“Happy Days”
My task is to now answer the following:
How do the essays by Beth Bailey and Roland Marchand challenge the popular “Happy Days” image of the 1950s?
I remember watching happy days. Life seemed so easy and family so “normal”. Sure they had issues, but nothing that couldn’t be solved in the 30 minute TV time. I searched the net and ran across a brief synopsis of the show: “Happy Days” was set in the 1950s in Milwaukee, the heart of middle-class America, and told the story of the Cunningham family. Mr. Cunningham (Tom Bosley) ran the local hardware store and Mrs. Cunningham (Marion Ross), like all good TV Moms, spent her time in the kitchen. Their son, Richie (Ron Howard), hung out at Arnold’s Drive-In with his pals Ralph Malph (Donny Most) and Potsie (Anson Williams), trying to be as cool as the coolest greaser in town, the Fonz (Henry Winkler). Richie’s sister, Joanie (Erin Moran), tagged along whenever she wasn’t at her friend Jenny Piccolo’s house. The Cunninghams also had an older son, Chuck, but he mysteriously disappeared after the first season. When the series started, Richie and his pals were using fake ID’s to sneak into bars and struggling to find dates. By the time the show ended, their teenage problems had given way to decidedly adult topics like marriage and children. (credit to whoever created the geocities site).
The background documents for this section paint a very different life of the 1950s. First discussing the teenage market, Life magazine (1959 article) describes it as a developing industry bringing in big bucks. The article paints a picture of indulgent parents and spoiled kids. It is actually very similar to arguments heard in the 21st century. A Newsweek article form 1955 details delinquency of the 50s and the growth of teenage gangs. Again, very similar to stories of today. Senseless killing and fights over territorial disputes, or for merely the sake of fighting. The 1955 article included from US News and World Report address television and the evils deteriorating the minds of society. What if those same writers looked at television today! Same arguments, some say it broadens the world view of the watcher and expands their lives into world’s they might never see in reality. Those in protest determine it weakens the ability of society to think and deteriorates the health of its youth. A House of Representatives discussion on homosexuality is included. Cold war fears are used to support this argument stating that in the closet homosexuals are easy prey for communists seeking weak links to blackmail. Statistics of homosexual government employees are included. I question the validity of the statistics stating “75% of the 4000 pervers in the District of Columbia are employed by the Government”. Lastly this section includes graphic illustrations of how to respond to a nuclear attack. Honestly, I find this section amusing. In the event that you are close enough to see the flash kiss your butt goodbye because there is little chance you will survive the fall out. Here’s a quote, “Fashion tips for the apocalypse. Men should wear wide-brimmed hats, women stockings and long-sleeved dresses.” Stockings? OUCH! I can’t imagine getting those things off in the event of a burn. It’s really not amusing, it is scary that this was an actual fear and arguably still is, just in a different scenario.
October 29 2005 10:27 pm | History and Ramblings
