Our class has gained a firm understanding of the 1920’s era through the books Only Yesterday, Gentleman Prefer Blondes, and Notes on Democracy. Each of these works has fleshed out for us different aspects and trends of the 20’s. Only Yesterday taught us how conservative values dwindled as the youth began to embrace sexuality and disregard morality. Gentleman Prefer Blondes helped us gain insight into the fad of being well read and having an appreciation for culture and literature. Mencken described (Ad Nauseam) and defined for us the terms high-brow and low-brow, emphasizing further the importance placed on reading in the 20’s in order to be considered a high-brow. Since these books provided us with a solid foundation of knowledge of the 20’s, when reading a one-act play by F. Scott Fitzgerald called Porcelain and Pink, I was able to pinpoint and understand references to 1920’s culture.
Summary of the play
{Julie and Louis are sisters who sound and look alike. We are told Louis is a year older and more conservative. The play opens with Julie in the bathtub. There is a window above the tub and Louis’ date Mr. Calkins comes to it and begins talking with Julie. He believes he is talking to Louis as they sound alike. (He can not see in the tub to know it is Julie as this is not a perverted play) The bulk of the dialogue is between Julie and Mr. Calkins. Eventually, however, he realizes he is talking to Julie because Louis walks out the front door. The last line is Julie preparing to emerge naked from the tub and the curtain falls.}
Fitzgerald uses Julie and Louis to portray the distinction between the old generation and the youth of the 20’s. Louis, who is older, exemplifies the traditional women who were used to the strict moral code of the early 1900’s. Louis is flabbergasted when Julie tells her that she often walks to the tub naked instead of wearing a towel, “ Why, You little wretch. Haven’t you any pride or self-respect?”(273) Julie comically responds, “ Lots of both. I think it proves it. I looked very well. I really am rather cute in my natural state.” This line portrays the younger generation’s confidence in their sexuality, and their desire to display it. In the next line Julie goes so far as to say that she wishes “people didn’t wear any clothes.” This statement is in stark contrast to Louis who even feels uncomfortable being naked in a bathroom.
Fitzgerald stresses the fad of literature via Julie’s and Mr. Calkins’ window conversation. Mr. Calkins asks Julie, “ Are you growing fond of literature?”(277) They discuss the different works they have read as well as poetry. Julie states that, “ I’m a low-brow. But I can remember by first poem….”(277) Here Fitzgerald taps into two of the key elements of the 20’s. Julie’s character represents the less educated people of the 20’s, those that like Lorelei read because it was trendy. Mr. Calkins, however, is a high-brow and emphatically states, “ Literature- Literature! How much it has meant to me!” (Mencken would clearly approve of Mr. Calkins)
I recommend reading this play because it is both entertaining (Julie has some really funny lines) and educational. In addition to the points above, there are other allusions to key elements of the 20’s; however, I did not write them as I challenge you to read this play (it is very short) and find other references to topics we discussed in class. I would love to see what you come up with! Hope you Enjoy!
This sounds like a very interesting play! I'm glad you shared it with us. I find it intriguing that Julie is able to confidently call herself a "low-brow" but still talk about poetry. I think it shows the rapid dissemination of knowledge in the 20s, that no longer was literature and philosophy kept to university professors and high-class society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Helen. It's so interesting not only that Julie would confidently call herself low-brow, but that people recognized the distinction back then. Today we are experiencing the effects of dissemination of knowledge. Many people today probably consider themselves high-brow but high-brow figures of the 20s such as Mencken would think otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThat is a really good point Helen and Kim, it does seem strange that she knows she is a low-brow. Yet, as Helen said she still is familiar with literature and poetry demonstrating that even the ordinary people were cultured, as it was a in-vogue to be well read. In response to Kim I think you are right that today people may mistakenly believe they are high-brows but are not, however, I do think what would be considered a high-brow today is different than in the 20's. Cultured people nowadays not only read but are familiar with world news...etc- so perhaps the term is more liberal- meaning "culture" is not limited to being well read having knowledge of art also constitutes being considered cultured so not limited to the literary realm- what do you think?
ReplyDelete@Jenny, I definitely think politics and awareness of current events play a huge role in the modern day "high-brow." Though, that's not to say that there was no worldly aspect of being a high-brow in the 1920s. On the contrary, it seems to me from what we read in Only Yesterday that knowing as many facts about far away places would make you the center of attention at any dinner party, which is what made quick and cultural reads so popular at that time.
ReplyDeleteI think this play sounds great and interesting. The idea alone that Julie and Mr.Calkin are having this entire conversation while she's in a bathtub, obviously naked, is SO interesting! I mean for the 20's I would have thought this was pretty riske, but it just goes to show the open comfort people were starting to have with sexuality and the sense, as you said Jenny, about the newer generation changing. And I think its only gotten stronger since. Today, he'd probably be sitting right next to her in the bathroom, or dare I say, in the tub with her ;)
ReplyDeleteJust a small note but doesn't he know Louis but at all? Wouldn't he know, that being the more conservative sister, she would NEVER talk to him while she was in a tub?
Something else I noticed, and this has less to do with the twenties but more to do with psychology that I just think is interesting to point out, especially knowing that Freud and the study of psychology was a big topic in the 20's. Louis and Julie perfectly represent a psychological idea about oldest and youngest children. Oldest children, like myself I'll admit, tend to be A type personality, conservative, traditional, maternal, more like there mothers in a sense. While youngest children, like Julie, tend to be rebellious, pushing boundaries with the authorities around them, and the more fun, relax, funny child in a family. I think you can even see this in Fitzgerald's choice of names, which psychology and history show trends in names. Louis sounds older and old fashioned while Julie sounds younger and fresher, no? I wonder if Fitzgerald knew all this when he was creating the personalities of Louis and Julie.
Racheli, I did not mean to say that being updated in current events was not valued in the 20's my main point was that I believe the definition of "cultured" has probably changed overtime. I fully agree that being politically savvy and informed was important in the 20's as well. In regards to Aliyah I love your insight into the names, I think they definitely highlight the differences in each women's persona. Additionally, Mr. Calkins had only gone out with Louis several times so I assume he did not know her so well, and the play makes sure to stress that Louis and Julie sound alike- Furthermore, he did not know that Julie was in a bathtub he just thought she was in a room that is part of the humor of the story.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aliyah:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Julie was naked in the tub the entire time does seem risque for the 20s. I wonder how it was actually acted out. If this were a short story then describing a risque picture and leaving the rest to the imagination seems essentially 20s. But a live play being acted out....
That is an interesting point that how the play was acted out definitely affects the tone and message of the text- I have a feeling this was not commonly produced as it is such a short play I could be wrong though. Additionally, I think it is highly improbable that it would ever be acted out where you would see Julie naked!
ReplyDeleteIt sounded to me that the play is doing the same thing as a risque picture, Kim. It sounds like the whole time, Julie is in the tub and the audience assumes she is naked, but doesn't know for sure. I think the play adds to the risque-ness by dropping the curtain at the exact moment when the audience would find out if she was actually naked in the tub. From my point of view, it's all up to the imagination! Who said she was naked in the first place?
ReplyDeleteIt says in the play when the curtain falls- also the whole scene where she just walks to the tub in a towel clearly suggests that she is bare underneath. Furthermore, she is taking a bath let us hope she is not in clothes!
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting to note that there is so much left to the imagination when it comes to this play. It reflects the growing popularity of psychology as a field in the 20s, I think, because the audience's mind takes on a crucial role in the appreciation of the play.
ReplyDeletePart of what I like about your blog (and about the play) is that it definitely includes both sides of the spectrum of American feelings during the 20's. There is of course, the side of the "Lost Generation", the looser and freer youngsters that were running around and the older generation who were happy to be the same people they had always been. The play seems to be an interesting and up-close look at the duality of the time.
ReplyDeleteWow, lots of good comments in this thread you guys. I am enjoying reading these!
ReplyDeleteTami- I agree that Fitzgerald's portrayal of the two types of women co-existing in the 20's is one of the fascinating aspects of this play. I think he enhances this message by having Lois and Julie be sisters, who are even mistaken for each other; thereby showing that Julie could have easily had Lois's personality had she been born earlier and not part of the " Lost Generation".
ReplyDeleteJust another theme that I thought Fitzgerald touched upon, but no one mentioned so far, was the changing attitude towards divorce in the 20's. Mr. Calkins is a divorced man, and the mother is therefore opposed to Lois dating him. The daughters, however, see nothing wrong with this as divorce was becoming less taboo. Even Lois, the more conservative sister, was fine with Mr. Calkins' divorced status.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think Fitzgerald subtly weaves in the theme of entertainment in the 20's through Julie's character. Julie has sharp wit and is constantly saying funny lines and cliches, such as saying that her bath is godly, because cleanliness is next to godliness. Another example is when Mr. Calkins asks her what she is wearing and she says it is skin colored, she has had it forever,and that it was a birthday gift ( clearly a reference to her birthday suit)the reader knows she is naked and thus finds humor in this. Julie's humorous persona, therefore, reflects the overall lightheartedness and emphasis on entertainment in the "roaring 20's".
Jenny, while reading your idea about the theme of divorce and its acceptance in the 20s, I thought that perhaps the reason the play is depicted through the conversation of Julie and Mr. Calkins is because they are actually more fit for each other than Lois and Mr. Calkins. Is it possible that Mr. Calkins views Lois as a suitable woman to marry, however, would prefer a girl like Julie who is more progressive and "with it?"
ReplyDeleteAlso, I appreciate the comment you made about them being sisters. I think that even more than the possibility of them having the same personality, the reader gets a sense of two people raised in the same family but in different homes. This is a phenomenon common among siblings: Whether it be bedtime or censoring movies, as parent's get older they seem to permit their younger children to engage in activities they might not have allowed when the older siblings were young. Perhaps this tone can translate into the progressive laxity of morals and societal etiquette that occurred in the 20s- a progression that seems to merely have been a result of the progression of time.
Racheli- I think you are completely correct that Mr. Calkins, perhaps subconsciously, really wants a woman like Julie. The evidence for this is while talking to her he professes his love for her. Of course he believes it to be Lois, but his confession was prompted by Julie's comments; thereby illustrating that Julie's personality is perhaps more suitable for his demeanor.
ReplyDeletethis sounds like a great an interesting play. I like how Julie is confident with who she is as a low-brow. It seeems to me that she doesn;t care what other people think of her. I also think it is risqu for the 20s to have someone talking to someone else in the tub (or in the tub with her as Aliyah said). I also am interested in how this scene was acted out on stage.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting to note the change in how Julie translates 'pride and self respect'. whereas the earlier generation took it to mean that one should cover up the body, almost as if the naked body is an embarrassment, Julie and the younger generation, began to flaunt their bodies and sexuality. they felt that embracing their bodies was a more appropriate way to show it respect. As a Jew, I can't help but be more comfortable with the older generations view towards the body, but there is some appeal towards being so comfortable with ones nudity that there is no more shame.
ReplyDeleteGila- I think that is an interesting insight, however, I am not sure not having "shame" is a good thing. It is a positive thing to be comfortable wit one's body, but also important to have some level of embarrassment so you do not parade around naked. Julie was comfortable with her nudity in the tub- a private area. While it is true the women of the 20's embraced their sexuality they did so my wearing shorter skirts ( to the knee hardly short compared to todays) and short sleeves ( maybe no stockings!) It was not that they did not have shame, it was that they wanted to display their femininity opposed to hide it- there is a difference between being proud of your body and wearing more fitted clothes and having no shame and therefore not wearing any clothes- this is my opinion perhaps you disagree-
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenny that Judaism is not about being shameful with ones body. It is about protecting one's body to share it only with one person. In this play Julie is not flaunting her naked body to Mr. Calkins, she is merely talking to him through a wall while she is naked. It is similar to speaking to someone on the phone after just coming out of the shower. The younger generation in the 20's were more comfortable with their bodies and therefore dressed like Jenny mentioned. Mr. Calkins, although he was older, probably like this and therefore dated younger women.
ReplyDeleteIn the 20s it was the style to try and be more masculine and not feminine. That is why women cut their hair, taped their breasts down, and wear box like dresses that deemphasize women's hips. So with this in mind does it not make more sense that women would be more comfortable with their body and be less shy and shameful? Usually men are not shy with their bodies or thoughts and are comfortable wearing less clothing and speaking their mind. So it only makes sense that if women want to become more masculine and try so in their dress and experiments with alcohol and cigarettes that they would also try and be as confident as men being nude. This play shows how much morals and attitudes have change with contrasting the old standards (represented by Louis) and new standards (represented by Julie.)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth I think women flattened their chests, cut their hair,and wore that style dress in order entice men, not to appear more masculine. They believed those styles were what men found attractive, thus they wore them. I think they were more open with their bodies not because men are comfortable with theirs, but rather because of the Freudian idea of sex. The concept of sexuality and giving in to the libido was prominent in the 20's. Only Yesterday speaks about the sex craze and the fact that women wore these new styles in order to allure men. Furthermore, their use of cigarettes and alcohol I think is more of a reflection of the looser values than women's desire to be masculine. Beforehand it was taboo for women to drink and smoke, but with the popularity of speakeasies and the decline of the old strict moral code it was accepted for women to partake in these activities. Thus, while I clearly agree women gained a new comfort level with their bodies in the 20's, I disagree with your view of where this pride and comfort stemmed from.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jenny. I believe women did these things not to appear more masculine, but rather to appear more like little girls, going along with the popular theme of adult infantilzation that pervaded 20's culture.
ReplyDelete