From Wagon Trains/Westerns to the well to do

[Tankeryanker]

I have heard that Hollywood feels that the viewer really only wants to see pleasant-looking people who live in nice digs (the Conners would be an exception).

If Westerns were in their heyday in the 50s how did we get to the family drama by the end of the decade? Did people really want to see grizzly-looking people all dirty and poor as heck fighting the prairie?

I am not sure I am asking this in the best way.

[stevea]

The Conners were an exception in the 90s, the Honeymooners were an exception in the 50s, the Evanses were an exception in the 70s. They worked, and did go against Hollywood's ideas of what would work.

So why did the Westerns work in the 50s and 60s, and eventually fade, giving way to dramas like the Waltons, medical shows (Marcus Welby, Chad Everett, etc.), and Lear-style sitcoms?

Maybe part of the answer is a changing society, which spawned an anti-violence crusade into the 70s and 80s. Thus the Westerns went away and Saturday morning cartoons were chopped to bits, to scrub the violence.

[Tankeryanker]

Originally Posted by stevea

The Conners were an exception in the 90s, the Honeymooners were an exception in the 50s, the Evanses were an exception in the 70s. They worked, and did go against Hollywood's ideas of what would work.

So why did the Westerns work in the 50s and 60s, and eventually fade, giving way to dramas like the Waltons, medical shows (Marcus Welby, Chad Everett, etc.), and Lear-style sitcoms?

Maybe part of the answer is a changing society, which spawned an anti-violence crusade into the 70s and 80s. Thus the Westerns went away and Saturday morning cartoons were chopped to bits, to scrub the violence.

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by Tankeryanker

Did people really want to see grizzly-looking people all dirty and poor as heck fighting the prairie?

Is your primary question asking "did audiences want to see so much violence?" Or (alternately) did they prefer to see the ones fighting, project an "upper crust" aura?

I'm not crystal clear if your objection is to dirt, or to violence?

If you are asking "would June Cleaver still have worn her pearls if the Cleaver's lived next door to Jeremiah Johnson?" I suspect she would have. Especially on prime time TV.

Sponsors wanted their products associated with the kind of image that would appeal to status conscious viewers.

For the viewer wishing her family was more like the Cleavers, buying the brand coffee advertised on the show where the woman wears pearls while vacuuming...is an easy kill, as the advertising execs are fond of noting.

Feeding the grand illusion is very profitable

[GentlemanJim]

Somewhere there is a book that I read about Proctor & Gamble, and their ruthless drive to cultivate the american consumer into "buying image".

And in that book was a chapter about P&G's heavy hand into the writing of the shows it sponsored. P&G being the goliath that it is, you didn't dare risk offending it's sensitivities.

If they wanted their products surrounded by smiles, crisply-pressed pleated skirts with chiffon blouses, and a crucifix hanging on one wall of the dining room...then that is what you delivered...or else.

And the book had several amusing anecdotes about what "or else" entailed.

But, I feel it mandatory to point out, they were building an illusion...which probably best answers what I suspect your real question was based upon.

[GentlemanJim]

I believe there is an additional aspect that deserves mention. Think about all the stories recounting celebrities obsessions against ever being seen in public without make up. The public can be very demanding that their entertainment is "suitably" packaged.

Recently watched another 1960's era western starring Raquel Welch. And despite a harrowing ordeal that would have any human thankful just to still be alive, she appeared remarkably fresh in her 3 layer Hollywood glamour makeup scheme.

They did add a little smudge of black soot on her chin this time for realism...lol!

I believe the bottom line on that, the celebrities understand how demanding their public is to be fed an illusion. If ever their devoted admirers saw them in regular face, the rest of their careers would be "the morning after". So entire scenes are arranged to feature the stars "better side". Cultivating the best possible response from the viewer.

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by Tankeryanker

I have heard that Hollywood feels that the viewer really only wants to see pleasant-looking people who live in nice digs.

Watching the 1994 Kevin Costner movie "Wyatt Earp" last night, made me think of this thread.

I felt the movie did a commendable job of avoiding the "over polished" imagery so many shows and movies seem so obsessed with. Shirts and dresses had subtle wrinkles, and while the women were wearing makeup, it wasn't of the hi-glamour style that makes the actress look like she just stepped out of a fashion magazine. The scenes looked very "lived in".

[Tankeryanker]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

I'm not crystal clear if your objection is to dirt, or to violence?

More the dirt. Also, I do not remember seeing as "pretty" people in westerns as other genres of the time.

[Tankeryanker]

Originally Posted by GentlemanJim

Recently watched another 1960's era western starring Raquel Welch. And despite a harrowing ordeal that would have any human thankful just to still be alive, she appeared remarkably fresh in her 3 layer Hollywood glamour makeup scheme.

They did add a little smudge of black soot on her chin this time for realism...lol!

This might be more along the line of what I am meaning.

[Tankeryanker]

Big Valley had pretty. Weren't they one of the last westerns?

[stevea]

Originally Posted by Tankeryanker

Big Valley had pretty. Weren't they one of the last westerns?

I think so. Of course the old ones, Bonanza and Gunsmoke, went on for several more years, into the 1970s.

[GentlemanJim]

Originally Posted by Tankeryanker

Big Valley had pretty. Weren't they one of the last westerns?

Big Valley was based upon a wealthy family, so I would expect them to be scrubbed, fluffed, and starched.

The seeming paradoxes (paradi?) comes when they show a frontier mother dirt farmer whos husband never came home from the war, yet she's there slopping hogs, cutting grain, and washing laundry in a flowing, form fitting victorian dress and flawless hair and makeup, just as the ne're do well comes along to prey upon the family.

Begging the question, 40 miles from the nearest neighbor, WHO ARE THEY ALL DRESSED UP LIKE THAT FOR? All dressed up as womanhood's fairest flower just so the villain can spoil her?

And, Raquel Welch is particularly notorious for being among the worst (best?). example: 8 days fleeing across the desert without so much as a roll of toilet paper, yet she appears as if she just sprang from the pages of Cosmo...lol!

[vitoscotti]

I was never offended by Linda Evans (The Big Valley), or Linda Cristal's (High Chaparral) beauty on classic TV westerns.

[GentlemanJim]

I strongly suspect the aspect of "spoiling womanhood's fairest flower" is a part of it, at least in the shows depicting commoners out on their own. Makes the tragedy of whatever heinous act the villain commits seem all the worse. "Oh, she was so beautiful, and so innocent until that MONSTER came along" etc

Framing the damsel as such, before her distress arrives.

[GentlemanJim]

I recall there used to be considerable turmoil whenever a paparazzi would photograph (and publish) a picture of a Hollywood diva at the supermarket or car wash without her signature "face" installed.

I suspect in movie appearances as well there is a priority of maintaining the finely honed image they work so hard to create. Not wanting to "let the dogs out", so to speak.