Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Anyone else noticed morals slipping on TCM ?


Recommended Posts

"And another thing"...aside from a number of silly assumptions the O.P. makes about Turner Classic Films which I will disregard as too fatuous to deserve a response, there's one concept they seem to cherish about old movies which is absolutely false and which I just have to shoot down into the water ( preferably a very deep and filthy scum pond, filled with pornographic posters floating under its surface.)

 

This assumption is that old movies were "clean", were " innocent", were all appropriate for children. Yes, because of the Hayes/Breen Code, certain specific items were forbidden to be shown ( you can guess). But this did not mean that the filmmakers made "clean" movies, nor that there were no allusions to sex, drugs, and rock and roll ( well, that last didn't make it in til the 50s.)

What I'm trying to say is, while a family could attend a movie anytime before, say, 1955 ( just a random year I picked) complete with Mum, Dad, and a bevy of kids, and be free from having to witness "filth", this is not to say that the majority of these classic films were "family fare". Some were, many weren't. Many classic movies have very adult themes indeed, and were made for and intended for adults.

I always think when people talk about TCM as though it's some kind of "family "station, that they're insulting both the Turner Classic Movies station and old films in general.

 

Children's movies - there are many great ones, both old and recent, as well as many fantastic children's books out there. Don't get me wrong, I love movies and literature for children, if the art and writing is good - and so much of it is.

This has nothing to do with whether one likes children's movies or not; it's about the foolish and misguided assumptions many people make about old movies being "safe" for the kiddies. If all old films were "kiddie- safe", I would not love them as I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Dargo,

 

When posting some of that vintage stuff, the slogan came to me: "I report, you decide!"

 

Gad, I discovered a trapeze stripper film from 1901! A study of classic film has reinfoced in me that the appeal of the salacious is timeless. It's a tendency that creeps in to art wherever and whenever it can.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I always think when people talk about TCM as though it's some kind of "family "station, that they're insulting both the Turner Classic Movies station and old films in general.

 

When Turner owned the company, all of his channels were "family" networks.

 

The "Code" allowed for vulgar stuff to be hinted at, sometimes strongly, but it was done in shuch a way so as to not let the kids of the family know what was going on "behind the scenes". Take "Gone With the Wind" for example. As adults, we all know what Belle Watling was, but when I saw the film as a kid in 1953, I and other kids did not know.

 

Bringing kids up in this current atmosphere of open movie and TV vulgarity has caused a lot of problems within our society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Has TCM shown films with partial nudity or questionable langauage in prime time, daytime, or early evening hours.?

 

Yes. There's a brief half-second of Jean Harlow sideboob in *Red-Headed Woman*, which has definitely shown at 8:00 PM ET.

 

The scene comes about 15 minutes in, when Una Merkel (I think it's her; it's the actress playing Harlow's roommate) is wearing Harlow's nightgown and she wants it back. In the cut between Merkel taking it off and Harlow putting it on, you can see the side of Harlow's left breast for several frames.

 

Never mind the sexual content in *Gold Diggers of 1933*.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent,excellent post Miss Wonderly. I agree totally with your point of view,and have,at times wondered why so many people believe old movies are squeeky clean,and w/o reference to sex,and other worldly matters.All one has to do is watch a movie like "BABYFACE" to realize that the naive "squeeky clean"view that many people hold, isn't true. JR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too concerned about the sight of an occasional breast, or even plot appropriate nudity in "A Room with a View." When you think about it, that nude bathing scene is quite comical and innocent. I'm more disturbed by depictions of excessive violence. I had a friend who was a parent of a teen-age son who said that nudity didn't bother him because he felt that some day, in the natural course of events, his son would have a sexual relationship. However, this dad was more concerned about movies that depicted violent acts and car crashes because he knew his son would be driving a car, or even might end up with a "rough crowd," and so many films depict these events unrealisticly, with people even walking away from car crashes or violent incidents that would be fatal in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just caught a couple of pre-codes last night from the DVR (finally had time to watch them!!), that were aired on TCM over the past few weeks---UNION DEPOT and WINNER TAKE ALL, and man, both were filled with suggestive scenes, dames in tight clothing, lots of drinking and partying and carrying on, and I totally dug them! Both were from the early 30s and were somewhat representative of the adult themes that permeated films prior to the enforcement of the code.

 

TCM is a groovy station! I never saw them as being about morals, but being about showing great (and often obscure) older flicks from the silents to the present!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out how to respond to this thread. Since when did Hollywood ever had *morals??* :^0 ?:|

Are you confusing movies made during the era of the Hays Code that TCM shows a lot of (in opposition to the pre-code era) and even during then I wouldn't consider a lot of them moral i.e. killing another person, drinking alcohol, fist fighting, etc.

 

If you want a moral channel the best I can think of is GMC on channel 338 on Directv. They heavily edited "Prancer" for content of all things.

Too bad the Amish don't beleive in technology or they would have their own channel. HBC (Horse and Buggy Channel) :P I guess RFD will have to do.

 

Just this past week on Jay Leno during *Headlines* someone mailed in a DVD movie ad geared for children entertainment, there was 2 Disney movies and "I Spit on Your Grave" listed in it. Wonder was that a bundled package. :^0

 

By the way there is that little invention called the V chip, you might think of using it.

 

Tip: When shopping for cartoons be sure not to buy "Fritz the Cat" (1972) instead of Felix the Cat. Love to see Disney get that one confused. (or TCM for that matter)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

goodolddays34 said:

 

> "I am trying to raise my kids right and do not want them exposed to any filth at young age.

> Just wondering if anyone else has noticed the change?"I

I'm not sure. Can we compare our terminology to make sure we're discussing the same things ?

 

First, what does "kids ... at young age" mean ? (To me, that includes 30-year-olds ...) I'd say that if they're

old enough to watch TCM at night, they're old enough to have an intelligent conversation -- even with their (ugh!) parents.

 

But more important is: What is morally objectionable ? I've read your original post carefully three times and the only thing you seem to be referring to is nudity.

 

Now, graphic violence that looks really FUN ... or characters who make it look like a really good idea to cheat, lie, steal, etc ... any form of child abuse ... anything that demeans or separates us as humans like racism, sexism, homophobia ... that kind of behavior strikes me as far more immoral than naked human beings. But TCM would be just about the last place I'd go to complain about it.

 

Another thing we need to define: raising kids right.

 

I think that includes not just parroting the stuff our parents taught us but instead realizing that parents have to grow, change and evolve with the times. It also means teaching values to kids in such a way that they'll be able to understand and accept WHY it's a bad idea to do immoral things.

 

I mean, if you're turning off the TV so your kids won't see nudity, hopefully it's also so you can have a conversation with them (which includes permission for them to ask any questions they can think of until they can't think of any more) in which you explain why you don't want them exposed to such images.

 

I'd be curious to know as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> TCM`s Morals seem to be slipping a bit.

Whatever films TCM may be showing, it has nothing to do with "morals."

 

The problem with this thread, as it is with the national dialogue, is that there are those who cannot resist equating that which they find distasteful with morality, as though their gut is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.

 

For the record, if you and I were to compile lists of what each of us finds distasteful, we'd probably find a considerable degree of overlap; the difference is that the vast majority of what I disapprove of has no direct bearing on my life, and I don't believe that it has any impact on society's perceptions or definitions of right and wrong.

 

Frankly, I firmly believe that tolerating that of which one disapproves is ennobling: it makes us better than we would otherwise be (it's actually the moral -- there's that word again -- behind the tale of Jesus's words to the mob who were about to stone Mary Magdalene to death for being an adulteress: "Who among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone"). Unlike those self-appointed guardians of morality, I believe I can still improve myself as a human being.

 

It's kind of like the debate over abortion: if you don't like the procedure, fine, don't have one...but you have no right to forbid anyone else from having one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I think that in the haste of everyone to rush to the defense of TCM, you are all missing the point of the OP. TCM is not DISNEY, we know that, but by the same token it is not CINEMAX, HBO, SHOWTIME, or any number of other pay channels that show excessive violence or nudity. TCM's goal, or at least, one of TCM's goals, so they have claimed in the past, is to get our young people hooked on classic films. It does not help the reputation of a channel that boasts of "films that the whole family can watch", to add to it's "library" films that stray into the territory of questionable content. And by questionable content, I mean the questionable content of modern films, not the suggestive content of HARLOW, WEST, or MONROE, or the make believe violence of CAGNEY or BOGART. Believe me, I am not offended by anything that TCM CURRENTLYshows, and if there was something that I did find objectionable, I am old enough to turn off the channel, but I am not a parent. I think the OP is expressing frustration at TCM for letting him/her down. For being the last bastion, so to speak, against the kind of "adult" fare found on other channels that would require the kind of research and censoring that you all suggest. As I said, I am not a parent, but I don't know any parents who have the time or the patience to research the content and block every questionable program or movie on every channel. Besides, I don't know of any reference material that lists every nude scene, foul language, or explicit violent act in every movie ever made so that "pushing back" on the parent as the 24/7 moral police is unfair as well as a cop out on the part of any channel, specifically a channel that purports to be family friendly. And, for the information of all here, TCM has shown SAM PECKINPAH's films in prime time so the excuse that it's ONLY after hours is a flagrant untruth. But, all this aside, the bigger question is where DO YOU ALL draw the line? Would you be as tolerant of TCM and dismisive of the OP if the movies in question were the classic double bill I AM CURIOUS YELLOW, I AM CURIOUS BLUE, and the equally classic FACES OF DEATH? Oh, and next time, instead of DOG PILING on a poster for expressing a concern, you might try putting yourself in their place and understanding. You might find it a novel experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the first to reply, I also felt a bit bad about how everyone piled on. I'll admit that the OP has a legitimate concern. But, there is a difference between "filth," and 'inappropriate for children.' TCM is in no danger of becoming 'SkinnyMax.' I have never seen anything I think comes close to "filth" on TCM.

 

I was in the hospital for a couple of weeks. They had lots of Comcast Cable channels, but no TCM. I asked why, and was told that TCM showed movies "inappropriate for children." That was eight years ago. So, I don't think they have really changed.

 

Today, we have the V Chip, and parental locks. Anyone can set their TV to block programs based on their rating. I doubt that many here would agree that TCM should only show films appropriate for children. I think it is incumbent on the parent to deal with it, which they can easily do, without any real research. If TCM doesn't post the rating on the web schedule, well they could do that. No other changes are necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is not that the morals of persons connected with the moving pictures are necessarily lower than those of persons associated with music, painting or the theater; it is that, by the nature of the persons connected with moving pictures, the morals, whatever their feebleness, are inevitably and disgustingly vulgar. The rank and file of the movies come from the gutters - and it is impossible for the gutter to suffer a lapse in morals and be synchronously charming about it..."

 

 

Horrible, ugly, immoral and designed to negatively affect our pure and wholesome society. Damn Hollywood!!

 

Oh, by the way, that quote is from H.L.Mencken....1922

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to ignore this thread after my one response to it, because I think there are so many foolish assumptions in the original post that I felt annoyed just thinking about it and also didn't know how to begin responding to such opinions. ( Except for the one point I made in my one earlier response.)

But I figured out one of the key things about it that irritates me , which is the use of the word "morals" in the context of sexual permissiveness, whether it be the real thing or just depicting it in a film. Why do so many people equate the word "morals" with sex, or rather, sexual restraint? First, why are they using the plural? I think "morality" might be a better choice than "morals" anyway.

Second, developing a set of moral values, having a sense of "morality" encompasses much more than making a film depicting half naked women taking baths, or to be more serious, any kind of sexual behaviour.

In my thinking, you can be a very "moral" person, and still have sex with someone to whom you are not married. Sex has little to do with it. Morality is about the values we develop for ourselves, the choices we make regarding what we consider to be "good" and "bad".

SprocketMan addressed this in his well-thought-out comments a few posts back.

 

To say that someone's "morals" are "slipping" trivializes the entire concept of striving to be a "good" human being. It sounds like somebody's underwear that has lost its elasticity and is falling down. Just silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read other replies to this thread but I'm sure they'll reiterate my reply:

 

1. TCM is not Disney (or rather what Disney was 50 years ago). It is not so much a Rated G network as it is a classic movie network. It may appear to be a Rated G channel because most of the movies on it ARE Rated G, of course.

 

2. TCM has been showing nudity in movies longer than just the past few months. I think it was about ten years ago when they aired THE LAST PICTURE SHOW which, believe or not, contains male frontal nudity even.

 

3. TCM is very sensitive towards this issue, I feel, which explains why I for one (& somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) have never known them to show a movie with nudity at any other time than late at night.

 

Don't worry. Your children will be safer watching TCM than probably just about any other network. Even if they are occasionally exposed to "the birds & the bees."

Link to post
Share on other sites

> 2. TCM has been showing nudity in movies longer than just the past few months

 

In addition to American made films like *Last Picture Show*, they also show foreign films which also (sometimes) contain nudity. I don't think anyone here would advocate the removal of foreign films from the schedule because of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:

>

> }{quote}

> Frankly, I firmly believe that tolerating that of which one disapproves is ennobling: it makes us better than we would otherwise be (it's actually the moral -- there's that word again -- behind the tale of Jesus's words to the mob who were about to stone Mary Magdalene to death for being an adulteress: "Who among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone"). Unlike those self-appointed guardians of morality, I believe I can still improve myself as a human being.

>

>

> It's kind of like the debate over abortion: if you don't like the procedure, fine, don't have one...but you have no right to forbid anyone else from having one.

>

I understand the point you are trying to make, but "tolerance" is not really the point of this passage.

 

The point is the Jewish leaders' hypocrisy in arresting only the woman (unnamed in the passage itself), while apparently allowing the man to go free. And, really, the particular sin of the woman is incidental to the main thrust of the story, which is that these hypocrites did not care about upholding the Law as much as they did placing Jesus in a dilemma.

 

If He said she should not be stoned, He could be accused of violating the Law of Moses. If He said she should be stoned, they would report Him to the Romans who did not permit the Jews to carry out their own executions. The fate of the woman as an individual did not matter to them. This was merely another opportunity to try to trick Jesus into violating either Mosaic or Roman Law.

 

When Jesus said only a sinless person could cast the first stone, He indicated the importance of compassion and forgiveness, but He did not "tolerate" the sin. In fact, if you will recall, He told the woman to "go and sin no more." The point is that it is God's right to judge (and He will), not ours.

 

 

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...