Modern Times and the Industrial Era

Released in 1936, Modern
Times, was written to mock the
current society. The movie,
starring Charlie Chaplin, may
have lacked major dialogue,
but it was still able to use actor
expression, occasional
subtitles, and sound effects to
express itself as a work of
satire. The plot drew attention
to the way employees were
being worked in factories and
the way employers saw their
employees, not as assets, but
instead as disposable parts of
a machine. Employees in this
‘modern day’ factory ran like well-oiled machines. At one point there was even a scene where Chaplin pretends to pour oil on his co-worker who seemed to know how to do his job better than even a machine could. Writers mocked society for going along with the puppetry of the work force at the time. The movie recognized that the companies were just looking for the newest, fastest ways of production without the care of the well-being of the working class, through the use of the meal machine. This new invention claimed to be able to feed employees as they work. After the failure of the machine it was clear that machines can’t replace humans, yet still the workers were treated like machines. Modern Times expressed critiques on industrial factories, women in the workplace, labor unions, and the ideal ‘American Dream.’
Factories often created pattern-like, obscure work habits for employees. In Chaplin’s case he was seen using two wrenches to tighten bolts, however this repetitive behavior caused him to have nervous ticks. These ticks caused him to end up in prison after “tightening the bolts” of several co-workers noses and women’s buttons. Oddly enough the life he developed in prison became much more enjoyable that his life in the work force. Once in prison, Chaplin, had no work to do, no employer he was looking to please, and no money he was looking to earn. He had a comfortable life with a roof over his head, meals provided to him, and a boss (the prison warden) who actually liked him. Throughout the film, Chaplin’s character constantly looked to go back to prison to seek a better life than the one he was going through. In doing this he took blame for crimes of others, which caused him to meet a woman he grew rather fond of.
Women were not introduced in this film until a few minutes in, and never played a major role. Women through out this film, as well as the industrial era, were seen as wives, daughters, and assistants to men. The few woman showed working were assistants or entertainers, playing side roles to the men that mattered. This critique was not a main feature of the movie, but instead it is an idea reflected and supported by the male-dominate cast. The main actress, Paulette Goddard, helped enforce the recipe for the ‘American Dream’ which was: a house, a family, and a bread-winning husband. Although receiving work for a short period herself, Goddard’s character constantly sought work for Chaplin. She made a home for them out of an abandoned shack and used her idea of a picture perfect couple to inspire the person she became. Chaplin, inspired by the same picture, worked to aim and afford a house to meet their expectations. His characters’ hardest triumph in finding work after life in prison was in the introduction of labor unions.
After experiencing the extreme life sentence of a working class citizen, many went on strike.                      Labor unions were formed in order for the working class to stand up to industries, and

voice their opinions as a whole. They wanted to be treated like people, and less like machines. Understanding that they needed money, they were willing to work, but just not under the conditions many experienced in factories. In one scene, Chaplin, after returning to the streets from prison, found himself unintentionally leading a protest of a labor union. Police separated protesters and imprisoned Chaplin for being the leader.
Modern Times held society accountable for their faults in the industrial revolution, by opening their eyes to the toxic economy the working class lived in. The film, although exaggerated, was not historically inaccurate and showcased problems society should avoid. Today, the ‘American Dream’ remains pretty much the same, but the working conditions to achieve this dream have improved dramatically.

The Industrial Revolution and Child Labor

The Industrial Revolution marked the time of new inventions and major expansions in the market. There was large economic advancements that began originally in Britain in the late eighteenth century. Overall, during the revolution, there were many inventions that were extremely important to the development of society. One of the original inventions which was made was the spinning jerry. It was created by James Hargreaves who was an inventor in that time. The spinning jerry was a hand powered spinning machine that was later more developed into other great pieces of technology. After the creation of the spinning jerry, the water frame was created. The water frame was much larger and could create much more at one time. This is the invention that sped up the process of mass production. The water frame was able to hold several hundred spindles and it was powered by water. It required an entire factory to run it. The next major invention that came out was the spinning mule. It was created by Samuel Crompton and was a combination between the spinning jerry and the water frame. Samuel Crompton was unfortunately not getting much money from the spinning mule. There was many of them being used all of Great Britain however he was not making any money off of them. The next machine ultimately set off the idea of rapid development. The steam engines were able to burn coal to produce steam which could operate a pump.

With an increased amount of production, there was a great need for labor in Great Britain. This caused an increased in the amount of children that were allowed to work. The children were able to work long and hard hours to help make money for their parents. It is so odd to look back on that now and think about young children working in factories. If children in todays society were doing the same kind of labor, it would be very unproductive. It is hard to even imagine children have the ability to work like they used to. Whenever the working conditions began to get worse, people began to worry about the children working long and tough hours. This ultimately caused the Factory Acts to be  passed. These acts ensured that children were not over worked and they were well taken care of. Even if this issue was taken care of in Europe at the time, there are still child workers around the world today. A lot of younger children work in third world countries in order to mass produce things to be sent to the United States. It is very interesting to see how in some countries this issue is taken care of but in others it is simply slide under the table as if nothing is happening.

Citations

McKay, John P., et al. A History of Western Societies. 12^th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017

Of Mollies and Men

The eighteenth century represents an interesting period for the emerging lgbtqa+ community. Of course, even modern events would indicate that this could not have been an enjoyable time to live as a non-heteronormative person, and yet it was a time in which the West saw a surge in the growth of homosexual communities from the Netherlands to England (McKay 581). Just as the growing desire for civil protections and individual liberties are percolating in France, the gay communities seem to undergo their own unification and transformation. This takes place primarily in the form of the infamous molly clubs.

            As early as 1709, records of these underground gatherings can be found (Rictor, The Mollies Club). An account by English journalist Ned Ward details some of the more fantastical practices of the “mollies” in their infamous lying-in ceremony. He describes how the men convene in one of the participant’s houses dressed in drag. While the crowd idles about and engages in idle “women’s frivolity”, the main molly of the evening prepares to endure a mock birth. All of their fellows proceed to gather around and offer laughs and encouragement until the doll is delivered and the “mother and father” congratulated (Rictor, The Mollies Club). This was most likely among some of the more wild events on the mollies calendar, but it was one for which they were harshly condemned. Ceremonies such as this echoed the growing effeminacy portrayed by the emboldened members of these secret clubs.

            Indeed many texts of the era speak out specifically about the endangered masculinity of Europe’s youth, and some go so far as to point into antiquity to Socrates and others as sources of the moral corruption (Rictor, Immoralitt of the Ancient Philosophers). Most critiques strike down heavily on the effeminate characteristics that began to present in and dominate the quickly growing molly clubs. A concerned citizen writes, “I am sorry [p. 10] to say, that in England there are as many of this abominable Sect, as any where in the World. Besides several Clubs and Assemblies of these Wretches that are publickly known, there are many private Ones, where Effeminacy revels in all its Impurity of filthy Vice and detestable Practices: Nor is there a public Place, but something of this Nature shews itself with the most shocking Aspect.” (Rictor, The Plague of Effeminacy). While he appears alarmed at everything, his chief concern is the femininity displayed in the “private ones” as he puts it. The writer’s frank acknowledgment of public clubs and a well-known subculture shows just what a presence the lgbtqa+ community was gaining and maintaining by the earliest 1700s. Their presence and the pushback against it would only continue to grow as the century progressed.

Citations:

McKay, John P., et al. A History of Western Societies. 12^th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017, pp. 581.

Rictor Norton (Ed.), "Immoralitt of the Ancient Philosophers, 1735", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook, 28 April 2007 <http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/philoso.htm>.

Rictor Norton, Ed., "The Mollies Club, 1709-10", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. 1 Dec. 1999, updated 16 June 2008 <http://www.rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/nedward.htm>.

Rictor Norton (Ed.), "The Plague of Effeminacy, 1757", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook, 26 February 2003 <http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/plagues.htm>.

Sense and Sensibility

Released December 13, 1995, the film “Sense and Sensibility” is an adaptation of Jane Austen’s bestselling novel that was published in 1811. The movie follows the coming of age story of the Dashwood sisters, Elinor, Marianne, and their youngest sister Margaret. When their father Mr. Dashwood passes, the estate in which they live in, Norland Park, is passed down to John, the half-brother from Mr. Dashwood’s first marriage. The three girls and their widowed mother are forced to leave their home, but the opportunity arises to rent a modest home, deemed Barton Cottage, on the property of their distant relative, Sir John Middleton. Once there, the girls realize they must marry for financial security. This sets the story up to be full of love, romance, and heartbreak.

While many of us were forced to read this book in high school, some got to forgo the “dreaded” read. I enjoyed this book during high school but found the film to be slightly off in some places. The movie was produced by Lindsay Doran, but the screenplay was written by Emma Thompson, who also played the lead role of Elinor Dashwood. The first thing I noticed was that their wealth was exaggerated. Within the book, the Dashwood family would be considered “middle class” in the 21^st century. Yes, they lived on an estate, wore nice clothes, and rode in carriages, but they were nowhere near the wealthiest family during the 1700s. Thompson exaggerated their wealth to make their scenes of poverty more apparent to modern audiences. Thompson also altered traits within the male leads, as well as, Elinor and Marianne. The male roles were altered to make them slightly more appealing. This is due to men in the 1700’s being gruffer towards women, which wouldn’t have been as acceptable in the 90s. Elinor and Marianne were supposedly polar opposites, which is depicted and emphasized through imagery and invented scenes.

Ang Lee was chosen to direct the film, which was given a budget of $16 million. The crew took the seemingly small budget and blew it up into a box office revenue of $135 million worldwide. The film started out being a commercial success. This turned into it receiving overwhelmingly positive reviews, along with several accolades. These accolades included, three awards and eleven nominations at the 1995 British Academy Film Awards. It then earned seven Academy Award Nominations. Thompson received the Best Adapted Screenplay award and the Best Actress award, becoming the only person to have won awards for both acting and screenwriting.

While the adaptation of the book to film misses some parts and exaggerates others, this has been one film that does well in avoiding that. It depicts life for four women without a male leader, well in the late 1700s. These women are trying to find a way back into what was considered their normal lives after being thrown out of it. There is romance, lies, love that is frowned upon. It truly is the perfect mix of a love story mashed in with important parts of history. Jane Austen created accidental feminists and has been celebrated for it ever since. Even if you were not “forced” to read the book in high school, give the movie a try, you may find that you enjoy it.

Citations:

Ebert, Roger. “Sense And Sensibility Movie Review (1995) | Roger Ebert.” RogerEbert.com, Brian Grazer, 13 Dec. 1995, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/sense-and-sensibility-1995.

Looser, Devoney. “'Sense and Sensibility' and Jane Austen's Accidental Feminists.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 21 Feb. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/02/sense-and-sensibility-jane-austen-emma-thompson/434007/.

“Sense and Sensibility (1995).” Safe Haven (2013) - Rotten Tomatoes, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1068832_sense_and_sensibility.

Childbirth...Is It Even Worth It???

What do you think of when you hear about childbirth? Probably blood, pain, and maybe even epidurals. Between the 1600s to 1800s, only two of those words can closely describe childbirth, and if it isn't obvious enough, they were blood and pain. Women were encouraged to pop out as many babies as possible, even with the risk of death dangling over their heads. Women were expected to get married young in order to start reproducing children, and it was almost a game of how many children you could give birth to in such a short period of time.

With the upper class having more money, they were pushed into having more children. Women during the 1700s had servants that could care for their children while they recover, but this wasn't the case for the lower classes. In order for a lower class woman to have a child, she would have to work right up until she was giving birth, and immediately get back to work right after the birth to provide for her newly born child. Not only did the upper class have more of an advantage with recovery time, but they had access to medical advice, which could have a higher likelihood of the woman surviving after childbirth. Women during this time were more susceptible diseases following childbirth, and they were little to no cures to fix the infectious diseases. In the 1600s and 1700s, 1-1.5% of women died while giving birth.

It wasn't until the 18th century that doctors started getting involved in the delivery of child birth. Although this may seem like a positive for the women, it was just the opposite. Doctors were reusing the same tools from birth to birth on different women, and they were not washing their hands. This is when puerperal fever began to spread, and even was the cause of more than 40% of deaths in women during childbirth. Also during the 1700s, forceps were introduced and used by doctors, which seems like an easy-access tool in child birth...well, think again. If a baby was stuck in then birth canal, the doctor would use the forceps to try to wedge it out, but would often times break the mother's pubic bone, which would result in her death. If they wanted to spare the mother's life, they would use the forceps to break the baby's skull...morbid right?

By the 19th century, there were more drugs that could be used to lessen the pain of child birth, and keep from the mother dying. During this time, doctors came up with the "twilight method", which was a combination of morphine and scopolamine. Doctors are finally coming up with a way to make childbirth a little more bearable, awesome wouldn't you think? Yeah...not always. This combination of the "twilight method" was sometimes a fatal mix that could kill the mother. Between the 1600s and 1800s, childbirth seemed like such a hassle and honestly doesn't even seem worth it in the slightest. The risk of the pregnant mother, and even the child, dying during the birthing process doesn't seem like a chance I'd want to take. If it weren't for the women who took this chance during the 1600s through the 1800s, we probably wouldn't be here today...so thank you I guess, but I would never do the same.



Citations:

Cellania, Miss. "The Historical Horror of Childbirth." Mental Floss, 9 May 2013, mentalfloss.com/article/50513/historical-horror-childbirth. 

Helmuth, Laura. "The Disturbing, Shameful History of Childbirth Deaths." Slate, 10 Sept. 2013, slate.com/technology/2013/09/death-in-childbirth-doctors-increased-maternal-mortality-in-the-20th-century-are-midwives-better.html. 

Kennedy, Lesley. "The Checkered History of the Delivery Room." Fit Pregnancy, www.fitpregnancy.com/pregnancy/labor-delivery/checkered-history-delivery-room. Accessed 24 Feb. 2019.