So I have been on a streaming Netflix kick of old 1930s and early 40s movies [amazing how all the lead oriental sin a movie were played by white people] and I noticed that so many characters are portrayed as basically owning nothing more than what could be fit into a couple large suitcases.
Given how bulky clothing could be at the time, it would probably be nothing more than perhaps 4 or 5 outfits and a few books/memorabilia.
How true would this be? I know we are not a lot more materialistic, but did the majority of the lower income people basically live more like bag people?
[Right now I am watching a British movie set more or less during the Blitz - London Blackout Murders. I fond old movies can be quite an interesting look at how people lived and what they found acceptable as compared/contrasted to today. There is no way that one Charlie Chan movie could be remade as a period flick and still be PCwith lines like ‘All I need to learn about Germans and Japanese I can find through a rifle sight!’ :p]
Not sure how to respond to this. I can’t ever remember ever seeing people move households in old movies, except maybe for Okies and they’re a special case of the poorest poor.
When people travel in movies, everything is simplified. You throw things into one suitcase because real packing takes time. The rich are always getting a porter to haul a big, heavy trunk off a steamship but that’s equally simplified. They traveled with 20 trunks. Shoes alone had their own trunk. I’ve seen examples.
But look at interior sets. Unless they’re trying to make a point about poverty, the rooms are just as full of furniture and knickknacks as the average home today. There isn’t usually a lot of clutter in sets, but that was a design decision. It’s true that proportionally more people were poor or working class back in the 1930s and it’s true that even the middle class had only a fraction as many electrical gadgets as we do. Houses were smaller, too. But modernist design in the 1930s was actually trying to pare down the overstuffed look of middle class rooms, and make lines sleeker. You wouldn’t see much of that in movies set in London, though.
So I’m at a loss at what you’re seeing that could make you think people owned so little. Every inch of a movie set was filled with stuff in any normal film. You couldn’t throw it all in a suitcase if you tried.
Well, you see people moving into boarding houses with a couple of suitcases, maybe a carpet bag if they are American and if they are a sailor a sea bag, army perhaps a foot locker. The boarding house is already furnished, with perhaps some cheap pictures on the wall and no other real dustcatchers like statuettes of cats or whatever. Think ‘The Lodger’ 1944 version frex.
This is my dream, actually. I want everything I own to fit into 1 large suitcase, and maybe a backpack. Pair of jeans, skirt, 3-4 tops, 1 light jacket, 2 pr shoes, and my electronics to cover all the books/music/papers/movies. All my paperwork and pictures “in the cloud”. And then just travel. Need a coat? Pick one up at a second hand store and ditch it when its no longer needed. Oh, maybe add a bathing suit too. Rent a place for 6-12 months, and then move on. If I need a pan to cook, same thing: buy one at a thrift store, use while needed, then pass it on. Sigh.
Home ownership levels was definitely lower earlier in the century. Single men - and many single women - did live in boardinghouses if they didn’t live with relatives. This had the advantage that you didn’t need much in personal possessions. Usually younger people trying to establish themselves lived this way, and they moved around a lot as they took on a variety of jobs. Having a secure job for life didn’t really become standard until the 50s. (The 50s are the most atypical decade, which makes it weird that people use it as the default normal.)
This is a segment of the population, though, not a majority. The majority were married or lived with relatives, just like today. You might see wandering singles more in period movies because they overrepresented New York City settings and the Depression added to the number of poor. But mostly because movies focus on young, single people, wildly overrepresenting them.
From a MPSIMS thread where people got discussing paring things down to as little as possible. Not in terms of travel, but that’s how I noticed I could do it:
Hey, I might not notice. I’d be somewhere in Europe with my little black backpack.