0 comment Sunday, October 26, 2014 | admin
Here is an interesting view of men and male-female relationships as seen by actress Carole Lombard, in 1933.
It's quite a contrast to today's belief system according to the 21st century feminists, as cited in my recent post. But here's what Miss Lombard had to say:
"I like superior men," Carole Lombard says
By Carole Lombard
I could never admire a man unless he were superior to me in most ways, rather domineering in manner, and a much better player than worker.
To women who make their way in the world, directly competing with the homo sapiens, this may smack of lese majeste. So an explanation should be forthcoming.
In the process of evolution, affected by the sociologic scheme of things, man has had the advantage of development -- physically and mentally. This situation may be reversed a thousand years from now. But at present, with woman's emancipation a recent event, man is considered the superior animal....
Read the rest of the short piece at the link.
For those who are not classic movie fans as I am, and who thus don't know about Carole Lombard, you can read something of her here. She was one of the more fascinating actresses in a time when there were many memorable actresses (and actors) in Hollywood. She was a great beauty in her time, and she died a tragic death in a plane crash, leaving behind her grieving husband, Clark Gable.
She was known as something of a free spirit, very individualistic, and I suppose in today's world she might be classified as a feminist:
Carole was born Jane Alice Peters, 1908, the daughter of Frederic Peters and Elizabeth Knight. Jane Alice was a bold, little tomboy. The tag-a-long little sister of her two older brothers, Stuart (1905-1956) and Frederic (1902-1979), demanded to be included in all neighborhood baseball and football games... to be thought of as an equal.But as you can see, believing in "equality" did not mean that she thought as feminists of today think.
It just illustrates how attitudes have changed since Lombard's time.
Many women of today look down on the women of her era as being downtrodden or unenlightened; I think the women of that era might beg to differ -- as do I.
It's quite a contrast to today's belief system according to the 21st century feminists, as cited in my recent post. But here's what Miss Lombard had to say:
"I like superior men," Carole Lombard says
By Carole Lombard
I could never admire a man unless he were superior to me in most ways, rather domineering in manner, and a much better player than worker.
To women who make their way in the world, directly competing with the homo sapiens, this may smack of lese majeste. So an explanation should be forthcoming.
In the process of evolution, affected by the sociologic scheme of things, man has had the advantage of development -- physically and mentally. This situation may be reversed a thousand years from now. But at present, with woman's emancipation a recent event, man is considered the superior animal....
Read the rest of the short piece at the link.
For those who are not classic movie fans as I am, and who thus don't know about Carole Lombard, you can read something of her here. She was one of the more fascinating actresses in a time when there were many memorable actresses (and actors) in Hollywood. She was a great beauty in her time, and she died a tragic death in a plane crash, leaving behind her grieving husband, Clark Gable.
She was known as something of a free spirit, very individualistic, and I suppose in today's world she might be classified as a feminist:
Carole was born Jane Alice Peters, 1908, the daughter of Frederic Peters and Elizabeth Knight. Jane Alice was a bold, little tomboy. The tag-a-long little sister of her two older brothers, Stuart (1905-1956) and Frederic (1902-1979), demanded to be included in all neighborhood baseball and football games... to be thought of as an equal.But as you can see, believing in "equality" did not mean that she thought as feminists of today think.
It just illustrates how attitudes have changed since Lombard's time.
Many women of today look down on the women of her era as being downtrodden or unenlightened; I think the women of that era might beg to differ -- as do I.
Labels: American Culture, Classic Movies, Feminism
0 comment Sunday, July 6, 2014 | admin
In discussing popular culture, we often identify the 1960s as the decade in which everything began to change, and countercultural (leftist) ideas began to flood the media and particularly Hollywood movies. However, thinking back on the overall picture, I think a case can be made that the Left was at work over many decades, not just circa 1960 and onward.
Today, an oversimplified view prevails in which ''the hippies'' or the baby-boomers (for many they are synonymous) were the fount and origin of all the bad trends which flowed together to form the upside-down world we inhabit today. The baby-boom generation played their part, but they were mostly just picking up the torch passed on by their elders, who, if not liberal themselves, failed to recognize the liberal incrementalism that transformed things gradually .
Karl Marx and his ideas date back to the mid-19th century, and even before Marx, we can look back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, who were the forerunners of today's leftists. However the ideas that we call leftist or Marxist or socialist became more popular particularly around the time of the Great Depression. This is understandable, given the harsh economic conditions of the time; people were then more likely to listen to pseudo-populist radicals who preached redistribution of wealth.
The 'hippies' or counterculturists came along in the late 60s, not the early part of the decade. By the way, I don't remember ever hearing the word ''hippie'' until 1966, and the San Francisco 'flower child' movement appeared in earnest circa 1967.
The direct predecessors of the hippies were the beatniks, who were into Zen, existentialist philosophy and a freewheeling lifestyle. They differed somewhat from their hippie successors in being more intellectual and less interested in 'back to nature' movements.
But when both these groups were either not yet born, or wearing diapers, the Old Left was busy trying to bring on the Revolution, the uprising of the Proletariat, and usher in the socialist worker's paradise. The Communist Party had been active earlier, around the World War I years, and mass immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe brought many people with radical anarchist or communist ideas into this country, thus strengthening the leftist ranks.
During World War II, one can see how the government began to emphasize the proposition nation idea: we are all Americans if we believe in freedom and tolerance. And the war effort demanded that people of all races and creeds be united in order to win the war. There was considerable effort made towards integration of the races, and the promotion of what has become a shibboleth of our time, 'tolerance.' We can see this in some of the wartime movies and posters. We see the beginnings of multiculturalism in some of the images and rhetoric. See a video here illustrating what I mean.
While on the surface, the ideas seem benign, we can see around us the extremes which are pushed in the name of 'tolerance'. The idea that we are all the same, and differences don't matter, except to 'Nazis', is not true.
The movies of the 1940s seemed to show an increase in ethnic characters -- especially the war movies, in which every platoon or ship's crew had to be a cross-section: an Irishman, a Pole with a name ending in '-ski', an Italian, a plain generic 'American'. Optional: an American Indian talking in slang, a wisecracking Jewish character or a Southerner with a funny drawl, any of which provided 'comic relief.'
The postwar years saw movies dealing with interethnic 'prejudice,' like Gentlemen's Agreement.
The 1950s brought an increase in movies which dealt with the seamy side of life, specifically drug addiction, such as The Man With the Golden Arm, Monkey on My Back, and A Hatful of Rain, the latter two being released in 1957.
At the time, movies on such subjects were touted as 'frank, honest' or 'shocking.' Perhaps they were more reality-oriented than the relatively wholesome entertainment of the previous few decades, but this fixation on sleaze and ugliness became a permanent one in Hollywood as time went on.
Much as we think the 1950s were the decade of Sandra Dee and Doris Day, wholesomeness personified, Hollywood was leaning more towards the 'frank' type of film, with increasing portrayals of the dark side. Even teen films began to focus on illicit sex, pregnancy, and abortion, such as Blue Denim, in 1959, or A Summer Place in that same year.
Films involving bigotry became quite the vogue in the 50s. There were movies about racial deception, or ''passing for White'', films like Pinky, (which actually was a 1949 movie), Imitation of Life, and Showboat.
Other movies that explored the racial theme (from a leftist, politically correct angle, of course) were, oddly, a couple of science fiction movies, notably The World, The Flesh, and The Devil, from 1959. That movie had three survivors of a nuclear attack -- one White woman, played by Swedish actress Inger Stevens, one White man, and one black man. Dilemma: who gets the girl?
I had incorrectly remembered Sidney Poitier as the black man, but reading the IMDB page shows that it was calypso singer Harry Belafonte who played the role.
This comment from IMDB shows the typical PC reaction:
A very thought provoking movie that was not accepted at the time, but in retrospect, way way ahead of its time. In a racially charged world it put forth the premise that race, in the final analysis, is superficial and meaningless. Once you strip away the layers of conditioning and socialization, you find, at the core, good and evil and the age old struggle as to which will prevail. A simple story, told directly and honestly. On a scale of 1 to 10, its an 11.''
Yes, so even in 1959, those Hollywood writers (who were not really communists, honest) were busy little bees promoting radically different ideas, ideas which were in sharp conflict with traditional America. But it was all done with noble motives, you see, so it was for our good that our brains have been washed.
Another movie dealing with 'bigotry' was Pressure Point, in which singer/actor Bobby Darin played some kind of right-wing extremist. His performance was hailed, but the message was sledge-hammer subtle.
Stanley Kramer was kind of a one-man message-film industry in the 50s and onward, with movies like The Defiant Ones, with Sidney Poitier (or was it Belafonte again?) and Tony Curtis handcuffed together in mutual hate, but they learn to get along to survive. Very subtle symbolism there; about as subtle as Star Trek's "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."
Movies of both the 50s and the early 60s had pushed the envelope regarding sexuality, and there were early explorations not only of illicit heterosexual relationships (adultery, incest, even 'child brides' as in Baby Doll) but the subject of homosexuality was brought in in movies like Suddenly, Last Summer.
All of this was done under the guise of 'frankness' and 'honesty', and much was written and said about how the Europeans were ever so much more advanced and enlightened than the inhibited and repressed Anglo-Saxon Christian countries. The Scandinavian countries in particular were much admired by the left and the sophisticated urban set for their open and loose sexual mores.
I can remember, as a teenager, reading articles about how in Denmark and Sweden, sex crimes were few and far between, so if we adopted their free-and-easy sexual attitudes, we would have few to no sex crimes. Everybody would be so free of inhibitions and Victorian repression, and thus nobody would feel the need to commit rape or to molest anybody. We all know how that worked out.
I can't leave out the other prominent them of movies in the 50s and 60s: atomic warfare or nuclear annihilation; World War III. These were the days of 'mutually assured destruction', of talk of nuclear strikes and red phones and the possibility of a mistaken launch of nuclear missiles. Those themes were explored in movies like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, On the Beach, and others.
Science fiction movies of the time often dealt with post-nuclear holocaust scenarios, or 'atomic mutations' with human beings exposed to radiation becoming giants ("The Amazing Colossal Man") or monsters of some sort.
The Day the Earth Stood Still, a favorite of liberal peaceniks, has a benevolent and wise alien coming to teach erring humanity to behave themselves, and stop all that fighting, or else -- or else the benevolent, peaceful aliens will blast us all to smithereens, which is no more than what we human warmongers deserve. There is a little irony in the message of that film which seems to escape the lefties. Actually, I enjoy the movie, despite its odd message.
Most of the trends and ideas which have come together to make our present-day world the crazy place that it is are present and very visible by the 1950s, and in fact had their origins much further back than that.
1960, however, is sort of an identifiable turning point for popular culture, in which we see things taking shape much more clearly, and by the mid-60s, around the time of the JFK assassination and the emergence of the Beatles, we see the budding counterculture coming into position.
When it comes to watching movies, I find the 1960s, if not the latter 1950s, as being the time when the old America truly began to vanish, bit by bit, and the new 'America' began to take its place.
I tend to avoid movies made from the 1960s onward. I often find it hard to understand how anyone who is not a dedicated leftist multiculturalist can endure watching much of what has been produced in recent decades. I admit to being a purist, but too often I detect the scent of decay about popular culture after the early 1960s.
Today, an oversimplified view prevails in which ''the hippies'' or the baby-boomers (for many they are synonymous) were the fount and origin of all the bad trends which flowed together to form the upside-down world we inhabit today. The baby-boom generation played their part, but they were mostly just picking up the torch passed on by their elders, who, if not liberal themselves, failed to recognize the liberal incrementalism that transformed things gradually .
Karl Marx and his ideas date back to the mid-19th century, and even before Marx, we can look back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, who were the forerunners of today's leftists. However the ideas that we call leftist or Marxist or socialist became more popular particularly around the time of the Great Depression. This is understandable, given the harsh economic conditions of the time; people were then more likely to listen to pseudo-populist radicals who preached redistribution of wealth.
The 'hippies' or counterculturists came along in the late 60s, not the early part of the decade. By the way, I don't remember ever hearing the word ''hippie'' until 1966, and the San Francisco 'flower child' movement appeared in earnest circa 1967.
The direct predecessors of the hippies were the beatniks, who were into Zen, existentialist philosophy and a freewheeling lifestyle. They differed somewhat from their hippie successors in being more intellectual and less interested in 'back to nature' movements.
But when both these groups were either not yet born, or wearing diapers, the Old Left was busy trying to bring on the Revolution, the uprising of the Proletariat, and usher in the socialist worker's paradise. The Communist Party had been active earlier, around the World War I years, and mass immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe brought many people with radical anarchist or communist ideas into this country, thus strengthening the leftist ranks.
During World War II, one can see how the government began to emphasize the proposition nation idea: we are all Americans if we believe in freedom and tolerance. And the war effort demanded that people of all races and creeds be united in order to win the war. There was considerable effort made towards integration of the races, and the promotion of what has become a shibboleth of our time, 'tolerance.' We can see this in some of the wartime movies and posters. We see the beginnings of multiculturalism in some of the images and rhetoric. See a video here illustrating what I mean.
While on the surface, the ideas seem benign, we can see around us the extremes which are pushed in the name of 'tolerance'. The idea that we are all the same, and differences don't matter, except to 'Nazis', is not true.
The movies of the 1940s seemed to show an increase in ethnic characters -- especially the war movies, in which every platoon or ship's crew had to be a cross-section: an Irishman, a Pole with a name ending in '-ski', an Italian, a plain generic 'American'. Optional: an American Indian talking in slang, a wisecracking Jewish character or a Southerner with a funny drawl, any of which provided 'comic relief.'
The postwar years saw movies dealing with interethnic 'prejudice,' like Gentlemen's Agreement.
The 1950s brought an increase in movies which dealt with the seamy side of life, specifically drug addiction, such as The Man With the Golden Arm, Monkey on My Back, and A Hatful of Rain, the latter two being released in 1957.
At the time, movies on such subjects were touted as 'frank, honest' or 'shocking.' Perhaps they were more reality-oriented than the relatively wholesome entertainment of the previous few decades, but this fixation on sleaze and ugliness became a permanent one in Hollywood as time went on.
Much as we think the 1950s were the decade of Sandra Dee and Doris Day, wholesomeness personified, Hollywood was leaning more towards the 'frank' type of film, with increasing portrayals of the dark side. Even teen films began to focus on illicit sex, pregnancy, and abortion, such as Blue Denim, in 1959, or A Summer Place in that same year.
Films involving bigotry became quite the vogue in the 50s. There were movies about racial deception, or ''passing for White'', films like Pinky, (which actually was a 1949 movie), Imitation of Life, and Showboat.
Other movies that explored the racial theme (from a leftist, politically correct angle, of course) were, oddly, a couple of science fiction movies, notably The World, The Flesh, and The Devil, from 1959. That movie had three survivors of a nuclear attack -- one White woman, played by Swedish actress Inger Stevens, one White man, and one black man. Dilemma: who gets the girl?
I had incorrectly remembered Sidney Poitier as the black man, but reading the IMDB page shows that it was calypso singer Harry Belafonte who played the role.
This comment from IMDB shows the typical PC reaction:
A very thought provoking movie that was not accepted at the time, but in retrospect, way way ahead of its time. In a racially charged world it put forth the premise that race, in the final analysis, is superficial and meaningless. Once you strip away the layers of conditioning and socialization, you find, at the core, good and evil and the age old struggle as to which will prevail. A simple story, told directly and honestly. On a scale of 1 to 10, its an 11.''
Yes, so even in 1959, those Hollywood writers (who were not really communists, honest) were busy little bees promoting radically different ideas, ideas which were in sharp conflict with traditional America. But it was all done with noble motives, you see, so it was for our good that our brains have been washed.
Another movie dealing with 'bigotry' was Pressure Point, in which singer/actor Bobby Darin played some kind of right-wing extremist. His performance was hailed, but the message was sledge-hammer subtle.
Stanley Kramer was kind of a one-man message-film industry in the 50s and onward, with movies like The Defiant Ones, with Sidney Poitier (or was it Belafonte again?) and Tony Curtis handcuffed together in mutual hate, but they learn to get along to survive. Very subtle symbolism there; about as subtle as Star Trek's "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."
Movies of both the 50s and the early 60s had pushed the envelope regarding sexuality, and there were early explorations not only of illicit heterosexual relationships (adultery, incest, even 'child brides' as in Baby Doll) but the subject of homosexuality was brought in in movies like Suddenly, Last Summer.
All of this was done under the guise of 'frankness' and 'honesty', and much was written and said about how the Europeans were ever so much more advanced and enlightened than the inhibited and repressed Anglo-Saxon Christian countries. The Scandinavian countries in particular were much admired by the left and the sophisticated urban set for their open and loose sexual mores.
I can remember, as a teenager, reading articles about how in Denmark and Sweden, sex crimes were few and far between, so if we adopted their free-and-easy sexual attitudes, we would have few to no sex crimes. Everybody would be so free of inhibitions and Victorian repression, and thus nobody would feel the need to commit rape or to molest anybody. We all know how that worked out.
I can't leave out the other prominent them of movies in the 50s and 60s: atomic warfare or nuclear annihilation; World War III. These were the days of 'mutually assured destruction', of talk of nuclear strikes and red phones and the possibility of a mistaken launch of nuclear missiles. Those themes were explored in movies like Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, On the Beach, and others.
Science fiction movies of the time often dealt with post-nuclear holocaust scenarios, or 'atomic mutations' with human beings exposed to radiation becoming giants ("The Amazing Colossal Man") or monsters of some sort.
The Day the Earth Stood Still, a favorite of liberal peaceniks, has a benevolent and wise alien coming to teach erring humanity to behave themselves, and stop all that fighting, or else -- or else the benevolent, peaceful aliens will blast us all to smithereens, which is no more than what we human warmongers deserve. There is a little irony in the message of that film which seems to escape the lefties. Actually, I enjoy the movie, despite its odd message.
Most of the trends and ideas which have come together to make our present-day world the crazy place that it is are present and very visible by the 1950s, and in fact had their origins much further back than that.
1960, however, is sort of an identifiable turning point for popular culture, in which we see things taking shape much more clearly, and by the mid-60s, around the time of the JFK assassination and the emergence of the Beatles, we see the budding counterculture coming into position.
When it comes to watching movies, I find the 1960s, if not the latter 1950s, as being the time when the old America truly began to vanish, bit by bit, and the new 'America' began to take its place.
I tend to avoid movies made from the 1960s onward. I often find it hard to understand how anyone who is not a dedicated leftist multiculturalist can endure watching much of what has been produced in recent decades. I admit to being a purist, but too often I detect the scent of decay about popular culture after the early 1960s.
Labels: Classic Movies, Cultural Marxism, Hollywood, Media Bias, Old Movies, Popular Culture, Propaganda
0 comment Friday, June 20, 2014 | admin
A few lines from old movies can speak volumes. I find a lot of inspiration in the vanished America of the classic movies, especially in these times in which it is so easy to become disillusioned with my fellow man.
I recently saw the Frank Capra movie, 'Meet John Doe.' I've seen it many times; it's a favorite, as are many of Capra's films. Some of the dialogue particularly seemed to resonate in view of what is befalling our country lately.
For instance, take these lines from John Doe's speech:
''They've started a lot of talk about free people going soft�that we can't take it. That's a lot of hooey! . . . A free people can beat the world at anything, from war to tiddle-de-winks, if we all pull in the same direction!
I know a lot of you are saying "What can I do? I'm just a little punk. I don't count." Well, you're dead wrong! The little punks have always counted because in the long run the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks."
Connell: Yessir, I'm a sucker for this country.
I'm a sucker for the Star-Spangled Banner - and I'm a sucker for this country.
I like what we got here! I like it!
A guy can say what he wants -- and do what he wants - without having a bayonet shoved through his belly.
Now, that's all right, isn't it?
John Doe: You betcha.
Connell: All right. And we don't want anybody coming around and changing it, do we?
John: No, sir.
Connell: No, sir. And when they do, I get mad! I get b-boiling mad! And right now, John, I'm sizzling!
I get mad for a lot of other guys besides myself -- I get mad for a guy named Washington! And a guy
named Jefferson -- and Lincoln! Lighthouses, John! Lighthouses, in a foggy world! You know what I mean?
John: Yeah, you bet!
And in a later scene: at 'evil capitalist' D.B. Norton's home:
Norton: These are daring times, Mr. Barrington. We're coming to a New Order of things.
And in the last scene - the final line of dialogue is spoken by newspaperman Connell. His words:
There you are, Norton! The people! Try and lick that. Come on, Colonel.'
And recently I also happened to catch part of a 1943 movie titled The Human Comedy, based on the William Saroyan work of the same name. The Human Comedy, like many of the movies of that era, reflected an idyllic, small-town America: it was a slower-paced America, an America of neighborliness and decency, an America which was still patriotic and unapologetic about it. That America was also Christian and unashamed of it.
I'm amazed at how few people have seen the classic old movies like this one; lots of people have seen 'Gone With the Wind' or 'Casablanca' but not the more obscure films. In our age, with so much emphasis on style rather than on content, people prefer the newer movies which are technically superior, flashier, louder, cruder, more over-the-top. There's not much of an audience, it seems, for the old movies which were gentler, subtler, slower-paced.
I've seen 'The Human Comedy' before; I've been an old-movie fan since my childhood, when I first saw many of the real classics on TV. During my growing-up years, we read some Saroyan in 9th-grade English class, and I enjoyed his writing. Some English teachers criticized his writing style for its artificiality, for its kind of artificial demotic quality, as of an 'artist' trying to write like an ordinary Joe. His dialogue seems now to be a little unnatural, not like the real speech of real people. But be that as it may, I am always touched by this movie.
Another rather quirky movie based on Saroyan's work is The Time of Your Life, from 1948. Like 'The Human Comedy, rather than being a traditionally structured movie, it is a series of vignettes, in which the characters are the story, and the stylized dialogue makes the movies more enjoyable and memorable, to me. I recommend them to anyone who likes old movies, or is open-minded and patient enough to try them.
When we see these movies, based on Saroyan's works, today, they seem to embody something distinctively American, and in an increasingly deracinated and cosmopolitan world, this makes these movies seem quaint. Obviously some of the commenters at IMDB.com found the movies 'corny', sentimental, cloying, excessively patriotic, judging by the discussion there. I confess I didn't read all the comments; reading those kinds of complaints from the usual crowd of jaundice-eyed leftists and cynical, jaded youngsters who grew up in another America is a depressing way to spend time. So I chose not to read all of it; I got the general idea from a scan of the comments.
Saroyan himself was apparently a leftist, and later in his life, in 1961,he wrote:
I am an estranged man, said the liar: estranged from myself, from my family, my fellow man, my country, my world, my time, and my culture. I am not estranged from God, although I am a disbeliever in everything about God excepting God indefinable, inside all and careless of all."
So Saroyan, if he had lived to see this day, might have more in common with those leftists who sneer at the 'sentimentality' and 'propaganda' in his 1940s films. But if he was estranged and bitter when he wrote those earlier works, it did not show. The movies reflect a love for America and a faith in the American spirit and in the American people. That is what I find so moving in this day when even many 'conservatives' are 'estranged' from all those corny old values.
One little vignette in The Human Comedy which strikes me now is the scene in which Van Johnson, as 'Marcus McCaulay' is on a train with his fellow soldiers, as they begin the first leg of their long journey to the European front, presumably. A fellow soldier asks him to lead them all in an 'old church song, like the ones we all sang when we were kids'. Someone calls out for 'Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.' As the camera pans across the faces of many of the young soldiers, singing this hymn, it's very moving. It may be that you have to be a Christian, and familiar with this hymn, for it to be evocative. But I would think that anyone could be touched by that scene. Would any such scene be included in any modern movie? No; it might offend a stray atheist or agnostic or Moslem or Zoroastrian. Even if no one saw fit to get offended, it would be thought too 'corny.' And these days, probably fewer people, especially among the younger generation, know a song like 'Leaning'. But in 1943 most Americans were familiar with it, at least, those of a Christian background, which meant most people. And even Catholics, who did not sing these hymns in Church then, were familiar with them, or had heard them. But now we no longer have such commonalities, and a basic culture, assumed among all Americans, that brings us together. We are now 'diverse' and that comes at the cost of unity.
There are no more movies of this kind being made; any attempt at wholesome, pro-American movies of this kind seems fake and insincere in the cynical era we live in. Every so often someone will recommend a movie to me which supposedly celebrates the 'old values' and I find it to be empty and soulless. The spirit that animated the old movies of this type no longer exists, not in Hollywood, at any rate.
Another movie from the same era which I recently saw was Frank Capra's 'Meet John Doe', from 1941. Like the Saroyan stories, Capra's movies are nowadays accused of being over-sentimental, corny, and propagandistic, (although the leftists object less to Capra's populist messages, which are seen as anti-capitalist). But Capra, like Saroyan, seems to have truly loved America and the common American people. The leftists, many of whom apparently like 'John Doe' because of its anti-'fascist', anti-capitalist message, are no longer the champions of the Little Guy, who was always the hero of Capra's movies. Liberals and Democrats may talk the populist talk, but they are as much the creatures of moneyed special interests and big corporations who fund their leftist crusades as are the GOP. So the 'little guy', the common man who was still valued in the days when Capra and Saroyan were doing their best work, has no champion in this era of celebrities and globalist billionaires and aggressive 'victims'. The common man is persona non grata in Hollywood movies now just as in the Beltway.
The common man is abandoned.
The patriotism of the Depression and WWII eras was based on loyalty to the American past as well as love for and faith in one's fellow Americans. Now, what passes as 'patriotism' for many, especially Republicans, is mere loyalty to the President or to the GOP, and supporting the 'War on Terror' unconditionally. Americans in general tend to identify more with a political party or other group and less with the American people in general. There is much more distrust among Americans than there was when I was a child, and certainly more than in the 1930s and 1940s, when Capra was making most of his movies.
As I'm fond of saying here, the past is another country, and each generation seems to be further and further removed from the America of the 1940s, or even the America I grew up in. As long as we continue to trade our commonality and our shared past and heritage for 'diversity', America will increasingly be a place filled with people who are estranged from their past and their country, just as William Saroyan said he was, ironically. And maybe it's ironic -- or maybe not -- that Saroyan was something of an early proponent of 'diversity' and multiculturalism, being a hyphenated 'Armenian-American.' It is said that his remains were divided between Armenia and America. Even in death, he was not fully devoted to America. Maybe such divided loyalties were the reason for his eventual complete estrangement and bitterness.
Sadly, maybe he was more symbolic of the 'new America' , the America that was yet to come when he wrote his stories, than he realized. His America of the common man, and Capra's America in which 'the little punks always counted', are seemingly gone, except perhaps in a few isolated places where the larger, more chaotic world has not yet forced its way in.
In a world which is increasinly foggy and in which the dark seems to be gathering, we need those 'lighthouses', the great men and ideals of our past, more than ever, and we also need the 'little punks' to do their part. 'John Doe' spoke the truth when he said that 'the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks.' We still have the potential, in the character of the best of our people, to recover much of what was lost, if we only know where to look for it.
I recently saw the Frank Capra movie, 'Meet John Doe.' I've seen it many times; it's a favorite, as are many of Capra's films. Some of the dialogue particularly seemed to resonate in view of what is befalling our country lately.
For instance, take these lines from John Doe's speech:
''They've started a lot of talk about free people going soft�that we can't take it. That's a lot of hooey! . . . A free people can beat the world at anything, from war to tiddle-de-winks, if we all pull in the same direction!
I know a lot of you are saying "What can I do? I'm just a little punk. I don't count." Well, you're dead wrong! The little punks have always counted because in the long run the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks."
Connell: Yessir, I'm a sucker for this country.
I'm a sucker for the Star-Spangled Banner - and I'm a sucker for this country.
I like what we got here! I like it!
A guy can say what he wants -- and do what he wants - without having a bayonet shoved through his belly.
Now, that's all right, isn't it?
John Doe: You betcha.
Connell: All right. And we don't want anybody coming around and changing it, do we?
John: No, sir.
Connell: No, sir. And when they do, I get mad! I get b-boiling mad! And right now, John, I'm sizzling!
I get mad for a lot of other guys besides myself -- I get mad for a guy named Washington! And a guy
named Jefferson -- and Lincoln! Lighthouses, John! Lighthouses, in a foggy world! You know what I mean?
John: Yeah, you bet!
And in a later scene: at 'evil capitalist' D.B. Norton's home:
Norton: These are daring times, Mr. Barrington. We're coming to a New Order of things.
And in the last scene - the final line of dialogue is spoken by newspaperman Connell. His words:
There you are, Norton! The people! Try and lick that. Come on, Colonel.'
And recently I also happened to catch part of a 1943 movie titled The Human Comedy, based on the William Saroyan work of the same name. The Human Comedy, like many of the movies of that era, reflected an idyllic, small-town America: it was a slower-paced America, an America of neighborliness and decency, an America which was still patriotic and unapologetic about it. That America was also Christian and unashamed of it.
I'm amazed at how few people have seen the classic old movies like this one; lots of people have seen 'Gone With the Wind' or 'Casablanca' but not the more obscure films. In our age, with so much emphasis on style rather than on content, people prefer the newer movies which are technically superior, flashier, louder, cruder, more over-the-top. There's not much of an audience, it seems, for the old movies which were gentler, subtler, slower-paced.
I've seen 'The Human Comedy' before; I've been an old-movie fan since my childhood, when I first saw many of the real classics on TV. During my growing-up years, we read some Saroyan in 9th-grade English class, and I enjoyed his writing. Some English teachers criticized his writing style for its artificiality, for its kind of artificial demotic quality, as of an 'artist' trying to write like an ordinary Joe. His dialogue seems now to be a little unnatural, not like the real speech of real people. But be that as it may, I am always touched by this movie.
Another rather quirky movie based on Saroyan's work is The Time of Your Life, from 1948. Like 'The Human Comedy, rather than being a traditionally structured movie, it is a series of vignettes, in which the characters are the story, and the stylized dialogue makes the movies more enjoyable and memorable, to me. I recommend them to anyone who likes old movies, or is open-minded and patient enough to try them.
When we see these movies, based on Saroyan's works, today, they seem to embody something distinctively American, and in an increasingly deracinated and cosmopolitan world, this makes these movies seem quaint. Obviously some of the commenters at IMDB.com found the movies 'corny', sentimental, cloying, excessively patriotic, judging by the discussion there. I confess I didn't read all the comments; reading those kinds of complaints from the usual crowd of jaundice-eyed leftists and cynical, jaded youngsters who grew up in another America is a depressing way to spend time. So I chose not to read all of it; I got the general idea from a scan of the comments.
Saroyan himself was apparently a leftist, and later in his life, in 1961,he wrote:
I am an estranged man, said the liar: estranged from myself, from my family, my fellow man, my country, my world, my time, and my culture. I am not estranged from God, although I am a disbeliever in everything about God excepting God indefinable, inside all and careless of all."
So Saroyan, if he had lived to see this day, might have more in common with those leftists who sneer at the 'sentimentality' and 'propaganda' in his 1940s films. But if he was estranged and bitter when he wrote those earlier works, it did not show. The movies reflect a love for America and a faith in the American spirit and in the American people. That is what I find so moving in this day when even many 'conservatives' are 'estranged' from all those corny old values.
One little vignette in The Human Comedy which strikes me now is the scene in which Van Johnson, as 'Marcus McCaulay' is on a train with his fellow soldiers, as they begin the first leg of their long journey to the European front, presumably. A fellow soldier asks him to lead them all in an 'old church song, like the ones we all sang when we were kids'. Someone calls out for 'Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.' As the camera pans across the faces of many of the young soldiers, singing this hymn, it's very moving. It may be that you have to be a Christian, and familiar with this hymn, for it to be evocative. But I would think that anyone could be touched by that scene. Would any such scene be included in any modern movie? No; it might offend a stray atheist or agnostic or Moslem or Zoroastrian. Even if no one saw fit to get offended, it would be thought too 'corny.' And these days, probably fewer people, especially among the younger generation, know a song like 'Leaning'. But in 1943 most Americans were familiar with it, at least, those of a Christian background, which meant most people. And even Catholics, who did not sing these hymns in Church then, were familiar with them, or had heard them. But now we no longer have such commonalities, and a basic culture, assumed among all Americans, that brings us together. We are now 'diverse' and that comes at the cost of unity.
There are no more movies of this kind being made; any attempt at wholesome, pro-American movies of this kind seems fake and insincere in the cynical era we live in. Every so often someone will recommend a movie to me which supposedly celebrates the 'old values' and I find it to be empty and soulless. The spirit that animated the old movies of this type no longer exists, not in Hollywood, at any rate.
Another movie from the same era which I recently saw was Frank Capra's 'Meet John Doe', from 1941. Like the Saroyan stories, Capra's movies are nowadays accused of being over-sentimental, corny, and propagandistic, (although the leftists object less to Capra's populist messages, which are seen as anti-capitalist). But Capra, like Saroyan, seems to have truly loved America and the common American people. The leftists, many of whom apparently like 'John Doe' because of its anti-'fascist', anti-capitalist message, are no longer the champions of the Little Guy, who was always the hero of Capra's movies. Liberals and Democrats may talk the populist talk, but they are as much the creatures of moneyed special interests and big corporations who fund their leftist crusades as are the GOP. So the 'little guy', the common man who was still valued in the days when Capra and Saroyan were doing their best work, has no champion in this era of celebrities and globalist billionaires and aggressive 'victims'. The common man is persona non grata in Hollywood movies now just as in the Beltway.
The common man is abandoned.
The patriotism of the Depression and WWII eras was based on loyalty to the American past as well as love for and faith in one's fellow Americans. Now, what passes as 'patriotism' for many, especially Republicans, is mere loyalty to the President or to the GOP, and supporting the 'War on Terror' unconditionally. Americans in general tend to identify more with a political party or other group and less with the American people in general. There is much more distrust among Americans than there was when I was a child, and certainly more than in the 1930s and 1940s, when Capra was making most of his movies.
As I'm fond of saying here, the past is another country, and each generation seems to be further and further removed from the America of the 1940s, or even the America I grew up in. As long as we continue to trade our commonality and our shared past and heritage for 'diversity', America will increasingly be a place filled with people who are estranged from their past and their country, just as William Saroyan said he was, ironically. And maybe it's ironic -- or maybe not -- that Saroyan was something of an early proponent of 'diversity' and multiculturalism, being a hyphenated 'Armenian-American.' It is said that his remains were divided between Armenia and America. Even in death, he was not fully devoted to America. Maybe such divided loyalties were the reason for his eventual complete estrangement and bitterness.
Sadly, maybe he was more symbolic of the 'new America' , the America that was yet to come when he wrote his stories, than he realized. His America of the common man, and Capra's America in which 'the little punks always counted', are seemingly gone, except perhaps in a few isolated places where the larger, more chaotic world has not yet forced its way in.
In a world which is increasinly foggy and in which the dark seems to be gathering, we need those 'lighthouses', the great men and ideals of our past, more than ever, and we also need the 'little punks' to do their part. 'John Doe' spoke the truth when he said that 'the character of a country is the sum total of the character of its little punks.' We still have the potential, in the character of the best of our people, to recover much of what was lost, if we only know where to look for it.
Labels: American Culture, American History, Classic Movies, Patriotism
0 comment Monday, June 2, 2014 | admin
Here is a list of the '100 Best British Films', according to 150 'experts', people in the film industry. I find these kinds of lists interesting, even though I usually don't agree with many of the choices made. Now, if the results were based on the movie-watching public's assessment, that would be more interesting to read, for me, although I think I could predict what the popular choices would be.
When such lists are based on critics' preferences, I usually find that I haven't even seen many of the films in question, since I more or less boycott movies today, and have not watched most new releases for many years. But as it happens, I've seen a few of the films on the list, namely, the following:
The Railway Children (1970)
School for Scoundrels (1960)
Zulu (1964)
Night and the City (1950)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
I'm Alright Jack (1959)
Dr No (1962)
Billy Liar (1963)
Piccadilly (1929)
The Man in the White Suit (1951)
Dead of Night (1945)
Whisky Galore! (1949)
Blackmail (1929)
Gregory's Girl (1981)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974)
Local Hero (1983)
The Fallen Idol (1948)
The Ladykillers (1955)
The Wicker Man (1973)
I Know Where I'm Going! (1945)
Great Expectations (1946)
The Innocents (1961)
A Canterbury Tale (1944)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
Black Narcissus (1947)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
The Third Man (1949)
I blogged in the past about the film 'A Canterbury Tale', which I enjoyed. There are a few well-liked ones among the ones I listed above, films that I've seen more than once, like The Ladykillers, The Man in the White Suit, I Know Where I'm Going, and Great Expectations.
Another movie I've watched several times, and found compelling, was Black Narcissus. Beautiful cinematography, unusual story.
The movie 'Zulu' impressed me more than I expected, as I had thought that political correctness had already set in by then, but it had not yet got its death-grip on our world in 1964.
As always, it's the older movies that I prefer, and generally the older the better. The oldest one on that list that I've seen is Piccadilly, which was not a movie I would watch more than once, but the 1920s has a certain allure for me.
The Third Man is #2 on the list, and I suppose deservedly so. It held my interest, though to me the setting (post-war Vienna, looking rather grim and depressing) and the characters were not especially sympathetic. But like most of Orson Welles' movies, it was interesting, though not very likeable.
There are a couple of my favorites that were not on the list, such as The Lavender Hill Mob and The Four Feathers. But then it's all fairly subjective, isn't it? I can see that a given movie may be technically impressive but if I don't become absorbed in the characters and the story, it will not be on my list of best movies.
I do notice that most people's favorites are the newer ones. It seems that for most audiences today, what matters is the technical wizardry, or the sensationalistic aspects: bigger, louder, more. There's not much taste for subtlety or nuance or understatement. Everything must be over the top and excessive or people say it's 'boring.'
What do you say? Would your list be similar to this one?
When such lists are based on critics' preferences, I usually find that I haven't even seen many of the films in question, since I more or less boycott movies today, and have not watched most new releases for many years. But as it happens, I've seen a few of the films on the list, namely, the following:
The Railway Children (1970)
School for Scoundrels (1960)
Zulu (1964)
Night and the City (1950)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
I'm Alright Jack (1959)
Dr No (1962)
Billy Liar (1963)
Piccadilly (1929)
The Man in the White Suit (1951)
Dead of Night (1945)
Whisky Galore! (1949)
Blackmail (1929)
Gregory's Girl (1981)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974)
Local Hero (1983)
The Fallen Idol (1948)
The Ladykillers (1955)
The Wicker Man (1973)
I Know Where I'm Going! (1945)
Great Expectations (1946)
The Innocents (1961)
A Canterbury Tale (1944)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
Black Narcissus (1947)
Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)
The Third Man (1949)
I blogged in the past about the film 'A Canterbury Tale', which I enjoyed. There are a few well-liked ones among the ones I listed above, films that I've seen more than once, like The Ladykillers, The Man in the White Suit, I Know Where I'm Going, and Great Expectations.
Another movie I've watched several times, and found compelling, was Black Narcissus. Beautiful cinematography, unusual story.
The movie 'Zulu' impressed me more than I expected, as I had thought that political correctness had already set in by then, but it had not yet got its death-grip on our world in 1964.
As always, it's the older movies that I prefer, and generally the older the better. The oldest one on that list that I've seen is Piccadilly, which was not a movie I would watch more than once, but the 1920s has a certain allure for me.
The Third Man is #2 on the list, and I suppose deservedly so. It held my interest, though to me the setting (post-war Vienna, looking rather grim and depressing) and the characters were not especially sympathetic. But like most of Orson Welles' movies, it was interesting, though not very likeable.
There are a couple of my favorites that were not on the list, such as The Lavender Hill Mob and The Four Feathers. But then it's all fairly subjective, isn't it? I can see that a given movie may be technically impressive but if I don't become absorbed in the characters and the story, it will not be on my list of best movies.
I do notice that most people's favorites are the newer ones. It seems that for most audiences today, what matters is the technical wizardry, or the sensationalistic aspects: bigger, louder, more. There's not much taste for subtlety or nuance or understatement. Everything must be over the top and excessive or people say it's 'boring.'
What do you say? Would your list be similar to this one?
Labels: British Films, Classic Movies, Popular Culture