MovieChat Forums > The Awful Truth (1937) Discussion > The reason for Connecticut in so many ol...

The reason for Connecticut in so many old comedies?

posted 10 years ago by nemachepassesmots
10 replies | jump to latest

I was just noticing that a significant number of classic 1930's/40's screwball comedies are set in Connecticut. Or involve Connecticut somehow, as this magical, charmingly rustic place. I'm not sure why this is. The Awful Truth, Bringing Up Baby, Adam's Rib(the couple have a country home in Connecticut), The Lady Eve, Theodora Goes Wild, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dreamhouse, and of course, Christmas In Connecticut.
Not knowing much about Connecticut, I assume its proximity to New York just made it a well-known place to have a nice farmhouse or vacation home for rich people on the East coast. The type of comedy film I'm looking at tends to be about rich people on the the east coast more often than not. Maybe that's all there is to it? But what does Connecticut mean? Why did it have this reputation as an Arcadian paradise of wholesomeness? Or is now a symbol of soulless, domestic suburbia with a dark underbelly, like in The Stepford Wives, and Revolutionary Road( more recent films set in Connecticut).?

[–] sheezcrazy 10 years ago

Urban sprawl from NYC spread to Connecticut probably starting at the beginning of the 20th century. CT has shorelines, mountains, lakes, woodlands, and beautiful autumn foliage. It's a pretty place to live if you have money, and a LOT of one percenters and celebrities live in CT. And the towns they live in look like Stepford. Their money is a big asset to the state., so the state takes care of them. I lived in CT for most of my life but now that I'm retired I just cant afford to live there anymore. So, it's like you said, basically a proximity to NYC thing. Nothing ulterior.

[–] ppllkk 10 years ago

nemachepassesmots wrote:

But what does Connecticut mean? Why did it have this reputation as an Arcadian paradise of wholesomeness?

The city — stressful, dirty, sometimes dangerous, corrupt, the place of work, etc. — versus the countryside — honest, innocent, uncorrupt, sometimes dangerous but usually from forces of nature not from people, the place of fantasy and honest emotion, etc. — is a common literary trope. It has very little to do with reality as the countryside can be really nasty in a variety of ways.I believe Connecticut becomes a symbol of an "Arcadian paradise of wholesomeness" by being used that way repeatedly. It is appropriate as it is a very nice place to live if you have money and it is near New York City but very different. Connecticut is sort of a state of mind in the movies that you mention.If a writer in New York wants to employ that trope, he cannot very well use New Jersey, at least northern New Jersey. Up state New York and Long Island can also be used as a place to escape from the city to, and they are used that way, but Connecticut is a different state and that emphasizes the the difference. When the scene shifts to "Connecticut," it is not to Hartford or New Haven.There are a number of examples in Shakespeare's plays of characters going from the city — the rule of law and the conventions of civilized behavior — into the country where emotion can be expressed more freely and people can be cheerfully irrational. A Midsummer Night's Dream is a good example. Also As You Like It and The Tempest. In none of these examples is the "Country" a real place.The trope can obviously be used in various ways, but I believe most commonly it is the opposition of Civilization — with its restraints and conventions — and the Country which is a place in which people can be themselves and feel and act in ways that Civilization disapproves of.It is a very old and common trope. It appears in Gilgamesh , Aristophanes, Horace, and many others. I believe that the idea of the opposition between "Civilization" and "Country" is deeply rooted in our minds although what is meant by "Civilization" and what is meant by "Country" depends on the particular work.

[–] Cosmonican 10 years ago

For the many reasons some have posted, Connecticut was convenient of course, and provided a lifestyle close to the city, but free from the crowds

The major bridges and tunnels to New Jersey were built in the 30's and 40's, so that was not a convenient option in the early part of the century. Long Island is an attractive option, but you can't easily take a train from there to Boston, or Philadelphia.

Connecticut has long had easy access to Manhattan via roads and rails, without huge and expensive bridges.

It is said, as well, that in the 1920's, you could spend 25 cents on a trolly ticket in Manhattan, and with transfer tickets and such, get all the way to Chicago just on trolleys and streetcars.

Connecticut works, simply because there are no large rivers in the way.

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

the people there have a great sense of humor?

🎄Season's Greetings!🎁🎅🎄

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

You kind of answered the question yourself. Even today a lot of people who work in the city (New York) have an actual home outside of the city; some of those are in Connecticut. In the city they have an apartment or brownstone (back then it would have been a townhouse).

New York is so crowded there isn't much space to spread out. Some people live in the suburbs; New Jersey would fall in that category, and they commute in and out on a daily basis but that can be a nightmare. The truly wealthy might do it to but they'd have a driver and a place a little further away, like a country or main home. They might do it daily but most likely it was just on weekends. If they had families, the wife and kids likely lived there on a regular basis.

The other thing is exclusivity. The wealthy could get away from the noisiness, grittiness, and stress of the city. They could stretch their legs, relax and be far away from the riff-raff. Around many large, densely populated cities you might find a similar setup but New York is very different. It has an extensive and reliable subway and taxi system but there are more cars than roads to handle them. The congestion on the roads is insane so a lot of people don't drive or even own cars. If they do, it's stored for when they do drive out to their estate homes.

[–] sludgehound 9 years ago

Besides the wealthy stereotype, CT is a stand in to avoid using the Upper East Side wealthy that the Great Depression had placed under examination for Wall Street excess.
Connecticut was just far enough away to not seem to the urban crowd as direct cause of the inequality they saw all around them.
Sometimes the British were used as a stand in too when wanting to mock the wealthy.

Another thing is that a lot of the better off CT crowd attended many Manhattan theater plays which became popular films. So there's a bit of a nod to them.
Connecticut then had a manufacturing working class which gets ignored in films like this

Most urbane comedic plays did try outs in Boston which also worked for nearby CT audience.
If it was good enough for Boston, then likely worth attending in NYC.

Philly had been ruined by W.C. Fields famous gags about it. It had culture early on but got more well known for things like the fine arts, sports, industry. Like Chicago and some other big centers, it just didn't fit with the literary Anglicism of NYC/Boston gang.

Out in Hollywood that's the outlook that settled in. Hence the common formula many of the screwballs use. A post WW II Mr. Blandings could have been set in Long Island, Virginia, even Florida but wouldn't have same zing of the slick vs. the hick that happens between those so close to each, yet still far apart in some customs. Example Texas - Oklahoma.

Fun film that stands up to multi viewings over the years.

[–] dannieboy20906 9 years ago

I think you need to go watch "The Philadelphia Story," again if you have seen it already. Listen to the dialogue.

Philadelphia, especially the "Philadelphia Brahmans" were way ahead of NYC in refined culture. The city competes with Boston for "old money" and residents who can trace their history in America to the pre-Revolution period. The reason for the W.C. Fields joke was that Philadelphia was reputed to be boring because of the high standards of the old money rich. Philadelphians viewed New Yorkers (as in New York City, not necessarily the whole state) as unsophisticated, even savage money grubbers willing to trade on anything or anybody to make a buck. They certainly did not want to fit in with New York City, but it was New York City that lacked Philadelphia's literacy. After all, where did Benjamin Franklin begin his printing business? New Yorkers viewed Philadelphians as pseudo-aristocratic, snobbish hypocrites.

The Connecticut state line is just over twenty miles northeast by north of the Manhattan business district. You can get from one to the other without crossing bridges, driving through a tunnel, or riding a ferry, as another poster pointed out. Once the automobile is available, even before if you want to take the train, you can commute back and forth. So, the first suburbs of New York City developed in Connecticut.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

[–] sludgehound 9 years ago

Having been raised between Philly & Man'h families I'm well aware of the difs.
Main Line vs Wall Street not so much dif though. Money is money no matter the labels of old or new. All green.
Sure the Barnes Collection and Franklin Institute promote the arts & sciences. I would not stack them up against the Met (either), MoMA, the art world, entertainment, film biz, emerging techland, on and on.
For me Philly was a retreat from the overblast Manhattan can be. There is no matching of the intensity to Manhattan compared to Phila or even lesser Boston.
I like Twentieth Century, 1934 and The Palm Beach Story for class mores.
As to Conn. Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House covers that land of boredom in its day. The audiences came from CT initially to B'way and only later did some of the performing arts creatives like writers, directors, and a few players go there to live adding a little cache.
I'm a visual artist so stagnation is a big no no. Manhattan fills that need more than other places. But each to their own. There’s a reason the leading visual artists came/come to NYC and not Philly or Boston. That’s my standard.

[–] ppllkk 9 years ago

This is not a reply to anyone in particular, but I have to click on someone.Some of you are answering the question why Connecticut rather than New Jersey or upstate New York and that question has been answered very well. Connecticut is right there, but the point is that it is seen as the opposite of the city. City-country is a fundamental opposition in folktale and in literature, and it is used quite consciously by writers including the ones who wrote this sort of screenplay. The country is a different world in a lot of literature. Think of all those shepherds playing their flutes in their rural paradises.The city is where you work. It is the real world. On the other hand, there is something magical about the country. Things happen there that don't happen in a big city, or at least not so easily as they do in the country.If you want to get two people together, particularly quarreling people, get them out of the city and get them to Connecticut. Miracles will happen.See my post above.www.imdb.com/title/tt0028597/board/view/235715407?d=237753627#237753627

[–] cyninbend-149-610489 9 years ago

Using Connecticut allowed them to have a suburban home, or a small farm, and still be a big shot working in NYC, shopping, dining out and clubbing in NYC as well. and beaches were nearby too. New Jersy had a terrible rep for steel mills and strikes, violence....from the 19th century.