Pages

Tuesday 23 June 2020

Old movies, old mores



Anyone who has ever watched a few movies from the 1950s may have noticed how the emotional temperature tends to be lower than modern offerings. Apart from a few very young actors, all the actors and producers involved in a 1950s film lived through World War II. Life may be a serious matter but war is far worse and fifties people knew that – the knowledge was in their bones. Old movies project a stoical determination to sort things out rationally because that is the best way. Just soldier on – they  knew what that meant.

Certainly fifties movies had lower budgets, less convincing special effects, more limited locations and more obvious studio work. Mrs H thinks many of the actresses weren’t very good either but that’s another issue. Yet to my mind the major difference is emotional.

Fifties characters had emotional outbursts but they tended to be more restrained and they subsided more quickly. A cup of tea or a cigarette were the main inducements to get over it and carry on. Modern movies depict characters who seem to be on a semi-permanent emotional binge. Not only that but they seem to value frequent emotional binges as an important aspect of their lives, as if it adds something essential to their personality.

We see the effect in politics where rational arguments are powerless against permanent emotional barriers to any kind of rational debate. As if inarticulate emotion is a valid and acceptable response - as if it means something deeper than mere reason could ever elucidate.

Suppose we leave that for a moment and move on TV soaps such as EastEnders. Here again the emotional temperature never returns to something sane people would regard as rational. A permanent churlish abundance of anger, resentment, sneering, shouting, contempt and dull-witted idiocy. At least a few people at the BBC must surely find it shameful, yet year after year the same miserable imbecility is pumped into the airwaves.

I don’t know how much damage it does to a civilisation such as ours, but it is virtually impossible to imagine how it could cause no damage at all. The core problem is its essential mendacity. The world is not as EastEnders depicts it and neither are the people. Mendacity is a key to the damage and it comes across as deliberate. It could hardly be accidental.

Maybe this is the real damage and the real message of mainstream drama in movies and TV. It says you don’t have to argue rationally - cursing, swearing and emotional incontinence are easier, more fashionable and completely acceptable. Emotional mendacity is okay – that’s the message.

All obvious enough but where does it take us? To my mind it takes us away from the emotional highs to lower level emotional mendacity which is more pervasive and more acceptable in polite society. The frown, the shrug, the slight moue of distaste, the raised eyebrow, the hand waving. Social acceptance and social rejection - emotionally it is made clear which is which and don’t you dare try to counteract it with reason.

This is where emotional mendacity probably does its real damage. Round the dinner table, in private political discussions, mainstream news outlets, media presentations, documentaries, mainstream comedy, movies, TV drama, charity campaigns, popular science, popular history, environmental campaigns. Even pandemic campaigns.

Ultimately, the emotional mendacity of our era is strongly associated with totalitarian politics. In the 1950s they knew that and it was reflected in movies of the period. We don’t know it now and this is reflected in the movies of our period. And much else.

5 comments:

Sackerson said...

Yes.

Sam Vega said...

Coincidentally, yesterday I watched "The Cruel Sea" with my son. The film was made some time in the early fifties, I think. There is a lot of emotional drama, but it is all the more powerful for being understated. Nobody does "stiff upper lip" as well as Jack Hawkins, and the after extremely harrowing episodes (having to kill allied merchant seamen, duelling with a U-boat) he sometimes loses it and shouts at his subordinates, gets blind drunk, and imagines he hears the screams of dying men. If a hero is constantly expressing florid emotion, how can loss of control ever be convincingly portrayed.

As to why the change to continuous vomiting of ridiculous emotion occurred, my guess is that it is like giving children sugar. It's an easy way to provide instant gratification, but then you are on the slippery slope. You end up with obese unhealthy sugar-addicted kids who don't want more nourishing food. Cock-up or conspiracy? Did mediocre producers and actors get into a race to the bottom, or is there a concerted attempt to destroy useful mental qualities and discerning artistic sensibilities in our culture? You could certainly be forgiven for thinking it was the latter...

Scrobs. said...

By pure coincidence, I also watch 'The Cruel Sea' on the same day as Sam, (Senora O'Blene gave me a personal DVD player last year), and agree entirely with his statement! The story was the issue, the emotions came because of the story, not leading it.

Last evening, I watched 'The first of the Few', with David Niven, and Leslie Howard! (Both were on one DVD, and were a promo from The Sunday Telegraph ages ago, it jammed at one stage, and I discovered the disk was covered in marmalade...), but the Spitfire story, was the same - the emotions came because of the plane, and Mitchell actually died because of the design and all his hard work!

As for dross like Eastenders - forget it...

Doonhamer said...

Do not forget the noise in modern films, tv drama, even the tv news.
Constant almost infra sonic booming, wierd high pitch tones, the inevitable bang whoosh, sometimes whoosh bang. Combined with the mumbling speech makes it intolerable for me.
Years ago I read Ludovic Kennedy's Sub Lieutenant, his diary of srvice in RN during war. He tells in a low key way how his father, captain of an armed merchantman took on the Scharnhorst. And died.
What happened to us?
Not having serious problems, do we magnify the trivial ones.

A K Haart said...

Sackers - almost a tick box!

Sam - you are right, nobody does "stiff upper lip" as well as Jack Hawkins. His characters fit the roles perfectly too, while today they would seem out of place. Maybe the race to the bottom aspect came from bigger budgets and technical advances which weren't needed from an artistic aspect but that's just how it evolved. Another factor may be that many older films were rubbish but they have fallen away and we only watch the best older films now such as "The Cruel Sea".

Scrobs - that's the problem with DVDs, they just can't handle marmalade, especially thick cut marmalade. I don't think I've seen 'The first of the Few' so I'll look out for it on Amazon.

Doonhamer - "Not having serious problems, do we magnify the trivial ones."

I'm sure we do but what can be done about that I've no idea. It's obvious to those of us old enough to remember harder times but in time those memories will disappear too.