Films of both types were produced in the years immediately following World War II, but films reinforcing traditionalist ideas were much more popular during this period. In films such as Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1955), and Please Don't Eat the Daisies (1960) suburbia is presented as a refuge for a working man and his family, as the city is no place to raise children. It was only in a suburban house that families could escape the difficulties of city life. Jim Blandings (Cary Grant) briefly resigns from his job rather than let it come between him and his family. Tom Rath (Gregory Peck), the title character in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, makes a similar decision. Success is his for the taking when he is offered a coveted position in his Manhattan company. He turns it down because he knows it would interfere with his relationship with his family. He has gained this perspective as a result of his war experiences and because he sees what a poor relationship his employer has with his family. Jim Nash (David Niven) in Please Don't Eat the Daisies almost succumbs to the charms of city life, but he, too, realizes that his family must come first. Suburban life might have its pitfalls, but these were inconsequential and portrayed in a comic way rather than as a serious threat. In these films suburban residence is the ideal. In Miracle on 34th Street (1947), a suburban house is the special gift from Santa Clause.

Stanley Cavell asserts that Hollywood films of the 1930s, such as It Happened One Night (1934) and Adam's Rib (1949) sought to create the conditions for an ideal marriage, one that recognizes the equality of the partners without denying their differences. This called for an ideal location that would allow them to attain this perspective. To this end, Hollywood has long looked to "Connecticut." New York was clearly the preeminent city of the United States, but it was regarded with a certain amount of suspicion by the rest of the country. It stood to reason that anyone with the means would choose to leave this city if given the opportunity. Hollywood presented Connecticut as the alternative to city life. As depicted in movies, however, Connecticut existed only for the wealthy, successful New Yorker; the characters in these films share a preoccupation with money, status, and attaining the ideal life. [2]

As cities and suburbs grew, analysts and social commentators were preoccupied with the question of how society would remain a cohesive whole. The study of suburbanization has been motivated or influenced by the analyst's views on this question. In the first part of the twentieth century to World War II, urban social thought was dominated by approaches that emphasized the alienation of urban life. One of the central themes of discourse at this time was "how will the concept of community survive in an urban setting?" The cinematic depictions of suburbia as refuge in the 1950s followed from Harlan Paul Douglass's book The Suburban Trend (1925), the first scholarly work devoted completely to the topic of suburbanizatlon. To Douglass, the problems evident in large cities called for a new urban form, and he felt that suburbs offered an environment where this new form could be created. He felt a healthy compromise between small town and urban living could be achieved through city planning, and that traditional forms of social control could be brought to bear on urban problems in they low population densities of the suburbs. [3] Scott Donaldson, commenting on The Suburban Trend, stated, "Obviously, and without saying so, Douglass hates cities." [4] To Douglass and many of his contemporaries suburbs presented a way to preserve community in a rapidly urbanizing society. Suburbs offered the best of urban and rural environments, combining urban opportunities with rural social order. Many social observers felt that suburbs reduced social problems in major cities by reduced social problems in major cities by provldmg a safety valve to reduce excess populatIon and overcrowding.

The hardship of the Great Depression and World War II shifted scholarly attention away from how suburbanites lived to the more pressing problems of the nation's cities. Along with the increased interest in cities during these years came a shift in the way analysts regarded cities and suburbs. Several works published in these years argued that urban dwellers maintained a strong sense of community and a high degree of social participation and interaction. Many analysts of this generation regarded cities as a vital part of American society. They argued that it was not cities but the suburbs that lacked a sense of community. William H. Whyte maintained that suburbia threatened traditional American individualism by promoting the rise of the "Organization Man." [5]

William A. Schwab speculates that the reason for this shift in scholarly views has to do with the origins of the researchers themselves. In the early-twentieth century, most social observers, having been raised in a predominantly rural society, were uneasy with the scale and pace of urbanization in the United States. By mid-century, however, a greater proportion of social commentators were of urban origin and were more inclined to look favorably on cities. Many of these social observers perceived that rapid suburbanization was detracting from the well-being of the central cities and so they tended to be critical of suburbs. [6] A large segment of the American population, however, was taking up residence in suburbia. For the most part, movies were swept up in the rapid growth of suburbs and helped to promote their development. Hollywood was slow to turn a critical eye toward suburbia, and would not do so until twenty years or so behind scholars.