MovieChat Forums > The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961) Discussion > Whose Side Were You On: Carl Reiner's or...

Whose Side Were You On: Carl Reiner's or Mary Tyler Moore's?

posted 9 years ago by Jupiter555555
25 replies | jump to latest

If you heard the DVD set commentary from Carl, Dick and Mary you know about the fight that happened on the set during production of Never Bathe on Saturday and can skip to the next paragraph. If not I'll explain thusly: As was the case in most sitcoms, the supporting cast would alternate being the focus of the episode each week. There would be episodes that focused on Sally, Buddy, even Mel and of course Laura. So Carl had been pumping her up for weeks about this episode he's working on in which Laura is focused on (keeping in mind Dick was always central.) But when the episode was read, she realized she's off camera half the time and is doing her lines through a door like a radio show. This bothered her, as she was looking forward to her shining moment and Carl kept raving about how great it was gonna be, as he thought it was for different reasons. So she read the lines very dryly without really performing them during the last big rehearsal before taping and he yelled at her in front of the network execs.

I see both sides to it. Originally I thought she was being childish and spoiled for throwing a tantrum over screen time but then when I heard them each describe their side on the video commentary, I agreed more with her. I think he hyped it up so much that she got excited about this great upcoming Laura centered ep and he didn't tell her until the week of the ep that she's not even on camera for a big chunk of it. The sheer disappointment would be enough to make anyone testy. Then I objected to what HE said he told her as "consolation"-- that it's better having her off screen bc then men can fantasize about her naked. That doesn't make HER feel better, it makes men feel better. It doesn't further her career or help her plight at all. It's also sexual harassment and degrading. I bet in his whole career he never took away a man's screen time in favor of female fantasy. Lastly, personally I would've liked to see her face while delivering those lines. I didn't even like the stylistic choice of having her speak through the door. At the end of the day though, he had a right to choose that method given his status as Director or Producer or whatever his title was. How it was shot was indisputably his prerogative.. What I don't think he had a right to do is hype her up about her shining moment when it wasn't that great FOR HER, sexually harass her by telling her it's "better" for America to picture her naked, and be completely insensitive to her disappointment that he caused by overhyping an episode she only appears in half of.

[–] karmala2 9 years ago

She wound up, nevertheless, giving a wonderful performance. Her voice inflections sound so real-and funny. I can just hear her saying: "I was PLAAAaaying with a drip!" Love that episode.

I told you a million times not to talk to me when I'm doing my lashes!

[–] dlynch843 9 years ago

I'm more on Carl's side. Even Mary apologized afterward. In her comments on the DVD, she claims she was off camera '98% of the time.' which is obviously not true. I've seen episodes involving Buddy and Sally at the office where MTM appears less than this episode. So I don't think Carl was insensitive about 'hyping up' this Laura episode. He genuinely thought it was great and he was right and Mary Tyler Moore agrees. (and there was no sexual harrassment--come on)

[–] Jupiter555555 9 years ago

I'm more on Carl's side

I respect your difference of opinion.

Even Mary apologized afterward.

That doesn't necessarily mean she was more in the wrong than him, in fact if anything it could be used to prove the opposite: that she was more level headed and fair minded than he. But in any event, he called her too to apologize the night after yelling at her. So if the other person apologizing is your gauge of wrongdoing then they're scored even.

I've seen episodes involving Buddy and Sally at the office where MTM appears less than this episode.

I'm not sure that you understand the concept of each member of the supporting cast getting an episode every few weeks that centers on them.

(and there was no sexual harrassment--come on)

You've got to be kidding me. So what would constitute sexual harassment, in your opinion? Just curious. Probably nothing short of physical assault. In what other profession can someone say, "it's better this way because we're giving everyone the chance to picture you naked." Granted show business isn't like any other business, but it was still a bone headed thing for him to say. That would make anyone feel extremely uncomfortable. I doubt she signed up for that when she agreed to do a wholesome network show in which she wouldn't even be portrayed as sharing a bed with her onscreen husband. Carl Reiner was a freaking pervert, between that and the October Eve episode which discussed MTM's nudity, I don't think that was appropriate especially during those times. Aside from all that, she wanted screen time, not for America to picture her naked. He was getting what he wanted confused with what she wanted and that's insensitive to say the least.

[–] dlynch843 9 years ago

OMG.

[–] bunny3k 9 years ago

I agree with you re: sexual harassment. He was telling the truth. It's amazing that back then, people could be honest and obvious about things without someone having an emotional issue.

3k

[–] murph24 9 years ago

The behind-the-scenes story of "Never Bathe on Saturday" is well known to devotees of "The Dick Van Dyke Show," and I can only assume the episode's commentary omits what it perhaps the most relevant detail - that Mary Tyler Moore was trying to give up smoking that week, which led to behavior that was, for her, uncharacteristically unhinged and irrational. There weren't any "sides" here, as Moore immediately regretted her emotional outburst; in fact, there was only a misconception (on Moore's part) about the type of script she'd be getting. She thought the events in the script were going to put her front and center - and in a sense, they did - but unfortunately, it was Laura's off-screen actions that the episode was built around, which meant she received less screen time than she imagined she'd be getting. As a result she was disappointed, and - because she was already stressed out from trying to quit cigarettes - she handled things badly.

In Vince Waldron's "The Official Dick Van Dyke Show Book," he quotes Van Dyke as saying "I think it was more nicotine withdrawal than anything else, because I never saw her complain before...she was a nervous wreck...everything upset her."

It was Sam Denoff, one of the show's writers, who said "Mary didn't get the idea that during that whole episode, people in America were fantasizing seeing Laura Petrie naked in sudsy water in a bathtub! Whatta picture! But she didn't get that." Denoff, who was as perplexed by Moore's attitude as Carl Reiner was, felt "she was just being a brat." However, he added that this was "the first show of temperament we ever saw from Mary or any of them."

But no, there was nothing about Reiner's conduct that could be categorized as "sexual harassment" - even Moore admitted that had the script been shot any other week (in other words, any week in which she WASN'T going through nicotine withdrawals), she wouldn't have behaved the way she did.

"I was snapping and snarling at everyone all week," Moore recalled. "All because I was trying to quit smoking."

As for Reiner "yelling" at her - yes, this happened. And it was one of the very few times he'd ever lost his temper. But after dealing with her antagonistic attitude for a week, he'd finally had it; he told her he was tired of her relentless complaints. "This show will work!" he told her. "I would never ask you to do a show that I didn't think would work. Do you think I'd send you out in a leaky crate? If I didn't think this show was good for you, I wouldn't do it!"

And of course, the incident that occurs in the script had already appeared in the 1955 movie "The Seven Year Itch" (when Marilyn Monroe finds herself in a similar bathtub predicament), so there was nothing really new or shocking about what happened in "Never Bathe on Saturday." Moore freaked out for one reason, and one reason only - her nerves were shot because she was trying to go cold turkey.

[–] Jupiter555555 9 years ago

The behind-the-scenes story of "Never Bathe on Saturday" is well known to devotees of "The Dick Van Dyke Show," and I can only assume the episode's commentary omits what it perhaps the most relevant detail - that Mary Tyler Moore was trying to give up smoking that week,

You're wrong. Quitting smoking was mentioned.

there was only a misconception (on Moore's part) about the type of script she'd be getting. She thought the events in the script were going to put her front and center

It's pretty laughable that you'd consider that a misconception on her part. Given the fact that the DVD Show was not a radio program, I think it's totally understandable that she'd expect a Laura-centered episode that Reiner had been hyping for weeks would, oh I don't know... SHOW her face....!!?!?!?!!! Not sure why she'd think it would be a voice over gig after four years of seeing the format of the show, never before have they taken the co-star of the episode and placed him or her off screen for 75% of the episode.

It was Sam Denoff, one of the show's writers, who said "Mary didn't get the idea that during that whole episode, people in America were fantasizing seeing Laura Petrie naked in sudsy water in a bathtub! Whatta picture! But she didn't get that."

Okay if Denoff said it, then Reiner said it TOO on the DVD commentary. Gee...I wonder why she "didn't get that."  Could it be because men fantasizing about her while she's off screen doesn't help her at all??? It's hilarious to me how men just assume that anything that's good for them is for the common good. And are baffled when women don't "get it." I don't think you get it. She's a screen actress, not a radio performer or a voice over artist. It was every bit the reasonable and rational expectation she had to appear on screen as she performed her lines. Again, here is the distinction between what she signed up for and what she didn't sign up for. She DID sign up for: Portraying a wholesome character in a squeaky clean network show in which she's not even portrayed as sleeping in the same bed as her husband. Appearing PHYSICALLY in each episode, especially those which center around her character. Here is what she DID NOT sign up for: Saying most of her lines in a Laura-centered episode off camera so that men can picture her naked.

But no, there was nothing about Reiner's conduct that could be categorized as "sexual harassment" - even Moore admitted that had the script been shot any other week (in other words, any week in which she WASN'T going through nicotine withdrawals), she wouldn't have behaved the way she did.

"I was snapping and snarling at everyone all week," Moore recalled. "All because I was trying to quit smoking."

Yep. That explains it alright. A woman graciously accepts responsibility for an event, and you guys use it against her. So she took the high road, that's all that means. In Hollywood, women are treated badly and better accept it or else they'll be blacklisted. Everyone knows this, and it goes on to this day. However, the male reign of Hollywood will come to an end soon. The ground is rumbling with talented and enthusiastic female students of television and film. Many more women will take jobs as producers, creators, writers and directors. Hope you guys enjoyed dominating for 80 years. Time's up.

[–] murph24 9 years ago

You're wrong. Quitting smoking was mentioned.

Well, that makes the next question obvious - WHY DID YOU FAIL TO MENTION IT? As I pointed out before, and as both Mary Tyler Moore and Dick Van Dyke have already stated, it's the most relevant point.

It's pretty laughable that you'd consider that a misconception on her part.

Actually, it's a perfectly understandable misconception on her part. Carl Reiner told Mary Tyler Moore the episode was going to be about her, and he wasn't lying; practically everything that takes place in the episode happens because Laura gets her toe stuck in a bathtub water spout. And Moore made a perfectly understandable assumption which turned out to be incorrect. And as she's already stated, she wouldn't have reacted the way she did if she hadn't quit smoking that week. And after she threw a tantrum, she apologized. Why? Because she felt she was in the wrong. Despite your efforts to create one, there are no villains here - only a misunderstanding.

Again, here is the distinction between what she signed up for and what she didn't sign up for. She DID sign up for... Appearing PHYSICALLY in each episode, especially those which center around her character.

But she did appear PHYSICALLY in the episode we're discussing. Your description suggests that Moore was off-camera throughout the entire episode, and that's simply not the case. She is off-camera for approximately 14 minutes of a 25-minute episode, and not even continuously; she reappears in the middle of the show to comment on what she experienced. And even while she's off-camera, she's delivering lines that are getting BIG laughs (like "I was playing with a drip" and "Where's the stupid maid with the key?").

So what would constitute sexual harassment, in your opinion? Just curious.

I would define it the way the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines it.

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Nothing that happened to Moore during the filming of this episode constitutes sexual harassment. And Moore herself never claimed she was sexually harassed.

Yep. That explains it alright. A woman graciously accepts responsibility for an event, and you guys use it against her.

Huh? Are you now saying that Mary Tyler Moore was lying? What evidence do you have to support that claim? Nobody is "using" anything against Moore, I'm just quoting what she actually said about the episode.

The ground is rumbling with talented and enthusiastic female students of television and film.

And personally, I think that's terrific; the sooner that women in the entertainment industry have complete parity in salary, creative decisions and production responsibilities, the better. But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here; you're stating that Mary Tyler Moore was sexually harassed during the filming of "Never Bathe on a Saturday," and that's simply not true. And more to the point, she never claimed she was sexually harassed. Just because you're determined to see Carl Reiner as a villain means nothing except you're determined to see Carl Reiner as a villain. But just because you see him that way doesn't mean that you've convinced anyone.

Case not proven, court adjourned.

[–] Jupiter555555 9 years ago

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex.

Fine and if Carl Reiner can pass a lie detector test saying he ever in his lengthy career told ONE man that it is advantageous for him to appear off camera for most of his own featured episode so that the mass audience can picture him naked, I'll concede that Moore was not a sexually harassed employee.

harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment

What he said to her qualifies.

Huh? Are you now saying that Mary Tyler Moore was lying? What evidence do you have to support that claim? Nobody is "using" anything against Moore, I'm just quoting what she actually said about the episode.

Nope. You 100% failed to pick up on my sarcastic tone. Not a good indicator of intelligence.

What I meant was.. you in your previous post AND in this most recent post insinuated that Moore apologized, therefore she must have been in the wrong. a) that's not what that means and b) Reiner apologized too. So by your own logic, I guess hew as in the wrong. See how ineffective it is as a tool for deciding who was right and who was wrong?

And Moore herself never claimed she was sexually harassed.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen. If a tree falls in the woods....................

As far as the misconception... I don't think Moore misunderstood what Reiner was saying to her. I think he unfairly misrepresented it to her and then behaved insensitively when she reacted out of frustration and disappointment.

But she did appear PHYSICALLY in the episode we're discussing. Your description suggests that Moore was off-camera throughout the entire episode, and that's simply not the case. She is off-camera for approximately 14 minutes of a 25-minute episode, and not even continuously; she reappears in the middle of the show to comment on what she experienced. And even while she's off-camera, she's delivering lines that are getting BIG laughs (like "I was playing with a drip" and "Where's the stupid maid with the key?").

I didn't say she didn't appear PHYSICALLY in the episode we're discussing. But thanks for the overview anyway. She appeared way less than each co-star had been accustomed to appearing in their own featured episodes.

But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here; you're stating that Mary Tyler Moore was sexually harassed during the filming of "Never Bathe on a Saturday," and that's simply not true. And more to the point, she never claimed she was sexually harassed. Just because you're determined to see Carl Reiner as a villain means nothing except you're determined to see Carl Reiner as a villain. But just because you see him that way doesn't mean that you've convinced anyone.

1. I view what he said to her as sexual harassment. You've utterly failed miserably at convincing me otherwise. It was extremely inappropriate and insensitive of him to dismiss her desires to be seen during those lines by saying it's "better" because then American men get to picture her naked. That would make any young woman uncomfortable coming from a gross old perv like yourself and Reiner. Furthermore, it doesn't help her plight at all. She didn't want men to picture her naked, she wanted to further her career by getting as much primetime exposure as possible.

2. Once again, whether or not she said she felt sexually harassed is irrelevant. Not everybody who has been victimized knows it and even of those who do, they don't all state it.

3. And just because you're determined to see CR as a saint means nothing except you're determined to see CR as a saint. But just because you see him that way doesn't mean you've convinced anyone.

4. Your blind following of CR as your deity is beyond weird AF. I bet you don't know what AF means, because you're old AF.

Case not proven, court adjourned.

You don't have many friends, do you.

[–] murph24 9 years ago

So you still believe Carl Reiner sexually harassed Mary Tyler Moore?

Well then, why don't you initiate legal proceedings against him? You'll have as much success convincing the judge as you have the other posters on this board.

[–] Jupiter555555 9 years ago

So you still believe Carl Reiner sexually harassed Mary Tyler Moore?

Yes.

Well then, why don't you initiate legal proceedings against him?

"Why"? Obviously because the statute of limitations has expired.

You'll have as much success convincing the judge as you have the other posters on this board.

I'm sure you're a legal expert.  Douche.

[–] murph24 9 years ago

"Why"? Obviously because the statute of limitations has expired.

But that shouldn't present an obstacle to a delusional hysteric like you. And there's always the media; you can write a tell-all book about Carl Reiner! That'll fix him.

Douche.

Ah, what's the matter? Get up on the wrong side of the sarcophagus?

[–] mmathur5689 8 years ago

it's still a really gross and sexist thing to say, sexual harassment or not

MathurMarquee.Blogspot.com Facebook.com/MathurMarquee

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

'sexually harass her by telling her it's "better" for America to picture her naked'
---------------------------------
But if the sexual-roles were reversed, it would had been such a gag-fest. How come?

For all you know, MTM didn't give that reply a 2nd thought since she wasn't living in our present "proper" cynical paranoid superior gloom angry cold society.(Too bad our new found proper society is the worst.)

One more thing: this the one of the most depressing boards I've been on with today's criticism of everything, even a damn sitcom. I get a good sense where you're coming from, in particular. Let's find some problems on the "Get Smart" show board where Agent 99 is maligned and sexually harassed, now.

[–] Jupiter555555 9 years ago

You seem a bit cynical. Are you ok?

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

haha
Boy,aren't you right. Yes, I am very 'cynical' of today's mindset--including but not limited to the pseudo-feminism I see by certain posters.

[–] Jupiter555555 9 years ago

--including but not limited to the pseudo-feminism I see by certain posters.

haha why does it not surprise me that someone I stumbled across in a random post being overly critical of a child actress and her lack of conveying the emotions of a child being tortured which you obviously wanted to see in full authenticity...happens to also be one of the anti-feminist psychos I so often encounter in online interactions ... 

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

it surprises you because you need to believe the worst in people (men),even though I already explained the difference between the two scenarios on the SYBIL board.

Now you put your foot in your mouth, since I already said:
"the actress doesn't need to scream in agony, just not act like she's on No_Dose". Don't tell me: you figured I was being dishonest by saying that to cover myself. Or you must have this innate need to find your femaleness more sensitive and precious by nature.

Yes, when a child is being abused in a darn movie, the said child needs to show emotion to some degree, not a blank-eyed stare--that includes both male and female child actors. They actually didn't need to show the 6 yr old actress at all but imply it, but they chose to film her. Did Linda Blair also rock your senses by acting pained in The Exorcist? Whats the matter, your were abused, so now you vent? You have "psycho"-feminist posts and threads all over the site for the sake of it.

[–] dlynch843 9 years ago

InherentlyYours---I'd just ignore the Jup5 poster.
The Dick Van Dyke Show was funny and smart--- but there's always some idiot that posts junk.

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

I know,thanks.
She had a pattern of using the mistreatment/abuse of women on practically every board; she has issues.

[–] myndchanger 8 years ago

It wasn't sexual harassment, it was objectification. There is a difference. Back then men objectified women based on their physical characteristics and women objectified men based on their earning power.

Anyone who has ever tried to quit smoking cold turkey will understand why the whole episode was blown out of proportion. Also, MTM was too young and inexperienced to just state straight up her disappointment and I'll bet CR was afraid that he had a budding prima donna on his hands.

[–] liscarkat (18410) 3 years ago

"Carl Reiner was a freaking pervert"

For suggesting that the audience might imagine her nude? You have reached the top of the tower of 21st century PC lunacy, and rung the bell.

[–] CarolTheDabbler (570) 2 years ago

I don't think there's any villain here, just a bunch of stuff all happening at once.

Reiner's initial description of the episode was hardly complete.

Moore's nicotine withdrawal amplified her understandable disappointment once she learned "the rest of the story."

And I suspect that what Reiner's explanation meant -- or what it *should* have meant -- was that it's sometimes funnier to imagine a scene than to actually show it. Besides which, they couldn't actually show it. The best they could have done would have been to film only her face and/or show her (as they did later) in a bathrobe, neither of which strikes me as being half as funny as hearing her quavery little voice through the door.

While we're on this episode, I've gotta say -- what a perfect role for Kathleen Freeman (as "the stupid maid")!

[–] [email protected] (5871) 2 years ago

LOL Kathleen Freeman was great in this one ( "...and she calls ME stupid!"). She was also hilarious as the owner of the boardinghouse where Rob and Laura had their honeymoon.

I agree that there was no villain. It was a funny episode that forced the audience to use their imagination. That was in keeping with Carl Reiner's style of story telling. No one ever saw the boat that Rob and Jerry sank in "The Ballad of the Betty Lou". But it's a hilarious episode.

Of course Laura was also painted in the nude in "October Eve" by a painter with a graphic imagination.

Woman can be and have been exploited by men. It's not politically correct to admit but men and women are wired differently. In general men seem to love imagining women, especially good looking ones, naked. Women in general seem to prefer imagining the man they LOVE that way. It's not true for every woman but in general, I think it's true.

[–] CarolTheDabbler (570) 2 years ago

It was a funny episode that forced the audience to use their imagination. That was in keeping with Carl Reiner's style of story telling. No one ever saw the boat that Rob and Jerry sank in "The Ballad of the Betty Lou". But it's a hilarious episode.

Of course Laura was also painted in the nude in "October Eve" by a painter with a graphic imagination.

Come to think of it, we never saw "October Eve" either -- only Laura's pose for it -- again allowing us to use our imagination.