Pretty Baby and child nudity in American film (Was: Re: Brooke Shields)
Allen G. Newman
appearance on the Late Show with long, straight hair, a pretty good tan,
and a nipple-revealing white tank top, all of which combined to bring back
memories of Blue Lagoon.]
In article <3vndug$8...@calweb.calweb.com>, ma...@calweb.com (Mark Monroy) wrote:
>In article <anewman-0108...@ppp5.usd.edu>,
> ane...@charlie.usd.edu (Allen G. Newman) wrote:
>>In article <3vb5cj$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, sabg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
>wrote:
>>
>>>Her big "nude" scene in Blue Lagoon was a body double... At least the
>>>close-up. I think she was too young at the time to be showing herself
>>>off like that.
>>
>>The body double in Blue Lagoon was for a breast-feeding shot -- no amount
>>of method acting on Brooke's part would have made *that* happen! A
>>previous film, Pretty Baby, proved she was willing to "show herself off"
>>even as a pre-teen. Her parents wanted to make her a star by ANY means,
>>apparently.
>>
>Hmm...is that legal in the US? Seems like that would be pretty controversial
>today.
Oh, I knew somebody was going to ask that! I did a report on Pretty Baby
for an undergraduate class, so allow me to recycle the relevant part of my
analysis:
Brooke Shields' parents' hard-to-empathize-with approval of her
character's very adult acting requirements aside, yes, it is legal -- if
you're familiar with the wording of U.S. child-pornography law, it's
almost funny because you can actually see the camera consciously comply
with the exact letter of that law. For example, here's how the director
avoids the dreaded words, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals":
Shields, facing the camera, suddenly stands up in the bath, and the camera
follows her up, tilting at the *exact* speed required to show every last
millimeter of the northern hemisphere without showing the equator.
There is one other shot in which she is photographed frontally nude
head-to-toe, and in that she is frozen in a reclined pose which, again, is
carefully designed to show every inch of her except the four or so inches
that might attract the unwanted attention of law enforcement. (A
subsequent shot in the same scene while her *character* is still naked
"accidentally" shows Shields wearing a g-string she wasn't wearing earlier
-- I put accidentally in quotes because it's such an obvious glitch I
suspect it is a deliberate message to any concerned parties in the
audience that this child was not being exploited off-camera -- it
demonstrates to all that she wasn't totally naked unless a shot absolutely
required it.)
You have to understand that the entire film is a gigantic tease, and these
"naughty" shots are just small parts of a larger strategy. The film is
about a girl who was born and raised in an old-fashioned New Orleans
whorehouse by women who had similar backgrounds themselves. Shields'
character becomes a whore at age 12 because that is the only model of
adulthood she can emulate -- there's nothing else that defines growing up
in her world, so she not only does it, she looks forward to it.
Thereafter, her scenes are designed to show her suddenly, shockingly shift
from acting sexy beyond her years to being an innocent child, and an
immature brat. Significantly, the so-called *adult* whores behave in
exactly the same way; if you're born in the whorehouse, you never get to
be a child, but you also never get to grow up.
The director delights in tricking the audience into feeling downright
nostalgic for the situation these females, of all ages, are living in --
with the music and style of a "simpler" time, he encourages you, the
viewer, to *like* it -- and then he waits for your distracted intellect to
wake you up to the reality that it is, actually, terrible and awful. At
that moment, the director silently, through Shields, as she stares
directly at the camera at the story's end, says with a smile, "Ha. Caught
you." You're made to understand first-hand the forces that kept these
whorehouses going in the first place. It's brilliant, and I doubt Brooke
Shields will ever act in a better movie.
By the way, there's nothing in Pretty Baby's content that would be unusual
in a major film from any Western country other than the U.S. -- the big
surprise is that Pretty Baby is an American film, released by no less than
Paramount Pictures. These days, it's unwise to expect a major American
studio to produce a film in which a pre-adolescent girl appears merely
topless, much less nude! Too many people would now find it questionable
for it to be politically safe -- even though legally, it's completely
safe. (Nipples are not mentioned in U.S. child-pornography law, and
trying to call girls' nipples "genitals" should get one laughed out of
court, not to mention medical school. In fact, nude children, including
genitals, are legal to film, as long as it's not "lascivious exhibition"
-- though from a practical standpoint, the word lascivious is vague enough
to discourage one from testing it in a high-profile medium.)
Things were different in 1978 -- the law was where the acceptable-content
line was drawn, whereas today, the line is drawn by more restrictive
political correctness as it relates to the uncomfortable mix of children
and sexuality. It's clear that in the aftermath of an onslaught of public
scandals in the '80s involving child molestation, American media are now
conditioned to not only steer clear of, but to take proactive steps to
avoid, creating anything that could be remotely associated -- by *anyone*,
intelligently or not -- with pedophilia.
At the risk of probing into unsubstantiated minutiae to prove my point,
here is a trend I've noticed, based on my own observation -- I can't say
this is fact, but I believe it to be so:
An observable manifestation of this phenonmenon is the extreme, almost
obsessive care now taken in almost all American films and TV that feature
young girls (older than toddlers), to avoid accidentally having a nipple
be visible in even a single frame of film. Loose, sleeveless tops and
dresses that girls wear through the hot days of summer in real life are
scrupulously avoided as costume choices for film or TV because they can
allow line-of-sight into what has become forbidden territory. In
contrast, media products from the '70s or earlier are replete with cases
in which no effort at all was made to conceal this degree of visibility
that is the quite natural result of prepubescent female anatomy being
incapable of filling out any upper-body clothing loose enough to be
comfortable in heat and humidity.
Attitudes have changed. Before, if a child's-nipple-through-a-sleeve was
even noticed, it could pass right by the editor, disregarded. "So what?"
was the attitude, because that's how normal people react to this sight in
real life. But nowadays, media professionals, like everyone who works
with children, are ever-conscious that they themselves may be at legal
risk if they fail to avoid even the appearance of improper interaction
with their child performers, off-screen as well as on. The need for
caution forces them to think as "anti-pedophiles", consciously identifying
and avoiding risks at each step. The mindset carries over to the end
product, so costuming and editing decisions that once were not worth
considering are now made:
A scene conceived of as featuring a boy and a girl in the summer, both
wearing only denim coveralls, now becomes the boy probably still wearing
only coveralls but the girl wearing coveralls plus a T-shirt. A subtle
change, perhaps, but a change nonetheless: a tiny bit less casual,
slightly less care-free. Definitely less innocent -- not because of
anything the girl did or thought of, but because of the thoughts of those
behind the camera.
Acting to eliminate such nebulously "pedophilic" elements can have the
ironic effect of acknowledging the pedophile's existence, even where he
may not be or may not matter, and so cooling the air as though trapped in
his shadow; before, when he was unknown and ignored, care-free ideas could
shine. Eventually, the public gets so used to the shadow that when a
bright light shines through from the earlier time, the public squints in
discomfort, and asks, "is Pretty Baby child pornography [now]?"
A few visits to the Recent Foreign Releases shelf of the video store can
show that this is one Hollywood trend that has not been exported in
quantity. Of course, why should it be? Worrying about little girls'
nipples (news flash: they look a lot like little boys') is merely an
extension of the American tendency to consider female breasts and
genitalia almost equally taboo as each other, in contrast with most other
countries where breasts are noticeably less taboo than genitalia.
It seems that since the American media have determined to make little
girls' bodies as taboo as grown women's, an ironic truth is revealed:
that Pretty Baby, by *realistically* depicting a *realistic* character of
a little girl pathetically trying to be a sex object -- a girl trying to
be, essentially, what would be a pedophile's dream -- successfully
demonstrates, by telling and *showing* the story in an emotionally
balanced way, exactly how far, far short little girls fall of being
capable of living up to any such adult's fantasy. I suggest that Pretty
Baby, and other above-board films (1900, My Life as a Dog, Toto the Hero)
that buck current political correctness with regard to exploring issues of
childhood sexuality, do more to combat pedophilia than the American media
does by avoiding realistic themes and images which foreign filmmakers
successfully weave into the tapestries of their films -- which makes their
films better resemble the tapestry of life.
I'm *not* arguing one bit that child pornography laws be relaxed -- child
pornography, *aside* from being invasive, coercive, and usually
destructive, is the worst kind of communication medium -- one that exists
for its own sake: it doesn't reveal anything about real life, and so it
has no artistic value.
What I do suggest is that American artists in all media, big and small,
should damn p.c. and stake a claim to the vast area of potential
exploration *between* the line drawn by the law and the line drawn by the
in-vogue Puritanical vacuum, in which, like most vacuums, it's hard to
breathe.
So, ma...@calweb.com (Mark Monroy), aren't you glad you asked? :)
[Author's note: I retain full ownership of my writing in this post under
international copyright law. I expressly DENY permission for my writing
or any part of it to be reposted or quoted in alt.sex.pedophilia or any
similarly-themed forum -- please do not delete the first two sentences of
this notice from replies in this newsgroup. I do not wish to have my name
or my words used to support agendas I do not agree with. FYI, I see child
molesters *and* over-zealous pedophile-hunters as both responsible for
increased tension between everyone in a country where it used to be that
people just didn't have to worry about some stuff. Anyone from either of
those camps who thinks something in my writing indicates that I'm on your
team is advised to think again.]
--
Allen G. Newman /\ | | |_ | | Just Another Theater
ane...@charlie.usd.edu / \ |_ |_ |_ |\| Grad Student Geek
Eric Gross
>I'm *not* arguing one bit that child pornography laws be relaxed -- child
>pornography, *aside* from being invasive, coercive, and usually
>destructive, is the worst kind of communication medium -- one that exists
>for its own sake: it doesn't reveal anything about real life, and so it
>has no artistic value.
>What I do suggest is that American artists in all media, big and small,
>should damn p.c. and stake a claim to the vast area of potential
>exploration *between* the line drawn by the law and the line drawn by the
>in-vogue Puritanical vacuum, in which, like most vacuums, it's hard to
>breathe.
Good morning!
Interesting post, well written and with some good points, a few I had not
thought about. Thanks for taking the time to write it.
These last two paragraphs, however, prompt me to make these well-meant
comments:
The problem here is that you don't leave any room for the convictions of
others. What is artistic expression to you may be pornography to others.
Pornography laws and anti-nudity ordnances are so ambiguously worded and
freely interpreted precisely because of this problem. Why are your particular
definitions of "the line" correct, or more acceptable, than anyone else's? You
either have to have a definable, recognized standard if you are to make
relativistic statements, or you have to acknowledge that there is no standard.
If there is no standard, then you can not believe your viewpoint to be the
only one or even the "true" one, since there is no truth. If you accept that
there is a standard of reference, then you have to be able to show that the
standard you advance is ultimately the best or correct . . . . see the point?
If you enjoy Pretty Baby because you see it as a brilliant film, and someone
else dislikes it because it offends their honestly-held moral convictions,
what makes you more correct or noble than them? You wish people to respect
the freedom of filmakers and the rights of movie-goers to explore the
boundary, but yet you deride the freedom of critics and the rights of those
who disagree to legitimately attempt to combat something they see as morally
destructive and unecessary. You can't stand on the principal of tolerance,
open-mindedness and freedom while at the same time denying it to others.
This is in no way meant as a criticism of you or of your views -- I'm just
trying to point out a pernicious weakness in this line of argument. In the
end, when you make statements like the ones you made in your last two
paragraphs, you must realize that you are doing exactly the same thing, from
an opposite tack, that you find distasteful in others.
Also, as a historian, I have a picky objection to people abusing the Puritans
without truly understanding who they were or what they were trying to
accomplish. But that's another post . . . . :)
Cheers!
pa...@hoover.stanford.edu
also is aware of the varying sensitivities of the audience and the hideous
effects an innocuous-to-you-and-me scene can generate in a diseased
viewer. It's better to err on the side of caution. There's more than art or
legalities at stake here.
Charlotte
Allen G. Newman
pa...@hoover.stanford.edu wrote:
It's debatable whether filmmakers are supposed to be responsible for the
*infinite* range of potential effects their work may have on an infinite
range of abnormal psychologies! It's like saying you have to be careful
in how you portray Superman because someone might pin a towel to their
shoulders and jump out a skyscraper. We live in a world of information
and trying to blame a person's actions on individual sources of imagery is
pretty misguided, when the real problem is that such a person failed to
learn how to recognize reality and control their impulses -- a vital skill
in a world with more and more-varied mental stimuli than in all of
history.
Peter Reiher
>In article <pace.58....@hoover.stanford.edu>,
>pa...@hoover.stanford.edu wrote:
>
>>This is a tough call for any director. Political correctness aside, he/she
>>also is aware of the varying sensitivities of the audience and the hideous
>>effects an innocuous-to-you-and-me scene can generate in a diseased
>>viewer. It's better to err on the side of caution. There's more than art or
>>legalities at stake here.
>
>*infinite* range of potential effects their work may have on an infinite
>range of abnormal psychologies!
While that is certainly true, I don't think filmmakers are utterly without
responsibility. For example, consider the case of Leni Riefenstahl. Now,
there's some question about just how committed she was to the Nazi cause,
but certainly "Triumph of the Will" shows the Nazis in a very attractive
light. The entire point of the film was to show how great the Nazi movement
was, and to convince Germans and others to sign up or support the Nazis.
Since that was clearly the effect that Ms. Riefenstahl intended, does she
not bear some moral responsibility, and is she not subject to criticism
for the content of this film?
On the flip side, consider the recent film "The Program," a mediocre
Touchstone (or maybe Hollywood Pictures) film about a major American college
football program. In that film, gonzo football players lie down on
the center line of a busy road to demonstrate their daring, or maybe
their stupidity. Apparently some of America's dimmer teenagers thought
this cool and tried it for themselves, with the predictable result that
they got run over. In this case, the filmmakers clearly were not praising
the merits of lying down in the middle of the road, and hence were not
(in my opinion) morally responsible for the deaths of the teenagers who
copied the film's actions. Similarly, Michael Cimino's "The Deer Hunter"
clearly wasn't suggesting that Russian Roulette was a fun activity that
should be a part of every American's life, and "Fuzz" wasn't suggesting that
lighting bums on fire was a neat was to pass the time. Some people
apparently got those messages, but the filmmakers clearly weren't sending
them, and should not be held responsible.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/project-members/reiher/home_page.html>
pa...@hoover.stanford.edu
>It's debatable whether filmmakers are supposed to be responsible for the
>*infinite* range of potential effects their work may have on an infinite
>range of abnormal psychologies! It's like saying you have to be careful
>in how you portray Superman because someone might pin a towel to their
>shoulders and jump out a skyscraper. We live in a world of information
>and trying to blame a person's actions on individual sources of imagery is
>pretty misguided, when the real problem is that such a person failed to
>learn how to recognize reality and control their impulses -- a vital skill
>in a world with more and more-varied mental stimuli than in all of
>history.
Allen,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. This is not so much to argue with you
personally as to add a few thoughts to the continuing debate on the moral
impact of the media.
Certainly, filmmakers cannot be held responsible for an infinite range of
effects. And you are right that it is misguided to hold filmmakers
singularly responsible for a person's actions. Moral responsibility rests
first, last and always with the individual. And that is precisely my point.
The filmmaker is an individual, and he is morally responsible for his actions.
If I am a morally responsible filmmaker, I understand the extremely powerful
imagery of film. That's why I became a filmmaker in the first place.
Furthermore, I am as responsible as any other professional for knowing that I
do not work in a vacuum. I am a citizen of a particular world, and that world
is full of morally irresponsible people. I am aware that the powerful images
I am creating may have a moral impact on people's lives. I can foresee, for
example, how a scene of child nudity may contribute to a sick person's lust
for a child next door or to lurid exploitation of this child actor -- despite
my best intentions -- and it is quite reasonable of my fellow human beings to
expect me to foresee this. How I am going to act on this is a choice between
good and evil. The pedophile is still solely responsible for his actions.
He cannot blame me for them. But he, too, does not work in a vacuum.
He is bombarded daily with images, dialogue, and innuendo, none of which
created his problem but all of which pander to it -- and may in any one moment
tip the scale toward his choosing a particular action. I choose not to tip
that scale, and that's why I am cautious. It's a small price to pay.
And remember, we're talking about the most innocent of scenes -- a child's
nakedness. We haven't yet mentioned the possible impact of scenes of
deliberate glorification of evil --- blood-thirsty revenge, for example.
There are many studies underway in this area to discern which came first, the
real violence or the film violence, and whether the media is desensitizing us
to violence. But if I am a morally responsible filmmaker, I cannot wait for
the results. I want my movies to contribute to the downfall of violence, and
I'm fairly certain that glorifying it isn't the way to do that.
The Superman argument is a leap in a different direction. Distinguishing
between good and evil is one thing. Distinguishing between fantasy and
reality is another. Again, the filmmaker does not work in a vacuum. He or
she may foresee that a child or a simple adult may try to imitate a fantasy
scene. But he cannot foresee every possible harm, nor can he be expected to
play the role of parent or guardian in the absense of all others to explain
what fantasy is. How the filmmaker acts on his foresight is a gray area.
But what is not a gray area is that men, women and children are shot, knifed,
raped, tortured, and abused every day. Certainly, filmmakers are not to blame
for all this. But at the same time it cannot be reasonably argued that the
constant images of violence, of sexual irresponsibility, of human degradation,
of exploitation no matter how innocently contrived -- all for the sake of
entertainment -- are having no harmful effects on us at all. None whatsoever.
Charlotte
Expressed opinions have no bearing on my employer.
James Meek
>In article <anewman-0708...@ppp9.usd.edu> ane...@charlie.usd.edu (Allen G. Newman) writes:
>>
>>It's debatable whether filmmakers are supposed to be responsible for the
>>*infinite* range of potential effects their work may have on an infinite
>>range of abnormal psychologies!
[good discussion of Leni Reifenstahl's pro-Nazi films, and the legitimacy
of criticizing her underlying messages regrettably deleted]
>On the flip side, consider the recent film "The Program," a mediocre
>Touchstone (or maybe Hollywood Pictures) film about a major American college
>football program. In that film, gonzo football players lie down on
>the center line of a busy road to demonstrate their daring, or maybe
>their stupidity. Apparently some of America's dimmer teenagers thought
>this cool and tried it for themselves, with the predictable result that
>they got run over. In this case, the filmmakers clearly were not praising
>the merits of lying down in the middle of the road, and hence were not
>(in my opinion) morally responsible for the deaths of the teenagers who
>copied the film's actions. Similarly, Michael Cimino's "The Deer Hunter"
>clearly wasn't suggesting that Russian Roulette was a fun activity that
>should be a part of every American's life, and "Fuzz" wasn't suggesting that
>lighting bums on fire was a neat was to pass the time. Some people
>apparently got those messages, but the filmmakers clearly weren't sending
>them, and should not be held responsible.
I agree with you that those are pretty clear examples. I also agree
that, pretty much, filmmakers don't generally have a lot of moral
responsibility for the actions people decide to take in response to
viewing a particular film. To play devil's advocate, however--
What about Scorsese's "Taxi Driver"? There's no dispute that John
Hinkley was partly inspired by the film to shoot Ronald Reagan.
Personally, I think it's pretty clear as well that Scorsese, Schrader,
and DeNiro intended Travis to be an antihero, and that his actions are
not meant to be inspirational. The ending, however, where Travis is
lauded as a hero for saving Iris, can be (and is often) misinterpreted by
people unwilling to devote much critical thought to the film. The
filmmakers intended an ironic statement; many people take it straight
(especially now, when standards of heroism have shifted so drastically).
I'm not holding Scorsese, or anyone else involved with making the film,
even partly responsible for Hinkley's attempt to kill the president.
Hinkley, insane or not, is an autonomous being with the capacity to
choose his actions. I can, however, easily see this particular film
(and probably others, although this is the example that comes to mind) as
fairly murky ground. Part of its strength is that it doesn't come out and
say "Travis is bad; he's going nuts; don't try this at home."
This isn't a rebuttal (it'd be a poor one) to Peter's points. If
anything, it's a commentary on why you probably shouldn't ever really
"turn off your brain" while watching films. Films may have an influence,
but people make the final choices. It's unfortunate that filmmakers
don't feel they have the same freedom to explore the greyest of grey
areas in human behavior that, say, novelists enjoy. (Read some of James
Ellroy's novels sometime, and see if you can picture a Hollywood film
adaptation worth your time.)
Then again, no one's spending $170 million to write a novel, hoping to
gross six times that worldwide . . .
James Meek
j...@u.washington.edu
Ron Nadel
>But what is not a gray area is that men, women and children are shot, knifed,
>raped, tortured, and abused every day. Certainly, filmmakers are not to blame
>for all this. But at the same time it cannot be reasonably argued that the
>constant images of violence, of sexual irresponsibility, of human degradation,
>of exploitation no matter how innocently contrived -- all for the sake of
>entertainment -- are having no harmful effects on us at all. None whatsoever.
I think this is mostly a fallacious argument. You physically link violent
actions to your discussion on filmmaking morality and then say that "certainly
filmmakers are not to blame...but"
It can very reasonably be argued that "constant images... are having no
harmful effects on us at all". I believe your argument is mostly visceral in
nature. Reasonable sociologists and pschologists have said that people do not
get their motivations from outside influence, once we are passed a certain
young age (children it is said are easily influenced).
There are many things for us to be exposed to every day in the behavior of all
the people around us. Much more exposure than movies and TV provide. We
cannot reasonably argue that people should behave as if they were morally
responsible for influencing strangers. The same is even more true for an
artist or filmmaker expressing themselves.
Ron
Allen G. Newman
You make a lot of very thoughtful points which are quite logical in the
context in which they're given, but I would have to disagree with your
philosophy on this issue to the extent that it might limit the range of
subjects film may touch upon. I'll try to explain below.
In article <pace.63....@hoover.stanford.edu>,
pa...@hoover.stanford.edu wrote:
>ane...@charlie.usd.edu (Allen G. Newman) wrote:
>
>>It's debatable whether filmmakers are supposed to be responsible for the
>>*infinite* range of potential effects their work may have on an infinite
>>range of abnormal psychologies! It's like saying you have to be careful
>>in how you portray Superman because someone might pin a towel to their
>>shoulders and jump out a skyscraper.
[edited for space]
>The Superman argument is a leap in a different direction. Distinguishing
>between good and evil is one thing. Distinguishing between fantasy and
>reality is another. Again, the filmmaker does not work in a vacuum. He or
>she may foresee that a child or a simple adult may try to imitate a fantasy
>scene. But he cannot foresee every possible harm, nor can he be expected to
>play the role of parent or guardian in the absense of all others to explain
>what fantasy is. How the filmmaker acts on his foresight is a gray area.
I agreed with this for a second, but upon reflection I think my Superman
comparison remains valid, because in reality, I don't think there are many
people in the world who believe what they do is evil from their *own*
perspectives. For example, a trip to alt.sex.pedophilia reveals that
pedophiles will tend to believe ideas that children "enjoy" discovering
sex at the earliest possible age and "like" adults to "free" them and
"show them the way"; if the pedophile acts on his desires, this
"philosophy" will justify his actions in his mind.
A child molester will acknowledge that the majority see his actions as
evil, but will think his is the superior philosophy. Yet his philosophy
is as much a fantasy as Superman.
Indeed, this is very much the subject of _Pretty_Baby_: how an
environment can gradually corrupt a formerly sane man into believing the
fantasy that a little girl can be happy as a man's lover and wife. In the
film, the instant the corrupting environment is destroyed, so is that
which sustains the fantasy. The audience is carried along with the
fantasy while it lasts -- the director chooses not to accentuate the
unpleasant aspects and consequences because the audience is supposed to be
smart enough to plug in the variables the director provides to solve that
equation. If a pedophile watched the film and only absorbed the parts
that, by themselves, make 12-year-old whores seem like a good idea, it's
the same as missing the parts of _Superman_ where they explain that he's
from another planet. Recognizing reality is not just a matter of being
able to recognize what's physically possible; it's also about realizing
how things work. A person who does evil, unless he's depressed and
deliberately self-destructive, is acting on a distorted view of reality.
Because evil requires action, and action requires a goal, and a goal
requires speculation, and speculation requires the ability to recognize
and extrapolate from reality, recognizing the difference between good vs.
evil and reality vs. fantasy is actually the same thing.
Therefore, my original assertion stands. You are correct that no one
exists in a vacuum and that it is possible to some extent to predict some
effects certain imagery may have on people who have views of reality that
are distorted in a known way, such as pedophiles. However, for one to
allow these concerns to limit the scope of their art, when there is an
audience (even a minority audience) capable of properly appreciating it,
slows the speed at which art and thought can advance, because it must then
be second-guessed by fears of past misdeeds and human atrocities that we
must all hope we can grow out of. Just as perception of low average
intelligence among the audience can and does limit mass media to one kind
of lowest common denomintor, so can perception of low audience morals.
pa...@hoover.stanford.edu
>>But what is not a gray area is that men, women and children are shot, knifed,
>>raped, tortured, and abused every day. Certainly, filmmakers are not to
>>blame for all this. But at the same time it cannot be reasonably argued
>>that the constant images of violence, of sexual irresponsibility, of human
>>degradation, of exploitation no matter how innocently contrived -- all for
>>the sake of entertainment -- are having no harmful effects on us at all.
>>None whatsoever.
>I think this is mostly a fallacious argument. You physically link violent
>actions to your discussion on filmmaking morality and then say that "certainly
>filmmakers are not to blame...but"
>It can very reasonably be argued that "constant images... are having no
>harmful effects on us at all". I believe your argument is mostly visceral in
>nature. Reasonable sociologists and pschologists have said that people do not
>get their motivations from outside influence, once we are passed a certain
>young age (children it is said are easily influenced).
Ron,
Thanks for your assessment. I admit to gaps and some emotionalism (sorry) in
my posting. For example, a better wording would have been that filmmakers are
not "solely" to blame. But I am sticking to my conclusions. I am involved in
some research on media and violence. You are absolutely right that many
researchers limit motivational influence to the young, but that only bolsters
my arguments for caution. As a random sample: "All seven of the U.S. and
Canadian studies of prolonged childhood exposure to television demonstrates a
positive relationship between exposure and physical aggression. The critical
period is pre-adolescent childhood. Later exposure does not appear to produce
any additional effect. However, the aggression-enhancing effect of exposure
in pre-adolescence extends into adolescence and adulthood" (Centerwall 1993).
But others expand the sphere of influence: "Research in the laboratory has
very often shown that violent movies especially influence people who are
already inclined to behave aggressively (Berkowitz, 1970)," quoted by Leyens,
et al. in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975.
Regardless of who is influenced and who is not, my responsibilities are
clear. It would matter little to me as a filmmaker (and certainly as a TV
producer) that my products influenced only children or already deviant adults.
That is a profound social implication, and it's ample reason for me to choose
caution.
>There are many things for us to be exposed to every day in the behavior of
all
>the people around us. Much more exposure than movies and TV provide.
We
>cannot reasonably argue that people should behave as if they were morally
>responsible for influencing strangers. The same is even more true for an
>artist or filmmaker expressing themselves.
Here we part company. Yes, there are many other, and even greater, exposures
than the media. That's why the media is not solely to blame for social ills.
But I think your statements (if I understand them correctly) go against widely
accepted theories of social behavior. While a minority still hold that our
behavior is purely genetic, most hold that we are influenced by our parents,
our teachers, our friends, who in turn were influenced by parents, teachers,
friends -- i.e., strangers. It is self-evident, then, that we should behave
as if we were morally responsible for influencing strangers. That works to
the good as well. Most of us like to think that the good we do has a ripple
effect in the world around us. And if we believet that, than we have to
accept that the evil we do has a likewise effect. In the matter at hand, the
filmmaker, like any one else whose work is public, is not a total stranger in
the first place. He may not be personally acquainted with his audience, but
his statements to them are as immediate as any acquaintance's.
Charlotte
Opinions expressed have no bearing on my employer.
Mike D'Angelo
[sorry to leave all of this in here, but I can't see how to prune it]
: I agree with you that those are pretty clear examples. I also agree
: that, pretty much, filmmakers don't generally have a lot of moral
: responsibility for the actions people decide to take in response to
: viewing a particular film. To play devil's advocate, however--
: What about Scorsese's "Taxi Driver"? There's no dispute that John
: Hinkley was partly inspired by the film to shoot Ronald Reagan.
: Personally, I think it's pretty clear as well that Scorsese, Schrader,
: and DeNiro intended Travis to be an antihero, and that his actions are
: not meant to be inspirational. The ending, however, where Travis is
: lauded as a hero for saving Iris, can be (and is often) misinterpreted by
: people unwilling to devote much critical thought to the film. The
: filmmakers intended an ironic statement; many people take it straight
: (especially now, when standards of heroism have shifted so drastically).
: I'm not holding Scorsese, or anyone else involved with making the film,
: even partly responsible for Hinkley's attempt to kill the president.
: Hinkley, insane or not, is an autonomous being with the capacity to
: choose his actions. I can, however, easily see this particular film
: (and probably others, although this is the example that comes to mind) as
: fairly murky ground. Part of its strength is that it doesn't come out and
: say "Travis is bad; he's going nuts; don't try this at home."
I've had long and frustrating arguments with friends about whether the
artist has a responsibility to avoid this sort of ambiguity. Another
example of a film that, while more or less uncontestably a major work of
art, may have caused a great deal of grief in the Real World, is
GOODFELLAS. When Henry walks out of his suburban home at the end of
the film and basically calls all of the stupid, law-abiding people of the
world "schnooks," I understand that I'm supposed to react to that
oppositionally. But how many inner-city teens, attracted to the film by
its violence and flashy editing, were aware of the film's latent
content (to borrow from Freud for a moment...films *are* dreams,
anyway)? The surface message of GOODFELLAS is: Anyone who plays by
society's rules is a fucking idiot. If you're not thinking about the
film critically, your response is likely to be: These guys are cool.
They had it all. They blew it by becoming paranoid and greedy and strung
out on drugs. I won't make *those* mistakes!"
That said, I think art is far too important, and censorship far too
dangerous; I would never advocate a return to any sort of Production
Code. TAXI DRIVER didn't create the problems in Hinckley's life that
spurred his actions, and had it never been made, his obsession and need
for notoriety would undoubtedly have found some other inspiration. Art,
like technology, love, and any number of other valuable and beneficial
human creations and attributes, is dangerous. We may as well accept it.
Mike D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts, NYU
[http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~ejohnson features various critics' top ten
lists, SIGHT AND SOUND and TIME OUT polls, weekly New York film info,
personal film lists of myself and Eric C. Johnson, and more, more, more...]
Charles Herold
> From: rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher)
> Subject: Re: Pretty Baby and child nudity in American film (Was: Re: Brooke S
i
> elds)
>
>>It's debatable whether filmmakers are supposed to be responsible for the
>>*infinite* range of potential effects their work may have on an infinite
>>range of abnormal psychologies!
>
> While that is certainly true, I don't think filmmakers are utterly without
> responsibility. For example, consider the case of Leni Riefenstahl. Now,
> there's some question about just how committed she was to the Nazi cause,
> but certainly "Triumph of the Will" shows the Nazis in a very attractive
> light. The entire point of the film was to show how great the Nazi movement
> was, and to convince Germans and others to sign up or support the Nazis.
> Since that was clearly the effect that Ms. Riefenstahl intended, does she
> not bear some moral responsibility, and is she not subject to criticism
> for the content of this film?
Riefenstahl has been a classic victim of hindsight. She is so roundly
castigated because she made a very good film praising a very bad man.
But if someone were to make a very good film today about Pat Buchanan,
few people, *today*, would accuse the filmmaker of a monstrous act. If
Buchanan became president, though, and ran the country the way one would
guess he would by his pronouncements, leading us into a nuclear war or
letting the ghettos go up in flames, in hindsight that filmmaker might
be considered to have been dangerously irresponsible. Propogandists are
judged in hindsight, but they work with no foreknowledge of events.
Even though Hitler was pretty explicit about his plans (and I am very
skeptical about Riefenstahl's claim that she never read Triumph of the
Will), it is command and reasonable to assume that politicians will
never implement most of their pronouncements, many of which are just for
show. Hitler turned out to be that rare politician who was quite
sincere (sincerity in a politician seems equivalant to insanity). To
make a film praising the Nazis in 1935 was not the same thing as doing
so in 1942, but Riefenstahl is held accountable for the future she had
not yet seen.
Charles Herold Citizen of the Whirl
charles...@tglbbs.com
---
* SPEED 2.00 [NR] * Error reading REALITY.SYS - Universe Halted
FilmGene
make a film praising the Nazis in 1935 was not the same thing as doing
so in 1942, but Riefenstahl is held accountable for the future she had
not yet seen.>>
However to continue to be loyal to a regime in 1942 is a fair description
of Riefenstahl too. While she may not be held responsible for all the
crimes of Naziism, she has certainly been less than honest about her
loyalties throughout the era. And her protestations of "just doing my
work" on "Triumph of the Will" ring particularly hollow. She was a willing
propagandist and international representative for the Nazi regime. We are
all guilty of poor judgment from time to time AND we pay for that, as she
has rightly done.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
FilmGene
blackguarded for being "willing propogandists" for the Bolsheviks?>>
Well for one thing these "boys" made dozens of films, some to the
condemnation of their governments. They have track records as artists
beyond one or two propaganda films.
As well, they never attempted to rewrite history by denying what they did.
Or by claiming their innocence of politics. They actually believed in what
they were saying. And, most critics seem to agree that they transcended
the purely political in their films.
Riefenstahl, on the other hand, has tried to have it both ways. She has
ben dishonest about her participation in the glorification of the Nazi
state. It is a question of hypocrisy more than anything else.
Patrick Kearney
: However to continue to be loyal to a regime in 1942 is a fair description
: of Riefenstahl too. While she may not be held responsible for all the
: crimes of Naziism, she has certainly been less than honest about her
: loyalties throughout the era. And her protestations of "just doing my
: work" on "Triumph of the Will" ring particularly hollow. She was a willing
: propagandist and international representative for the Nazi regime. We are
: all guilty of poor judgment from time to time AND we pay for that, as she
: has rightly done.
Why is is that Eisenstein & Pudovkin and the boys are not similarly
blackguarded for being "willing propogandists" for the Bolsheviks?
Don't get me wrong; "Strike", "The General Line" and "Potemkin" are
among my favourite films, as is "Triumph of the Will". It's just that
there seems to be an imbalance of criticism here.
************************************** " 'Tis very warm weather when
Patrick "I'll drink to That" Kearney * one's in bed.' "
c/o Hewlett-Packard * Jonathan Swift
1400 Fountaingrove Parkway * Journal to Stella
Santa Rosa, CA 95403. * Oct. 26 1710
*
INTERNET: pa...@hpmwtroi.sr.hp.com *
TELNET: (707) 577-2881 *
**************************************
lmo...@success.net
> James Meek (j...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>
>
> : What about Scorsese's "Taxi Driver"? There's no dispute that John
> : Hinkley was partly inspired by the film to shoot Ronald Reagan.
> : Personally, I think it's pretty clear as well that Scorsese, Schrader,
> : and DeNiro intended Travis to be an antihero, and that his actions are
> : not meant to be inspirational. The ending, however, where Travis is
> : lauded as a hero for saving Iris, can be (and is often) misinterpreted by
> : people unwilling to devote much critical thought to the film.
Mike D'Angelo (mqd...@is2.nyu.edu) wrote:
> TAXI DRIVER didn't create the problems in Hinckley's life that
> spurred his actions, and had it never been made, his obsession and need
> for notoriety would undoubtedly have found some other inspiration. Art,
> like technology, love, and any number of other valuable and beneficial
> human creations and attributes, is dangerous. We may as well accept it.
The most ironic point to this whole thing is that Paul Schrader was
greatly inspired to write TAXI DRIVER by the attempted assassination of
George Wallace by Arthur Bremer in 1972.... and the diary he kept,
detailing his day-to-day thoughts as he stalked first Nixon and then
Wallace. The diary was published in 1973 and is quite
chilling....providing plenty of possibilities for Schrader's further
script development....into Travis Bickle's diary. (Schrader has stated he
was inspired by the Bremer piece and the Harry Chapin song TAXI while
recuperating in a hospital at that time).
The point here is that....as it has always been and ever shall be....life
inspires art inspires life inspires art. Shall we as a society start
believing that we can STOP provocative thoughts....using as excuses the
actions of the lowest common demoninator among us? Better to risk the
errant Hinkleys-inspired-by-Bickles-inspired-by-Bremers, than see the
content of our creative thought being minimized to an innocuous,
inoffensive-to-anyone blandness.
Peter Reiher
>FilmGene (film...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: However to continue to be loyal to a regime in 1942 is a fair description
>: of Riefenstahl too. While she may not be held responsible for all the
>: crimes of Naziism, she has certainly been less than honest about her
>: loyalties throughout the era. And her protestations of "just doing my
>: work" on "Triumph of the Will" ring particularly hollow. She was a willing
>: propagandist and international representative for the Nazi regime. We are
>: all guilty of poor judgment from time to time AND we pay for that, as she
>: has rightly done.
>
>
>Why is is that Eisenstein & Pudovkin and the boys are not similarly
>blackguarded for being "willing propogandists" for the Bolsheviks?
>Don't get me wrong; "Strike", "The General Line" and "Potemkin" are
>among my favourite films, as is "Triumph of the Will". It's just that
>there seems to be an imbalance of criticism here.
There was an interesting editorial on public radio in LA recently that made
a similar point. (Not surprisingly, the commentator had an Eastern European
accent - as the primary non-Russian victims of the Soviets, the Eastern
Europeans have every right to point out their crimes.) "I Am Cuba" recently
showed at a local art house, and this commentator pointed out that, in
some ways, this was a morally worse film than "Triumph of the Will." Unlike
that film (and most of Eisenstein, Pudovkin, etc.), this film was not made
during the first flush of revolutionary triumph, before the totalitarian
regime in question had shown its true colors. The makers of "I Am Cuba"
were Russians who, by the 1960s, knew in their hearts that the revolution
had gone irretreivably off course, and that Soviet "socialism" was a sham.
Yet they went through the motions of celebrating its triumph in Cuba,
anyway. The commentator pointed out that the great furor recently over
Reifenstahl had not been matched by even the tiniest fuss about the
political message of this film.
Peter Reiher
><<To
>make a film praising the Nazis in 1935 was not the same thing as doing
>so in 1942, but Riefenstahl is held accountable for the future she had
>not yet seen.>>
>
>of Riefenstahl too. While she may not be held responsible for all the
>crimes of Naziism, she has certainly been less than honest about her
>loyalties throughout the era. And her protestations of "just doing my
>work" on "Triumph of the Will" ring particularly hollow. She was a willing
>propagandist and international representative for the Nazi regime. We are
>all guilty of poor judgment from time to time AND we pay for that, as she
>has rightly done.
One can question whether the punishment has fit the crime or not. Clearly
she produced tremendous propaganda for Hitler in the 30s. Her support for
the Nazi regime during the war was considerably less public and objectionable.
So, basically for making "Triumph of the Will" and maybe "Olympiad," and
perhaps for some injudicious but not terribly surprising private statements
during the war, should she be kept from making films for 40 years?
I suspect that it's partially her own fault. If, right after the war,
she'd publically, loudly, admitted wrongdoing and asked for forgiveness,
probably she would have been "rehabilitated." By insisting that she did
nothing wrong, she's kept people pissed off for generations, to her own
detriment.
Charles Herold
> From: film...@aol.com (FilmGene)
> Subject: Re: Leni Riefenstahl
>
> <<Why is is that Eisenstein & Pudovkin and the boys are not similarly
> blackguarded for being "willing propogandists" for the Bolsheviks?>>
>
> Well for one thing these "boys" made dozens of films, some to the
> condemnation of their governments. They have track records as artists
> beyond one or two propaganda films.
What films did Eisenstein put out condemning Stalin? I missed those.
> As well, they never attempted to rewrite history by denying what they did.
> Or by claiming their innocence of politics. They actually believed in what
> they were saying. And, most critics seem to agree that they transcended
> the purely political in their films.
Why would they deny what they did? Riefenstahl had no choice: her
country was considered an abomination, she was considered a war
criminal, and Germany was a powerless nation. Eisenstein and Pudovkin
lived in the U.S.S.R. and died while Stalin was still in charge
(Pudovkin might have outlived Stalin, I'm not sure -- they both died in
1953). If either Eisenstein or Pudovkin had announced "I did a terrible
thing, supporting this monstrous government," it would have meant
imprisonment or death. And I have no way of knowing if they were even
familiar with the atrocities of Stalin, or believed them, so they may
have died believing the revolution was still in good working order.
Certainly Eisenstein (I'm not familiar with Pudovkin) was more political
than Riefenstahl, who strikes me as one of these apolitical artists who
will team up with whoever strikes their fancy (I believe a lot of
artists involved in liberal or conservative causes are the same --
apolitical but wanting to be involved in something important), and as an
artist with an ideology he might tend towards more responsible decisions
(on the other hand, if he'd been a German maybe *he* would have made
"Triumph of the Will.") Of course, if Eisenstein *was* aware of the
atrocities of Stalin and allowed himself to be used as a propoganda
machine then I would consider him more culpable than a more apolitical,
oblivious artist.
> Riefenstahl, on the other hand, has tried to have it both ways. She has
> ben dishonest about her participation in the glorification of the Nazi
> state. It is a question of hypocrisy more than anything else.
Put yourself in Riefenstahl's situation. You've made a film extolling
the virtues of someone. He is later exposed as a monster. Do you a)
say "Hitler was a great man and I'm glad I did what I did"?, b) claim
you had no idea what sort of man he was? Or is there another choice
you would prefer? While we can debate whether Riefenstahl should have
refused the commission to make "Triumph of the Will," she was pretty
much in a corner after the war, and I don't know what you expect of her.
I'm sure what you expect of her is to have not made the film, but once
made her options were limited.
Charles Herold Citizen of the Whirl
charles...@tglbbs.com
---
* SPEED 2.00 [NR] * "Call it a hunch." - Quasimodo
JamesWKing
Having both read Riefenstahl's own autobiography and seen the
2-hour-45-minute documentary about her life, I think you are being too
apologistic for Leni's career decisions. Leni witnessed the exodus of
Jewish movie industry people from Nazi Germany and instead of protesting
it, she opportunistically stuck around and with ever shrinking competition
in her field, she seized the day in all its swastika glory.
Actually, Riefenstahl didn't have to make an outspoken protest about
the Nazi atrocities in the first place. All she had to do was say, "No" or
"Not interested" to the Nazis. Her refusal would have been demonstrative
enough. She saddled herself with a self-righteous sense of unbridled
objectivity that kept its moral blinders on to the exclusion of all
unpleasantries going on in Germany. Otherwise, if she were REALLY
objective, Riefenstahl might have used footage from Nazi Party-sponsored
book burnings and stormtrooper attacks on helpless Jewish citizens in the
streets to intercut among the scenes of pageantry of the Nuremberg Nazi
Party rally in TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. Such intercutting would certainly
have offered more accurate comparison, contrast and perspective.
Moreover, Hitler wrote MEIN KAMPF ("My Struggle), not TRIUMPH OF THE
WILL. To date Pat Buchanan hasn't written anything as outright
reprehensible as Hitler's book calling for the extermination of the Jews.
To suggest Buchanan as a modern-day counterpart to Hitler only seems to
inadvertently minimize Hitler's evil, not Buchanan's political stature.
Has Riefenstahl changed? Yes, I for one believe she has and I do think
she's realized her grave error in judgment, in allowing personal ego and
artistic vision eclipse everything else. One could indeed make a good
documentary about Pat Buchanan; however, it would not be considered good
by modern standards if it came across solely as informercial or outright
propaganda, no matter how artistically it was executed.
Although Michael Jackson denies it and his director denies it, the
cinematographer for Jackson's "HIStory" album premiere short film doesn't
deny the influence of Riefenstahl's TRIUMPH OF THE WILL. And because it
evokes such striking similarities in imagery, tone and intent (especially
with Jackson proudly marching <in step with> the troops he leads), it also
raises valid questions in our minds as to what its underlying message and
agenda are.
Hitler was sincere about his agenda as outlined in MEIN KAMPF but
sincerity does NOT always equal Goodness. Moreover, Riefenstahl saw the
future unveiling before her eyes there in Nazi Germany. The problem was
she conveniently edited the negative aspects of it from her conscience
until after the war when her documentaries were judged on more than just
aesthetic merit. In the meantime, Riefenstahl excelled in her field
without regard to the fate of her former Jewish colleagues even though she
did manage to continue employing some of them. What she did for those few
Jewish colleagues does not outweigh what she could have done for the
majority of them by refusing to do the Nazi propaganda documentaries in
the first place.
I admire Riefenstahl for trying to come to terms with her former
complicity (unwitting or not) with the Nazi Regime and her efforts to
redeem herself in her own eyes as well as those of the World. Her life is
a living object lesson for us all. Now in her 90s, she has defied age and
convention. I hope she completes editing her yet-unfinished documentaries
in order to leave Posterity a more lasting and edifying legacy than her
Nazi-era propaganda works.
FilmGene
The second part of "Ivan the Terrible" was banned for 15 years reportedly
because Stalin found the portrait of the despot too close for comfort.
"Bezhin Meadow" was interfered with by the authorities for similar
reasons.
And, of course, this does not count the films that were never made by
Eisenstein and others because they did not fit the politics of the day.
<<Put yourself in Riefenstahl's situation. You've made a film extolling
the virtues of someone. He is later exposed as a monster. Do you a)
say "Hitler was a great man and I'm glad I did what I did"?, b) claim
you had no idea what sort of man he was? Or is there another choice
you would prefer?>>
I said before that it is not having made the films she did that is so
offensive about Riefenstahl, but the fact that she chose (b); in effect,
lying about her role. I have no particular animus against Riefenstahl, but
rather thsoe apologists who refuse to recognize the facts of history, but
accept her revisionism about her career. She was dishonest from start to
finish. I believe that, in conjunction with the remaining examples of her
work, this is sufficient to cast a considerable shadow over her character
and her career.