the 1960's and the 1970's
I agree as well, Neil - excellent post. These shows did provide a positive example of so many virtues associated with family and values, even in their own era. I would guess most people of high school age now would look at these characters like they're from another planet - just seeing teenage girls wearing dresses to school, and guys in jackets and ties. But every so often I'll be looking at clips on YouTube from these shows, and I'll see a comment from someone who writes, "I'm 15 and I love these shows - I guess I was born in the wrong era." It is reassuring to me that there are at least some younger people who see the same qualities in these shows that we do. I just wish there were more of them.Neil Brock said:Betty Anderson or Mary Stone wouldn't have gotten drunk and pregnant. People had better morals then and poor behavior wasn't accepted then as it is now. When was the last time you heard the term, "unwed mother"? Every type of behavior now is de-stigmatized which leads to lower morals. So, instead of TV depicting better behavior for people to aspire to, it now copies real life and shows the same bad behavior that exists. Not sure how that's considered a step up. I don't necessarily want to see real life to that degree on my TV shows. If I cared that much about real life then I would be outside having one instead of watching TV.
Originally Posted by TravisR
As for the shows of the 1950's and 1960's being bad because they nearly excluded all minorities or because they didn't typically address problems in society, I don't agree with that. A good show is a good show. I have watched shows with predominantly black casts that are good because of the writing, acting, directing, etc. but I've never seen a show where I thought it was good because the cast had minorities in it. And I like to see shows that try to address society's problems (getting people talk about problems is the first step to fixing them) but there's nothing wrong with a show that just wants to be entertaining and tries to be a pleasant show with pleasant people.
Even allowing that comedy is very subjective and Mary Louise Parker is really hot, I don't get its popularity either. I don't mind seeing a good person do bad things but they never gave her a plight (Breaking Bad has a similar premise to Weeds and it's brilliant). Apparently she started selling drugs because it was easier than getting a legitimate job and as the seasons go on, she's involved with some really evil people rather than just the funny pot wholesalers.BobO'Link said:I also did a blind buy on Weeds as the premise sounded fun and reviews are good. After watching the first season I don't understand how it's stayed on TV. It's *not* fun nor funny, and is totally lacking in morals (sad comment from me as I'm *very* tolerant in that respect). By the end of the season I was fully disgusted with the show, especially the descent of the main character into the drug underworld.
Times change. Yesterday's "morals" are now called drinking on the job, then driving home after having a few, and showing the wife who's boss with the back of your hand, or smacking the kids for making a racquet. It depends on where you are in the food chain to say what's acceptable then or now.Neil Brock said:Betty Anderson or Mary Stone wouldn't have gotten drunk and pregnant. People had better morals then and poor behavior wasn't accepted then as it is now.
Do you really think that doesn't happen today as well?derosa said:Times change. Yesterday's "morals" are now called drinking on the job, then driving home after having a few, and showing the wife who's boss with the back of your hand, or smacking the kids for making a racquet. It depends on where you are in the food chain to say what's acceptable then or now.
I never said that tv in the 50s sucked. I said the 50s sucked. It was a time of fear and ignorance. That's what sucked about it. I assert that television was forced to play it safe due to the fear of McCarthyism, and even Lucy was brought up on charges of Communism. The things you saw on television were designed to avoid controversy. I don't hate Ozzie and Harriet; I watched it every day after school, and it was fitting entertainment for children and I laughed at every episode. But as an adult I realize the reason these types of shows were as "safe" as they were was because the writers and producers probably lived under fear of facing the House Un-American Activities Committee. I believe this led to a kind of censorship in tackling social issues of the day on television, the end result being ignorance to the American viewing public. I believe this kind of censorship set back social progress by a good twenty years. None of this suggests that shows from the 1950s are unenjoyable for what they are. They do not represent a real-world view of their era, but they are fun to watch. "Lucy" remains at the top of my viewing list and is probably the dvd set that I re-watch most often. A good "Ozzie and Harriet" set--should it ever be produced--would join it. But I was not condemning the shows of that era--I was condemning the politics, fear and ignorance from the era itself.Gary OS said:[SIZE= 12px]Why do I love the TV shows from the 50's and early to mid 60's more than those from the 70's and beyond? It's not because I'm an old codger. I was born in the mid 60's and would have been exposed mainly to 70's TV and beyond were it not for reruns in the afternoons and on weekends. The reason I enjoy the older material comes back to the quoted section from above. I completely disagree with the thought that TV in the 50's "sucked" for two reasons. [/SIZE]
[SIZE= 12px]Firstly, I don't agree that TV in the 50's was unreal or too idealistic. For every individual that raises this objection to 50's TV, another who lived during that time will chime in and say that there really were some families that lived by the ideals of the Cleavers and Andersons (to name two well known TV families from that era). So I disagree with the contention that 50's TV was entirely unrealistic in that sense. :[/SIZE]
Originally Posted by Ethan Riley
I never said that tv in the 50s sucked. I said the 50s sucked. It was a time of fear and ignorance. That's what sucked about it. I assert that television was forced to play it safe due to the fear of McCarthyism, and even Lucy was brought up on charges of Communism. The things you saw on television were designed to avoid controversy. I don't hate Ozzie and Harriet; I watched it every day after school, and it was fitting entertainment for children and I laughed at every episode. But as an adult I realize the reason these types of shows were as "safe" as they were was because the writers and producers probably lived under fear of facing the House Un-American Activities Committee. I believe this led to a kind of censorship in tackling social issues of the day on television, the end result being ignorance to the American viewing public. I believe this kind of censorship set back social progress by a good twenty years.
None of this suggests that shows from the 1950s are unenjoyable for what they are. They do not represent a real-world view of their era, but they are fun to watch. "Lucy" remains at the top of my viewing list and is probably the dvd set that I re-watch most often. A good "Ozzie and Harriet" set--should it ever be produced--would join it. But I was not condemning the shows of that era--I was condemning the politics, fear and ignorance from the era itself.
All the shows that aired prior to say, 1965 seem ignorant today simply because they had no choice but to play it safe.
[SIZE= 12px]It may come as a shock to some TV historians, but there were actual families like the Nelsons - and there still are. Of course, these families fight, and have crisis after crisis, and go broke, and have deaths in the family -- all the things you'll never see on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet. But these real-life families also find true enjoyment in spending time with each other; they make efforts to be polite and considerate of each other, they have simple, lovely adventures of everyday life and living together, and they laugh with and at each other - just as the Nelsons do. And that's what audiences responded to in The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet for fourteen long years. Far from being science fiction, as most critics and historians would have you believe, the Nelson family embodied many of the traits and characteristics of social mores and practices that 1950s and early 1960s America actively strived for. They certainly didn't achieve the Nelson's results, but then again, the vast majority of the audience already knew they wouldn't. You see, they were just watching television, not real life.[/SIZE]
People who criticize the 50s sitcoms as being unrealistic miss the point. They weren't supposed to be depicting life as it was but rather how we wished it was. Loving, kind and attentive parents, a nice, clean house for a home, safe streets, neighborhoods and schools. I didn't have the good fortune to grow up with any of those things but it was still nice to see them on television. Just because my father was closer to Homer Simpson than he was to Ward Cleaver didn't mean that that was what I needed to see growing up. Just the opposite.
Why is it mutually exclusive? It's great when a show is just entertaining but I don't understand why you seem so bothered by a show that has higher ambitions than just entertaining people.Gary OS said:I guess at the end of the day we just disagree about what TV is really all about. Is it only a teaching tool used by the elite to try and mold America into what some think it already is and/or what those few elite think it should be? Or is it simply a form of entertainment that can offer either a real life, gritty portrayal of some unpleasant aspect of human life (ala The Naked City) - OR - an idealized portrayal of a more pleasant aspect of human life (ala Leave it to Beaver)?
Originally Posted by TravisR
Why is it mutually exclusive? It's great when a show is just entertaining but I don't understand why you seem so bothered by a show that has higher ambitions than just entertaining people.
Sounds good.Gary OS said:Quote:
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it has to mutually exclusive. Not at all. I'm arguing against the concept in reverse. Does a show have to deal with "real life" issues (whether they be moral, ethical, social, etc) in order for it to be relevant or good? If a show doesn't address those type of topics does that make it, or the audience which enjoys it, ignorant? That's the question on the table and the one I'm counter-arguing.
Gary "hope that clears up my position" O.
IMHO, No. I'd rather watch a show that *doesn't* deal with "real life" issues. I get enough "real life" in, well... "real life". I don't need, nor want it in my TV. That's why I stopped watching many mid 70s-90s shows as they aged. The Bill Cosby Show and Home Improvement were favorites of mine in their early years but they got "preachy" as they went on. When a show becomes "preachy" or "topical" I stop watching. That's why I was surprised by the number of mid 70s and onward non sci-fi/fantasy shows in my collection as I've always felt many tended to become too preachy or topical after about 5 years. I do not own a single episode or season of most of those shows. Frankly, if they start off being preachy/topical I just do not watch.Gary OS said:...Does a show have to deal with "real life" issues (whether they be moral, ethical, social, etc) in order for it to be relevant or good?
Originally Posted by BobO'Link
IMHO, No.
I'd rather watch a show that *doesn't* deal with "real life" issues. I get enough "real life" in, well... "real life". I don't need, nor want it in my TV. That's why I stopped watching many mid 70s-90s shows as they aged. The Bill Cosby Show and Home Improvement were favorites of mine in their early years but they got "preachy" as they went on. When a show becomes "preachy" or "topical" I stop watching. That's why I was surprised by the number of mid 70s and onward non sci-fi/fantasy shows in my collection as I've always felt many tended to become too preachy or topical after about 5 years. I do not own a single episode or season of most of those shows. Frankly, if they start off being preachy/topical I just do not watch.