October 27, 2011
TV’s “Pan Am:” A Case of Misplaced Nostalgia
The stewardesses of Pan Am. Courtesy of ABC.
Eleven million people tuned in to the first episode of ABC’s new series “Pan Am,” a paean to the glory days of commercial aviation, before security pat downs, luggage restrictions, bring-your-own-dinner-in-a-bag and all the other indignities of contemporary air travel. (Ratings have since nosedived, placing the show in danger of cancellation.)
Much has been made about the banality of the plot and characters, and the series‘ nostalgia for the bad old days before the Women’s Liberation Movement. In a recent episode, one stewardess, who is also an undercover CIA agent, blunders her way through a top secret assignment while her sister and co-worker, the show‘s ditzy blond, escapes from her girdle to Frug all night long in Jakarta Were young women ever so jejune? Whatever happened to “I am Strong, I am Invincible, I am Woman?“
Viewers must bear in mind that Helen Reddy’s hit song and the bonfire of the brassieres came later. Set in 1963, “Pan Am” still flies through the cloudless skies of Ole Blue Eyes and Coffee, Tea or Me?, a risqué memoir written in 1969 by two stewardesses who had to weigh-in before work and retire at 35.
All that went the way of Pan Am, which folded in 1991 (but is still fondly remembered by the Pan Am Historical Foundation, dedicated to preserving the airline’s culture and contributions). The 1964 Civil Rights Act started the process by prohibiting the airlines from forcing stewardesses to resign if they got married, pregnant or turned older than 35 and effectively opened the profession to men, who now comprise about 20 percent of in-flight attendants. Since then the profession has yielded to more mature personnel because salaries and plum assignments are pegged to seniority, meaning employees tend to stay on the job longer.
That’s progress on a social level; I doubt that even the most haggard frequent fliers rue it. But in terms of aesthetics and comfort, air travelers today are infinitely poorer. The series capitalizes on that and a rekindled appreciation for Mid-Century Modern style by lovingly recreating the accoutrements of the Jet Age. With consultation from veteran Pan Am employees, designers pay undivided attention to authenticity, from the reconstituted cockpit of a vintage Pan Am clipper that serves as one of the sets to swizzle sticks bearing the blue Pan Am logo served with in-flight martinis.
Costumes, too, are pitch-perfect, offering new ideas for Halloween. The show’s website supplies patterns for make-your-own stewardess caps; bags and totes with the company’s insignia are available at travel gear retailers like Flight 001, inspired by Pan Am‘s famous round-the-world service, launched in 1947.
Never mind the trim, blue-suited stewardesses. I’m nostalgic for Flight 001, which originated in San Francisco, stopping in Honolulu, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Manila, Calcutta, New Delhi, Beirut, Frankfurt and London before landing in New York; Flight 002 circled the globe the other way around from the airline’s headquarters at JFK Airport in New York (known as Idlewild at the time).Pan Am’s old Worldport terminal is still there as Delta‘s T3, though the original 1961 parasol-roofed design has been all but obliterated by renovations and the building is slated for demolition. Classic Mid-Century Modern architecture is now best appreciated at Jetblue’s T5, where modernization has maintained important aspects of the winged TWA Terminal, built in 1962 by Eero Saarinen.
When I puddle up on the couch on Sunday nights to watch “Pan Am,” it‘s things like that I dream about. And, frankly, I‘m hoping the series lasts for another year at least so we can see what happens to the ditzy blonde when she gets pregnant after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
No, Pan am is wonderful!! U.U
Comment by Penelopi — October 27, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
Interesting perspectives in this entry. Despite the fact I normally don’t watch much television apart from PBS or the Travel or History channels, I actually make the time each Sunday night to watch Pan Am and have become a very big fan of this series. In fact, I haven’t been this enthusiastic about a TV show since the debut of “China Beach” more than 20 years ago. Despite the apparent odds against the Pan Am show, I am still rooting for ‘em and actively encouraging people to watch. Why? Because I’m of the opinion that the Pan Am TV show is a very a refreshing change of pace from all the morbid “CSI” types of programs and all those vulgar so-called “reality” shows, and I hope it will last a while. Yes, there are some ‘rough spots’ to this show, and more than a little escapist fantasy, but overall I think Pan Am has a lot of potential to educate people on some of the great untold stories of how stewardesses/flight attendants and other pink collar workers made significant contributions to the American labor, civil rights and women’s movements. Far too often, TV shows focus on women in non-traditional jobs and ignore the vast majority of us (more than 80% of women in the workforce) who aren’t doctors, lawyers or some sort of “professional.” Also, I think it’s time that TV took these women in traditional women’s jobs more seriously and quit negatively stereotyping us in comedies or ignoring us. A very enlightening book I highly recommend any Pan Am viewers to read is entitled “Femininity In Flight: A History Of Flight Attendants.” by historian Kathleen Barry. It shows how the stewardesses were not merely “waitresses in the sky” but intrepid proto-feminists. Many of them pretty much ‘liberated’ themselves by taking the various discriminatory laws to court…and winning! Anyway, I hope Smithsonian will continue to support Pan Am and other shows like it.
Comment by Sabrina Messenger — October 27, 2011 @ 12:43 pm
Susan Spano shouldn’t be so quick to cast “ditzy blonde” aspersions. It was ditzy of her to write “the winged TWA Terminal, built in 1962 by Eero Saarinen” when Saarinen had died, sadly, in 1961.
Comment by David Lasker — October 28, 2011 @ 1:43 am
Ms Spano’s well written essay would have been more powerful if she or her editors had placed a question mark (?)on in the title.
e.g.
“TV’s “Pan Am:” A Case of Misplaced Nostalgia ? ”
Charles Trippe Jr.
Comment by Charles Trippe Jr — October 28, 2011 @ 6:00 am
Point taken. That would be opened, not built in 1962. Thanks for the correction.
SS
Comment by Susan Spano — October 28, 2011 @ 9:01 am
There was a huge public outpoor of support when the Saarinen TWA terminal was also on the chopping block several years ago. Public support, in addition to its inclusion in the National List of Historic Places and designation as a New York City Landmark, spared it from demolition.
Unfortunately, the Pan Am Worldport (Delta Terminal 3) was denied similar designation. Delta has allowed the facility to deteriorate, understandably because it is investing heavily in its massive Terminal 4 expansion. Interestingly, Delta actually plans to renovate the bland and equally obsolete Terminal 2, which it will connect to Terminal 4 when completed, but demolish the more historically, architectually and aesthetically important Terminal 3.
However, increasing awareness of T3′s situation by historical and architectural preservationsists (such as DoCoMoMo), aviation enthusiasts (NYCaviation, Airliners.net), as well as the general public (Facebook Save-the-Pan-Am-Worldport community) is beginning to spawn support for this iconic structure as well.
Unfortunately, public opposition against removal of the I.M. Pei-designed Terminal 6 (former National Sundrome, later used by TWA, Pan Am, and finally jetBlue) was futile. The Port Authority understandably had no use for another empty building and unceremoniously tore it down this month.
If the Worldport is demolished, the Saarinen terminal will be the only remaining original airport structure at JFK.
So much for nostalgia.
Comment by Anthony Stramaglia — October 29, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
Very informative! Thanks for sharing!
Comment by Best travel advice — October 30, 2011 @ 2:56 pm