There are many themes that influence our viewpoint of the child entertainment industry of the early 20th century. Across the country, children were engaged in the entertainment industry, but a variety of factors divided these youths. Firstly, geography was a major dividing force for levels of protections for young entertainers, which was in contrast to the goal of hegemony for those consuming media. Secondly, gender separated many children in terms of their usage in media, as well as influenced the propaganda the United States sought to spread through entertainment. These factors were intersectional with each other, and offer a valuable perspective of changes on film, television and radio, among other entertainment formats. These themes can be uncovered from scholarly sources and can help us understand the importance of entertainment to conversations of child labor and laws about it.
Harry Swope, 15, Takes break while delivering papers in Newport, Kentucky. We can take paper boys into consideration on the treatment of child entertainers, for while they are not creating media themselves, their role in transportation of it aids in looking at the lives of those involved in the distribution of information to the American public.
Geographic Dichotomy
Geographically, differences in location had immense impacts on the quality of life and outcomes for child actors and entertainers due to differing laws and perceptions of entertainers. For many actors, the divides between one located in New York versus Los Angeles were immense. In John Kasson’s “Shirley Temple’s Paradoxical Smile”, he outlines the usage of child actors throughout the 1930s as tools of propaganda during the Great Depression. Actors, and especially child actors, were important for the construction of an outlook of happiness during those difficult times. According to Kasson, “The circulation of a new emotional currency during the Great Depression was a crucial aspect of the national economy and recovery efforts, a sort of deficit spending with immense consequences”(Kasson 2011). Due to their widespread usage, the film actors of Hollywood at this time became more and more important and valued. The applications of this allowed the creation of more strict laws surrounding child labor for the child actors of California. Their ‘preciousness’ as children was much more valued than that of child entertainers in other parts of the country, such as on Broadway in New York, because their monetary and political value was so much higher. This is due to the fact that the media produced by children in Hollywood was by far the easiest to make widespread and give out on a wholesale level to the entire United States populace.
This evening of the playing fields and creation of homogenous entertainment with one message across the country fell exactly in line with the goals of government agencies, large companies, and higher ups in Hollywood itself. While so-called ‘child star’ films and other forms of media starring children had begun to die out with the later era of silent films, this era of propaganda brought a return to the popularity of films specifically (Arrighi & Emeljanow 2014). So while the industry of child labor was a major monetary function during the 1930s, industries of child entertainment aside from film were less profitable and less in line with the goals of the time, which supported a much less watchful eye on the care of those young people. In contrast, the eye on Hollywood was creating a “fetishization of the screen child”(Arrighi & Emeljanow 2014). The children of Hollywood were so revered as priceless entities that anything less than stunningly perfect was seen as a disappointment. This will be an important factor in the discussion of gender as well.
Perfection Hides Pain
On the topic of perfection and its role in the child entertainment industry in Hollywood, Jackie Coogan is an important figure. His success and the subsequent public knowledge of his abuse at the hands of his family was a major catalyst in the creation of protections for child actors in California, distinguishing the state from the rest of the country at the time. Similarly to Shirley Temple, Jackie Coogan was used as an image of what the American child should be, and because of this, was compensated well for his work. In 1921, for a film with Charlie Chaplin, Coogan was paid $62,400 (King 2001). Today, that is worth 1.1 million dollars. This high pay was a great departure from the support given to any other child laborers in the country. While others struggled under oppressively long hours and low pay, Jackie Coogan and other Hollywood child entertainers were being praised and paid in great amounts. What makes his position all the more important was the fact that his main character type he played in these films was that of “the orphan”(King 2001). The idea of charity and the dependence of children was becoming important to the rapidly growing American middle class, but also as a more superficial ideal rather than a true support by these people. By seeing a portrayal of the poor working class Americans, viewers could feel as if they understood a cause without actually doing anything to fix it.
Gender Enforcement Through Media
Coogan and Temple’s roles in Hollywood were to provide an image of what childhood should look like, and through that, they were often used as figures to perpetuate gender roles onto their audiences. Both figures were used as sellable goods, with little attention given to their care as humans. Coogan in particular was taken advantage of, with his family seeing the monetary gain he offered them and treating him as such. While we saw Coogan making high amounts of money off of his orphan roles, it was later learned that his family used all of that without his knowledge, leaving him with an incredibly small fraction of the 4 million dollars; 50 million today (Miller & Bawden 2016).
These two were used for their ‘perfectness’ as purveyors of male versus female and as two sides of an image America sought to see at this time. Temple as a miniature version of the American Dream, and Coogan as the figure for which the country could pity and support without doing any actual work. No matter the location of the audience in the country, child entertainers of Hollywood were meant to show what American children should be and how they should be presented in society. For Temple, this meant being kept looking as young as possible for as long as they could. This meant giving a portrayal of “cuteness” in as much media as she could. According to Natalie Ngai, “Among the twenty-six movies Shirley made with Fox between 1934 and 1940, nine of them featured her birthday celebrations” (Ngai 2022). These birthday scenes were a quintessential symbol of youth and girlhood for Temple. For Coogan, his expression of masculinity as he aged was paramount for his success as an actor. Notably, he was forced to cut his hair to appear as more of a clean cut young man when he entered his teenage years. As reasoning for this, it should be noted that, “As Hollywood’s first child superstar, Coogan was given a haircut to make visual his maturation from his famed persona as an orphaned waif into a leading man”(Lee 2016). Despite this being unsuccessful in revitalizing his career as a young adult, this was an important conscious decision on the part of Hollywood executives and the family of Coogan to continue a persona of masculinity in the media he created. These kinds of choices are vital to an understanding of the role cinema has played in creating our dynamics of gender, the ideal person, and the perfect way to live out a childhood no matter ones location or social standing. The usage of children for this job helps us understand why creations of ideals of childhood have ripple effects across our societal norms.
Children of Hollywood: The Creation of the Perfect Youth
Introduction|Literature Review|Data Analysis|Timelines|Conclusion|Sources