Ethan Riley
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,283
- Real Name
- Ethan Riley
I agree with everything both Gary and Jeff are trying to say. I think we all agree that alcohol consumption can lead to tragic consequences. But if you don't mind, I'm still gonna laugh my head off every time I watch the scene where Imogene Coca discovers the delights of brandy...It's all forgiveable. Alcohol was still wearing the mask of Comedy for the most part when Bewitched aired. I don't think I've seen many "funny drunk" scenes on television since its day, but Bewitched certainly wasn't alone. Even Lucy had her Vitameatavegimin. And don't tell me that wasn't funny. I suppose Hollywood has matured enough to responsibly show the effects and negative results of alcohol, but it's not fair to compare today's television to the thoughts and morals of 1966. Funny alcohol usage was grist for the comedy mill, and had been all the way as far as you want to look. If they did things like that now, I'd have a problem with it.
But as previous posters alluded to (way back in the Spring of 2010), Bewitched would go back and forth on expressing liberal views. But using the term "liberal" in the context of the 1960s or early 1970s almost meant that you were openly discussing issues that people had previously absolutely. The only thing "liberal" about Bewitched is that it was one of the shows that set the ball in motion. In the 1950s, nobody was discussing things like "open marriages," or Women's Lib, or Civil Rights. Those things simply did not exist on television and you'd be called a pinko Commie scum if you even tried. But the mood in the country was sour enough that television by the late 60s had to react to what was happening in the real world. And I don't think the things on Bewitched were so much pushing a "liberal agenda" as they were pushing the envelope on the kinds of topics that could and should have been discussed on television. When I think of "Sisters at Heart," I don't see it as liberal. I see it as forward-thinking, as it introduces the concept of racial prejudice to children in a gentle and comedic way. TV should have been doing that kind of thing all along, but the 50s frankly sucked and fear ruled the day. That's the truth about the 50s. All the shows that aired prior to say, 1965 seem ignorant today simply because they had no choice but to play it safe. And Bewitched was reacting to the mood of the country as it aired, but still did so in a sweetly innocent way; they knew full well that a huge percentage of their audience were children.
It took Norman Lear to push the dialogue open all the way. And he wasn't a liberal radical either...he was simply discussing the kinds of things that were by then being discussed openly in the news and on college campuses of the time. And what, I ask you, is the harm of open debate? I don't look at Norman Lear's shows and think that he had some specific agendas to push. It was more like he was a moderator and allowed both sides of an argument to be discussed, on television in a comedic fashion. Sit back and look at All in the Family again...the viewpoints on that show were always very well-balanced. If anyone watches that show and simply agrees with Archie and thinks Meathead is a radical terror, then they're missing half the point. Or vice versa: those who side with Meathead and don't listen to Archie's equally valid points of view are also missing out on half of the experience. But that show was never about who "won" the day. It was always about the discussion--the argument and getting these viewpoints across to the people who were already openly discussing them at home in the first place. It was a show about learning to listen. That was the value of that show.
Lear did pave the way for open dialogue on primetime television. Other producers go that route, or continue to play it safe. Most choose to play it safe. But at least television remains (at its best) a open forum for public debate, as it should be. That's the world I want to live in; I don't know about the rest of you.
But as previous posters alluded to (way back in the Spring of 2010), Bewitched would go back and forth on expressing liberal views. But using the term "liberal" in the context of the 1960s or early 1970s almost meant that you were openly discussing issues that people had previously absolutely. The only thing "liberal" about Bewitched is that it was one of the shows that set the ball in motion. In the 1950s, nobody was discussing things like "open marriages," or Women's Lib, or Civil Rights. Those things simply did not exist on television and you'd be called a pinko Commie scum if you even tried. But the mood in the country was sour enough that television by the late 60s had to react to what was happening in the real world. And I don't think the things on Bewitched were so much pushing a "liberal agenda" as they were pushing the envelope on the kinds of topics that could and should have been discussed on television. When I think of "Sisters at Heart," I don't see it as liberal. I see it as forward-thinking, as it introduces the concept of racial prejudice to children in a gentle and comedic way. TV should have been doing that kind of thing all along, but the 50s frankly sucked and fear ruled the day. That's the truth about the 50s. All the shows that aired prior to say, 1965 seem ignorant today simply because they had no choice but to play it safe. And Bewitched was reacting to the mood of the country as it aired, but still did so in a sweetly innocent way; they knew full well that a huge percentage of their audience were children.
It took Norman Lear to push the dialogue open all the way. And he wasn't a liberal radical either...he was simply discussing the kinds of things that were by then being discussed openly in the news and on college campuses of the time. And what, I ask you, is the harm of open debate? I don't look at Norman Lear's shows and think that he had some specific agendas to push. It was more like he was a moderator and allowed both sides of an argument to be discussed, on television in a comedic fashion. Sit back and look at All in the Family again...the viewpoints on that show were always very well-balanced. If anyone watches that show and simply agrees with Archie and thinks Meathead is a radical terror, then they're missing half the point. Or vice versa: those who side with Meathead and don't listen to Archie's equally valid points of view are also missing out on half of the experience. But that show was never about who "won" the day. It was always about the discussion--the argument and getting these viewpoints across to the people who were already openly discussing them at home in the first place. It was a show about learning to listen. That was the value of that show.
Lear did pave the way for open dialogue on primetime television. Other producers go that route, or continue to play it safe. Most choose to play it safe. But at least television remains (at its best) a open forum for public debate, as it should be. That's the world I want to live in; I don't know about the rest of you.
but what Gary, Steve, and I were saying here was that the poster in post #375 included the condescending remark of "if you have a problem with it..." etc. As I posted earlier, this poster omitted the point that Gary was using to explain his response. He chose to ignore that part and focus on what appears to us to be a problem with Gary's post that was posted about a year earlier.
