Does watching old film debunk revisionist thinking?

[telical]

I think watching old film helps debunk a lot of revisionist thinking. I think
one area is in the realm of the power women have had over time. Of course,
today women have more power than in the past, but I'm not sure it's always
functional, sometimes it's as dysfunctional as male power. By watching old
film, we get to see woman's roles as they really were in the past, not totally
crippled and beaten down all the time by their male oppressors.

What are some areas that watching old film helps us see the past clearer
than some do today?

[boblipton]

Since most of the films we watch are either fiction or, if documentaries, done from a perspective, looking at a film shows us not the reality of a moment, but a film maker's perception of that reality. Add in the provision that the film maker is usually trying to make a commercially viable (i.e. popular) film, and you may have a film maker making a film that reflects not reality, not his perceptions of that reality, but his perceptions of the popular attitude towards reality. The classic examples are of looking at people's hair in costume dramas or the fact that in American films, the masses have American accents while the aristocrats have British accents. In any case, the distance between what's on the screen and what's on the street is usually as vast as it is today.

Looking at old films often serves to debunk modern ideas about old films and so serves revisionism. I have been doing IMDB reviews of old Terrytoons that have been posted on Youtube (1930-1937; if you're interested, check out the poster "Terry Toons"). I just wrote a review of the 1934 Busted Blossoms, set in the Imperial Palace in Peking. I note that the modern viewer may take away a surety that with the pigtails and kimonos and opium pipes, this may be viewed as an exercise in racism, while concentrating on the story, one may conclude that no matter the exotic locales, young love is the same everywhere. My thought is that what you take away is all too often exactly what you brought.

[telical]

My thought is that what you take away is all too often exactly what you brought.

Funny, my thought is that what you take away is all too often exactly what you brought.

Joking aside, it's obvious that there was more overt racism, sexism, and tolerance of abuse
by those who are powerful. Being a political moderate, I don't feel my position is that well represented
today in the media or in many films, because it's more subtle. I can see a lot of my values strongly
represented in older films, more so than in much of what I see today, but then again I think about 50% of
popular films made these days are somewhat redeemable in what they are trying to teach -- by example,
indirectly, and so on. One example is how Christians are portrayed in modern films, or just in modern
discourse by the left, even the moderate left. The modern way of thinking is indirectly revising the role of much
of the clergy, by portraying them as always corrupt, inept, and so on. While older films may have had
some laughs at clergy, that was going on for hundreds of years, and critique against the corrupt among
them as well, even in Medieval times.

[entredeuxguerres]

...While older films may have hadsome laughs at clergy, that was going on for hundreds of years, and critique against the corrupt among them as well, even in Medieval times.

Well, of course...as Luther was doing when he nailed his time-bomb to the cathedral door.

[entredeuxguerres]

By watching old film, we get to see woman's roles as they really were in the past, not totally
crippled and beaten down all the time by their male oppressors...

True sometimes, but sometimes, unfortunately, there are pictures that might have been commissioned by NOW to vilify men. One of them is Week-End Marriage (1932), a frightful depiction of the sorrow & regret that befalls Loretta Young & Aline MacMahon when, against the wishes of their husbands, they defy the convention of staying home & applying themselves to a breeding program.

[entredeuxguerres]

...The classic example is...the fact that in American films, the masses have American accents while the aristocrats have British accents....

Very often true, except that before the late '40s & '50s, when casting directors began waking up the fact that accents meant something, accents within even the same family were very commonly jumbled, such as a British actor being cast as the father, but with a son or daughter speaking pure Yankee, & no attempt made to explain away the incongruity.

American accents can be at least quasi-aristocratic, as we hear from the beautiful lips of Elsie Ferguson, Ruth Chatterton, many others; I love it, & "Kansas City British" isn't fair, as there was a long-lost time when that speech really was the dialect of the cultured Eastern elite.

[odinthor]

It's hard to address the question per se, as in the tennis match of revisionism it's not always easy to tell which side the ball is on at the moment. But watching old film puts us in touch with the attitudes and perceptions of those of another era, and gives us an idea of what the filmmakers thought possible (or impossible). This may be quite a discovery for some who, intoxicated with the supposed merits of modernity, imagine the past to be much more limited and limiting than it actually was.

[Spiny Norman]

I think watching old film helps debunk a lot of revisionist thinking. I think
one area is in the realm of the power women have had over time. Of course,
today women have more power than in the past, but I'm not sure it's always
functional, sometimes it's as dysfunctional as male power. By watching old
film, we get to see woman's roles as they really were in the past, not totally
crippled and beaten down all the time by their male oppressors.

What are some areas that watching old film helps us see the past clearer
than some do today?

What exactly is revisionist thinking in this case?

I'm skeptical for 2 reasons: 1. films will not depict everyday life but will offer some escape and 2. they'll use tropes, an obvious example being "damsel in distress" but there are more than we are aware of.

Not saying it's impossible, but it would really depend on the film.

[Rollo Treadway]

I think watching old film helps debunk a lot of revisionist thinking. I think
one area is in the realm of the power women have had over time. Of course,
today women have more power than in the past, but I'm not sure it's always
functional, sometimes it's as dysfunctional as male power. By watching old
film, we get to see woman's roles as they really were in the past, not totally
crippled and beaten down all the time by their male oppressors.

What are some areas that watching old film helps us see the past clearer
than some do today?

⬇ (IRONY) ⬇
All my life I'd been misled by revisionist thinking regarding the Soviet Union. Then I watched an old film, Warner Brothers' Mission to Moscow (1943), which helped to debunk a lot of that thinking. By watching that film, I got to see life for the average Soviet worker as it really was in the past, happy and fulfilling, not totally crippled and beaten down all the time by their totalitarian oppressors.

[Harold Aherne]

Watching older films in order to learn about the past is a sword that cuts both ways. When we see the sleek décor and elegant lifestyles depicted in The Affairs of Anatol and Enchantment (to name two examples from 1921), we get a sense of what's possible. That's often very different from what people assume was the maximum level of good living back then. But OTOH, part of the reason people have the perceptions they do is because their ancestors generally didn't live like Wallace Reid or Marion Davies. Even comfortable, middle-class families were more likely to have homes that resembled Mary Pickford's in My Best Girl: clean, pleasant, well-lived-in, no pretensions. Apartment dwellers or those who lived in rural areas would have even smaller quarters and/or not as many amenities.

It's also worth remembering that regional differences in things like wealth, accents, and even how many households had electricity or radios were more pronounced back then. I can't find it online right now, but I remember seeing a map that graphed radio ownership in 1930 by state. (The 1930 census asked each household whether it had a radio.) The New England, Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes states had quite a large degree of radio ownership, but the rate was lower in most of the South.

If I had to pinpoint one of the biggest differences between the US then and now (civil rights and other social attitudes aside), I'd remark on how much economic and political power has shifted to what are now called the "Sunbelt" states. Texas and California were populous in 1930 and remain so today, of course. In 1930 the top four states in terms of population were New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio. Florida was at #31, Arizona was at #43 and Nevada was last at #48. In 2010, while the aforementioned top states in 1930 remained in the top 10, Florida was now at #4, Arizona at #16 and Nevada at #35. California and Texas now occupied the #1 and #2 positions.

From reading other boards (including ones not exclusively devoted to entertainment), there tends to be a lack of general knowledge about older movies, music, etc. from prior to 1955 or so. For a large group of people, the "50s" are the jumping off point that represents everything "old" to them (sometimes extended to the early 60s), and they don't pursue much knowledge from earlier eras. Elvis and the Beatles are still widely known today; knowing about Jo Stafford or Perry Como represents a bit more of a sub-specialty; and Annette Hanshaw or Gene Austin are esoteric. Disney's animated features and a certain number of live-action features are perennials (GWTW, Oz, etc.), but people are less informed about the more obscure titles, even if they're readily available for purchase.

None of this is meant to be a negative judgment; not everyone has to have W. C. Fields' filmography committed to memory. It's just a few observations on why "revisionist" thinking tends to exist in the first place. In the US, the 40s and 50s were heavily "democratized" decades; thanks to the G.I. Bill and economic changes, many people had access to college education and a large number of consumer goods for the first time, even though such things had long been available to wealthier demographics. That, along with the huge birth rate of the time, may have contributed to a generational shift that caused the finer details of past eras to be mixed together and diluted.

-HA

[entredeuxguerres]

⬇ (IRONY) ⬇
All my life I'd been misled by revisionist thinking regarding the Soviet Union. Then I watched an old film, Warner Brothers' Mission to Moscow (1943), which helped to debunk a lot of that thinking. By watching that film, I got to see life for the average Soviet worker as it really was in the past, happy and fulfilling, not totally crippled and beaten down all the time by their totalitarian oppressors.

What irony? We, the undersigned, don't know what you mean:

Jean Paul Sartre
Rockwell Kent
Theodore Dreiser
Pablo Casals
Doris Lessing
...and many thousands more of the intellectual & cultural elite.

[drednm]

When I was teaching literature and saw the rolling eyes at the mention of Hawthorne or Dante or Wharton, etc. I would emphasize that the reason we still read "classics" is that although the times and manners might be different, the basic human psychology remains the same. So that in understanding and even enjoying an old work, one key is to find the humanity in the characters. What makes them tick? Yes the language may be different and society might expect different things, but the basic psychology is the same.

Same for films. Watch the film (read the book) with the awareness that it's a product of its time. Everything you see and hear might be different from your world, the people are, at core, the same.

Literature & films (all art?) are wonderful windows into past worlds. It's an amazing adventure to see how much we changed and how much we are the same.

[entredeuxguerres]

Watching older films in order to learn about the past is a sword that cuts both ways. When we see the sleek décor and elegant lifestyles depicted in The Affairs of Anatol and Enchantment (to name two examples from 1921), we get a sense of what's possible. That's often very different from what people assume was the maximum level of good living back then. But OTOH, part of the reason people have the perceptions they do is because their ancestors generally didn't live like Wallace Reid or Marion Davies. Even comfortable, middle-class families were more likely to have homes that resembled Mary Pickford's in My Best Girl: clean, pleasant, well-lived-in, no pretensions.-HA

But without such a mother, let's hope! Big-city living conditions for the hoi-polloi, as depicted in countless pictures--take for ex. Lonesome or Sunnyside Up--seem pretty grim to anyone brought up with running hot & cold water & the other "expected" amenities, but I'd guess that making do with a washbowl & pitcher of cold water, maybe even a chamber pot, wasn't then regarded as so intolerable a hardship as most would consider it today.

Years ago, I roomed (briefly!) with friends in London who lived in a big apartment building having one or two bathrooms to the floor. I was stunned that such living conditions, in a First World country, had persisted into the latter part of the 20th C., but they accepted it without obvious resentment.

[Frederica]

(snip)
None of this is meant to be a negative judgment; not everyone has to have W. C. Fields' filmography committed to memory. It's just a few observations on why "revisionist" thinking tends to exist in the first place. In the US, the 40s and 50s were heavily "democratized" decades; thanks to the G.I. Bill and economic changes, many people had access to college education and a large number of consumer goods for the first time, even though such things had long been available to wealthier demographics. That, along with the huge birth rate of the time, may have contributed to a generational shift that caused the finer details of past eras to be mixed together and diluted.

-HA

American films, too, were censored to present and support a specific and very limited world view, especially after the code was enforced. You'd need a little "revisionism" if you planned on applying what you see in a movie to real life.

BTW...as a history major, I have no problem with "revisionism." It's a standard part of the process and it produces some of the best work in the field.

[antoniod]

I don't know about revisionism, but as a 14 year old film buff I'd get impatient with peers' mixed up take on the past-I saw a kid doing the Charleston to "Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy", for instance. But I was reminded of Mick LaSalle's theory in "Complicated Women" that the Production Code actively discouraged the portrayal of Women with careers. Wait. In Pre-Code films Women were very often shown giving up their careers at the end, then one had the spate of career Woman films in the very late 30s-early 40s. Katherine Hepburn in particular always seemed to still have her job at the end. I really thought that LaSalle was a bit mixed up.

[Donald Binks]

To me as an outsider looking in, American pictures always tended towards showing the glamourous even if such was unattainable by the vast majority in that country. If I harken back to the '60's; here in Oz, there were two daily soaps on the television that followed on from each other. The first was "Peyton Place" where everyone was fabulously wealthy and had everything that opens and shuts, whereas "Coronation Street" that followed showed a warts and all depiction of ordinary life, full of privations, in a North of England town.

If one wanted to see life as it was in all it's depressing but natural glory - one tended to look towards English pictures or those from the continent. Even in Oz we tended to make films that more accurately depicted everyday life - even if such fare could border on the rustic or the stereotypical Aussie.

Having myself been brought up in the days when things were changing rapidly - why electricity was everywhere just about by the end of the 1950's - and I can remember visiting relatives in the country before that happened, whose lighting consisted of hurricane and banquet lamps; the lavatory (dunny) was a separate building down the end of the back garden and the water came fed by gravity pressure from a rainwater tank. I could therefore quite easily equate with what was going on in pictures of the 1920's and '30's. Also we didn't have TV in Oz until 1956 so listening in to the wireless was the evening's entertainment. We also had a wind-up gramophone which we used to take in the car to go mushrooming of a weekend - placing it on the running board. (What?) So there is even more in these old pictures that I knew of and understood.

When TV finally started up, we were saturated with old pictures on the new medium and I then grew up with all the old stars - not knowing in my youth of course that many had kicked the bucket long ago - I felt they were contemporary.

Today of course my son lives completely in the world of today, not knowing or caring much for what went on prior to his date of birth. He looks at old pictures with me on a rare whim and finds a lot of it all bewildering and why did people put up with a life like that? He doesn't know of any of the stars I talk about, nor the music of another era - most of the people I knew are dead and he doesn't like pictures that are not in colour. He therefore would be much the same as a lot of people who make pictures these days set in olden times and who miss subtle little things that eagle eyes like mine will spot instantly due to familiarity. Of course this has also been true of previous generations of film-makers where modern fashions seem to permeate through into ages preceding them. Artistic licence has always prevailed.

So to answer the question after a long-winded chat, I would have to say that revisionist thinking is not always debunked - it all depends upon the material you are watching.

[entredeuxguerres]

...In Pre-Code films Women were very often shown giving up their careers at the end...

Ann Carver's Profession & The Cocktail Hour, both '33, are two of the most extreme cases.

Katherine Hepburn in particular always seemed to still have her job at the end. I really thought that LaSalle was a bit mixed up.

Another (more agreeable) example is Kay Francis; she commonly played various professionals, MDs at least twice.

[coolcatdaddy]

Movies don't necessarily reflect the reality of their times as much as they mirror the fears, hopes and aspirations of the people who watched them and made them popular and the particular points of view and life experiences of the people who made them.

Saying that you can get to some kind of "reality" about the experience of women during the Great Depression by watching Barbara Stanwyck in "Night Nurse" or "Baby Face", mixing it up with low-lifes, is a little like saying you could get the "reality" of the experience of a gay man with AIDS in the 90s by watching "Philadelphia" with a slightly pale and thin Tom Hanks playing a lawyer getting fired from his cushy job at a law firm because of sexuality and disease.

Studio films can hint at reality, but, if they showed what was "real", they wouldn't be entertaining and audiences would stay away in droves.