Fried Chicken, Apple Pie, and Good Ol' Dad

Any study of the history of motion pictures and television offers an insightful look at the changes society makes as time passes.  The genres or stars who gain fame or even infamy are often the hallmarks of their time as future generations look back.  In the 1950's and 1960's, television's soaring popularity created programming that has endured as a favorite in the hearts of Americans ever since.  Andy Griffith, Theodore "Beaver" Cleaver, Herman Munster, and Gomez Addams remain iconic faces to the vast majority of Americans.  It wasn't just the lead stars, however.  These programs boasted a bevy of talented supporting cast.  Barney Fife, the Cleaver, Munster, and Addams families brought laughs, sighs, and tears that have charmed generations.

As time passes, however, we see a drastic change in television programming.  A characteristic of all programming in that era - unnoticed at the time, perhaps - is astonishingly absent in modern programming.  That characteristic is a loving, attentive, and intelligent father.

The cause of absence has been debated.  It is my suggestion that there are two basic reasons why this change has taken place.

1) The shirking of responsibility and the glorification of sensationalism.

Sure, it's the age old argument.  Frankly, most are tired of hearing the same old points reiterated.  The reason why this argument sticks though is that it contains a very large grain of truth.  This scapegoat of "immoral" and "valueless" programming also hides the second reason, however.

2) Radical Feminism

True feminism, a movement that seeks to equalize the sexes rather than have women forced into stereotyped chauvinist gender roles.  Radical feminism likes to pretend they are so focused on equality, but what they're really after is a shift in the paradigm of power: they want to see women become dominant in culture.  The dumb-ing down of fathers in television is a direct result of the desire to glorify the woman's role as intellectual superior and authoritative head of the family.  Testosterone, apparently, is the stupid drug.

One current program, Modern Family, sees an alternative "Phil"-osophy brought to the screen:  Phil is the funny, slapstick dumb father.  But he's not stupid for stupid sake.  He's not genetically or hormonally stupid.  He suffers from ADD.  Claire, his wife, sees herself as needing to fill the leadership role to compensate for Phil.  However, Claire is not some paragon of perfection pronged with puny problems for the sake of plot points.  Claire is aggressive and one track minded.  While providing a foil to Phil, Claire's headstrong attitude also gets her repeatedly into difficult situations that Phil can come along side her and help her out of.  Both parents are shown to have qualities and shortcomings that they help each other overcome.  Their marriage is a partnership where no one person dominates the other.

That is what is missing from what made America famous.  Not just the comfort foods we joke about, but also a leading example of masculine ability.

The War Machine: Film as Propoganda

The theme of this blog strives to apply the ideas of the industry today to the industry of decades ago and evaluate how far we've come - or, conversely, fallen - from what it once was.  It is a 20/20 hindsight evaluation of film.

World War II essentially eradicated the film industry in Europe.  In the United States, however, pseudo neutrality propelled the film industry to new heights.  The war postponed the historic Paramount case (which would dissolve the trust corporations that ran the industry) but even more importantly, the war established film as a major propaganda machine, both in Nazi Germany and the Allied countries.

This cartoon, one of my favorites from my childhood, is a perfect example of how all levels of motion picture entertainment were focused on the patriotic messages: in this case, "Taxes to beat the Axis!"

Now we find ourselves in a new era: the information age.

People wonder where has our patriotism gone?  Where is the attitude that made Americans proud - not of their cheeseburgers, obesity, and reality television - but proud of where we came from (the melting pot), what we fought for (freedom and equality for all), and character that knew that standing up for right was more important than comfort and security?  John F. Kennedy called Americans to put country before self: whats best for all before selfish desires.  So why the big change?

Skepticism.  The information age has effectively ended the era of propaganda.  Any fool with a smartphone can find a thousand articles in just seconds that either confirm a bigoted opinion or completely tear down a well intended attempt to call people to a higher mode of living.  Propaganda doesn't work when in just three clicks someone can find an ulterior motive to that which was proclaimed.

I suppose that unveils my opinion on the 8th most impactful year in film history: In the narrow gap between 1993 and 2000, the internet became the primary means of telecommunication, rising from 1% of all telecommunication world wide to a dominating 51% in just 7 years.  In just 7 years more, the internet did it again, rising from 51% to more than 97% of all telecommunications world wide.  The mid 1990s, when internet first became widely available to ordinary households, revolutionized the industry.  Now the industry is shaped by the internet, distributed on the internet, and in some cases even inspired by the internet (see The Fifth Estate, inspired by one of the most controversial media pieces in years).

The Missing Ingredient: Danger

The advantage in any new medium of art is that there are no rules.  Ironically, rather than bringing freedom in choices, the lack of rules brings a responsibility.  The early filmmakers had no possible way of knowing that their choices would become the rules that still shape a global industry a century later.  What brings a side-show gimmick into a glamorous pinnacle of human success in just 50 years?  Innovation and improvisation built it.  

Recently, however, the most exciting ingredient of film has faded into the past behind a curtain of lawsuits and pride.  Danger has all but disappeared.  The early greats, like Buster Keaton, built their careers on daredevil stunts.  As the industry matured, the focus shifted onto story rather than spectacle, and the danger adapted as well.  Some of the greatest film stars of all time built their careers on their willingness to really do something rather than rely on technology to fake it.

The most enduring quality of classic film is the reality they portray.  When the danger is real, when the characters face obstacles without pretending or "acting," the audience is magnetized to the silver screen.  Modern film has produced a dissatisfaction with the current mode of storytelling.  Audiences are no longer captured by story because they are distracted by unnecessary visuals.

The reality of doing is what made classic film great: there were no gimmicks, merely sleights of hand.  Much like a skilled magician, film lured you not just into believing, but into wanting to believe.  That's why they call it the "magic" of cinema.