The general decline in standards today

[Dennis Young]

I don't think all of them were examples of poor parenting, or lack of personal honor, or they saw "Scarface" or "The Public Enemy" on the Late Late Show too many times and it marred them. I think they just plain felt like -- "Hey, not my problem. I don't want to answer a lot of questions down at the precinct. Anyway, someone else will help her. It's not my responsiblity." And these were people born and raised in the Era. What was *their* problem?

Noted. Scarface is a good example. I think during the days of “Scarface” though, that while this classic film depicted violence (though rather tame by today’s standards), the culture of the era was different than today. And so a little kid watches this film and then goes home to his friends and family and most are able to reinforce the fact that ‘Scarface” of some similar film…was just a film. Also there are usually other films and forms of media which show people doing the right thing.


Film is a favorite topic of mine. Another thing I would counter with is that in most cases the old films of the era rarely depicted explicit violence or sex scenes. Yes, I know about the pre code era. I also know about the Hays commision (which I think was a good idea btw). When we got away from those standards, the film industry kept pushing the envelope until today where we have “50 shades of Gray” and “Sexbox”. This is waaay different than the films of the 40s.

Also, Scarface (a favorie film of mine), the violence wasn’t as graphic as what we see today..even on tv….in prime time. Furthermore I would submit that primetime family tv on network tv no longer exists. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s we had prime time rules. Certain things wouldn’t be shown between certain hours at night because the kids were watching. But today, Family Guy is shown on Primetime Network tv. And that show can be filthy. And the violence of that and many of Seth McFarlands shows is a lot more graphic now than the old Bugs Bunny cartoons. A lot of the Warner Bros cartoon stuff was sly and most kids wouldn’t catch on.


So…when I see a video like the kid getting beaten up by adults, yes, I do think part of it is related to the fact we have become desensitized to that sort of thing.

 

[ChiTownScion]

The thing with the Kitty Genovese case, though, is that these self-absorbed people in 1964 weren't "savages" from the street. They were nice, middle-class people in an eminently respectable neighborhood in a nice part of Queens. They were the kind of people we like to imagine people in the Era were. And yet -- they let that woman die. They heard her scream, and they ignored her. They "didn't want to get involved." I don't think all of them were examples of poor parenting, or lack of personal honor, or they saw "Scarface" or "The Public Enemy" on the Late Late Show too many times and it marred them. I think they just plain felt like -- "Hey, not my problem. I don't want to answer a lot of questions down at the precinct. Anyway, someone else will help her. It's not my responsiblity." And these were people born and raised in the Era. What was *their* problem?

I remember that: I was ten years old at the time and my parents and their contemporaries spoke of it for weeks. The conversation usually included at least one comment as to how cold and indifferent New Yorkers were-- a comment inevitably proffered by someone who'd never even been to New York City.

I can understand the reluctance to not getting involved when someone else is threatened, however. My 19 year old son stepped between a woman and her abusive boyfriend, and got a knife through his heart for his trouble. Getting killed is certainly not something someone his age usually considers: I wish he had. But I do think that there are measures that a reasonably prudent person could undertake that do not have such tragic and permanent consequences, especially in this day and age of universal cell phones.

 

[Dennis Young]

Good for you. Fortunately for all that you could get close enough to do that. But what happens when you're on the edge of the crowd? Is it OK to wait for someone else to stick out that foot?

Most of us arent Superman of course. But I think James is right in that ‘if you can do something you should‘. So in your scenario I think if in the back and you see everyone standing around allowing this beating to occur, the honorable thing to do would be to try to make your way to the front and help. If you can’t, perhaps encouraging those in position to help would be right. Don’t just stand there and joke about some kid getting killed or hurt.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The thing with the Kitty Genovese case, though, is that these self-absorbed people in 1964 weren't "savages" from the street. They were nice, middle-class people in an eminently respectable neighborhood in a nice part of Queens. They were the kind of people we like to imagine people in the Era were. And yet -- they let that woman die. They heard her scream, and they ignored her. They "didn't want to get involved." I don't think all of them were examples of poor parenting, or lack of personal honor, or they saw "Scarface" or "The Public Enemy" on the Late Late Show too many times and it marred them. I think they just plain felt like -- "Hey, not my problem. I don't want to answer a lot of questions down at the precinct. Anyway, someone else will help her. It's not my responsiblity." And these were people born and raised in the Era. What was *their* problem?

Interestingly, quite a few of Kitty Genovese's neighbors were Holocaust survivors, including one who when asked why he did nothing replied, "the last time I called the police I ended up in a concentration camp." I'm sure what had happened had awoke in some of them terrifying memories of their own experiences which translated not into heroic resolve as we would like to think but a numbing paralysis of thought and action.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Family Viewing Time" was done away with when market forces dictated it, or so those noble guardians of the public airwaves the National Association of Broadcasters will tell you. But in blunt terms, the industry decided there was more money in sex and violence, so that's what we got. Yay for the free market.

That's basically the answer to all your questions about the media. I've worked in the media most of my adult life, in broadcasting and in film exhibition. I can tell you that, with Fred Rogers dead and gone, nobody in the media industry cares a damn about anything except billable revenues and box office grosses. If crap sells, then crap is what the people will get. And the people get exactly what they want. If there was money to be made showing live puppies being skinned and eaten in prime time, you can bet Anthony Bourdain would have a two hour prime time special on the air next week. Because that is the only thing the media cares about -- simoleons, frogskins, kale, the long green, the folding money. Because that's how the American system of media works.

 

[Dennis Young]

Interestingly, quite a few of Kitty Genovese's neighbors were Holocaust survivors, including one who when asked why he did nothing replied, "the last time I called the police I ended up in a concentration camp."

That sounds like fear in that case. And they likely had a good reason to not act. However , again I would submit that it was brought about by conditioning. Whether at the hands of media, or the Nazis.

 

[Dennis Young]

"Family Viewing Time" was done away with when market forces dictated it, or so those noble guardians of the public airwaves the National Association of Broadcasters will tell you. But in blunt terms, the industry decided there was more money in sex and violence, so that's what we got. Yay for the free market.

That's basically the answer to all your questions about the media. I've worked in the media most of my adult life, in broadcasting and in film exhibition. I can tell you that, with Fred Rogers dead and gone, nobody in the media industry cares a damn about anything except billable revenues and box office grosses. If crap sells, then crap is what the people will get. And the people get exactly what they want. If there was money to be made showing live puppies being skinned and eaten in prime time, you can bet Anthony Bourdain would have a two hour prime time special on the air next week. Because that is the only thing the media cares about -- simoleons, frogskins, kale, the long green, the folding money. Because that's how the American system of media works.

No doubt. Its about the dollar figure. But then I ask, why do family friendly films outsell the R-rated films today?

 

[LizzieMaine]

No doubt. Its about the dollar figure. But then I ask, why do family friendly films outsell the R-rated films today?

Not around here they don't. And I can show you the box office grosses to prove it.

 

[Dennis Young]

Why did they push 50 shades of gray so hard, and then after the first week box office sales declined dramatically? Everyone rushed out to see what the hubub was about, then decided they didn’t care to see it.
And why did “The Bible” and other faith-based films sell so much better than other films at the time? Yet the film industry continues to produce films that promote smut?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Why did they push 50 shades of gray so hard, and then after the first week box office sales declined dramatically? Everyone rushed out to see what the hubub was about, then decided they didn’t care to see it.
And why did “The Bible” and other faith-based films sell so much better than other films at the time? Yet the film industry continues to produce films that promote smut?

Fifty Shades is still running, and doing well, at the multiplex here. The Bible never played this town at all. Go figure.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a Bible movie based on the story of Jael and Sisera. That would seem to cover both sides of the market.

 

[Dennis Young]

You probably will criticize the source, but here's a good link to read about family friendly films.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/conservative-liberal-movies-politics-profit-study-287816

I think some in the film industry have an agenda.

 

[Dennis Young]

Well listen, your town isn't exactly heartland America and doesn't speak for the rest of us

 

[Feraud]

I can understand the reluctance to not getting involved when someone else is threatened, however. My 19 year old son stepped between a woman and her abusive boyfriend, and got a knife through his heart for his trouble. Getting killed is certainly not something someone his age usually considers: I wish he had. But I do think that there are measures that a reasonably prudent person could undertake that do not have such tragic and permanent consequences, especially in this day and age of universal cell phones.

I'm sorry to read about the loss of your son. Being a parent is tough. We raise children to be kind and helpful and are sometimes repaid in the most horrible way.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well listen, your town isn't exactly heartland America and doesn't speak for the rest of us

I could say the same thing about Alabama. Tit for tat, but it doesn't change how the business works.

 

[Dennis Young]

Yeah, I’m sorry too. No parent should outlive his ir her child. My aunt lost her child too.

 

[Dennis Young]

I could say the same thing about Alabama. Tit for tat, but it doesn't change how the business works.

Ah, but the source I cited was a Hollywood mag...not Alabama. I didn't say "not around here".

 

[Dennis Young]

And that’s just one link. I could give you at minimum 100 links I found on Google or Yahoo search engine that show the same thing.
All I’m saying is that I don’t think its always about the dollar figure or the bottom line. I think something else is in play.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

And why did “The Bible” and other faith-based films sell so much better than other films at the time? Yet the film industry continues to produce films that promote smut?

That's because the entertainment industry's biggest audience are themselves. Such is the narcissism of Hollywood that they continue to churn out such films to garner respect and admiration from their peers even though these movies generally flop at the box office. Not to put it crudely but it's a multimillion dollar exercise in mental masturbation.

 

[Dennis Young]

That's because the entertainment industry's biggest audience are themselves. Such is the narcissism of Hollywood that they continue to churn out such films to garner respect and admiration from their peers even though these movies generally flop at the box office. Not to put it crudely but it's a multimillion dollar exercise in mental masturbation.

That’s a good observation. I recall somewhere (I forget where) that some were questioning the choice of films made during this year’s Academy awards. They felt that “American Sniper” should have been up for more awards and it was shunned by some of the movers and shakers because of its content. I think it got an award for something. I havent seen the film so I don’t know if it was really good enough. But apparently a lot of folks think so because the box office sales are through the roof. J

 

[LizzieMaine]

Ah, but the source I cited was a Hollywood mag...not Alabama. I didn't say "not around here".

I was responding to "your town is not heartland America." My town is part of what *founded* America. You can't get more heartland than that. But I digress. I wasn't responding to the article in that remark. I do find the "heartland" phrase and its converse, the "coastal elites" to be a good example of what's been discussed in another part of this thread, the whole Golden Calf polarization of discourse, but whatever.

I saw that article, at any rate, in the print edition, and yeah, that's some pretty fancy skewing of definitions to suit an agenda. I don't consider something like "The Artist" to be a "conservative" movie as opposed to a "liberal" movie. "The Artist" did very well for us because it was a well-made, well-acted film. "Juno" -- which I suppose you would call a liberal movie for glorifying teen pregnancy, or maybe it was a conservative movie because she rejected the idea of abortion, gee, I dunno what it would be except a well-made, well-acted film -- did even better. So there y'go.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have over thirty years experience in the media, and you can take what I have to say or leave it. You already know the answer you want before you ask the question, which is fine. The idea that a shadowy *someone* is controlling Hollywood with a sinister agenda is actually a very Golden Era idea. If you've read the correspondence files of the Breen Office, as I have, old Joseph Ignatius was very very big on that idea. He, Henry Ford, and Col. Lindbergh were in full accord on that point, if you get my drift.