‘Cheers for’ library education

“It just occurred to me that with that amazing memory of yours, you might be interested in the librarian’s course.”

The 1941 film Cheers for Miss Bishop follows the story of Miss Bishop, a college English teacher, as she reflects on her life living and teaching in one small town.

DVD back cover for Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941)
DVD back cover for Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941)

The write-up on the back of the case reveals most of the plot:

Tomboy Ella Bishop has blossomed into a smart, sophisticated woman… From a rocky start as a young school teacher to the unexpected adoption of an abandoned child, and finally as the venerated old maid who has inspired scores of her students to achieve greatness, Miss Bishop deserves three cheers!

The film plays like it aspires to be a female version of the 1939 classic Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Martha Scott plays the title role, from a young woman through middle age to a “venerated old maid.” We first meet Miss Bishop — yes, an educated woman who never marries — when she is an old woman, as seen below. She says to her old friend, Sam (William Gargan) that “looking backward [is a] great waste of time.” Perhaps not the most encouraging way to begin a biopic… 😉

Screenshot from Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941)
This film did not get nominated for Best Makeup

As a young woman eagerly starting college at the new Midwestern University — graduating as valedictorian in the early 1880s — Ella Bishop’s character is quickly established through this exchange of two admirers:

There’s not another girl in the class that can touch her.

There’s not another girl in the whole world that can touch her.

Ella herself seems quite confident that education will NOT be her entire life, with these early statements:

You don’t think I’m going to spend all my life teaching, do you?”

And don’t worry, I won’t be an old maid. I’ll know when the right man comes along. But now… there’s so much to do.

The DVD cover tries to stir up more drama than is evident in the film with the tagline, “The woman they whispered about…” and the odd central photo of Ella Bishop embracing an older man, as seen below. But it is obvious that when compared to her silly, boy-crazy cousin Amy, Miss Bishop is portrayed in the film as a good girl.

DVD front cover for Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941)
DVD front cover for Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941)

After graduating, the college president Corcoran (Edmund Gwenn) offers Miss Bishop a teaching position at Midwestern to teach Freshman English; her first year of teaching is 1884. Her first year does get off to a shaky start, as when her first student enters the classroom and mistakes her for a fellow student, asking if the teacher has come yet! Also in that first class, she asks her pupils to write a brief essay about their life’s ambitions.

One student, Minna Fields (the cinematic debut of Rosemary DeCamp), nervously recites her speech, “Except to get learning, I ain’t got no special life’s ambition, yet.” In the very next scene, 15 minutes into the film, Miss Bishop advises Minna to be a librarian! Coming right after Minna’s statement that she “ain’t got no special life’s ambition,” this suggestion doesn’t come across as very encouraging!

Screenshot from Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941)
Have you ever thought about becoming a librarian?

Miss Bishop: It just occurred to me that with that amazing memory of yours, you might be interested in the librarian’s course. It would be an interesting job, wouldn’t it, Minna?

Minna:  Oh yes, Miss Bishop. But… I have got a life’s ambition now. It’s to be just like you.

So that’s one potential reel librarian down.

Later, Miss Bishop defends Minna in a meeting whether or not to expel her because of a plagiarism charge — but it was a misunderstanding due to Minna’s “amazing memory” mentioned earlier. (By the way, we later find out that the student, Minna, became a “world-famous historian” instead!)

In a scene almost 40 minutes in, Miss Bishop has endured heartbreak in her personal life — her fiance jilted her for her boy-crazy cousin Amy — so she writes a letter to President Corcoran that she’s leaving for New York to become a librarian. However, he convinces her not to go!

Screenshot from Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941)
Librarian pep talk? I don’t think so.

President Corcoran:  I’ve just received your letter.

Miss Bishop:  I thought it easier to write. You see, Mother and I are going to New York, President Corcoran. It’s an assistant librarian’s position.

President Corcoran:  Oh I see. Of course, It is a hard job, teaching. It never pays much, and lots of the time it’s a headache, wondering if it’s worthwhile…. You’ve got it, Ella, that magic touch that makes young minds open up and flourish. Of course, Midwestern must accept your resignation. But are you sure your New York public library needs you as much as [we do] here in Midwestern?

So there’s another potential reel librarian down the drain!

It is interesting that the film mentions a college librarian course, especially set in the year 1884. This minor plot point — promoting a librarian course for women at a midwestern college in the early 1880s — is stretching history a little. Because it wasn’t until 1887 that Melvil Dewey, often referred to in the U.S. as the “Father of Modern Librarianship,” founded the world’s first library school at Columbia College, now Columbia University in New York (after first proposing the idea in 1883). Dewey also insisted on admitting women as students — against the college’s Regents’ wishes — resulting in 17 female students enrolled in the program that first year. He also helped found the American Library Association, the oldest international library association, in 1876. You can read more about the history of library science education in the U.S. in this article, “History of American Library Science: Its Origins and Early Development,” by John V. Richardson, Jr.

So although this film highlights librarianship and library education — a rarity in cinema! — Cheers for Miss Bishop (1941) ends up in the Class V category, as there are no actual reel librarians. I’m a little bit relieved, as Miss Bishop — who DOES become an “old maid” — would definitely have been a stereotypical portrayal.

And what did we learn about desired qualifications or motivations for pursuing a “librarian’s course” or librarian position? Based on this film, you need to either (a) have a good memory, or (b) be unlucky in love.

I’m one for two. 😉


Sources used:


An unusual collection

Creating my own reel librarian collection in graduate school

For those of you who are regular readers of this blog — how y’all doing? —  you know that I wrote an undergraduate thesis all about librarian portrayals in film. Heck, I even wrote about the starting list of films used for that thesis a couple of weeks ago. So this subject comes up a lot, is what I’m saying. 🙂

What I haven’t talked about yet is that I even carried that love of reel librarians into graduate school, as you’ll see below. My first semester, I took a core course called “Basic Information Organization.”

One of the major projects in that course that we had to complete was creating our own library collection/database and then cataloging at least 10 items in that collection (we used the Inmagic database program). We also had to create our own system of cataloging and provide how-to instructions — going through this process made me appreciate catalogers even more! — as well as write a paper all about the collection with sections explaining who our users were, including sample user problems and questions, etc. Basically, through this project, we had to think about how we personally organize things, and then think through how others would be able to understand and use that system of organization.

We even had to do some usability testing, meaning that a real person had to search our individual databases using those sample questions and try to find the answers/items. My guinea pig? My husband, of course! I had TOTALLY forgotten about that, as had he, until I reread my paper. 🙂

So, details. I chose to place my fictional collection, “The Collection of Librarian Portrayals on Film” (continuing my streak of awkward titles) in the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley. Why there? I bet y’all are thinking. Rereading this, I wondered that, too, but then I remembered that Berkeley is one of the few places that includes programs for both film studies and library/information science. And Bancroft Library is well-known for its special collections. Lucky Bancroft Library, eh?

Here was my project description:

Project collection description
Project collection description

Hee hee, videocassettes! But I did recognize later on in the paper that “Technology will also affect format, as videos will probably be replaced by other forms of media, such as DVDs or another future product. This collection will need to focus on archiving and maintaining the quality of its films.” Oh, past tense me, you were such a hoot! 😉

And here’s my description of user needs for this fictional library collection:

User needs for my film collection project
User needs for my film collection project

I even came up with my own call numbers, or classification code:

Classification code for Party Girl
Classification code for Party Girl

By the way, that is so NOT the kind of call number I would come up with today. Why did I think back then that the MPAA rating was so important?

And finally, here’s a sample record in my database, for the 1995 film Party Girl:

Database record for Party Girl
Database record for Party Girl

By the way, I did make a good grade on that project (I can hear my mom now, “Of course!”), and it helped me prepare for an upcoming cataloging course. It also deepened my eternal appreciation for catalogers. But I do remember my professor asking me questions about my inspiration for this collection — because she, too, had been perplexed at first about who would be the users! But by the end of this project (we had to do 4 drafts!), she was intrigued by the idea, too. 🙂

So another little step in the journey to this blog. Thank you, graduate school, for those opportunities to continue exploring my love of reel librarians. ♥

Information Provider librarians

Exploring the Information Provider character type

Now it’s time to shine the spotlight on our intrepid Information Providers (for previous entries in this series of librarian character types, click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). As I wrote about in my previous post in this series, I used to combine this category with the Comic Relief librarians, entitled “The Librarian Who Provides Information or Humor.” Yep, telling the truth when I was said I was bad with titles.

Their role seems pretty self-explanatory:  supporting or minor characters who provide information — or misinformation — to a character.

Take the film All the President’s Men (1976), which includes a trio of Information Providers. One librarian, a female, is heard only over the phone; with her frightened manner of supplying the wrong information, she helps heighten the tension of the Watergate scandal at the center of the film. Contrast her role’s purpose with the two other Information Providers in the film:  two male librarians, one Caucasian and one African-American, both of whom work in the Library of Congress. The white male is, shall we say, reluctant to help the two reporters, but the African-American librarian’s helpful research spurs the two reporters on their successful trail to uncovering the Watergate story. The two male librarians are both more helpful than the untruthful female librarian in the film.

The Information Provider character type may also simply provide information to the audience, such as helping to establish:

For example, the library scene in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn highlights the diligence and intelligence of little Francie (Peggy Ann Garner), and in Bed of RosesLewis Farrell’s (Christian Slater) friendship with the children’s librarian at the local public library reveals his character’s inner sensitivity.

In Philadelphia, Tracey Walter plays a librarian who gives main character, Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks), a book about HIV discrimination and proceeds to ask if he wants a private room. After Andrew’s refusal, Walter is almost rude in his insistence, demonstrating his (and society’s) discrimination. This brief role helps turn the audience’s sympathy even more toward Andrew, and the movie relies on this sympathy to move the plot forward.

Physically, Information Providers are the most diverse of all the character types, spanning ages, clothing styles, gender and ethnicities.

The Information Providers are also the most identified with occupational tasks, such as shelving, filing, stamping, pushing carts, checking out books, etc. The tasks and props usually included in a reel library setting are most associated in real life with library assistants or technicians. See my post on library education and job duties.

There are so many examples of Information Providers that although they make up the majority of reel librarian roles, they are the least important roles overall of librarians in film, at least according to screen time. Makes sense, then, that they are almost exclusively ensconced in the Class III or Class IV film categories.

For my money, the most informative Information Provider ever onscreen — so far — would have to be Vox from the 2002 remake of The Time Machine. In his time travels, a disillusioned inventor (Guy Pearce) encounters Vox (Orland Jones), a holographic librarian who supplies him with information about time travel and the history and evolution of the planet and its population. Vox is truly informative, but he also embodies the library itself. Hundreds of thousands of years later, Vox IS the library, literally all that remains of the “compendium of all human knowledge.”

Next up in our series, we’ll be peeking in on the Naughty Librarians. Stay tuned! 😉

A look at ‘The Hollywood Librarian’

Reviewing “The Hollywood Librarian: A Look at Librarians Through Film” documentary

For years, I’d been excited about Ann Seidl’s documentary, The Hollywood Librarian: A Look at Librarians Through Film (2007) — another librarian who loves movies and is passionate about our profession and how we are portrayed? Count me in!

The Hollywood Librarian site heading
The Hollywood Librarian site heading

I couldn’t make it to the ALA 2007 Annual Conference where the documentary premiered. And when film screening opportunities rolled out the following year, I was disappointed that my library wasn’t able to participate (to screen the film for the public, you had to charge for tickets, which wasn’t allowed for our university library). Then I went overseas for three years, basically putting my film research on hold. So this year, FINALLY, I was able to see this documentary on dvd.

The positives? There are a lot of ’em. It is well done, a documentary both thoughtful and thought-provoking. Seidl wrote, directed, and narrated the film — it took more than 10 years to realize this goal! — combining film clips of reel librarians and libraries with interviews of real librarians and library supporters and authors, including Ray Bradbury (who wrote Fahrenheit 451, a book about book burning, in a library). Much of what the librarians have to say is meaningful and SHOULD be heard by a larger audience. There are unsung heroes amongst the librarians, along with “superstar” librarians like Nancy Pearl, the author behind the Book Lust series and the (infamous) “shushing librarian” action figure. You can feel Seidl’s passion.

The negatives? There are a lot of ’em, too. Even though the documentary ends on a positive quote from Nancy Pearl, “People absolutely adore being librarians. And who wouldn’t? I mean, it’s a perfect job,” the tone throughout is not exactly uplifting. But it’s hard to criticize this documentary because it is so well-meaning, and everything in it is of value. But it feels like a documentary splicing together 6 or 7 different documentaries in an hour and a half. The segments highlighting library issues include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • history of women in librarianship;
  • Andrew Carnegie and his legacy of public libraries;
  • benefits of children’s library services;
  • benefits of prison libraries;
  • censorship and intellectual freedom;
  • lack of public funding and the fight to keep public libraries open in Salinas, hometown of author John Steinbeck; and
  • the destruction of libraries and priceless archives during wartime, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

In short — and that previous list is long! — the film tries too hard to fit everything in. Watching it, I felt like I was watching a lot of tangents but not a cohesive whole. And that was frustrating because like I said, everything in it was good, and the points are valuable. But this is, unfortunately, an example where the sum is lesser than its parts.

Was this a conscious choice? Did the project grow too big? Was Seidl (subconsciously?) making a point about how marginalizing librarians onscreen then marginalizes librarians in real life? Seidl commented on her goals for the project:

We must insist on our right to define ourselves not only as more than a stereotype, but as a cultural imperative. We must have our positive self-image with the public.

And on The Hollywood Librarian website, she reveals more about her motivations:

The handful of films that exists on this topic [librarianship] neither examine the image and stereotype of librarians, nor portray the real work that librarians do. I want to make a film that does both.

However, the film clips that are included — the raison d’être I had assumed based on the title — seem more like a sideline, a convenient yet throwaway method to transition between chapters. Toward the beginning, Seidl seems to sum up the reel librarian with “The fussy, bad-tempered librarian is a stock stereotype in film and television. Aside from a few positive roles, being a librarian — according to the movies — is usually anything but a wonderful life,” and a quick montage of clips, including Citizen Kane (1941), Sophie’s Choice (1982), The Music Man (1962), The Philadelphia Story (1940), Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961), and of course, It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). And about an hour in, she highlights the “sexy librarian” stereotype with a few clips from The Music Man (1962), The Station Agent (2003), and No Man of Her Own (1932), among others.

This review post has taken me awhile to write — I’ve kept coming back to it, just as I’ve kept coming back to my reactions to the documentary. It is an intriguing idea, literally juxtaposing reel and real librarians and issues affecting our profession. Bottom line, I do believe media portrayals, fictional or not, of my chosen profession matter. And this documentary, in the end, also matters. It is, as they say, a noble effort. But I fear that the title will mislead, and frustrate, viewers, and leave them with more questions than answers.

But maybe that’s a good thing.

Have you seen this documentary? What are your thoughts?

The Hollywood Librarian Trailer” video uploaded by TheHollywoodLibrarian is licensed under a Standard YouTube license

Below is a list of the film clips and interviews included in The Hollywood Librarian, arranged in alphabetical order. Please note that not all of the film clips feature reel librarians.


Film clips*


  • Battlefield Earth (2000)
  • Big Bully (1996)
  • Billy Elliot (2000) *
  • Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) *
  • Caesar and Cleopatra (1945)
  • The Cider House Rules (1999) *
  • Citizen Kane (1941) *
  • City of Angels (1998)
  • Cleopatra (1963)
  • Dangerous Minds (1995)
  • David Copperfield (1999?) *
  • The Day After Tomorrow (2004) *
  • Desk Set (1957)
  • East of Eden (1955)
  • Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
  • Foul Play (1978) *
  • Gone with the Wind (1939) *
  • Goodbye, Columbus (1969)
  • I Love Trouble (1994) *
  • It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
  • The Librarian: Quest for the Spear (TV, 2004)
  • Love Story (1970)
  • Matilda (1996)
  • The Music Man (1962)
  • The New Avengers (TV, 1976) *
  • No Man of Her Own (1932)
  • Party Girl (1995)
  • The Philadelphia Story (1940) *
  • Plaza Suite (1971)
  • Sophie’s Choice (1982) *
  • Soylent Green (1973)
  • Star Wars, Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002) *
  • The Station Agent (2003)
  • Storm Center (1956)
  • Threesome (1994)
  • The Time Machine (2002)
  • Tomcats (2001) *
  • A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1942)
  • The Truman Show (1998) *
  • The Twilight Zone (TV, 1962)
  • Wonder Man (1945) *
  • Zardoz (1974)

* Uncredited film clips


Librarian interviews**


  • Chris Ewing (web support librarian, University of Southern California)
  • Martin Garnar (librarian and privacy expert)
  • Ruth Gilbert (retired medical librarian, Denver, CO)
  • Susan Hildreth (State Librarian of California)
  • Molly Kliss (library science graduate student, Madison, WI)
  • Jamie LaRue (library director, Douglas County, CO)
  • Rhea Lawson, PhD (library director, Houston Public Library, TX)
  • Pat Lawton, PhD (professor of library science)
  • Marilyn Martin (library media specialist, Denver Public Schools)
  • Maria Mena (children’s librarian)
  • Jan Neal (head librarian, Salinas Public Library)
  • Nancy Paradise (librarian, Long Beach, CA)
  • Christine Pawley, PhD (library professor, Univ. of Iowa)
  • Nancy Pearl (librarian and author, Seattle, WA)
  • Peg Hepburn Perry (librarian 50+ yrs, 1921-2006)

Katharine Hepburn’s sister! Even MORE reasons to love Desk Set (1957). This could be a documentary all by itself. Dear Universe, this needs to happen. Thanks for listening. ♥ Jennifer

  • Eugenie Prime (head librarian, Hewlett Packard)
  • Maria Roddy (branch manager, Cesar Chavez Branch – Salinas public libraries)
  • Eleanore Schmidt (library director, Long Beach Public Library, CA)
  • Susan Turrell (library director, Tunkhannock Public Library)

** Job titles and workplaces as listed/stated in documentary


Sources used:


  • The Hollywood Librarian. Dir. Ann Seidl. Overdue Productions, 2007.

Comparing two ‘Desk Sets’ (and I don’t mean furniture)

Comparing the 1955 play and 1957 film version

Yes, it’s obvious by now that Desk Set (1957) ranks as one of my favorite librarian films (see here, here, here and here), with some of my favorite reel librarian characters ever. Of course, I would say my bias is justified by the excellence of the film itself, but that’s up for you to decide.

I’ve seen the film many times, but until now, I had never read the play it’s based on, The Desk Set, written by William Marchant. It premiered on Broadway in October 1955 and ran for 297 performances, through July 1956. So I found out our library consortium had a copy of the play — because I looked it up. 😉

The Desk Set - title page
The Desk Set – title page

It’s a delightful play! It’s significant to note how many lines and scenes from the play were directly transferred onscreen — including all of the reference questions. Perhaps because the screenwriters didn’t want to do any extra research?!

Intrigued, I set out to compare the play and film. Below are my (totally unscientific) findings.

*SPOILER ALERTS*


Setting & structure:


Play:

  • 3 acts: Introduction to characters and interview of Miss Watson (Act I); the Christmas party (Act II); and the installation of Emmarac (Act III)
  • 1 locale: The reference department library of a large broadcasting company

Film:

  • Most of this color film takes place in the library, but it adds locales (and resulting scenes), including Mr. Azae’s office, the roof of the building, and Bunny’s apartment. See this website for a rundown of the different sets.
  • Side note: The UK title for this film was His Other Woman. Decidedly odd — and misleading — title.

Main characters:


Play:

  • Librarians: Bunny Watson (head librarian and office manager); Peg Costello; Ruthie Saylor; Sadel Meyer
  • Richard Sumner, efficiency expert (and nephew of Mr. Azae, the head of the station); Abe Cutler, executive at company, referred to as Bunny’s boss (Act I, p. 17)

Film:

  • The same basic cast of characters, but Sadel Meyer is changed to Sylvia Blair, and Abe Cutler becomes Mike Cutler
  • There is no mention of Richard Sumner being related to the company president (because Spencer Tracy was older in real life?)

Bunny Watson:


Fun fact: Bunny’s full name, Bonita, is mentioned in the play (Act III, p. 77). Is it strange that I breathed a sigh of relief that “Bunny” is a nickname?

Play:

  • Shirley Booth originated the role on Broadway

Film:

  • Katharine Hepburn

Librarian qualifications:


The discussion of her education and training comes at the beginning of the personal interview (see below) —  a rare inclusion, however brief, of librarian education. Both versions mention a library course at Columbia University.

Play:

  • Richard: And what was your training for this kind of work?
    Bunny: Just a library course at Columbia University. (Act I, p. 30)
  • In Act III, Bunny mentions, “Oh, my diploma–good old Columbia” as she’s clearing up her office (p. 67)

Film:

  • Richard: Tell me, Miss Watson, what training have you had for your job?
    Bunny:  Well, a college education, and after that, a library course at Columbia. I was going to take a PhD but I ran out of money.
  • There are several framed documents visible in Bunny’s office, but no specific mention of a diploma — but a master’s degree or certification is implied through her earlier statement of wanting to go on to a PhD

Personal interview:


This is an important scene, a battles of the sexes in miniature, in which Richard Sumner asks Bunny Watson a series of questions. He’s basically sizing her up and gauging her intelligence. The scene ends very differently in the play, which surprised me.

Play:

  • This scene occurs at the end of Act I and takes place in Bunny’s office.
  • At the end of the interview, this is Richard’s not-so-complimentary reaction: “I never had anybody quite like you before. We have an extreme classification I’ve never used, but it has to be applied to you. … FREAK!” (p. 34)

Film:

  • About a half hour in, this scene takes place atop the rooftop of the building, in the cold (adding to the humor)
  • Said with admiration and genuine warmth, Richard compares her to a “rare tropical fish”

The electronic brain:


The room-sized computer in the play and film was based on the real-life ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator And Computer), the first general-purpose electronic computer. It was described as a “giant brain” with a slogan of “Making machines do more, so that man can do less”

Play:

  • Spelled as Emmarac (Electro-Magnetic Memory And Research Arithmetical Calculator)
  • Richard proudly states, “We figure it will save us in this department alone 6,240 man hours a year” (End of Act II, p. 55, repeated in Act III, p. 61)
  • Richard gives the machine a nickname, “Emmy”
  • Bunny stops the noise from Emmarac with a hairpin, annoying Richard (Act III, p. 72-73)

Film:

  • Everything I’ve found referring to the machine in the film spells it EMARAC (also capitalizing it to make it clear it’s an acronym), eliminating one of the M’s
  • The same line, “We figure it will save us… 6,240 man hours a year,” is used but spoken by Miss Warriner (see below)
  • Several nicknames spoken by multiple characters: “Emily EMARAC” (Bunny); “Miss M” and “Miss Emmy” (Miss Warriner); and “Emmy” (Richard Sumner and Bunny)
  • Richard fixes the machine with Bunny’s hairpin

Miss Warriner:


The computer’s dutiful servant shows up at the end of the Christmas party in both versions, introduced as an electronics expert (but she’s portrayed as a fairly ridiculous and histrionic character).

Play:

  • In the beginning of Act III, she’s described as “not yet thirty… but a certain demeanor suggests that permanent spinsterhood is most certainly to be hers” (p. 60). So the spinster in this work is the techie, NOT the librarian! Interesting…

Film:

  • Pretty much as described in the play

Librarians vs. computers:


Even though the “electronic brain” takes up a huge space in both the play and the film (visually dating both works), the essential conflict in the film — pitting humans against technology — remains. And it seems an endless debate in the library world: are libraries and librarians so easily replaced by computers and online sources? One of the (many) things I love about Desk Set is that the conclusion (you need both!) is STILL relevant today, and just as true.

Play:

  • Richard sums up Emmarac’s purpose: “It was not meant to replace you. It was never intended to take over. It was installed to free your time for research” (Act III, p. 75)

Film:

  • Richard adds a bit more: “EMARAC is not going to take over. It was never intended to take over. It was never intended to replace you. It’s here merely to free your time for research. It’s just here to help you.”

Happy ending:


I was quite surprised that the endings are different! I personally find the film’s ending much more satisfying — a romance between acknowledged equals.

Play:

  • Ends with Abe proposing over a dictaphone message and Bunny smiling as she replays the message

Film:

  • Abe headed to West Coast, and Bunny and Richard headed for romance. It IS a Hepburn & Tracy film, after all.

Sources used:


  • Desk Set. Dir. Walter Lang. Perf. Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Gig Young, Joan Blondell, Dina Merrill. 20th Century Fox, 1957.
  • Marchant, William. The Desk Set: A Comedy in Three Acts. 1955.