It's also a bit ironic that individualistic hipsters who reject mainstream pop culture look more 100% lock step the same than mainstream 80s kids ever did! Plus, hipsters don't even admit they ARE the mainstream.
Also hipsters were in 1995 as well, the proof is here in the character Josh in CLUELESS ["What's this? Don't wanna be the last guy at the coffee house without chin pubes?" - Cher to Josh], and in more recent years they've just increased in number.
It's actually remarkable how relevant this movie is still so many years later, from the specific clothes on the characters, to the social satire still making its valid point, showing the ultra-materialistic self-absorbed youth culture in America of 2016 -- uh, I mean 1995 also [!] -- and how there's more to life and where the happiness in it comes from than just those things, as Cher learns.
For some examples (even though really it's the whole movie through) look at the scene where someone's cell phone rings and everyone at the dinner table answers their own with "Hello?" or the scene where Cher and Dion at school are talking to each other on their cell phones even though they're walking right next to each other -- what's that saying about our modern culture? Or when Cher and Josh are watching CNN and we see military tanks rolling across a desert and he goes "You look confused," to which she responds "Well I thought they declared peace in the Middle East" -- again, this is clearly the same era as now still. I recently watched a video showing Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel reviewing CLUELESS on their show in 1995 and at the end Ebert said "A very smart movie" and Siskel said "Yes!" -- I agree, this movie is definitely much more than what it might appear on the surface (plus it's so sharp in general including the lines in it).
It's true that some periods of time change must faster than others. For instance 1969 was very much like 1979 [with minor exceptions -- in the late-'70's the New Wave and Punk subcultures just started, and disco was at its peak of popularity although that did exist in the late-'60's as well (examples think "Dance to the Music" by Sly & the Family Stone from 1968)]. That said, I don't believe in drawing absolute sharp lines separating one year from the next like many people do, so I know the things there in 1965 were still there in 1969, too, and 1981 had the things from 1977 still, for instance, yet with an open and observant mind I know one can notice definite trends, just always with so much overlap, so some periods with a LOT of overlap can seem very eclectic. (I'm very much into much older pop culture and music.) For a strong example of this, the difference between rural America and the rest of the US in 1940 was like night and day.
Also some periods of very little change are REALLY long, like the poster that said 1600 was much like 1650 -- yes, and even longer was the period spanning from the late-1600's to the early-1800's (including powdered wigs [think Louis XIV in 1680 and George Washington 100 years later], the styles already there one would now associate with the following Victorian period, and the Enlightenment with advanced literature, medicine, science, and math -- all NOTHING like the period just before it the Renaissance, which, by the way, still included the medieval culture -- like the play 'Romeo and Juliet' was new and modern in 1605 [!]).
"Happy? No, no, no, no, no. You think I'm happy I got a call saying I had to come bail you out of prison for stealing hot dog buns!?!" [FATHER OF THE BRIDE (1991)]
reply
share