The real reason movies like Jackie continue to be made is the resonance that that era has for Americans and the great fondness, whether justified or not, that the public has for the early 1960s. It was such a short period - just 3 years, 1961-63 - but it looms disproportionately large in our cultural consciousness.
I believe this is because it seems in hindsight like a last golden age of confidence, style and good manners before the social revolution of the late 60s and early 70s swept all that away. This idea would have seemed laughable to Americans at the time, who thought they were living in a period of great stress and furthermore a time of vulgarity and low standards ...
And that's the essence of it, yes.
As constraining and hypocritical as the culture may have been in some ways, the postwar era saw the rise of the middleclass and the solidifying of the American Myth under the strengthened unions and the anti-trust laws which were still new and in effect. There was the aspiration for "something better" which was routine if not ubiquitous. That sleepy optimism of the '50s reached a peak by the end of the decade and seemed to set us up for the Kennedy era of the early-'60s.
And here was an unusually polished, photogenic couple in a White House whose policies seemed to becoming genuinely populist in focus, that couple displaying all the good taste and sophistication and "class" that the '50s had been striving for.
Yet all of that was juxtaposed with the brand new threat of The Bomb which really did create an incredible collective tension just underneath the surface. The period was the twilight zone. Sunshine and shadow. Was the world starting over, or was it about to end?
And then this would-be Camelot ends with an assassination and an assassination scenario so dark it almost couldn't be overcome, the culture changing forever within only a year or so. Even half a century later, it still seems like a profound turning point, a wound never to be healed even as the culture moves on, the population ages away, new generations emerge who know or care little or nothing about the era and what it reflected.
Add the perfect casting to the mix, and there is a gauzy, poignant sense of idealized potential this period seemed to offer, at the time and certainly in retrospect. Only today, it's hard to imagine the story turning out any differently than it did.
It's kind of metaphor for life in a weird way, actual politics aside. A particular photograph you never quite forgot about from an old family album, a moment perfectly composed, touchingly lit almost by accident, and frozen in time. A moment that felt so long ago almost immediately.
And that's why no script, no movie, can touch the real thing.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
reply
share
essex9999
8 years ago
As constraining and hypocritical as the culture may have been in some ways, the postwar era saw the rise of the middleclass and the solidifying of the American Myth under the strengthened unions and the anti-trust laws which were still new and in effect. There was the aspiration for "something better" which was routine if not ubiquitous. That sleepy optimism of the '50s reached a peak by the end of the decade and seemed to set us up for the Kennedy era of the early-'60s.
And here was an unusually polished, photogenic couple in a White House whose policies seemed to becoming genuinely populist in focus, that couple displaying all the good taste and sophistication and "class" that the '50s had been striving for.
I agree with most of your points, which are very well put. I would never call the 50’s “sleepy”, since they were far from the tranquil era Hollywood likes to portray them as being and were not perceived as such at the time. Otherwise, though, I think you hit the nail on the head here. What modern people don’t always seem to realize is that constraint and hypocrisy are critical elements of the very things they admire about mid-century (and earlier) times. Our contemporary do-what-you-want, say-what-you-feel culture is utterly incompatible with “good taste, sophistication and ‘class’ “.
Yet all of that was juxtaposed with the brand new threat of The Bomb which really did create an incredible collective tension just underneath the surface. The period was the twilight zone. Sunshine and shadow. Was the world starting over, or was it about to end?
Yes, good point. There is a feeling of dancing on the edge of the precipice to some of the culture of the time that’s very appealing if you like that sort of thing. (I do.) It’s related to the perennial popularity of the Edwardian age and the late interwar period. In hindsight, we know that we pulled back from the precipice of nuclear war but fell off another, at time entirely unforeseen, precipice. The fact that there were some good things along with bad at the bottom of that drop doesn’t mean we don’t miss the things left behind at the edge.
Since you referred to The Twilight Zone indirectly, I’ll mention as a tangent that the show has an influence over our collective memory of the era far greater than its actual impact at the time. I think some of the popular perceptions of the early 60s, especially relating to doomsdays fears and attitudes toward women, are highly colored by Rod Serling’s individual interests, opinions, prejudices and fears. These were shared by many, but by no means all, people at the time. I’m a bit too young to remember the early 60s except in snatches, but I’m pretty sure most Americans just went along with their lives, not walking around under a cloud of fear any more than Californians’ lives are shadowed by constant fear of “the Big One”.
…new generations emerge who know or care little or nothing about the era and what it reflected.
And I would argue that they think they do know quite a lot about the era, much of it wrong - either directly and factually wrong or wrong by exaggeration and oversimplification. I call the latter the Mad Men syndrome.
It's kind of metaphor for life in a weird way, actual politics aside. A particular photograph you never quite forgot about from an old family album, a moment perfectly composed, touchingly lit almost by accident, and frozen in time. A moment that felt so long ago almost immediately. Oh, very nicely put. Yes, it does feel like that.
reply
share
PrometheusTree64
8 years ago
. I would never call the 50’s “sleepy”, since they were far from the tranquil era Hollywood likes to portray them as being and were not perceived as such at the time. Otherwise, though, I think you hit the nail on the head here.
Oh, but of course they weren't. But the aspirations (i.e., lies) about the '50s (e.g., "tranquil," "sleepy") or, for that matter, any era, say as much about where we were at the time as the truths of it.
Since you referred to The Twilight Zone indirectly, I’ll mention as a tangent that the show has an influence over our collective memory of the era far greater than its actual impact at the time. I think some of the popular perceptions of the early 60s, especially relating to doomsdays fears and attitudes toward women, are highly colored by Rod Serling’s individual interests, opinions, prejudices and fears.
Gee, Rod Serling wasn't responsible for
all that. My Twilight Zone reference was just a random one.
The early-'60s indeed had a this-may-be-the-end-of-the-world angst about it which people were largely aware of (the Cuban Missile Crisis was just a symptom) even though they were going about their daily lives.
By the late-'60s, concerns over Vietnam, a largely traditional ground war, had supplanted the collective fear of The Bomb that impacted so much of the earlier part of that decade. And even thought The Bomb remains a threat even today, the public consciousness of it has never really returned -- not even during the saber-rattling/warhead buildup of Reagan/TheKremlin in the '80s.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
reply
share