The price of a 1941 phone call- Ouch!

I was searching through some newspaper archives, and found this little bit of price pain.
http://newspaperarchive.com/racine-journal-times/1941-11-28/page-11
It seems that a young navy officer was talking to his soon to be ex-wife. She wanted a divorce, he didn't, but they apparently had a very pleasant talk. He was in the Philippines, she was in Las Vegas (imagine that )- and they didn't pay attention to the time. Length of call: 1 hour, 45 minutes. Cost of call: $163.00.

I knew long distance used to be expensive- we timed our calls to my uncle in Australia in the 70's. But I had no idea they were that pricey!

Now thats why I don't own a mobile phone,

That right there is why telegrams remained so popular for so long...

Warden said:

Now thats why I don't own a mobile phone,

Click to expand...

That is 1941 rates.. Today's call is likely significantly cheaper.

Do you mean that it cost them $163 back in 1941? Or today?

If so...adjusted for inflation, that was a $2500 phone call. Ouch indeed.

Getting a phone call from Las Vegas to the Phillipines wasn't just a matter of plugging a cable into a jack -- it had to go thru multiple undersea cables, relays, and circuits, and probably took an hour or two just to establish contact. Even an ordinary long-distance call was a complicated process at the time -- usually you'd call the Long Distance operator, give the number you were trying to reach, and she'd ring you back when the connection was complete. Modern-style Direct Distance Dialing didn't exist until the fifties.

Red Leader said:

Do you mean that it cost them $163 back in 1941? Or today?

If so...adjusted for inflation, that was a $2500 phone call. Ouch indeed.

Click to expand...

Yes. That's $163 in 1941 currency. And since the lady was a (very) minor Hollywood starlet, the story appeared in several newspapers. I'm not sure what people thought was more newsworthy. The circumstances of the marriage/divorce, or that they spent ALMOST TWO HOURS ON THE PHONE FROM LAS VEGAS TO THE PHILIPPINES!

However, having had some experience with young military men, that one would blow almost a month's pay on a phone call to a girl...
not surprising at all.

Who was the starlet? I can't access the paper without it wanting me to pay.

Amy Jeanne said:

Who was the starlet? I can't access the paper without it wanting me to pay.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. That paper is set up so you can get two "freebies" a day. I don't know why it blocked you.

Anyhoo. The actress is Marjorie Weaver. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0915913/
She wasn't in acting for very long. A pretty young woman who had a few years of fun in Hollywood. It's kind of cute reading some old papers. I swear, EVERY young actress who's had so much as one line in a film is described as a "starlet".

Synopsis of gossip: young actress marries young navy officer, circa 1937 or 38, and then spends time denying she's married. Off he goes to sea. In the Pacific. Two years later, he's still in the Pacific, and she wants a divorce. He doesn't, and hits the phones trying to talk her out of it. Fail. But she needs permission in writing from him before she can get a divorce, cause he's deployed. He agrees, as long as she promises not to get engaged or married before he gets some leave and then he's going to get her to change her mind and remarry him. She agrees to his conditions and they divorce.

Several problems arose. The phone call was in November (?) of 1941. His leave was scheduled for April of 1942. And in March of 1942 his submarine was scuttled, and the crew spent the rest of the war in Japanese POW camps. And somewhere before the war ended she remarried.

On first reading parts of this story, my first thought was "what a wench!" But from the papers I gathered they had only known each other a couple of weeks before they got hitched, and maybe spent a few a month or two together during their entire marriage. In the future when I read of current Hollywood antics, I will remember this tale, to remind myself that goofiness is not limited to any particular decade.

Some quotes from the lady: "We're being a bit more careful of the phone bills, and he's also been sending me all kinds of beautiful presents. I am beginning to think that he is a kind of wonderful guy." Usually you determine a person's wonderfulness before the wedding

Concerning rumors about her new boyfriend (the one she later married) "...This does make it a little complicated. Kenneth (ex-husband) knows about Donald (new boyfriend and future husband), of course. And vice-verso. When I finish my current picture I am going to Chicago to spend Christmas with Donald's parents. Kenneth and Donald are both fine men. But there'll be no decisions made until April and I've kept my promise."

Title of article in October 1945...
FIRST UNDERSTANDS, SO SHE KEEPS NO. 2

My conclusion. On occasion during this time period, marriage was treated like dating, with "privileges".

Hollywood has always been a law unto itself in matters of personal morality, a fact which Mr. Joseph Ignatius Breen exploited to stay gainfully employed for twenty years.

Oh Marjorie Weaver! She was on the cover of one of my magazines from 1938:



Thanks.

Thanks for the magazine cover. I saw some newspaper pics of her. They were pretty "smudgy".

And thanks Lizzie! I had to google who Breen was. So now I need to watch the pre-code version of Babyface!

Bluebird Marsha said:

Synopsis of gossip: young actress marries young navy officer, circa 1937 or 38, and then spends time denying she's married. Off he goes to sea. In the Pacific. Two years later, he's still in the Pacific, and she wants a divorce. He doesn't, and hits the phones trying to talk her out of it. Fail. But she needs permission in writing from him before she can get a divorce, cause he's deployed. He agrees, as long as she promises not to get engaged or married before he gets some leave and then he's going to get her to change her mind and remarry him. She agrees to his conditions and they divorce.

Several problems arose. The phone call was in November (?) of 1941. His leave was scheduled for April of 1942. And in March of 1942 his submarine was scuttled, and the crew spent the rest of the war in Japanese POW camps. And somewhere before the war ended she remarried.

On first reading parts of this story, my first thought was "what a wench!" But from the papers I gathered they had only known each other a couple of weeks before they got hitched, and maybe spent a few a month or two together during their entire marriage. In the future when I read of current Hollywood antics, I will remember this tale, to remind myself that goofiness is not limited to any particular decade.

Click to expand...

You have to wonder about the husband too... I know it's totally normal to idealize your partner when you are away fighting in a stressful situation... but he also knew her only a few weeks and agreed to get married, and when she requested a divorce he still wouldn't give up and made her promise to not marry anyone else (which isn't really a divorce, it's purgatory). He seemed to be a little obsessed or he was so in love he couldn't see that she wasn't interested in him.

I'm of the mind that if someone tells you it's over to the point to ask for a divorce, you shouldn't try to attach strings to them. Granted, it seemed like she chose a bad time to ask for one.

If he was in a POW camp for 3 years (if my math is correct) I would assume that she didn't know he was captured, just that he was MIA and she likely thought he had passed away (unless the U.S. government had told her differently). I don't think only waiting three years (or even 2) for your MIA possibly deceased ex-husband to possibly come back from the war is at all shameful. I've known plenty of widows who have been re-married 3 years after their husbands passed; and these were people that they were actively married to and in love with, not people they had known for a few weeks and gotten divorced from.

The phone call cost exceeded the cost of the divorce.

Best regards

CCJ

I agree with you Sheep Lady. The first time I read about this was in a book. In there it just said that she got a divorce while he was in the POW camp - on grounds of desertion. It didn't mention much else, and my first thought was "what a little creep!" That would be just low down. I would think it a bit obsessive on his part to put conditions on the divorce. But... she asked for the divorce in roughly Sept-Nov. And he thought he'd be seeing her again in April. Not exactly a long time. Just horrifically bad timing. It really did put her in an unfortunate position. I didn't get the impression he was all that upset when he got out either.

She wouldn't have reason to think he was still alive. Early on there was just word that the sub was missing.Which would usually mean everyone on board had died. I don't see anything at all wrong that either of them did. Just a hormone fueled marriage that hopefully was a few weeks of fun.It just amused me how blithely everything was stated. It read like she didn't really know him at all, and seemed like it was normal to having both a persistent ex-husband and a new fiance on hand. You know "They're both great guys" and "I'm visiting new guys family for Christmas". If it hadn't been for the bad timing I can just picture her talking to new guy's family.

"Well yes Donald is a wonderful man. But Kenneth is coming home in April to state his case. I'll weigh the pro's and con's of each of their positions, and make a decision after due consideration."

Good point CCJ!

Bluebird Marsha said:

"Well yes Donald is a wonderful man. But Kenneth is coming home in April to state his case. I'll weigh the pro's and con's of each of their positions, and make a decision after due consideration."

Click to expand...

lol I wonder if the parents thought she was a keeper?

Feraud said:

That is 1941 rates.. Today's call is likely significantly cheaper.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. I made a call from the Czech Republic to my husband in 2003 on our anniversary and it was $50+ alone for the first five minutes. We didn't stay on the phone long, but I can't imagine that if we had an hour long conversation that it would have been under $163.00 for the call.

I did find a mobile phone when I finally arrived at my destination overseas and it cost me a small fortune to keep minutes on it to call the US. A calling card would have been much cheaper but the phones we had weren't reliable to use them and making morale calls were on the government's dime and only when we were near a DSN line.

I've had friends stationed in Europe who had to very careful about how they made cell phone calls. I'm not sure what the cause of the high prices is, but it dang sure isn't the cost of undersea cables and operator assisted connections!