[[Template core/front/global/tcmTabBar is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
Philip1749

Sexual Freedom

35 posts in this topic

The young, new narrator with the English accent featured on TCM hosted a showing of Tarzan films on Tuesday, May 9th. She referred to the censorship imposed on those films of the 1930's by the movie industry's certification board as a lack of "sexual freedom." Apparently the lead female character was required to wear clothing that was less skimpy than a bikini would be. Is this another example of TCM promoting a liberal position when it comes to traditional social attitudes about sex? It sometimes seems that TCM feels frequently compelled to promote what might be called younger-oriented attitudes about sexuality, perhaps in an attempt to gain a larger television audience of viewers under thirty...thus the need for using terms like "sexual freedom" on the air.  

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps TCM needs to add a little disclaimer stating that comments made by their hosts neither represent or are endorsed by TCM views or policy. ;):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this:

The young lady didn't say anything NEW about the "Hays code" days that hasn't been said by film "historians" for the last 50 years or more.

There IS no covert, diabolical "liberal agenda" lurking about the TCM offices, just showing movies from before AND after the Hays code started being strictly enforced.  It WAS introduced to the studios a few years BEFORE it went into full effect. 

Now, if YOU have an issue with entertainment that exhibits any level of "sexual freedom", then it's YOUR problem, and nothing that needs to be repressed by any avenue of the entertainment industry that probably gets no complaints about it from the MAJORITY of those who watch any offerings.  I prefer NOT to have my entertainment options limited by the personal hang-ups of pinch-faced prudes who presume to think and speak for EVERYBODY.

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

The young, new narrator with the English accent featured on TCM hosted a showing of Tarzan films on Tuesday, May 9th. She referred to the censorship imposed on those films of the 1930's by the movie industry's certification board as a lack of "sexual freedom." Apparently the lead female character was required to wear clothing that was less skimpy than a bikini would be. Is this another example of TCM promoting a liberal position when it comes to traditional social attitudes about sex? It sometimes seems that TCM feels frequently compelled to promote what might be called younger-oriented attitudes about sexuality, perhaps in an attempt to gain a larger television audience of viewers under thirty...thus the need for using terms like "sexual freedom" on the air.  

Since you refer to the host as "young" and "new", I'm assuming that, like me, you're not young yourself. In that case, you must remember the (very real, not hyperbole, and not just a "liberal position") sexual revolution of the 1960's-1970's. It brought about new standards of sexual behavior and a "sexual freedom" which was indeed lacking in the era of the early Tarzan films. The host was being responsible, and not just to viewers under thirty; I'm sure even some viewers over thirty don't truly understand the pervasiveness of the Code and the intentionally numbing effect it had on artistic expression. The thing about "traditional social attitudes about sex"? They change over time and new "traditional" attitudes take their place. Tarzan was over 80 years ago, so I think we can safely move on.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pre-Hays Code movies were more realistic and believable than those forced to adhere to the fancifully unrealistic restrictions imposed by the code for the next three decades.
When U.S. movies began to break free from Hays, they were leagues behind the nouveau films being produced in Europe, so they made huge (apparently shocking to some) leaps to quickly catch up.
I can understand why some, who grew up exposed to nothing but Hays code productions, could be a little alarmed by such a transition.
But it is difficult for me to understand how anyone, whose been exposed to the broad diversity of movies aired by TCM, cannot grasp the rationale for why they may feel the way they do, regarding certain periods or genres.

I heard what Alicia said about Tarzan and His Mate, and found nothing out of line or offensive.
She has a broad audience to address, some who may have enjoyed Jane's nudity, and others who may have been offended by it.
It is a difficult line for any host to balance, but I think that she did a pretty impartial and admirable job of it.
For anyone who wants to see and hear it for themselves, all of last nights movies are currently available ON-DEMAND for repeat viewing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

The young, new narrator with the English accent featured on TCM hosted a showing of Tarzan films on Tuesday, May 9th. She referred to the censorship imposed on those films of the 1930's by the movie industry's certification board as a lack of "sexual freedom." Apparently the lead female character was required to wear clothing that was less skimpy than a bikini would be. Is this another example of TCM promoting a liberal position when it comes to traditional social attitudes about sex? It sometimes seems that TCM feels frequently compelled to promote what might be called younger-oriented attitudes about sexuality, perhaps in an attempt to gain a larger television audience of viewers under thirty...thus the need for using terms like "sexual freedom" on the air.  

Not at all. They are explaining why certain things are the way they are at certain points in time.  That is what is "educational" about TCM using presenters.  Maureen O'Sullivan supposedly swam nude for about four minutes in Tarzan and His Mate (1934), but it was actually a stand-in, Josephine McKim.  After that the censors cracked down hard on clothing.

The presenter explains why viewers may notice a very abrupt change in "Jane's" clothing as the series progresses.

Absolutely, positively no attempt by TCM to promote a liberal position vs. "traditional social attitudes about sex."

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, who the hell is "the young, new narrator with the English accent" the OP is talkin' about here???

Oh, wait. MAYBE they meant "the young, new narrator with the AUSTRALIAN accent" here, RIGHT?!!!

(...yeah yeah, I know I know...many of us Yanks seem to have a tin ear when it comes to differentiating those two groups of superfluous-u users, huh)

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

The young, new narrator with the English accent featured on TCM hosted a showing of Tarzan films on Tuesday, May 9th. She referred to the censorship imposed on those films of the 1930's by the movie industry's certification board as a lack of "sexual freedom." Apparently the lead female character was required to wear clothing that was less skimpy than a bikini would be. Is this another example of TCM promoting a liberal position when it comes to traditional social attitudes about sex? It sometimes seems that TCM feels frequently compelled to promote what might be called younger-oriented attitudes about sexuality, perhaps in an attempt to gain a larger television audience of viewers under thirty...thus the need for using terms like "sexual freedom" on the air.  

Let's just be honest here. Maybe she was referring to Cheetah's "sexual freedom" since I have seen footage where Maureen O'Sullivan noted that Cheetah had to be chained down in any publicity photos Maureen was in, since Cheetah would often look like he was going to attack her and he did NOT seemingly like her. Yet Maureen said Cheetah had a real affinity for Tarzan, as played by Johnny Weismuller and would try to get close to him. Perhaps Cheetah was gay and this restriction for his desired object of lust, was in antipathy towards a male vis a vis male relationship? Just a thought and by the way, I knew from the topic title that I would find Dargo in this thread!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dargo said:

So, who the hell is "the young, new narrator with the English accent" the OP is talkin' about here???

Oh, wait. MAYBE they meant "the young, new narrator with the AUSTRALIAN accent" here, RIGHT?!!!

(...yeah yeah, I know I know...many of us Yanks seem to have a tin ear when it comes to differentiating those two groups of superfluous-u users, huh)

I think she is quite glamoUrous too, doncha think, Dargo? Does the "narrator" resemble at all your own uxoUrial distaff half?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to regret that I missed the young, new narrator with the whatever accent.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HELLO;

I am a baby Boomer and I have no qualms about nudity. the nudity in question is in a natural setting.  It was hardly graphic. So what is the problem. The funny th ing about the Hays Code was that illicit sex was allowed in the past (19th Century) such as a "Woman Rebels", Conquest Anthony Adverse, Anna Karenina, Forever Amber,  Kitty and others

We came of age when 1950s sexual attitudes were being thrown to the way side.  At A  time like the 1970s, it went too extreme.  Them, AIDS CAME into the picture  IN THE 1980S AND THREW A CAUTIONARY note. All, I can say is what is the problem? 

Finally, I find Alicia wonderful.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

traditional social attitudes about sex

You wanna go back to the Puritans?, they would be part of what I think you are reffering to, those with original social attitudes. Or could go back to the Native Americans, they had a bit more liberal attitude, and they were the Natives, you could say it all when to hell when those illeagal aliens hit the shores......

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaveGirl said:

I think she is quite glamoUrous too, doncha think, Dargo? Does the "narrator" resemble at all your own uxoUrial distaff half?

Yep, CG. I too think Alicia Malone is a very attractive woman, and from just catching her wraparounds the few times that I have since she's joined the TCM fold, I've also liked her overall presentation and her good use of inflection. Now, her Aussie accent might be a sight bit "distracting", but overall I've found her an improvement over the young Tiffany.

(...oh, and to answer your second question here, no...my better half doesn't look much like Alicia at all...in fact, I've always thought my wife looked a little like a combination of Joan Bennett and Betty Rubble) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. TCM is just one more institution trying to corrupt innocent minds

with thoughts of sex and other naughty things. It's right there in just

about everything they do. Take the "Wine Club." You don't really think

it's all about paring a certain wine with a certain movie. Wake up. It's

really about getting people so blotto that they lose their inhibitions and

can't wait to get it on. They're rolling around on the couch before the

opening credits are over. TCM=Transgressing Chaste Minds. Parents

beware. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the OP was born in 1749 it is fair to assume they experienced the 60s.   Even if one was appalled by the change in US sexual conduct\attitude during that era,  to claim that TCM is pushing some type of recent change in attitude to appeal to those under 30 is ludicrous since those that 'became of age' during the 60s are now in their 60s!

 

  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

 you could say it all when to hell when those illeagal aliens hit the shores......

And, when was that?  ;) 

As my WIFE'S name is also ALICIA, then the hostess is also OK with me.  ;)  And because it's the way she pronounced it when she first told it to me, I pronounce it "Ah-LEE-seeya." and NOT "Ah-LEASH-ah"

Sepiatone

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

And, when was that?

1492 😁😁😁😁

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am FAR from a "prude" when it comes to the topic of human sexuality. In fact, quite the opposite. My objection to such terms as "sexual freedom" is due to the fact that I am quite attuned to code words and terminology, and what it usually portends in contemporary society. The term "sexual freedom" is often code language for blending pornographic content into the mainstream film media...a practice that had mushroomed by the 1980's. I recall for example, the late Katherine Hepburn commenting in a television interview that such films today are "filth"...her terminology, not mine. One outstanding example of this would be the film FATAL ATTRACTION (1987), starring Michael Douglas and Glenn Close. If I wanted to see the pornographic content of that film in a mainstream motion picture, I could simply watch a porn film instead. I don't need to spend $20 at a motion picture theater to see it. In addition, I had no objection to the Tarzan character in the Tarzan films wearing simply a loin cloth, nor would I object to his female companion wearing a "bikini" rather than a dress. If anyone thought that was what I was talking about, then they misunderstood my point.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 4:43 PM, cigarjoe said:

You wanna go back to the Puritans?, they would be part of what I think you are reffering to, those with original social attitudes. Or could go back to the Native Americans, they had a bit more liberal attitude, and they were the Natives, you could say it all when to hell when those illeagal aliens hit the shores......

 

Speaking of Native Americans, I remember reading a book once purporting the theory that many white women kidnapped by them, did not want to return to their repressive white hubbies, and were happier living with their captor men, who gave them more freedom in general and perhaps sexual freedom. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 4:48 PM, Dargo said:

Yep, CG. I too think Alicia Malone is a very attractive woman, and from just catching her wraparounds the few times that I have since she's joined the TCM fold, I've also liked her overall presentation and her good use of inflection. Now, her Aussie accent might be a sight bit "distracting", but overall I've found her an improvement over the young Tiffany.

(...oh, and to answer your second question here, no...my better half doesn't look much like Alicia at all...in fact, I've always thought my wife looked a little like a combination of Joan Bennett and Betty Rubble) 

Uh, I'm hoping beyond hope that you don't look like a combination of Joan's dada, Richard Bennett and Barney Rubble. That would make you appear to be a twin for Allan Melvin, from the old Bilko show and wasn't he a friend of Archie Bunker too?

Yikes! A tall Barney Rubble is a bit scary...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2018 at 5:31 PM, Vautrin said:

Bingo. TCM is just one more institution trying to corrupt innocent minds

with thoughts of sex and other naughty things. It's right there in just

about everything they do. Take the "Wine Club." You don't really think

it's all about paring a certain wine with a certain movie. Wake up. It's

really about getting people so blotto that they lose their inhibitions and

can't wait to get it on. They're rolling around on the couch before the

opening credits are over. TCM=Transgressing Chaste Minds. Parents

beware. 

Yeah, you've got their number, Vautrin! Note how often Ben M. keeps repeating the mantra about how he's not surprised anymore about the young ages of some of the TCM fans!!! I guess not, since the programming of the Trangressing Chaste Minds hypnotic trance mode is daily supplying new addicts.

My bet is that if one slowed down those horrid wine commercials with Muller, there are a bunch of subliminals with images of penile objects suspended in the glass reflections of the wine bottles in close-up shots, doing many obscene things. Also just like Chanel did in that famous tv ad, the images overlap in ways that make objects appear to be animated and part of the homunculus in flagrante delicto. I think it's not much of a reach to figure out that the neck of a wine bottle is similar to what inspired the lyrics of the song, "Chantilly Lace" with its long necked goose tidbits. All these supposedly married wine couples on the ads [probably swingers] trying to find recruits for their product too, by making the wine for the film "Beach Blanket Bingo" appear innocent and how they coupled it with food, like a Pasta Primavera is an obvious seductive technique. If one is trying to get innocent teens to indulge in wine though, I think Muller may have to touch up his greying sideburns, because the Danny Thomas look never is attractive to young females or males for that matter.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

My objection to such terms as "sexual freedom" is due to the fact that I am quite attuned to code words and terminology, and what it usually portends in contemporary society. The term "sexual freedom" is often code language for blending pornographic content into the mainstream film media...

I highly doubt TCM staff uses the term "sexual freedom" as you are defining it here.    Instead I have seen it used related to pre-code films and women being more open sexually.   Of course pre-code films don't blend 'pornographic content'  (unless you also have a much different view of what that is).

Therefore I still feel you are seeing something that doesn't exist. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

I am FAR from a "prude" when it comes to the topic of human sexuality. In fact, quite the opposite. My objection to such terms as "sexual freedom" is due to the fact that I am quite attuned to code words and terminology, and what it usually portends in contemporary society. The term "sexual freedom" is often code language for blending pornographic content into the mainstream film media...a practice that had mushroomed by the 1980's. I recall for example, the late Katherine Hepburn commenting in a television interview that such films today are "filth"...her terminology, not mine. One outstanding example of this would be the film FATAL ATTRACTION (1987), starring Michael Douglas and Glenn Close. If I wanted to see the pornographic content of that film in a mainstream motion picture, I could simply watch a porn film instead. I don't need to spend $20 at a motion picture theater to see it. In addition, I had no objection to the Tarzan character in the Tarzan films wearing simply a loin cloth, nor would I object to his female companion wearing a "bikini" rather than a dress. If anyone thought that was what I was talking about, then they misunderstood my point.     

Thanks for coming back into the discussion. Topics like this are sometimes thrown out there and then abandoned by the original poster.

Unfortunately we are all quite attuned to code words and terminology these days, out of necessity. Our discourse is infected with them, all along the political and/or moral spectrum. I'd like to suggest that "pornography" and "pornographic" have become such words and that they aren't really meaningful in any kind of absolute sense. I've never seen Fatal Attraction, so I have only your word that it has "pornographic" content. You bolstered that claim by referencing a memory that Katharine Hepburn called "such films" "filth", stating it was her terminology, not yours. I may be doing you an injustice, but it seems to me that it is your preferred terminology for something which is out of step with the "traditional social attitudes" you wrote about in the original post. If you believe you're FAR from a prude, maybe you should look at why your chosen terms are so censorious. We all probably feel that our "values" have a moral weight, so we've allowed the confusion between the two to happen, furthered by the fact that "morals" and "values" are such subjective terms to begin with. 

I don't think anyone misunderstood that you weren't talking about loin cloths. I think what wasn't understood was why you provocatively called your thread SEXUAL FREEDOM and then seemed to (to me at least) degrade the idea as being a "liberal position" to ensnare young viewers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Philip1749 said:

I am FAR from a "prude" when it comes to the topic of human sexuality. In fact, quite the opposite. My objection to such terms as "sexual freedom" is due to the fact that I am quite attuned to code words and terminology, and what it usually portends in contemporary society. The term "sexual freedom" is often code language for blending pornographic content into the mainstream film media...a practice that had mushroomed by the 1980's. I recall for example, the late Katherine Hepburn commenting in a television interview that such films today are "filth"...her terminology, not mine. One outstanding example of this would be the film FATAL ATTRACTION (1987), starring Michael Douglas and Glenn Close. If I wanted to see the pornographic content of that film in a mainstream motion picture, I could simply watch a porn film instead. I don't need to spend $20 at a motion picture theater to see it. In addition, I had no objection to the Tarzan character in the Tarzan films wearing simply a loin cloth, nor would I object to his female companion wearing a "bikini" rather than a dress. If anyone thought that was what I was talking about, then they misunderstood my point.     

I am becoming extremely confused. If one is to use a person as a bailiwick to add veracity to a claim, one wonders exactly how Katharine Hepburn would be the logical choice, to discuss morality. In my world, it is of little interest to me whether she was or was not having that well discussed affair with good old Spencer, but if so, then to some who would be offended by the film "Fatal Attraction" it would seem they might also be offended by Katharine Hepburn and her blatant disregard of marital standards. Now again, I have no problem with her, but if I am to defend a strict moral guideline in film attitudes, she would hardly be my choice as a leading lady. One would be much more well instructed to pick someone like Lillian Gish to discuss "filth" in movies, since she might have been impressed with D.W. Griffith but was not having any illicit liaisons with him to my knowledge. By the way, in discussing the "pornographic" content of the film "Fatal Attraction" are you referring to visual content or situational. And by the way, such storylines are contained in so-called religious works like the Bible as cautionary tales and from before the Renaissance, artists were depicting sexual content that you might deem "pornographic" in church altarpieces, to teach the heathens what NOT to do, as in Hieronymous Bosch's triptychs. This is common practice for much religious iconography so the lines are a bit blurred in my opinion as to what constitutes "filth" in practice. Have you come to formulate your standards of what is acceptable as not being "pornographic" by your own learning gleaned from many sources, or do you feel this is following a precept of a group that you adhere to as being your guiding sole source?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us