From Happy Days to Revolutionary Road

If you wanted to demonstrate a change in the way people think about the world, you might compare Happy Days, the TV sitcom that ran from 1974-1984, to Revolutionary Road, the 2008 movie.

I watched Happy Days as a teenager. I watched Revolutionary Road on a plane yesterday evening. Both the sitcom and the movie are set in the 1950s.

Happy Days depicts the era as idyllic. You might guess as much from the title alone. Even Fonzie was portrayed as a nice guy — not the knife-wielding thug that he would have been in real life.

cast of Happy Days                                            All smiles!

Fast forward to 2008, and a fresh take on the 1950s. The era is now regarded as a kind of living hell.

Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprioFrank and April Wheeler, with whiskey

Kate Winslet plays a woman who loves her husband and her kids but who, nonetheless, is profoundly unsatisfied by life as a suburban housewife.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays her husband, mostly as a grade “A” asshole. Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler have several screaming fights during the movie. Frank often says cruel things to April, and comes very close to beating her on a couple of occasions. Meanwhile, Frank diddles a young woman from the secretarial pool, to enliven his own boring existence.

Or merely to remind himself that’s he’s still a man. Because April isn’t the only Wheeler who is bored and unfulfilled. We see footage of Frank catching the train into the city, with hundreds of other men dressed just like him (jacket and tie, plus a fedora), on the way to workplaces that are all indistinguishable from one another. On his 30th birthday, Frank bemoans the fact that he ended up in the same mindless office job as his father.

April remembers when Frank dreamt of bigger things. She proposes something radical — revolutionary, even. ("Revolutionary Road" is, ironically, the name of the very conventional suburban street the Wheelers live on.)

Quit your job, honey, April tells Frank. We’ll sell the house and move to Paris. I’ll work instead of you. We’ll live off my income plus our savings plus the proceeds from the sale of the house. You’ll study, and read, and think. You’ll have all the time you need to figure out what you want to do with your life.

It’s a crazy idea, and the viewer immediately thinks, This is going to end very badly.

Maybe. But the movie’s perspective is summed up by Frank, who describes suburban existence as “hopeless emptiness.”

Frank is talking to the only character in the movie who agrees with their scheme to bugger off to Paris. That character is on leave from a psychiatric hospital, where he has undergone dozens of electroshock therapy treatments. He responds, Lots of people recognize the emptiness, but it takes real courage to acknowledge the hopelessness.

Thus one lunatic encourages two other lunatics in their fantastic idea. Except — from the movie’s perspective, the lunatics are sane, and the sane people are lunatics.

But let’s return to our comparison. Happy Days represents one extreme:  the 1950s were 100% wholesome and everyone was happy all the time. Revolutionary Road represents the opposite extreme:  the 1950s consisted of people wasting their lives in unthinking toil, like ants. The move imagines that smart people (particularly women) were tormented to the point of madness because they saw the truth very clearly but could not escape their lot in life.

Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road

Now imagine that you had to choose between those two interpretations of the 50s:  which one is a closer approximation of historical reality?

I’d pick Happy Days.

It’s always a mistake to judge a historical era from the vantage point of some later historical era. If you want to evaluate what life was like for suburban couples in 1950s America, you have to imagine what it was like as viewed through their eyes.

You can’t project yourself back in time, as if (for example) a liberated, powerful woman from 2008 jumped into a time machine that transported her back fifty years or so. You have to imagine yourself being born into that society:  socialized from your first breath to believe that a woman’s role was to get married and have babies and keep house.

I don’t think Marion Cunningham (a Happy Days character) was a complete fantasy. I suspect that the majority of women, and men, were reasonably happy in their limited, socially-determined roles.

Look a little further back, to the first half of the 20th century. Remember that World War I was soon followed by the Great Depression, which was succeeded in its turn by World War II.

People began to breathe easy again in the 1950s. Families were wealthier than they had ever been before:  they could even afford new-fangled, labour-saving appliances for the home!

That’s the kernel of truth that inspired Happy Days.

There’s also a large kernel of truth to Revolutionary Road. We now know, for example, that a lot of domestic violence occurred in the privacy of those suburban homes. Women had virtually no legal recourse against their husbands. Divorce wasn’t an option.

Thus I’m at least partially sympathetic to April Wheeler’s character in Revolutionary Road. But she doesn’t represent Every(1950s)woman. She represents only a minority of women, whose intellects and ambitions were wider than their socially-prescribed role.

It’s certainly false to write off the whole society as “hopeless emptiness”. At that point, the author, and the makers of this movie, demonstrate profound historical short-sightedness. Happy Days, for all its rose-coloured glasses, sees history more clearly.

Advertisements

6 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. billarends
    Apr 16, 2009 @ 14:22:16

    It would depend on how narrow you focused your lens. In both cases it seems that the focus is limited. The problem is in the fifties a more homogenous society wanted a more standard American stereotype. This stereotype could be viewed from either a positive or negative position, it seems that these two examples were both accurate from the personal view of each writer. I tend to think that the mold that the society wanted to squeeze people into was boring so I lean to the hopeless emptiness perspective. Personally when I look through Gerry Marshall’s rose coloured glasses I don’t see anything truly idyllic, I find the characters too polished to be believable. My mother found Fonzie to be a pathetic attempt to legitimize a thug. Marshall though was good at this because his two other sitcoms of note, I love Lucy, and the Dick Van Dyke show were also poor attempts to stereotype society. Marshall undoubtedly learned that to survive in the world he had to conform as his father did when he changed his last name from “Masciarelli” to “Marshall” before Garry was born.

    Reply

  2. Zayna
    Apr 16, 2009 @ 15:30:41

    Having not seen the movie, I’m assuming that the couple in Revolutionary Road were childless and if so then it’s like comparing oranges and apples.

    Mrs. C had children to care for and therefore is more likely to reflect the actual sentiments of the 1950’s housewife. But without children, it seems to me that a woman stuck in such a narrow gender role can easily be sympathized with when wanting something more.

    Either way, I got a real giggle out of the FOODARAMA commercial.

    Reply

  3. Stephen
    Apr 16, 2009 @ 18:38:20

    Yes, “Food-o-rama” is a simply hilarious concept, isn’t it?!

    Bill: I don’t disagree that Happy Days was artificial. But hopeless emptiness? That’s a projection of your own values, experience, and knowledge back into an era with a very different set of values, experiences, and knowledge.

    Besides, you’re a civil servant like me. Is your job substantially different than Frank Wheeler’s? Would you characterize your life as hopeless emptiness? If not, why is your life superior to Frank Wheeler’s?

    If you were to have children, wouldn’t parenthood be meaningful? Would it instead be “empty”?

    I think it’s an effective movie, that carries the viewer along for the ride. Viewers should take care to detach a little from the emotional impact of the movie and think critically about it.

    Zayna: The Wheelers have two children, and (spoiler alert) when she unexpectedly becomes pregnant with a third child, it sets off a major crisis for them.

    One of the unrealities of the movie (which I found quite entertaining, btw, despite my philosophical objections to its premise) is that the children are conveniently present when it advances the plot, and otherwise conveniently absent when, for example, the parents descend into a screaming rage.

    I think April Wheeler sincerely enjoys her children. She’s just not a woman of the 50s. She wants to have it all, babies, glamour, employment, and spontaneous relocations to Paris all part of the package. Just like some contemporary women (and men) long for — but I doubt they thought this way in the 50s.

    Reply

  4. Anonymous
    Apr 16, 2009 @ 21:30:26

    An office job isn’t exactly hopeless emptiness, not entirely but from the perspective of a writer or Hollywood producer it might look that way. The values of the 1950’s were part of the reason for the explosion of the 60’s. I have to admit as I said I didn’t see the movie I don’t know if this is what the author was thinking, but I can see the connection between the title “Revolutionary Road” and the revolutionary nature of the generation that followed.

    Reply

  5. Bill
    Apr 16, 2009 @ 21:32:09

    Sorry Stephen that wasn’t meant to be posted anonymously I just pressed the wrong key.

    Reply

  6. Stephen
    Apr 17, 2009 @ 05:36:49

    It’s a good insight, bringing the children of the 1960s into the discussion. After I wrote this post, I read Roger Ebert’s review of the movie. It turns out that the book, Revolutionary Road, was written in 1961, by an author who is iconic to the baby boomer generation. So the book represents a boomer’s perspective on the 1950s, and the movie overlays a 2008 perspective on that.

    If I was going to critique the 1950s generation, I would say that their values were superficial, as illustrated by that food-o-rama ad. But again we must remember the historical context — following WWII, which followed the Great Depression. No wonder that generation was a bit materialistic and frivolous.

    We all construct our lives in ways that are meaningful to us. And there’s human dignity in honest labour, even if you’re a cog in a corporate, capitalist machine, like Frank Wheeler.

    As for the boomers — they fell a long way short of their 1960s ideals, and I doubt they’re in a position to throw stones!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: