Recently, several waves of nostalgia have washed up over our collective cultural
consciousness. To wit or t’wit if you
prefer:
The 90s
have been resurrected with comments from Republican Congressman Rand Paul
referencing the Monica Lewinsky scandal that plagued the last years of Bill
Clinton’s second term as President. Paul’s
wife had earlier commented that Clinton exhibited predatory behavior in dealing
with White House intern Lewinsky. She
intended it as a warning for voters who might want to elect Hillary president
and thus return Bill as first spouse. Her husband seemed to double down on her comments more recently on NBC’s
Meet the Press.
A second
wave of 90s nostalgia hit with a replay of the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow
scandal. This time, their adopted
daughter Dylan wrote an open letter to the New York Times, wherein she accused
her former stepfather of molesting her. Allen denied the accusations, which prompted
another retort from mother Mia…and happy 1992 all over again, people!
In both
cases, I am struck with one thought: why am I being subjected to these traumas
again? What did I ever do to the Pauls
and Allen-Farrow to deserve witnessing a rewashing of all this dirty laundry? This is not the purpose of nostalgia!
When we want
to get nostalgic about a certain time or place or person, we like the warm
fuzzy feelings of reminiscing. In fact,
the Little River Band’s song of the same name specifically mentions the Porter
tunes, as in Cole Porter, whose songs were bursting with the sentimentality
that pangs of nostalgia are made for.
We look back
with fondness at good times. For
example, I’ve never heard someone release a whistful sigh with a smile and say
something like, “I was just thinking about the Hindenburg! Ah the humanity!”
See, it doesn’t
work! So why we we’re getting sentimental
about predatory sexual abuse is beyond my comprehension. And I like to think I have a rather vivid
comprehension, if I do say so myself.
In the 70s we looked back at the 50s and created an entire industry around what
we recognized to be a simpler time. Simpler time? I don’t know about
that. In the 50s, America lived in
fear that the Soviet Union would reduce us to radioactive rubble for a good
portion of the decade. Many Americans even prepared for the event that never
happened by constructing bomb shelters in their backyards. At least one congressman was running amok in
Washington in his determination to reveal the identity of every Communist who
dared to breathe the air of American freedom and democracy. Yet, in the 70s, we tuned in to a
representation of this time period every week and watched a show with the ironic
title Happy Days.
Living in
fear was a sign of happiness? Go figure!
I doubt that
we will see a Happy Days version of the 90s any time soon. Motivation for Paul’s comments about Clinton
may not be obvious. The liberals among
us may see it as the opening salvo in an effort to discredit a Hillary Clinton
candidacy years before it happens and long before any American voters care to
think about the 2016 election. At this
point, the furthest thought from our minds is the next election. Can we get through the 2014 Congressional
mid-terms first, please?
As for the
Allen-Farrow rematch, I find myself not caring either way. Full disclosure: I am a fan of Woody Allen and
would hate to see any scandal taint his legacy. However, if Dylan’s accusations are true,
then shame on him and shame on our justice system for allowing him to escape
unscathed. If they aren’t true, then
shame on Dylan and Mia for opening up old wounds and pouring an entire
container of salt on them. If Dylan’s
motives of airing her experiences - real, or as Allen has claimed,
psychologically suggested by her adoptive mother - was to put a spotlight on child
abuse, then more power to her.
However, if
her motive was to destroy Allen’s reputation, then she needs help, professional
help. In fact, all three of them need the
kind of help that someone like me cannot give them. I got tired of this story 20 years ago and I
cannot work up the energy to give a damn about it now. Anyway, Dylan’s motives of career destruction
for her stepfather will probably fail: Sir Charles Chaplin weathered
accusations which were certainly the Victorian era equivalent of the Farrow
stories. Chaplin’s legacy remains
untarnished.
Nostalgia
got another ride this week with the passing of child actress Shirley
Temple. For a few days, we were reminded
of her performances (circa 1934 through 1938) when millions were unemployed,
many went without food, and drought conditions in the Midwest uprooted an
entire way of agrarian life. Again,
Happy Days, everyone! Yet there she was, on the big screen, singing and dancing
cheerfully (usually as an orphan or near orphan), and making everyone forget
their troubles for an hour.
The box
office totals from her films are even credited with saving the studio, 20th Century Fox, from bankruptcy. Just
imagine for a moment what we would not have seen if Fox had gone out of
business. We would not have watched the
Batman television series in the 60s. The Planet of the Apes franchise would never have been produced; ditto
for the Star Wars series and the new generation of motion picture special
effects that it ushered in. We also
would not have seen the founding of Fox News in the 90s.
Oh, um,
hmmm. Surely we can’t blame Ms. Temple for the journalism disaster that is Fox
News. But we can call her Shirley,
because after all that was her name.
Monica Lewinsky,
Allen-Farrow, and Fox News! Yes sir, a 90s version of Happy Days will definitely not happen anytime soon!
(Thank you for reading. RIP, Shirley Temple; and oh yes, Happy
Valentine’s Day!)