I Dream of Life Inside Jeannie’s Bottle

Does art imitate life or vice versa. It might be either. Do I believe that? Is art the driver of life or merely a reflection? I actually believe it’s both.

Art will push the boundaries of what’s acceptable and at times use imitation as creation.

Fifties and sixties television is a perfect example.

The norm at the time was women in the home. Men ruled the roost and women cooked the roast.

TV perpetuated these stereotypes with gusto.

Fifties Moms were portrayed as neat, well dressed, always coifed and able to perform their duties.

They kept a clean house, cooked healthy meals always adhering to the food pyramid, and considered their husbands the authority on the world outside the home.

Each lived and existed within their domain.

Fifties women were no more than updated cavewomen who cooked the game hubby provided and kept the cave clean and tidy.

I remember a Donna Reed show where there was a plumbing problem.

Her husband was busy so he couldn’t get around to the issue quickly enough to suit her. Donna Reed actually took it upon herself to call a plumber and deal with the leak.

When her husband learned she had “handled” the problem he was surprised. So complimentary that she had stepped out of her comfort zone to deal with a man’s job.

WOW. Can you imagine. A fifties Mom actually made a phone call to a plumber? How incredibly bold and modern of her. What will women accomplish next?

There were specific attitudes that not only reflected the times, but embraced and exploited them.

Samantha wasn’t allowed to be herself and took scolding after scolding from stupid Darrin if she dared use her magic powers. Unless of course they suited his needs.

Don’t even start me on a half-dressed Jeannie in that bottle. Can you say, every man’s fantasy? And she called Larry Hagman Master. Subtle? I think not.

Ozzie and Harriet even kept the father at home so he could be on-site overlord. No one ever seemed to ask or care how Ozzie paid the bills while he sat around in his cardigan sweater.

Father Knows Best is so obvious need I say more?

Even westerns were in on the joke. Cowboy shoots up the town, sheriff arrests badman and saves the women and children.

Yes, we knew the rules and the playbook, and although we grew slightly uncomfortable with it, we didn’t make waves. At least not yet.

TV and movies of the day were much the same except movies tended to push the envelope. They could because they weren’t entering your home.

If you wanted to see a racy movie like The Best of Everything, you went out and paid. And one of the reasons it was considered “racy” was it featured women working in a man’s world and alluded to sex. Tsk Tsk how revolutionary.

Movies could change mores, but Doris Day is proof that didn’t happen as much as was necessary. In the movie The Thrill of it All with James Garner, Doris is offered a position to be the face of a soap company.

Garner was upset because she wasn’t home to greet him at night like a tail-wagging cocker spaniel. He devised a plan to get her pregnant so she’d have to quit and stay home. Seriously?

Yes, men in movies could be portrayed as buffoons and television did begin to allow some to be portrayed that way. But always in a comic way.

Hello, Barney Fyfe. But Andy, who was a father, was the responsible and mature one of the pair. Always ready with sage advice for Opie and an endless supply of patience for Barney’s shenanigans.

Yes, there were certain expectations and no one complained much. Until they did.

As women began to explore life outside of the home television began reflecting more women at work.

The seventies had programs about policewomen, executives and bosses instead of just secretaries and housewives.  

The women’s movement effected not only the times, but the entertainment.

Women could be strong, bold and dynamic. It became no shock to anyone anymore that we were capable of calling a plumber to fix a leak. Or that fathers knew best only because Moms usually let them think that was true.

Art has never been fully aware of how much it affects the norms.

After a lifetime of watching television, going to movies and absorbing the intake, I see things clearly.

Yes, art imitates life, but it also seals the norms place in society.

No, viewers do not run out after seeing a cop show and rob a bank or become violent felons.

However, it does have negative impacts on the world.

By bombarding viewers with violence, crime and horrible people, the shock value wears off quickly.

Shock value is an important element in that it draws a line in the sand between what is acceptable and what is absolutely not.

The more we become accustomed to seeing evil, the more accepting of it we become.

Like a comic who uses the F-bomb over and over and it eventually loses its meaning.

No one is surprised anymore that politicians lie, in fact we expect them too.

Society is no longer shocked or shaking their heads by crime and violence. After all nothing could scare us as much as the evening news.

It’s as if we’ve come to expect the worst. And learned to live with it.

Can we blame this on television when network execs did fight valiantly to keep Mom home and Dad believing he was king of his domain?

Or was it inevitable that after seeing so much brutality in movies and on television we became too blasé about it.

That Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry became entertainment instead of a warning of cities turning into future war zones?

We’ve learned to tolerate evil because it was so easily allowed into our world. Crime, violence, harsh language, corruption and dishonesty are almost expected as part of the genre.

Perhaps we were just kidding ourselves all along. Buying the fairy tale that as long as Donna Reed was in her high heels and pearls stirring oatmeal, and Ozzie was in his cardigan chatting with Thorney, all was right with the world?

Or was art just a reflection of a world that changed so quickly we never saw it coming. One we had no desire to accept into our lives.

No wonder people watch reruns of the old shows and sigh at how uncomplicated life was then. All problems could be solved in half an hour.

Jeannie’s bottle sounds like a pretty good hiding place to me now. Move over Barbara, and could you teach me how to nod your head and conjure up dinner, please.

Why Didn’t Samantha Divorce Darrin? What Was She Thinking?



Darrin Stephens was the worst husband ever! Sadder even was Samantha’s complete acquiescence to his demanding and irrational behavior toward who and what she was.

Sadly, when I was a child I failed to grasp the subtle messages inherent in the Bewitched series, one of the more popular television shows of its era. Television was our social media and our influencers were the characters on our favorite shows each week. No wonder we bought the hype of the times and in the end paid a price.

Oh sure Darrin came off as a long suffering mortal with a witch of a mother-in-law, but who was really the villain in this scenario? And didn’t Endora have good reason to despise her misogynistic son-in-law?

Samantha’s desire to live within the rules set by her tyrant of a husband still leave me speechless.

In one episode she is cleaning the oven when Endora enters the kitchen and is quite perturbed to see her daughter doing housework.

Endora’s disgust is totally understandable, but Samantha’s contentment with her housewifely duties is also quite shocking.

If one sees her behavior as a lark and enjoying living the life of a mortal woman, well okay, I imagine we can all understand that mindset. We can also understand that any woman in her right mind would be thrilled to twitch her nose and a second later witness a sparkling house with no effort. Now I don’t know about you, but if I could zap my stove clean, scrub the floors or have the dirty laundry show up clean and folded in the drawers, I’d opt for that solution in a New York minute.

However, the fact the real theme of Bewitched is not that Darrin Stephens married a witch, but that he was constantly and angrily forcing her to abandon her nature and behave as a mortal, is what frosts my cookies. His constant reminders that he is the “King” of his castle are enough to make a modern woman puke and cast him as one of the most reprehensible characters in television history.

Unless of course her magic suits his purposes and then it is welcomed. Can you say hypocrite?

The message here goes much deeper than simply Samantha choosing to live a mortal life.

It is a man dominating a woman and forbidding her to be who she is. Simply perpetrating the myth that women are subservient to men.

Sounds like the fifties to me.

Darrin’s constant rants about being the head of the household and demanding she stop using witchcraft, becomes more egregious when his daughter is born a witch and he outlaws her nature as well. Sadly, it is hard to watch for it takes me back to a time when women were expected to do the bidding of their husbands. To always act as society deemed a proper wife should, cleaning, cooking and childcare. 

I am absolutely not saying those are not wonderfully virtuous aspects of a woman’s life, but it should be her choice. No one should diminish any option a woman makes that will fulfill and make her happy.

Samantha was a witch, and as such she was privy to powers and abilities far greater than ordinary women could imagine.

Yet Darrin insisted over and over, in a rather screeching tone by the way, she not use her powers or simply put, just be who she is.

At this point I must stress that I am well aware it was a comedy and make believe, and no I don’t believe in witches, but of course Tinkerbell is another issue.

Yet the egregious theme of the show, is simply husband against wife or witch, his power over her powers and her inability to be herself. She’s forced to sneak around just to be her true self, another reason women of the fifties were brainwashed into such behavior. Of course there is always Lucy who wants to be in Ricky’s show and need I say more?

This is not comedy to women who were raised in a time when their opportunities were limited to what society and their father’s felt was appropriate. Raised in a home where women were expected to be no more than wives and mothers. Where a daughter’s duty was to get her MRS degree and provide her parents with grandchildren and a successful husband. Yes, I can speak firsthand of the damage these attitudes can inflict.

A man demanding we be something other than what we are, denying our visions or dreams and having to bow to the male order, caused too many women not to live up to their potential and achieve their dreams.

Watching reruns of this show I wince at his very vocal demands that Samantha bend to his will.

Perhaps even sadder is the fact Samantha continues to use her powers behind Darrin’s back. That he hates his mother-in-law because she simply wants her daughter to be who she truly is. To have the life she was raised to enjoy is selfish and petty of caveman Darrin.

Samantha’s desire to live mortally feels hollow. She continues to use her powers and thus has not truly committed to a life without witchcraft. Is a good marriage one that has both partners hiding and sneaking around to do the things they enjoy, but the other forbids? 

Using her abilities proves she is comfortable with her own self and is only bowing to his demands to please him. This is even sadder that a woman would deny herself to appease a man.

During the fifties and early sixties women in sitcoms were powerless and had to resort to sneaky tactics to achieve their will. I believe “Father Knows Best” says it all.

This lesson was never lost on young girls watching and believing the husband rules and women must be clever and hide their desires to achieve.

It was the Darrin Stephens of the world that set the women’s movement back by years. Watching a woman as attractive as Elizabeth Montgomery married to a dork like Dick York is tough enough to buy. The fact she is capable of twitching her nose to improve her life and change the world and is forbidden to do so, is just sad.

Darrin Stephens is just representative of how women were held back and chained to a paradigm that forbade them freedom of choice over their own lives.

Young women today would never tolerate such weakness in their role models. Although the women’s movement made a great first effort, it failed to take into account the fact that some women did choose to be housewives and mothers. This was their prerogative as well. Whatever lifestyle a woman wants she should be able to select for herself.

Women have shown time and again they are very capable of multi-tasking their lives. Of course one’s priorities should be in the right places then hopefully the things that truly matter will always be in the forefront. Yet it is not fair to tell a woman how to live, what to choose or what she is capable of in this world. No one should be a Darrin Stephens and dictate who anyone should be.

Unconditional love and acceptance is what we strive to find in this life and I can definitely tell you it didn’t exist on Bewitched

th-3.jpg