Friday, August 27, 2010

Atomic Cafe

Doused in frantic paranoia, United States citizens during 1940s and 50s Cold War era were inherently concerned of their conduct and appearance. As observed in the 1982 film Atomic Café, and supplemental videos “The House in the Middle,” and “Operation Cue,” Cold War attitudes were as much about fear of nuclear attack as they were about fitting into the identity of an American citizen living in a nuclear age. What was striking while watching the tactically edited military training and educational videos, which comprise Atomic Café, is how cleanliness and wholesome image became synonymous with ones safety and survival during nuclear attack. The government produced atomic procedural films were key in promoting ideals of the era that were influential in defining the roles of citizens.

There is (as what is meant to be viewed as inadvertent) advertisement throughout the “educational” films. In one news like film clip, the reporter takes a moment to mention “two outstanding shopping centers” after reporting on town that staged a mock communist takeover (0:19:41). This declared the importance of shopping in newly founded shopping malls away from the home. Appearing several times throughout Atomic Café, are film clips of a congressmen discussing nuclear warfare in front of a large sign advertising the watch company Longines (0:24:50). Again this reinforces the idea of consumerism and identity, advertising what Americans should be buying. Something that really stuck out oddly to me was a print of Van Gogh’s “Vase with Twelve Sunflowers” hanging on the wall above the family eating at the kitchen table (0:42:00). To me, this image seemed to imply that the depicted family was worldly and educated. If they watch television after dinner to find out what’s going on in the news then I should too. Embedded in these films meant to educate citizens on the protocol during a nuclear attack, are product placements for American etiquette and consumerism.

Reading “Civilian Threat, the Suburban Citadel, and Atomic Age American Women,” illustrated further the American identity emerging from Cold War fear. Living in suburban dwellings became the norm for the white middle class, instilling a sense of safety to those who had the means to live in a repetitious ranch on a cul-de-sac. But just living in the right house wasn’t enough, conforming to the new template of the nuclear family was the only way to ensure safety and patriotism; this constructing the idealized family out of the desire to appear wholesome and normal. The video of “The House in the Middle” particularly harked back to this ideal in stating that the whitest, cleanest, and well-kept homes would be the safest during nuclear attack.

Some viewed the intensity of the fear in film to be contrived or exaggerated. It’s clearly evident that people during this era were constantly terrified of nuclear attack. Being so prevalent and intense, atomic fear directly altered societal values. The solution to this anxiety was to become a model family and citizen. To be entirely conservative became a defining value and by doing so, allowed you to calm act calm in knowing you are fulfilling your civic duty. Atomic fear was incredibly influential in constructing American identity in the 1940s and 50s and I believe a lot of these core ideals remain major aspects of the idealized American identity today. Do you agree?

6 comments:

  1. I think my obvious answer to your question would be that yes, I do agree. What I find very interesting about the points that you brought up regarding the shopping centers was that it reminded me of the conversation between Nixon and Khrushchev, when Khrushchev said what I believe was that Nixon feared communism because he did not know anything about it, or at least something to that effect. These two things in mind I am lead to think about our capitalist culture and the bountiful ignorance that comes along with it. By this I mean that seemingly "American" nature of wastefulness. This nature I think is directly related to that all-powerful attitude that we saw being propagated in Atomic Cafe which followed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So all in all, I feel as though the "core ideals" that you mentioned are still running very strong, especially those that go along with our Capitalistic nature.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would definitely agree with your statements on both the article and the film. Although it seems completely exaggerated by the film, it must have been a terrifying time to live through. It's awesome that you observed all of the product placements. Doesn't surprise me at all, as it's obviously done today in America just as much. But I'm sure with the fear of nuclear attack, Americans would buy anything the government told them to. Especially in the event that it would keep their families "safer" in case of an attack. It's sad to think of families during that time. Falling for anything the government told them in order to keep safe. "The House In The Middle" particularly irks me, with the idea of having the whitest, cleanest house being the best in the event of an attack.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I agree that our nation's response to the threat of atomic weapons shaped the American identity at that point in history. Everybody had an anti-communist mindset and no person wanted to be tagged as a communist. Supporting the country by being a consumer fueled our capitalistic economy and got us through the times. Being prepared at all times in case of an atomic attack was a way of American life. Instructional films on how to "duck and cover" and what to stock your fallout shelter wth taught people methods for survival. The government went to great lengths to prepare the country although they were unsure of how to deal with nuclear threats.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really like your points about inadvertent product placement, and consumerism informing the narrative even subconsciously, in a way that goes more or less unnoticed, even in the silent arguments the filmmakers make by juxtaposition. Just out of curiosity, what was it like to also have to deal with the intrusive, contemporary hulu ads? What kind of parallels between then and now might they provide?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It was strange being interrupted by the hulu ads. Watching the commercials in the context of a classroom setting in which we are analyzing films made me consider the ads in a different way. The ad for the chemical product applied to eyes to increase eyelash length especially seems especially ridiculous. Whether the majority of the population uses this product or not, the existence of this ad is proof that the fear of inadequate eyelash length is common enough for this product to be made and advertised. The majority of the population during the 40s and 50s may not have been paranoid of nuclear attack to the extent of making their children wear protective suits, yet the fear of nuclear attack was wide spread and intense enough for some people to consider this product. I don't think the government was trying to mind control citizens and I'm not sure that the clips in the film were extremely exaggerated. The government films were created to address the fear of citizens at the time, whether worried slightly or completely terrified. People looking at our tv ads may assume that everyone uses an eyelash lengthening product. This ad is a representation of society, reflecting our ideals and concerns, just as the films were in Atomic Cafe. Its unfair to assume that people during the 40s and 50s Cold War era were all like the representations in the film clips or that they would believe everything they were exposed to. I certainly don't use Latisse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/09/14/science/20100914_atom.html

    ReplyDelete