NitrateVille.com

After living a life doing what seems right at the time for over 60 years, I realized several years ago that morality and decency really produce a content life with peace of mind. Having been in the movie world for decades as either a fan, theatre owner, film festival presenter and now a home theatre operator, I only run and watch movies made before 1960 or so before their moral tone went down to its horrible state today.

That said, here are my 5 choices for movies with the best overall moral:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956)
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
BEN HUR (1959)
CASABLANCA (1942)
WIZARD OF OZ (1939)

Donald Binks wrote:I think that in the days of the silents, "Christian Values" were put across as subtlety as a sledge-hammer. It would have been assumed that the audience was mostly Christian and regular church-goers so they would applaud such stuff. I was watching one the other day and it was all laid on pretty thick. I suppose this teaches us that values change as all this sort of 'heavily laden message' would not go across with the majority of audiences nowadays.

I mentioned in another thread that I recently watched Elmer Gantry. The lady evangelist in that film achieved her dream of building a massive tabernacle, its site made even more visible by an enormous illuminated cross. And she tells Gantry that "people of all faiths" will surge towards this tabernacle to worship their gods.

I'm sitting there thinking, "Right, I can just see all the Jews and Muslims rushing towards that Christian cross and entering that Christian sanctuary to pray to their gods in complete comfort!"

Perfect illustration of your point.

Jim

Marr&Colton wrote:THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956)

Because nothing says morality like killing first-borns. Or hardening the pharaoh's heart and then punishing him for that. Hey, they were not god's chosen people, so it's OK.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy DeMille. But morality? Give me Life of Brian over that every day: Don't follow without thinking for yourself.

telical wrote:How many gangster rappers have been murdered? How many Motown singers?

Well off the top of my head, I can think of Sam Cooke and Marvin Gaye.

telical wrote:I lean more towards adult education, as that seems to be the problem: the schools often aren't reaching people in time, and there are many people attacking attacking each other as one can see on the news. It seems a lot of people haven't learned how to behave decently, and Kanye West just has too much to do in this area all by himself.

It sounds like the only solution to your problem is completely isolating oneself from the modern world. Good luck with that.

The world is a mess. The world has always been a mess.

And it's all trendy and Post-Modern to think that since that is the case, why bother? And to say that there are no generally understood standards for living in a way that makes said world any easier to cope with.

But that's not true.

From the Code of Hammurabi, through the multiple ancient variations of The Golden Rule, it basically reduces to the fact that -

""Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!”

All I did was ask for five movies.

About the idea of the old Testament being warlike, one has to look at how barbaric
the times were back then. Essentially, the idea was for capital punishment, but the
Jews are very sophisticated people, and one might look at it as more symbolic of
the type of spiritual warfare in a book like the Bhagavad Gita, which is the Bible of
the Hindus, and is all about a holy war that takes place.

A sewer isn't a sewer to a rat. You have to have some moral perspective to know
what you're up against.

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Pinocchio (1940)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Fargo (1996)
A Man for All Seasons (1966)

These movies are about significant values:

If I Had a Million
The Solid Gold Cadillac
Make Mine Mink
The Million Pound Note
Diamonds Are Forever

telical wrote:All I did was ask for five movies.

About the idea of the old Testament being warlike, one has to look at how barbaric
the times were back then. Essentially, the idea was for capital punishment, but the
Jews are very sophisticated people, and one might look at it as more symbolic of
the type of spiritual warfare in a book like the Bhagavad Gita, which is the Bible of
the Hindus, and is all about a holy war that takes place.

A sewer isn't a sewer to a rat. You have to have some moral perspective to know
what you're up against.

Uh, no.

Bob

telical wrote:All I did was ask for five movies.

About the idea of the old Testament being warlike, one has to look at how barbaric
the times were back then. Essentially, the idea was for capital punishment, but the
Jews are very sophisticated people, and one might look at it as more symbolic of
the type of spiritual warfare in a book like the Bhagavad Gita, which is the Bible of
the Hindus, and is all about a holy war that takes place.

A sewer isn't a sewer to a rat. You have to have some moral perspective to know
what you're up against.

And I stand by my one suggestion. I had thought about it before the other one came up. I had Kurosawa's Ikiru, but nothing yet for the other three. Then I saw everyone fighting here, and I wanted a piece of the action.

I'm not trying to judge the old testament by new standards, I'm just saying that I don't consider the example above suitable as a moral compass (any more than I would the Iliad, if we're talking of ancient & warlike). Historically interesting, but largely sectarian violence. No values to help you become a better person / build a better world today. (The film also struck me as rather self-congratulatory. We, the chosen people, the champions of freedom, reach the promised land (Israel/America).)

I hadn't thought of Ikiru...excellent choice. Certainly, "values" are subjective in any context. I took the post to mean "good values" according to the respondent and was genuinely interested in people's responses, as it would reveal more about themselves than any particular film. What it devolved into I found less interesting.

The Phantom Carriage (1921).
Flesh and the Devil (1926).
The Kid Brother (1927).
Pack Up Your Troubles (1932).
Wild Strawberries (1957).

It's just a forum and no one should be overly sensitive. One can't
please everyone. No matter how careful we are with words, they will
still be misread as to what our original intention is. No one wants
to really write a book or spend thirty minutes carefully wording something.

I am interested because I'm a self-taught student of film and the amount
of choices out there is overwhelming. It's been very rewarding asking
these kinds of questions here over the last four years.

I also get a slightly perverse kick if I can rile someone up, but I see where that got Richard Roberts.

telical wrote:I also get a slightly perverse kick if I can rile someone up, but I see where that got Richard Roberts.

Don't give it a thought--you're light-years away from his level of rilery.

>I also get a slightly perverse kick if I can rile someone up<

Also, there is a term for that in Interwebese - and it's not a pleasant one!

wich2 wrote:>I also get a slightly perverse kick if I can rile someone up<

Also, there is a term for that in Interwebese - and it's not a pleasant one!

That's all right -- he's not very good at it.

Bob

wich2 wrote:>I also get a slightly perverse kick if I can rile someone up<

Also, there is a term for that in Interwebese - and it's not a pleasant one!

What is it? I want to add it to my resume.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

wich2 wrote:>I also get a slightly perverse kick if I can rile someone up<

Also, there is a term for that in Interwebese - and it's not a pleasant one!

What is it? I want to add it to my resume.

"Normal."

If a poster's goal is indeed just being annoying for its own sake, the term is spelled "T-R-O-L-L."

Curiously, speaking of the lamentable crime rate in Chicago, I just wrote about a guy who's trying to teach values of a sort, in the heart of Chiraq—but not with movies.

http://fooditor.com/freshly-made-food-c ... fe-grille/" target="_blank

wich2 wrote:If a poster's goal is indeed just being annoying for its own sake, the term is spelled "T-R-O-L-L."

It's interesting to think of the origin of using "troll" to describe that kind of action. If you look at online
discourse as bridging two people together, in the story of the troll, the troll lived under the bridge. Hence,
online, trolling is like having an ogre come from under the bridge to disrupt people.

'Xactly!

Each movie has its own kind of moral universe, just as other works of fiction do. Using them as a didactic tool to teach people what their values should be is unlikely to be effective because the best works of fiction usually aren't that clear-cut. If directly instilling values is your aim, might as well go with Very Special Episodes of this or that sitcom. Movies may be powerful, but they aren't New England Primers.

Where fiction can excel in terms of moral discussions is in teaching about the moral choices that characters face. Martha Nussbaum writes about this topic (concentrating on literature more than films) and emphasises it as a way of shaping our moral imaginations -- our sense of empathy. Try reading her Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Granted, this approach presupposes that some kind of personal moral structure is already in place -- which it should be. But it can take one to another level of appreciation for the ethical dimensions that fiction has (whether a Henry James novel or a Republic Western).

-HA

sc1957 wrote:But whose values? The usual assumption would be the values of the ruling class, right? Which may or may not be useful in the long run, but at least you'll be a proper cog in the current machine.

Precisely. I must admit to finding the 'work ethic' a rather ludicrous 'virtue'. Admittedly some work is beneficial, useful, essential, unavoidable, good, etc., but not all work is - not by a long chalk. The old saw about 'hard work never killed anyone' would get a hearty chuckle from the inhabitants of many a cemetery.

Enough of that. Two off the top of my head would be YOUNG MR LINCOLN and the Tracy - Bartholomew CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS. Will rack the old grey stuff for a few more later...

In the case of Captains Courageous I had recently lost more than I could afford to a friend at cards (I think that was the incident) and was in a grouse about it. The film showed the importance of responsibility and taking the consequences of one's actions.

Harold Aherne wrote:Each movie has its own kind of moral universe, just as other works of fiction do. Using them as a didactic tool to teach people what their values should be is unlikely to be effective because the best works of fiction usually aren't that clear-cut. If directly instilling values is your aim, might as well go with Very Special Episodes of this or that sitcom. Movies may be powerful, but they aren't New England Primers.

Where fiction can excel in terms of moral discussions is in teaching about the moral choices that characters face. Martha Nussbaum writes about this topic (concentrating on literature more than films) and emphasises it as a way of shaping our moral imaginations -- our sense of empathy. Try reading her Love's Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Granted, this approach presupposes that some kind of personal moral structure is already in place -- which it should be. But it can take one to another level of appreciation for the ethical dimensions that fiction has (whether a Henry James novel or a Republic Western).

-HA

Maybe I need more coffee; but I don't understand this response, especially in light of telical's original question ("It got me to think of an imaginary course where studies would use old movies to teach about good character and having strong work ethic, etc."). Even with each movie having "its own kind of moral universe," such movies still teach "about the moral choices that characters face." Could you clarify the distinction you're making? Thanks.

And, though I've already used up my allotment of five, surely Destry Rides Again deserves mention. And what about Laughter (1930)? And Only Yesterday (1933)? Madam Satan (1930)? All of these are very consciously concerned with teaching values. Could a person walk out of the theater and not have gained some insights in the matter of values from these shows?

odinthor wrote: And, though I've already used up my allotment of five, surely Destry Rides Again deserves mention. And what about Laughter (1930)? And Only Yesterday (1933)? Madam Satan (1930)? All of these are very consciously concerned with teaching values. Could a person walk out of the theater and not have gained some insights in the matter of values from these shows?

Madam Satan? I saw it at the theater recently and I indeed walked out without any insights into values at all. Were there values there? Other than learning about the proper ensembles to wear on a dirigible, that is.

And you think that isn't an important value?

Bob

odinthor wrote:...Madam Satan (1930)? All of these are very consciously concerned with teaching values. Could a person walk out of the theater and not have gained some insights in the matter of values from these shows?

Always had a feeling that watching Madam Satan again & again was good for me!

Contrary to their reputation for flaunting conventional morality with impunity, the great majority of pre-Codes end with any wayward characters in the tale having learned, or been shown, often to much sorrow, the errors of their sinful or profligate ways. Red-Headed Woman is a rare exception, Baby Face typical of the norm.

Frederica wrote:Madam Satan? I saw it at the theater recently and I indeed walked out without any insights into values at all. Were there values there?...

Certainly--don't leave the address of your mistress anywhere your snoopy wife can find it.