Outer Limits -- Still Works
nmstevens
sixties. For those of us old enough to remember it, who watched as
children, it remains as one of the seminal psychically scarring events
of childhood.
While ostensibly science fiction, this series was, without a doubt
(especially the first season, supervised by Joseph Stefano) one of the
creepiest fucking things ever put on television. You can talk all you
want about Twilight Zone with its little twist endings. This show
simply unscrewed your head and poured nightmares directly into your
subconscious.
There was nothing like it on television before and there has been
nothing like it on television since. The recent series that came out
under the same name has nothing in common with it at all -- not taste,
not talent, not brains, not scares -- nothing.
Well, recently, the entire series was released on DVD, and I bought it
and, of course, I still find those shows to be wonderful. Some of the
effects are kind of creaky, and so, I suppose are some of the acting
styles and some of the scientific assumptions -- but what do you want
- it was 1964? The point is, the stuff that worked about them, I
thought -- still worked.
But I figured -- as with a lot of things, sometimes you're really
still watching with the eyes of your childhood. And so I thought I
would put the matter to the test.
Fortunately, I had a ready vict-- er, I mean, a ready subject, in the
form of my fourteen year old son, who was hanging around the house,
not doing anything useful. And so I called him in and told him I
wanted him to watch a couple episodes of the Outer Limits.
So first, I showed him this episode from the second season called,
"The Invisible Enemy" which was just okay -- that's the one about the
mission to Mars where the astronauts keep disappearing and it turns
out that the thing that's killing them are native life forms that live
beneath the vast Martian deserts like sharks beneath the surface of
Earth's oceans. But they really sort of blow it because they show the
creature half way through, long before the astronauts see it. But he
sort of liked it -- and so I moved on to another episode.
Then I showed him "The Zanti Misfits."
For those of you unfamiliar with this episode, it takes place in a
remote ghost town in the American west -- in the midst of a vast area
of desert that has been cordoned off in response to what amounts to an
ultimatum delivered from an alien planet -- Zanti. They want to use
the Earth, in essence, as a penal colony, and they mean to deliver a
shipload of Zanti convicts to the Earth, along with the necessary
guards. All we have to do is provide them with an empty area -- and
stay away from them. If we attempt to interfere with the ship,
approach them, or harm them in any way, they'll retaliate -- and they
can destroy the Earth.
And the government, knowing essentially nothing about the Zantis, what
they look like, how they think, or anything else -- other than that
they have the ability to cross interstellar space (which means
obviously, that they have enormously greater technology than ours)
have decided to cooperate.
Unfortunately, just as the Zanti ship is coming down, a three time
loser (played by Bruce Dern) along with a runaway wife, crashed
through a sentry gate, killing the sentry, and drives into the
forbidden area.
Bruce Dern spots the ship on top of a nearby cliff and promptly climbs
up to investigate. At which point we, the audience, make an
interesting discovery -- and that is that the Zanti ship is only
around five feet tall.
Now, my son had been watching this show with a reasonable amount of
interest (his only comment up to that time was that the effect of the
Zanti ship landing "looking kind of fake").
And then the little tiny hatch of the little ship opened up -- and out
came one of the Zantis.
My son, in short order, was up out of his seat. In fact, it took quite
a bit of persuasion to keep him from running out of the room.
Now, those of you who have seen the Zanti misfits, know what the Zanti
misfits look like -- and thus understand why, when you see this show
as a little kid, that those frigging things, crawl directly from the
television screen into your subconscious, where they permanently
remain.
I am not going to tell the rest of you what the Zanti misfits look
like. Go find out for yourselves. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
that those of you who haven't seen the original "Outer Limits" --
especially those who are interested in the cinema of the fantastic,
are depriving yourselves of some of the best work in that genre you're
likely to see. Highly imaginative, literately written, often
strikingly beautiful (Conrad Hall was the cinematographer on many of
the OL episodes) -- and often incredibly terrifying.
Definitely some clinkers in the second season, when Joseph Stefano was
no longer involved and the budgets were cut and everyone knew that the
series was doomed -- but first season -- there's hardly a bad egg in
the bunch.
In any case -- my experiment, I think, definitely demonstrates that
the Outer Limits still maintains its capacity to scare the living crap
out of even modern, technologically sophisticated kids.
And that's good to know.
NMS
Dudhorse
"nmstevens" <nmst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a8f80314.03112...@posting.google.com...
> I'm talking about the original series, aired back in the early
> sixties. For those of us old enough to remember it, who watched as
> children, it remains as one of the seminal psychically scarring events
> of childhood.
>
> While ostensibly science fiction, this series was, without a doubt
> (especially the first season, supervised by Joseph Stefano) one of the
> creepiest fucking things ever put on television. You can talk all you
> want about Twilight Zone with its little twist endings. This show
> simply unscrewed your head and poured nightmares directly into your
> subconscious.
>
> There was nothing like it on television before and there has been
> nothing like it on television since. The recent series that came out
> under the same name has nothing in common with it at all -- not taste,
> not talent, not brains, not scares -- nothing.
> ......................
>
... sometimes the Sci-Fi Channel runs them but they are gutted to make them
fit a modern TV hour; can still remember watching the first show of the
original series(with Cliff Robertson) - but the most memorable show was the
one with Robert Culp who volunteers to be surgically altered to look like an
alien; the Cleveland TV station would not show the full view of the
alien(they deemed it unsuitable for young viewers)but they showed the
missing/censored footage later at the end of the 11 o'clock news.
Robert Culp was also in another great show written by Harlan Ellison: "Demon
with the glass hand"
My latest theories on why shows like the original OL & the "Zone" were so
good as compared to their later counterparts is that the later shows aims at
the lowest common denominator in the audience(Dukes of Hazzard?) while the
earlier shows assumed the viewer had some sense; plus shooting in B & W
helps when you are on a tight budget but NOT when shooting in color.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>In any case -- my experiment, I think, definitely demonstrates that
>the Outer Limits still maintains its capacity to scare the living crap
>out of even modern, technologically sophisticated kids.
>
>And that's good to know.
LOL! And how does your son feel about you sharing your childhood
traumas with him, Neal? '-)
I'll share an amusing tale with you... Well, amusing if you're *not*
the child in question. That first season, I was the sole occupational
therapist at a March of Dimes regional hospital in Dayton, Ohio, where
we treated children with major birth defects. Several times a year we
would have an "Open House" during which all of the therapists met with
their patient's parents in a group, and then had time available for
individual parent sessions by request.
The mother of a nine year old cerebral palsy girl who was wheelchair
bound and seriously retarded asked for time with me. Her problem was
that her daughter screamed unremittingly when the family turned on the
television set. So I'm thinking ultra high frequency sound that maybe
only the daughter can hear and asked a bunch of technical questions.
That possibility was ruled out. So then I asked the mother what
programs brought about this response. Initially she said all of them.
So then I asked when it had first started, and what program the family
was watching....
You guessed it! Outer Limits!
So I grabbed a prescription pad and wrote out a list of programs the
child could watch and stressed that she could not watch anything that
was not on the list. Two or three weeks later, the mother came back
singing my praises. Problem solved!
When you work with disabled children, you soon learn that it is too
often the parents who have the greater disability!
Caroline
David M. Geshwind
Dudhorse <nondi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<kmhxb.340379$0v4.18...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
NMS:
Thanks for starting this thread.
> > ......................
> ... sometimes the Sci-Fi Channel runs them but they are gutted to make
them
> fit a modern TV hour; can still remember watching the first show of the
> original series(with Cliff Robertson) - but the most memorable show was
the
> one with Robert Culp who volunteers to be surgically altered to look like
an
> alien; the Cleveland TV station would not show the full view of the
> alien(they deemed it unsuitable for young viewers)but they showed the
> missing/censored footage later at the end of the 11 o'clock news.
> Robert Culp was also in another great show written by Harlan Ellison:
"Demon
> with the glass hand"
I remember fondly one where David McCallum (sp?) of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
gets "evolved".
The one the creepped me out the most was one about a honeymooning couple
that disappears into some other-worldly box. Not very good (perhaps from
2nd season) but very disturbing.
> My latest theories on why shows like the original OL & the "Zone" were so
> good as compared to their later counterparts is that the later shows aims
at
> the lowest common denominator in the audience(Dukes of Hazzard?) while
the
> earlier shows assumed the viewer had some sense; plus shooting in B & W
> helps when you are on a tight budget but NOT when shooting in color.
>
Yes. Counter-intuitively B&W media seems more "real."
Maybe color seems to be a bad copy of reality, and B&W has a life of its
own.
But I find this true of both films and photographs.
"Real" news photos are in B&W.
The NEW New York Times is just a magazine printed on toilet paper.
B&W vision is significantly higher resolution. Also, how you see things in
the dark. That may have something to do with it.
The other thing -- and, maybe the most important -- is the music.
Both OL & TZ had this techno-jazz horror thing going that messed with your
emotions even before you got into the show.
That and the truly worthy narrations bookending the shows. The current OL
show goes through the motions, but the narrations ring totally hollow and
meaningless.
Last point. There was even a creepier show on, very briefly, called Chiller
(I think) that even OL paled against. It may have been introduced by Boris
Karloff (but I may be confusing two series). Does anyone remember it?
-- dmg
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<nondi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My latest theories on why shows like the original OL & the "Zone" were so
>good as compared to their later counterparts is that the later shows aims at
>the lowest common denominator in the audience(Dukes of Hazzard?) while the
>earlier shows assumed the viewer had some sense; plus shooting in B & W
>helps when you are on a tight budget but NOT when shooting in color.
Not back then! Well, it was true of movies back then, but today b&w
is just as costly as color for 35mm features. As for television back
then, the cameras were HUGE by today's standards -- permanently
mounted on dollies that took two people to operate (one to steer and
one to focus) -- and incredibly expensive.
Color TV was just beginning to come into play for select programming
in the early 60's, and TV was still a relatively new medium. It was
around 15 years old the year Kennedy was assassinated, if you don't
count the 1939(?) experimental broadcast at the World Fair in NYC.
Further development was interrupted by World War Two, and the earliest
regular broadcasts were in NYC and LA around 1948, after which it took
three to five years to spread across the rest of the country.
The first regular color broadcast I remember in the early '60s was a
western... I think it was "Wagon Train." The primary reason I
watched it was because I was a native Californian living in Dayton,
Ohio, which is flatter than Kansas, and they often had mountains in
the b.g. God, I missed mountains! But the vast majority of network
television was still black and white, from "Ben Casey" to "Outer
Limits."
Budget didn't have as much to do with anything as the fragility of the
camera lenses. It was extremely difficult to do outdoor shots because
a camera could be wiped out by an unforeseen reflection of the sun, or
a cameraman inadvertently swinging the lens across the sun's path.
And then there was the sheer bulk of the cameras and the very very
large cables that trailed off of them! So nearly everything was shot
indoors.
Network dramas were often shot on a sound stage using three camera
format. It was an extremely innovative time in the new media because
the only rules were physical rules which were constantly challenged,
which means the primary impetus was to creativity and the imagination.
The fun years!
But you are right about the media suits too-soon realizing that the
lowest common denominator yielded the broadest possible audience base.
Such a pity...!
Caroline
David M. Geshwind
<e5cbsvk7893o9t762...@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 07:04:48 GMT, "Dudhorse"
> <nondi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >My latest theories on why shows like the original OL & the "Zone" were
so
> >good as compared to their later counterparts is that the later shows
aims at
> >the lowest common denominator in the audience(Dukes of Hazzard?) while
the
> >earlier shows assumed the viewer had some sense; plus shooting in B & W
> >helps when you are on a tight budget but NOT when shooting in color.
>
> Not back then! Well, it was true of movies back then, but today b&w
> is just as costly as color for 35mm features. As for television back
> then, the cameras were HUGE by today's standards -- permanently
> mounted on dollies that took two people to operate (one to steer and
> one to focus) -- and incredibly expensive.
>
True. But most drama was shot on film and transfered to video after
editing.
TZ done that way for all but a few shows.
Star Trek was shot in technicolor!
> Budget didn't have as much to do with anything as the fragility of the
> camera lenses. It was extremely difficult to do outdoor shots because
> a camera could be wiped out by an unforeseen reflection of the sun, or
> a cameraman inadvertently swinging the lens across the sun's path.
> And then there was the sheer bulk of the cameras and the very very
> large cables that trailed off of them! So nearly everything was shot
> indoors.
Not the lens, but the vidicon tubes.
They could be "blinded" by bright lights.
-- dmg
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<acaesq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>True. But most drama was shot on film and transfered to video after
>editing.
NOT in the early 1960s! Film was/is a far more expensive process than
television production and I know of no regular television show that
was shot for TV on 35mm film. A lot of shows were shot on video tape
once that technology was developed by Ampex some time in the '60s, but
I don't recall the year it was first introduced. However there WERE
feature Hollywood movies that were broadcast on television, frequently
as after-prime-time shows, with only an occasional series of "recent"
movies broadcast during prime time in the early years. Back then I
had a few friends who hosted late night movies on local TV, Regis
Philbin among them.
>TZ done that way for all but a few shows.
>
The original Twilight Zone series ran from 1959 to 1965, ALL episodes
were in B&W although some *may* have been videotaped, but not at the
beginning. The series was resumed in 1985 when it was in color and to
the best of my knowledge, was shot on videotape, not film.
>Star Trek was shot in technicolor!
>
The original Star Trek series ran from 1966 to 1969 (3 seasons, 79
episodes), and all episodes were in color, but not "Technicolor,"
which is a proprietary film process. It was one of the early color
shows, but not the first by any means. And interestingly, Gene
Roddenberry referred to it as "Wagon Train in space."
Wagon Train was broadcast from 1957 to 1965, and began in b&w, then
went to color for some of the later shows in the series. It was
either "one of the first" (or "THE first," I don't recall with
certainty) regularly scheduled network shows to be broadcast in color,
and if memory serves, color telecasts began in 1963 or '64. None of
the networks immediately went to "all color." It was phased in.
Caroline
nmstevens
Oh, I remember "Chiller" -- a very strange, strange schizophrenic show
because it actually attempted to split the difference between
supernatural horror and "straight" non-supernatural "suspense" type
shows -- so you never quite knew what you were going to get. There was
a very famous episode starring Bill Shatner featuring a painting of
the Grim Reaper and another one that I saw on a night just before I
came down with the flu and the images of the show got mixed up with my
fever dreams. It started off in medieval times where a witch --
actually a beautiful young woman, was about to be hanged, and the
point was made that she was being allow to wear her wig whilst being
executed -- something that was rather odd, as this was something
normally reserved strictly for royalty. And the execution proceeds --
the trap is dropped -- and the rope breaks, and then they hear the
woman screaming beneath the gallows. She's alive, but the wig has
fallen off and they see her clutching her face -- her head, bald and
scabrous with only a few wisps of snow white hair -- with hands that
look like they belong to a woman that's a hundred years old...
And I also remember Karloff's intro's to the various episodes that
always ended with him purring something like, "... you can be sure ---
it's a thriller..."
NMS
Tim C
> But you are right about the media suits too-soon realizing that the
> lowest common denominator yielded the broadest possible audience base.
> Such a pity...!
>
> Caroline
Part of the problem was that the lowest common denominator changed over
time. In the early days of television, almost everyone who could afford one
was upper-middle class or higher, and well educated. Today, the reverse is
true. If you want to find a household without a well-used TV, your best bet
is to concentrate your search among the well educated.
Tim C
Dudhorse
.... yes I remember the episode with William Shatner; he was eventually
cutdown by the Grim Reaper(you never actually saw the Reaper just his image
in a painting but you heard his scythe cutting thru the air and hearing
Shatner scream!) - another one of my favorite episodes was "The Poisoner"
with Murray Matheson who murders everyone by slipping them poison from his
ring. Another one that really sticks in my mind was with MacDonald Carey
has a down on his luck painter who sells his soul to the devil and the devil
gives him a pawnticket as a receipt; after the painter has great success the
devil comes back to claim his soul - the painter somehow slips out of the
deal but the devil wants his pawnticket back but his wife had thrown away
the old coat that the pawnticket was in so the devil gets to claim his soul
afterall. The painter runs into a room, the devil chases him and the door
closes, the painter screams and white steam is seen coming up from the
bottom of the door and the show ends with the familiar criss cross of lines
of Thriller.
Yes indeed shows like that burned their memories into me.
Dudhorse
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:15:37 GMT, "David M. Geshwind"
> <acaesq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >True. But most drama was shot on film and transfered to video after
> >editing.
>
> NOT in the early 1960s! Film was/is a far more expensive process than
> television production and I know of no regular television show that
> was shot for TV on 35mm film. A lot of shows were shot on video tape
> once that technology was developed by Ampex some time in the '60s, but
> I don't recall the year it was first introduced. However there WERE
> feature Hollywood movies that were broadcast on television, frequently
> as after-prime-time shows, with only an occasional series of "recent"
> movies broadcast during prime time in the early years. Back then I
> had a few friends who hosted late night movies on local TV, Regis
> Philbin among them.
>
> ... actually it was the original "I Love Lucy" program that started the
trend in filming in 35mm; Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz insisted on it and
they even hired a regular working cinematographer(IIRC it was Karl Freund);
it was expensive to do but it became the norm and is probably the biggest
reason why those early shows are still around today. If they were taped the
tapes would have been probably would have been used again as a costsaving
measure which is what happened to many programs originally broadcast in the
early to mid 50's.
nmstevens
All of the "Outer Limits" was shot on film -- and virtually all,
except for (I believe) part of one season of the original Twilight
Zone, was shot on film.
What was interesting, for those of us who remember were those
"transitional" shows -- the ones that started out in b&w and then made
the leap to color in later seasons. "Gilligan's Island", "I Dream of
Genie", "Lost in Space", and "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" come to
mind.
What was interesting about "Lost in Space" though, was that even
though the original first season was shot in black and white, Irwin
Allen had had a lot of the special effects footage, from the very
beginning, shot in color, so that when they later made the leap to
color, they could go back to it and take the footage, originally use
in black and white in the original season and re-use it, now in
glorious full color.
These shows also, by the way, were all shot on film.
NMS
Steven J. Weller
"Tim C" <tj.cu...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Part of the problem was that the lowest common denominator changed over
> time. In the early days of television, almost everyone who could afford one
> was upper-middle class or higher, and well educated. Today, the reverse is
> true. If you want to find a household without a well-used TV, your best bet
> is to concentrate your search among the well educated.
That's a really interesting observation, and one that hadn't occurred to
me until I read it here.
Used to be that having a suntan was a sign of manual labor - the only
folks who got brown were people who had to work outdoors. After a
while, technological revolution and all, a suntan became a sign of
wealth as it was reserved mostly for people who could afford expensive
vacations to sunny environments. That lead to tanning salons and
bronzing powders and tan-in-a-bottle and suchlike; now a suntan
(especially in the 'burbs) is kind of a middle class/white trash
affectation.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:a8f80314.03112...@posting.google.com:
> What was interesting, for those of us who remember were those
> "transitional" shows -- the ones that started out in b&w and then
made
> the leap to color in later seasons. "Gilligan's Island", "I Dream of
> Genie", "Lost in Space", and "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" come
to
> mind.
I remember when we bought our first colour TV and watched "I
Dream of Genie" for the first time in glorious colour. I remember being
completely mesmerized by her ponk costume. I also remember seeing older
B&W episodes, and feeling cheated that we were forced to watch them on
our brand new set.
jaybee
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:15:37 GMT, "David M. Geshwind"
> <acaesq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >True. But most drama was shot on film and transfered to video after
> >editing.
>
> NOT in the early 1960s! Film was/is a far more expensive process than
> television production and I know of no regular television show that
> was shot for TV on 35mm film. A lot of shows were shot on video tape
> once that technology was developed by Ampex some time in the '60s, but
> I don't recall the year it was first introduced. However there WERE
> feature Hollywood movies that were broadcast on television, frequently
> as after-prime-time shows, with only an occasional series of "recent"
> movies broadcast during prime time in the early years. Back then I
> had a few friends who hosted late night movies on local TV, Regis
> Philbin among them.
Caroline? Nearly all of the 1-hour dramas were shot on film, and edited
on film, and transferred (film chain) to video for broadcast. Only the
stuff shot with a studio audience was typically shot on videotape,
because video editing was very difficult. Instead, live-to-tape shows
were 'switched,' or edited on the fly by taking from one camera to
another.
> >TZ done that way for all but a few shows.
>
> The original Twilight Zone series ran from 1959 to 1965, ALL episodes
> were in B&W although some *may* have been videotaped, but not at the
> beginning.
The original TZ was all fim except for one season, and it shows. While
Night of the Meek is still one of the best eps ever, it still looks like
video from the early 60s.
> The series was resumed in 1985 when it was in color and to
> the best of my knowledge, was shot on videotape, not film.
Never much watched the new TZ but it seems at best unlikely that it was
shot on tape. Shows shoy on tape have a harder time getting
international airplay because of the different formats. NTSC video
looks like crap converted to PAL, and some Euorpean broadcasters simply
won't air NTSC programming. Now that HDTV is making inroads, some
previously filmed shows (The Practice comes to mind) are being shot on
video, but anyone who knows a bit about what they're looking at can tell
the difference at a glance.
> >Star Trek was shot in technicolor!
>
> The original Star Trek series ran from 1966 to 1969 (3 seasons, 79
> episodes), and all episodes were in color, but not "Technicolor,"
> which is a proprietary film process. It was one of the early color
> shows, but not the first by any means.
Color By DeLux, IIRC
Dudhorse
"Tim C" <tj.cu...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5Lqxb.23211$ZV6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
... that is a very interesting point worthy of consideration. But also I
think TV shows themselves have fundamentally changed; they used to be staged
almost like play where the narrative/storyline was the important thing. Now
its more in your face raw emotion & anything cerebral is downplayed - is
there any show on TV nowadays that doesn't have at least one person is
anothers face going ballistic or having their veins popout on their necks.
And that holds true for the so-called news shows especially the ones on
cable. Cannot remember hearing anyone talking or commenting on a TV show
where they mentioned the story itself; its always a carchase or a gunbattle
or when someone dies or when someone gets "nekkid". Emotionalism &
sensationalism has replaced it all or sometimes even masquerades as thinking
itself.
>
>
MC
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jacques_e_bouchardR*E*M*O*V*E*M*E...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
> I remember when we bought our first colour TV and watched "I
> Dream of Genie" for the first time in glorious colour. I remember being
> completely mesmerized by her ponk costume. I also remember seeing older
> B&W episodes, and feeling cheated that we were forced to watch them on
> our brand new set.
>
>
Is there a website with pictures of girls in ponk costumes?
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>Caroline? Nearly all of the 1-hour dramas were shot on film, and edited
>on film, and transferred (film chain) to video for broadcast. Only the
>stuff shot with a studio audience was typically shot on videotape,
>because video editing was very difficult. Instead, live-to-tape shows
>were 'switched,' or edited on the fly by taking from one camera to
>another.
I don't know. I was out of the country from mid-1957 to December of
1960. But Ampex did introduce its VR-100 video tape equipment (and
first-ever video tape that was TWO inches wide!) in April of 1956.
Within a month of its first showing to broadcast execs (in Chicago?),
all three major networks had placed orders for tape and the equipment.
It was described back then as "photographic quality." I saw the
prototype machine, touched it, watched it at Ampex HQs. And once in
place, it soon replaced kinescope.
I don't see where you're coming up with all this difficulty in editing
early video tape for dramas. And I don't see how much video editing
was required since it is far more logical to rehearse, block and shoot
a teleplay with standard studio video cameras the way it had been done
for television live broadcast for years, but just record to tape
instead.
I mean, when you bring in film you are increasing production costs and
time because of film processing delays. You don't have to deal with
any of that if you just record to tape as if you were doing a standard
TV "live broadcast." The only editing required I can think of would
be if a flat fell over or someone seriously flubbed lines, but that
was pretty much trained out of TV actors during the live-broadcast
years. Today nobody worries about flubs because Dick Clark will use
them in a special! Regardless, it's not all that difficult to edit
out the bad parts on video.
>> >TZ done that way for all but a few shows.
>>
>> The original Twilight Zone series ran from 1959 to 1965, ALL episodes
>> were in B&W although some *may* have been videotaped, but not at the
>> beginning.
>
>The original TZ was all fim except for one season, and it shows. While
>Night of the Meek is still one of the best eps ever, it still looks like
>video from the early 60s.
Are you sure it dosn't look like kinescope for the first season, then
video tape thereafter?
>
>> The series was resumed in 1985 when it was in color and to
>> the best of my knowledge, was shot on videotape, not film.
>
>Never much watched the new TZ but it seems at best unlikely that it was
>shot on tape. Shows shot on tape have a harder time getting
>international airplay because of the different formats. NTSC video
>looks like crap converted to PAL, and some Euorpean broadcasters simply
>won't air NTSC programming. Now that HDTV is making inroads, some
>previously filmed shows (The Practice comes to mind) are being shot on
>video, but anyone who knows a bit about what they're looking at can tell
>the difference at a glance.
>
There are all sorts of "translators" for converting from one format to
another. I recently read where an English firm has developed a new
process for restoring kinescopes to broadcast quality. And in the
1960s, I don't think there was an American broadcaster alive who
worried about format compatibility with Europe or Japan or even C*n*d*
for that matter!
>> >Star Trek was shot in technicolor!
>>
>> The original Star Trek series ran from 1966 to 1969 (3 seasons, 79
>> episodes), and all episodes were in color, but not "Technicolor,"
>> which is a proprietary film process. It was one of the early color
>> shows, but not the first by any means.
>
>Color By DeLux, IIRC
Or was it "DeLuxe?" I don't recall, but the only things ever
broadcast on TV that I'm aware of that were shot in Technicolor are
35mm theatrical releases that made it to "Saturday Night At The
Movies." Ever seen an actor in Technicolor make-up? It looks like
Halloween and they're UGLY...! '-)
Caroline
Looking desperately for Alka Seltzer or Tums after TG dinner.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<nondi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>message news:99pbsv4bg9fbcv2t6...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:15:37 GMT, "David M. Geshwind"
>> <acaesq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >True. But most drama was shot on film and transfered to video after
>> >editing.
>>
>> NOT in the early 1960s! Film was/is a far more expensive process than
>> television production and I know of no regular television show that
>> was shot for TV on 35mm film. A lot of shows were shot on video tape
>> once that technology was developed by Ampex some time in the '60s, but
>> I don't recall the year it was first introduced. However there WERE
>> feature Hollywood movies that were broadcast on television, frequently
>> as after-prime-time shows, with only an occasional series of "recent"
>> movies broadcast during prime time in the early years. Back then I
>> had a few friends who hosted late night movies on local TV, Regis
>> Philbin among them.
>
>
>actually it was the original "I Love Lucy" program that started the
>trend in filming in 35mm; Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz insisted on it and
>they even hired a regular working cinematographer(IIRC it was Karl Freund);
>it was expensive to do but it became the norm and is probably the biggest
>reason why those early shows are still around today. If they were taped the
>tapes would have been probably would have been used again as a costsaving
>measure which is what happened to many programs originally broadcast in the
>early to mid 50's.
>
I could be wrong, but I think Desilu was the only company that used
b&w 35mm. "Lucy" ran from 1951 to 1957, which means video tape was
only available their last season, and they had all that money already
invested in film. But I don't think other sitcoms or dramas followed
their lead. I think they used kinescope. The reason I think this is
because there were a LOT of great comedies and dramas aired back then,
and if they were avialable on film, then Lucille Ball wouldn't be the
only sitcom queen of the era who is world famous! '-)
Caroline
Anne Southern, Eve Arden, Imogene Coca, Loretta Young, Ida Lupino...
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>But Ampex did introduce its VR-100 video tape equipment (and
>first-ever video tape that was TWO inches wide!) in April of 1956.
Sorry. That should be Ampex VR-1000!
Caroline
stace
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:3fabsvs60vb2mptca...@4ax.com...
Yeah.
So what would you recommend for the parent who took her 5 year old to see
Kill Bill opening night, when I was there?
Other than a shotgun to the head, of course.
stace
(ps: this thread is proof there is still something worth reading on mws!)
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
>Part of the problem was that the lowest common denominator changed over
>time. In the early days of television, almost everyone who could afford one
>was upper-middle class or higher, and well educated. Today, the reverse is
>true. If you want to find a household without a well-used TV, your best bet
>is to concentrate your search among the well educated.
>
>Tim C
Very astute! :)
Caroline
A fact that's sure played hell with programming!
derek
cumbersome to work with.
Get this: the first videotape programs were transferred to film, edited on
film, then the cut was transferred back to video. The opposite of today's
process when cutting film.
It's an amazing history.
derek
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:3n8dsv4ah5jpcdqsr...@4ax.com...
Brian Christgau
> sixties. For those of us old enough to remember it, who watched as
> children, it remains as one of the seminal psychically scarring events
> of childhood.
I first caught the show as a kid growing up in the late 70's, and while
it didn't exactly care the shit out of me ("Jaws", "Night of the Living
Dead" and a copy of that mercilessly sick German children's book "Der
Strewelpeter" had already taken care of that, thank you) it still left a
very
strong impression on my young, sugar-addled mind.
> While ostensibly science fiction, this series was, without a doubt
> (especially the first season, supervised by Joseph Stefano) one of the
> creepiest fucking things ever put on television.
One of the (many) problems I have with the recent incarnations of "The
Outer Limits" is that it's a Science Fiction show, whereas the original was
a GOTHIC Science Fiction show. Technically it was Science Fiction, but
at its heart it was all horror.
You can talk all you
> want about Twilight Zone with its little twist endings. This show
> simply unscrewed your head and poured nightmares directly into your
> subconscious.
As much as I love the old "Twilight Zone" it wasn't a horror show so
much as it was a "revolver" where you never knew quite what you'd get week
to week. It might be comic piece, allegorical Sci-FI or balls-out horror.
More often than not it was a preachy morality tale, but it was the
occasional creepy yarn (usually scripted by Matheson or Beaumont) that made
me a fan. "The Outer Limits", however, was like those better TZ episodes
*every* week.
> There was nothing like it on television before and there has been
> nothing like it on television since. The recent series that came out
> under the same name has nothing in common with it at all -- not taste,
> not talent, not brains, not scares -- nothing.
I gave up after the very first episode, a totally bastardized adoption
of George R.R. Martin's marvelously sick "Sandkings". Whereas the story was
one of Martin's best Gothic Sci-Fi yarns, the two hour adaptation was just
plain ol' Sci-Fi thatwas missing everything that made the story so creepy in
the first place. Now, if they had hired Martin as the story editor, it might
have been something special.
> Well, recently, the entire series was released on DVD, and I bought it
> and, of course, I still find those shows to be wonderful.
My girlfriend bought the first season for me as a birthday present last
year
and I had as much fun introducing her to the show as you did your son.
Some of the
> effects are kind of creaky, and so, I suppose are some of the acting
> styles and some of the scientific assumptions -- but what do you want
> - it was 1964? The point is, the stuff that worked about them, I
> thought -- still worked.
Sure, the special effects may be hokey sometimes (when they're not
fiendishly
clever), but that just makes the episodes more surreal and dreamlike, I
think.
> Then I showed him "The Zanti Misfits."
One of my faces, both then and now.
> Now, those of you who have seen the Zanti misfits, know what the Zanti
> misfits look like -- and thus understand why, when you see this show
> as a little kid, that those frigging things, crawl directly from the
> television screen into your subconscious, where they permanently
> remain.
What's so creepy about them is that they're silly-looking and scary *at
the same time*. What makes them so nightmarish is that they embody the often
cartoonish imagery we encounter in our nightmares.
Those magnificent maniacs at Sideshow Toy recently released toy replicas
of the Misfits (http://www.sideshowtoy.com/outerlimits_zanti.html). One of
them is glaring down at me from my bookshelf as I write this... and that
smile of his don't look too friendly. };)
> I am not going to tell the rest of you what the Zanti misfits look
> like. Go find out for yourselves. In fact, I'd go so far as to say
> that those of you who haven't seen the original "Outer Limits" --
> especially those who are interested in the cinema of the fantastic,
> are depriving yourselves of some of the best work in that genre you're
> likely to see. Highly imaginative, literately written, often
> strikingly beautiful (Conrad Hall was the cinematographer on many of
> the OL episodes) -- and often incredibly terrifying.
Ditto, but don't forget the great Leslie Stevens.
Being the resident Sci-Fi Horror geek you've probably already seen
it,
but if not you absolutely *must* check out the recent DVD release of
"Incubus" (not to be confused with John Hough's movie about a rapist demon
hung like a baguette or Jess Franco's 60's acid trip), a terrific little
film that Stevens wrote and directed that could easily be mistaken for a
lost, extra-long episode of "The Outer Limits" (if it weren't for the
Esperanto!). No fan of the show should be without it.
> Definitely some clinkers in the second season, when Joseph Stefano was
> no longer involved and the budgets were cut and everyone knew that the
> series was doomed -- but first season -- there's hardly a bad egg in
> the bunch.
Joe Stefano was indeed The Man, and I find it a great shame that all the
glory for "Psycho" usually goes to Hitch and Robert Bloch (whose novel is
*quite* different) when it was Joe's brilliant script. Like Matheson and
Beaumont, he's always been a hero to me.
> In any case -- my experiment, I think, definitely demonstrates that
> the Outer Limits still maintains its capacity to scare the living crap
> out of even modern, technologically sophisticated kids.
And some grown-up girlfriends too. }:)
Cheers,
B
Tim C
It was mentioned on Caesar's Writers, a fascinating PBS special a few years
back in which they interviewed, as a group, Sid Caesar, Mel Brooks, Carl
Reiner, Larry Gelbart, Neil Simon and Mel Tokin. Very funny, and a lot of
great insights into writing and early television.
Tim C
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I don't see where you're coming up with all this difficulty in editing
> early video tape for dramas. And I don't see how much video editing
> was required since it is far more logical to rehearse, block and shoot
> a teleplay with standard studio video cameras the way it had been done
> for television live broadcast for years, but just record to tape
> instead.
Recording live-to-tape is incredibly limiting, in that you can only
record things that can be covered in one shot - ie, a stage play. The
difference isn't film vs. video so much as it's single camera vs.
multiple camera (typically three, back in the day). Single camera
shooting, which in those days meant film by default, allows you to light
individual shots, go out-of-doors for scenes, vary the frame rate
(slo-mo is still difficult with most pro video gear to this day), and so
on.
A lot of the Playhouse 90s and similar were staged as stage plays for
the video cameras and a lot of those were recorded via kinescope before
tape was around, but virtually all of the 'backlot dramas' were filmed
rather than taped and then transferred to 2" video as edited masters,
via the good old film chain.
> I mean, when you bring in film you are increasing production costs and
> time because of film processing delays.
They don't call 'em "dailies" for nuthin! ;^)
The cost of shooting film is negligible compared to the salaries of the
people involved; that's why Super 16 never really took off as a
production format for network TV. Sure it saves a few bucks, but you'll
spend that much money on M&Ms for Craft Services and 16mm isn't quite as
high in quality, just in case you want to cut 2-3 old episodes together,
call it a 'feature film,' and release it in Europe (Aaron Spelling,
anyone?).
> >The original TZ was all film except for one season, and it shows. While
> >Night of the Meek is still one of the best eps ever, it still looks like
> >video from the early 60s.
>
> Are you sure it dosn't look like kinescope for the first season, then
> video tape thereafter?
Take a look at The Twilight Zone Companion for a fairly complete
breakdown of the process of making that show; it applies to a lot of the
shows from the era as well. The show, save one season, was shot B&W
35mm film, and Cayuga Prods (Rod Serling's company) retained ownership
of the original negatives. Gunsmoke, Perry Mason, The Rifleman, etc,
etc, etc... all were shot on film, edited on film, and chained to video
for broadcast. Video origination is largely for game shows, variety
shows, soaps, news, and so on. It's that difference between single
camera and multiple camera format - it just happens that, until
recently, that meant film vs. video.
> >Never much watched the new TZ but it seems at best unlikely that it was
> >shot on tape. Shows shot on tape have a harder time getting
> >international airplay because of the different formats. NTSC video
> >looks like crap converted to PAL, and some Euorpean broadcasters simply
> >won't air NTSC programming. Now that HDTV is making inroads, some
> >previously filmed shows (The Practice comes to mind) are being shot on
> >video, but anyone who knows a bit about what they're looking at can tell
> >the difference at a glance.
>
> There are all sorts of "translators" for converting from one format to
> another.
And virtually all of them suck. Going from PAL to NTSC means going from
600-odd line to 485 lines (525 includes control info), and from 25
frames/50 fields progressive to 30/60 interlaced. The end result is an
image that looks pretty good on NTSC, and even has a certain film-like
quality to it. Going the other way, though, yields an image that's
substantially less watchable than PAL-originated material. Shooting
film at 24 fps means making a PAL version is just a flip of the switch
on the telecine rig, to get great visual quailty in the native format.
That's why PBS carries so much videotaped British programming, while in
GB most of the American TV being shown is filmed.
> And in the
> 1960s, I don't think there was an American broadcaster alive who
> worried about format compatibility with Europe or Japan or even C*n*d*
> for that matter!
In the 1960s, not so much. By the 70s, though, a lot of the money that
came from syndication came from foreign markets with their Godless
Foreign Video Standards. The 70s is also when non-linear editing first
started to rear its lovely head, in the form of EditDroid from LucasFilm
Ltd. Prior to that, the way you edited video was either with a razor
blade and a block, like audio tape (don't laugh - some shows were edited
this way!) or with a complicated scheme of off-line/on-line LINEAR
editing, where if you didn't like a cut you had to re-do not only that
cut but every cut that came in line after that cut. Work tapes (window
dubs) were burned and editors would work on smaller, more manageable
chunks, refining each until it was as good as it was going to get and
then tacking them together. The final off-line edit was used to
generate an EDL, or Edit Decision List, which was sent - along with the
master tapes - to an on-line facility that matched up the numbers and
created a master tape that was still an analogue generation away from
the original.
> >> >Star Trek was shot in technicolor!
> >
> >Color By DeLux, IIRC
>
> Or was it "DeLuxe?"
I should know; I drive past the place every day of my life on the way to
the grocery sotre, video store, and so on - but I honestly couldn't tell
you which way it's spelled. Wouldn't surprise me if they have the 'e'
on the end, wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.
> I don't recall, but the only things ever
> broadcast on TV that I'm aware of that were shot in Technicolor are
> 35mm theatrical releases that made it to "Saturday Night At The
> Movies." Ever seen an actor in Technicolor make-up? It looks like
> Halloween and they're UGLY...! '-)
Two-strip Technicolor, like The Wizard of Oz, I doubt was ever used for
TV production. That process was long dead by the time color film was
being shot for TV. But Technicolor is still in business using more
modern technology, and I'd be surprised if some of the shows _don't_ use
them.
> Caroline
> Looking desperately for Alka Seltzer or Tums after TG dinner.
Heading off to bed, myself.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>Recording live-to-tape is incredibly limiting, in that you can only
>record things that can be covered in one shot - ie, a stage play. The
>difference isn't film vs. video so much as it's single camera vs.
>multiple camera (typically three, back in the day). Single camera
>shooting, which in those days meant film by default, allows you to light
>individual shots, go out-of-doors for scenes, vary the frame rate
>(slo-mo is still difficult with most pro video gear to this day), and so
>on.
As I mentioned, I did leave the country mid-1957. As I recall, I
boarded the plane a few days before Frank Sinatra's series premiered,
which broke my heart, but was compensated for somewhat when Nat Cole
and Nelson Riddle gave me a send-off the night before that included
autographed photos with personal messages on them. Which were stolen
by a guy while I was in Turkey, so if anyone ever meets an old man who
has changed his first name to mine.... When I came back, we went to
Dayton, so for all intents and purposes, my association with and/or
participation in the business ended in 1957. So keep that in mind,
but I'm surprised that things went in a direction that, to me, seems
illogical.
For example, in your remarks above, I don't see why you have to give
up three camera format for single camera because you're preserving on
video. Why wouldn't you do everything the same, with the director in
the control booth calling his shots as he goes, and just record the
output as if you were doing a live broadcast. But who says logic has
to prevail. In fact, it rarely does. <sigh>
I understand the advantage of film for feature length programs, drama
and otherwise, the news, nature specials, and all that jazz, but with
sitcoms, for example, they're still pretty much staged (I don't know
how the production end works today) the way they were for those early
three canmera sitcoms. Outdoor scenes in a sitcom have been extremely
rare until recently, and there are still a few shows that avoid the
great outdoors like a plague. I mean, Tim talking to Wilson over the
back fence is obviously not shot outdoors! '-)
>
>In the 1960s, not so much. By the 70s, though, a lot of the money that
>came from syndication came from foreign markets with their Godless
>Foreign Video Standards. The 70s is also when non-linear editing first
>started to rear its lovely head, in the form of EditDroid from LucasFilm
>Ltd. Prior to that, the way you edited video was either with a razor
>blade and a block, like audio tape (don't laugh - some shows were edited
>this way!)
I'm not laughing. Been there, done that! In college, I was the best
tape editor on campus, and I didn't use a tape editing machine. I did
it with an exacto knife and a cork underlay. For two inch video tape,
you just about had to use some sort of editing device because getting
the vedeo tape layed on the splicing tape smoothely was a real bitch!
But with 15 or 30 ips audio tape on an Ampex console, I could edit a
tape of you chatting with your grandmother and turn it into a
terrorist threat for World War Three...! :)
A funny but true story about the early days of editing that has
absolutely nothing to do with anything under discussion here beyond
the fact that it's funny. Waaaaaay back in the 50's, when RCA (and
the other record companies) were converting to LP records instead of
78s, their classical music depatrment had a shortage of engineers, so
they borrowed one from their pop section and set him to editing
Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. The guy was extremely competent with
popular music, so no one checked his work until AFTER the record was
released. He had edited out all of the second (or was it first?)
"DUM DUM DUM dums" because he figured they were just changing key and
it was a mistake. The records were all recalled. Except those that
had already been sold. RCA offered an exchange, but the owner of the
one I heard wouldn't have traded it for anything else in the world!
>or with a complicated scheme of off-line/on-line LINEAR
>editing, where if you didn't like a cut you had to re-do not only that
>cut but every cut that came in line after that cut. Work tapes (window
>dubs) were burned and editors would work on smaller, more manageable
>chunks, refining each until it was as good as it was going to get and
>then tacking them together. The final off-line edit was used to
>generate an EDL, or Edit Decision List, which was sent - along with the
>master tapes - to an on-line facility that matched up the numbers and
>created a master tape that was still an analogue generation away from
>the original.
Yup, It sounds like a real pain in the sit-down!
>
>Two-strip Technicolor, like The Wizard of Oz, I doubt was ever used for
>TV production. That process was long dead by the time color film was
>being shot for TV. But Technicolor is still in business using more
>modern technology, and I'd be surprised if some of the shows _don't_ use
>them.
I think re-releasing everything ever broadcast or projected on the
silver screen to DVD is doing to the entertainment industy what the
entertainment industry has done to the rest of the world.
Homogenization! In this case, the homogenization is technical, in the
rest-of-the-world case, the homogenization is cultural. And that
means a great loss of many ethnic identities. Did you know that
romantic kissing in many parts of the world, including Japan, was
unknown until Hollywood movies of the 1920s began Americanizing all
other cultures? We are losing so much. So very very much!
Caroline
Who hates going to Istanbul or Athens or Zurich (or Juarez!) and
seeing McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, et alus, and having to dig hard to
find good native cuisine!. Raclette of Wendy's, anyone?
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
And I meant to say thanks, Neal, for shedding light on my areas of
ignorance. :)
Caroline
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> For example, in your remarks above, I don't see why you have to give
> up three camera format for single camera because you're preserving on
> video. Why wouldn't you do everything the same, with the director in
> the control booth calling his shots as he goes, and just record the
> output as if you were doing a live broadcast. But who says logic has
> to prevail. In fact, it rarely does. <sigh>
It's not a question of _having_ to give up the 3-cam format, it's of
_wanting_ to give it up. Shooting 3-cam means never doing anything
that's not on a stage, and staged like a play. It means the actors
actually (horror!) have to memorize their lines for the whole show. It
means that individual moments are only as good as the whole piece. And
perhaps most importantly from a TV standpoint, it means that the running
time of the program is in the hands of the actors as they perform. You
could shoot 3-cam with film (and many sitcoms do these days, though it's
more like 5-cam or 7-cam) just as easily, but for a show like M*A*S*H or
NYPD Blue it just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to what the
actors can do in a single pass, on a single stage.
> I understand the advantage of film for feature length programs, drama
> and otherwise, the news, nature specials, and all that jazz, but with
> sitcoms, for example, they're still pretty much staged (I don't know
> how the production end works today) the way they were for those early
> three canmera sitcoms. Outdoor scenes in a sitcom have been extremely
> rare until recently, and there are still a few shows that avoid the
> great outdoors like a plague. I mean, Tim talking to Wilson over the
> back fence is obviously not shot outdoors! '-)
Funny you should mention Home Improvement; it's one of the very last
network sitcoms that shot video. Most sitcoms, even though they shoot
3-cam before a live audience, are rolling 35mm film. It's all about
international distribution, archiving the product, and being
forward-compatible with new TV standards. Anything that was shot NTSC
in the last 20 years is going to be harder to sell in an HDTV
marketplace. Shooting 35mm, even if the footage was never physically
cut (most isn't) just means another telecine session and digging out the
EDL. With basically no creative effort beyond the colorist, you've got
Star Trek: The Next Generation in HDTV.
> A funny but true story about the early days of editing that has
> absolutely nothing to do with anything under discussion here beyond
> the fact that it's funny. Waaaaaay back in the 50's, when RCA (and
> the other record companies) were converting to LP records instead of
> 78s, their classical music depatrment had a shortage of engineers, so
> they borrowed one from their pop section and set him to editing
> Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. The guy was extremely competent with
> popular music, so no one checked his work until AFTER the record was
> released. He had edited out all of the second (or was it first?)
> "DUM DUM DUM dums" because he figured they were just changing key and
> it was a mistake. The records were all recalled. Except those that
> had already been sold. RCA offered an exchange, but the owner of the
> one I heard wouldn't have traded it for anything else in the world!
Now THAT'S funny! I'd love to hear that sometime!
> >or with a complicated scheme of off-line/on-line LINEAR
> >editing, where if you didn't like a cut you had to re-do not only that
> >cut but every cut that came in line after that cut. Work tapes (window
> >dubs) were burned and editors would work on smaller, more manageable
> >chunks, refining each until it was as good as it was going to get and
> >then tacking them together. The final off-line edit was used to
> >generate an EDL, or Edit Decision List, which was sent - along with the
> >master tapes - to an on-line facility that matched up the numbers and
> >created a master tape that was still an analogue generation away from
> >the original.
>
> Yup, It sounds like a real pain in the sit-down!
Having done a bit of linear video editing, I can tell you how right you
are. It's a battle between generation lose and creative freedom. I see
these young whipper-snappers and their fancy-schmancy NLE set-ups these
days and it frankly amazes me. Had there been genuine NLE available for
a price, back when I was editing, I might have become an editor. It's
literally the difference between typing and word processing.
> >Two-strip Technicolor, like The Wizard of Oz, I doubt was ever used for
> >TV production. That process was long dead by the time color film was
> >being shot for TV. But Technicolor is still in business using more
> >modern technology, and I'd be surprised if some of the shows _don't_ use
> >them.
>
> I think re-releasing everything ever broadcast or projected on the
> silver screen to DVD is doing to the entertainment industy what the
> entertainment industry has done to the rest of the world.
> Homogenization! In this case, the homogenization is technical, in the
> rest-of-the-world case, the homogenization is cultural. And that
> means a great loss of many ethnic identities.
I'm of two minds on this. Sure, it's a great idea to preserve all
manner of cultures for posterity and all, but if the individuals in
those cultures choose to adopt other ways of life, who are we to protect
them from themselves? At what point are supposed to say to (for
example) the French, "we've made a nice, entertaining summer blockbuster
movie, that millions have watched and enjoyed, and you'd like it to if
your past behavior is anything to go by, but we're not going to send it
to you because it'd make you less French"?
> Did you know that
> romantic kissing in many parts of the world, including Japan, was
> unknown until Hollywood movies of the 1920s began Americanizing all
> other cultures? We are losing so much. So very very much!
Romantic kissing also depends on a certain level of oral hygien, which
was becoming more widespread around the same time H'wood was pushing
kissing as foreplay.
> Who hates going to Istanbul or Athens or Zurich (or Juarez!) and
> seeing McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, et alus, and having to dig hard to
> find good native cuisine!. Raclette of Wendy's, anyone?
I hear you, and on one level agree, but I also have to wonder if the
desire to keep other cultures historically pure isn't at least a little
bit of treating them like a theme park. For the people who live there,
it's home and if they want to have a McDonald's handy, that should be
their choice. After all, it's their culture whether they choose to
protect it, adapt it, or abolish it. We're just tourists, and they're
not obligated to either make it or keep it quaint for our amusement.
Gene Harris
> I'm talking about the original series, aired back in the early
> sixties. For those of us old enough to remember it, who watched as
> children, it remains as one of the seminal psychically scarring events
> of childhood.
I certainly remember watching the series, but the only episode I really
remember with any detail starred Barry Morse as photographer (I think) who
discovers a formula for a photo-retouching solution that, as you retouch,
say, a photographic portrait of a particular person, to erase the wrinkles,
etc., the changes actually happen to the real person. I think he discovers
this by retouching his own portrait to remove his mustache, and all of a
sudden his real mustache is gone.
So, he concocts a plan to gradually retouch his own portrait to make
himself look younger. As he retouches his portrait a little each day,
erasing more and more signs of aging, he gradually becomes younger-looking
and more handsome, while his wife (whome he plans to leave) retains her
age.
Of course, the episode had a great twist at the end. The wife discovers
her husband's scheme, grabs the bottle of the magic retouching solution --
and spills it all over her husband's portrait! You hear him scream, and he
turns his face toward the camera -- and it's a blank area where a face used
to be. No eyes, no nose, no mouth, just a blank blob. I can still see it
in my mind's eye after all these years.
Gene
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>It's not a question of _having_ to give up the 3-cam format, it's of
>_wanting_ to give it up. Shooting 3-cam means never doing anything
>that's not on a stage, and staged like a play. It means the actors
>actually (horror!) have to memorize their lines for the whole show. It
>means that individual moments are only as good as the whole piece. And
>perhaps most importantly from a TV standpoint, it means that the running
>time of the program is in the hands of the actors as they perform. You
>could shoot 3-cam with film (and many sitcoms do these days, though it's
>more like 5-cam or 7-cam) just as easily, but for a show like M*A*S*H or
>NYPD Blue it just doesn't make sense to limit yourself to what the
>actors can do in a single pass, on a single stage.
But... But... But, Steeeeven...! You're talking about the ONLY kind
of directing I've ever done! And I loved it. Well, except there were
major problems in the 50's with being female. In all TV and radio
classes, we were required to master the engineering side as well as
the creative, and being the only girl in nearly all of my classes, it
was a constant battle to get the guys to let me do it myself. I'm
sure it's not a problem today, but it was a major problem back then.
Well, at least in school. On the commercial side, the guys all
thought it was cool to get me to do the technical stuff for them. But
the sexism was a major part of my leaving the industry. My looks were
also a handicap because everyone wanted me in front of the camera, and
that wasn't where my interests were.
The thing I loved about television directing, and the reason why I
wasn't interested in film at the time, was because for live broadcast
you did all the work BEFORE you went on the air. Actors back then
really enjoyed memorizing the whole teleplay as opposed to a scene or
two the night before. Both the actors and technical people learned a
hell of a lot about timing and delivery and pacing right down to the
second, so unlike BBC, nothing ran overtime. And the GREAT advantage?
When the broadcast is over, there AIN'T no post production crap to
wrestle with and distribution is over and done! You can have the wrap
party as soon as you're off the air!
How's that stack up against two years out of your life to direct a
movie? Not that there's any chance of me ever ever ever directing
anything again... Well... Maybe if I win one of those humongous
Power Ball lotteries for a gazillion million dollars...
But then I'd be able to hire any director I want! '-)
>Funny you should mention Home Improvement; it's one of the very last
>network sitcoms that shot video. Most sitcoms, even though they shoot
>3-cam before a live audience, are rolling 35mm film. It's all about
>international distribution, archiving the product, and being
>forward-compatible with new TV standards. Anything that was shot NTSC
>in the last 20 years is going to be harder to sell in an HDTV
>marketplace. Shooting 35mm, even if the footage was never physically
>cut (most isn't) just means another telecine session and digging out the
>EDL. With basically no creative effort beyond the colorist, you've got
>Star Trek: The Next Generation in HDTV.
Aproopos to HDTV and Tim C's remarks yesterday about shifting
demographics, considering the cost of HDTV sets -- hey, if I'm going
to go HDTV, I want plasma! -- maybe the lowest common denominator will
start climbing again? Wouldn't that be nice!
>Having done a bit of linear video editing, I can tell you how right you
>are. It's a battle between generation lose and creative freedom. I see
>these young whipper-snappers and their fancy-schmancy NLE set-ups these
>days and it frankly amazes me. Had there been genuine NLE available for
>a price, back when I was editing, I might have become an editor. It's
>literally the difference between typing and word processing.
Well, I know we're of different mind-sets when it comes to
homogenization and all that jazz, but if it works like word processing
has worked, in my opinion it will open the field to too many
technicians and not enough genuine artists. Advanced technology that
makes the "difficult" easy can be as much of a detrement as benefit.
In my experience.
>I'm of two minds on this. Sure, it's a great idea to preserve all
>manner of cultures for posterity and all, but if the individuals in
>those cultures choose to adopt other ways of life, who are we to protect
>them from themselves? At what point are supposed to say to (for
>example) the French, "we've made a nice, entertaining summer blockbuster
>movie, that millions have watched and enjoyed, and you'd like it to if
>your past behavior is anything to go by, but we're not going to send it
>to you because it'd make you less French"?
LOL! Steven, I don't think there's much chance we'd have to say
something like that to the French. They're more likely to insist that
it's dubbed in "pure" French, with all terms such as "le drugstore"
omitted! But there are raging examples of what kind of culture shock
can happen on a national and local level. For example, the Spanish
were certainly not egalitarian in their "conversion" the the Aztecs
and other native cultures to Christianity, and huge and valuable
amounts of their cultural history and traditiopns was lost in the
process. In another example that is with us today that is only
partially attributable to the West and the Cold War is the collapse of
the Soviet Union. Suddenly that entire population finds itself forced
into capitalism and they rarely have idea-one about how capitalism
works. And the immense number of people who had retired and drew
pensions under the communist system suddenly found themselves without
*any* benefits, and rarely able to cope fully with the intellectual
aspects of capitalism. It's a strange world for them. Very strange!
Today there is a huge resurgence throughout the former Soviet Union
and the Eastern Bloc countries of "homesickness" for the "good old
days" of communism, and local/national communist parties are gaining
popular support.
It is a strange world that's likely to get stranger, because I truly
believe we are living in a transitional era in which international
boundaries and geopolitical governments are just window dressings for
the populace while international mega-corporations run things their
way and to their advantage. I see it strongly in the politics of
George W. Bush, and it has nothing to do with party lines. It has to
do with corporate lines. It's an evolutionary process, and I don't
think it can be halted, but I do think that individuals can scramble
to try to land on the side of the fence they want to end up on.
Homogenization is good for milk, but I'm not so sure about people.
>Romantic kissing also depends on a certain level of oral hygien, which
>was becoming more widespread around the same time H'wood was pushing
>kissing as foreplay.
Sounds reasonable, except that romantic kising predates Crest and
Listerine by a whole lot of centuries!
>
>I hear you, and on one level agree, but I also have to wonder if the
>desire to keep other cultures historically pure isn't at least a little
>bit of treating them like a theme park. For the people who live there,
>it's home and if they want to have a McDonald's handy, that should be
>their choice. After all, it's their culture whether they choose to
>protect it, adapt it, or abolish it. We're just tourists, and they're
>not obligated to either make it or keep it quaint for our amusement.
Except that mega-corporations, whether it's McDonald's or WalMart,
tend to squeeze out the small neighborhood competition, and that's
true globally. When I lived in Greece, for instance, it would have
been wonderful to walk into a McDonalds and have a choice between a
Big Mac or an order of souvlaki. Instead my only choice was a "Big
Mac" that tasted more un-McDonaldian than souvlaki ever could have!
But I'm not advocating forcing anyone to preserve their culture for my
or anyone else's amusement, but I am advocating that international
corporations back off just enough to offer the people of other
countries some sense of choice that isn't dictated by their corporate
bottom line. Maybe the Japanese have the best answer... Octopus
pizza with nori flakes at Pizza Hut. Or maybe the worst answer:
Tater Tot pizza? I could handle the octopus, but Tater Tots pizza
doesn't sound at all tempting. The point is the Japanese have taken
something foreign and made it their own. I think that's a better way
to go than simply "Meatlovers" or "Supreme."
Caroline
For doubters of Japanese pizza:
http://www.chachich.com/mdchachi/jpizza.html
David M. Geshwind
<99pbsv4bg9fbcv2t6...@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:15:37 GMT, "David M. Geshwind"
> <acaesq...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >True. But most drama was shot on film and transfered to video after
> >editing.
>
> NOT in the early 1960s! Film was/is a far more expensive process than
> television production and I know of no regular television show that
> was shot for TV on 35mm film.
Well, for the purposes of this post I will stick to the original B&W
Twilight Zone and the original Star Trek that I posted about earlier. If
you want to deepen the hole later, feel free.
> A lot of shows were shot on video tape
> once that technology was developed by Ampex some time in the '60s, but
> I don't recall the year it was first introduced.
Well, for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume some time in the
'60s. Then what did Twilight Zone (at least their first year of production
in 1959) produce on if NOT film. You say videotape was unavailable.
Twilight Zone was NOT a live show. And, it was re-run for years. The visual
quality was very high and certainly not a crappy kinescope.
> However there WERE
> feature Hollywood movies that were broadcast on television, frequently
> as after-prime-time shows, with only an occasional series of "recent"
> movies broadcast during prime time in the early years. Back then I
> had a few friends who hosted late night movies on local TV, Regis
> Philbin among them.
I'm not sure what the point of this was. But, congratulations to Regis
Philbin for being so cool as to have friends who post to MWS. Can you get
me tickets to LIVE!
>
> >TZ done that way for all but a few shows.
> >
>
> The original Twilight Zone series ran from 1959 to 1965, ALL episodes
> were in B&W
Yes that's what the thread was about. Old classic B&W shows OL and TZ in
particular.
> although some *may* have been videotaped, but not at the
> beginning. The series was resumed in 1985 when it was in color and to
> the best of my knowledge, was shot on videotape, not film.
Not what we were talking about, nor the more recent (2001 or 2002) even
more awful version.
But, as I wrote in my earlier post, my point was:
"But most drama was shot on film
and transfered to video after
editing. TZ done that way for
all but a few shows."
To support my claim the TZ was mostly shot on film, please see the
following about the original TZ:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0052520/combined
Cinematography by
George T. Clemens
Joseph LaShelle (episode "Where Is Everybody?")
Fred Mandl
Robert Pittack
Harkness Smith
Jack Swain
Harry J. Wild
Film Editing by
Leon Barsha
Jason H. Bernie
Joseph Gluck
Roland Gross
Bill Mosher
Special Effects
Pacific Title [us] (titles and opticals)
http://www.uln.com/cgi-bin/vlink/014381462821IE
The Twilight Zone: Collection 3 DVD Movie - Fullscreen New
Release Info:
--9 Disc boxed-Set
--B&W Film
--Year Released: 1960-1964
--RunTime: 900 Min.
--Release Language: English
--Original Language: English
http://www.jumptheshark.com/t/twilightzone.htm
"In the second season the show went from film to videotape to
save money. Luckily, it went back to film in the third season."
>
> >Star Trek was shot in technicolor!
> >
>
> The original Star Trek series ran from 1966 to 1969 (3 seasons, 79
> episodes), and all episodes were in color, but not "Technicolor,"
> which is a proprietary film process.
Yes, that was my point. It was shot on FILM.
But, don't take my word for it.
The IMDB says at:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/
Also Known As:
"Star Trek: TOS" (1966) (USA: promotional
abbreviation)
Runtime: UK:47 min / USA:47 min (79 episodes)
Country: USA
Language: English
Color: Color (Technicolor)
Sound Mix: Mono
> It was one of the early color
> shows, but not the first by any means.
Never said it was.
> And interestingly, Gene
> Roddenberry referred to it as "Wagon Train in space."
I don't think he was referring to production techniques there, but story
telling.
Interestingly, Roddenberry is also the one who showed me some of the
original 3-strip technicolor master film from the "The Cage" pilot episode.
>
> Wagon Train was broadcast from 1957 to 1965, and began in b&w, then
> went to color for some of the later shows in the series. It was
> either "one of the first" (or "THE first," I don't recall with
> certainty) regularly scheduled network shows to be broadcast in color,
> and if memory serves, color telecasts began in 1963 or '64. None of
> the networks immediately went to "all color." It was phased in.
>
> Caroline
>
-- dmg
David M. Geshwind
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
I vaguely remember seeing this episode and thinking it was derivative
writing... There was a comic/cartoon about characters who drew and/or
erased themselves, but for the life of me I can't remember the name of
it. I guess it was sort of a universal fantasy at one time. I
remeber wishing as a teen that I could erase parts of my body and
redraw them like the cartoon. But then hey, wouldn't we all wish for
that? Stuff yourself through the holidays and erase the consequences
as you go. Happy New Year, everybody, and pass the mashed potatoes!
'-)
Caroline
Joe Myers
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote
[snips]
> ... There was a comic/cartoon about characters who drew and/or
> erased themselves, but for the life of me I can't remember the name of
> it.
"Duck Amok," directed by Chuck Jones
Joe Myers
"That Daffy Duck. What an actor!"
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 08:34:50 -0800, "Steven J. Weller"
> <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> >It's not a question of _having_ to give up the 3-cam format, it's of
> >_wanting_ to give it up.
>
> But... But... But, Steeeeven...! You're talking about the ONLY kind
> of directing I've ever done! And I loved it. Well, except there were
> major problems in the 50's with being female. In all TV and radio
> classes, we were required to master the engineering side as well as
> the creative, and being the only girl in nearly all of my classes, it
> was a constant battle to get the guys to let me do it myself. I'm
> sure it's not a problem today, but it was a major problem back then.
> Well, at least in school. On the commercial side, the guys all
> thought it was cool to get me to do the technical stuff for them. But
> the sexism was a major part of my leaving the industry. My looks were
> also a handicap because everyone wanted me in front of the camera, and
> that wasn't where my interests were.
>
> The thing I loved about television directing, and the reason why I
> wasn't interested in film at the time, was because for live broadcast
> you did all the work BEFORE you went on the air. Actors back then
> really enjoyed memorizing the whole teleplay as opposed to a scene or
> two the night before. Both the actors and technical people learned a
> hell of a lot about timing and delivery and pacing right down to the
> second, so unlike BBC, nothing ran overtime. And the GREAT advantage?
> When the broadcast is over, there AIN'T no post production crap to
> wrestle with and distribution is over and done! You can have the wrap
> party as soon as you're off the air!
Television has always walked the line between film and stage; in the
early days it was closer to theatre and had radio to draw from (radio
actors had to be masters of timing, but had the advantage of "the old
clock on the wall." These days, and for some time, it's film with less
money and less time. Everybody wants the control over the final product
that comes with post production, and higher quality that comes with
setting up individual shots instead of trying to get camera three lined
up for a reaction in time, and then dragging it back over to pick up the
next entrance before the door opens.
> How's that stack up against two years out of your life to direct a
> movie? Not that there's any chance of me ever ever ever directing
> anything again... Well... Maybe if I win one of those humongous
> Power Ball lotteries for a gazillion million dollars...
>
> But then I'd be able to hire any director I want! '-)
Recent winner of the California State Lottery (something like $29
million) is a 30-something aspiring actress who plans on setting up her
own production company.
FINALLY!
> Aproopos to HDTV and Tim C's remarks yesterday about shifting
> demographics, considering the cost of HDTV sets -- hey, if I'm going
> to go HDTV, I want plasma! -- maybe the lowest common denominator will
> start climbing again? Wouldn't that be nice!
I'd be great, but I'm not holding my breath. TV's not going to go away
for the lowest common denominator, it's just going to be available in
regular and HD until the price of HD sets is low enough that no one
wants to make the standard NTSC models any more. A couple of years
after that, they'll probably stop broadcasting regular, and releasing
DVDs and VHSs that aren't HD, etc.
It's a long ways away, I'm guessing.
> Well, I know we're of different mind-sets when it comes to
> homogenization and all that jazz, but if it works like word processing
> has worked, in my opinion it will open the field to too many
> technicians and not enough genuine artists. Advanced technology that
> makes the "difficult" easy can be as much of a detrement as benefit.
> In my experience.
Couldn't agree more.
> >I'm of two minds on this. Sure, it's a great idea to preserve all
> >manner of cultures for posterity and all, but if the individuals in
> >those cultures choose to adopt other ways of life, who are we to protect
> >them from themselves? At what point are supposed to say to (for
> >example) the French, "we've made a nice, entertaining summer blockbuster
> >movie, that millions have watched and enjoyed, and you'd like it to if
> >your past behavior is anything to go by, but we're not going to send it
> >to you because it'd make you less French"?
>
> LOL! Steven, I don't think there's much chance we'd have to say
> something like that to the French. They're more likely to insist that
> it's dubbed in "pure" French, with all terms such as "le drugstore"
> omitted!
You might be surprised. In France, the government has tried to stop the
tide of Ameircan TV shows and American movies, but it hasn't worked
because the rank and file French want this stuff. For a while at least
(no idea if it's still the case) the gov't allowed US shows on TV only
one night per week - Sunday, the least-popular night for TV viewing. It
quickly became the most popular night for TV viewing in France.
> But there are raging examples of what kind of culture shock
> can happen on a national and local level. For example, the Spanish
> were certainly not egalitarian in their "conversion" the the Aztecs
> and other native cultures to Christianity, and huge and valuable
> amounts of their cultural history and traditiopns was lost in the
> process.
But there's a difference - an important one - between military conquest
and just offering people a product in a commercial marketplace. No
one's forced at gunpoint to drink a Coke or eat a Big Mac, and unless
I'm mistaken no McDonald's Co. thugs are out torching souvlaki stands in
the dark of night. A lot of old-fashioned diners in the US have been
replaced by Thai restaurants and sushi bars, too, but that doesn't mean
that there's a campaign to destroy our native culture. Personally, I'd
bulldoze Chin Chin's in a heartbeat if it meant getting Ships back, but
the marketplace has already spoken.
> In another example that is with us today that is only
> partially attributable to the West and the Cold War is the collapse of
> the Soviet Union. Suddenly that entire population finds itself forced
> into capitalism and they rarely have idea-one about how capitalism
> works. And the immense number of people who had retired and drew
> pensions under the communist system suddenly found themselves without
> *any* benefits, and rarely able to cope fully with the intellectual
> aspects of capitalism. It's a strange world for them. Very strange!
> Today there is a huge resurgence throughout the former Soviet Union
> and the Eastern Bloc countries of "homesickness" for the "good old
> days" of communism, and local/national communist parties are gaining
> popular support.
True enough. It's going to take at least a generation, or maybe two,
before we find out if Capitalism wil work in the Former Soviet Union.
> It is a strange world that's likely to get stranger, because I truly
> believe we are living in a transitional era in which international
> boundaries and geopolitical governments are just window dressings for
> the populace while international mega-corporations run things their
> way and to their advantage. I see it strongly in the politics of
> George W. Bush, and it has nothing to do with party lines. It has to
> do with corporate lines. It's an evolutionary process, and I don't
> think it can be halted, but I do think that individuals can scramble
> to try to land on the side of the fence they want to end up on.
Also true, from my point of view.
> Homogenization is good for milk, but I'm not so sure about people.
I agree in principle, but humans are more alike than different (in my
opinion). We all tend to want the same sorts of things, whether it's a
comfortable place to sleep or high fat, high salt, high sugar foods.
The Japanese seem to love beef but their diets are more weighted toward
fish, chicken and pork because those are animals are easier to manage on
an island with limited grazing land. Beef is very expensive and so is
also very high in quality, because it's worth the little extra it takes
to make it so. International trade is making it a lot cheaper and
easier for the Japanese to get beef; Brazil is making some serious
inroads with their grass-fed variety. Soon, an imported steak -
flash-frozen and vacuum-sealed - will be as economical as a fish caught
off the coast of Japan. Does Brazil (or the companies that operate in
Brazil) have an obligation to keep the Japanese from eating more beef
and less fish?
> >I hear you, and on one level agree, but I also have to wonder if the
> >desire to keep other cultures historically pure isn't at least a little
> >bit of treating them like a theme park. For the people who live there,
> >it's home and if they want to have a McDonald's handy, that should be
> >their choice. After all, it's their culture whether they choose to
> >protect it, adapt it, or abolish it. We're just tourists, and they're
> >not obligated to either make it or keep it quaint for our amusement.
>
> Except that mega-corporations, whether it's McDonald's or WalMart,
> tend to squeeze out the small neighborhood competition, and that's
> true globally. When I lived in Greece, for instance, it would have
> been wonderful to walk into a McDonalds and have a choice between a
> Big Mac or an order of souvlaki. Instead my only choice was a "Big
> Mac" that tasted more un-McDonaldian than souvlaki ever could have!
> But I'm not advocating forcing anyone to preserve their culture for my
> or anyone else's amusement, but I am advocating that international
> corporations back off just enough to offer the people of other
> countries some sense of choice that isn't dictated by their corporate
> bottom line.
But who do we put into power to force the corporations to back off,
against the wishes of the customer base they're trying to serve? People
don't drink Coke, even though they hate it, because it's marketed so
heavily. People drink it because they like the taste Marketing might
get them to try it, and might keep them focused on the brand name, but
if a carbonated, cola-flavored sugary beverage didn't appeal to a lot of
people's tastes, Coca Cola Inc would have gone ashcan decades ago, and
PepsiCo would just be making lemonade.
> Maybe the Japanese have the best answer... Octopus
> pizza with nori flakes at Pizza Hut. Or maybe the worst answer:
> Tater Tot pizza? I could handle the octopus, but Tater Tots pizza
> doesn't sound at all tempting. The point is the Japanese have taken
> something foreign and made it their own. I think that's a better way
> to go than simply "Meatlovers" or "Supreme."
Seems a reasonable approach to me, too. Most international McDonald's
franchises have local delicacies (or at least local fast food) on the
menu, right along side the Big Macs and fries. In France, Micky D's
even serves cheap red wine! That's Capitalism at work, but I'd hate to
see that sort of thing legally enforced, just like I'd hate to see a law
requiring all LA-area sushi bars to install a deep fryer, so we
Americans can be assured of getting fries with our spicy tuna roll.
nmstevens
Sorry - that's not "Outer Limits" -- I think it's "Light's Out" --
Arch Oboler's show -- and I don't think you're quite remembering it
correctly -- but then, I've found that that's often the case with
movies I've seen as a little kid and then caught up with later --
often a lot of what I think I've "remembered" is, in fact, stuff
that's actually some sort of odd mental construction that I've built
up over the years (sometimes, you actually mix stuff up from two
different movies) -- sometimes an incredibly vivid construction -- but
one that actually doesn't apply to anything outside of my own head.
NMS
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>Television has always walked the line between film and stage; in the
>early days it was closer to theatre and had radio to draw from (radio
>actors had to be masters of timing, but had the advantage of "the old
>clock on the wall." These days, and for some time, it's film with less
>money and less time. Everybody wants the control over the final product
>that comes with post production, and higher quality that comes with
>setting up individual shots instead of trying to get camera three lined
>up for a reaction in time, and then dragging it back over to pick up the
>next entrance before the door opens.
I don't know. I *could* just be waxing nostalgic, but I don't think
so. There was something exhilerating and exciting about live
broadcast without all of the "safety nets" that are built in today.
Television was a new media with a heritage, primarily -- as you say --
from the theater, but only in the sense of being live. Unlike
theater, television also drew a heritage from film in the form of
being freed of the damnable fixed proscenium! And that was an
important part of the dynamic. You had the excitement of the theater,
but you had cinema's ability to take each and every audience member by
the scruff of the neck and make damned sure s/he is looking exactly
where you want her/him to look!
And then you had that "closing curtain deadline" that was much tighter
and far more demanding than either cinema or stage. So while the
creative folk were freed in some areas, they were restricted in
others, and the interesting thing about restrictions is that the
creative challenge they bring can somehow be "freeing" at the same
time, if you just keep your creative wits about you.
As I said, I could just be waxing nostalgic, but it seems to me that
today both movies and television are extremely far removed from
theater. In my opinion, the constant safety net of being able to
shoot something again and again and again until the actors get it
right or things are done to the director's liking removes a certain
imperative that adds sparkle to a live performance. Yes. Working in
front of a live audience can restore some of that factor, but then
it's put back in a bottle with a cork on it with those damnable laugh
tracks.
This thread started with Neal's observation that "Outer Limits" sill
works today. And it's true! But I think it's true because the first
decade and a half of television rode a curve of creativity that has
not been paralleled since. If you look back at the caliber of writing
in those early years: Pady Chayefsky, Gene Rodenberry, Rod Serling,
to name but three. They were remarkable times. Which is not to say
that there aren't great television writers around today.
Maybe part of what made those years so special is that they were more
concentrated, the "lowest common denominator" had not been firmly
established, and you didn't have to face the quandry of trying to
steal a few minutes to review the programming of 100 stations/networks
so you could set your TIVO to record the most appealing three or four
hours of television that week, *IF* you could find the time to watch.
>
>Recent winner of the California State Lottery (something like $29
>million) is a 30-something aspiring actress who plans on setting up her
>own production company.
>
>FINALLY!
That will be interesting. I wish her luck!
>You might be surprised. In France, the government has tried to stop the
>tide of Ameircan TV shows and American movies, but it hasn't worked
>because the rank and file French want this stuff. For a while at least
>(no idea if it's still the case) the gov't allowed US shows on TV only
>one night per week - Sunday, the least-popular night for TV viewing. It
>quickly became the most popular night for TV viewing in France.
That's funny! Anthropologists and archaeologists subscribe to the
belief that in ancient times (and modern), government had little
impact on the day-to-day life of the common man. Sounds like the
French government had to challenge the concept only to end up
confirming it!
>But there's a difference - an important one - between military conquest
>and just offering people a product in a commercial marketplace. No
>one's forced at gunpoint to drink a Coke or eat a Big Mac, and unless
>I'm mistaken no McDonald's Co. thugs are out torching souvlaki stands in
>the dark of night.
Honey Bunch, are you trying to tell me that McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and
Colonel Sanders will be springing up all over Baghdad because those
corporations went through standard negotiations with a sitting
government? '-)
>A lot of old-fashioned diners in the US have been
>replaced by Thai restaurants and sushi bars, too, but that doesn't mean
>that there's a campaign to destroy our native culture. Personally, I'd
>bulldoze Chin Chin's in a heartbeat if it meant getting Ships back, but
>the marketplace has already spoken.
But you see, there is a HUGE difference between immigrants starting up
a business that helps alleviate the homesickness of their fellow
immigrants, and at the same time wins over the local "indiginous"
population and a mega corporation storming in and offering a
globalized dining experience that's done THEIR way! McDonald's et al.
may offer franchises, but they do not offer entrepreneurship!
>I agree in principle, but humans are more alike than different (in my
>opinion).
That was one of the great joys of discovery that living in Turkey gave
to me. Other than frequent shopping trips to Tijuana or San
Francisco's Chinatown while I was growing up, it was my first "total
immersion" experience in a foriegn culture. At that time, Turkey had
an extremely limited "middle class" that consisted almost exclusively
of teachers. In that region of Turkey, the vast majority of the
population was very poor and the rest were extremely rich. I was
blessed in that I had friends in equal numbers among both classes, and
while I wasn't on an economic par with any of my Turkish friends, ALL
of us shared a common concern for our family's health, well being,
education, and future. But we also relished exploring each other's
cultures. And it is that aspect of the human experience that I grieve
for because I see it disappearing so fast. Global "Hardrock Cafe" tee
shirts aren't nearly as much fun as native costumes and local customs.
One of my new recent disappointments in surfing the real estate
websites of the world, greatly assisted by Alan, is the shocking
realization that ALL of the worlds kitchens are beginning to look like
they came from Home Depot! <sigh> When I get filthy rich and build
my dreamhome, I'm going to have an open charcoal hearth and a tandoori
oven and a special stove for a wok in my kitchen. Screw Home Depot!
>The Japanese seem to love beef but their diets are more weighted toward
>fish, chicken and pork because those are animals are easier to manage on
>an island with limited grazing land. Beef is very expensive and so is
>also very high in quality, because it's worth the little extra it takes
>to make it so. International trade is making it a lot cheaper and
>easier for the Japanese to get beef; Brazil is making some serious
>inroads with their grass-fed variety. Soon, an imported steak -
>flash-frozen and vacuum-sealed - will be as economical as a fish caught
>off the coast of Japan. Does Brazil (or the companies that operate in
>Brazil) have an obligation to keep the Japanese from eating more beef
>and less fish?
Actually, the beef the Japanese eat that we call "Kobe beef" comes
from a special breed of cattle, the wagyu. It's built "strange" by,
say, Black Angus standards. Very large at the shoulders with a fairly
skinny butt, and the super-marbling is natural, though in Japan, some
farmers have tethered the poor beasts, kept them drunk on beer for a
certain period of time, then massaged them frequently so the beer
spread throughout their systems. Can't have a steer with a drunk
brain and a sober tenderloin! These days Japan is importing a large
portion of its wagyu beef from Australia, and it's a growing
undertaking here in the U.S. Possibly the best known American wagyu
cattleman is a guy named Gary Yamamoto who raises the beasties right
here in Texas. http://www.yama-beef.com/ You can even order pre-cut
single portion packages of shabu, if you're into do-it-yourself shabu
shabu or sukiyaki. I don't know if Brazilian cattlemen are climbing
aboard the wagyu bandwagon or not, but Japan is doing more and more
importing and less and less cattle raising at home. But they still
eat a lot of seafood and the best noodles in the world! Udon.
>But who do we put into power to force the corporations to back off,
>against the wishes of the customer base they're trying to serve? People
>don't drink Coke, even though they hate it, because it's marketed so
>heavily. People drink it because they like the taste Marketing might
>get them to try it, and might keep them focused on the brand name, but
>if a carbonated, cola-flavored sugary beverage didn't appeal to a lot of
>people's tastes, Coca Cola Inc would have gone ashcan decades ago, and
>PepsiCo would just be making lemonade.
Well, it's an unstopable freight train, in my opinion. WalMart, for
example, is now the largest corporation in the world, even bigger than
Microsoft, but the upper classes seldom shop there. The great impetus
to their enterprise is that the lower economic stratas cannot afford
not to shop there! Hey, it's the perpetual motion machine of the
corporate world. The corporate Field of Dreams. "Build it and they
will come!" How do you stop that?
Caroline
Gene Harris
> Sorry - that's not "Outer Limits" -- I think it's "Light's Out" --
> Arch Oboler's show -- and I don't think you're quite remembering it
> correctly -- but then, I've found that that's often the case with
> movies I've seen as a little kid and then caught up with later --
> often a lot of what I think I've "remembered" is, in fact, stuff
> that's actually some sort of odd mental construction that I've built
> up over the years (sometimes, you actually mix stuff up from two
> different movies) -- sometimes an incredibly vivid construction -- but
> one that actually doesn't apply to anything outside of my own head.
Well, I did a little googling, and you're right that it wasn't Outer
Limits. It was actually "Way Out", hosted by Roald Dahl. The episode was
called "Soft Focus".
http://www.tvparty.com/recwayout.html
Gene
David M. Geshwind
<jfqgsvkmo7j97bg1l...@4ax.com>...
>
> This thread started with Neal's observation that "Outer Limits" sill
> works today. And it's true! But I think it's true because the first
> decade and a half of television rode a curve of creativity that has
> not been paralleled since. If you look back at the caliber of writing
> in those early years: Pady Chayefsky, Gene Rodenberry, Rod Serling,
> to name but three. They were remarkable times. Which is not to say
> that there aren't great television writers around today.
>
> Maybe part of what made those years so special is that they were more
> concentrated, the "lowest common denominator" had not been firmly
> established, and you didn't have to face the quandry of trying to
> steal a few minutes to review the programming of 100 stations/networks
> so you could set your TIVO to record the most appealing three or four
> hours of television that week, *IF* you could find the time to watch.
I think there are (at least) two factors in play.
The first is that in the early years of a medium -- or major style shift --
the practitioners are originals. By definition, they have to be more
creative and talented. They have no templates. You say "the 'lowest common
denominator' had not been firmly established." But you might also think of
it as "expectations" of the audience, TV executives, advertisers, etc. Once
it becomes a business, the businessmen want safe. And original is NOT safe.
For example, think of the early years of Rock & Roll. What about Elvis, The
Beatles (G.Martin), The Stones, etc. Were they so much better, more
creative, more original, more in tune with the audience, than bands today?
Well probably. But mostly because there were NO imitative hacks back then.
There was nothing to imitate.
But just as important. THEY WERE FRESH. There was nothing to compare them
to.
You can't break ground for a second time.
So, in may ways it was the state of the culture into which these early
writers, or musicians, or artists (who today compares to Picasso, Pollack
or Mondrian) enter. They make an impression because that portion of the
culture is blank. Once the area is well formed, there is no linger the
ability to make such an impact, and a different type of practitioner
becomes sought after and successful. One who can mold themselves to the
well-formed cultural expectations; not one equipped to mold a
not-yet-formed cultural tableau.
If you doubt this at all, consider the amount of chatter out here devoted
to "not breaking THE RULES."
Originality is discouraged not embraced, once the medium is established.
And, so, the better (or, at least, the more original) writers/artists have
a harder time.
The second element is hindsight.
You cite "Pady Chayefsky, Gene Rodenberry, Rod Serling" from the golden
age.
I could cite Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Voltaire, etc. to evidence
that "classic" writers were -- as a group -- much more talented than modern
writers.
While there is certainly something to be said for the talent of those
mentioned, you (and I) failed to mention the OTHER 98% of writers who were
writing drek and who, deservedly, sank into anonymity.
While the golden age was golden, it was because of a few nuggets, not a
solid gold line-up of 100 hours per week of prime network fare.
-- dmg
Brian Christgau
"Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:az941-A4BEE1....@news.fu-berlin.de...
> Never much watched the new TZ but it seems at best unlikely that it was
> shot on tape.
I'm relatively certain (there's one of my favorite oxymorons) that it
was shot on film, though the rather shoddy and cheap-looking digital effects
of the time might make one think otherwise. Overall it was a disappointment,
but there were a couple of terrific episodes. One that springs to mind was
the George R.R. Martin scripted "The Once and Future King", in which we
discover that the fat, bloated Elvis who died on the bowl was not the real
King, but an Elvis impersenator who went back in time, accidently killed his
idol (who mistook him for his twin brother Jesse, who died at birth) and
took his place out of guilt.
Cheers,
B
Carl Dershem
news:01c3b69b$60af6780$05f0c043@default:
> For example, think of the early years of Rock & Roll. What about
> Elvis, The Beatles (G.Martin), The Stones, etc. Were they so much
> better, more creative, more original, more in tune with the audience,
> than bands today? Well probably. But mostly because there were NO
> imitative hacks back then. There was nothing to imitate.
>
> But just as important. THEY WERE FRESH. There was nothing to compare
> them to.
>
> You can't break ground for a second time.
>
> So, in may ways it was the state of the culture into which these early
> writers, or musicians, or artists (who today compares to Picasso,
> Pollack or Mondrian) enter. They make an impression because that
> portion of the culture is blank. Once the area is well formed, there
> is no linger the ability to make such an impact, and a different type
> of practitioner becomes sought after and successful. One who can mold
> themselves to the well-formed cultural expectations; not one equipped
> to mold a not-yet-formed cultural tableau.
>
> If you doubt this at all, consider the amount of chatter out here
> devoted to "not breaking THE RULES."
>
> Originality is discouraged not embraced, once the medium is
> established. And, so, the better (or, at least, the more original)
> writers/artists have a harder time.
While you have a point, there may be one you missed, and it's an
outgrowth of your point: Once a style or medium becomes well
established, a set of tried-and-true formulae and rules are worked out,
which are guaranteed to work well enough to get by and to make a profit,
even if they are often hostile to true creativity and originality. These
are "The box" you're encoraged (in academic circles, at least) to think
outside of, but which you are often constrained to when actually working
in the field, mostly for financial reasons.
If, by some wierd concatenation of events, you manage to do something new
and original, it's guaranteed that you will have many imitators who
follow these rules, and by doing so will make a pile of money off of your
ideas, leaving only a small proportion of viewers actually seeing the
difference, and usually tainting your original work by association with
their follow-ups.
The Beatles were followed by innumerable poor copies, as were Picasso,
Shakespeare and Gershwin, but their stuff still stands on it own for
those capable of (and willing to) see and hear the difference. However,
the vast majority of the people in the audience still like to eat at
McDonalds, shop at Wal-Mart, vote republican, and consider Richard Hatch
as good an actor as Kenneth Branagh.
Why? Partly because they really don't see the difference, and partly
because it's *easy*. If you can easily buy a simple cookbook, or a Time-
Life book on "How to build a _____", or watch a dumb SitCom, and it
achieves the (depressingly low, imo) expectations you have, and you don't
have to put forth any effort or thought, most folks will go for it, and
after a time will equate "what they're used to" with "The right way to do
it." And especially in the arts, which are intensely connected to social
norms (can you really argue that many, if not most of our entertainment
is not intended to reinforce social norms?), going against the grain can
mean a loss of profitability, which means a loss of status, which means
an assumption you're doing it WRONG, which reinforces the (IMO
fallacious) assumption that profit is the only valid yardstick by which
to emasure.
Sure - "The Outer Limits" worked and still works, even though it re-wrote
many of the rules and tropes of the industry, but the veneer, the seeming
of the new tropes built on it have been formalized and wrung out to such
an extent that drivel like "Battlestar Ponderosa" and "Earth 2" and
"Enterprise" are often made, and that with the expectation of great
success because they follow the forms, though with little, if any, real
understanding of what made the originals great.
This is why "Romance" novels are the biggest selling genre, why Soap
Operas have such a large audience, and why other drivel dominates the
arts - because form is easy, because following simple rules without any
real understanding of what makes them work is easy, and because humans
are lazy.
There - I think I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is much
easier than actually working on my book. I wonder if there's any other
"Cat Vacuuming" I can do, rather than getting back to work?
Thanks for letting me rant.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I don't know. I *could* just be waxing nostalgic, but I don't think
> so. There was something exhilerating and exciting about live
> broadcast without all of the "safety nets" that are built in today.
But the point of the exercize isn't to exicte the practitioners, it's to
entertain the audience.
Sure, there's entertainment value in bloopers; otherwise Dick Clark
would only work on New Year's Eve. But for the most part the audience
wants to see the story as designed, not a really enthusiatic attempt
that only hits most of the mark.
(snip nostalgic wax)
> >Recent winner of the California State Lottery (something like $29
> >million) is a 30-something aspiring actress who plans on setting up her
> >own production company.
> >
> >FINALLY!
>
> That will be interesting. I wish her luck!
I'm curious to see what comes of it myself.
> >But there's a difference - an important one - between military conquest
> >and just offering people a product in a commercial marketplace. No
> >one's forced at gunpoint to drink a Coke or eat a Big Mac, and unless
> >I'm mistaken no McDonald's Co. thugs are out torching souvlaki stands in
> >the dark of night.
>
> Honey Bunch, are you trying to tell me that McDonald's, Pizza Hut, and
> Colonel Sanders will be springing up all over Baghdad because those
> corporations went through standard negotiations with a sitting
> government? '-)
Not a bit. They'll either succeed or fail, though, based on whether the
local population is willing to eat the food. Unless Bagdad becomes a
tourist hotspot fairly quickly, or the military presence makes them
profitable with just the soldiers' trade, all the sweetheart deals in
the world won't keep the doors open if no one's coming in and buying the
food.
> >A lot of old-fashioned diners in the US have been
> >replaced by Thai restaurants and sushi bars, too, but that doesn't mean
> >that there's a campaign to destroy our native culture. Personally, I'd
> >bulldoze Chin Chin's in a heartbeat if it meant getting Ships back, but
> >the marketplace has already spoken.
>
> But you see, there is a HUGE difference between immigrants starting up
> a business that helps alleviate the homesickness of their fellow
> immigrants, and at the same time wins over the local "indiginous"
> population and a mega corporation storming in and offering a
> globalized dining experience that's done THEIR way!
On a corporate level, sure. But for the local population, it doesn't
really make that much difference if the restuarant on the corner is run
by someone else's mom n' pop or by McDonald's Inc. McDonald's spends
more on advertising, of course, but I have to wonder how much
advertising the average Iraqui consumes. Any restaurant, anywhere,
ultimately succeeds or fails based on people liking the food. Doesn't
matter if it's healthy or nutritious or kosher or whatever; if people
like the taste they'll eat it. If they don't, they won't, and all the
advertising in the world won't get them back through the front door a
second time.
It's practically a necessary intellectual credential to discredit Big
Macs and Whoppers and KFC Honey-Bar-B-Que Hot Wings and all the rest of
it as inedible garbage thrust down the throats of the Uniformed Masses
by Evil Corporate Giants Bent On World Domination, but the unfortunate
reality is that people actually LIKE this stuff. If they like it in
Iraq, it'll stay, just like it did on the Champs d'Ellis... um...
however you spell it - that big road in France.
> >I agree in principle, but humans are more alike than different (in my
> >opinion).
>
> That was one of the great joys of discovery that living in Turkey gave
> to me. Other than frequent shopping trips to Tijuana or San
> Francisco's Chinatown while I was growing up, it was my first "total
> immersion" experience in a foriegn culture. At that time, Turkey had
> an extremely limited "middle class" that consisted almost exclusively
> of teachers. In that region of Turkey, the vast majority of the
> population was very poor and the rest were extremely rich. I was
> blessed in that I had friends in equal numbers among both classes, and
> while I wasn't on an economic par with any of my Turkish friends, ALL
> of us shared a common concern for our family's health, well being,
> education, and future. But we also relished exploring each other's
> cultures. And it is that aspect of the human experience that I grieve
> for because I see it disappearing so fast. Global "Hardrock Cafe" tee
> shirts aren't nearly as much fun as native costumes and local customs.
But the "Hard Rock - Saigon" tee is an inevitable outgrowth of that
cross-cultural exploration, no less so than the bits of Turkish culture
you've introduced into your own life. Growing up, I couldn't have
imagined I'd be eating bait wrapped in rice and seaweed, and not only
calling it sushi but liking it. But I do, and on many occassions have
chosen it over a hamburger or a piece of fried chicken. Doesn't mean I
don't also have burgers and KFC from time to time, but my cultural
experience is now inclusive rather than exclusive. Raw fish and rice is
no less exotic to me than it is common to a guy who grew up in Tokyo,
just like 11 herbs and spices is common for me and exotic for him. Each
becomes less and less exotic for us as we exchange more and more of our
cultures - how can that be a good thing for me but a bad thing for him?
Why are we the only ones who get to be a melting pot?
> One of my new recent disappointments in surfing the real estate
> websites of the world, greatly assisted by Alan, is the shocking
> realization that ALL of the worlds kitchens are beginning to look like
> they came from Home Depot! <sigh> When I get filthy rich and build
> my dreamhome, I'm going to have an open charcoal hearth and a tandoori
> oven and a special stove for a wok in my kitchen. Screw Home Depot!
Actually, you can buy all three of those items at Home Depot, or at
least at Home Depot's Expo stores. Sorry.
> >But who do we put into power to force the corporations to back off,
> >against the wishes of the customer base they're trying to serve? People
> >don't drink Coke, even though they hate it, because it's marketed so
> >heavily. People drink it because they like the taste. Marketing might
> >get them to try it, and might keep them focused on the brand name, but
> >if a carbonated, cola-flavored sugary beverage didn't appeal to a lot of
> >people's tastes, Coca Cola Inc would have gone ashcan decades ago, and
> >PepsiCo would just be making lemonade.
>
> Well, it's an unstopable freight train, in my opinion. WalMart, for
> example, is now the largest corporation in the world, even bigger than
> Microsoft, but the upper classes seldom shop there. The great impetus
> to their enterprise is that the lower economic stratas cannot afford
> not to shop there! Hey, it's the perpetual motion machine of the
> corporate world. The corporate Field of Dreams. "Build it and they
> will come!" How do you stop that?
By raising the economic standing of the lower economic classes,
more-or-less restoring the middle class that's largely vanished in the
US.
Trouble is, our middle class was built on economic policies that simply
don't work in a global economy. When people were being paid $20-$30 per
hour to assemble cars in Detroit, Flint, and Lansing (my home town), it
wasn't because that semi-skilled labor was actually worth that wage in
any empirical sense, but because no one had yet begun to exploit foreign
labor available at pennies on the dollar. That genii's long since been
out of the bottle, and it's unlikely - short of some sort of world war
or other international upheaval - to be put back in. Wal*Mart didn't
create a situation (though it currently contributes to it); it simply
exploited one. Capitalism 101 - do a thing people want, do it cheaper
than the competiton, reap the rewards. Wal*Mart's a non-union shop
because there's a labor pool out there that needs the jobs and will work
for the money being offered. Their prices are so low because they limit
their selection, make deals for huge volumes, and cut their expenses
(including employee benifits) to the bone. In a real sense they're a
self-contained economy; Wal*Mart pays its employees a wage that allows
them to shop at Wal*Mart and few other places. From a corporate,
bottom-line standpoint, a perfect balance.
JAWS: BUFFET
++++++
Hollywood is nothing but money.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>But the point of the exercize isn't to exicte the practitioners, it's to
>entertain the audience.
>
Then we had it backwards in TV's early days. Back then the point of
the exercise was to excite the practitioners and make the audience
think.
>
>Trouble is, our middle class was built on economic policies that simply
>don't work in a global economy. When people were being paid $20-$30 per
>hour to assemble cars in Detroit, Flint, and Lansing (my home town), it
>wasn't because that semi-skilled labor was actually worth that wage in
>any empirical sense, but because no one had yet begun to exploit foreign
>labor available at pennies on the dollar. That genii's long since been
>out of the bottle, and it's unlikely - short of some sort of world war
>or other international upheaval - to be put back in. Wal*Mart didn't
>create a situation (though it currently contributes to it); it simply
>exploited one. Capitalism 101 - do a thing people want, do it cheaper
>than the competiton, reap the rewards. Wal*Mart's a non-union shop
>because there's a labor pool out there that needs the jobs and will work
>for the money being offered. Their prices are so low because they limit
>their selection, make deals for huge volumes, and cut their expenses
>(including employee benifits) to the bone. In a real sense they're a
>self-contained economy; Wal*Mart pays its employees a wage that allows
>them to shop at Wal*Mart and few other places. From a corporate,
>bottom-line standpoint, a perfect balance.
Big Brother salutes you.
Caroline
Ovum
>For example, think of the early years of Rock & Roll.
Exactly. All those black artists that funked up the Blues and created a new art
form. Like Ike Turner, who is widely credited with cutting the first rock 'n
roll record: "Rocket 88," recorded at Sun Studios in 1951.
>What about Elvis, The
>Beatles (G.Martin), The Stones, etc.
? ? ?
>Were they so much better, more
>creative, more original, more in tune with the audience, than bands today?
>Well probably. But mostly because there were NO imitative hacks back then.
You're right; there were no imitative hacks at all. Well, except for every
white artist that got rich imitating black musicians. Why was it, exactly, that
all those "rockers" who were born and bred in the U.K. sounded like Mississippi
sharecroppers when they sang?
>There was nothing to imitate.
Except for black music -- called "race records" back in the early '50s.
Please, please, please buy a clue about rock history.
Lois
------------------------------------------------
A blank page is God showing you how hard it is to be God.
Ovum
>This is why "Romance" novels are the biggest selling genre, why Soap
>Operas have such a large audience, and why other drivel dominates the
>arts - because form is easy, because following simple rules without any
>real understanding of what makes them work is easy, and because humans
>are lazy.
You're not calling romance novels "drivel," are you? I'm curious; do you
consider westerns "drivel"? How about techno-thrillers?
Oh, I get it. They're not "drivel" because their audiences are primarily male.
I invite you to check out the stats page of the Romance Writers Association
site (www.rwanational.org/). Then look at their "Sub-genres" page. Romance
encompasses nearly every format of fiction writing, from historical fiction and
westerns to mysteries and sci-fi, with almost everything in-between. Romance
novels are no "easier" to write than Civil War novels or a spy thrillers,
because a lot of them *are* Civil War novels and spy thrillers.
They just have a successful love story as one of their main elements.
(Interestingly, almost every Hollywood "action" movie of the last decade
exploits a love story.)
The main difference is that romance novels and films feature relationships
where men and women actually come to like and respect each other. As opposed to
other types of stories where men and women just use each other. Most mature
people would agree that liking and respecting the opposite sex isn't "drivel,"
and that promoting it through art is A Good Thing.
MC
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
> >Were they so much better, more
> >creative, more original, more in tune with the audience, than bands today?
> >Well probably. But mostly because there were NO imitative hacks back then.
>
> You're right; there were no imitative hacks at all. Well, except for every
> white artist that got rich imitating black musicians. Why was it, exactly,
> that
> all those "rockers" who were born and bred in the U.K. sounded like
> Mississippi
> sharecroppers when they sang?
>
It's passing strange that a bunch of enthusiasts in the the UK should
have have been the ones to bring the value in that music to the white
(and international) public, but if you're suggesting that they
deliberately got rich at the expense of the black musicians that may not
be the whole story, and I think it's quite far from the truth.
I don't think the musicians are as much to be faulted as the record
companies, the radio stations and various other corporate and political
players. They're the ones who created a situation in which Pat Boone
could cover a Little Richard song.
From Ken Burns's series on jazz, I was astounded to learn how entrenched
musical segregation was in the North -- even in New York... but he went
to some lengths to show how the B&W *musicians* enjoyed interacting
outside the public gaze... and how it was the musicians who brought
about change.
Similar thing in the UK... people like Alexis Korner didn't just imitate
black musicians, they brought them over to England to tour in front of
white audiences. Steve Winwood -- at the age of about 15 -- backed up
Sonny Boy Williamson on a tour. The Stones may have made millions off
the blues artists they imitated, but did they rip them off? I don't
think so. In fact, if anything they made sure these old geezers got some
royalty income.
Did you see "Standing in the Shadow of Motown"? I was almost in tears
when they got to the question of race, and talked about how the black
musicians protected the white musicians in the Detroit riots.
nmstevens
Well, I have to disagree to some extent. No artist and no medium
arises, like Athena, from the head of Zeus, adult-born. We look back
to Shakespeare and he seems to be a lone beacon shining in the midst
of a vacuum because we don't see the dozens of other playwrights who
were writing at the same time and prior to him upon which he drew his
inspiration (not to mention, of course, the inspiration he drew from
classical mythology and history). He may be great, but he is not
simply greatness alone on a stage. He is the greatest practitioner of
a particular theatrical tradition that had been widely practiced for
quite some time before he came alone and was being widely practiced at
the time he wrote.
>
> You can't break ground for a second time.
>
> So, in may ways it was the state of the culture into which these early
> writers, or musicians, or artists (who today compares to Picasso, Pollack
> or Mondrian) enter. They make an impression because that portion of the
> culture is blank. Once the area is well formed, there is no linger the
> ability to make such an impact, and a different type of practitioner
> becomes sought after and successful. One who can mold themselves to the
> well-formed cultural expectations; not one equipped to mold a
> not-yet-formed cultural tableau.
>
> If you doubt this at all, consider the amount of chatter out here devoted
> to "not breaking THE RULES."
>
> Originality is discouraged not embraced, once the medium is established.
> And, so, the better (or, at least, the more original) writers/artists have
> a harder time.
I think it's important to understand that even the most "original" of
what we think of as "original" artists don't truly arise from nothing
-- they are also parts of artistic movements, often reflecting the
cross-polination of different artistic disciplines, sometimes the
meeting of art and politics, art and new technology, or the collision
of different artistic movements -- that give rise to the putative
"original" Artist. But clearly, Picasso and Mondrian and Pollack, no
less and Rembrandt, were men of their particular time -- their
particular place in art history. They were not simply lone soldiers in
a sea of other artists marching to a completely different drummer.
They were part of whole movements of artistic expression that preceded
and ultimately included them. And those artistic movements, at the
very least, amounted to the soil necessary for those artists to grow
in.
Likewise, without rockabilly, without the blues, without the whole
body of black southern popular music of the thirties and forties --
there's no Elvis. He didn't descend from the heavens. He simply (or
maybe not so simply -- clearly, not anybody could have done it)
combined previously separate musical traditions to create something
that nobody had ever heard before.
>
> The second element is hindsight.
>
> You cite "Pady Chayefsky, Gene Rodenberry, Rod Serling" from the golden
> age.
>
> I could cite Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Voltaire, etc. to evidence
> that "classic" writers were -- as a group -- much more talented than modern
> writers.
>
> While there is certainly something to be said for the talent of those
> mentioned, you (and I) failed to mention the OTHER 98% of writers who were
> writing drek and who, deservedly, sank into anonymity.
>
> While the golden age was golden, it was because of a few nuggets, not a
> solid gold line-up of 100 hours per week of prime network fare.
But we should also remember that, along with Serling, you also had
Charles Beaumont, and Richard Matheson, and George Clayton Johnson
> -- dmg
nmstevens
and Earl Hamner Jr. (who later went on to write "The Waltons"), and
Jerry Sohl, and Reginald Rose...
It's not just "the nuggets" and the crap. There were a lot of very
good writers working then.
And frankly, there are a lot of very good writers working in
television today.
But honestly, what do you expect? Not even every play that Shakespeare
wrote was great. Certainly, not every episode of TZ was great -- some
of then, including some by Serling, are real stinkers.
Back when I was working on "Monsters" my personal goal, when we were
doing 26 episodes in a season, I was hoping that we might be able to
make three or four episodes that were really good, end up with no more
that three or four that were unquestionable stinkers, and hopefully
keep the rest somewhere in the middle.
And honestly, whether in the context of an anthology show, or a
dramatic series, or a sitcom, or anything else -- to achieve a really
great show -- it's really hard. There are so many things that can go
wrong.
I don't think that writers today are somehow dwarves working in the
shadows of giants. The fact is, the kind of writing that Chayefsky
did, or that Serling did, would have a hard time selling today -- not
because it was too sophisticated, but in some ways, I think a lot of
it comes across, with Serling, as too moralistic, and with Chayefsky,
as too didactic.
I personally think that the best of modern television is as good as
anything that Rod Serling did -- it's as good as any of the "Golden
Age" stuff. The only difference is -- there's a lot more stuff -- and
there's a lot more crap, so the ratio of good stuff to crap is much
higher.
NMS
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>"David M. Geshwind" <acaesq...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<01c3b69b$60af6780$05f0c043@default>...
>> You cite "Paddy Chayefsky, Gene Rodenberry, Rod Serling" from the golden
>> age.
>>
>> I could cite Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Swift, Voltaire, etc. to evidence
>> that "classic" writers were -- as a group -- much more talented than modern
>> writers.
>>
>> While there is certainly something to be said for the talent of those
>> mentioned, you (and I) failed to mention the OTHER 98% of writers who were
>> writing drek and who, deservedly, sank into anonymity.
>>
>> While the golden age was golden, it was because of a few nuggets, not a
>> solid gold line-up of 100 hours per week of prime network fare.
>
>But we should also remember that, along with Serling, you also had
>Charles Beaumont, and Richard Matheson, and George Clayton Johnson
Yay Neal! And an excellent point. With time, contemporaries of those
we now percieve as great writers fade from memory, or as in the case
of Homer and Chaucer, there are few to no contemporary works by peers
that have survived. How do we know some of their contemporaries may
not have been better? We don't. We have the volumes of works from
Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Euripides, and Sophocles because of chance.
They were loaded on board the only vessel that survived a storm in a
trans-Mediterranean shipment of all of the extant works of Greek
classics. Some of their plays only won second or third prize. What
were the winners like?
But no matter who compiles the list of great authors of the ancient or
near past, the thing that gives all of these works staying power is
that they strike a chord in human experience that resonates in spite
of time. And I have to wonder how much of today's literature, whether
visually recorded or type-set, will be around in two, four, ten
centuries?
Hey, maybe I'll wait around and see.... '-)
Caroline
Carl Dershem
news:20031130083738...@mb-m20.aol.com:
> Carl Dershem writes:
>
>>This is why "Romance" novels are the biggest selling genre, why Soap
>>Operas have such a large audience, and why other drivel dominates the
>>arts - because form is easy, because following simple rules without
>>any real understanding of what makes them work is easy, and because
>>humans are lazy.
>
> You're not calling romance novels "drivel," are you? I'm curious; do
> you consider westerns "drivel"? How about techno-thrillers?
>
> Oh, I get it. They're not "drivel" because their audiences are
> primarily male.
I would consider the majority of them - those written to formula, rather
than with at least some attempt at originality - as "drivel." It's like
any other genre or area of effort - Sturgeon's Law applies.
As an example of testosterone laden drivel, look at the "Mack Boaln"
series and its shelf-mates. Purely formulaic, driven by neither plot nor
characterization, widely read. But still hack writing at its most hack-
like. What makes romance novels stand out here is that, for whatever
reason, even the really crappy ones sell so well as to make them a
dominant force in the industry.
Not a sexist thing - just an observation.
Steven J. Weller
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
> Carl Dershem writes:
>
> >This is why "Romance" novels are the biggest selling genre, why Soap
> >Operas have such a large audience, and why other drivel dominates the
> >arts - because form is easy, because following simple rules without any
> >real understanding of what makes them work is easy, and because humans
> >are lazy.
>
> You're not calling romance novels "drivel," are you? I'm curious; do you
> consider westerns "drivel"? How about techno-thrillers?
>
> Oh, I get it. They're not "drivel" because their audiences are primarily
> male.
Lois, I love you, but get over yourself.
Most westerns are pure drivel, even though they have a primarily male
audience. More than most adventure stuff (ever really read a Jack Deth
'novel' from cover to cover?), too. There are good romance novels out
there, I'm sure, just like somewhere there's a good Hardy Boys or Nancy
Drew Mystery in the collection.
Romance novels, are, by and large, product. Harlequin puts out multiple
titles every month, in specific genres separated (IIRC) by how explicit
the sex is.
What separates romance novels from other genres is that romance novels
are basically porn for women, so they have a market share more similar
to Playboy than to Zane Grey. There's higher-end stuff to be sure, and
much of it has great literary merit - just like there's higher-end
adventure stuff, higher-end westerns, and so on. Gender bias aside, I'm
sure you recognize that there's a difference between an episode of The
Rifleman and Unforgiven, or a Tom Clancy novel and installment #439 of
the Jack Deth series.
> Romance
> novels are no "easier" to write than Civil War novels or a spy thrillers,
> because a lot of them *are* Civil War novels and spy thrillers.
Perhaps that's why The Learning Annex doesn't offer classes on How To
Make Money Writing Civil War Novels or Spy Thrillers, but does usually
offer such a course on romance novels. Just as there are how-to books
on writing romance novels, and Harlequin will gladly send you their
writer's guide, outlining the formula they require.
> They just have a successful love story as one of their main elements.
> (Interestingly, almost every Hollywood "action" movie of the last decade
> exploits a love story.)
There's a difference between a love story and a romance novel.
> The main difference is that romance novels and films feature relationships
> where men and women actually come to like and respect each other.
I'd disagree. Porn for men generally features women who look like women
but who behave like men, particularly where sexuality is concerned.
Romance novels generally feature men who look like men but who behave
like women, particularly where sexuality and intimacy is concerned. In
the same way that (on a fantasy level at least) men don't want to have
to deal with those parts of the feminine mindset that prevent us from
having sex at the drop of a hat, women tend not to want to deal with
that part of the masculine mindset that sees no good reason not to just
have sex now, because... well, because it's SEX.
> As opposed
> to other types of stories where men and women just use each other. Most
> mature people would agree that liking and respecting the opposite sex isn't
> "drivel," and that promoting it through art is A Good Thing.
Most mature men still harbor the idea that liking is good, respecting is
good, sharing intimate personal thoughs and feelings is good, but what's
wrong with a little sex? I like you, you like me, we both like sex, and
it's an important part of a relationship, but it's also a really, really
nice way to spend a couple of hours on an otherwise dull Sunday night.
Most mature women don't seem to see it that way, which is why there
tends to be different kinds of art aimed at male and female audiences.
Which, in my humble opinion, is also A Good Thing.
Ovum
>It's passing strange that a bunch of enthusiasts in the the UK should
>have have been the ones to bring the value in that music to the white
>(and international) public, but if you're suggesting that they
>deliberately got rich at the expense of the black musicians that may not
>be the whole story, and I think it's quite far from the truth.
>
>I don't think the musicians are as much to be faulted as the record
>companies, the radio stations and various other corporate and political
>players. They're the ones who created a situation in which Pat Boone
>could cover a Little Richard song.
It wasn't just the fault of record companies, radio stations and other
corporate/political players. The U.S. was (and still is) a racist society, pure
and simple. Appallingly, heinously, malovently racist. That's how, more than 50
years later, there are still people who mistakenly believe that white artists
invented rock 'n roll.
>Similar thing in the UK... people like Alexis Korner didn't just imitate
>black musicians, they brought them over to England to tour in front of
>white audiences. Steve Winwood -- at the age of about 15 -- backed up
>Sonny Boy Williamson on a tour. The Stones may have made millions off
>the blues artists they imitated, but did they rip them off? I don't
>think so.
I believe the Stones have been pretty good about admitting they got their sound
from black artists. A lot of the UK bands gave credit where credit was due.
Unfortunately, here in the States it's been a different story.
Black artists created and dominated rock 'n roll from the early to mid '50s.
However, white Americans didn't like their little Johnnies and Janes dancing to
that stuff. Enter the Spin Meister (in more ways than one) Dick Clark.
Dick Clark's dance show debuted in '57. He got white students from Catholic
high schools in Philly and put them in front of the cameras. So there you had a
clean-cut white host with a bunch of wholesome-looking white kids dancing to
Chuck Berry in America's living rooms. White parents began to relax about black
music.
After softening them up, Clark began to introduce white America the black faces
behind rock 'n roll. He "broke" a lot of black artists on his show. Then Clark
even allowed black high school dancers on his show. American Bandstand was
actually one of the first integrated TV shows in the US.
But it's the same old song. Why does it always take a white man to bring black
music to the masses? Why does a white man always have to put his stamp of
approval on black music for it to be OK for white consumption? And why is it
always white artists who make the most money off of black music?
Even now, you can find 80-year-old white people in US retirement homes who know
who Eminem is. Have they ever heard of Nas, Outkast or Ludacris?
Why did Vanilla Ice and the Beastie Boys have more name recognition than NWA
and Public Enemy?
When MTV first went on the air, they refused to play videos by black artists.
THIRTY YEARS after black people invented the genre, the industry *still* didn't
want to admit that black artists belonged on a network devoted to rock! How
could a network called *Music* Television basically deny that black people
invented almost every new musical genre in America -- from jazz, blues and
gospel to rock, rap and hip-hop?
It was racism, pure and simple.
WmB
news:az941-5BDB78....@news.fu-berlin.de...
I didn't understand all of it, but it had plenty of sex in it so it can't be all bad. ;-)
WmB
Ovum
>Lois, I love you, but get over yourself.
Will not. How can I? I'm my biggest fan.
But enough about me. Let's talk about my hair.*
:-)
>What separates romance novels from other genres is that romance novels
>are basically porn for women, so they have a market share more similar
>to Playboy than to Zane Grey. There's higher-end stuff to be sure, and
>much of it has great literary merit - just like there's higher-end
>adventure stuff, higher-end westerns, and so on.
Maybe that's why St*ph*n K*ng called Nora Roberts a good writer in his National
Book Awards acceptance speech the other night. He went on to basically accuse
the National Book Foundation judges of being literary snobs, and challenged
them to read more widely. A challenge a few of us could stand to take on
(myself included).
>Porn for men generally features women who look like women
>but who behave like men, particularly where sexuality is concerned.
>Romance novels ...
Why are you equating romance novels with porn? There is a genre called "erotic
fiction" but it's a separate category from romance. Yes, there is usually sex
in romance novels, but that doesn't make them "porn" any more than the sex in
former president Jimmy Carter's new book makes it "porn."
>Most mature men still harbor the idea that liking is good, respecting is
>good, sharing intimate personal thoughs and feelings is good, but what's
>wrong with a little sex? I like you, you like me, we both like sex, and
>it's an important part of a relationship, but it's also a really, really
>nice way to spend a couple of hours on an otherwise dull Sunday night.
>
>Most mature women don't seem to see it that way
OK, hopefully Dena Jo, Suzy, Caroline and some other women will back me up on
this. Women (not all women, but a significant percentage) want to have sex.
It's just that we want to have sex with *friends.* Not with strangers.
A friend likes your laugh, your hair, your goofy stories, the way put others at
ease. A stranger wants you to impress his friends.
A friend asks how it went, and listens, even if the answer takes 40 minutes. A
stranger just wants to eat.
A friend can look at you and tell that the kids were too much today. A stranger
wants you to keep the kids from interrupting his favorite TV show.
A friend is friendly all day long. A stranger becomes friendly when he wants to
have sex with you.
Feeling like a tool generally doesn't make a woman hot for sex.
Women share the blame for bad relationships. Some women, deep down, really
don't like men. They just use men as a means to an end. They want to stay at
home, have two kids, an SUV and a nice vacation every year. Some guys are the
same way; they don't really like women; they're just following The Script. You
can tell who's following The Script: they're the ones who break off into
single-sex cliques at parties.
Lois
*Yes, it's an old joke. So sue me. :-)
WmB
> this. Women (not all women, but a significant percentage) want to have sex.
> It's just that we want to have sex with *friends.* Not with strangers.
I should be so lucky. My girlfriend just gets pissed when I tell her I want to have sex
with some of her friends. ;-)
WmB
derek
news:az941-5BDB78....@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > You're not calling romance novels "drivel," are you? I'm curious; do you
> > consider westerns "drivel"? How about techno-thrillers?
> >
> > Oh, I get it. They're not "drivel" because their audiences are primarily
> > male.
>
> Lois, I love you, but get over yourself.
> What separates romance novels from other genres is that romance novels
> are basically porn for women,
that statement opens an interesting can of worms ... in haste I would just
make the observation that male interest in visual pornography exceeds female
interest by a very high ratio (I forget the exact figure) whereas suggestive
and implicit literary pornography is preferred in a similar ratio by women.
which helps go to show that for women sex is more in the mind, for men more
in the genitals. women are instinctively much more selective about sexual
partners and evaluate them much more comperehensively; men instinctively try
to impregnate as many sexual partners as possible, particularly youthful and
attractive ones.
> > novels are no "easier" to write than Civil War novels or a spy
thrillers,
> > because a lot of them *are* Civil War novels and spy thrillers.
>
> Perhaps that's why The Learning Annex doesn't offer classes on How To
> Make Money Writing Civil War Novels or Spy Thrillers, but does usually
> offer such a course on romance novels. Just as there are how-to books
> on writing romance novels, and Harlequin will gladly send you their
> writer's guide, outlining the formula they require.
>
> > They just have a successful love story as one of their main elements.
> > (Interestingly, almost every Hollywood "action" movie of the last decade
> > exploits a love story.)
>
> There's a difference between a love story and a romance novel.
>
> > The main difference is that romance novels and films feature
relationships
> > where men and women actually come to like and respect each other.
>
> I'd disagree. Porn for men generally features women who look like women
> but who behave like men, particularly where sexuality is concerned.
> Romance novels generally feature men who look like men but who behave
> like women, particularly where sexuality and intimacy is concerned. In
> the same way that (on a fantasy level at least) men don't want to have
> to deal with those parts of the feminine mindset that prevent us from
> having sex at the drop of a hat, women tend not to want to deal with
> that part of the masculine mindset that sees no good reason not to just
> have sex now, because... well, because it's SEX.
> Most mature men still harbor the idea that liking is good, respecting is
> good, sharing intimate personal thoughs and feelings is good, but what's
> wrong with a little sex? I like you, you like me, we both like sex, and
> it's an important part of a relationship, but it's also a really, really
> nice way to spend a couple of hours on an otherwise dull Sunday night.
Excuse me for asking Mr. Weller, but are you propositioning Lois!? And
don't you have anything better to do with your Sunday nights?
> Most mature women don't seem to see it that way, which is why there
> tends to be different kinds of art aimed at male and female audiences.
>
> Which, in my humble opinion, is also A Good Thing.
But why is that a Good Thing? Wouldn't it be easier, more efficient if we
could 'access' both genders in the common audience equally? And just as much
fun if all the art and entertainment elements which might be divided across
gender lines could be equally effective for both genders? Just a thought.
derek
Carl Dershem
news:Gyxyb.29051$Rk5....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Well, maybe they're some of her *stranger* friends...
Carl Dershem
news:bqe9v8$2sj$1...@mawar.singnet.com.sg:
> "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote in message
> news:az941-5BDB78....@news.fu-berlin.de...
>
>> > You're not calling romance novels "drivel," are you? I'm curious;
>> > do you consider westerns "drivel"? How about techno-thrillers?
>> >
>> > Oh, I get it. They're not "drivel" because their audiences are
>> > primarily male.
>>
>> Lois, I love you, but get over yourself.
>
>> What separates romance novels from other genres is that romance
>> novels are basically porn for women,
>
> that statement opens an interesting can of worms ... in haste I would
> just make the observation that male interest in visual pornography
> exceeds female interest by a very high ratio (I forget the exact
> figure) whereas suggestive and implicit literary pornography is
> preferred in a similar ratio by women. which helps go to show that for
> women sex is more in the mind, for men more in the genitals. women are
> instinctively much more selective about sexual partners and evaluate
> them much more comperehensively; men instinctively try to impregnate
> as many sexual partners as possible, particularly youthful and
> attractive ones.
That's one aspect of it, I guess. Men tend to be more visually driven and
active, women to be more verbally driven and passive, (a gross
generalization, I must admit) and at least some of my Anthropology
professors tie this to hundreds of thousands of years of humanity being a
hunter-gatherer species. Men were almost always the hunters in those
cultures, and spotting (and catching) their prey require a very visual and
active mindset. Women stayed behind and raised (and bore) the children,
which accentuates the tendency toward striving for stability, and the arts
of the home, including verbal arts. This has manifested in many ways, and
the ways we deal with what has been called "Porn" or "Romance" here very
clearly. Men are aroused by the hunt, woman by stability and closer
relationships.
>> Most mature women don't seem to see it that way, which is why there
>> tends to be different kinds of art aimed at male and female
>> audiences.
>>
>> Which, in my humble opinion, is also A Good Thing.
>
> But why is that a Good Thing? Wouldn't it be easier, more efficient if
> we could 'access' both genders in the common audience equally? And
> just as much fun if all the art and entertainment elements which might
> be divided across gender lines could be equally effective for both
> genders? Just a thought.
Hmmm... some stories *do* appeal to both aspects, and there is a great
deal of grey area between the two which is accessible to both, but writing
those stories seems to require a great deal of insight and skill and
practice. I admit I don't have it yet, but I'm working on it. Just
seeing what works for one aspect and not the other is a good pointer.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>OK, hopefully Dena Jo, Suzy, Caroline and some other women will back me up on
>this. Women (not all women, but a significant percentage) want to have sex.
>It's just that we want to have sex with *friends.* Not with strangers.
I think you're close, but just a tad short of "light the cigar" range.
While what you say above is absolutely true, the basic underlayment to
your observation is that women want to feel safe when having sex.
There is high risk where safety is concerned in having sex with
strangers. Which doesn't mean it's not a fairly common fantasy for
both men and women. But men are far more likely to act on it.
But there's a further difference that I think is important too, and
that is how men and women process the sexual experience mentally.
Women focus on tactile experience, and often enjoy making love --
including and especially foreplay -- with their eyes closed. Men are
far more visual about sex than women, like to keep their eyes open so
they can watch, and it's the intense tactile experience that "shoves
them off the cliff," so "too much too soon" can end up as "too little
too soon" if they don't keep that tactile experience at bay, at least
for a while.
This is the basic motivating factor in why men like porn -- a visual
stimuli -- and women like erotic novels -- an emotional stimuli --
with a story line that offers safety and security and promises that if
she gets pregnant, he'll still be around to bring her -- and
eventually the baby -- something to eat, and repair the roof if it
starts to leak.
But there is also a great deal of learned behavior regarding sex (and
everything else) that comes from the conditioning we're subjected to
as we grow up. The strange thing about conditioning and role models
is that parents have absolutely no control over where it comes from or
who the role model will be.
Life is spelled "r-i-s-k."
Caroline
Steven J. Weller
"derek" <pi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote in message
> news:az941-5BDB78....@news.fu-berlin.de...
>
> > Most mature men still harbor the idea that liking is good, respecting is
> > good, sharing intimate personal thoughs and feelings is good, but what's
> > wrong with a little sex? I like you, you like me, we both like sex, and
> > it's an important part of a relationship, but it's also a really, really
> > nice way to spend a couple of hours on an otherwise dull Sunday night.
>
> Excuse me for asking Mr. Weller, but are you propositioning Lois!? And
> don't you have anything better to do with your Sunday nights?
Lois is a bud*, but her husband would probably be annoyed if I were to
actually hit on her.
> > Most mature women don't seem to see it that way, which is why there
> > tends to be different kinds of art aimed at male and female audiences.
> >
> > Which, in my humble opinion, is also A Good Thing.
>
> But why is that a Good Thing? Wouldn't it be easier, more efficient if we
> could 'access' both genders in the common audience equally? And just as much
> fun if all the art and entertainment elements which might be divided across
> gender lines could be equally effective for both genders? Just a thought.
I think it's a good thing because I embrace he idea that men and women
have different ideas about what makes sex sexy. As nice a fantasy as it
might be to have (insert-fantasy-female-here) walk up and say 'you look
good, do me right here and now,' there's still something to be said for
'vive le difference.'
*though we'll see how well that holds up as I read the rest of this
thread
Steven J. Weller
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
> Weller issued this diss:
>
> >Lois, I love you, but get over yourself.
>
> Will not. How can I? I'm my biggest fan.
>
> But enough about me. Let's talk about my hair.*
>
> :-)
>
> >What separates romance novels from other genres is that romance novels
> >are basically porn for women, so they have a market share more similar
> >to Playboy than to Zane Grey. There's higher-end stuff to be sure, and
> >much of it has great literary merit - just like there's higher-end
> >adventure stuff, higher-end westerns, and so on.
>
> Maybe that's why St*ph*n K*ng
Never actually though that much of K*ng as a writer (though he's
prolific and popular, so are the cooks at McDonalds - doesn't make them
chefs), so I don't really take him as much of an authority, either.
No question that we all (myself included and most especially) could
stand to read more broadly.
> >Porn for men generally features women who look like women
> >but who behave like men, particularly where sexuality is concerned.
> >Romance novels ...
>
> Why are you equating romance novels with porn?
Because the shoe fits so well. I'm by no means the first to make the
comparison; it fits the same niche for women that what's more generally
described as porn does for men.
> >Most mature men still harbor the idea that liking is good, respecting is
> >good, sharing intimate personal thoughs and feelings is good, but what's
> >wrong with a little sex? I like you, you like me, we both like sex, and
> >it's an important part of a relationship, but it's also a really, really
> >nice way to spend a couple of hours on an otherwise dull Sunday night.
> >
> >Most mature women don't seem to see it that way
>
> OK, hopefully Dena Jo, Suzy, Caroline and some other women will back me up on
> this. Women (not all women, but a significant percentage) want to have sex.
Never said otherwise, nor would I. Some women are more than happy to
have a little zipless encounter, too, just for the sheer physical
pleasure of it. Some women look at hard-core porn (nearly 50% of
traditional porn is sold to women, according to some study or other).
> It's just that we want to have sex with *friends.* Not with strangers.
And therein lies the difference. Typically, sex is a physical activity
for men, and an emotional activity for women. We're looking for a hot
body and a certain level of enthusiasm; you're looking for someone who
wants to talk and listen and share and experience.
What gets women hot n' steamy isn't a photograph of a naked guy with a
huge erection (generally speaking), but a story about a guy who listens,
who's considerate, etc, and who's also buff and well-endowed. In short,
a romance novel where the guy looks like Fabio and acts like the most
evolved, sensitive, self-actualized person in the world.
> Feeling like a tool generally doesn't make a woman hot for sex.
But feeling like a sex object is EXACTLY what gets a guy hot for sex.
See the difference? We like the idea (at least in fantasy) of a
hot-looking gal walking up to us at a bar (hell, in line to drop off the
kids at preschool) and saying 'the windows of my car are so tinted that
no one can see in; let's go.' Porn for guys generally doesn't need a
lot of dialogue beyond 'you ready?' whereas porn for women requires 250
pages of talk with the perfect guy, leading up to one sex act.
In other words, a romance novel
> Women share the blame for bad relationships. Some women, deep down, really
> don't like men. They just use men as a means to an end. They want to stay at
> home, have two kids, an SUV and a nice vacation every year. Some guys are the
> same way; they don't really like women; they're just following The Script.
> You can tell who's following The Script: they're the ones who break off into
> single-sex cliques at parties.
Some men don't like women, as well, but I think (and this is just my own
little point of view, here) that before you can really decide if you
like someone, you should know a bit about them. I'm not interested in a
partner* who's identical to me; I find that male/female differences
compliment each other quite nicely, and the friction is half the fun.
> *Yes, it's an old joke. So sue me. :-)
You'll be hearing from my attorneys. ;^)
*I don't do the whole 'relationship' thing anymore, but, in theory.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>But why is that a Good Thing? Wouldn't it be easier, more efficient if we
>could 'access' both genders in the common audience equally? And just as much
>fun if all the art and entertainment elements which might be divided across
>gender lines could be equally effective for both genders? Just a thought.
>
>derek
An interesting thought, Derek, but you should have heard the howl of
objections and righteous indignation that came from guys when I
suggested in this and other screenwriting arenas that it would be a
good thing if an occasional glimpse of a male with erect member
ocasionally passes across the silver screen. You know. Not
pornographically explicit. Maybe just a silhouette... The sheet
slips when he reaches to turn out the lamp... Something like that.
My god, such a howl...! And such rationalized answers! I first made
the suggestion to my former partner when we were working on a script
together, and you'd have thought I had attacked the pillars of
civilization! But he uses erotica in his films. It just has to be
from the male viewpoint. That's what he was taught in film school,
and that's what he was sticking to!
Then I thought maybe it was because he was European and went to film
school in Moscow. Maybe American men would see my point (pun as you
like). But American men of all ages had the SAME (irrational, from my
viewpoint) reaction. I talked to male screenwriters. I talked to
male friends. I talked to my son and his best friend. I even invited
a select bunch of guys from Mensa for a round-table discussion at
Starbucks, and even they (and the eavesdropping strangers who
occasionally chimed in) were all shocked, indignant, and horrified at
the thought! <sigh> At least the manager approached me afterward and
offered to reserve a table for me every Friday night if I'd bring back
the same friends.
My point was then (and still is) that a great deal of sexual behavior
is learned from movies. While kids are growing up, parents are
usually pretty selective about which movies their kids see, or at
least put a lock on the porn. Then kids reach an age when -- if
they're lucky -- they can sneak into a theater or rent movies without
having their age challenged, so they go for "the good stuff." And
what do they get? Sex from the male viewpoint!
There should be balance.
Caroline
Maybe I shoulda asked a group of gay men... '-)
Jacques E. Bouchard
> I think it's a good thing because I embrace he idea that men and
women
> have different ideas about what makes sex sexy. As nice a fantasy as
> it might be to have (insert-fantasy-female-here) walk up and say 'you
> look good, do me right here and now,' there's still something to be
> said for 'vive le difference.'
I remember, as a teenager, watching an erotic Italian movie on
late-night TV with one eye (the other watching the door for my parents
due back form their night out). It featured Laura Antonelli in a period
piece (those who know who she is will nod knowingly). It wasn't raunchy
in the least, in fact the writing was intelligent and witty, but there
was nudity and it was the first erotic movie I had ever seen.
Next day at school, a bunch of us teenage boys compared notes on
the movie. Some marveled at her perfect bosom, others at her remarkable
behind. when my turn came, and my peers turned to me for my input, I
piped up: "She has beautiful eyes".
They all looked at me like I was some sort of weirdo from another
planet. But to this day, whenever I think of that movie, it's those
gorgeous soft brown eyes I remember the most.
jaybee
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>It wasn't just the fault of record companies, radio stations and other
>corporate/political players. The U.S. was (and still is) a racist society, pure
>and simple. Appallingly, heinously, malovently racist. That's how, more than 50
>years later, there are still people who mistakenly believe that white artists
>invented rock 'n roll.
In a sense yes, but more than in any other segment of American
society, there has been color-blindness in music from the begining.
Only the roots of jazz came from slaves, despite what Ken whatzisname
would have you believe. As soon as the blues and the precursors of
jazz began being played in places beyond the fields and churches, then
black and white musicians created together. It was the rest of
American society that behaved stupidly for so very long, and in too
many sectors is still behaving stupidly today.
I wasn't much into rock -- I'm still not -- but I can tell you that in
the fifties, and in the area of jazz, there was no segration. Well,
at least until the band reached the hotel, but that was the outside
world. In the inside world of jazz, the only thing that mattered was
whether you were fluent in the language, and the language was music.
To venture into the rest of the world was like a trip to the mailbox
in a storm. You knew you had to do it, but you also knew the door
would be unlocked and there'd be room around the fireplace when you
got back.
Caroline
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<jacques_e_bouchardR*E*M*O*V*E*M*E...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Awww come on, Jaybee. You're just saying that to win over all the
women around here.
Caroline
Works for me...! '-)
David M. Geshwind
For those without the DVDs.
From SciFi Channel Website
http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3?program=OUTER_LIMITS&x=202&y=4
03-DEC-03 11:00 AM
DAYTIME ROTATION
THE OUTER LIMITS 1960S
*** THE ZANTI MISFITS ***
-- dmg
Jacques E. Bouchard
> Awww come on, Jaybee. You're just saying that to win over all the
> women around here.
Oh don't get me wrong, she had knockers like THAT (o)(o)!
jaybe
Steven J. Weller
> "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote in
People - generally women - often mistake the fact that we men are
visually stimulated for the idea that we have no interests outside of
nipples and vulva. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 11:01:18 +0800, "derek" <pi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >But why is that a Good Thing? Wouldn't it be easier, more efficient if we
> >could 'access' both genders in the common audience equally? And just as much
> >fun if all the art and entertainment elements which might be divided across
> >gender lines could be equally effective for both genders? Just a thought.
>
> An interesting thought, Derek, but you should have heard the howl of
> objections and righteous indignation that came from guys when I
> suggested in this and other screenwriting arenas that it would be a
> good thing if an occasional glimpse of a male with erect member
> ocasionally passes across the silver screen. You know. Not
> pornographically explicit. Maybe just a silhouette... The sheet
> slips when he reaches to turn out the lamp... Something like that.
And just to resurect the _other_ side of that argument, the analogous
female nudity isn't a triangle of pubes, but the clitoris and labia -
the female external genitalia. In our culture there really is no male
analogue to a woman's breasts.
> My point was then (and still is) that a great deal of sexual behavior
> is learned from movies. While kids are growing up, parents are
> usually pretty selective about which movies their kids see, or at
> least put a lock on the porn. Then kids reach an age when -- if
> they're lucky -- they can sneak into a theater or rent movies without
> having their age challenged, so they go for "the good stuff." And
> what do they get? Sex from the male viewpoint!
>
> There should be balance.
Agreed, except that brings us back to male erotica (porn) vs. female
erotica (romance novels and similar). Playgirl isn't really so much for
women, it's more for gay men, and 'women's erotica' (porn) never really
took off. Femme Video was out there for a while but no one much
bothered. Sex from a male viewpoint, in movies at least, tends to be
explicit whereas sex from a woman's viewpoint tends to be, well, chick
flicks. If there was much of a market for straight women looking at
penises, it'd be exploited. So far, the few attempts at it have mostly
withered and died.
>
> Caroline
> Maybe I shoulda asked a group of gay men... '-)
--
MC
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >OK, hopefully Dena Jo, Suzy, Caroline and some other women will back me up on
> >this. Women (not all women, but a significant percentage) want to have sex.
> >It's just that we want to have sex with *friends.* Not with strangers.
>
>
> I think you're close, but just a tad short of "light the cigar" range.
Hey! I know who's got the cigars... !
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>And just to resurect the _other_ side of that argument, the analogous
>female nudity isn't a triangle of pubes, but the clitoris and labia -
>the female external genitalia. In our culture there really is no male
>analogue to a woman's breasts.
Analogous in what way? As medically corellated or as visual stimuli?
The argument is still as fallacious now as it was then.
Protuberances, Steven. Protuberances! VISUAL stimuli. Penis and
breasts equate in the sense that they are both major observable
protuberances when one is standing. But hey, it's the universal male
phobia that's directing your thinking. I mean, if you're dressing a
set and the director wants an inviting plate of pastries where they'll
tempt a character in the scene, you're not going to put the pastries
under a cushion on the sofa, are you?
Well, ARE you...? '-)
>If there was much of a market for straight women looking at
>penises, it'd be exploited. So far, the few attempts at it have mostly
>withered and died.
Cute pun, but name one theatrically released movie in which a tasteful
and romantically meaningful GLIMPSE of an excited male has been done
in the context of the story without undue focus or sexploitation.
NEVER! I mean, the argument of not allowing a fluffer on a SAG set
makes more sense. (And there's a do-it-yourself pun that I'm not
going to touch.) How can you argue there's no market for something
that has never been done because somehwere along the production line
-- suits, director, producer -- there are a LOT of guys saying, "Not
in MY movie you don't!"
Caroline
No. "The Crying Game" does NOT count! But it is a damned good movie.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
wrote:
Yeah. YOU! You're a dirty old man! '-)
Jacques E. Bouchard
> If there was much of a market for straight women
> looking at penises, it'd be exploited. So far, the few attempts at it
> have mostly withered and died.
Don't you mean "withered and drooped"?
jaybee
Ovum
>Women stayed behind and raised (and bore) the children,
What do you want from prehistoric women? Tough to be entertaining when all
you've got is twigs and dirt.
:-)
Lois
Ovum
>women want to feel safe when having sex.
>There is high risk where safety is concerned in having sex with
>strangers.
I was using the word "stranger" metaphorically. If you've got a Significant
Other who no longer enjoys having long talks with you, who basically treats you
like hired help, he is acting as if he's a stranger.
Also, I should have stated this earlier: my husband definitely falls into the
"friend" category, thank God! I'm basing this discussion on about 20 years of
reading relationship literature. You know, like the Opr*h magazine.
(That one was just for Suzy. :-)
Ovum
>Never actually though that much of K*ng as a writer
=8-0
I can't believe you people! You diss M*donn*, Opr*h, St*r Tr*k, J*ckson, and
now K*ng?
Have you no appreciation for greatness?!
>What gets women hot n' steamy isn't a photograph of a naked guy with a
>huge erection (generally speaking), but a story about a guy who listens,
>who's considerate, etc, and who's also buff and well-endowed.
I think the well-endowed part is a male fantasy. I've never heard a real woman
in real life list that as any sort of requirement. Besides, the pleasure center
is the clitoris, and that can be stimulated no matter how large the man's penis
is.
>I'm not interested in a partner* who's
>identical to me; I find that male/female
>differences compliment each other
>quite nicely, and the friction is half
>the fun.
Awww. Single people are so cute.
Ovum
>I wasn't much into rock -- I'm still not -- but I can tell you that in
>the fifties, and in the area of jazz, there was no segration. Well,
>at least until the band reached the hotel, but that was the outside
>world. In the inside world of jazz, the only thing that mattered was
>whether you were fluent in the language, and the language was music.
Sammy Davis, Jr. said something similar in his biography. He talked about how
"show people" were so much less racist than the rest of American society. I
wonder why that was.
>It was the rest of
>American society that behaved stupidly for so very long, and in too
>many sectors is still behaving stupidly today.
My Dad was telling me about the white guy who broke the color barrier in pro
football. Where other people looked at black players and saw monsters, this guy
looked at black players and saw dollar signs. He saw that they could win games,
and that was all he needed to know.
For awhile the same thing was happening in film. The studio MBAs noticed that
smaller movies with predominantly black casts made a decent ROI -- WAITING TO
EXHALE, BARBER SHOP, FRIDAY, BEST MAN, etc. The party line about why more
"black" movies don't get greenlit is because they supposedly don't do well
overseas.
I wonder how true that is. There are a lot of other countries that don't have
America's racist baggage, so why should they not want to see films with black
casts?
Steven J. Weller
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
> Sammy Davis, Jr. said something similar in his biography. He talked about how
> "show people" were so much less racist than the rest of American society. I
> wonder why that was.
My personal theory is that 'show people' are all basically misfits as it
is; damaged goods, the lot of us. We've generally spent a certain
amount of time at least feeling like we're on the outside looking in, so
other outsiders are kindred spirits. I know of no other industry where
spontaneous 'Orphan's Thanksgiving' dinners spring up, but if you're an
actor or musician away from home and you can't find a T-day to attend,
you're just not looking. What, you're black? Gay? Have a bone through
your nose, or are otherwise looked at askance by 'polite' society?
Welcome aboard, and bring a dish to pass if you can.
> My Dad was telling me about the white guy who broke the color barrier in pro
> football. Where other people looked at black players and saw monsters, this
> guy looked at black players and saw dollar signs. He saw that they could win
> games, and that was all he needed to know.
That's a lot of that in showbiz, too, at least on the business level.
Dollars out vs. dollars in, and who really cares whether it's black,
white, kid's film, horror film, rap, rock, hip-hop, or whatever. If
there's an audience with money in its pocket, it's worth embracing.
> For awhile the same thing was happening in film. The studio MBAs noticed that
> smaller movies with predominantly black casts made a decent ROI -- WAITING TO
> EXHALE, BARBER SHOP, FRIDAY, BEST MAN, etc. The party line about why more
> "black" movies don't get greenlit is because they supposedly don't do well
> overseas.
>
> I wonder how true that is. There are a lot of other countries that don't have
> America's racist baggage, so why should they not want to see films with black
> casts?
I've always wondered about that myself. In the US at least we tend to
have 'black' films and 'white' films; I'm curious if, in countries
without such severe divides, a 'black' film doesn't seem, well... odd,
at least. American product has an appeal _because_ it's American, and
we really haven't been exporting much in the way of black films until
very recently. Black music has been wildly popular the world over, but
we've been exporting it a lot longer and you can still sing the blues
even if you're a white guy from London. Does Barber Shop resonate the
same way as Lethal Weapon ½ does, to an audience that wants to see
something big and splashy and American, if their understanding of
'American' is specifically white?
Carl Dershem
news:20031201200415...@mb-m18.aol.com:
> Carl Dershem writes:
>
>>Women stayed behind and raised (and bore) the children,
>
> What do you want from prehistoric women? Tough to be entertaining when
> all you've got is twigs and dirt.
>
>:-)
:D
That said, I've dated very few prehistoric women, and even with those it
was usually Carbon 14 dating.
Dudhorse
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:dlglsv440rk4hmjmd...@4ax.com...
... maybe they are concentrating on the wrong body parts; I can remember
some female friends of mine saying the only real reason they went & saw
"Dances with Wolves" was to see Kevin Costner's butt!
Carl Dershem
news:20031201203236...@mb-m18.aol.com:
> Steven J. Weller writes:
>
>>What gets women hot n' steamy isn't a photograph of a naked guy with a
>>huge erection (generally speaking), but a story about a guy who
>>listens, who's considerate, etc, and who's also buff and well-endowed.
>>
>
> I think the well-endowed part is a male fantasy. I've never heard a
> real woman in real life list that as any sort of requirement. Besides,
> the pleasure center is the clitoris, and that can be stimulated no
> matter how large the man's penis is.
I"ve met a few who listed that among their "must have" attributes, but they
tended to be ... (how to say this diplomatically?) lacking in some of the
social niceties.
Carl Dershem
> In article <20031201205555...@mb-m18.aol.com>,
> ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>
>> Sammy Davis, Jr. said something similar in his biography. He talked
>> about how "show people" were so much less racist than the rest of
>> American society. I wonder why that was.
>
> My personal theory is that 'show people' are all basically misfits as
> it is; damaged goods, the lot of us. We've generally spent a certain
> amount of time at least feeling like we're on the outside looking in,
> so other outsiders are kindred spirits. I know of no other industry
> where spontaneous 'Orphan's Thanksgiving' dinners spring up, but if
> you're an actor or musician away from home and you can't find a T-day
> to attend, you're just not looking. What, you're black? Gay? Have a
> bone through your nose, or are otherwise looked at askance by 'polite'
> society? Welcome aboard, and bring a dish to pass if you can.
A lot of the musicians I've worked with couyld generally give a damn less
about what someone looks like (there are a lot of very talented but UGLY
musicians out there) so long as he could play well. Some of that sinks in
after a while, which could be a factor when it comes to "show people" being
more color blind. That said, when I worked with Ray Charles (who really
has no objective way of telling what color a person is) he also brought up
the idea that Elvis and his 'peers' were basically getting rich doing what
black musicians had already worked the bugs out of.
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:21:17 -0800, "Steven J. Weller"
> <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> >And just to resurect the _other_ side of that argument, the analogous
> >female nudity isn't a triangle of pubes, but the clitoris and labia -
> >the female external genitalia. In our culture there really is no male
> >analogue to a woman's breasts.
>
> Analogous in what way?
In the sense that virtually all cultures have taboos regarding genitalia
both male and female, while only some (like ours) have taboos regarding
female breasts.
> As medically corellated or as visual stimuli?
> The argument is still as fallacious now as it was then.
> Protuberances, Steven. Protuberances! VISUAL stimuli. Penis and
> breasts equate in the sense that they are both major observable
> protuberances when one is standing. But hey, it's the universal male
> phobia that's directing your thinking. I mean, if you're dressing a
> set and the director wants an inviting plate of pastries where they'll
> tempt a character in the scene, you're not going to put the pastries
> under a cushion on the sofa, are you?
>
> Well, ARE you...? '-)
Primary sexual characteristics vs. secondary sexual characteristics,
Caroline. Short of a codpiece, or unless you're talking about naked
prehistoric man (who didn't share our culture, obviously), it's hard to
describe the penis as a visually stimulating protrubance. Breasts, on
the other hand - and this goes back even to more primative primates that
only exhibit swollen breasts as a sign of estrus - are specifically
visual, as a sign of both sexual maturity and sexual receptivity.
> >If there was much of a market for straight women looking at
> >penises, it'd be exploited. So far, the few attempts at it have mostly
> >withered and died.
>
> Cute pun, but name one theatrically released movie in which a tasteful
> and romantically meaningful GLIMPSE of an excited male has been done
> in the context of the story without undue focus or sexploitation.
No pun intended, actually, but exhibitions of women's breasts and/or
pubes aren't generally tasteful or romantically meaningful, either.
Most love scenes/sex scenes do little or nothing to advance the story
that couldn't be done by just panning over to the curtains blowing in
the breeze. If Gwennyth Paltrow gets a little daylight on her bosoms
it's because the straight male audience is willing to pay to see that,
regardless of the story being told. No matter how nicely we might dress
it up, it's basically porn - and it's the kind of porn that appeals to
men rather than women. If there was that market for explicit visual
porn for straight women, where producers/distributors/et al could see
that there are women out there looking to pay good money to see naked
men, we'd see more of it in mainstream films.
In the last few years there's been some movement towards women embracing
(if that's the right word) what was once typically male-style graphic
erotica, and in small ways it's slowly creeping into the mainstream.
This sort of paradigm shift* doesn't happen overnight, though, and it'll
probably be years before we see much in the way of external genitalia -
male or female - in mainstream H'wood movies.
Discreet triangles of pubes notwithstanding.
*Hey! I just used a Hollywood Buzzword(TM)!
MC
> Sammy Davis, Jr. said something similar in his biography. He talked about how
> "show people" were so much less racist than the rest of American society. I
> wonder why that was.
>
Maybe the same reason showbiz is pretty gay-friendly. I spent two weeks
behind the scenes with a Cirque du Soleil company this summer, and it
kept striking me how much this was a group of loners and outsiders who
had had the great good fortune to find their family...
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>In article <117msvcclva7u2k9p...@4ax.com>,
> "Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Analogous in what way?
>
>In the sense that virtually all cultures have taboos regarding genitalia
>both male and female, while only some (like ours) have taboos regarding
>female breasts.
Whoo-eeee! Chile, you need to get out more 'cause you been spendin'
too many days and nights on those musty old movie sets! What kinds of
taboos do we have in our culture regarding female breasts? The only
taboos I can think of is that if you have 'em, they'd better not sag,
they'd better at least fill a salad bowl, and you'd better keep a
smile on your face when your hands start going numb from nerve damage
caused by those stupid Frederick's of Hollywood bras! That's a major
portion of my point. Keep your eyes open during the next Oscars
to-do, and you may notice that when it comes to female couture, it's
all about décolleté, décolleté, décolleté! With some VERY nice
diamonds to help direct your gaze. Wasn't it Streisand who wore the
see-through when she won a Gold Guy?
Western civilization, from Minoan society to Catherine the Great to
Pompadour to MM, has worshipped at the mammary alter! But hey, there
is an interesting cultural counterpart among the Dani people of Irian
Jaya New Guinea. Theirs is a phallocryptic society when it comes to
male dress. You can check it out here by scrolling down to the last
photo, bottom right:
http://www.slb.com/seed/en/watch/trek/trek.htm
or find a less formal pose here:
http://www.geocities.com/glenn_ord/irianbig3.jpg
And for those of you guys who are taken by the idea of such sartorial
freedom, you can pick up a little something to wear to the next Oscars
ceremony here:
http://www.tribal-artifacts.com/png-gallery/gourdpages/galleryitem2i.html
They offer more than one designer model.
And by now, I'm sure you are sputtering and scoffing and thinking how
totally irrelevant this is to our discussion. But if it makes you stop
and think for just a fraction of a moment about what it's like in our
society to grow up female with Hollywood ALWAYS presenting visual
images of an EXTREMELY non-standard female anatomy, then you might
have some idea of the constant damage that is being done to females
around the world by this gross chauvenistic stupidity!
All I'm trying to do is get the PEOPLE in this industry to think about
presenting a NATURAL and BALANCED concept of what it's like to be
human and naturally sexual.
>
>Primary sexual characteristics vs. secondary sexual characteristics,
>Caroline. Short of a codpiece, or unless you're talking about naked
>prehistoric man (who didn't share our culture, obviously), it's hard to
>describe the penis as a visually stimulating protrubance.
Really? And how many females are you speaking for, Steven? Believe
it or not, if it's presented in a subtle and seductive way, a visual
glimpse of the male anatomy can be a very inviting visual experience
for most women. But hey, it might not be a good idea to have a male
director and a male cinematographer with inclinations to turn it into
a Playboy anatomy lesson, because that won't work.
>Breasts, on
>the other hand - and this goes back even to more primative primates that
>only exhibit swollen breasts as a sign of estrus - are specifically
>visual, as a sign of both sexual maturity and sexual receptivity.
Well, if you want to go the "primative" primate route, there is a
great ape that is so very close to man that their skeletal
configuration is almost the same as Australopithecus. And they are
even more sexually liberated than humans. Also they're the only other
species capable of mating face-to-face. Check 'em out here and be
surprised at their use of sex as a panacea:
http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html
And incidentally, until the "Hellenes" came sweeping down the Baltic
Peninsula, "western" society was matriarchal. Interesting to think
where society might be today if that had not been interrupted. Fewer
wars and sexual egalitarianism. Wouldn't that be strange!
>*Hey! I just used a Hollywood Buzzword(TM)!
Honey Bunches, and why not? You THINK in Hollywood buzzwords. But we
still love you...! And when I win that giga-lottery and make a movie
MY way, you're invited to the premiere! To sit next to me. '-)
Caroline
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>
>Sammy Davis, Jr. said something similar in his biography. He talked about how
>"show people" were so much less racist than the rest of American society. I
>wonder why that was.
Not to disagree with Mr. Davis, but in my fairly limited experience
with "show people" compared to jazz musicians (for reasons I still
don't understand) of those times, I found that the musical world was
more "color blind" than "show people." For example, I can't think of
a Black cinematographer, then or now, but I do have to admit that
since James Wong Howe died, I haven't much kept up with the ASC. With
jazz musicians, I truly believe the lack of social barriers was
because of the common language: music.
Jazz is quite literally a "language." Even in an instrumental jam
session, there are comments that are made back and forth in the form
of riffs from other songs that are introduced, and sometimes a witty
"retort" is made with a riff from another standard. The lyric isn't
sung, but it's the verbage that rides on the inflection of the music.
In some of my "wasted youth" in California (San Diego to San
Francisco), I've hung out listening to the likes of Louis Armstrong,
Clark Terry, Dave Brubeck (even sold him some stereo equipment once),
Earl "Fatha" Hines, Louis Belson, Pete Rugolo, Chet Baker... I could
go on for megabytes! And it wasn't a "misspent youth." It was a well
spent youth! And I've intentionally only mentioned instrumentalists
because these guys were among the great improvisors, but I should also
include Ella F. in their company, because she was too. When they got
going with a "conversation" with the "in crowd" as witness, it was
sometimes like stand-up comedy, because the audience would laugh and
cheer. And egg them on! And they'd eventually come back to the
original melody line and take it from there.
Classical music depends on improvisation too, but there is no form of
music, including rock, that can be classifed as a "language" the way
jazz can. Fortunately, the vocabulary is being revived with the
modern resurgence of interest, but I don't know if the jam session
improvisation is still there. Hopefully. But this was the heart and
soul of that culture way back when, and skin color never entered the
picture... Until a band tried to check into a hotel together.
Segregation and prejudice was very much alive in much of the country
once you got off the bus.
And THAT is the part of the American culture that soured things.
Growing up in southern California, I can honestly say that I had no
idea what "prejudice" meant... Until I lived in Biloxi, Mississippi
in 1956 while my husband went through air traffic control school at
Keesler AFB. Segregated buses, segregated bathrooms, segregated
drinking fountains. It seemed more bizarre than outhouses! And I was
constantly getting into trouble! One day, I went shopping "downtown"
Biloxi with my landlord's daughter, who was around my age. I was
homesick and stopped to look in the only animated Christmas window in
town, then started walking away without looking where I was going.
And ran smack into an elderly Black woman whose arms were loaded with
wrapped Christmas presents that went flying all over the sidewalk! By
reflex, I said, "Excuse me, ma'am," and began gathering packages for
her. I won't even tell you what the landlord's daughter said to me as
she began knocking packages out of my hands and pulling me away. I
was FURIOUS! But the grandmotherly woman whispered to me, "You get on
now, child. I'm all right and no harm done, but you'll get us both in
a whole lot of trouble if you keep this up!"
For the first time, I caught a glimpse of what a lot of musician
friends who happened to be Black went through every time they got off
the f---ing bus! It was literally like living in parallel universes.
>
>For awhile the same thing was happening in film. The studio MBAs noticed that
>smaller movies with predominantly black casts made a decent ROI -- WAITING TO
>EXHALE, BARBER SHOP, FRIDAY, BEST MAN, etc. The party line about why more
>"black" movies don't get greenlit is because they supposedly don't do well
>overseas.
I know it's been said before, but the thing that makes those movies
outstanding is that they are great stories that happen to star Black
actors. One of the really good things that's happening in the
industry today is that more and more casting directors are becoming
color blind, and adding new and interesting dimensions to film as a
result. Black roles don't have to be written for Black actors and
white roles don't have to be written for white actors... Except
sometimes. One of my favorite favorite movies stars Denzel Washington
and George Segal in "Carbon Copy." A really thought provoking and fun
movie written by a great Jewish screenwriter, Stanley Shapiro. Hey,
it is a small world after all...! '-)
>
>I wonder how true that is. There are a lot of other countries that don't have
>America's racist baggage, so why should they not want to see films with black
>casts?
Because they're stuck with whatever Hollywood sends them. :-(
Caroline
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
>Carl Dershem writes:
>
>>Women stayed behind and raised (and bore) the children,
>
>What do you want from prehistoric women? Tough to be entertaining when all
>you've got is twigs and dirt.
>
>:-)
>
>Lois
>
Don't let him b.s. you, Lois. Women "stayed behind" and developed
agriculture so those big strong hunters didn't have to work nearly as
hard. Then women domesticated animals while the men were out hunting
for wild ones, with the end result that when women had things well in
hand the men sat around in coffee houses and played "trick track" (a
form of backgammon) all day. And they still do in much of the Baltics
and Middle East!
Caroline
Who loved being the only woman in the coffee houses of Greece of an
afternoon. Of course, not being fluent in Greek, I didn't understand
much of what they said to me, but they did say it with a polite smile.
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:37:15 -0800, "Steven J. Weller"
> <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <117msvcclva7u2k9p...@4ax.com>,
> > "Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Analogous in what way?
> >
> >In the sense that virtually all cultures have taboos regarding genitalia
> >both male and female, while only some (like ours) have taboos regarding
> >female breasts.
>
> Whoo-eeee! Chile, you need to get out more 'cause you been spendin'
> too many days and nights on those musty old movie sets! What kinds of
> taboos do we have in our culture regarding female breasts?
You can't possibly be serious.
In this country a man can walk around bare-chested; a woman showing too
much clevage, let alone a nipple, can be arrested for indecent exposure
in most places. There's no such thing as a two-piece bathing suit for a
man; all beaches in America are 'topless' beaches where men are
concerned. Go mow the lawn this weekend in just a pair of shorts and
see the reaction you get. For that matter, put your hand on the
fully-clothed chest of an adult male friend and see if he reacts the
same way you'd react if he deliberately put his hand on your breast,
even casually.
We're fascinated by women's breasts largely _because_ of the taboos
about them. We like them, of course. We're attracted to them. They're
sexy to most men, though different men will have different preferences
as to size and shape (Russ Meyer might not be lined up to see Gwyneth
Paltrow topless, but a lot of other men certainly are).
But it's still not the same thing as genitalia.
The difference beteen R-rated and X-rated is that R-rated shows breasts
and pubes (male as well as female) but when you get to the actual
organs, rather than the sweaters covering them (or garnishing them, as
the case may be) it slips over to X. Gwyneth might wear something
low-cut and slinky to an awards show but if you want to see nipples, you
have to pay the $10 and show your ID. You want to see lips or clit, you
have to buy her dinner and sweet-talk her into a bedroom.
You're still arguing that female secondary sexual characteristics are
the same, culturally (or whatever) as male primary sexual
characteristics, which seems to leave female primary sexual
characteritics in some sort of limbo. If your breasts = my penis, what
of mine equals your vulva*?
(snip stuff that goes to my point rather than yours)
> And by now, I'm sure you are sputtering and scoffing and thinking how
> totally irrelevant this is to our discussion.
Not a bit. We have a fascination with breasts that's unlike our
fascination with a nicely shaped leg or a firm abdomen, because, for the
last few decades, legs and abdomens have been fair game on the streets,
on the beaches, and pretty much everywhere else. Breasts are still in a
different category - one that, unless you can give me some specific
example other than a penis (which I still hold is analogous to a woman's
exernal genitalia, rather than to her breasts or her pubic hair) -
doesn't have a convenient male counterpart.
Just saying "it's the penis, Steven, it really, really, REALLY is!"
doesn't make it so; it still leaves the vulva hanging (so to speak).
> But if it makes you stop
> and think for just a fraction of a moment about what it's like in our
> society to grow up female with Hollywood ALWAYS presenting visual
> images of an EXTREMELY non-standard female anatomy, then you might
> have some idea of the constant damage that is being done to females
> around the world by this gross chauvenistic stupidity!
Blah, blah, blah... Hollywood shows a pretty non-standard male anatomy,
too. Very, very few of us have 6 hours a day to spend at the gym with a
personal trainer. We don't all look like Mel Gibson, let alone
Shwarzneggar or Stalone, with our shirts off.
None of which has anything to do with whether a penis, on film, is
somehow analogous to breasts, on film.
> All I'm trying to do is get the PEOPLE in this industry to think about
> presenting a NATURAL and BALANCED concept of what it's like to be
> human and naturally sexual.
Movies don't show romance, fistfights, gunfights, lovers' quarrels,
courting rituals, alcohol abuse, athletic accomplishment, or much of
anything else in a natural or balanced way; why should it be different
where sex scenes and body types are concerned? We don't go to the
movies to see what we can see by looking out the window; even the
grittiest of 'reality dramas' is a heightened and stylized version of
the real world, streamlined and exagerated to satisfy our fantasies.
> >Primary sexual characteristics vs. secondary sexual characteristics,
> >Caroline. Short of a codpiece, or unless you're talking about naked
> >prehistoric man (who didn't share our culture, obviously), it's hard to
> >describe the penis as a visually stimulating protrubance.
>
> Really? And how many females are you speaking for, Steven? Believe
> it or not, if it's presented in a subtle and seductive way, a visual
> glimpse of the male anatomy can be a very inviting visual experience
> for most women.
On the level that womens' breasts are for most men? Then where's the
codpiece in today's wardrobe? When's the last time you saw a man in a
speedo and thought anything other than 'yuck?'
> Well, if you want to go the "primative" primate route, there is a
> great ape that is so very close to man that their skeletal
> configuration is almost the same as Australopithecus. And they are
> even more sexually liberated than humans. Also they're the only other
> species capable of mating face-to-face. Check 'em out here and be
> surprised at their use of sex as a panacea:
> http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html
God help me, the bonobo.
They're a sub-species of chimp (though some people like to argue
otherwise), which also mate face-to-face at least some of the time.
I've received the liturature asking for my dollars to help save the
bonobo for years, have read several of the books and articles, even know
a porn star who works tirelessly for their preservation. Yes, the
bonobo have lots and lots of sex, have specific sexual mores (like the
whole incest thing), are slightly less war-like than other chimps, etc,
etc, ad nauseum.
And this still has less than nothing to do with whether showing a penis
on screen is analogous to showing breasts on screen, or to showing vulva
on screen.
> And incidentally, until the "Hellenes" came sweeping down the Baltic
> Peninsula, "western" society was matriarchal. Interesting to think
> where society might be today if that had not been interrupted. Fewer
> wars and sexual egalitarianism. Wouldn't that be strange!
Pity, then (if you want to look at it that way), that the matriarchal
societies didn't raise stronger armies, huh?
*yes, I gave you that one for free.
Carl Dershem
news:u6iosv8bls2qf8lpm...@4ax.com:
> On 02 Dec 2003 01:04:15 GMT, ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>
>>Carl Dershem writes:
>>
>>>Women stayed behind and raised (and bore) the children,
>>
>>What do you want from prehistoric women? Tough to be entertaining when
>>all you've got is twigs and dirt.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Lois
>>
>
> Don't let him b.s. you, Lois. Women "stayed behind" and developed
> agriculture so those big strong hunters didn't have to work nearly as
> hard. Then women domesticated animals while the men were out hunting
> for wild ones, with the end result that when women had things well in
> hand the men sat around in coffee houses and played "trick track" (a
> form of backgammon) all day. And they still do in much of the Baltics
> and Middle East!
Absolutely! Given no 'feminine' influences, I have a feeling many men
would still live in a pre-industrial, pre-agricultural state. Well,
discounting the fact they wouldn't live at all, but you know what I mean.
You really can't detach women and civilization, and I for one wouldn't want
to try.
nmstevens
> On 02 Dec 2003 01:55:55 GMT, ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>
> >
> >Sammy Davis, Jr. said something similar in his biography. He talked about how
> >"show people" were so much less racist than the rest of American society. I
> >wonder why that was.
>
> Not to disagree with Mr. Davis, but in my fairly limited experience
> with "show people" compared to jazz musicians (for reasons I still
> don't understand) of those times, I found that the musical world was
> more "color blind" than "show people." For example, I can't think of
> a Black cinematographer, then or now, but I do have to admit that
> since James Wong Howe died, I haven't much kept up with the ASC.
Ernie Dickerson was a DP before he moved on to directing.
NMS
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>None of which has anything to do with whether a penis, on film, is
>somehow analogous to breasts, on film.
>
>> All I'm trying to do is get the PEOPLE in this industry to think about
>> presenting a NATURAL and BALANCED concept of what it's like to be
>> human and naturally sexual.
>
>Movies don't show romance, fistfights, gunfights, lovers' quarrels,
>courting rituals, alcohol abuse, athletic accomplishment, or much of
>anything else in a natural or balanced way; why should it be different
>where sex scenes and body types are concerned? We don't go to the
>movies to see what we can see by looking out the window; even the
>grittiest of 'reality dramas' is a heightened and stylized version of
>the real world, streamlined and exagerated to satisfy our fantasies.
>
YOU're the one who keeps coming back to and dwelling on this physical
equation." My contention is that what is easily observable on BOTH
female and male bodies should at least be vaguely represented in
appropriate moments and conditions instead of the overwhelming
majority of such scenes being totally and exclusively presented from
the voyeuristic male viewpoint.
But just like every other male who has ever offered an opinion, you
dredge up the most irrational and phobic responses about why an
excited male should never *ever* be subject to even the slightest
glimpse on film. I realize and understand fully that the moments of
full physical excitation are the most physically vulnerable moments of
a [normal] man's life, short of hand-to-hand combat in war. It is a
time of physical and emotional vulnerabilty. Which is eactly what
women find so damned attractive! And without exception -- so far --
the responses of men to even the thought of what I suggest ranges from
an entrenched but solid "no way" to some of the most creative and
inventive but illogical reasoning I've ever heard in my life, and that
includes years when I worked with patients in psychiatry.
As a rule, Steven, people do NOT make love on a gyn table with
stirrups and clamps at hand, so under normal circumstances physical
equivalencies are not easily observable. External physical
APPEARANCES are. And it just scares the shit out of most guys in this
business to think that it might be natural for a male to be seen in a
natural state. But hey... It's a man's world, and ain't nothing new
about guys calling the shots... It's done every day in Hollywood! De
rigeur, babe, de rigeur.
>
>> And incidentally, until the "Hellenes" came sweeping down the Baltic
>> Peninsula, "western" society was matriarchal. Interesting to think
>> where society might be today if that had not been interrupted. Fewer
>> wars and sexual egalitarianism. Wouldn't that be strange!
>
>Pity, then (if you want to look at it that way), that the matriarchal
>societies didn't raise stronger armies, huh?
>
>*yes, I gave you that one for free.
Such grace! Such charm! You are a gentleman...! '-)
Caroline
I got a Christmas question for you I'll ask in a new thread...
Please? :-)
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
And I think Spike Lee did the cinematography on ONE movie before he
moved on to directing.
Caroline
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 13:10:54 -0800, "Steven J. Weller"
> <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> >Movies don't show romance, fistfights, gunfights, lovers' quarrels,
> >courting rituals, alcohol abuse, athletic accomplishment, or much of
> >anything else in a natural or balanced way; why should it be different
> >where sex scenes and body types are concerned? We don't go to the
> >movies to see what we can see by looking out the window; even the
> >grittiest of 'reality dramas' is a heightened and stylized version of
> >the real world, streamlined and exagerated to satisfy our fantasies.
>
> YOU're the one who keeps coming back to and dwelling on this physical
> equation.
Yes, because it's this physical equation - a false one - that you've
been using since the debate began.
> My contention is that what is easily observable on BOTH
> female and male bodies should at least be vaguely represented in
> appropriate moments and conditions instead of the overwhelming
> majority of such scenes being totally and exclusively presented from
> the voyeuristic male viewpoint.
Perhaps this is where we've gone astray. I don't remember ever saying
that this _shouldn't_ be the case; only that it currently _isn't_ the
case, and explaining why.
> But just like every other male who has ever offered an opinion, you
> dredge up the most irrational and phobic responses about why an
> excited male should never *ever* be subject to even the slightest
> glimpse on film.
Never said that, never would. I have no more problem with an excited
male* being shown on film than I do an excited female. You rarely see
either outside of porn, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong or
morally objecionable about either image.
You see bare-chested men in films all the time. On TV, too, from soap
opera love scenes to potato chip commercials. You see bare-chested
women somewhat less frequently in film, much less frequently on TV. You
see men's butts and women's butts, and you see women's gential pubic
hair but rarely men's. Why? Because you can show women's gential pubic
hair without actually showing their genitals, while it's tough to do the
same with men.
That's it, so far as my 'position' is concerned.
> As a rule, Steven, people do NOT make love on a gyn table with
> stirrups and clamps at hand, so under normal circumstances physical
> equivalencies are not easily observable. External physical
> APPEARANCES are.
So you can't observe, but you do have the appearance?
The difference, currently at least, between mainstream film and porn is
that porn shows genitals (male and female) and mainstream doesn't. Over
a period of years (post-Hayes), mainstream American film has shown more
and more of both sexes, but still tends to stop short of showing
gentials. The argument that "you show women's, so you should also show
men's" is spurious; they don't show women's, either.
> And it just scares the shit out of most guys in this
> business to think that it might be natural for a male to be seen in a
> natural state.
I don't agree. No one would expect a woman to actually get turned on in
the course of a love scene, pornographic or otherwise - that's why God
made K-Y Jelly. If anyone's scared, it'd probably be the male actors
expected to achieve and maintain an erection on demand, in a room full
of Teamsters and under the scrutiny of the camera, the director, the
co-star's boyfriend, his own wife or girlfriend, etc.
Audiences don't seem to be clamoring for more throbbing willies in
mainstream films, and the audience that does clamor for them in porn
seems either too small or not sufficiently vocal to make their desires a
reality in the local multiplex. When this or that pretty gal bares her
breasts or pubes in a mainstream film, ticket sales shoot up, generally
without regard to the overall quality of the rest of the film. On the
rare occassions when this or that male star has released the one-eyed
trouser snake to the adoring public, it hasn't done much more than
generate a few nasty letters from religious types (of both genders).
Whether it's Harvey Keitel in The Bad Luitenant or Kyle McLaughlin in
Blue Velvet, the public doesn't seem to respond with increased ticket
sales, so there's little or no reason to include it the next time.
Which also means, of course, that you could foster change in this arena,
if you choose to. Just start making a list of every mainstream film,
foreign and domestic (and I know that list will be - you should pardon
the expression - short, at first) that features John Thomas and his All
Spherical Orchestra, and buy tickets. Tell your friends to buy tickets,
and tell them why. Tell them to write to the studio and express their
pleasure at seeing this long-overlooked element on the big screen. It's
a business; if the studios see that getting a little daylight on Mr.
Happy is good for the bottom line, he'll start making more regular
appearances.
> But hey... It's a man's world, and ain't nothing new
> about guys calling the shots... It's done every day in Hollywood! De
> rigeur, babe, de rigeur.
Ulitmately the audience calls the shots (unless you're with the
Jaegermeister and think it's all about The H'wood Cabal), and that's
you. You can change the world, Caroline one short-arm at a time!
*though a male's excitement is generally more visually evident that a
female's, which makes it - you should pardon the expression - harder to
coordinate with the necessities of film making.
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
>> My contention is that what is easily observable on BOTH
>> female and male bodies should at least be vaguely represented in
>> appropriate moments and conditions instead of the overwhelming
>> majority of such scenes being totally and exclusively presented from
>> the voyeuristic male viewpoint.
>
>Perhaps this is where we've gone astray. I don't remember ever saying
>that this _shouldn't_ be the case; only that it currently _isn't_ the
>case, and explaining why.
>
Well, this is and has always been my objection. There's been a
strange arc of sexuality in American movies. Things are better now
than they were when I was growing up, but they're still not "there"
yet. I would like to see some concessions made so that girls who go
to movies in their moderately formative teen years (today it's
probably younger than when I was a teenager) aren't TRAINED by
Hollywood to see everything sexual from a male voyeuristic viewpoint.
>I don't agree. No one would expect a woman to actually get turned on in
>the course of a love scene, pornographic or otherwise - that's why God
>made K-Y Jelly.
LOL! You literally made me laugh out loud with this one! And you're
very wrong here. Cinema *is* magic. When done well as a true
vicarious experience, you'd better believe that a well presented love
scene that is subtle and yet seductive can turn a woman on. Trust me.
But male porn turns very few women on. Besides, I'm not advocating
porn in any way, shape, or form. But, for example, European
filmmakers have a LOT more leeway when it comes to portraying human
sexuality in a balanced, normal way than Hollywood allows.
>If anyone's scared, it'd probably be the male actors
>expected to achieve and maintain an erection on demand, in a room full
>of Teamsters and under the scrutiny of the camera, the director, the
>co-star's boyfriend, his own wife or girlfriend, etc.
Well, hey, maybe there are times when a little CGI is the better way
to go?
>Audiences don't seem to be clamoring for more throbbing willies in
>mainstream films, and the audience that does clamor for them in porn
>seems either too small or not sufficiently vocal to make their desires a
>reality in the local multiplex.
Steven... Listen to me... One more time... I'm NOT advocating
"throbbing willies!" I'm NOT advocating porn! I AM advocating an
occasional movie with an occasional love scene in which NORMAL people
behave in a NORMAL way, and if it's filmed through billowing sheers,
that's okay too. But at least the thirteen year old GIRLS in the
audience won't think that human sexuality consists of an overt display
of female mammaries for male voyeuristic enjoyment. Why is this
concept so difficult for guys in this business to understand?
>Which also means, of course, that you could foster change in this arena,
>if you choose to. Just start making a list of every mainstream film,
>foreign and domestic (and I know that list will be - you should pardon
>the expression - short, at first) that features John Thomas and his All
>Spherical Orchestra, and buy tickets. Tell your friends to buy tickets,
>and tell them why. Tell them to write to the studio and express their
>pleasure at seeing this long-overlooked element on the big screen. It's
>a business; if the studios see that getting a little daylight on Mr.
>Happy is good for the bottom line, he'll start making more regular
>appearances.
If only it was that simple!
But tomorrow I think I'll go buy a couple of tickets on the Texas 40+
million dollar jackpot, which should be nice seed money for a movie
these days... Wanna be my art director? I assume you're good with
sheers, billowing or otherwise? '-)
Caroline
>*though a male's excitement is generally more visually evident than a
>female's, which makes it - you should pardon the expression - harder to
>coordinate with the necessities of film making.
* CGI.
Steven J. Weller
"Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)" <otto....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:18:34 -0800, "Steven J. Weller"
> <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps this is where we've gone astray. I don't remember ever saying
> >that this _shouldn't_ be the case; only that it currently _isn't_ the
> >case, and explaining why.
>
> Well, this is and has always been my objection. There's been a
> strange arc of sexuality in American movies. Things are better now
> than they were when I was growing up, but they're still not "there"
> yet. I would like to see some concessions made so that girls who go
> to movies in their moderately formative teen years (today it's
> probably younger than when I was a teenager) aren't TRAINED by
> Hollywood to see everything sexual from a male voyeuristic viewpoint.
I think (and I'm dead serious about this) that you give movies too much
credit.
> >I don't agree. No one would expect a woman to actually get turned on in
> >the course of a love scene, pornographic or otherwise - that's why God
> >made K-Y Jelly.
>
> LOL! You literally made me laugh out loud with this one! And you're
> very wrong here. Cinema *is* magic. When done well as a true
> vicarious experience, you'd better believe that a well presented love
> scene that is subtle and yet seductive can turn a woman on. Trust me.
I do, but we're talking at cross-purposes here. I'm not saying the
audience, male and female, shouldn't get turned on, or that they don't.
But the _actors_ in the love scene are just there doin' the job; you'd
no more expect Gwenyth Paltrow to have a real orgasm in a love scene
than you'd expect Bruce Willis to take a real punch to the mouth in a
fight scene. Gwen can fake an asthma attack, the stunt man can pull the
punch, but if you want an erection, well... that's not something that
can really be 'acted.' Having been on my share of sets where these
scenes have been filmed (and no one really likes this stuff on-set; it's
awkward and uncomfortable and no one above first-time PA gets much of a
thrill out of watching), I can't imagine many actors who could achieve
and maintain an erection for the time needed, or on-demand for (you
should pardon the expression) insert shots.
> But male porn turns very few women on. Besides, I'm not advocating
> porn in any way, shape, or form. But, for example, European
> filmmakers have a LOT more leeway when it comes to portraying human
> sexuality in a balanced, normal way than Hollywood allows.
Me, I have nothing against porn. So long as everyone's an adult, they
all have the right to make incredibly stupid choices with their bodies,
and I start to get tense when people start ot decide what's legally okay
and what's not, where sex on film is concerned.
> >Audiences don't seem to be clamoring for more throbbing willies in
> >mainstream films, and the audience that does clamor for them in porn
> >seems either too small or not sufficiently vocal to make their desires a
> >reality in the local multiplex.
>
> Steven... Listen to me... One more time... I'm NOT advocating
> "throbbing willies!" I'm NOT advocating porn! I AM advocating an
> occasional movie with an occasional love scene in which NORMAL people
> behave in a NORMAL way, and if it's filmed through billowing sheers,
> that's okay too. But at least the thirteen year old GIRLS in the
> audience won't think that human sexuality consists of an overt display
> of female mammaries for male voyeuristic enjoyment. Why is this
> concept so difficult for guys in this business to understand?
It's not difficult to understand, it's just kind of a non-starter.
Fights. Car chases. Meals in resturants. Cab rides. Courtship of the
more non-sweaty variety. Movies aren't there to present reality, nor
are they there to provide instruction. They're fantasy and escapism,
and to hold one aspect of cinema to a higher standard, or for that
matter to expect it to brush up against that higher standard on more
than the rarest of occassions, is to give it a power that's entirely
inappropriate.
What bugs the hell out of ME is the MPAA's ridiculous rating system, and
how it assumes that sexuality is a closed subject until you're old
enough to deal with it as an adult, when on average most people in the
US have lost their virginity before they can get into an R-rated movie.
Where are the movies pitched at 13 year olds that explore sexuality - as
an issue rather than as porn - in an age-appropriate manner? They don't
exist, because Jackie V and his Band of Merry Pranksters would keep them
out of the theatres and have the makers hung in the public square for so
much as acknowledging that teenaged girls masturbate.
But, I digress...
> But tomorrow I think I'll go buy a couple of tickets on the Texas 40+
> million dollar jackpot, which should be nice seed money for a movie
> these days... Wanna be my art director? I assume you're good with
> sheers, billowing or otherwise? '-)
Just finished doing curtains and swags at a friend's apartment, and got
myself a sewing machine out of the deal. What's my budget, and when do
we start pre?
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
<az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>I think (and I'm dead serious about this) that you give movies too much
>credit.
Do I? This is a very interesting subject. I readilly admit that boys
(today) are more into vedeo games, computer gaming, and if a movie
doesn't have martial arts, aliens or "fire dancers" (people who fly
through the air "walking" on the shock wave of a giant explosion)
they're pretty much not interested. But not so with girls. Girls are
bombarded with bullshit about what they *should* look like and how
they *should* behave from their first Barbie doll at age -- well, I've
seen three year olds dragging them around by the long blond hair -- to
twelve year olds doing their damndest to look and act like Christina
Aguilar and clones. And honey, I don't care if it's Barbie or
Christina, them's "ho"s...!
In a sense.
There is a HUGE dichotomy in media messages about behavior today.
Kids -- girls -- are constantly bombarded by visual messages about how
to use sex in dress and actions to get male attention, but unless I'm
missing something here, I don't see any honest messages about how real
act once they've hit a home run, most especially about how people
behave once the old limbic brain starts resonating in the key of "we!"
>I do, but we're talking at cross-purposes here. I'm not saying the
>audience, male and female, shouldn't get turned on, or that they don't.
>But the _actors_ in the love scene are just there doin' the job; you'd
>no more expect Gwenyth Paltrow to have a real orgasm in a love scene
>than you'd expect Bruce Willis to take a real punch to the mouth in a
>fight scene. Gwen can fake an asthma attack, the stunt man can pull the
>punch, but if you want an erection, well... that's not something that
>can really be 'acted.' Having been on my share of sets where these
>scenes have been filmed (and no one really likes this stuff on-set; it's
>awkward and uncomfortable and no one above first-time PA gets much of a
>thrill out of watching), I can't imagine many actors who could achieve
>should pardon the expression) insert shots.
And I agree with you completely here. But as I said twice in my last
post, maybe the time has come for a little discrete CGI. After all,
I'm not calling for a Crying Game c.u. here!
>It's not difficult to understand, it's just kind of a non-starter.
>Fights. Car chases. Meals in resturants. Cab rides. Courtship of the
>more non-sweaty variety. Movies aren't there to present reality, nor
>are they there to provide instruction. They're fantasy and escapism,
>and to hold one aspect of cinema to a higher standard, or for that
>matter to expect it to brush up against that higher standard on more
>than the rarest of occassions, is to give it a power that's entirely
>inappropriate.
Okay. Let me be the purist here. I assume we're both in agreement
that the deepest tap root of movies goes all the way back to good old
Aristotle. And original Greek drama had one purpose: To illustrate a
morally enlightening lesson in an audience-capturing way that would
teach people something meaningful about life. Period. That's it!
And despite all that Hollywood has done to try to obfuscate and erase
this dictum, it is as indelible a truth now as it was then: The
*BEST* movies are the ones that draw us most deeply emotionally into
the story and teach us something. Something about life, something
about ourselves, something about what it is to be human. But as
screenwriters, we are not allowed to do that in all areas. Since
Aristotle's time, theater has grown such techniques of magic that if
he were brought back to life today and put in front of a giant screen
with full surround sound, his brain would fry! Complete melt down!
I'll tell you why, after all these years, this subject of human
sexuality in film still bugs the hell out of me. I have what I think
is a great love story. It's about two people, a hawk and a pacifist
who came out of the Cold War era, and begin as extremely hostile to
each other, but who are compelled by circumstance to join forces while
they chase the mcguffin. And in the process, they learn to repsect
each other, they talk about life and death and how it has impacted in
each of their lives, they develop compassion and understanding for
each other, and ultimately discover they love each other in a classic
Aristotelian ending. But by standard Hollywood conventions, I am not
allowed to include any evidence of sexuality when it involves deep
human emotions. And THAT pisses me off! So I don't shop the script.
I hord it. And maybe someday... If I win a lottery...
<sigh>
But it probably will have to be big enough to build my own very
competitive distribution company.
>What bugs the hell out of ME is the MPAA's ridiculous rating system, and
>how it assumes that sexuality is a closed subject until you're old
>enough to deal with it as an adult, when on average most people in the
>US have lost their virginity before they can get into an R-rated movie.
>Where are the movies pitched at 13 year olds that explore sexuality - as
>an issue rather than as porn - in an age-appropriate manner? They don't
>exist, because Jackie V and his Band of Merry Pranksters would keep them
>out of the theatres and have the makers hung in the public square for so
>much as acknowledging that teenaged girls masturbate.
Yup. We do see eye to eye. And my big fear? We're all dangling
about two feet beyond the edge of the precipice, and if the big RRs
(Radical Republicans) succeed in their major drive to "Republicanize"
this country, Mr. Valenti will be made head of the Inquisition. If
that happens, we all stand a good chance of burning in Hell.
>Just finished doing curtains and swags at a friend's apartment, and got
>myself a sewing machine out of the deal.
I got my current sewing machine (my Necchi super machine got wet
during a long move and rusted!) by making a caterpillar costume that
was worn to a Disney "Alice In Wonderland" theme party. How many
times have you made three pairs of curly-toed Turkish gold slippers
and a hookah? Not to mention two extra sets of arms! It won a
$1,000.00 First Prize, so in effect, my new sewing machine didn't cost
the wearer one thin dime. We won't talk about how much frustration it
cost me. I had to do it all in one fitting. <grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr>
> What's my budget, and when do we start pre?
I'll know on Friday if we shoot or scratch. '-)
Caroline
Ovum
>So I don't shop the script.
>I hord it.
Now see, if I had written "hord" MC woulda been all over it!
stace
"Ovum" <ov...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031204200345...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Caroline writes:
>
> >So I don't shop the script.
> >I hord it.
>
> Now see, if I had written "hord" MC woulda been all over it!
>
> Lois
>
I'm trying to figure out if she made it stand on a street corner and work
it, or if she stashed it in a wall safe behind a Rockwell print.
:P
stace
MC
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
> >So I don't shop the script.
> >I hord it.
>
> Now see, if I had written "hord" MC woulda been all over it!
I hord it through the grapevine.