Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?

[Solo4114]

This is getting way off topic, but you're still wrong. You SEE it as racist, but that doesn't mean that it was. This is what happens when you try to apply modern sensibilities to every point in history equally. It doesn't work that way. At the time, it wasn't seen as racist. Your views today don't change the reality of yesterday. Now that's a pretty common thing, lots of people have done that over the years, but it was wrong for them just as it's wrong for you. You are assuming that you have the one and only definition that applies to everyone, everywhere and you're wrong.

This is also about the point that a lot of people have a strong emotional reaction to being proven wrong and either start throwing around incoherent threats or just run away to sulk somewhere else. Hopefully, you're better than that.



Is it racist today? Sure. Was it then? Nope. Your views today are entirely irrelevant to the views of the past, just like, in another 20-30 years, when future people look back at what's thought acceptable today, they're not going to have a positive view of modern Americans. "Acceptable" is a constantly moving target. You are no more absolutely right today than anyone else has ever been. It just takes life experience to figure that out.

Honestly, there isn't a whole lot more to say in this, other than to acknowledge that you've fallen into every trap along the way. You don't have to agree with me because I don't care, but you've spent a lot of time declaring yourself to be right without ever once actually demonstrating that you are.

That's not really a good sign.

I really can't tell what your position is, to be honest, since it seems to shift back and forth.

On the one hand, you seem to acknowledge that views of what is and isn't racist or otherwise is/isn't acceptable change over time. I haven't disputed that. Perhaps the issue has been with my own description of these things as "that is racist" and you're honing in on the word "is". And perhaps the issue is that you ascribe a certain import to that word which I do not. When I say something "is" racist, I don't mean "and this concept of what constitutes racism shall be frozen in stone for all time, never to change." Obviously those kinds of sensibilities change. What I'm suggesting is that, by modern standards, those things are racist.

What I'm also suggesting is that, we can certainly evaluate old stuff through modern eyes. And the fact that it exists in an older context doesn't invalidate the modern viewing of it. Personally, I can hold both thoughts in my head simultaneously.

Charlie Chan films were a product of their time and were perfectly acceptable. And Charlie Chan films are, by modern standards, racist. So, too, with the Agatha Christie book title. To clarify, the original title of "And Then There Were None" was "Ten Little N-Words" (which I've obviously edited for content). If you're trying to argue that "Ten Little N-Words" isn't racist because it was fine in its day, well, that's just patently absurd and I don't get why you'd try to make that argument in the first place. Obviously it's racist by today's standards. And yes, obviously, back then, either nobody cared that it was racist, or nobody realized it. Or perhaps a mix of the two. That's how it got produced with that title, although shifting sensibilities eventually led to the title change.

To claim that an audience's views through modern sensibilities are entirely irrelevant to their experience of a piece of entertainment is likewise absurd. Of course they're relevant. Art and its interpretation isn't something that's frozen in amber at the moment of its creation. It's a constantly shifting understanding. By the same token, something initially viewed with disdain might later be realized to be a work of genius. Why? Because sensibilities change and the context of art grows -- it isn't fixed. So, yes, those older products were created within a particular context, and we as an audience exist beyond that context. But that doesn't invalidate our own experience of the art.

Put another way, there is no "one true" interpretation of this stuff. It's one of the more interesting aspects about art. Personally, I think understanding the history and historical context of art can enrich and expand one's understanding of that art. But that also doesn't mean that someone's experience of a piece of entertainment media isn't valid when they see it.

As I said way back in the thread, much of why I've bothered to have this discussion is to explain the thought process behind people who may look at something older and say "No thanks. Not for me." You can dismiss that as "mere feelings." Doesn't change that people are still going to pass on certain entertainment if they don't think it holds enough to interest them because their modern sensibilities make them view the art and entertainment in a particular way. And it doesn't make them somehow intellectually inferior just because they don't want to bother spending their time on something when it doesn't really offer anything for them because of these kinds of barriers. >shrug<

 

[Lightning]

Yes those things were acceptable back in the day, but any number of things that are unacceptable now didn't used to be. That doesn't make them OK then, it only explains the context in which they occurred. And to be frank, the context is $&#@ed up.

Wouldn't that work both ways? If what we think is racist makes people in the past racist retroactively, then wouldn't their judgement on stuff, like what is immoral, for example, be permanently fixed on all future people as well?

These actions clearly were OK to the mainstream then, so it doesn't make sense to say "that doesn't make them OK then". Remember when it was a thing a few years ago to go back into someone's old tweets and cancel them for jokes about things that we since decided were off limits? And how most people thought that was sort of unfair? It's the same thing on a different timescale.

To clarify, the original title of "And Then There Were None" was "Ten Little N-Words" (which I've obviously edited for content).

Thank you for clarifying, I'd only ever heard the intermediate title of Ten Little Indians, so I was slightly confused.

 

[blewis17]

I'm disappointed in the path this thread took. I didn't expect this when it started.

...my original thought in starting this thread, was to ask if others felt there was a perceivable shift/difference in the way that younger, modern audiences view media (specifically film and TV), given the onslaught of internet/streaming/hand held electronic devices that they essentially grow up with. Took the thought from watching my two children use their iPads at home. They are both great kids, straight A students, so I know that they are progressing on at least some intellectual level. But film and TV to them is VERY different than it was for me in the 1970s and 80s. It often doesn't hold the excitement or anticipation that it did for me as a child.

There has been some great discussion here, which seems to boil down to:
1) Art (created in any medium) is of course subjective; art is often more nuanced than initially perceived and it affects people differently;
2) Experience/knowledge about what came before is very helpful with understanding and interpreting "art", but by no means absolutely necessary for the (non)enjoyment of said art. However, knowledge overall seems to extend and deepen one's enjoyment.
3) The process of creating "art" has changed greatly in film and TV over the past 50 years, and although the final product may be lackluster, it still requires exceptional talents among multiple specialties to produce the final product. Often, this behind the scenes talent goes unrecognized;

Por ejemplo: When Bapty (or whoever) assembled the bits and bobs that made the hero Obi-Wan Kenobi lightsaber hilt from Star Wars, there was an "artistry" that went into the design. Some of it was trial and error; some if it was serendipity RE: what pieces would fit together. But I would hesitate to say that the people responsible for the design felt they were creating "art" at the time. They were doing their job, on a strict deadline.

Now here at The RPF, our understanding of HOW that saber design came to be, and the massive/ decades long research that went into identifying the totally obscure parts that were literally cobbled together over 45 years ago, and THEN to track down or painstakingly reproduce those parts to recreate that saber design... in my mind, that is a different type of "art", done mainly for its own sake, and definitely not done for mass consumption. A different level altogether, where that saber design now has a different type of beauty.

...I think back to the girl that broke my heart when I was in residency training. She was a professional singer and had traveled the world with a Christian vocal group, but was now back in her home town, working a menial job. She was an artist, although not currently using it as her profession. And then one night we went to a small club and she sang Jazz. And my perception and appreciation of her "art" changed forever. I fell for her so hard I'm surprised that I didn't get a concussion...

 

[Cephus]

Wouldn't that work both ways? If what we think is racist makes people in the past racist retroactively, then wouldn't their judgement on stuff, like what is immoral, for example, be permanently fixed on all future people as well?

We know that moral and ethical views change rather dramatically all the time and every generation thinks they're right because they're right because they want to be right. Then their children come along and tell them they were idiots for ever thinking that way. I have no clue how these snowflakes will respond when the next generation tries that with them.

If they were mature enough to breed and take responsibility for themselves, of course. Maybe we'll be spared that.

 

[pengbuzz]

We know that moral and ethical views change rather dramatically all the time and every generation thinks they're right because they're right because they want to be right. Then their children come along and tell them they were idiots for ever thinking that way. I have no clue how these snowflakes will respond when the next generation tries that with them.

If they were mature enough to breed and take responsibility for themselves, of course. Maybe we'll be spared that.

Probably the same way they respond to everything else; only, it will drive a major wedge between them and their kids, and they will be isolated both by the generation before them and the generation after them.

With that said: one thing I did learn in this discussion is who thinks along the same lines I do, and who uses emotion and manipulation to push their agenda, and try to get in edgewise by using emoticons to mock people. So with that, they can post and emoji all the wish, but thanks to adblock and ignore, I won't see it...

And I recommend the same for the rest of the folks here who prefer some common sense and a level playing field without moving goalposts.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Wouldn't that work both ways? If what we think is racist makes people in the past racist retroactively, then wouldn't their judgement on stuff, like what is immoral, for example, be permanently fixed on all future people as well?

This is an interesting idea, but unless someone is cracking open the necronomicon to bring them back and ask their opinion, I don't think it matters much.

Would they have defined that media as racist? Perhaps not. But we are not them, and we are not then. By the current way in which we define racism, a great deal of old media fits the bill. No one is saying you can't find things to enjoy in it, but by the same token, it would be disingenuous to expect other people, especially those who might feel the effects of that racism, to give it a pass.

These actions clearly were OK to the mainstream then, so it doesn't make sense to say "that doesn't make them OK then". Remember when it was a thing a few years ago to go back into someone's old tweets and cancel them for jokes about things that we since decided were off limits? And how most people thought that was sort of unfair? It's the same thing on a different timescale.

It's not really the same comparison, in my opinion. Certainly, you have a lot less leeway nowadays if you're a terrible person online. There wasn't an online then. On one hand, bad tweets tend to stick around the same way that old media does. But on the other, a person alive today has the potential to walk back or disavow things that they say or produce that don't reflect their current intent or mindset. A movie maker from 100 years ago is pretty stuck with whatever legacy they left on celluloid.

 

[Picard102]

I have no clue how these snowflakes will respond when the next generation tries that with them.

The same way every generation on the out cycle responds. Fingers in ears as they tell themselves they are right.

 

[Cephus]

Probably the same way they respond to everything else; only, it will drive a major wedge between them and their kids, and they will be isolated both by the generation before them and the generation after them.

With that said: one thing I did learn in this discussion is who thinks along the same lines I do, and who uses emotion and manipulation to push their agenda, and try to get in edgewise by using emoticons to mock people. So with that, they can post and emoji all the wish, but thanks to adblock and ignore, I won't see it...

And I recommend the same for the rest of the folks here who prefer some common sense and a level playing field without moving goalposts.

I guess that's something.

 

[Solo4114]

Wouldn't that work both ways? If what we think is racist makes people in the past racist retroactively, then wouldn't their judgement on stuff, like what is immoral, for example, be permanently fixed on all future people as well?

Not sure I follow? If the people in the past thought XYZ was immoral, that doesn't necessarily bind us today if we say "That's just goofy." Like, personally, I think blue laws that prohibit the sale of liquor on Sundays are goofy. In the past, people thought it immoral. And in the much further past, people drank alcohol because the water would kill you, so they drank it on Sundays, too.

If we're going to get into debates of morality, I think there's...rather a lot to unpack (And probably none of it really appropriate for discussion here), but at a baseline I think it requires careful interrogation of core moral principles. Where the discussion goes from there is another matter.

I will say, however, that I don't think that the rules -- whether codified in laws or simple social constructs -- by which we live are or ought to be fixed and immutable. They need to be examined over time and considered in what is then-modern context.

I think when it comes to things we look at in the past and declare to be immoral or wrong or worth criticism, we can still do all that while also understanding the context in which they came to be. That may not excuse them, but at least it provides a broader framework for evaluating them.

These actions clearly were OK to the mainstream then, so it doesn't make sense to say "that doesn't make them OK then".

I think it depends on the specifics, really. Some stuff may have been ok to the mainstream and it is still pretty clearly objectionable now, and we can and should say as much. But other stuff, well, yeah, just a product of the era, and maybe it is justifiable in that context. Like, we look at old medical procedures like bleeding people and, sure, it made sense in the context of the day, even though we'd now consider it barbaric. But we can't hold it against them because they literally didn't know any better and had no reason why they should have.

When it comes to various forms of oppression, though, even if there is an historical context for it, giving the past a pass just because it's the past and there's a context for it can sometimes be used to excuse related issues in the present. Which is, I suspect, a big part of why people who are younger have very little tolerance for the "Well, but you have to understand it as a product of its time" argument. They just aren't interested in that excuse, and to the extent that the excuse helps perpetuate related behavior, I can't say I blame them.

Remember when it was a thing a few years ago to go back into someone's old tweets and cancel them for jokes about things that we since decided were off limits? And how most people thought that was sort of unfair? It's the same thing on a different timescale.

I get why you might say that, but as was noted by Paul, the key difference is that someone who made offensive statements that are dug up from ages ago can learn, grow, change, and improve. They can show remorse for their actions, they can demonstrate how they're better people now, and we can judge them now for who they are today, even while we can also condemn their past behavior.

I mean, I've done things in my past that I look back on and think "Man, I was a real jerk in that instance." Is it fair to criticize me, even if in the context of the time when I was a jerk it wasn't something people would've objected to? Absolutely! If I grew and learned and am a better person today, though, then it's still unfair to make that incident in my past the sum total of who I am today. Assuming I can actually demonstrate all of that, and live by it, of course.

With the past, well, when it's far enough away, it's a dead letter and you don't get any more chances to be better. Your work is just your work and it gets judged by future generations without your further input.

Thank you for clarifying, I'd only ever heard the intermediate title of Ten Little Indians, so I was slightly confused.

No worries. It occurred to me that people might not be aware of just how blatant the title was, so I figured I'd at least allude to it.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

The same way every generation on the out cycle responds. Fingers in ears as they tell themselves they are right.

View attachment 1599886

When in reality both can learn a great deal from each other. If we're ever going to get anywhere youth and elders need to recognize the value in each other.

 

[Lightning]

Not sure I follow? If the people in the past thought XYZ was immoral, that doesn't necessarily bind us today if we say "That's just goofy."

Think of it like this: Action of Year X is judged by standard of Year Y, but nothing says X must be less than Y. So it would be hypocritical for us not to judge our actions in Year Y by the standards of Year X. But if it doesn't make sense to do that, then why does the reverse? The only thing that makes logical sense is to judge the action in Year X by the standard of Year X.

This doesn't allow the excusal of all behavior, you just need someone at the time to say it's bad, even if it's small number, what's important is the person doing the action knows that someone out there thinks it's bad. So the people who made the Charlie Chan movies need to know that someone out there thinks yellow face is offensive before I'd consider the criticism fair.

he key difference is that someone who made offensive statements that are dug up from ages ago can learn, grow, change, and improve. They can show remorse for their actions, they can demonstrate how they're better people now, and we can judge them now for who they are today, even while we can also condemn their past behavior

With the past, well, when it's far enough away, it's a dead letter and you don't get any more chances to be better. Your work is just your work and it gets judged by future generations without your further input

People in the past also grew and changed and showed remorse, the problem is they are rarely judged by who they were at the end, only by their worst action.

 

[Bigdaddy]

There were plenty of people offended by the yellow face used in Charlie Chan at the time it was made. Their voices weren't well heard because American society didn't give a crap what non-white people had to say.
When I was growing up in the 80s I constantly heard about how crappy my generation was, turning our brains to mush with that boob-tube, playing depraved video games, growing my hair long "like a girl", no gumption or morality, etc....
Now I hear people my age saying the same thing to the next generation, that's what chronocentrism is folks.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

Nevermind. Carry on.

 

[joberg]

Alright, well, to get things perhaps closer to "on track" I'll say that, yes, I think that younger generations see TV and Movies differently, because they view them from their own framework which is, itself, different from that of generations past. But that's neither good nor bad. It's just...you know...the way of the world.

I also think that the Gen Z has a tendency to want to rewrite History (with a capital H). When you have a historical character (Anne Boleyn) played by a black actress...that's when I pull the plug and refuse to see the movie Or the storm on social media asking for an actor/actress to be replaced because the role should go to a real trans-gender actor/actress What's next?...a serial killer's character played by a real serial killer
As for the movies "not representing me" (yep, white man here)... am I to bitch because Kung Fu movies are full of Asians? Nope; I love Japanese/Chinese movies even if the people on the screen aren't Caucasian!
Again; we're back at: The story, the acting, the Art in general...

 

[Solo4114]

I also think that the Gen Z has a tendency to want to rewrite History (with a capital H). When you have a historical character (Anne Boleyn) played by a black actress...that's when I pull the plug and refuse to see the movie Or the storm on social media asking for an actor/actress to be replaced because the role should go to a real trans-gender actor/actress What's next?...a serial killer's character played by a real serial killer
As for the movies "not representing me" (yep, white man here)... am I to bitch because Kung Fu movies are full of Asians? Nope; I love Japanese/Chinese movies even if the people on the screen aren't Caucasian!
Again; we're back at: The story, the acting, the Art in general...

And again, I think it's worth reiterating that, as white dudes, we occupy a pretty cushy position where there's already a plethora of entertainment available for us, and there always has been. You can blindfold yourself, spin around 10 times, throw a rock, and you'll be almost guaranteed to hit some piece of popular media that's all about white dudes.

The issue with casting real transgender actors to play transgender roles isn't just about representation, it's also about those kinds of actors -- who do exist, and many of which are undoubtedly incredibly talented -- in those roles instead of giving them to people who haven't lived that experience. So in addition to it partially being about seeing oneself reflected in the stories around us, it's also about creating a working space where all kinds of people can find work.

Unfortunately, that's often not how Hollywood works, and one might defend casting decisions by saying "Well, that person's not a big enough star to carry this film." To which I'd respond "Well of course they aren't -- nobody will cast them so they have no opportunity to demonstrate their talent and build a following such that we won't hear arguments about 'they aren't a big enough star' in the future." It creates a Catch-22 where you can't get the job because you're not well known enough, and you can't get well known because you can't get a job. And I'm sorry, but given the kind of representation we've already seen and how talented many of the actors cast turn out to be once they have a chance to really shine, I find it extremely hard to believe that the reason folks haven't been represented is simply because they aren't talented enough to do the job. There's a crapload of talent out there waiting to be discovered; people just need to take the risk on it (which, of course, isn't really Hollywood's strong suit).

When people complain online and demand more representation, that's a good thing because it's highlighting to a risk-averse industry that yes, there is, in fact, demand for something they think is risky. Voicing that kind of public sentiment helps move the dial so that casting an actual trans actor in a trans role (or whatever else the role calls for) is less risky and will be seen as a safer bet. And if nobody ever complains, then the assumption will be "I guess everything's fine the way it is," when, at least for some people, it very clearly isn't.

I used to get a lot more bothered about gender- and race-bending of characters, mostly because it struck me as insincere and done primarily for crass marketing purposes. But I've seen the impact of representation firsthand, and it's immense. Movies and entertainment are -- or at least should be -- for everyone. Stories are for everyone. So, let's tell more stories that live up to that promise by having real representation within them.

 

[Picard102]

I also think that the Gen Z has a tendency to want to rewrite History (with a capital H). When you have a historical character (Anne Boleyn) played by a black actress...that's when I pull the plug and refuse to see the movie Or the storm on social media asking for an actor/actress to be replaced because the role should go to a real trans-gender actor/actress What's next?...a serial killer's character played by a real serial killer
As for the movies "not representing me" (yep, white man here)... am I to bitch because Kung Fu movies are full of Asians? Nope; I love Japanese/Chinese movies even if the people on the screen aren't Caucasian!
Again; we're back at: The story, the acting, the Art in general...

On one hand you won't see a movie where Anne Boleyn is not represented by a white woman, on the other you have an issue with people advocating for trans actors to play trans characters? These two seem to be conflicting views.

 

[Cephus]

There were plenty of people offended by the yellow face used in Charlie Chan at the time it was made. Their voices weren't well heard because American society didn't give a crap what non-white people had to say.

Funny because earlier films from the 1920s, they used Japanese and Korean actors for Chan. Oland, who at least said that he was part Mongolian, is the definitive Chan today, playing a much different character than appeared in the original books.

 

[Axlotl]

I also think that the Gen Z has a tendency to want to rewrite History (with a capital H). When you have a historical character (Anne Boleyn) played by a black actress...that's when I pull the plug and refuse to see the movie Or the storm on social media asking for an actor/actress to be replaced because the role should go to a real trans-gender actor/actress What's next?...a serial killer's character played by a real serial killer
As for the movies "not representing me" (yep, white man here)... am I to bitch because Kung Fu movies are full of Asians? Nope; I love Japanese/Chinese movies even if the people on the screen aren't Caucasian!
Again; we're back at: The story, the acting, the Art in general...

I don't understand the representation thing, either. I've never had a problem empathising with characters who don't look like me. When I watched CHiPs I liked Ponch, in Battlestar Galactica I liked Boomer. I'm not Hispanic or black, how/why did I identify with them instead of the white guys who represented me?
I'm also able to empathize with female characters. How is that possible? Is there something wrong with me, or am I some kind of superman? Or... am I just a normal person without an agenda?

 

[Picard102]

Or... am I just a normal person without an agenda?

What agenda are you alluding to?

 

[Cephus]

I don't understand the representation thing, either. I've never had a problem empathising with characters who don't look like me. When I watched CHiPs I liked Ponch, in Battlestar Galactica I liked Boomer. I'm not Hispanic or black, how/why did I identify with them instead of the white guys who represented me?
I'm also able to empathize with female characters. How is that possible? Is there something wrong with me, or am I some kind of superman? Or... am I just a normal person without an agenda?

Exactly. I like the characters that I like. I don't care about their gender or skin color or anything else. I often think there's a lot of projection going on from one side of the debate and it's not ours.