New Deal Draft

America was a changed cultural landscape after the depression hit in 1929. While politicians, artists and cultural theorists alike grappled with exactly what America was to do in the face of such financial hardship, the wake of the depression also redefined the relationship between the individual American and the collective United States. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Commonwealth Club Address” speaks to the important, albeit unglamorous, challenge of the American citizen to enact change in every day life, and for the American government to rebuild upon resources and infrastructure already established before the Depression. Furthermore, it is through individual dedication in combination with government aid that the United States could meet a collective goal. Seymour Fogel’s mural entitled “Security of the Family” captures this integration of individual might in a collective family setting. In sharp contrast, Mervyn LeRoy’s film Gold Diggers of 1933 is an example of mass media that celebrated Herbert Hoover’s notion of laissez-faire liberalism. In the film, the emphasis is on a group of individuals coming together to create a beneficial product as a whole, with little to no reference about the importance of the individual or financial hardship. Contrasting these two primary sources shows us that the most successful visual cultural materials of the thirties were those that spoke neither towards individual initiative nor collective group action, but in fact, a combination of the two, as it was this message that was most inclusive of United States demographics of the thirties.

It should not go without mention that the very existence of visual cultural material such as film and photography undoubtedly changed the American public’s interaction with matters of national importance, such as the Depression and The New Deal. Seeing fellow Americans, whether prospering or in need, established a new set of stakes for the American citizen and their involvement in turning the economy around. Warren Susman in Culture as History suggests, “the shift to a culture of sight and sound…helped create a unity of response and action not previously possible; it made us more susceptible than ever to those who could mold culture and thought (160). It is plausible that the eventual widespread success of FDR’s governmental policies was largely due to their significance on the level of the everyday individual as a part of a larger American whole.

During his commonwealth address in 1932, Roosevelt posed, “I want to invite you…to consider with me in the large, some of the relationships of government and economic life that go deeply into our daily lives, our happiness, our future and our security” (2). This invitation is telling of Roosevelt’s strategic method of combining the political with the personal. What is more, Roosevelt speaks with the authority of a president, and his “invitation” works to make him that much more accessible as a leader. So, he is asking that the American public not only entertain these political and economic on a daily basis, but also, he asks to join America in thinking of the necessary resolutions. Again, this particular message is a combination of proposed problem solving on an individual and international level.

Seymour Fogel’s “Security of the Family” portrays the various members of a family engaged in activities that serve to both maintain household life and extend beyond its reaches. We see themes of literacy, education, good parenting and even sportsmanship. It is especially interesting to note that while each family member is involved in something different from one another, the composition of the mural allows for the activities to become overlapping upon one another. The emotive and compositional facets of this mural are telling of “…a basic truth about the decade: the need to feel one’s self a part of some larger body, some larger sense of purpose” (Susman, 172). That sense of purpose and their success as a familial unit as it exists in this image is dependent on every individual completing their task to the best of their ability. Not one person in this photo bears a facial expression that is anything but understanding and resolute.

Here, Fogel has captured a moment in familial life, which many Americans could have associated with in the thirties. The individual, and the work of that individual, is validated in a familial sense, but also on a national front. Roosevelt himself proposed, “our government formal and informal, political and economic, owes to every one an avenue to possess himself of a portion of that plenty sufficient for his needs, through his own work” (6). Roosevelt wished to create a symbiotic relationship between the people and the government. What is more, within the realm of “the people” he wished to recognize the value of the individual separately, but just as equally as the whole of the nation. Just as the government should extend the resources to the individual man, necessary to make a life for himself, successful cultural media of the time period was that which elicited a response, or somehow validated the American on an individual, more personal level.

In sharp contrast to these images, LeRoy’s Gold Diggers of 1933 is a film which exemplifies Herbert Hoover’s notion that images of American wealth and prosperity could have been achieved without the government intervention as laid out by The New Deal. In the opening scene, we are overwhelmed with a large dance number where women’s bodies are used as parts to create a whole image. Here, the emphasis is not on the individual. They dance and sing the words, “the long lost dollar has come back into the fold, we’ve got a lot of what it takes to get by; we’re in the money...” Not only do they have the money, but in fact they have so much of it that they are literally wearing it. The lyrics fail to help the viewer understand exactly how this money came back into the economy, and how these women happened to acquire it. In addition to the lyrics, the visuals emphasize the flashy end product without supplying any notion of the individual struggle or economic hardship that it took to get there.

The one example of individualism that the film does provide is the sub plot of Polly Parker, an unremarkable backup dancer who ultimately gets to be the star of the show. This extreme advancement, both socially and monetarily speaking, seems unfounded if not arbitrary. More so than hard work or personal virtue, Polly is singled out largely for being in the right place at the right time. So, not only does this film fail to reach a large audience by the very fact that it is a film that costs money to view, but it also sends the message that of the crowd of viewers, very few will be plucked out of their circumstances, as Polly was. It leaves the rest of the masses personally unaccounted for, if not doomed, to an anonymous life working towards a common goal.

Perhaps the most striking impression from Gold Diggers of 1933 is this notion that financial hardship is temporary and surmountable. In fact, the oppressive reality that is poverty is debased in one of the very first lines of the film, as Trixie says, jovially, “let’s get up for work, I hate starving in bed!” The comment suggests that the girls will be starving no matter where they go, but at least they will be rehearsing for a musical number if they are at work. Here arises this troublesome ethic to shine and produce, no matter the cost.

In the “Commonwealth Club Address,” Roosevelt harnesses this notion, suggesting that instead, “our task now is not discovery, or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources…already at hand” (6). It is the acknowledgment of the hard road ahead, and the necessary discipline and integrity on the part of the individual. For the sake of our own comparison, it is not the grand splendor of the theater, but the “less dramatic,” “soberer” application of daily sacrifices on the part of the individual that is needed to lead America towards a common goal.

While the vast majority of people within the United States in the thirties were not theatrical showgirls, such as those depicted in Gold Diggers of 1933, many people could earnestly identify with images of the workingman or the dutiful mother, as depicted in Seymour Fogel’s murals. Cultural images, such as Fogel’s, in combination with Roosevelt’s policies, proved to be more successful in terms of reaching a larger audience. These images struck a chord both with the personal and the nationalistic side of a person, ultimately validating a national audience, wrought by the Depression.