MovieChat Forums > Bringing Up Baby (1938) Discussion > The Title: A child-rearing theme that is...

The Title: A child-rearing theme that is unnecessary

posted 15 years ago by binghamguevara
13 replies | jump to latest

Why does the title have this child-rearing theme in it. There is not a a single moment in the film where children, or bringing up children, becomes some kind of theme.

I know that baby is the name of the leopard,and that the title is supposed to be kind of jokey, but still.

I think they should have taken out the 'Bringin Up' phrase, and changed it for something else, something that has something to do with what happens in the film.

All titles convey something about the story. Imagine if THE GODFATHER was titled BILLY'S LEFT LEG, you'd say to yourself: 'What the hell does the title refer to from the film.

Here are some alternative titles that I've thought of: Fearing Baby, Loving Baby, The Heiress and the Paleontologist, Because I Went GAY All of a Sudden, Gay All of a Sudden

[–] shadowsndust284 15 years ago

These are the tenuous ways I've thought of where the title makes sense:

1. They mean "bringing up Baby" as in, "we're taking this leopard to Connecticut"

2. The lead female is childish and the leading male is baffled by her (but does not try to mature her, so I guess this is even less likely than number 1).

[–] binghamguevara 15 years ago

fantastically detailed and thought-out response shadowsndust.

I can relate to your first example; The word 'bringing' in the film's title MAY have a double meaning, but the its not an obvious one to get, though, is it?

[–] PillowRock 15 years ago

1. They mean "bringing up Baby" as in, "we're taking this leopard to Connecticut"

Alternatively, "bringing up" could be meant as in "for consideration" or "in conversation". The movie keeps bringing up Baby. Baby disappears for significant stretches of the movie, for example while the leads search for the bone, but Baby keeps returning to the spotlight at the center of the action (being brought up, as it were).

I really don't see any problem with the title. It's not like anybody was producing previews or lobby posters that made the movie look like it was about taking care of an infant.

Titles often are metaphors or other types of word plays, not uncommonly with the literal reading being the one that is least relevant. Adam's Rib has nothing to do with the biblical Creation story. The Importance of Being Earnest has nothing to do with the character trait of earnestness. Big cats native to Africa appear in neither The Lion in Winter nor The Wind and the Lion (and I bet there are a number of other titles that use lion metaphors). Days of Thunder isn't about stormy weather (in the literal sense), and neither is Gone with the Wind nor Stormy Weather. Ball of Fire doesn't include any flames of note. That's just the way titles are, much of the time.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] praxagora 15 years ago

Agreed. But also, the title is funny.

[–] Lysandra_Yaxley 15 years ago

Why do you all try to over think this film? Bringing Up Baby, the title, is a play on the phrase 'bringing up baby' which refers to raising an infant. However, in this case Baby is a leopard not an infant. It's a joke. This is a comedy.

Your alternate titles are all lousy.

[–] binghamguevara 15 years ago

Thanks for responding guys. This is a response to your point pillowrock:

Your argument that Bringing Up Baby could have alternative connotations and meaning is a reasonable argument. However your remark that:

‘It’s not like anybody was producing previews or lobby posters that made the movie look like it was taking care of an infant.’

is completely wrong. If you type in ‘Bringing Up Baby Poster’ into google, then go to the image section, you’ll see that the film’s poster depicts a carton rendering of Susan and David feeding and playing with a leopard that is wearing a bib and nappy. So it’s quite obvious, that the creators wanted the connotation of child rearing to be foremost meaning of the title.

I wrote a couple of paragraphs in my university essay on the subject of titles. And one of the prime things that I learned was that titles often, whether literal or metaphorical, refer to something from the film. The Godfather refers to the character of the godfather in the film, Jaws refers to the shark, Gone with the Wind refers to bygone culture depicted in the film, Silence of the Lambs references a partial scene from the film where the female protagonist anecdotes about a childhood memory about the slaughtering of lambs.

The title, or more specifically, the phrase ‘Bringing Up..’, and its obvious meaning on child rearing, a point I’ve evidenced by citing the film poster, is not a theme, whether literal or metaphorical, that is brought up in any scene from the film. Even one line of dialogue from any character from the film would have been sufficient enough to establish that theme definitively.

If the leopard in the film was a cub, inferring more strongly that the cub would have to be ‘brought up’, then the title would make more sense, but the leopard in the film is a full grown adult.

I created this tag because of my essay, as I found this film’s title to be a good example of a ‘bad’/’questionable’ title. That's the reason why I'm taking this title semi-seriously.

[–] Lysandra_Yaxley 15 years ago

You actually got a grade for writing about titles?

You must really hate the Marx Bros. I mean 'Horse Feathers'? 'Animal Crackers'?

[–] binghamguevara 15 years ago

Thanks for responding Lysandra Yaxley.

I didn't write an entire essay about titles, just a paragraph or two on the subject.

[–] jashobeam5 15 years ago

You missed a very obvious point. At the beginning of the movie David is told that in his intending marriage there will be no children, and that the dino will be their "child." He looks at it and is not impressed with having a dino as a "child" instead of raising his own kids. As he is doubting his choice of a future wife, Susan shows up with an alternate child- Baby. So instead of the stiff first choice and the dino baby, David chooses Susan and her Baby. I can't believe more people didn't realize this. David and Susan get married and Baby is their pet, taken from her aunt. So instead of being a dino daddy he is "Bringing Up Baby" with Susan.

[–] binghamguevara 15 years ago

fantastic observation jashobeam5. Your comments really seem to bring all the fragmented jisgsaw pieces on what this title is about all together. I hope you've read my arguments for the foolishness of the title, because I think you may have won, in that the title of the film actually IS quite sensible.

[–] jashobeam5 15 years ago

I love old movies and the unique names many of them have. I have seen movies and read books where the titles sadly had no relevance to the content. This is not one of those such works, thankfully. It also seems today's authors and movie makers are getting lazy. Movies and books are titled so simply they aren't worth thinking about. I like a good hidden meaning that can be found if one looks hard enough.

[–] Rupert_Pupkin1 14 years ago

It could also be a reference to the dinosaur needing to be brought up after it collapses. David helped Susan bring up baby by chasing around after him and expressing love (by singing) like they would have towards a human baby. Now Susan will actively help David bring up his baby, neglected by Alice. It's a golden mean ending as it would involve both thinking and playing, with gender and social barriers having been dissolved.

"You get me the real money, and i'll bring you the real diamonds."