We love stories, and Hollywood knows how to dramatise them. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that Hollywood is first and foremost an industry driven by ratings and profits. Children are more vulnerable and more likely than adults to pick up identity models from the film world.
In the first part of the film Gladiator (2000), the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius asks the main hero, Maximus: “How can I reward Rome’s greatest general?” The answer was succinct: “Let me go home!”
People love stories and their messages. The ancient legends and myths, the thousands of stories and fables passed down by word of mouth and in writing, are ample proof of this. Stories bring people together, gather them around the fire, give them reasons to spend time together.
But the time for fireside tales is over. With the advent of the seventh art—cinema—the book has been replaced by the film, the new storyteller of humanity. Film is a universal language, capable of ending wars and bringing peace between people, said David Wark Griffith, a pioneer of the film industry and famous film director of the early 20th century. It is a cultural vehicle that directs the narrative in a particular direction, telling the viewer what is valuable or not, what is good or bad, and what is to be appreciated or despised.
It is generally accepted that film productions have the power to influence values, reinforcing or undermining their authority. Through film, public opinion has been informed, shaped or manipulated, fashions have been launched, ways of assuming social roles have been suggested and attitudes have been instilled. Generations of filmgoers have learned about courtship, family life, and ways of solving domestic problems from films, with the charismatic characters on screen becoming role models for passive viewers.
Family, in black and white
It may seem surprising, but in the early days of the film industry, it was thought that films could corrupt children, who were not allowed in cinemas. Adults and the authorities discouraged children from going to the cinema. Over time, things changed. In the post-war period, as television entered more and more American family living rooms, the supremacy of the cinema was seriously threatened by its new rival, television. Desperate to find a way to bring people back to the cinema, Hollywood soon discovered that sex and all the other taboo subjects of the day sold well. Film companies increasingly ignored the rules of the Hays Code, which had governed the form and content of film production for three decades.
Baby Doll (1956) marked a turning point. Based on a play by Tennessee Williams, the film explored themes of moral decay, seduction, the sexual instinct, child eroticism and the decline of the human spirit. The film’s release sparked fierce controversy in an American society not yet ready for “debauchery” and “decadence” on the screen. Cardinal Spellman of New York warned of the film’s corrupting influence, while Time magazine called it “just possibly the dirtiest American-made motion picture that has ever been legally exhibited.” The fact that Baby Doll was condemned by the Catholic League of Decency only added to the curiosity of the public, who flocked to the cinemas. Forbidden fruit is always tempting.
Nevertheless, until the middle of the last century, most Hollywood films presented a traditional image of the family, in which the core values were fidelity, mutual respect, and the strength to overcome obstacles and stay together. Issues such as marital infidelity or divorce were less likely to be portrayed on screen, a sign of the belief that marriages were worth saving no matter what problems a couple might face.
Speaking at the Fourth World Congress of Families in Warsaw in 2007, Don Feder, journalist and author of A Jewish Conservative Looks at Pagan America, said that Hollywood’s current philosophy was in stark contrast to the values that Hollywood promoted in the first half of the 20th century. “As old film fans can attest,” Feder said, “in the ’30s and ’40s, Hollywood was pro-family. It treated parents with respect, took the issue of sex very seriously, upheld faith, and generally promoted those values that supported social cohesion.” The image of the father was that of the wise man who always had the right advice, while the woman was usually portrayed as a homemaker, devoted to her role as wife and mother. This image of the family was reflected in shows such as Father Knows Best, Leave It to Beaver and I Love Lucy.
“In the ’50s, [movies] told us how to dress for a walk or a meeting, how far to go on a first date… They taught girls whether to marry or have a career, boys whether to seek work or pleasure. They taught us what was right and wrong, good and bad; they defined our problems and suggested solutions,” writes Peter Biskind, former editor of Premiere magazine and author of several books on the world of Hollywood. There was a clear duality in the celluloid world: good always triumphed over evil, and villains were punished. The family was presented in black and white, with a clear distinction between good and evil. Then came the “colour” film…
Strong women, sensitive men
Film has always reflected socio-cultural concerns and trends. With the rise of feminism in the 1970s and 1980s, the idea of equality between men and women was taken up by Hollywood scriptwriters and used both to promote feminism and to highlight the negative consequences of the masculinisation of women. In contrast to the cinema of the first decades, where the image of the woman was that of the wife sacrificing herself for the good of the family, towards the end of the last century films increasingly confronted us with the model of the woman sacrificing herself for personal fulfilment.
The film Baby Boom (1987) highlighted the crisis of the woman who had to choose between family and career because she could not have both. In Mr Mom (1983), Caroline Butler—the main character—is a woman forced to look for work after her husband becomes unemployed. Throughout the narrative, the viewer realises that although Caroline is doing very well as an employee, she is unhappy and longs to return to her position as a housewife and caretaker.
In 2000, Erin Brockovich, a divorced mother struggling with the system while caring for her children, appeared on the big screen, successfully combining the two opposing tensions because she is a strong woman. The character of G.I. Jane (1997) is already an extreme—the woman who trains side by side with the men of the U.S. Navy, proving that she can overcome hardship like a man.
A new image of man also began to take shape. In some cases, the sensitive, emotional side of the male character was explored, as in the films in which fathers took on the role of “mother” with more or less skill (Kramer vs. Kramer—1979 and Mrs. Doubtfire—1993).
According to critics, Kindergarten Cop (1990) was the turning point in the move away from the fierce masculinity of the 1980s towards a more tender masculine personality, with “muscleman” Schwarzenegger playing the tough cop forced by circumstances to work in a kindergarten. The film follows the development of the grumpy character who learns to be affectionate with children. The ‘bad’ and ‘irresponsible’ man can change for the better—that’s the lesson of many Hollywood productions.
Gifts from the sack of Santa Hollywood
Hollywood’s dream factory is churning out dreams. More than ever, dysfunctional families, divorced parents, or rebellious teenagers are on the screen. From parents unable to understand their children’s problems and help them, to violent parents or spouses who abuse family members, too many of the negative aspects of life are explored, often without even suggesting possible appropriate solutions.
The over-sexualisation of films and the portrayal of sex as the most important element in a relationship can give the impression, at least to young and inexperienced viewers, that the marriage relationship is “old-fashioned.” “Love has nothing to do with a piece of paper” is an increasingly popular refrain. The 40-Year-Old Virgin, released in 2005, conveyed the idea that a person who has never been intimate is some kind of freak of nature. Is the precociousness of the age at which teenagers begin their sex lives any wonder?
The promotion of individualism, the presentation of Christian values as ridiculous, the Carpe Diem! philosophy, the idea that “bad boys can run away with the money and live happily ever after”—these are just some of the components of the Hollywood message.
The image that viewers form of the family is unrealistic. A loser father, a neurotic mother, a brother who consumes Nietzschean philosophy, a gay uncle who flirts with suicide and a drug-addicted grandfather—this is the family in Little Miss Sunshine (2006). The closer we get to the present, the more the list of cinematic productions offers us examples of strange families, outside the patterns of normality and common sense. It is difficult to judge how much of what the viewer sees on the screen becomes part of his or her thinking.
Cinema therapy
Although conservative voices assume that films are bad in and of themselves, reality proves that there are situations in which films can be of unexpected benefit. Cinema therapy is a form of counselling used successfully by professionals. Patients are advised to watch certain films, depending on the problems they are experiencing, followed by a discussion about the film. Therapists use films that suggest solutions or show possible negative consequences if a problem is not resolved. By following the development of a character similar to themselves on screen, patients are able to reflect on what is happening in their own lives.
John and Jan Hesley, specialists in psychotherapy through film, have said that “films are metaphors that can be utilised in therapy in a manner similar to stories, myths, jokes, fables and therapeutically constructed narratives. Films address the affective realm and add to the impact of cognitive insights. Because films galvanise feelings, they increase the probability that clients will carry out new and desired behaviours. Cognitive insights tell clients what they ought to do but affective insights give them the motivation to follow through.”[1]
The biblical story of King David, who committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers and then conspired to murder him, is illustrative. The prophet Nathan, sent by God to rebuke the king, did not rush to accuse him, but told David a story that seemed to have nothing to do with the king’s crime. After David listened to the story and gave his verdict, the prophet showed him the connection between the story and reality, and the king was persuaded to admit his guilt.
“I was able to identify with a different character and find myself able to think about choices that I can make, whereas [before seeing the movie] I had been feeling stuck”[2] writes David Roads, professor of New Testament at Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. Hesley also recalls the case of a couple struggling with intimacy. After watching the film The Bridges of Madison County, the wife admitted that she had not really forgiven her husband for an extramarital affair in their youth and had been unconsciously trying to punish his betrayal all these years by withholding intimacy. Once she identified the cause, the counsellor knew where to focus her efforts.
3, 2, 1, action!
We love stories, and Hollywood knows how to dramatise them. But let us not lose sight of the fact that Hollywood is first and foremost an industry driven by ratings and profit. Behind this industry are promotional campaigns through publications, websites, books, toys, posters and other paraphernalia that bring film characters closer to consumers.
Suzette Valle, named one of Time Warner’s “50 Best Moms in San Diego,” became famous for her blog, Mamarazzi Knows Best, where she posts stories and analyses about movies. She believes that Hollywood’s relentless efforts to invade people’s lives, to invade their privacy, should make parents more vigilant. Children need guidance and supervision because they are more vulnerable and more likely than adults to adopt identity models from the film world.
Most films deal with abnormal situations, exceptions to the rule. The audience is won by presenting atypical situations that do not reflect the lives of most of us. Beyond the witty one-liners, the great shots and the Oscar-winning performances, there is a huge mechanism that has the power to influence our thoughts and actions. Passivity in the face of the magic on the screen, and indiscriminate absorption of the messages conveyed, can lead us to ideas that do not define us, and to solutions that do not make us happier.
Film has the power of a myth, setting the stage for viewers to experiment and discover new meanings of existence, said Joseph Campbell, mythologist and author of The Power of Myth. But choosing which films to watch should be done with great caution, as many Hollywood productions promote sexual libertinism, nihilism and a pseudo-ethic that is opposed to authentic values (family and more).
In the movies, everything is scripted by others; in life beyond the screen, we write the script ourselves. 3, 2, 1, action!
