Professor Henry Barnes (Edmund Gwenn) is writing his final book. His life offers nothing else that warrants living. The curmudgeon is counting down his last days when he meets Peggy Taylor (Jeanne Crain), an exuberant, positive-thinking young wife, pregnant with her first child. She mystifies the professor with her younger generation jive, but he is intrigued despite himself. Before he knows it, their lives are intertwined.Peggy's husband, Jason (William Holden), is a student under the G.I. Bill--dedicated to his goal of becoming a teacher, though there are shorter paths to better money.The professor's life is anchored in the past, with his nostalgia and memories of his deceased wife. In contrast, Peggy's life is focused on the future, with dreams for her first child and her husband's career. Though the professor's field of study is philosophy, he finds that Peggy is a natural philosopher, focusing on the virtues of tolerance and kindness.The story, adapted from a novel, is well written. The film packs a lot of ideas into its running time. It's celebration of teaching and learning reminds me of "Born Yesterday", which Holden appears in two years later.The film has a horrible (and boring) title, but "Apartment for Peggy" might remind some viewers of "It's a Wonderful Life", with its affirmation of life and the value of good deeds.One year before this film, another Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street", also starred Edmund Gwenn. George Seaton, the director of this film, wrote both films.

On the surface, this film looks like a typical 1940's Technicolor feel good movie On paper, the story deals with a young GI couple looking for an apartment at a University. They find a retired professor, played by Edmund Gwenn, with an attic to rent. With this storyline known, I was expecting to be entertained, a little.What a surprise though when the movie got rolling... there were so many scenes in this movie that absolutely astonished me. The very first was Gwenn's, rationality for wanting to commit suicide at the beginning of the picture. There was in the script a logic and non-sentimentality for this rational that I was very surprised to see from a film of that era. Then comes Jeanne Crain, who plays the wife. I had always thought Jeanne Crain was a pretty, competent actress and had not seen her but once or twice on the screen. But she is absolutely tremendous as Peggy. She dominates every scene she's in because her presence is just that of aliveness and wonder. Then the movie becomes more surprising when it begins to talk about issues of poverty, making a living, racial issues, money, marriage, education, and so much more. "Never hold money so close in front of you that you can't see anything else". There is a long scene with Gwenn and a group of women talking about Philosophy that is also very refreshing.Then comes the other surprising parts. Peggy loses her baby...the movie shows the doctor walking into the room saying "The baby's dead" and with a long, long silence, Holden says "Why" and that's it, no more sentimentality about the baby...it's over.The one scene I was completely taken aback bye was the scene where Gwenn and Holden are trying to put together a baby tub, a gift for Peggy. The scene last almost 5 minutes of these to guys trying to figure out the instructions on putting this thing together. I reminded me of an Eric Rohmer picture, where people are shown as they're doing things without the need to hurry things along for the sake of the plot and gave the viewer a great connection with the characters.Although it is not on VHS or DVD, try to seek this film on TV or any old moviehouses showing it, you will be delightfully surprised how modern and life affirming this film is. A deeply rewarding experience indeed.

I watched this twice on cable. I really liked the contrasts. I loved the way the young students respected the professors and elders in general, and co-existed with them -- not just barely tolerated them. Also, just simple common sense was so pleasant to see. No "major plot twists" with contrived "stupidity". By stupidity, I mean the typical, "such as turning your back on a bad guy", or when teens are in a house that has a known killer in it, and the kids decide to split-up to find him, and then get picked off one at a time. Needless to say, there is no "bad guy" or "killer" in this movie, but there are a couple of things that happen, and common sense not only wins out, but was also present from the beginning. Also, the hardship of a housing shortage just after World War II versus the desire for a college education. Despite that obstacle and other obstacles, these "young" adults were adult about overcoming their problems, most of the time. Also, I liked that Peggy established a lecture (series?) for the wives of students when she discovered that many wives felt left out of their husbands lives due to lack of formal education. The women weren't dumb, just hadn't been exposed to the same ideas. And a note to teens of today, yes, there was a time that many students were husbands/men and wives were in a secondary position. I found the movie very uplifting, amusing and well acted.

This is a Hollywood attempt at 'writing between the lines' regarding the true under-pining of what this movie represented. The owning class did not want some G.I. who just scraped the French mud off him attending college. Yeah, perhaps it was important to beat the Germans and the Japanese but PLEASE do we really have to let them in OUR universities? Even the esteemed educator, Hutchings, objected to G.I. 'invading' his university when, clearly, they were not, 'university material'. This movie shows the struggle the working class had in getting a university education. Actually, it represents a form of bravery that this movie was ever produced. I wonder how it managed to evade HUAC's attention.-30-