THere was a quality about this show that I'm trying to put my finger on; always some negativity going on either with characters/ situations. NYC doesn't have to be made out to be that bleak or burdensome
shareNYC in the '70s did have a bit of a bleak image. They were having huge financial problems (in one episode, Rhoda jokes about suing the NYPD and how the city would have no money to pay her if she was awarded damages), crime was increasing, there was at least one big garbage strike that became the butt of national jokes, etc., etc. Remember the big "I (heart) NY" campaign in the early '80s? It was created to overcome some of the negativity that developed during the events of the '70s that were making NYC appear to be a not so great place to be and beginning to affect tourism.
That said, I think the overall mood of this show was a combination of trying to create the NYC that lives in the minds of TV writers in L.A. who don't live in NYC on a daily basis and tend to base their portrayals on stereotypes and headline news stories, and the less than happy events in the lives of the main characters (Rhoda getting separated then divorced, Brenda having low self esteem and originally being portrayed as a schlub who couldn't get a date, etc.)The writers did write funny material for the show, but when the underlying theme is that Rhoda went home, fell in love and got married to her dream guy only to get dumped by him and end up divorced and struggling along in the dating world with her geeky younger sister, there tends to be a slightly sad undertone.
Then there are the sets that were designed for the show. It seems like the indoor sets, such as Rhoda's and Brenda's apartments, Ida and Martin's apartment, the various clubs and coffee shops, Joe's construction office, and Jack Doyle's costume shop, had a kind of gloomy, dimly lit air about them, as compared to sets on shows like "The Jeffersons", "Diff'rent Strokes", and other shows that were supposed to take place in NYC. I don't know if they were trying to create a "gritty, New Yawk" kind of feeling or what, but I pick up on that too. It never seems to be sunny outside on this show is the best way I can think of to describe it. It seemed sunnier and brighter in Minneapolis where they get 6-7 months of winter as portrayed on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" than it did in NYC on "Rhoda".
Then there are the sets that were designed for the show. It seems like the indoor sets, such as Rhoda's and Brenda's apartments, Ida and Martin's apartment, the various clubs and coffee shops, Joe's construction office, and Jack Doyle's costume shop, had a kind of gloomy, dimly lit air about them, as compared to sets on shows like "The Jeffersons", "Diff'rent Strokes", and other shows that were supposed to take place in NYC
It seemed to make everyday events less happy when it didn't involve the aspects of NYC;always an undercurrrent of disagreement between people,bad luck,dissention,..even Mary's visit had to take on a negative tone,though it had it's funny moments. Comedy is conflict-driven, but it can't be played too seriously
shareNYC in the '70s did have a bit of a bleak image.
What's funny about this is that Hollywood became the same way,though it has improved since revitalization started about 15 years ago--not Beverly Hills or what's attributed to as "hollywood", but the town itself, including south central L.A.,south of Hollywood. I found that out quickly when I moved here.
Even so,it doesn't mean the population has changed in status;it's still seedy and lower-class in much of Hollywood. People here seem more miserable than in NY
It wasn't just Rhoda that had the bleak, New Yawk feel to it...All in The Family was another sitcom that dealt with the non-wealthy, and non-insulated in a decaying urban system; and of course, Barney Miller was the ultimate sitcom about dysfunctional NY, NY in the 1970's.
However, rent and housing was very low,which is a paradox to what it's been said.
You could buy a house for 20K-30K. Even though salaries are higher now, it's not in proportion . If that house now cost 200K, salary has not increased 10X. I paid 200.00 a month in rent for a 1 bed apt.
Gee, I say bring back the 70's. Seemed more lavish then.
$200/mo rent 40 years ago was considered expensive. The national average wage for 1974-1978 was about $9300/year.
"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand
This was in 1977-78(outside of Boston)that I paid 200.00,which was very reasonable; The same apt in Boston would had been 100.00 more. Rhoda's apt was probably about $400 a mo.
Were you renting then,pvd?
I remember an episode of MTM where Rhoda finds out that her new boyfriend left a job where he was making "$30,000 A YEAR!!!" and she and Mary keep saying it over and over just like that, "$30,000 A YEAR!!!" and they can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would give up a job making that much money, lol. I think that episode was from around 1972.
Then there was the episode of "Rhoda" where Rhoda and Joe put an offer on a house of $47,000. What would $47,000 buy anywhere remotely near NYC today, a garage or dog house maybe?
$200 rent 40 years ago wasn't the cheapest thing in the world, but it
was NOT "expensive." In 1954, Lucy and Ricy Ricardo's rent was $125
a month - for a TWO-bedroom (granted, Little Ricky's nursery was small,
but it was still a second bedroom).
By the mid-'70's $200 a month rent was not high - especially in Manhattan.
"What do you want, Joe, my life story?"
- Barbara Stanwyck, Clash By Night.
P.S.: Check your private messages, PVD - I left you a message several
months back. I may disagree with 97 percent of everything you post,
but I still want to catch up! :)
This was in 1977-78(outside of Boston)that I paid 200.00,which was very reasonable; The same apt in Boston would had been 100.00 more. Rhoda's apt was probably about $400 a mo.
Were you renting then,pvd?
P.S.: Check your private messages, PVD - I left you a message several
months back. I may disagree with 97 percent of everything you post,
but I still want to catch up! :)
'No..I was only 11 years old back then. I do recall an older cousin of mine (newlywed) looking for an apartment in my city (Providence), and was paying $150/mo back then '
--------------------
My first apt in Lowell was $145 mo, but it was in a so-so area,and in an attic; same year 1977.
When I moved to Boston in 1980,I had a studio in Allston(Boston)for $225 a mo, then a studio in Back Bay(Boston's expensive area)a few yrs later for $340 mo. And I wondered about affording it!
I feel bad for young people today; they can't afford to live alone. I didn't know how good I had it.
Since we were talking about salaries in this thread, I thought I'd share something here...
Yesterday, I was watching an episode of TMTMS which first aired in December, 1975. The episode was about Sue Ann offering Mary (and later Murray) a producer's job for her cooking show. The issue of money is discussed...
Mary - as a news producer - said she was quite happy making $200 a week, and having to 'stay late' most days.
Sue Ann offered her $350 a week, and a 9 - 5 schedule; she wouldn't ask Mary to "stay late" . Mary was tempted, but refused.
Murray took the job, instead. He explained to Mary he could use the additional $150 a week, and the easier schedule so he could be home at night with his family. So he passed on his news writing job.
So at the end of 1975, in Minneapolis, a 'decent' pay for a professional worker was $200 a week (an excellent pay was $350), with - apparently - no paid over-time. So Mary and Murray were both making $5 an hour as professionals, and expected to stay late on some evenings with no over time.
An excellent pay would bring that up to $8.75/hr.
On $200/wk Mary was able to live on her own in a modern high-rise one-bedroom apartment. Murray was able to support a family of five (I believe there were three daughters).
Wow!
"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand
In "The Job" (season 4, ep. 2), Brenda announces that she got a raise at the bank and that she is now making $650/month. Rhoda then says that Brenda is making more than her. Seriously, even in 1977, I can't believe that anyone could have afforded an apartment as nice as Rhoda's (or Brenda's!) in a safe, decent, part of Manhattan, for less than $650/month, which it would have to be, considering that that was Brenda's total income and also had to cover other expenses besides rent.
I realize that rent was lower 35 years ago, but honestly, don't you think that sometimes sitcoms want to convey the idea that the main characters are struggling or very working class, yet they create sets for them to live in that are completely unrealistic based on their income? I can think of several examples, "Friends" comes to mind right away. Manhattan has always been a comparatively expensive place to live, and I find it difficult to believe that Rhoda's rent would be $300, or that she and Joe would be able to buy a livable house for $47,000, even in the '70s.
The 47K for the 70's house is credible, but the income sounds sketchy. 650.00 income a mo sounds too low(though didn't Brenda have a roomate?) I'd say that NYC apts started at about 400.00 a mo in the mid 70's. I had a studio apt in a prime area of Boston--a very expensive market,2nd to NYC--in the early 80's for 340.00.
shareBrenda had a roomie for one episode (I think in S1) and then she was gone. I think she was an airline stewardess. Not quite sure.
"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand
Yes, played by Denise Galick, who was almost Chrissy on 3'Co., then there another roomate who talked non-stop and very rapid
shareSo a studio in Boston in the early '80s for $340, that sounds reasonable but realistic. However, Rhoda lived in a better area of Manhattan (W. 62nd St., if memory serves from when she gave the ER doctor her address in the episode where Nick Lobo drops his accordion on her foot)and Manhattan is more expensive than Boston, plus, she had a huge, spacious apartment with a wall of windows and at least one designated bedroom, so if her monthly income was less than Brenda's $650, then in order to afford things like food and clothing, her rent would have had to have been under $400, which I still find difficult to believe, even in the late '70s. Maybe Joe felt guilty and subsidized her rent?
shareThere's a possibility that Rhoda and Brenda lived in an apartment building that was still rent-controlled at that time. That would make the 400.00 figure a little more credible.
shareI think I actually remember looking at rents in NYC then,and saw the figure $400. Boston is less expensive then NYC, but close
shareAmazingly enough, in that era, I think metro DC was at least as expensive as New York; in the posh areas such as Georgetown and the Capitol Hill neighborhood, even more expensive.
shareMaybe Joe felt guilty and subsidized her rent?
Just watched "Guess What I Got You For the Holidays" from 12/16/1974. The show was about Joe facing hard times with his demo business.
Rhoda gives him $2,000 for Christmas - all the money she saved up the past year (she tells Brenda). She said her window-dressing business was doing great and she was able to put $2,000 into her savings. This was an exciting sum of money to Brenda and Rhoda.
Later on, Joe is in his office talking about money. His employee Justin tells him he can hold off on his paycheck, because he made a lot of money for the year. Joe asked him how much, and he replied "$34,000" - Joe's eyes pop open. (That's $17/hr for a construction job). Justin tells him it's great to work for a union.
Joe says $34,000 is more than he is making - and he's the owner of the company.
So - $34K in 1974, in NYC is A LOT OF MONEY.
Come to think of it, nearly 40 years later - $34K in THIS ECONOMY anywhere at all is a lot of money.
"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand
Not too surprising, the 34K thing. Growing up in the South (Virginia to be precise), I can clearly recall when 25K a year was seen as a real high-end wage, the sort of money a professional made.
And you're right--in today's economy 34K is still a lot of money, as it's harder for the average hourly wage-earner to come by. The problem lies in the fact that it doesn't go anywhere near as far in purchasing power as it used to.
'that it doesn't go anywhere near as far in purchasing power as it used to.'
--------------------------
Depends on what you are buying; some thing s have drastcally come down in price. But you're right, the increase in income is not proportion to increase in cost of living
I think there are still cities such as NYC, San Francisco, and Chicago, to name a few, where one could not survive on $34,000/year (assuming you didn't live with a bunch of roommates or something).In fact, I live in the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region, where the COL is comparatively cheaper than a lot of places, and you still wouldn't have a lot left in your pocket at the end of the month here on that salary.
share"He didn't...which is why she moved into 6H, Gary's apartment (and he moved into 9E) because she couldn't afford 9E on her own, and Joe said he wouldn't help out with her rent - he had his own to pay."
I know, I remember that too. The funny thing is, Rhoda's new apartment seemed every bit as roomy and classy as the previous apartment that she shared with Joe, minus the balcony. In some ways, it even seemed nicer, I think. She had a nice wall of windows which would have had a nice view, as opposed to Brenda's apartment, which seemed to just have one or two tiny windows.
Her 'new' apartment seemed cozier and warmer than 9E. That one seemed to big and spacious - and really looked 'cold' to me all the time.
"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand
Something of a subconcious reflection of her and Joe's relationship might have crept into the set design?
I thought it was a nice set (Joe and Rhoda's apt., that is), but I was confused by the little office nook between the front door and the balcony. Not because it didn't look like a pretty cool space, but because neither of them ever seemed to use it.
In a 1976 episode of 'The Jeffersons', George Jefferson has an argument with his son Lionel, because Lionel turned down a $20,000 a year job in Manhattan. Someone posted (on 'The Jeffersons' forum) that with inflation, this actually equals about $75,000 today. And they lived in the 'deluxe apartment' in the sky in Manhattan...not exactly neighbors to Rhoda!
"I prefer fantasy over reality TV - like Fox News" - B.Streisand