Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Subtle Power of Hollywood (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: The Subtle Power of Hollywood
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So you don't want to limit artistic freedom or impose censorship. You just want to stop artists from making things you don't personally approve of. I'm glad we got that cleared up Mynnion
What I am opposed to is the portrayal of these ideas as acceptable and mainstream by Hollywood. Mass media has a tremendous impact on promoting "art" particularly in film and music. The choice of what is produced and how it is promoted is made by a small group of individuals who are only interested in creating shock for profit. The effect of this is that the shock goes out violence, etc. and becomes seen by society as acceptable. Who is driving whom? Are changes in society driving the changes in "art" or is the in-your-face presentation of "art" changing society. The music industry today makes stars based on image and appearance more than on talent (yes there are exceptions). I am not sure how this benefits either art or society.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, if so many people want to watch this kinda stuff, maybe it's more mainstream thaqn you'd like to believe. After all, Hollywood often sinks millions upon millions in films that the public decides to reject.

It's like the saying "Television is the most egalitarian art form ever. It's made by the people, for the people according to what the people want. The horror, of course, is in what people actually want."

It's not Hollywood's fault, it's human nature's .

Art is not supposed to "benefit" art OR society. Just like free expression isn't. It's not your place to say "this art is beneficial so I'll allow it."

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
quote:
So you don't want to limit artistic freedom or impose censorship. You just want to stop artists from making things you don't personally approve of. I'm glad we got that cleared up Mynnion
What I am opposed to is the portrayal of these ideas as acceptable and mainstream by Hollywood. Mass media has a tremendous impact on promoting "art" particularly in film and music. The choice of what is produced and how it is promoted is made by a small group of individuals who are only interested in creating shock for profit. The effect of this is that the shock goes out violence, etc. and becomes seen by society as acceptable. Who is driving whom? Are changes in society driving the changes in "art" or is the in-your-face presentation of "art" changing society. The music industry today makes stars based on image and appearance more than on talent (yes there are exceptions). I am not sure how this benefits either art or society.
So to reiterate, you want to stop artists from making stuff that you disapprove of. Oh I mean sure, technically they could still make all the smut they wanted, they just couldn't get their songs on the radio, their shows on TV, or their movies into cinemas or video stores. You want to live in a nation where music, film, television, and journalism (and possibly video games and perhaps literature as well, although they haven't come up in this thread so I wouldn't want to make assumptions) are only allowed to tackle unwholesome issues in negative ways that reinforce valuable moral lessons. And you want to pretend that this isn't a restriction on free expression.

Why do you want to turn America into communist China?

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So to reiterate, you want to stop artists from making stuff that you disapprove of. Oh I mean sure, technically they could still make all the smut they wanted, they just couldn't get their songs on the radio, their shows on TV, or their movies into cinemas or video stores. You want to live in a nation where music, film, television, and journalism (and possibly video games and perhaps literature as well, although they haven't come up in this thread so I wouldn't want to make assumptions) are only allowed to tackle unwholesome issues in negative ways that reinforce valuable moral lessons. And you want to pretend that this isn't a restriction on free expression.

The point I am trying to make (and not doing a very good job of it) is that mass media is modifying our interests and societal beliefs (sometimes for the better). TV and the music industry (sometimes the same i.e. Disney) are shaping culture by what they choose to play. I have no issue with any artist creating his/her "art." I do have an issue when the product they create is used through selection to manipulate culture. The internet may act to counteract some of this by providing a greater opportunity for true artists to present there work but we will have to wait on that.

I have no significant issues in the effect of movies and none at all in literature because the market for these is generally selective and voluntary.

quote:
Why do you want to turn America into communist China?
My point exactly. Our society is being controlled by a small group of individuals who choose what we should and should not believe. But I guess if we call it art than it is OK. [Smile]
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really hate it when, every week, the brown shirts walk into my house, sit me down at gunpoint and force me to watch "Deal or No Deal" and "Big Brother LXXIV"
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah I know the feeling DonaldD. I wanted to grow up to be an ordinary, well-adjusted person. But they kept strapping me down in front of a movie screen, wiring my eyelids open, and playing Beethoven's 9th while showing nonstop images of ultraviolence. Oh if only I lived in a land where I hadn't been forced to watch that morality-destroying stuff! [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion, again: The "small group of individuals" who are "controlling our society" do not have a nefarious agenda. They are simply producing what they think the most people will want to see. The masses are tasteless and dumb. Deal.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion: use your remote. It's kind of like a mouse, only it clicks the tv not the internet.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "small group of individuals" who are "controlling our society" do not have a nefarious agenda.
Of course they don't have a nefarious (nice word use). They are either strictly looking to make more money by one upping the competition or they feel that their manipulation is in the publics best interest (in some cases it may be). The question is do we really want our society controlled.

KL, Donald, and Rallan if you actually bothered to read what I said you would see that this post is not about my personal choices (I do not what that thingy is that acts like a mouse). I even know how to turn off the TV (I'm sure this shocks you). It is sad that cheap shots become a necessary tool for dialoging with someone you disagree with.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is this control of which you speak?
The only thing they control is what they offer you to watch. Do they have influence? heaps. But it is not "control". If it was "control" then it would indeed be about your choices.

As for the cheap shots - we're sarcastic bastards. Your scolding is really not gonna change that.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Ricky, I guess I was hoping for intelligent responses. Maybe I should have used the word influence instead of control. It does not change the reality of the manipulation.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True, Mynnion. It only changes the reality of your discourse, which is all we have to go by around here. No body language, no vocal inflection, no pheromones, no ESP (that we can verify).

Want intelligent responses? YOu got 'em. Make a stupid (by being not what you intended to say) statement, you'll get a response not to what you meant but what you said.

Language works like that. Welcome to teh intertoobz.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion, I get the sense that your arguments are wasted on folks of whom I would wager are not parents.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
how much did I just win off you, bombasto? [Razz]
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rickyb and kenmeer are both parents.

Oops. you fail.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... and not the ones I was referring to either :0) Didn't realize how active this thread was at the moment when I wrote that.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion - as has been mentioned, if you didn't mean control, you shouldn't have used the word.

You also used a whole bunch of other terms that are just as inexact. For instance "the product they create is used through selection to manipulate culture"

Are you aware that this wording ascribes a particular motivation to "them" which you seem to assume, but have in no way shown to exist?

Specifically, this wording implies that "they" use "the product" to "manipulate culture". You later seemed to agree that the manipulation is a secondary result of "their" real motivation, which is to make money. Unfortunately, that is not what your actual, initial words said.

If you don't want the friendly sarcasm, you'll need to be clearer - we can't parse your words and magically come up with what you really wanted to say [Smile]

[ October 14, 2007, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: DonaldD ]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
... are only allowed to tackle unwholesome issues in negative ways that reinforce valuable moral lessons. And you want to pretend that this isn't a restriction on free expression
I for one am all in favor of restriction on free expression. You are begging the question as they say. Please justify "free expression" as the universal right that you appear to assume that it is.

Yes, I am all for limiting "free expression". And so, BTW, are the founders of this forum. There are many things you can't say here, for instance. Is it OK for this forum but not the air waves? Are the TV and radio station owners somehow bound to some lesser ideals and standards than we of the free and open sourced Internet (bless you, Al)?

Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a distinction that you seem to be overlooking, bombasto: that is that members of this forum are using a private resource (Ornery servers) which are privately owned and privately policed.

When talking about "free expression", Rallan was almost certainly referring to government enforcement of what is "allowed", since the government in the US has been allocated the exclusive use of force (enforcement). To talk about what is "allowed" or restricted in general is to discuss the limits of government interference. And government interference in "expression" is strictly defined by the first amendment and the associated case law.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, yes, associated case law. ...

Be that as it may, I like this test for media attributed to Susanna Wesley:

Whatever weakens your reason, whatever impairs the tenderness of your conscience, whatever obscures your sense of God, whatever increases the authority of your body over your mind, whatever takes away from your relish for spiritual things, that to you is sin, no matter how innocent it is in itself.

Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Specifically, this wording implies that "they" use "the product" to "manipulate culture". You later seemed to agree that the manipulation is a secondary result of "their" real motivation, which is to make money. Unfortunately, that is not what your actual, initial words said.

No, I stated that money is a shared motivation with "influencing culture."

quote:
are either strictly looking to make more money by one upping the competition or they feel that their manipulation is in the publics best interest
Maybe control was too strong a term because as stated an individual always has the opportunity to turn of the tube but I do believe that Hollywood does use its "influence" to "manipulate" culture. I also stated that this has sometimes been positive. The question is do we want our society manipulated by a small segment of our society.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joshua Harris, a minister in Gaithersburg had this to say about media which I liked:

The media never try to reason with us. Instead, they seek a hard-wire connection straight into the emotions. Why offer some lame, tortured argument in favor of immorality when you can simply show slow-motion close-ups of beautiful people bathed in soft lighting and romantic music? Painful consequences of sin? Where?!

Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Busillis
Member
Member # 5048

 - posted      Profile for Busillis   Email Busillis       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thread has since moved on from Everard's point concerning violence, but I think it bears returning to.

I can recall studies demonstrating desensitization to violence from exposure, and I believe that desensitization is a sufficiently commonly accepted phenomenon that I don't need to immediately dig up the citations. However, I do not think there were any which conclusively demonstrated a causal link between violent entertainment and violent crime. A few have shown correlation, I vaguely remember reading of a survey of prison inmates showing that violent offenders had a preference for violent entertainment; but correlation does not imply causation.

I have sometimes heard it argued that demonstration of desensitization to violence is equivalent to showing a causal link between violent entertainment and violent actions, because desensitization to violence 'obviously' makes future violence more likely, and in a trivial sense this may be true. However, the relevant question is not 'does it make violence more likely?', but rather 'does it make violent crime more likely?'.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with desensitization to violence. Desensitization is merely the removal of instinctual revulsion towards violence. In an individual with a degraded moral sense, this may make it easier for them to commit crime. On the other hand, in an moral individual, it may may it easier for them to, for instance, come to the defense of an individual being victimized. In the balance, I have no problem with a generation increasingly desensitized to violence.

Posts: 5 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I not parent! I victim of spawn! Is BIG difference!
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Busillis- Google "bobo doll studies"


My wife and I were talking about a similar but unrelated subject, and she mentioned that there should be a corollary to the quote about standing on the shoulders of all those who came before us. Sometimes people are digging in the pits dug by those who came before them. That is very true in entertainment. One person shows the top of a toilet, the next person has to show the top of the bowl, the next person has to show the inside of the bowl the next person has to show something inside the bowl, the next person has to show something nasty inside the bowl. Eventually everything is poop.

I don't mind having shows on TV that contain disturbing and degenerate things (I won't watch them, but you can), but I would like for the content of the commercials during family friendly shows to also be family friendly. Kind of the way they only show G-rated previews at the beginning of G-rated movies.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I not parent! I victim of spawn! Is BIG difference!"

This is totally off topic, and not important, but it's bugging me so oh well. KL, why the baby talk/fake pidgin all the time?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because it is absolutely hilarious?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"but I would like for the content of the commercials during family friendly shows to also be family friendly."

That is extremely reasonable, imnsho. So move. Second? [Big Grin]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I second. OMG! RickyB, we do agree on something!
Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kino pravda
Member
Member # 5595

 - posted      Profile for kino pravda   Email kino pravda   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are simply producing what they think the most people will want to see. The masses are tasteless and dumb. Deal.
I whole heartedly agree. Hollywood movies that are made with the intention of pleasing viewers should not be considered "art," but rather as "entertainment." People want to be entertained, and there are people who will see a movie solely because the actors are "hot" and just plain eye candy. Movie makers know what people want to see so they will cast those kinds of actors. Hollywood is less manipulative than it is a reflection of our modern society and its values.

What I think is sad is how prominently Hollywood contributes to the American image seen by other countries. I was confronted by a college student in Taiwan and she asked if Americans all believe it's ok to sleep around all the time like they do in Friends. I met international students expecting to be confronted about something like the Iraq War or George Bush, but no, I get asked about TV shows and movies (I was also asked if Americans eat burgers and fries all the time, but that's irrelevant [Wink] ). A friend of mine had a similar experience when she hosted exchange students who had more questions about Desperate Housewives than anything else. Really... of all the issues that can make the US stand out in the minds of foreigners, it has to be Hollywood drama?

Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see what Mynnion is saying here. Hollywood and pop culture are more or less in the position of a drug dealer. It's not that we, as individuals, don't have a choice whether or not we want to buy what they're selling. But the effect of this product, like the effect of a community being flooded with drugs, hurts us whether we choose to consume it or not. It's not an individual problem, but a societal one.

And while there may be something in us that makes us "want" it (or perhaps more accurately, makes us "susceptible" to it), it's probably wrong to say that we really asked for it. In effect, pop culture creates its own market where none existed previously. No one asks for or demands a certain type of art; all art, in my opinion, is an acquired taste.

I also think it may be a bit of an equivocation to say that the "violence" in a Shakespeare play is equivalent to the "violence" in a Hollywood movie. The former is necessarily an abstraction, since even the most elaborate production cannot truly simulate the bloodshed of, say, a husband murderering his wife, for example. On the other hand, movies have the ability to mimic reality to such a degree that a movie murder gives us a voyeuristic experience unlike anything known before. It's the truest counterfeit of witnessing an actual murder that you can possibly get, and when that murder is glorified, as is the case in most movies and TV shows, that has to have a powerful psychological impact. So yes, there has always been explicit violence in theatre, paintings, and even the bible, but one type of "explicitness" should not be confused with the other.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Isn't it funny that one can be an avid consumer of American media and yet use it to judge American culture? In order to know what you're talking about you have to participate in the very culture that you're criticizing.

About the societal problem: The steady success of disgusting horror movie franchises like "Saw" and "Hostel" etc. makes me a bit embarrassed and worried for my culture. And yet I find the TV show "Dexter", in which the protagonist is a serial killer, to be compelling. I can kind of justify it to myself in that Dexter tries to get into the mind of a serial killer (and an unusual one at that) rather than just portray and wallow in violence for shock value. I guess that's a little like Victorian men who looked at dirty pictures with purely scientific curiosity. [Smile] But really, if I'm not kidding myself, it's just a matter of degree and technique. I'm part of this violence-addicted culture, not above it. I can sneer at shows like CSI and the gorefest movies, but make it a war movie? About serial killers? About superflu? I'm there. I'm into it. I cheered inside when Russell Crowe was lopping off heads in "Gladiator." I'm sick too.

But I'm not about to encourage or perpetrate real life violent acts like the ones I enjoy in certain forms of entertainment. There's a partition in my head, and the entertainment stays firmly on the opposite side from reality.

I suppose I would put violent entertainment in the same category as marijuana. I don't think it should be illegal for adults, and I don't think it's particularly harmful except in edge cases for adults, but I don't want kids growing up on it because i think it sets them up for bad stuff in the future. And it changes them before they can make their own mental partitions.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whatever weakens your reason, whatever obscures your sense of God,
How contradictory.

Tried to watch Dexter, and while it was well written, I just don't like serial killers, or serial killer stories. Which sucks because there are a lot of good ones.

In Mynnions opinion/argument who gets to decide what is shown when and where, etc? (Sorry, trying to get caught up on this discussion.)

KE

[ November 21, 2007, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Our family threw out the TV (not the TV-set) since we found out what American TV is all about (read - advertising).
Prolonging a 2 hour movie to a 3 hour "feature presentation" was not something I expected when we came to US about 7 years ago from behind "the iron curtain".

Since that time we have been taking movies, documentaries and books from the library, once we read reviews and opinions on the contents.
We watch THOSE movies only after FastFWD through it to find out what additional "nice touches" (read - nudity, indecent exposures, unneeded violence and profanity) the directors, etc. have added to spice it up.
In 90% of the cases (from the movies we watch) - these "touches" do not add ABSOLUTELY anything to the plot, the idea, etc. of the movie - they are just slapped in there to make the male A-type chimp want more and more of it.
There had been many situations where we unintentionally see such scenes (even after combing all the “lice” out) and we have always argued why we continue to watch movies, animation, documentaries, etc. at all.
Most likely it is our decades long addiction to the blue screen which makes it so tough.

That and the genetically modified corn tortilla chips [Smile]

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WAAJLC, there are places that rent edited movies. Presumably they agree that the 'adult' content adds nothing of value. Might save some time for you if you can find one that rents online or locally.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheSteelenGeneral
Member
Member # 5530

 - posted      Profile for TheSteelenGeneral   Email TheSteelenGeneral   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First off, mainstream media seem much more prudish now than in the seventies.
For example, the seventies, was probably a high point in American filmmaking. It was realistic, serious, political and had some good depth and ... good acting. Also then, american movies had some nudity in them. Now, not so much.

Pretty Baby could not be made today. The 1997 Lolita-remake had a 24-7 inspector ON SET, to see if anything happened between Dominique Swain and Jeremy Irons. Of course NOT whether sex or anything remotely like that occured, since that would not happen anyway. But I remember reading that the inspector was there to see if any physical positioning of the two actors would be inappropiate. I have no way of knowing, but I'm guessing that the studio, in an act of self-censorship, made the 16 year-old look even older on purpose, for the portrayal of the 14 year old Lolita.

On TV these days, even the whole pre-training-bra demographic wears at least double layers on the upper torso. They almost always have a jacket or a sweater on, never just a t-shirt. The exception was Natalie Portman in LEON (the Professional), who promptly got dissed by some (older male) critics because she wore a wife-beater at age 12 or 13. I too, never noticed that, but ever since I saw those reviews about that film, I started observing and noticing this demure clothing trend.
quote:
"Pretty much everyone who studies the issue seriously knows that watching hollywoodized violence makes people more prone to commit violent acts, or to be less concerned when violent acts are perpetrated."
I think you might be on to something there! I noticed too, that all those comedy shows caused much more laughter in the streets and at school, in the workplace ... [Wink]

quote:
pre-and post exposure to violence studies have been done where how people's responses differ immediately following viewing of violence from prior to viewing.
Yes, well, maybe. Have you also seen some studies where viewing of violence will cause kids or people to act more violent? People's response would also differ if they watched "The littlest Elf" for hours and hours. There hasn't been a study which showed prolonged violent behaviour due to TV watching.
In fact, youth-violence is down, from the levels in the 50s and 60s. We talk about it more, yeah sure, but the actual events are very different.
Every study shows that people think there's more violence than before, except in their own neighbourhoods ...

This topic comes very natural to people of a certain age, like 25, 30, 35 or 40. But realize that EVERY generation does this.

Also realize that Victorian times were preceded by times were sexuality was much more free. It's not like we all ran around in burka's since the year 500 AD and gradually have gotten more nude. These things might go in stages, waves, phases.

For me, mainstream media feels much more prudish now than when I grew up and we're about the same age, mynion. Sure, the internet has a lot of sex. not allowing your teens to have pc in their room helps a lot with that.

Think about "The Wonder Years". Maybe it's the milder climate, and I very well might be imagining things, but did Winnie Cooper really go to school at age 13 in such a short skirt? [Wink]

Oh yeah, and don't you think our now ten year old daughters will one day wax lyrical about Bratz and the Pussycat Dolls?

Posts: 1486 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WAAJLC, plus there is Tivo. Caution, Tivo is addictive. I don't watch anything I haven't Tivo'd first so I can fast forward through the commercials.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheSteelenGeneral
Member
Member # 5530

 - posted      Profile for TheSteelenGeneral   Email TheSteelenGeneral   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
how much shows/hours can you store on a tivo? What can a tivo do that a VCR can't?
Posts: 1486 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, you got a point; There is more violence except in my neighborhood. Weird.

And I can't tell you how many times Dick Van Dyke almost killed me by making me trip over the ottoman. (ottoman, is that spelled right? A whole empire and a little footstool is all they get? Who was the Sofa empire? That should be an Ottoman. We make no sense.)

My brave dog is trying to crawl under me because a thunderstorm is bearing down on us. He's so cute. Not very reassuring, but cute.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheSteelenGeneral
Member
Member # 5530

 - posted      Profile for TheSteelenGeneral   Email TheSteelenGeneral   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thunderstorm? Aaah, over to the climate change thread then, and speak from experience ... [Wink]

Anyway, some people here mentioned Saw and Hostel as proof of general increasing sleaziness. Still, how do they account for the 11 seasons of 7th Heaven? And 7 seasons of Gilmore Girls? Arguably more people/kids saw the latter 2 rather than the former 2?

My point is: accentuate the positive not the easily avoidable negative.

Now, coming from behind the Iron Curtain, I understand that that could be hard.
Because (former) Eastern Europeans tend to be morose and gloomy? From experience, I can state that Polish women do indeed believe that negative stereotype about themselves, dunno about others.
So ... try not to be like that! [Wink] [Razz]

Posts: 1486 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1