During the initial stages of the helicopter parenting trend, some changes were not so ridiculous. Not allowing your kids to hang out at the mall by themselves, for example. It's a sheltering over-reaction, but at least the imagined threat was threatening, if you believed in it -- kidnappers, drug dealers, etc., having access to your kid with no adult supervision to get in the way.
But that was then. It's more or less a given these days that kids can't hang out in public places (even in all-white areas). And yet the drive to reduce potential threats must continue, in the OCD control-freak mindset of today's parents. The imagined threats will therefore become more and more laughable.
My mother passed along some news that at a local library (in an all-white, upper-middle class suburb), they put Scooby-Doo DVDs in the adult section rather than the children's, because they're just too scary. I used to check out Night of the Living Dead from that library when I was in 1st grade, but that was way back in the '80s (and I didn't need my parents' card or a permission slip either).
Then while buying some popcorn from the Cub Scout troop that I used to belong to, she asked if they still go camping out at a nearby state park where we used to go. Nope, they "camp out" on the field of an indoor soccer stadium. No joke. Of course having a bunch of little kids in there means the whole stadium has to go into lockdown mode.
It sounds like more of a night-long duck-and-cover drill than exploring and making do in nature. And so much for building a campfire, cooking your own food, and so on.
Doing away with small children camping out by themselves would fall under the "not so crazy" category of things that early helicopter parenting would have taken care of. Now it's too threatening and dangerous for Cub Scouts -- supposedly more prepared than the average child -- to go camping at a state park -- not some random spot in the wilderness -- with a group of adult chaperons supervising them -- not trekking out alone.
If you wonder why youngsters today all seem like they're afraid of their own shadow, and collapse into anxiety attacks over trivial stuff, it's because they've been bubble-wrapped their whole lives.
"Protecting them from danger" is pure BS by this point in time. Protecting them from what? If their little shells haven't been hardened to withstand Scooby-Doo and camping out at a state park with adult supervision, they will be hopelessly fragile in adolescence and adulthood. Good thing the parents "know a guy" who can score some anxiety and depression pills for their poor unstable children.
It seems like policing theater admissions started in earnest around 1998. Columbine was a noted culprit for greater repression, but really the late 90's was the 1st era of declining wildness since the earlier 50's. So when there isn't much in the way of actual danger anymore, we see greater efforts to stamp out more trivial boogeymen (like the "danger" of a kid watching a scary movie).
ReplyDeleteThis might also tie into the efforts of a "Prophet" generation entering middle age (as the Boomers were in the 90's) and beginning a crusade to clean up culture out of a fear that we mustn't let the latest generation be as poisoned as the previous generation (Gen X) by nihilistic stuff and glib/self absorbed adults not minding the store.
So between aging Boomers growing reluctant to revive the dark culture of the 70's/80's (witness Spielberg and Lucas censoring their older movies for re-release, and also both guys pushing up the ratings of their tougher movies while sanitizing their kids movies) and Gen X parents being hysterically over protective, well, there isn't much excitement anymore.
I've looked at some 80's cartoon intros and the level of violence is staggering. Some of them also place there heroes in a do-or-die doomsday scenario. Even a post apocalyptic scenario wasn't unheard of (Visionaries and Captain Power, both from '87). The Visionaries intro specifically called out the failure of technology and the revival of mysticism. When people rag on the 80's for being supposedly naive and timid about so many things, what the hell are they talking about? True, characters were often amiable, but it was against a setting that was often quite foreboding. Nowadays we have insufferably smug or aloof characters in settings scrubbed of any sense of menace or even mystery. No wonder I don't see movies these days.
On some podcast I listened to (don't remember which one exactly), one guy talked about movies from the mid-late 80's featuring content that was a mix of darkness and violence while also featuring young teen or even child characters. One movie he mentioned was The Gate (from around '88) about kids who inadvertently open a portal to hell in their suburban house by playing a rock record backwards. Mayhem ensues.
ReplyDeleteThis does remind me of how geriatric movie casts are getting. In so many movies made since the late 90's, characters are often played by actors who are 5-15 years older than they should be. When I was looking at '60-'70 births, I was struck by how much work 60's born actors got in the late 70's and 80's. For once, older teen/young adult characters were actually played by people aged 16-25. This was very common at least in part due to how mature (mentally and physically) late Boomers and early X-ers were. I wonder if we ought to put aging modern movie casts down to either the immaturity of late X-ers/Millennials or the corrosive striving climate making later births disagreeable.
It's not just younger characters, either. Elderly Boomers (and even a few Silents like Micheal Caine and Harrison Ford) are sometimes thrust into action/adventure roles which would be a stretch for a middle aged person, let alone a retiree. Did we really need to see Christopher Lee (a G.I. no less!) or Samuel Jackson kicking butt in the last Star Wars series?
Anyone counting on Tom Cruise (now in his 50's) finally growing up on screen? To be fair to Cruise, the aforementioned actors are considerably older and that didn't stop them.
I'm sure gen X kids (and even some very early Millennials like me) can remember the vividly drawn and colored posters and VHS boxes promoting often violent fantasy and horror movies. Some of which were rated PG/PG 13 and thus ostensibly kid friendly. But some of these movies that I grew up excited and even scared me as much as some of the R movies I saw eventually. Stuff like Willow, Masters of the Universe, and even Star Wars (the monsters in the cantina scene, the Wampa snow creature, Jabba) had some nasty looking characters/creatures and gritty moments. One of the lamest parts of the newer Star Wars movies was how bland and even stupid the non-humans looked. Lucas obviously pulled his punches.
"It seems like policing theater admissions started in earnest around 1998."
ReplyDeleteBased on my own experience, there was still a movie-going culture until about 1999. In Junior High, my friends and I went to the movies all the time(taking the bus sometimes), and a few times snuck into a different movie to see a free one - or maybe somebody just joked about doing that, I don't remember.
"Even a post apocalyptic scenario wasn't unheard of (Visionaries and Captain Power, both from '87)."
ReplyDeleteDon't forget Thundarr the Barbarian. From memory, that one had a more vivid sense of place that was post-apocalyptic, with savage nature over-growing the wreckage of civilization, with largely depopulated areas (but where all the bad apples apparently survived, so now 50% of the planet is evil).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhAobPugvsk
Kids today don't experience the apocalypse in their pop culture until around high school (Hunger Games, etc.).
As one data-point, that I think actually contradicts your point:
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw Pirates of the Caribbean (the first movie), I was a bit surprised (not shocked, but slightly uncomfortable) at the violence in the movie.
I'm not implying that violence bothers me: I was an adult at the time. But I knew nothing about Pirates, other than that it was a Disney ride turned into a movie. I assumed the Disney movie was some kind of kid's movie.
And it really was. Very cartoonish and simple characters, very cartoonish plot, and so on. So to combine that (a movie aimed at, say 8 year olds) with the violence (I specifically remember the early scene where, I think, pirates attack the town, and soldiers/pirates are being shot in the face/at close range, and so on) struck me.
I realize that Pirates has gone on to be a more adult franchise, and they are actually decent movies, and the violence/sexuality is entirely appropriate for upper childhood/teenager/adult audiences. It was just that first movie (a Disney ride turned into a movie) that kind of struck me as 'off.' In retrospect, I'm not sure if I thought it was 'off' because reasonably high violence was being directed at children, or if a childlike premise (Disney ride into movie) was being directed at adults/older people. Maybe my discomfort came from the sense that older movie goers were being infantilized rather than that kids were being exposed to inappropriate violence.
anonymousse
incidentally: a year ago or so, I actually watched Raiders of the Lost Arc with my kids (6 and 4). They were so upset by the violence (and the spooky stuff at the end) that they cried afterwards (and, in retrospect, I am amazed at how much violence there is in that movie). This is probably what I was thinking with the Pirates movie: a movie really aimed at 4-8 year olds, with adult levels of violence seemed not right.
"Maybe my discomfort came from the sense that older movie goers were being infantilized rather than that kids were being exposed to inappropriate violence."
ReplyDeleteYes, the Pirates movies are rated PG-13. They have violence and vague sexuality to appeal to the target market of teenagers, but since helicopter parents infantilize their children, filmmakers must make characters that are cartoon cut-outs that ought to only be used for kindergarteners.
Kids our age saw Raiders of the Lost Ark when we were small children, and I don't remember us crying, although we were scared during parts. But if you show it to kids these days, they haven't experienced anything close to that -- either in pop culture or real life -- that they aren't prepared for it.
Coddling, refusing to spank, etc., train them to expect total comfort, peace, and happiness all the time. Watching a movie that makes a point of unsettling the viewer, even a little bit, will send them over the edge.
Anonymous, the worst part of that franchise was giving us flat-chested Kiera Knightley as though she was some sort of sex symbol. Less so in the first movie because she was only 17 at the time.
ReplyDeleteShe went on to be Chris Pine's character's on-screen beard in Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit.
"Yes, the Pirates movies are rated PG-13. They have violence and vague sexuality to appeal to the target market of teenagers, but since helicopter parents infantilize their children, filmmakers must make characters that are cartoon cut-outs that ought to only be used for kindergarteners."
ReplyDeleteA huge part of 80's fantasy and action being intimidating was the fact that the heroes seemed to convey a sense of danger while the villains seemed really bloodthirsty. Watch the opening scene of Mad Max; some of the photography techniques seem a little dated but Mel Gibson seems totally locked into no-nonsense ass kicker while the ill-fated biker convincingly goes from frenzied psycho to petrified victim to be. Acting was better back then; certainly the greater level of violence and tragedy back then meant that actors could more readily and sincerely tap into certain moods.
I dunno how much it has to do with an actor's generation;In the mid-century doldrums, Silents seemed pretty aloof and dull. But who played middle aged roles in so many great 70's/80's movies? Who was directing movies? Brian Depalma, Walter Hill, Wes Craven, and Ridley Scott were all Silents.
http://www.nndb.com/lists/942/000105627/
Turns out David Cronenberg is a Silent, and so was the guy who wrote/directed Police Academy and, if memory serves, helped create WKRP in Cincinnati.
Modern CGI is often blamed for taking actors out of character; but what does that have to do with, for example, scenes where the protagonist and (human) antagonist are face to face? If the actors are capable then it should work regardless of CGI backdrops, stunts, or creature effects. But actors these days seldom convey an effective heroism or menace.
I think that movies like Star Wars, Conan, or Predator, if they were made today using the same scripts, the same technical personnel, the same producer/director etc. they would fall totally flat on account of actors not living up to the performances of 1970's/1980's Harrison Ford, James Earl Jones (he was the bad guy in Conan btw), Arnold Schwarzenegger and so on.
Fun Fact: The Predator character looked the best by far in 1987. Regardless of technical advancements in special effects, you just can't beat a skilled hand, a keen eye, and a judicious mind. Stan Winston's '93 Jurassic Park practical effects still look great whereas a lot of the CGI looks too shiny. Cars and robots look great in CGI (a big reason the Transformer movies were hits) but skin or hide is another matter.
I'd say it's gonna be another 10-20 years before actors start giving more reliably engaging performances, particularly in movies with life or death drama.
Kids our age saw Raiders of the Lost Ark when we were small children, and I don't remember us crying, although we were scared during parts. But if you show it to kids these days, they haven't experienced anything close to that -- either in pop culture or real life -- that they aren't prepared for it.
ReplyDeleteIt's still a spooky/exciting movie due to good acting, good effects, great locations, and it has some of the best pacing in a movie ever. From the get-go you're thrust into the life of an adventurer with no time spent dawdling on back-story. Not in the opening scene, anyway.
What also makes these movies work is that they knew when to linger, when to move, when to deliver information or when to withhold it, etc. When so many modern movies either dawdle too long or chaotically rush through things, the viewer is going to get bored and frustrated. How long would Indiana Jones be today? 2 1/2 hours? Granted, Raiders is fairly long at 115 minutes but it does have enough story to support the run time. It's a sign of creative power that a fairly complex story line is told with clarity and with a minimum of tedious moments that scream "hey, are you getting this"? Everything fits nicely together.
I'm not so sure it's content as much as execution. Even if you subtracted the gore, I think Raiders would still work really well. And the gore has an impact that's heightened because you're really drawn into the world; the Saw movies are superficially nasty, but since you never buy into the characters and their plight you end up rolling your eyes and calling out the creators for having to rely on gross out stuff.
I'm tired of hearing excuses for elephantine run times, also. More bang for your buck? Have these people heard of the concept of album filler? Today's artists struggle to even come up with ideas, let alone execute them properly. With so few moments of visual grandeur, good acting, appropriate humor, or evocative music, directors and editors can't "settle" on a limited number of scenes to best tell the story. So the audience is bludgeoned by indulgent and indecisive artists who need to get a life. Some of this is OCD no doubt. "It took so long to set up that shot, to light it properly, to get the actors to hit their marks and give good takes, well, I can't let it go to waste. So in the movie it goes".
Folks, don't encourage 'em. Stop seeing stuff in the theaters unless it happens to be directed by a handful of people who still know what they're doing, like the Cohen bros.
"Coddling, refusing to spank, etc., train them to expect total comfort, peace, and happiness all the time. Watching a movie that makes a point of unsettling the viewer, even a little bit, will send them over the edge."
ReplyDeleteIn quite a few 70's/80's movies, check out the way authority/security forces are portrayed; sometimes they're incompentent or corrupt like in the many movies about soldiers and cops who are forced to go "rogue" by a crooked system. Rambo, the A-Team, The Terminator, Dirty Harry, etc. Nowadays protagonists are largely conformists because, well, they've got bosses and even whole bureaucracies that evidently know what they're doing.
In terms of kids' entertainment, I don't remember the kids in the Goonies or Stand By Me relying on authority to go on an adventure and/or to take a stand.
Maybe kids born since the late 80's would find it bizarre that authority is indifferent (like Ferris Bueller's parents), stupid, evil, or simply altogether absent in 80's entertainment. In Friday the 13th, the writer intended adult authority to be totally cut off from the teens after the town scene. I guess the producer thought it would be funny to put a pompous cop in a scene at the camp; the writer hated it because he wanted the characters (and the audience) to feel like there was no safety net (even a thin one) as the killer lurked. Halloween had a cop too, but that guy basically served as an exposition sound board; he just chauffeurs the shrink character around and doesn't really do anything to stop the threat.
Come to think of it, the whole "where are the cops"? cliche of 80's action/horror movies wasn't necessarily realistic but it did fit into the then popular idea that official authority wasn't always going to be there, even when you needed it most.
yes, good observations. In the first Terminator movie, the Terminator literally wipes out the police department.
ReplyDelete