It's Not Just Entertainment (defining "art" / what's acceptable vs. unacceptable)

[DrRita]

In a Focus on the Family radio interview with Douglas Gresham (step-son of C.S. Lewis) about a month ago, he made one rather sound and sobering comment:

Douglas Gresham: "...but you see, we look in today's world, we look at our presidents, our prime ministers, our princes and our potentates and we describe them as our leaders, but they're not. They're merely our rulers. The leaders are the people who change the minds and stimulate the imaginations of the public, whether children or adults. That means the movie makers, the people who make TV shows, the entertainment people in the business. And that means, that if you're going to lead the world, as the movie people and the TV people do, you'd better choose very carefully in what direction you're going to lead."

[ScriptGirl]

That's very interesting.

I know people in the business talk about this a lot, you know, choosing different paths.
Art vs. Fame/Money

I hope I don't "sell out" if I ever to make it.

[Histry Nerd]

So--the folks who give air time to Paris Hilton are actually running the joint?

Gulp.

HN

[NikeeGoddess]

this is a well known fact among anyone who looks at the bigger picture. hollywierd knows that are extremely influential. they move in three directions:
1 - i don't care. i'm not a role model. it's not my problem. i'm going to do what i want to do in the name of art.
2 - i care and therefore i will be as politically correct as i can.
3 - i'm going to do what sells... for the love of money.

it was the reason for the Hayes laws back in the early 30's. there are many flicks back then that had nudity. and it's the reason for the ratings system. and the reason why you rarely see someone drinking a beer or teens smoking on television. etc....

i recall a movie with steve martin as a filmmaker. he made violent, bloody, and slasher flicks. then one day he was carjacked and it crippled him for life. he vowed to change the kind of flicks he made to rid the world of violence. that lasted maybe one flick. then as the trauma from his attack faded he went back to what was making money the easy way.

[zagoraz]

That sounds like typical Focus On The Family, extreme right wing, video games and hip hop is to blame for all of the violence in America progaganda. It's not up to those in the entertainment industry to be leaders, it's up to them to entertain. It's up to parents to raise their children, teach them right from wrong, and send them out in the world to make choices on their own. What a bunch of self-righteous dreck.

[WriteKnight]

Well, considering how long it takes to get anything into the pipeline and produced, I think Hollywood is mostly REACTIONARY in terms of trends and MORES rather than a leader.

Seriously, by the time something is produced, its reflecting issues and trends. That's just part of the production dynamic. The commercial 'success' of the product - that is how 'well' it's recieved, is a reflection on how well the particular message is expressed, and RECIEVED initially.

So, blaming the entertainment industry for being 'trendsetters' - as much as they would like that - is probably a false lead. Most of the people I know in marketing spend a lot of time on 'the street' = listening to what people are already saying, looking at where they are headed ALREADY - hoping to tap into that.

[DrRita]

That sounds like typical Focus On The Family, extreme right wing, video games and hip hop is to blame for all of the violence in America progaganda. It's not up to those in the entertainment industry to be leaders, it's up to them to entertain. It's up to parents to raise their children, teach them right from wrong, and send them out in the world to make choices on their own. What a bunch of self-righteous dreck.


Hello????? Focus didn't make the statement. CS Lewis' stepson did . . . anyone with any intelligence knows how influencial Hollywood is.

[DrRita]

WriteKnight. I disagree. I believe that the ET industry is not naive nor that innocent. I don't think they have a "plan" perse but I do believe they are more knowledgeable than you give them credit.

[WriteKnight]

I don't believe I called them 'naive' OR innocent. Far from it - they are astute and sharp business people who are constantly looking to tap into trends to make money. I am simply addressing the assumption that they 'lead' social trends, rather than reflect them. And I am speaking of the 'entertainment industry' in the sense of the Film and Television Entertainment producers - those who make movies and television series.

Now if you want to discuss the power of 'the media' to influence the public - them I'm certainly behind that. What passes for news and comment is appalling and certainly aimed at shaping public opinion - no doubt about it.

I'm old enough to remember when there were laws in Broadcasting that required the distinct seperation of opinion from "NEWS". It had to be labeled as commentary, and you had to give EQUAL TIME to the opposing viewpoint. I remember because I worked in Radio and Television in those days. Those laws were eliminated, and media has been consolidating into the hands of very few corporations, who answer to stockholders, not the 'public good'.

[zagoraz]

Hello????? Focus didn't make the statement. CS Lewis' stepson did . . . anyone with any intelligence knows how influencial Hollywood is.

According to the OP, the interview aired on a Focus On The Family radio show. Are you suggesting FOTF is a non-biased, neutral entity that tells both sides of every story? Because I've always known them as a far right, uber religous, gay-hating bunch of bozos. Anyone that's ever read anything by James Dobson could tell you that.

As far as intelligence in Hollywood, I'd say that's an oxymoron.

[Stealth66]

They are hardly neutral and non-biased.

Focus on the Family's Mission Statement (http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us.aspx):

To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.

[DrRita]

According to the OP, the interview aired on a Focus On The Family radio show. Are you suggesting FOTF is a non-biased, neutral entity that tells both sides of every story? Because I've always known them as a far right, uber religous, gay-hating bunch of bozos. Anyone that's ever read anything by James Dobson could tell you that.

As far as intelligence in Hollywood, I'd say that's an oxymoron.

Hmmmmm is this the pot calling the kettle black? Sounds like you got a bit of "phobia" going on here.

[DrRita]

They are hardly neutral and non-biased.

Focus on the Family's Mission Statement (http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us.aspx):

To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible by nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.

And? Everyone has an agenda and I'll be the first to admit that Christians do. But this whole thread is NOT ABOUT Christians or Focus on the Family.

[Jon-Luke]

i recall a movie with steve martin as a filmmaker. he made violent, bloody, and slasher flicks. then one day he was carjacked and it crippled him for life. he vowed to change the kind of flicks he made to rid the world of violence. that lasted maybe one flick. then as the trauma from his attack faded he went back to what was making money the easy way.

GREAT FILM - It was called Grand Canyon and starred Danny Glover and Kevin Kline, written by Lawrence Kasdan and his wife Meg Kasdan (Lawrence also directed).

But this issue also reminds me of "Natural Born Killers" its scary to see how much of what that film warns us about society has ended up becoming especially if you look at the whole advent of reality TV which hardly existed when the film was made (Let alone when it was written - although I'm not sure how much these issues were included in Tarantino's Draft)

[DrRita]

Great point Jon-Luke. I know we can't "blame" all our social ills on TV and Movies (music and video games too) but it makes one wonder as to how much impact these major influences have on the mind set of the upcoming generation? I think more than we even want to admit.

[jonpiper]

Great point Jon-Luke. I know we can't "blame" all our social ills on TV and Movies (music and video games too) but it makes one wonder as to how much impact these major influences have on the mind set of the upcoming generation? I think more than we even want to admit.

I've heard that the youngest generation -- the generation that has no, or very few children now, say those up to about twenty-two -- cannot cope with the real world.

They get all the material things they want, either from parents or with credit cards, and they want far more than they need. In general, vast numbers of them cannot cope with college and the work world.

Perhaps TV, movies, music, and the internet have contributed to their intense wants, but who has spoiled them and let them have all the things they want? Who's fault is it?

[nmstevens]

I've heard that the youngest generation -- the generation that has no, or very few children now, say those up to about twenty-two -- cannot cope with the real world.

They get all the material things they want, either from parents or with credit cards, and they want far more than they need. In general, vast numbers of them cannot cope with college and the work world.

Perhaps TV, movies, music, and the internet have contributed to their intense wants, but who has spoiled them and let them have all the things they want? Who's fault is it?


I think the point is -- it's not a zero sum game. The fact that a person who, say, commits a criminal act must accept the moral responsibility for committing that act doesn't mean that everyone else is let off the hook.

Nor, for that matter, if others accept responsibility -- if his parents were neglectful, if society ignored the problem, if the media fed him images of consequenceless violence -- that that somehow gets him off the hook.

Those that committed crimes at Abu Gharaib are responsible for what they did -- but that doesn't relieve their officers of their responsibility, nor the whole chain of command (that wasn't held responsible) for allowing those crimes to occur.

We find ourselves, as makers of art, in a tricky position.

Either we must claim that what we do has *no* influence on people -- either for good or for bad. That is, we're just devoting our lives to something that is trivial and meaningless.

Or else what we do *does* have an influence on people. It can inspire them, frighten them, enrage them, uplift them, excite them, move them.

Well, if art (including movies and TV) has that power -- then it has the power to influence people, both for better or for worse.

We know that movies have a tremendous effect on things like style -- but "style" isn't simply what people wear or how they comb their hair. It's also how people behave, how they treat one another. Present the idea and continually reinforce the idea that, say, conscienceless violence is cool and sexy it seems ingenuous to presume that this isn't going to be taken up by audiences that traditionally take their cues about what's cool and sexy from the motion picture screen.

Obviously, this isn't a straight-line cause and effect phenomenon. Not everyone who saw a James Dean movie went out and started acting like James Dean. But a lot of guys did. And sure, the iconic figure that James Dean portrayed didn't come out of smoke. That handful of characters emerged from a whole set of social concerns -- youth rebellion, motorcycle gangs, et al, that were in the air at the time.

But James Dean (and also Brando) crystallized those elements -- gave them a kind of life that they hadn't had before.

So yes, movies rarely "originate" anything - they tend to be fairly conservative in that respect. But their power in terms of taking something that is in the public mind and elevating it -- giving it a kind of scope and power of expression that it wouldn't otherwise have, is something that shouldn't be underestimated.

NMS

[jonpiper]

So yes, movies rarely "originate" anything - they tend to be fairly conservative in that respect. But their power in terms of taking something that is in the public mind and elevating it -- giving it a kind of scope and power of expression that it wouldn't otherwise have, is something that shouldn't be underestimated.

NMS

Good point. Movies rarely originate anything, they mostly reinforce what's already happening in the public domain. The language and the visuals in many of today's movies are only an exaggeration of what is already occuring in society.

Very few movies lead us in a new direction. And I don't think we can blame films for dumbing down society or leading us to the devil. We can't blame the movies for being a reflection of what is happening in the world.

[nmstevens]

Good point. Movies rarely originate anything, they mostly reinforce what's already happening in the public domain. The language and the visuals in many of today's movies are only an exaggeration of what is already occuring in society.

Very few movies lead us in a new direction. And I don't think we can blame films for dumbing down society or leading us to the devil. We can't blame the movies for being a reflection of what is happening in the world.

But that's really the question. Can't we?

The public may have an appetite for junk food. It may have an appetite for "green" food.

Both of those things, in a sense may be in the "public mind."

But if you're in the food business, you get to choose what kind of food you market.

And it may very well be that junk food sells better, but unless that's your only criterion for what you make and what you sell -- what sells better -- you don't get to walk away from the table with a clear conscience.

You want to make TV -- you can make "John Adams" or "Recount" -- or you can make the new "Flavo-Flav" show.

You can make "Sixty Minutes" or you can make "Jerry Springer."

Inevitably, the public will "vote" to support shows like "Jerry Springer" in the same way that the public will vote to support junk food -- and I have no doubt that those that make the Springer show have made a great deam of money making it.

But I think that we really kid ourselves if we try to say that this show and shows like it that celebrate and glorify human trashiness, haven't hurt this country. I think that they have.

And one can't blame the "market" for this. We as makers of movies and of television shows have to bear the responsibility for what we do. We can make trash because trash that celebrates the worst in human beings because that sells or we can make work that's good -- because good stuff also sells.

And I'm not advocating some polly-anna-ish "no sex/no violence" approach to movies or television. My position as somebody who's written a lot of horror is that art is about illumination and it's the dark corners of the human experience that are the ones that most need illuminating -- and that's the scary places that people aren't particularly comfortable looking at or thinking about.

Whatever people do -- and that includes sexual behavior and violent behavior -- is legitimate material for art and drama. But how any subject is treated determines how an audience is going to respond to it.

And if we're going to be grown up about it, we have to accept that if we put something on the screen that encourages bad behavior, that it might very well contribute to someone's bad behavior -- that if we put something stupidly imitatable on the screen that, indeed, someone stupid or irresponsible or mentally unbalanced may imitate it, with tragic results.

It's not as if we didn't know that our audience contains people who are stupid and irresponsible and mentally unbalanced. You have clear evidence of that every time you go to a movie theatre. So you know that they're going to be there in the audience.

So, yes -- you can show a movie with such images to an audience and the overwhelming majority won't imitate it, or won't be negatively effected in that way. In the same way, you can make a drug and you know that most people won't have an allergic reaction to it. But you pretty much know that, for any drug, a certain percentage of the people who receive it *will* have an allergic reaction -- and they'll get sick, and some of them will die.

And you put certain things in a movie, it may very well be that a certain number of unstable people will see it and imitate it -- and the result will be that people will die.

I don't think that we get to simple shrug and say, "Well, they're just nuts. Not our fault."

Didn't we know that that there were crazy people out there -- in the same way that people who make medicine know that there are people with allergies in the world?

They get to say -- hey, our medicine saves lives and that's an acceptable upside to the occasional death that it causes.

What do we say that the upside is to the art that we create, when the downside is that, every so often, somebody may imitate something that he sees on the screen -- and people are killed as a result?

And I'm not just taking aim at movies. News is the same. We always hear about "copycat" killers. But it isn't really the killings that copycat killers are imitating. It's the news coverage of those killings.

I"m sure that everybody remembers the "Tylenol" poisonings that were such huge news years back. That story just swept the country for months. And because it was such an enormous story, it triggered a number of imitation killings.

Again, the justification for the scale of the story was *not* the public interest, no matter what anybody might say -- it was market forces -- it was the public demand for the story.

Market forces drove the story to a scale vastly out of keeping with the actual scale of the danger involved from the actual killer and once it had achieved the kind of international dimension that it ultimately achieved, the "copycat" phenomenon took off.

It's the same thing with all of these school shootings. The enormous national well-oiled publicity machine that descends upon these events, the extent to which these shooters become, in effect, celebrities in their own right, I fully believe is part of what is driving this phenomenon.

It's very much in line with what you're saying. On one level, the news agencies are simply responding to the public's intense interest in these events.

But the result, I believe, is a kind of diabolical feedback loop, in which the media coverage quite literally drives the "school shooting" phenomenon itself, in which part of the appeal for many of these disaffected characters is the idea of having their "fifteen minutes of fame" with all of the networks and news choppers there for the eulogy.

NMS

[WriteKnight]

Neal,

I'm in concurrence with a lot of what you wrote, but you bring up some seemingly contradictory points...

First you advocate that we as 'artists' and 'creators' are responsible -

And one can't blame the "market" for this. We as makers of movies and of television shows have to bear the responsibility for what we do.

And then you wrote:

Again, the justification for the scale of the story was *not* the public interest, no matter what anybody might say -- it was market forces -- it was the public demand for the story.

Market forces drove the story to a scale vastly out of keeping with the actual scale of the danger involved from the actual killer and once it had achieved the kind of international dimension that it ultimately achieved, the "copycat" phenomenon took off.

And so it would seem that market forces DO controll what gets aired. MARKET FORCES created the copycat killers.



Long ago, I was strolling through a flea market with a friend of mine. We came upon a shop selling HUGE garish paintings of Elvis done on black velvet. My friend asked "Why would anyone create this crap???"

"Because someone will buy it," was my obvious retort.

Your post points out that 'responsibility' lies with those who create the art - In our case writers - as well as those who 'buy' it - the audience. I'm in agreement that it is not a zero sum game. That there is plenty of responsibility to go around. Where does the 'bulk' of that responsibility lie?

The OP seems to think the responsibility is soley "Hollywoods"... for leading the public astray. Most of us seem to agree that 'hollywood' tends to 'follow' trends rather than create them. As you point out, Film/Television is a great megaphone or 'amplifier' of trends - with the power to spread an idea or philosophy much farther and faster than word-of-mouth.

But spead it would, nevertheless.

"Junk food" or "Health Food" - there is a market for both. Who's responsibility is it, to controll the public access to such junk? Yours? Mine? THE GATEKEEPERS? Those who 'greenlight' a project?

Untill very recently, the ability to create a two hour 'motion picture' was restricted to those with vast ammounts of money, and very specific skillsets. To a great degree, the decision to expend enormous ammounts of time/energy and money on a project was determined by the ability to recoup that expense. "Will it sell?"

Offering the public something it is not already buying is an ENORMOUS risk (Especially to those lacking creative 'vision') This is why Hollywood so seldom TAKES risks - its why it tends - for the most part - to follow trends rather than lead them. (Sequels anyone?)Sure, it amplifies those trends reflected in HUMAN NATURE - and there are people on the payroll out there, 'taking the pulse' of the youth on the street to see what the 'next hot thing' will be - meaning already is, in some areas.

But as you say its not a zero sum.

Its MARKET FORCES that are the heavier handed element, in my estimation. Everyone is responsible for what they do. Every parent is responsible for what they allow their child to watch. Every artist who must feed his family, is responsible for writing something that will pay the bills, AND be able to 'live' with himself for creating it.

Technology now allows every kid with a video camera to make two hour long 'movies'. The internet allows every budding Tarantino the ability to post his epic, where MILLIONS of people can see it! Think of that, no longer having to hang a sheet in the garage and invite a few friends - MILLIONS can see my creativity!!!

YouTube is a great example of what market forces 'crave'. They crave junk food. They crave the latest piece of gossip, the latest political 'gotcha', the latest extreme accident, the latest video of some crime caught on tape, they crave the most bizarre piece of tittillation available at any given moment.

So the question becomes - Is MARKET FORCES another term for HUMAN NATURE ? Is it the basest form of Human Nature to slow down, and look at the accident - causing others to get stuck in traffic?

I don't know. I don't write horror. I don't 'get' it. It doesn't appeal to me. I don't judge people who do it. (No, no slight to you - Good on you for your success, and I appreciate your posting and presence on the board). Heck, for that matter, I've made a great deal of money "REcreating" violence and death on the live stage. So there's gallons of Karo blood on my hands, for sure.

Again, the OP seems to want to 'blame' Hollywood, or the 'gatekeepers' for CREATING the junk food. Given the choice, will enough people BUY the health food?

I'm doing my best to write it. I'm hoping somebody will step up, and PRODUCE it.

That's MY choice.

But the GATEKEEPERS in our society, are the corporate media. The shareholders demand profit, the audience demands blood. I think I hear you say that we as 'artists' albeit located far far down on the 'production chain' are responsible for injecting some sort of 'moral' into our creativity - and hope it survives the production process.

WHO gave the public "Bread and Circuses" in ancient Rome, to keep them compliant? WHY did the public attend?

WHO gives the public "REALITY TV" and why do they watch it?

I can honestly say, I have never, ever watched a single episode of "Reality" television. Can't tell you how 'survivor' works, or what "big brother' or any of the other shows are about.

I 'vote' with my remote. I write with my concience. I guess that is all we can do, no?

[WriteKnight]

An afterthought to mine and NMS' posts.

It seems we have come to the conclusion that the responsibility is distributed between the AUDIENCE, the ARTISTS and THE GATEKEEPERS. The question then becomes who has the 'greater' responsibility?

It seems that "With great power, comes great responsibility".

So where does the greater power lie in this equation? Is it with the 'market forces', with 'the gatekeepers' ("hollywood") or with the "artists".

The question is complicated by the technology aspect. Easier for a novelist to be responsible for the content of his novel, than for a screenwriter to be responsible for the final product on the screen. Collaboratvie nature of moviemaking dillutes/reinforces exponentially - one persons vision.

[DrRita]

In a small class setting, a few of us were able to have conversation with Bill Marselli (Deja Vue), who had the good fortune (along with co-writer [Redacted--JDM] ) to be a part making the decisions on what scenes/elements of the original script would/would be in the movie. Very few writers have this much control. My point in saying this is that WriteKnight makes a point . . .
he question is complicated by the technology aspect. Easier for a novelist to be responsible for the content of his novel, than for a screenwriter to be responsible for the final product on the screen. Collaboratvie nature of moviemaking dillutes/reinforces exponentially - one persons vision. and I just wanted to agree with that.

As screenwriters we may have written a great script that has social value but when it gets into the hands of a producer who simply wants to make money, it can quickly become just another piece of Hollywood sausage. We don't have that kind of control. So again the point is made . . . the powers that be, shape what the masses see.

As for responsibility? I totally agree that the "blame" must be shared. It's a domino effect and it's very difficult if not impossible to identify the first domino. But having said that, marketing does play a huge role. Good movies are overlooked, not because they aren't good but because they aren't marketed well. But who pays for that marketing? The public? The writer? The director? The cinematographer? No the corporation (once called the studio) that has a bottom line, investors who want a return and an annual report to answer for. Big studios gobble up each other. WB just took on New Line . . . that's the way it goes. So money is the bottom line. When it comes to social responsibility, we all are to blame but as for the "greater responsibility?" I would vote that the studios hold that gem.

[WriteKnight]

Responsibility and Power.

Those seem to be the elements. Who has it? Who wants it? Who gets it?

I think 'the artist' - in our case writers - have very little 'power' in what shows up on screen... mostly as a result of the collaborative process of the technology.

My point was that until recently, the 'studios' are the gatekeepers - they controll the vertical, they control the horizontal - they control what 'gets made' -

BUT

They are rewarded by money. And the audience buys what they want.

The argument has been made (by the OP) that they (the studios) only sell a certain product, that they controll the audience's appetitite, by only offering junk food.

SO - to test that theory, remove the 'controls' of the technology.

That was my second point.

Make it possible for all kinds of wonderfull product to reach the public, and see what they "buy". (watch)

YouTube.

They watch junk.

Ultimately, the 'power' lies with the purchasers of the product. Stop buying (watching) junk, and it stops being made.

SO, while a certain ammount of responsibility and power is distributed - in my estimation, I think the bulk of the power, and therefore the bulk of the RESPONSIBILITY lies with the 'public'.

Which, of course, is comprised of individuals.

I don't watch what I don't want to see. I don't write what I don't want to watch.

[WriteKnight]

A side note to the discussion - maybe a different thread?

The odd thing about the rise of Cable TV and the Internet, is that what was once thought to be a 'small' market, has been discovered to be a very large "NICHE" market.

Who knew entire channels could be devoted to Home Repair? Or cooking?

Magazines did.

So, the 'splintering' of market share and the subsequent GROWTH of those shares is another example of how market forces drive the CORPORATE gatekeepers to feed the appetite of 'the market'. Sci-Fi Channel? HISTORY Channel?

Who knew twenty years ago?

EDIT: Ask yourself why PORN is a 'premium' channel, and Religious Programming is free? (Or 'included')

[nmstevens]

Neal,

I'm in concurrence with a lot of what you wrote, but you bring up some seemingly contradictory points...

First you advocate that we as 'artists' and 'creators' are responsible -

And one can't blame the "market" for this. We as makers of movies and of television shows have to bear the responsibility for what we do.

And then you wrote:

Again, the justification for the scale of the story was *not* the public interest, no matter what anybody might say -- it was market forces -- it was the public demand for the story.

Market forces drove the story to a scale vastly out of keeping with the actual scale of the danger involved from the actual killer and once it had achieved the kind of international dimension that it ultimately achieved, the "copycat" phenomenon took off.

And so it would seem that market forces DO controll what gets aired. MARKET FORCES created the copycat killers.



Long ago, I was strolling through a flea market with a friend of mine. We came upon a shop selling HUGE garish paintings of Elvis done on black velvet. My friend asked "Why would anyone create this crap???"

"Because someone will buy it," was my obvious retort.

Your post points out that 'responsibility' lies with those who create the art - In our case writers - as well as those who 'buy' it - the audience. I'm in agreement that it is not a zero sum game. That there is plenty of responsibility to go around. Where does the 'bulk' of that responsibility lie?

The OP seems to think the responsibility is soley "Hollywoods"... for leading the public astray. Most of us seem to agree that 'hollywood' tends to 'follow' trends rather than create them. As you point out, Film/Television is a great megaphone or 'amplifier' of trends - with the power to spread an idea or philosophy much farther and faster than word-of-mouth.

But spead it would, nevertheless.

"Junk food" or "Health Food" - there is a market for both. Who's responsibility is it, to controll the public access to such junk? Yours? Mine? THE GATEKEEPERS? Those who 'greenlight' a project?

Untill very recently, the ability to create a two hour 'motion picture' was restricted to those with vast ammounts of money, and very specific skillsets. To a great degree, the decision to expend enormous ammounts of time/energy and money on a project was determined by the ability to recoup that expense. "Will it sell?"

Offering the public something it is not already buying is an ENORMOUS risk (Especially to those lacking creative 'vision') This is why Hollywood so seldom TAKES risks - its why it tends - for the most part - to follow trends rather than lead them. (Sequels anyone?)Sure, it amplifies those trends reflected in HUMAN NATURE - and there are people on the payroll out there, 'taking the pulse' of the youth on the street to see what the 'next hot thing' will be - meaning already is, in some areas.

But as you say its not a zero sum.

Its MARKET FORCES that are the heavier handed element, in my estimation. Everyone is responsible for what they do. Every parent is responsible for what they allow their child to watch. Every artist who must feed his family, is responsible for writing something that will pay the bills, AND be able to 'live' with himself for creating it.

Technology now allows every kid with a video camera to make two hour long 'movies'. The internet allows every budding Tarantino the ability to post his epic, where MILLIONS of people can see it! Think of that, no longer having to hang a sheet in the garage and invite a few friends - MILLIONS can see my creativity!!!

YouTube is a great example of what market forces 'crave'. They crave junk food. They crave the latest piece of gossip, the latest political 'gotcha', the latest extreme accident, the latest video of some crime caught on tape, they crave the most bizarre piece of tittillation available at any given moment.

So the question becomes - Is MARKET FORCES another term for HUMAN NATURE ? Is it the basest form of Human Nature to slow down, and look at the accident - causing others to get stuck in traffic?

I don't know. I don't write horror. I don't 'get' it. It doesn't appeal to me. I don't judge people who do it. (No, no slight to you - Good on you for your success, and I appreciate your posting and presence on the board). Heck, for that matter, I've made a great deal of money "REcreating" violence and death on the live stage. So there's gallons of Karo blood on my hands, for sure.

Again, the OP seems to want to 'blame' Hollywood, or the 'gatekeepers' for CREATING the junk food. Given the choice, will enough people BUY the health food?

I'm doing my best to write it. I'm hoping somebody will step up, and PRODUCE it.

That's MY choice.

But the GATEKEEPERS in our society, are the corporate media. The shareholders demand profit, the audience demands blood. I think I hear you say that we as 'artists' albeit located far far down on the 'production chain' are responsible for injecting some sort of 'moral' into our creativity - and hope it survives the production process.

WHO gave the public "Bread and Circuses" in ancient Rome, to keep them compliant? WHY did the public attend?

WHO gives the public "REALITY TV" and why do they watch it?

I can honestly say, I have never, ever watched a single episode of "Reality" television. Can't tell you how 'survivor' works, or what "big brother' or any of the other shows are about.

I 'vote' with my remote. I write with my concience. I guess that is all we can do, no?

When I say that market forces drove the demand, I did not mean to say that we are required to satisfy the "demands of the market" -- unless we view ourselves as only businessmen.

That's the point I was trying to make. If our goal, as makers of art, is simply to maximize profits, then our goal should always be to make movies or TV shows that will, at all times, reach the largest number of people for the smaller number of dollars. Period.

And what we put on the screen to achieve that end really shouldn't matter to us.

An hour of boobs and an hour of car crashes. Repeat with variations.

The point is -- what we aim to put on the screen *isn't* strictly driven by market forces.

And what the news media *pretends* to be their motivation for putting things on the screen is not driven, according to them, by market forces -- but in service to the public interest.

Obviously, we can't ignore them. If we create works that nobody wants to see -- nobody's going to see them.

But we can't just say -- hey, if we don't right this exploitative crap, somebody else will, so it might as well be me.

You might as well say -- I see this wallet lying on the street -- if I don't grab it and take the money, somebody else will.

Well, no -- maybe somebody else will. Then again, maybe somebody else will return the wallet without stealing the money. And maybe I should do that.

In any case -- even if somebody else will make the wrong choice -- even if most people will make the wrong choice, I still have the personal option of making the right choice.

There are horror movies that are worth watching. There are movies that explore violence and sexuality in a way that is grown up and respectable and are worth watching (because these are issues that are part of the human experience and are worth exploring in the context of art) -- and there are movies that are simply porn -- whether sexual porn or violence porn.

I'm not advocating censorship -- any more than I'm advocating banning junk food.

What I'm an advocate of is the acceptance of personal responsibility.

Those who eat it don't get to blame those who make it for killing them.

But it works both ways. Those who make it don't get off the hook.

You can't make your money making and selling crap and claim that your hands are clean simply on the grounds that people love to eat crap -- nor on the basis that if you didn't make it, somebody else would.

Even granting that that's true -- if people are desperate to eat crap, and it's a free country and someone will satisfy that need -- then let someone else do that.

At the very least, let your hands be clean. Each person, whether he's selling food, or selling ideas, has the right to say, I, at least, will not be the purveyor of crap.

NMS

[jonpiper]

Ultimately, the 'power' lies with the purchasers of the product. Stop buying (watching) junk, and it stops being made.

SO, while a certain ammount of responsibility and power is distributed - in my estimation, I think the bulk of the power, and therefore the bulk of the RESPONSIBILITY lies with the 'public'.

Which, of course, is comprised of individuals.

It seems that way. The free marketplace determines what gets made and what people watch. Your UTube example illustrates this.

So, do we screw with the free market and institute strict government controls? We know from past experience that this has many drawbacks.

We have an age old problem that only gets worse as technology advances.

I believe the true artist should be allowed to express himself/herself, completely; however, there are many individuals who, for one reason or another are incapable of interpreting or handling what the artist creates. On top of this there are those who produce garbage (note that garbage is relative:)) for the sake of profit.

So how do we slove the problem?

[jonpiper]

You can't make your money making and selling crap and claim that your hands are clean simply on the grounds that people love to eat crap -- nor on the basis that if you didn't make it, somebody else would.

Even granting that that's true -- if people are desperate to eat crap, and it's a free country and someone will satisfy that need -- then let someone else do that.

At the very least, let your hands be clean. Each person, whether he's selling food, or selling ideas, has the right to say, I, at least, will not be the purveyor of crap.

NMS

I agree with you. But this won't solve the problem. The continued production of crap is the problem. It seems that many more people are willing to produce crap for profit than produce art for the sake of art.

[WriteKnight]

At the very least, let your hands be clean. Each person, whether he's selling food, or selling ideas, has the right to say, I, at least, will not be the purveyor of crap.


I agree one hundred percent. EACH INDIVIDUAL is responsible for their choices. As creator and consumer. No doubt about that.

And if CRAP exists - its because people want it.

The subject addresses the 'collective' and 'social' obligations and responsibilities. Recall that 'corporations' are 'social beings' without social conciousness... in a legal sense.

I posit that 'The Market' is the same thing.

So 'if i don't make this crap - someone else will' - Yup, absolutely. I won't blame you if you do, I won't buy it either. I won't support paintings of Elvis on black velvet... no matter how well done. That's the marketplace.

I can't get someone to make my brilliant screenplay, I can't pay my bills, I can no longer 'be' an artist... no matter how briliant.

In 'the marketplace of ideas' is an artist guaranteed a stall?

Which opens the discussion of what place does art have in the marketplace - or even 'what is art'? (Therein lies madness)

Again, spreading responsiblity between, the 'artist' the 'gatekeeper' and 'the market' - I feel that 'the market' has more power over the survival of a given artist... and the market stalls themselves.

I'm not abdicating responsibility for what I create. I am likewise not abdicating responsibility for what I buy. I am merely suggesting that 'the market' cries out... and is fed. I do not blame the people who supply space for the stalls, for the food that is in them.

(Analogies are slippery critters, no?)

Again, the splintering of the nets and cable shows that individual 'requirements' and tastes of the market - WILL be 'fed' by people. Complaining about other's injestion of junk food... well, its a free country.

There are entire 'networks' devoted to religious programming, one need never view a single moment of 'Survivor' if one chooses. Likewise of course, on can watch non-stop porn or SPIKE TV, or SCI FI or....

I agree completely, it's an individual choice. I do not blame 'the gatekeepers' for what is available to me. I do not hold 'the creators' responsible for what I consume.

If I cannot sell my art, and feed my family with my vision and voice - it is either because I cannot create a worthy 'product' or I have not yet found the right 'buyer'.

(I'm hoping it's the latter ;) )

[nmstevens]

It seems that way. The free marketplace determines what gets made and what people watch. Your UTube example illustrates this.

So, do we screw with the free market and institute strict government controls? We know from past experience that this has many drawbacks.

We have an age old problem that only gets worse as technology advances.

I believe the true artist should be allowed to express himself/herself, completely; however, there are many individuals who, for one reason or another are incapable of interpreting or handling what the artist creates. On top of this there are those who produce garbage (note that garbage is relative:)) for the sake of profit.

So how do we slove the problem?

You say that an artist should be allowed to "express himself/herself completely" -- but I really wonder if you fully embrace the consequences of a statement like that.

Case in point -- a performance artist whose name I don't recall (and if I did, I'd hasten to forget) engaged in a performance which he recorded and broadcast on line entitled something like "man shoots dog" which -- this may surprise you, consisted of him taking a dog that he'd gotten from pound and shooting it in the head, killing it.

Hey -- he's an artist. Shouldn't he be allowed to express himself completely?

No?

Second "case in point" -- a movie called "Cannibal Holocaust" - an Italian made movie about a western film crew that falls into the hands of a bunchy of exceedingly unfriendly -- well, you guessed it, Cannibals in the Amazon and end up brutally tortured and killed.

Well, I'm not going to argue about the virtues of this particular film nor about the obviously simulated tortures to which the human actors are subjected. What I am going to mention is that, in addition to those, there are, on screen, incidents of *animals* that are also tortured and killed, and these are not simulated.

Should the makers of this work of art not be permitted to fully and completely express themselves?

No?

Final case -- and this may be apocryphal, I can't absolutely confirm it, but let's advance it as a hypothetical:

A move called Mondo Cane, a semi-documentary which was the motion picture equivalent of "reality TV" of its time -- a collection of bizarre and shocking clips gathered from around the world.

And the story goes that the Maker of the movie was shooting in Africa, and wanted to photograph the executiion of a rebel who'd been captured and was scheduled to be shot by a firing squad.

The only problem was that he was scheduled to leave on a certain day, and the execution was scheduled for the day after. So he went to the Generalissimo in charge and asked him if he'd mind moving up the execution so that he could shoot it before he left.

Fine, said the Generalissimo. No problem. So they moved up the execution. They shot the rebel. The filmmaker shot the execution. It ended up in the movie.

For me, this crosses the line in ways I can't even begin to talk about.

Whatever we may be - artists, scientists, businessmen, countrymen, members of faiths, members of families -- we are human first, and our fundamental obligation to one another -- human being to human being must be the primary obligation.

No other obligation or entitlement, it seems to me, gives us the right to treat other human beings as something less than human, nor to act as something less than fully responsible human beings ourselves.

NMS

[jonpiper]

You say that an artist should be allowed to "express himself/herself completely" -- but I really wonder if you fully embrace the consequences of a statement like that.

Case in point -- a performance artist whose name I don't recall (and if I did, I'd hasten to forget) engaged in a performance which he recorded and broadcast on line entitled something like "man shoots dog" which -- this may surprise you, consisted of him taking a dog that he'd gotten from pound and shooting it in the head, killing it.

Hey -- he's an artist. Shouldn't he be allowed to express himself completely?

No?

Second "case in point" -- a movie called "Cannibal Holocaust" - an Italian made movie about a western film crew that falls into the hands of a bunchy of exceedingly unfriendly -- well, you guessed it, Cannibals in the Amazon and end up brutally tortured and killed.

Well, I'm not going to argue about the virtues of this particular film nor about the obviously simulated tortures to which the human actors are subjected. What I am going to mention is that, in addition to those, there are, on screen, incidents of *animals* that are also tortured and killed, and these are not simulated.

Should the makers of this work of art not be permitted to fully and completely express themselves?

No?

Final case -- and this may be apocryphal, I can't absolutely confirm it, but let's advance it as a hypothetical:

A move called Mondo Cane, a semi-documentary which was the motion picture equivalent of "reality TV" of its time -- a collection of bizarre and shocking clips gathered from around the world.

And the story goes that the Maker of the movie was shooting in Africa, and wanted to photograph the executiion of a rebel who'd been captured and was scheduled to be shot by a firing squad.

The only problem was that he was scheduled to leave on a certain day, and the execution was scheduled for the day after. So he went to the Generalissimo in charge and asked him if he'd mind moving up the execution so that he could shoot it before he left.

Fine, said the Generalissimo. No problem. So they moved up the execution. They shot the rebel. The filmmaker shot the execution. It ended up in the movie.

For me, this crosses the line in ways I can't even begin to talk about.

Whatever we may be - artists, scientists, businessmen, countrymen, members of faiths, members of families -- we are human first, and our fundamental obligation to one another -- human being to human being must be the primary obligation.

No other obligation or entitlement, it seems to me, gives us the right to treat other human beings as something less than human, nor to act as something less than fully responsible human beings ourselves.

NMS

I agree with you, NMS. Whenever we take a freedom -- artistic freedom, religious freedom, whatever freedom -- we run into conflicts. I could argue that your examples do not illustrate true art, but rather garbage masquerading as art. But you're right, there are limits to how far an artist should go to create a work.

In reality your examples illustrate why this issue is so complex. On the one hand, artists and those who enjoy art need to express themselves. On the other hand some "artists" cross over the line of human decency and morality.

So again I ask, what is the solution. Censorship? Self control? Industry control?

Things are getting so bad that there is an audience for what you have described. And that kind of art can be widly distributed, instantaneously. Did you hear today of the Marines who threw a puppy over a cliff, filmed the act, and posted it on UTube? I don't consider them artists.

[WriteKnight]

Might need to split the thread into simultaneous topics. "What defines ART/Entertainment" and "What defines NEWS" - because one of the developments in the last few decades has been the marketing of "News" as entertainment.

When reporting/journalism is profit driven and it is discovered that making it 'more entertaining' raises the 'value' of news... what, in fact is the product?

Again, this goes back to my earliest post where I pointed out the laws that used to seperate 'news' from 'editorial'... which by its nature is more opinion, and therefore more 'controversial'.

I think one of the draw-backs to so-called 'reality' programming, is that it blurrs the line between journalism - reporting the news, and activism - creating it.

[Lillyth]

In a Focus on the Family radio interview with Douglas Gresham (step-son of C.S. Lewis) about a month ago, he made one rather sound and sobering comment:

Douglas Gresham: "...but you see, we look in today's world, we look at our presidents, our prime ministers, our princes and our potentates and we describe them as our leaders, but they're not. They're merely our rulers. The leaders are the people who change the minds and stimulate the imaginations of the public, whether children or adults. That means the movie makers, the people who make TV shows, the entertainment people in the business. And that means, that if you're going to lead the world, as the movie people and the TV people do, you'd better choose very carefully in what direction you're going to lead."
I think i have to agree. I wonder how much influence Brokeback Mountain had on the California Supreme Court ruling about same sex marriage recently?

And look at Clint Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, that one with Kevin Costner where he kidnaps the boy. All of those movies have morality in them - as opposed to 40 Year Old Virgin which features a scene of men encouraging their friend to find a woman so drunk she can't stand (rape), but presented like it's supposed to be funny...

Thank you for posting that!

[HeronW]

Not too long ago, before the advent of electricity, etc, 'family' entertainment included bringing grannies and the kids, plus food and drink to the local square to watch the Lord of the Manor, his supporting clergy, the executioner and guards torture and kill all sorts of criminals. Before that the bread and circuses kept the lower classes happy in Rome.

The feedback loop continues in our enlightened modern times.

[nmstevens]

Not too long ago, before the advent of electricity, etc, 'family' entertainment included bringing grannies and the kids, plus food and drink to the local square to watch the Lord of the Manor, his supporting clergy, the executioner and guards torture and kill all sorts of criminals. Before that the bread and circuses kept the lower classes happy in Rome.

The feedback loop continues in our enlightened modern times.

Well, it depends on what one means by "enlightened."

It's rather interesting to read some of the early Christian works that spoke out against, say, the Roman games -- the arena -- the gladiatorial games.

From our perspective, we might assume that the objection lay in the fact that people in the arena are being forced to fight to the death or are being tortured to death, being fed alive to lions, things like that.

That wasn't the objection. People, after all were "condemned" to the arena. They were viewed as criminals, and this was considered, in that world, as a kind of vast dramatized arena for public execution.

And the early Roman Christians didn't have any problem with the execution of criminals.

No -- they had two objections. First, the Roman Games were actually dedicated to Pagan gods, the deaths in the arena were considered as a kind of human sacrifice -- and they objected to th arena because the games "excited passions." People watching were stirred to bloodlust.

But on the same basis, they objected to things like sporting events, horse racing, to the theatre, to public shows. All of those things were dedicated to the Gods - and all of them excited passions.

Anything that, as far as that early Christian Church concerned, that excited "earthly passions" was to be avoided.

Well, we obviously have a very different point of view and to a degree we have attempted to back imprint our contemporary views on what their early objections actually were.

As it is, we have our own odd brand of puritanism still at work. For a long time we had difficulty acknowledging that people actually had sexual feelings and that that was okay (and a certain percentage of the population still feels that it's not okay).

That is, for a person to be sexually aroused by something you see on the screen or by something you see in real life -- well, why not? That's simply in the nature of being human and there's nothing inherently wrong with those feelings. Having those pleasurable feelings isn't somehow sinful.

But here's the thing.

We also are pleasurable "aroused" not only by sexual images -- but by images of violence. That's why we like things like boxing and wrestling and football and hockey and violent movies and why we slow down at traffic accidents so that we can see rather than speeding up so that we don't have to see.

And people are still extremely uncomfortable with that idea -- in the same way that, for generations, people were uncomfortable with the idea that people got turned on by sex.

In the same way that, for generations, being "turned on by sex" was dirty -- right now, to be "turned on" by violent images -- is dirty.

Even though almost everybody, to some extent is.

That is because we are not only sexual beings, for whom sexual arousal is natural, we are also aggressive beings, who evolved to hunt and to fight and to defend -- for whom aggression in various manifestions, is also natural.

NMS

[LIVIN]

Well, it depends on what one means by "enlightened."


The context implies "enlightened" was not used with any seriousness.

[regdog]

To a certain degree he is right. But only to those who are foolish enough to actually pay serious attention to what Hollywood does or says. Perhaps they have more of an influence on younger people. Style, ideology, idols etc. But I think once life begins to smarten people up they realize that Hollywood and those paraded around by the media as important are not.

People can only lead if others are willing to follow.

[Jon-Luke]

Well it will be interesting to see if we get a sudden craze for the hairstyle Javier Bardem had for his character Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" becomes a hit.;)

[nmstevens]

The context implies "enlightened" was not used with any seriousness.

I understand the ironic context -- but aren't we, in a real way, enlightened, as compared to the standard of human civilization at the time of the Romans, or in the middle ages?

I mean everyone wants to dump on "modern times" -- but seriously.

Yes, there is still human trafficking in the modern world, but until quite recently -- less than two hundred years, human trafficking was legal in virtually every corner of the world. You could go and buy or sell another human being, and that human being would have no recourse, being no more than property.

A hundred years ago, women could not vote in most places in the world, including the United States. That's 1908.

A hundred years ago, discriminatory laws based on racial or religious differences were commonplace in most places in the world. Still present in many places, but in most Western Democracies, at least, such laws have been stripped from the books.

Two hundred years ago, the very idea of "animal cruelty" was unheard of -- the notion that one shouldn't torture animals was absurd. In the Middle Ages one of the most common form of popular entertainment was setting fire to cats and watching them burn to death.

In this country, and in most (though still not all) Western countries, such things are an anathema.

As little as fifty years ago in many Western nations, homosexuality was not only stigmatized socially it was literally a criminal act, even between consenting adults, for which one could be arrested and jailed.

Now it no longer is and in several states civil unions and in two states homosexual marriages are recognized as legitimate.

So while one can certainly point to many things about our society and other societies that are disappointing, on the whole, I think that there has been a great movement toward enlightment.

The great challenge is the counter movement that tries to pull us back away from those ideas toward some more medieval view of reality.

Although I have a feeling that this discussion may be drifting away from movies a bit.

[Lillyth]

But that's really the question. Can't we?

The public may have an appetite for junk food. It may have an appetite for "green" food.

Both of those things, in a sense may be in the "public mind."

But if you're in the food business, you get to choose what kind of food you market.

And it may very well be that junk food sells better, but unless that's your only criterion for what you make and what you sell -- what sells better -- you don't get to walk away from the table with a clear conscience.

But I think that we really kid ourselves if we try to say that this show and shows like it that celebrate and glorify human trashiness, haven't hurt this country. I think that they have.

And one can't blame the "market" for this. We as makers of movies and of television shows have to bear the responsibility for what we do. We can make trash because trash that celebrates the worst in human beings because that sells or we can make work that's good -- because good stuff also sells.

And I'm not advocating some polly-anna-ish "no sex/no violence" approach to movies or television. My position as somebody who's written a lot of horror is that art is about illumination and it's the dark corners of the human experience that are the ones that most need illuminating -- and that's the scary places that people aren't particularly comfortable looking at or thinking about.

And if we're going to be grown up about it, we have to accept that if we put something on the screen that encourages bad behavior, that it might very well contribute to someone's bad behavior -- that if we put something stupidly imitatable on the screen that, indeed, someone stupid or irresponsible or mentally unbalanced may imitate it, with tragic results.

It's not as if we didn't know that our audience contains people who are stupid and irresponsible and mentally unbalanced. You have clear evidence of that every time you go to a movie theatre. So you know that they're going to be there in the audience.

So, yes -- you can show a movie with such images to an audience and the overwhelming majority won't imitate it, or won't be negatively effected in that way. In the same way, you can make a drug and you know that most people won't have an allergic reaction to it. But you pretty much know that, for any drug, a certain percentage of the people who receive it *will* have an allergic reaction -- and they'll get sick, and some of them will die.

And you put certain things in a movie, it may very well be that a certain number of unstable people will see it and imitate it -- and the result will be that people will die.

I don't think that we get to simple shrug and say, "Well, they're just nuts. Not our fault."

Didn't we know that that there were crazy people out there -- in the same way that people who make medicine know that there are people with allergies in the world?

NMS
I couldn't agree more.

Not to harp on my 40 Year Old Virgin analogy from earlier in the thread, but I have yet to meet a man who has seen the movie that has had the same reaction I had to the bar scene. Their whole thing was convincing Steve Carrel to find a woman so drunk she can't stand, and for him to take her home & have sex with her.

This is rape, pure and simple. To target a woman like that, who is clearly not in any capacity to give consent (or not) is rape.

Now I'm not worried about men like my husband, or probably even you guys, but I AM worried about the young boys who are out there, thinking about how they are going to get laid, suddenly going "Hey, how about like that scene from 40 Year Old Virgin?"

Now, I'm not saying don't put the scene in there, but maybe have Steve Carrel say something like "But isn't that rape?" That would have totally fit his character too.

I think that we at least have a responsibility to put "warning labels" on the medication (to use nmstevens analogy), because damn, not everyone knows that darvocet is a derivative of opium, and people with opiate allergies shouldn't take the darn stuff...

[DrRita]

Today I attended a meeting of industry professionals who live and work here in LA. We discussed some of the very things everyone is discussing on this thread. One thing that came up which I found fascinating was the "good old day" when the rules were extremely strict and the movies "reflected" the morals that everyone wanted Americans to have. Movies such as "Mr Smith Goes to Washington," "Casablanca", "The African Queen," "It's a Wonderful Life," etc were made. These movies didn't really reflect the culture of the times, they reflected what the movie makers wanted the culture to look like. And for the most part it worked. Yes, the bad stuff was still there but it was frowned upon. NM Stevens makes a good point about things we deem intolerable. If films constantly showed things that we think are inhumane for the sake of "art" after a time, the public becomes desensitized and those things no longer have shock value and even become acceptable as normal.

[Lillyth]

Neal,



"Junk food" or "Health Food" - there is a market for both. Who's responsibility is it, to controll the public access to such junk? Yours? Mine? THE GATEKEEPERS? Those who 'greenlight' a project?

But as you say its not a zero sum.

Its MARKET FORCES that are the heavier handed element, in my estimation. Everyone is responsible for what they do. Every parent is responsible for what they allow their child to watch. Every artist who must feed his family, is responsible for writing something that will pay the bills, AND be able to 'live' with himself for creating it.

Again, the OP seems to want to 'blame' Hollywood, or the 'gatekeepers' for CREATING the junk food. Given the choice, will enough people BUY the health food?

I'm doing my best to write it. I'm hoping somebody will step up, and PRODUCE it.

That's MY choice.

But the GATEKEEPERS in our society, are the corporate media. The shareholders demand profit, the audience demands blood. I think I hear you say that we as 'artists' albeit located far far down on the 'production chain' are responsible for injecting some sort of 'moral' into our creativity - and hope it survives the production process.

WHO gave the public "Bread and Circuses" in ancient Rome, to keep them compliant? WHY did the public attend?

WHO gives the public "REALITY TV" and why do they watch it?

I can honestly say, I have never, ever watched a single episode of "Reality" television. Can't tell you how 'survivor' works, or what "big brother' or any of the other shows are about.

I 'vote' with my remote. I write with my concience. I guess that is all we can do, no?
I think that is all we can do as responsible artists.

I try to be responsible in all that I do. I buy green, sustainable, local produce/food. I too have never watched a Reality TV show. I just don't get the phenomenon.

I have purchased a Happy Meal for my child once in his eight years (In'N'Out is another story, but still)...

I think that what Hollywood puts out & what the local grocery store puts out are no different. People buy it, because it is there. I think if movie theaters began to carry health food snacks instead of all that crap, it would sell. Sure, it would be slow at first, but then, once people caught on that they HAD a choice, and that one choice was just as good as the other, but very better for you too, I think the audience would start to buy the healthy stuff regularly.

But maybe I am just an idealist spouting idealist crap out of my butt, because, after all, Twinkies & Coca Cola still sell...

But I still thing, that as the up and coming generation of "leaders", we have a responsibility to those who would follow...

[LIVIN]

I understand the ironic context -- but aren't we, in a real way, enlightened, as compared to the standard of human civilization at the time of the Romans, or in the middle ages?

I'm not going to argue with you there, although, I will say there is much I see today that disappoints and/or disheartens me.

[LIVIN]

Once upon a time, I lived at an ecovillage where there was a store that sold junk food. It definitely raised a ruckus. Surrounded by an utter lack of junk food, it was the one place where people in the community could satiate their appetite for that type of thing. Eventually, changes were made and the business was dissipated, but, at the time of inception, the owner saw a niche that could be filled and profited from.

[nmstevens]

I couldn't agree more.

Not to harp on my 40 Year Old Virgin analogy from earlier in the thread, but I have yet to meet a man who has seen the movie that has had the same reaction I had to the bar scene. Their whole thing was convincing Steve Carrel to find a woman so drunk she can't stand, and for him to take her home & have sex with her.

This is rape, pure and simple. To target a woman like that, who is clearly not in any capacity to give consent (or not) is rape.

Now I'm not worried about men like my husband, or probably even you guys, but I AM worried about the young boys who are out there, thinking about how they are going to get laid, suddenly going "Hey, how about like that scene from 40 Year Old Virgin?"

Now, I'm not saying don't put the scene in there, but maybe have Steve Carrel say something like "But isn't that rape?" That would have totally fit his character too.

I think that we at least have a responsibility to put "warning labels" on the medication (to use nmstevens analogy), because damn, not everyone knows that darvocet is a derivative of opium, and people with opiate allergies shouldn't take the darn stuff...

Well -- but that's what the ratings system is for.

At least in principle.

But I'll tell you something interesting about the ratings system -- specifically about the way its changed and about the way our view of what is and isn't acceptable has changed.

A while ago I got a copy of one of the Hammer Dracula movies.

Among other things that we see in this movie -- the way in which Dracula is resuscitated involves a victim being hung upside down inside a church bell and decapitated, such that his blood runs down inside Dracula's open coffin, the blood then bringing him back to life.

Now, as it turned out, this was a DVD-R copy of the movie, which had probably been copied from a 16mm print, and it included the original ratings screen at the front of the print.

And how was this movie rated when it originally came out, back in the late sixties?

Rated "G" -- for general audiences. Same as "My Pretty Pony."

Nobody -- nobody thought that anyone needed to be protected from seeing this stuff. Just T & A.

NMS

[Lillyth]

Well -- but that's what the ratings system is for.

Rated "G" -- for general audiences. Same as "My Pretty Pony."

Nobody -- nobody thought that anyone needed to be protected from seeing this stuff. Just T & A.

NMS
That is HILARIOUS!!!!

Oddly enough, I happen to entirely disagree with our ratings system (yeah, I know, who the heck am I, right?). I tend to subscribe more to the Sweedish way of thinking which is that the T & A should be allowed, but the violence should be the cause of an R rating.

My hubby would disagree, but I could care less if my eight year old sees a boob. I care a whole hell of a lot if he's watching something like Joaquin Phoenix being shot by that crossbow in 8mm...

But that's just MY take on the subject. I fail to see how sowing someone's body parts is not okay, but watching people hack each other apart is...

[Lillyth]

At the very least, let your hands be clean. Each person, whether he's selling food, or selling ideas, has the right to say, I, at least, will not be the purveyor of crap.

NMS

Hear, here!

Would that all people had the same moral compass...

[Lillyth]

Well, it depends on what one means by "enlightened."

But here's the thing.

We also are pleasurable "aroused" not only by sexual images -- but by images of violence. That's why we like things like boxing and wrestling and football and hockey and violent movies and why we slow down at traffic accidents so that we can see rather than speeding up so that we don't have to see.

And people are still extremely uncomfortable with that idea -- in the same way that, for generations, people were uncomfortable with the idea that people got turned on by sex.

In the same way that, for generations, being "turned on by sex" was dirty -- right now, to be "turned on" by violent images -- is dirty.

Even though almost everybody, to some extent is.

NMS
I have a feeling the term "enlightened" was being used with tongue in cheek...

As for the violence thing, I was recently at our local boxing gym's fight night. As a competitive martial artist with a competition coming up in a few weeks, as well as someone preparing to take their boxing boot camp, I was enthralled with what I saw, but on a technical level - meaning that I was studying the jabs, the hooks, wondering why everyone I saw seemed to be punching to the face only and not to the body, watching how fighters were leaving themselves open, and how their opponents were taking advantage of that.

There were a few bloody noses, and every time I saw someone's nose bleeding, I kept thinking "Oh no, poor person", while around me I would hear things like "Yeah, now we've finally got some blood!", which just, and still does, baffle the heck out of me.

I will admit to slowing down at an accident out of morbid curiosity. But then, I am also one of those people who when they get their blood drawn or an IV put in HAS to watch, because to leave it to my imagination is AWFUL. I also don't slow down to just take a look if everyone else is going fast, but I will glance out my window to see what I can see.

I don't know that I take pleasure in it though, and I seriously wonder about the people who do...

[mario_c]

That is HILARIOUS!!!!

Oddly enough, I happen to entirely disagree with our ratings system (yeah, I know, who the heck am I, right?). I tend to subscribe more to the Sweedish way of thinking which is that the T & A should be allowed, but the violence should be the cause of an R rating.

My hubby would disagree, but I could care less if my eight year old sees a boob. I care a whole hell of a lot if he's watching something like Joaquin Phoenix being shot by that crossbow in 8mm...

But that's just MY take on the subject. I fail to see how sowing someone's body parts is not okay, but watching people hack each other apart is...Or an 8 year old watching any part of 8mm...
I remember some Best Of Horror series on cable where they would show the most horrifically violent parts of a number of horror movies, completely uncensored - but because it was basic cable, they would fog out a bare butt. What sense does that make?

[Lillyth]

Or an 8 year old watching any part of 8mm...
I remember some Best Of Horror series on cable where they would show the most horrifically violent parts of a number of horror movies, completely uncensored - but because it was basic cable, they would fog out a bare butt. What sense does that make?
Or, umm, ANYBODY watching 8mm for that matter.

Don't get me wrong, I thought the movie had it's good points, but there are images in that movie I will NEVER forget, and not in a good way.

It is one of the few movies I wished to God I'd never seen after I finished watching it.

Also, that scene from Shadowboxer. While I loved the rest of the movie, the scene with dude tied down to the pool table is something I wish I'd never seen as well.

The problem with that, is that you can never un-see it, ya know?

[DrRita]

Yeah, I still have some of those images in my mind from years ago . . . the late '60s and 70s when all those rebellion movies came out like Clockwork Orange. It's still an awful bloody violent movie by today's standards. I guess the difference is that people aren't as shocked today as they were when it first came out.