people! the end of the year– nay, THE DECADE– is nigh. you know what that means… lots o lists, lots o recaps, blahbity blah blah.
but here, in jackie glamo-land, by now you maybe know it means the return of everyone’s second favorite genre (behind emotions via britney): oline trekks deep into the world of jackie dolls on etsy in order to assess our existential situation and, maybe just maybe– amid the doll feet and the uncanny– finds a glimmer of hope.
BRACE. and you’re welcome.
i want to get one thing out of the way up front.
what is going on over at the franklin mint?
she looks like julia sugarbaker, non?
and like she needs to have a drink in her hand?
or like she has previously had too many drinks in her hand and someone has taken the last one away but she keeps reaching for it thinking it should be there… somewhere.
true story: we are all a little unsteady these days, so i can relate, but did you honestly ever think JKO looked AT ALL like julia sugarbaker?
how delightful to imagine jackie in full-on julia sugarbaker rant mode…
and yet, somehow, the resemblance is undeniable here, right?
i would like to comment on two things that become apparent across the franklin mint wedding jackies on etsy.
(1) THEIR GLOVES ARE PAINTED ON.
what is worse: painted on shoes or painted on gloves?
(2) franklin mint wedding jackie’s got bloomers. translation: this pic is apparently obligatory…
we, of course, learn from this that franklin mint wedding doll jackie has both painted shoes and bowed legs.
there are ways in which barbie really had it better.
it could be worse though.
surely we wouldn’t wish being “in box” upon our worst enemy.
yes, being “out of box” tends to contribute to a more haggard appearance, which is to be expected with lived experience, but being “in box” comes with such resignation.
a relatable cocktail of resignation/boredom.
touring india jackie gets real shoes though. bonus! though i would argue they pair awkwardly with her foam cummerbund.
both wedding jackie and touring india jackie are by the franklin mint but they look like entirely different people, right?
the 1950s were, apparently, very good for the skin.
and the lips…
PAINTED LASHES, people. touring india jackie gets to kick her heels off at the end of the night, but her lashes are forever.
does she care? i think not.
she stares boldly into the future with her hair net and removable shoes and gloves.
i’d honestly not clocked before now how apparently important it is to me that dolls have the freedom to remove their clothes.
ok. so that was the starter, people. are you ready for the main? are you ready for the dolls that i emailed to myself under subjects like “BLEAK” and “ULTIMATE PATHOS”??
probably not. so let’s stay with the franklin mint for one last moment. because in addition to wedding jackie and touring india jackie, the franklin mint also offers us DEVASTATING LOUNGING JACKIE.
i recognize i’m giving way too much credit to the franklin mint here because, obviously, part of the wonder of this piece is that its creator has styled it in a very particular way. the franklin mint’s main contribution is what appears to be a painted in tear or, at the very least, an excessively watery eye and period inappropriate, gossip girl levels of lip gloss.
it was entirely the idea of someone else to style this doll in homage to this mark shaw photograph:
which, ultimately, gives us, this:
i need to know: is the wicker papasan chair included?? yes, yes, my friends, it is.
also, has devastating lounging jackie recently been arrested? is that why she has the plastic handcuff?
it’s frightening, the power of perspective, no? like how, from each different angle, she looks radically different.
i know i’ve discussed that before here, probably in relation to these damn dolls– the horror that other people get to see our faces and our bodies from perspectives we never do. and how incredibly frightful a reality that is, even though we persist in going out the door and moving through the world every day in spite of it.
devastating lounging jackie gets that, and yet she goes on, fingers affixed…
rings painted on.
is it just me or do these dolls all look more resigned than in past years? am i projecting resignation onto them all? is resignation now what i bring to the table?
i don’t know how i feel about that.
also, HOLY SHIT, that doll costs $375. i know i feel like, for that price, the jfk pic should be included.
i swear, we are about to bid adieu to our friends at the franklin mint, but one more thing before we leave…
we have all been here, yeah?
we may be here RIGHT NOW.
especially if we’re working retail over the holidays.
righty-o, goodbye, franklin mint. hello, whatever the hell this is.
can you explain?
i am literally credentialed in this field and i have no fucking clue.
is this jackie as played by vivien leigh?
because, um, jackie did not have green eyes.
bully for this gal though, her gloves are removable…
albeit, trés trés evocative of mickey mouse.
which, let’s be real, was never really the real jackie’s vibe.
oh but wait, there’s more…
sweet lord, what IS this?
the selections of scenes from jackie’s life to memorialize in dolls is downright bizarre.
even she is like, what huh?
but this is where we are in late capitalism. this jackie goes to church doll is what we get.
it’s especially jarring when you’ve seen the actual woman, right? alarming to realize she was on her way to church rather than sitting in a director’s chair in a bordello.
(which, YOU KNOW, reminds me of the classic li.lo liz taylor lifetime movie
where she and burton dress like audrey hepburn in funny face and sit in director’s chairs whilst commenting on their love affair from the afterlife.)
that said, REAL LASHES. is this a victory, tho?
i’m pretty sure it’s not.
i’m also pretty sure these legs…
could not carry that torso.
and now [TRUMPETS], let us away into the world of madame alexander.
i feel like this doll accurately captures the adventure that was 2019. do you agree?
like it started ok(ish)…
in box, but unrestrained.
but lo, eventually we wound up here…
this is the madam alexander jackie doll of the “pre-2000s” apparently. i do not know what this outfit is, historically speaking, though i appreciate the jauntiness of that unbuttoned top button.
i do wonder what is up with the nude tights, given that one of the chief reasons people imagined, as a candidate’s wife, that she might be unfit to be first lady was the fact that she dared to go bare-legged. anyhoo.
now. NOW. we are here, yes?
i think we can probably all agree that this is suboptimal.
also i feel like the former first lady maybe never in real life wore sparkly tights and fabric shoes…
so this is where we are. where are we going? what will 2020 look like?
we want to go on this journey, right?
yes, i was a bit disturbed by my initial inability to decipher whether she’s wearing slippers or if those are her actual footbottoms, in which case her footbottoms are a mess, but then my footbottoms are perpetually a disaster so i can relate.
actually, i think these are these are train shoes, which means this jackie is a super good forward thinker, who anticipates the need for sensible shoes and plans accordingly.
she is packed and ready to go.
incidentally, every time i do this there’s one picture where i am like I WANT THAT FOR MY WALL. fyi, this is that picture.
would you still be my friend if all of my wall decor were pictures of jackie dolls on etsy???
the thing about this jackie is that she seems eager, and hopeful, rather than resigned.
obviously, we all have our moments.
but for the most part, she seems rested and ready.
how much of her readiness is attributable to the fact that her lashes are real and her eyes open and close remains unclear.
but she gazes into the future with something approaching hope.
she is most just like us.
and so, with nails painted, fingers separated, real lashes, bendable joints, and a whole bunch of baggage…
away we go.