be, it points out some very different attitudes or sensitivities - and of course, there are things that are routinely accepted in today's movies that would have provoked nearly universal outrage in the 1940s.
If you can set aside the uncomfortable nature of the material, there are probably a handful of amusing moments. The intent was obviously to use the children to satirize adult behavior, and on occasion it works. But, to be painfully honest, it's just not really a very good movie anyway. Besides the racy behavior of the child actors, they threw in some racial stereotypes, apparently just for good measure, and then the constant emphasis on milk is a bit odd in itself.
One thing, though, that does stand out is that Temple has an obvious energy and screen presence that transcends both her character and the nature of the material. It's no surprise that she could be spotted and groomed for stardom even while performing in things like this. What's a little less expected is to see such a complete contrast between the movies for which she is usually remembered and the movies that gave her a start.
Temple, at four years of age, is part of a cast consisting entirely of equally young children (as was also the case in many of her earliest short movies). She plays a dancer who entertains a group of soldiers in a café, soon becoming the source of a rivalry between two of them. Besides the basic story line, there are a lot of isolated gag ideas, many of them using milk in one way or another.
The children are depicted as thoroughly amoral characters, leading to a lot of situations that the vast majority of today's viewers would find uncomfortable or even disturbing. Certainly, no film-maker today could film such material using children without suffering irrevocable consequences to his or her career. Setting aside whatever one's personal feelings may be, it points out some very different attitudes or sensitivities - and of course, there are things that are routinely accepted in today's movies that would have provoked nearly universal outrage in the 1940s.
If you can set aside the uncomfortable nature of the material, there are probably a handful of amusing moments. The intent was obviously to use the children to satirize adult behavior, and on occasion it works. But, to be painfully honest, it's just not really a very good movie anyway. Besides the racy behavior of the child actors, they threw in some racial stereotypes, apparently just for good measure, and then the constant emphasis on milk is a bit odd in itself.
One thing, though, that does stand out is that Temple has an obvious energy and screen presence that transcends both her character and the nature of the material. It's no surprise that she could be spotted and groomed for stardom even while performing in things like this. What's a little less expected is to see such a complete contrast between the movies for which she is usually remembered and the movies that gave her a start.
god-awful and disturbing when seen in the 21st century
planktonrules9 June 2007
This is a horrible little film--and unfortunately, the company that made this short made several others. The short is essentially a one-joke idea that wasn't funny to begin with and may also offend you. It certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years-old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults--in this case, a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. It's the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults, but I can't see anyone WANTING to see this--especially when a very young Shirley Temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp!! Seeing her in prolonged kisses with her co-stars just felt wrong and exploitative. At the time, I am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles, but when looking at it today, that is what immediately comes to mind! Because of this, this boring film ALSO creeped me out and I hope to never see it again!! Pretty strange and pretty awful.
A star is born, but not peaking yet
Horst_In_Translation10 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"War Babies" is a black-and-white sound film from 1932, so this one is already 85 years old now and it was directed by Russian-born filmmaker Charles Lamont, who is mostly known for his Abbott and Costello works today. In this 9-minute clip, he got to work with the very young Shirley Temple who was only 4 years old when this was made and at the beginning of her career. I would say she already illuminates the screen, but the story / line delivery by her co-actors just isn't good enough to let me recommend this. There are interesting references to how popular animated films and animals were back in the day and this one certainly has a touch of Rascals to it as well. They also played older characters at times. Here we have two soldiers vying for the affection of a dancer. The title is only partially true. These kids weren't born yet during the days of WWI, but they still play soldiers and it's a bit of s foreshadowing of what was about to come less than a decade later. But I did not enjoy the watch too much overall. The transition from silent to sound film still felt very rusty here and the plot wasn't even good enough for under 10 minutes. Watch something else.
What Price Toddlers
bkoganbing7 July 2011
Although Shirley Temple's obvious charisma is hard to miss in this film, War Babies borders a bit on the suggestive. The people who would put their kids in this film remind me of the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey.
In a kiddie satire on What Prie Glory, Shirley Temple plays Charmaine the French girl fought over by Captain Flagg and Sergeant Quirt as a pair of boy toddlers take over those roles. It's cute, but it kind of borders on the creepy.
Definitely one for her still active legion of fans, but not one to my taste at all.
In a kiddie satire on What Prie Glory, Shirley Temple plays Charmaine the French girl fought over by Captain Flagg and Sergeant Quirt as a pair of boy toddlers take over those roles. It's cute, but it kind of borders on the creepy.
Definitely one for her still active legion of fans, but not one to my taste at all.
Disturbing Content To Modern Audiences
anndrogyne2 January 2024
Warning: Spoilers
This has to the creepiest film Shirley Temple ever did. To today's audiences it does come across as controversial. But it has to be said some people did complain of just what type of adults were attracted to the early Shirly Temple films at the time of their release.
Without doubt Shirley Temple is portraying a sex worker when she was only three years old.
The most disturbing scene is near the end where one of the two toddlers, who are vying for her attention, holds up a nappy or diaper pin to signify he has been intimate with her. Remember these are toddlers, they may not have known what they were portraying the audiences watching the film would.
Other than that it difficult to understand what any of them are saying for the majority of the time.
Without doubt Shirley Temple is portraying a sex worker when she was only three years old.
The most disturbing scene is near the end where one of the two toddlers, who are vying for her attention, holds up a nappy or diaper pin to signify he has been intimate with her. Remember these are toddlers, they may not have known what they were portraying the audiences watching the film would.
Other than that it difficult to understand what any of them are saying for the majority of the time.
Not Little Shirley's Finest Hour
Ron Oliver1 May 2002
A SHIRLEY TEMPLE Short Subject.
It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.
This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.
Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.
It can get mighty rough at Buttermilk Pete's Cafe when the local contingency of diaper-clad WAR BABIES come in for their midday milk break.
This primitive little film - a spoof of military movies - provides a few chuckles, but little else: tiny tots talking tough can begin to pall in a short time. Shirley Temple, playing a duplicitous hip-swinging French miss, hasn't much to do in this pre-celebrity performance. Highlight: the real signs of toddler temper when a few of the infants unexpectedly get well & truly soaked with milk.
Often overlooked or neglected today, the one and two-reel short subjects were useful to the Studios as important training grounds for new or burgeoning talents, both in front & behind the camera. The dynamics for creating a successful short subject was completely different from that of a feature length film, something akin to writing a topnotch short story rather than a novel. Economical to produce in terms of both budget & schedule and capable of portraying a wide range of material, short subjects were the perfect complement to the Studios' feature films.
A very cute & Innocent Spoof of a Silent Classic!!!
mjr11149 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is the second Baby Burlesk short to be released, and probably the most popular one, is a spoof of the 1926 silent film What Price Glory.
I watched this and I do not understand the kiddie-porn that is being claimed. It is just a cute little film. I have seen family shows that I grew up watching in the '80's and '90's that had little girls dressed more provocatively acting in a 'mature manner'. It was more provocative because they WEREN'T dressed in diapers. There's nothing provocative about a diaper unless you have one of those fetishes. (just a joke) I read that description of the movie and where it states only a pedophile would enjoy watching this. That is sick. To me, if you watch this and are bothered by it, then maybe you need to look into your own psyche and try to figure out why it bothers you. It is an innocent film that was made as a parody of another film. All of the B.B. films were parodies, nothing more. The parodies/spoofs of today are graphic in nature and have true almost pornographic scenes and quite vile language. Shouldn't those be more appalling? I can watch those without issue, but they sometimes take children's stories and turn them into filth on those parodies. That is what should get under your skin. Not that they babified (not a word, I know) an adult movie from 1926, because we know how PORNOGRAPHIC those silent films were, huh? Not to mention those 'Forbidden Hollywood Pre-Code era films' so vile and filthy. They would NEVER make such filth today? (note the sarcasm)
I watched this and I do not understand the kiddie-porn that is being claimed. It is just a cute little film. I have seen family shows that I grew up watching in the '80's and '90's that had little girls dressed more provocatively acting in a 'mature manner'. It was more provocative because they WEREN'T dressed in diapers. There's nothing provocative about a diaper unless you have one of those fetishes. (just a joke) I read that description of the movie and where it states only a pedophile would enjoy watching this. That is sick. To me, if you watch this and are bothered by it, then maybe you need to look into your own psyche and try to figure out why it bothers you. It is an innocent film that was made as a parody of another film. All of the B.B. films were parodies, nothing more. The parodies/spoofs of today are graphic in nature and have true almost pornographic scenes and quite vile language. Shouldn't those be more appalling? I can watch those without issue, but they sometimes take children's stories and turn them into filth on those parodies. That is what should get under your skin. Not that they babified (not a word, I know) an adult movie from 1926, because we know how PORNOGRAPHIC those silent films were, huh? Not to mention those 'Forbidden Hollywood Pre-Code era films' so vile and filthy. They would NEVER make such filth today? (note the sarcasm)
Rich in cinematic history
sgodwin-131 October 2005
I love these "Diaper Baby" movies! You couldn't make a movie like this today and it is rich in cinematic history. It is goofy and the film was made to make you laugh, which it does. How they ever got these kids to "act" I'll never know. I think they are precious and the kids make me laugh but so do the others who made this movie as it shows the naiveté that existed in the early 30's. You have to remember that this is when the film industry was very young, the stock market had crashed, the world wide depression was beginning and these films were made to give a person a break from the real world. The fact that you could see movies for five cents is beyond my comprehension, but then dinner for 25 cents is too. It was a different time with a totally different mind set.
Sex, Abstracted
tedg24 June 2005
Yesterday, I commented on the first of this type of short: "Runt Page," which incidentally was Shirley Temple's first part. This is effectively the last baby one: they didn't seem to work that well with audiences and this one was hit by a child porn suit.
"Runt Page" was a takeoff of "Front Page," featuring 4 year olds in diapers as all the characters, except with adult voices.
In this case, we have no specific movie spoofed, the child voices are used and the girls aren't topless. Also there's the token "negro" kid (called "boy") who grins and dances.
The story is simple: Charmaine (Shirley) is a French tart in a bar at the front. A good half of the movie is her dancing suggestively, including a butt shimmy when ice cream is dripped down her back. A typical tart, she shifts her attention to the bloke with the most gifts, here lollipops.
Two soldiers vie for her attentions, shown by on screen kissing. The shocker comes at the end: all the soldiers are called away and the two have to say goodbye to their gal. They confront each other after a scene where she is hugging one and secretly kissing the second.
Alert viewers will note that when she comes out to say goodbye, her diaper pin is missing.
The first says something to the effect that "she's my girl," and the second says "oh yeah?" and shows he has Charmaine's diaper pin. (All the pins in these are 8 inches or so big but hers is 12 inches and has a ribbon on it.) Obviously, he's "been in her pants."
Its pretty smarmy stuff that most of the audience would have thought merely cute at the time.
Now the question is: what are we watching now that we think is cutely funny that our grandchildren will consider repulsive?
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
"Runt Page" was a takeoff of "Front Page," featuring 4 year olds in diapers as all the characters, except with adult voices.
In this case, we have no specific movie spoofed, the child voices are used and the girls aren't topless. Also there's the token "negro" kid (called "boy") who grins and dances.
The story is simple: Charmaine (Shirley) is a French tart in a bar at the front. A good half of the movie is her dancing suggestively, including a butt shimmy when ice cream is dripped down her back. A typical tart, she shifts her attention to the bloke with the most gifts, here lollipops.
Two soldiers vie for her attentions, shown by on screen kissing. The shocker comes at the end: all the soldiers are called away and the two have to say goodbye to their gal. They confront each other after a scene where she is hugging one and secretly kissing the second.
Alert viewers will note that when she comes out to say goodbye, her diaper pin is missing.
The first says something to the effect that "she's my girl," and the second says "oh yeah?" and shows he has Charmaine's diaper pin. (All the pins in these are 8 inches or so big but hers is 12 inches and has a ribbon on it.) Obviously, he's "been in her pants."
Its pretty smarmy stuff that most of the audience would have thought merely cute at the time.
Now the question is: what are we watching now that we think is cutely funny that our grandchildren will consider repulsive?
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Its cute, its fun.
KennethEagleSpirit31 January 2007
A nice Shirely Temple short. Child actors screaming their lines seemed to be the norm for that day and time. Perhaps being "seen and not heard" needed to be made up for. Aside from that this is fun. Given the films era there are certain aspects of the thing, from a social viewpoint, that strike me as both very progressive and liberal. I won't go into those here, I'd rather not spoil it for you but let you watch it for yourself and see if you spot those elements. As early on as it was its easy to see from this short the fascination that was already developing for Temple. That makes it worth watching if you're a Temple fan. For others its a cool way to kill ten minutes while you're waiting for your good night glass of milk to warm up on the stove.
Shirley Porn?
dfloy431 December 2006
While browsing the internet for previous sale prices, I ran across these comments. Why are they all so serious? It's just a movie and it's not pornographic. I acquired this short film from my parents 30 years ago and have always been totally delighted with it. I've shown it to many of my friends & they all loved it too. I feel privileged to own this original 1932 8mm black and white silent film of Shirley before she became popular or well known. After reading the other comments, I agree that the film is "racy". Big deal! I only wish it was longer. It seems that I must be the only person who owns one of these originals, for sale at least, so I wonder how much it's worth?
Hello, new here! If I may add my two cents...
jkmm819200111 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I myself feel this film is a rare treasure. Not only is it the beginning of Shirley Temple's career, but a rare look on how our society has changed. You have to understand, certain things we today would view as sexual, back then would be considered innocent. For example, the parents of the children in the film as well as the many parents who took their children to see this movie, saw this as just children mimicking adults. Most people didn't think of anyone viewing children sexually attractive, other than teenage boys lusting over teenage girls. To them it wasn't sexual. Mind you this was before we had internet, TV, etc... Most sex crimes weren't openly brought up. Occasionally there would be a whisper about the kid with the "funny uncle." But that was often all that came of it. Yes very sad. But it is kinda sad today, for even I too can see this film as anything other than what it was intended, innocent and funny. When I saw Shirley dance like that and the boys eye balling her, yes I felt disturbed. I have to remind myself the time this took place! Those children didn't know what sex was. The parents knew that, both those of the children in the movie and those watching it. The thought may not have even entered their minds. In the eyes of the average adult back then, this was no more sexual then if Shirley was playing house. Even today kids will enter beauty contest, many dressed up extremely maturely, for a three yr old. However the child is merely pretending. I don't blame the child for wanting to act like an adult. Or the old movies that display this. In all honesty, our media has made a lot of things seem back then seem sick and wrong. This sometimes can be for the best. But I truly believe this movie isn't one of them. It gives a rare look of an innocent mentality, that we have long lost.
eccentric
Kirpianuscus26 December 2023
I tried to see it with open hard. And it was imposible. Because the children rights, the embarassing situations, a parody with touch of grotesque and strange situations.
Few little children in a cafe. References to army, rivalry in love for a presumed French dancer, a dog stealing underware, a kid and an imitation of cow, two blach children in stereotypical situations and some flirt, sweet candy, a lot of milk and some embarassment for viewer.
Sure, reflection of studio interests and a so young Shirley Temple as only feminine presence. But, after 90 years , difficult to be more than intrigued by this short film.
Few little children in a cafe. References to army, rivalry in love for a presumed French dancer, a dog stealing underware, a kid and an imitation of cow, two blach children in stereotypical situations and some flirt, sweet candy, a lot of milk and some embarassment for viewer.
Sure, reflection of studio interests and a so young Shirley Temple as only feminine presence. But, after 90 years , difficult to be more than intrigued by this short film.
A film of the times
tyciol2 December 2010
I think a film like this represents the casual humour accepted in the era.
It's short so one can't elaborate much on it, nor is there much to spoil.
I just find it quite fascinating Shirley's origins and the large variety of work she has done.
Clearly it has spanned from the serious to the musical to the parody.
I found the sounds felt very chipper, and I would be against viewing it in a colorized form in preference to black and white. Much like the three stooges this helps to preserve the character.
This seems like the most notable out of the 8 BB films ST's fame was launched with.
It's short so one can't elaborate much on it, nor is there much to spoil.
I just find it quite fascinating Shirley's origins and the large variety of work she has done.
Clearly it has spanned from the serious to the musical to the parody.
I found the sounds felt very chipper, and I would be against viewing it in a colorized form in preference to black and white. Much like the three stooges this helps to preserve the character.
This seems like the most notable out of the 8 BB films ST's fame was launched with.
Love this film
babygiraffe12317 October 2005
I remember my grandmother giving me this tape when I was a child, because she was going to throw it away. It contained Dora's Dunking Donuts and War Babies. Thinking back, I had to take the tape with me, whenever I spent the night at a friend's or a relative's. My favorite scene in War Babies was with the dog. Shirley Temple's character marches up to the dog, who in turn, barks at her. She runs back to the little boy and says, "I'm afraid!" And when another little boy goes to chase the dog away, the dog ends up chasing him out, but returns with the child's diaper. This tape has been passed back and forth between me and my sister over the years. I recently came across it in a storage box in my closet and gave it to my sister to keep.
It is a sweet little film
nawsmom-963-10728711 March 2024
This is a sweet little short that even though we, as adults, understand what it is going on, they are kids and knowing that Shirley Temples parents were there every step of the way and Mrs. Temple was so proud of her only daughter and protected her from anything racy, she had the right to say as to what material could be used. Please keep in mind that this was during depression and these short films were meant to uplift the spirits of all Americans, which it did. It was never meant to be uncomfortable. When watching, keep in mind these were a product of the times and not looked at as indecent. They are actually really cute and fun when in the right state of mind and Shirley herself is so incredibly talented and cute to watch. It made me giggle and put a smile on my face knowing the innocence of the kids were having fun. You can see most of them laughing in the background. Please don't be quick to judge negatively when watching, try to go back in time and enjoy it for what it was initially intended for and not for what we know now. This is just my 2 cents, so understand I can see where others are coming from and not criticizing their opinions, just wanting to support the early days of film.
Disturbing Short!
Sylviastel12 August 2011
Okay, Shirley Temple plays a singer in this film short during wartime. Her skirt is ultra short and inappropriate now and wonder why the censors didn't notice it then. Also, the boys are supposed to be soldiers but they don't wear shirts. I know they're supposed to act like adults as children but I felt uncomfortable seeing the children exposed in an unhealthy manner. The boys and girls acted like adults even though they were small children but still I can't believe that the censors allowed the children to be dressed in such a manner to expose them to the world audience. Maybe they didn't notice it then about the negative reaction, I know I would never allow my son to go shirtless at a young age or my daughter to wear a short skirt to the thigh. I was a little disturbed by it all and I'm glad that it's not aired on television anymore.
naked babies, cradlebait and the "disguise" of infancy
kekseksa31 October 2016
It is very interesting to observe US commentators agonising between their traditional loyalty to their screen icons and their new allegiance to political correctness.
The British novelist, Graham Greene, then a very acute but acerbic film critic for, pointed out in 1937 in a review of the film Wee Willie Winkie, that "infancy" for Shirley Temple was "a disguise" and that her appeal was really "more secret and more adult". Her admirers, whom Greene characterises as "middle aged men and clergymen" respond "to her dubious coquetry, to the sight of her well-shaped and desirable little body, packed with enormous vitality" and can get away with it "only because the safety curtain of story and dialogue drops between their intelligence and their desire".
His analysis was, and is, patently quite correct (if a little harsh) but at the time 20th Century Fox were able to successfully sue Greene and the magazine ("Night and Day") for libel and Greene was obliged to got into exile (in Mexico) to avoid the trial and escape the scandal.
But Greene was sarcastic on the subject rather than pious, like the "politically correct" brigade, and such piety seems to me just as out of place as naive admiration.
The fact is that in a sexually-repressed, puritanical United States, babies and children, who could be shown naked (or largely naked) and in rather compromising situations (with their bums in the air, waggling their naked legs in the air, being spanked) were a source of sexual pleasure from the very earliest days of cinema. Early catalogues go out of their way to emphasise the "nakedness" of babies film on the beach and to point up the sexual appeal of schoolgirls' pillow-fighting.
In a society which had great difficulty with adult sexuality, such pedophile and hebephile pleasure were virtually inevitable. Long before the films of Shirley Temple, Mary Pickford was quite cynically exploiting this same tendency amongst viewers in her many "little girl" films with occasionally very knowing commentary by Frances Marion. Daddy Longlegs, for instance, is one her best films of the period but is quite clearly a story about a middle-aged man "grooming" a young girl to be his future wife and actually derives a good deal of its power as a story from that ambiguity. In many ways it prefigures the theme of the Shirley Temple film Curly Top 1935 (with a surrogate adult "sister" in the role of the grown-up child which, unlike Pickford, Temple could not very well play herself)..
Pickford and Temple complement each other - the adult who mimics the child and the child who mimics the adult. In both cases, the pretext afford a sexual voyeurism that would have been less acceptable had the object of desire been quite simply an adult woman (even when, as was common US practice at the time, a foreign actress or a Mexican was employed for the role).
The notion of "cradle-snatching" was perfectly current at the time. In one Pickford film where she is for once playing a grown woman (albeit a rather childish adolescent), a policeman, who has observed her with her boyfriend, rings through to the station to say that he is on the tracks of a cradle-snatcher, a sort of double-take joke that nevertheless makes it quite clear that Pickford and Marion were fully conscious of this element in her image. Shirley Temple actually plays a character called "Madame Cradlebait" in another of the Baby Burlesks. So contemporary attitudes were rather less innocent than is often supposed.
The "Baby Burlesks" were parodies and the joke in all of them consists in the fact that the babies behave like adults. This particular one is really quite a good parody of the long-running stage-hit What Price Glory? which had been superbly filmed by Raoul Walsh in 1926. Personally I find this frank, open and good-humoured exploitation far more acceptable than the later hypocrisy that falsely proclaimed its complete innocence of any such motives and of which Greene would be a victim in 1937.
The British novelist, Graham Greene, then a very acute but acerbic film critic for, pointed out in 1937 in a review of the film Wee Willie Winkie, that "infancy" for Shirley Temple was "a disguise" and that her appeal was really "more secret and more adult". Her admirers, whom Greene characterises as "middle aged men and clergymen" respond "to her dubious coquetry, to the sight of her well-shaped and desirable little body, packed with enormous vitality" and can get away with it "only because the safety curtain of story and dialogue drops between their intelligence and their desire".
His analysis was, and is, patently quite correct (if a little harsh) but at the time 20th Century Fox were able to successfully sue Greene and the magazine ("Night and Day") for libel and Greene was obliged to got into exile (in Mexico) to avoid the trial and escape the scandal.
But Greene was sarcastic on the subject rather than pious, like the "politically correct" brigade, and such piety seems to me just as out of place as naive admiration.
The fact is that in a sexually-repressed, puritanical United States, babies and children, who could be shown naked (or largely naked) and in rather compromising situations (with their bums in the air, waggling their naked legs in the air, being spanked) were a source of sexual pleasure from the very earliest days of cinema. Early catalogues go out of their way to emphasise the "nakedness" of babies film on the beach and to point up the sexual appeal of schoolgirls' pillow-fighting.
In a society which had great difficulty with adult sexuality, such pedophile and hebephile pleasure were virtually inevitable. Long before the films of Shirley Temple, Mary Pickford was quite cynically exploiting this same tendency amongst viewers in her many "little girl" films with occasionally very knowing commentary by Frances Marion. Daddy Longlegs, for instance, is one her best films of the period but is quite clearly a story about a middle-aged man "grooming" a young girl to be his future wife and actually derives a good deal of its power as a story from that ambiguity. In many ways it prefigures the theme of the Shirley Temple film Curly Top 1935 (with a surrogate adult "sister" in the role of the grown-up child which, unlike Pickford, Temple could not very well play herself)..
Pickford and Temple complement each other - the adult who mimics the child and the child who mimics the adult. In both cases, the pretext afford a sexual voyeurism that would have been less acceptable had the object of desire been quite simply an adult woman (even when, as was common US practice at the time, a foreign actress or a Mexican was employed for the role).
The notion of "cradle-snatching" was perfectly current at the time. In one Pickford film where she is for once playing a grown woman (albeit a rather childish adolescent), a policeman, who has observed her with her boyfriend, rings through to the station to say that he is on the tracks of a cradle-snatcher, a sort of double-take joke that nevertheless makes it quite clear that Pickford and Marion were fully conscious of this element in her image. Shirley Temple actually plays a character called "Madame Cradlebait" in another of the Baby Burlesks. So contemporary attitudes were rather less innocent than is often supposed.
The "Baby Burlesks" were parodies and the joke in all of them consists in the fact that the babies behave like adults. This particular one is really quite a good parody of the long-running stage-hit What Price Glory? which had been superbly filmed by Raoul Walsh in 1926. Personally I find this frank, open and good-humoured exploitation far more acceptable than the later hypocrisy that falsely proclaimed its complete innocence of any such motives and of which Greene would be a victim in 1937.
Very strange
jem13224 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to picture America's little cherubic darling Shirley Temple in anything but a 'nice' film, yet here she is in a strange and rather off-putting short as a four-year old femme fatale (!) figure.
She dances for the boys complete with diaper and over-sized safety pin, creates havoc between two young male chums who vie for her attention, is bribed by the offer of lollipops and skulls milk as if it were beer! Yes, Shirley sure is different here.
It's purpose is to satirize adult behavior- the milk 'bar' representing a pub, Shirley the 'femme fatale' etc. Most of the gags come from situations involving the children's consumption of milk and the crude inclusion of a stereotypical Afro-American boy.
This one is only very mildly humorous today- it's more interesting as a historical relic showcasing the vast difference between our rigidly politically-correct society and the attitudes of 1930's audiences. Seen today, it treads a very thin line between vulgar, misguided humor and soft-core child pornography. These 'Baby Burlesk' (sic) shorts could NEVER be made today.
I didn't enjoy it, but if you're a Shirley fan or are interested in Hollywood film-making through the years, I guess you could take a look.
She dances for the boys complete with diaper and over-sized safety pin, creates havoc between two young male chums who vie for her attention, is bribed by the offer of lollipops and skulls milk as if it were beer! Yes, Shirley sure is different here.
It's purpose is to satirize adult behavior- the milk 'bar' representing a pub, Shirley the 'femme fatale' etc. Most of the gags come from situations involving the children's consumption of milk and the crude inclusion of a stereotypical Afro-American boy.
This one is only very mildly humorous today- it's more interesting as a historical relic showcasing the vast difference between our rigidly politically-correct society and the attitudes of 1930's audiences. Seen today, it treads a very thin line between vulgar, misguided humor and soft-core child pornography. These 'Baby Burlesk' (sic) shorts could NEVER be made today.
I didn't enjoy it, but if you're a Shirley fan or are interested in Hollywood film-making through the years, I guess you could take a look.
Typical of The Time
Michael_Elliott20 February 2016
War Babies (1932)
** (out of 4)
Many people consider this 9 minute short to be one of the worst ever made but I'm certainly not going to go that far. The "idea" to this short is quite simple as the setting is a bar where many sailors are at watching a girl (Shirley Temple) dance. What offends most people is the fact that these young kids are made to do adult things and there's no question that it comes across rather creepy today but then again this was 1932 and stuff like this was done. I mean, there were several very suggestive shorts from Our Gang. The reason most people are going to watch this today is for the casting of Temple who has a couple dances she has to do and is of course the center of attention of two guys fighting over her. The more object-able stuff happens whenever certain kids have milk thrown on them in order to get them to "cry" and this is a lot worse than some of the other stuff going on.
** (out of 4)
Many people consider this 9 minute short to be one of the worst ever made but I'm certainly not going to go that far. The "idea" to this short is quite simple as the setting is a bar where many sailors are at watching a girl (Shirley Temple) dance. What offends most people is the fact that these young kids are made to do adult things and there's no question that it comes across rather creepy today but then again this was 1932 and stuff like this was done. I mean, there were several very suggestive shorts from Our Gang. The reason most people are going to watch this today is for the casting of Temple who has a couple dances she has to do and is of course the center of attention of two guys fighting over her. The more object-able stuff happens whenever certain kids have milk thrown on them in order to get them to "cry" and this is a lot worse than some of the other stuff going on.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
