These are all personal choices. What's noteworthy about this group is that we are consciously making them, not simply cottoning to whatever is on or whatever everybody else does. I have these friends who seem to watch TV constantly when at home. Doesn't matter what's on: sports, the news, cooking shows, a movie, a jazz concert. It's always on and they are always in front of it. That's slightly scary to me. What's scarier is that they're both very bright people and could be doing so many more interesting things with their time -- IMHO.
movies that are based on true stories
Stilltrucking, I am still trying to make up my mind about what I think about movies that are
based on true stories. Two immediately come to mind: An American Haunting, and Titanic.
I walked out of American Haunting with my panties in a wad because of the way it maligned a historical figure -- some living American family's ancestor. Then I got on a website and learned a bit about the actual events, and now I am impatiently waiting for the well-researched book on the subject by the webmaster of that site. WHERE IS IT??
I had a similar reaction to Titanic. I wanted to learn everything I could about the disaster and how it affected people. I just read this fantastic book about Margaret "Molly" Tobin Brown, visited her house on Pennsylvania Ave and her summer house on Wadsworth. I found out we've been fed a bunch of outrageous myths and out-and-out lies about this woman. She is not as described.
And in fact the real culprits in her mythologization are the
musical about her, and also the
Denver Post at the turn of the century. I have read a number of different sources now all telling me that the Denver Post was notorious for its yellow journalism and disregard for the truth. Does anything change? We think our made-for-TV movies spread misinformation. How dare Disney distort the TRUE story about Pocahontas and Jamestown and tell myths and lies to our children about it via cartoons?
One thing these fictionalizations can do is inspire further exploration.
Another thing they can do is communicate a mood or a general feeling about a previous time accurately, by using visual metaphors, behaviors or customs more appropriate to
modern times. Titanic is a case in point. Picture the high point in the romantic story in that film. Jack and Rose are perched on the railing at the helm of the ship and he is spreading her arms to give her the sensation of flying. That has become the symbolic moment for the whole movie. Well, the
fact is passengers weren't allowed in that part of the ship. However, the memorial monument to the men who sacrificed their places in the lifeboats to the women and children is a cloaked male figure spreading both arms wide, in that exact pose. The romance between Jack and Rose is much more understandable in modern terms. Their behavior together had nothing to do with the way couples acted in 1912. But if the story had been consistent the courtships of the period, would anyone have related to them, or gotten the message of separation that made the historical event so poignant and horrifying?
I
hate inaccuracy and I
cringe when I see it, but on the other hand, what is art except interpretation? Can history be made into art? Yes, I am beginning to think it can be.
Stilltrucking:
I think TV is very dangerous for children
I watched several hours of TV a day as a child. We had several programs we watched after school and before dinner. It was a ritual. After dinner, adults controlled the programming, but we still saw quite a bit of it. On the weekends, we had our "Creature Feature" late-night ritual involving staying up late and watching several creepy movies while gorging popcorn, ice cream and so on.
Still, I agree with you. Especially today. I think it teaches children passivity and conformity. It teaches them to be good little consumers. It teaches them that life is about instant gratification, entertainment at the flick of a switch. And it teaches them unrealistic values about people and the nature of life in general. They seem to carry those values with them into adulthood with inceasing frequency. When I was a kid in the 1960s, TV was about fun stuff. It was about Batman and Robin and Superman and Gilligan's Island and Star Trek. These were things that you knew had no concrete relationship to the actual, real world. When the shows taught values, they were usually values that had universal significance. The shows didn't consciously attempt to
acculturate the way they seem to me to do now.
Zlatko: I had the unfortunate habit of waking up to a clock radio in the morning when I was young, and therefore I heard about axe murders and rapes and riots and wars at a very impressionable time in the morning. These mental images would stay with me throughout the day.
Like you, I really have to limit my exposure to all the horrors in the world. But if you give me a newspaper and make me
read about them, I won't. I just won't. The TV is a living eye that forces me to pay attention. I can only take it in short bursts, but every now and then I have to or I'd be a human mushroom -- raised in the dark and fed shit.
I don't give a flip about the commercials. "I am the master of my fate" and "the captain of my soul" not the media moguls pushing cars and personal hygiene products. But that
is usually my signal to go do something else for a few minutes.