Thursday, October 18, 2012

Very Funny Guys, Those Aren't Costumes!

Back in the 70's kids didn't have to lift a finger or use brain cells for their Halloween costumes. A company called Ben Cooper Inc. made things real simple. Their costumes were both cheap and pop-culturally relevant. One can achieve this by selling plastic smocks with very literal images and designs based on popular characters.

My new favorite painting: Brandon Bird "I Am the Night"

During this golden age of Halloween no effort was needed to make anything convincing. How convincing is wearing a plastic smock that says your character's name? Pretty damn convincing. I really don't think anything else is needed beyond that, but the generous, detail-oriented folks at Ben Cooper Inc. added the likeness of your character right on the smock as well. Bonus: the hair color on your mask was accurate.

The Ben Cooper costume suppressed creativity on so many levels:
1. It discourages kids to gather or design clothing and accessories that define their character.
2. The designers at Ben Cooper could not create beyond the smock or leave much to the imagination.
3. Lazy/Overwhelmed parents couldn't help but buy these costumes to make this arduous holiday easier to handle.
4. It eliminates all discussion.
5. No one involved has to think.

Could this era of shitty, shitty (excuse my French) shitty Halloween costumes be more than just an example of cheap manufacturing? Could this style of costume be used to smother individuality?

If you wore a leather jacket in 1975, I can bet people would think you're the Fonz.
Even when you are the Fonz, you aren't really the Fonz, you are a kid in a plastic bag like everyone else. Put on the leather jacket, slick back your hair and say "Heey!" and you're not really the Fonz, but we get it, it's Halloween. Or you can put on a shirt that says, "The Fonz He-e-y!" and not say a word all night under your suffocating mask. As literal as you are, you are now even further from the truth -- further than we ever thought possible, actually. But here you are, doing it; a costume faking a costume. It's a charade to end all charades!

"Go on, you're Flipper now. Go away kid, ya bother me."

This is how I imagine Halloween went down back in the 70s. Kids insisted on being very specific TV personalities -- like minor characters from spin-offs that have very few discerning characteristics. Ben Cooper Inc. tried their best to oblige, knowing little about the new shows, and wanting to spend as little time and money as possible. With so many characters that pretty much dressed like everyday people, Ben Cooper Inc. at least wanted to create a product that was recognizable. Because a little girl's dream is not to be Shirley from Laverne and Shirley for a night: it's to wear a mask made from the same mold as a blow-up doll.

I think Shirley would wear that.
The painfully obvious costumes sure made things easier for adults answering the door. I guess the real problem with Halloween was that children had been wearing costumes that were too realistic. In this day and age how can you trust opening your door, when the real Chachi could be walking around. I'm glad I can tell who's wearing a costume. They all wear the same shapeless bag, but if it said "COSTUME" on the back too I would feel much better.
I personally won't open the door for anyone unless I see that plastic-y shine thought the peephole, or if their "trick or treat" is muffled beyond comprehension behind a claustrophobic mask.

And now I know who all the kids are being this year without having to talk to them. 

2 comments:

  1. This reminds me a lot of how you dislike the idea of pictures of clothes in the designs of clothing. (For the uninitiated: http://www.rustyzipper.com/full/229862.jpg)

    ReplyDelete
  2. honestly, I was thinking about that while I was writing this post. What on earth are you trying to say with a shirt that has hats on it?
    I think it's "I like hats" or "I'm very comfortable wearing hats on parts of my body that aren't my head." but I won't rule out "I'm unreasonable."
    Anyway, thanks for the astute observation!

    ReplyDelete