Great comparison with pre-Code and post-Code movies, and agreed.
Thank you!
However, presumably it helped that the general cultural climate in the 1970s encouraged said nuance, and that of course most of the film makers were of that generation, with protests etc. a very recent memory lingering into the present.
I was thinking first of Oliver Stone's Platoon (1986) and Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987). Kubrick was working from a novel by Vietnam veteran Gustav Hasford; Stone was a decorated veteran himself. I agree that Vietnam stayed speakable through the '80's and even into the '90's. The musical Miss Saigon, for all its faults, does not heroize American involvement in Vietnam; it opened in the West End in 1989 and transferred to Broadway in 1991.
On the other end of the scale, of course, we have things like the first film version of The Quiet American (1958), which I link every time I want to talk about the damage of which Code-era Hollywood was capable, not just to source material but to the American capacity for self-awareness.
. . . I just remembered that the second film version of The Quiet American, the one that is actually faithful to the book and which I have been meaning to rewatch since I wrote that review, was held up in release for a year because of 9/11. It was considered unpatriotic. That's what we've been talking about in action, that's the scrubbing of the memory of Vietnam. God forbid we prosecute a new war with any consciousness of how the last major one (skip the Gulf War) went down. Now I will have to rewatch it. It's my smoking gun. I wonder how many other projects during that period just died.
Presumably the difference is that Carter didn't blame outside forces and/or his political opponents?
Yes, I think so. Carter didn't provide scapegoats. I don't know if you read David Schraub—have you seen his latest, "Racism Is a Productive Ideology"?
"Racism is a productive ideology.
"It builds things. It makes things happen. It motivates voters, it lubricates alliances, it stirs up passions. There are times where one can't do certain things one would very much like to do unless one is willing to harness a bit of racism.
"That's why standing up to racism requires real moral fiber. Not just because racism is 'wrong'. But because standing up to racism, in practice, means not availing yourself of certain opportunities and benefits that one greatly desires and which are in your grasp if only you agree to play with some racism.
"It's no great thing to oppose racism when it's hurting you. It's not even that difficult to oppose it when it's only hurting others. But it takes real strength to know for a fact that opposing racism will cost you – will mean losing elections you might otherwise win, will mean that the other party might get a Supreme Court seat that you'd otherwise appoint, will mean that your cherished tax policy won't see the light of day in Congress – and nonetheless say 'no.' It's so easy to console yourself with the fact that you 'don't like it', that politics 'is about making compromises', and that the ends justify the means. Racism flourishes in America because of what it can produce. For it to be rooted out, politicians and leaders must be willing to draw a line and decline its bounty."
I don't know if it cost Carter votes that he drew the line and declined. I would like to think not, at least not in isolation. But Reagan did not just tell America about its greatness; Reagan dogwhistled its greatness to white America. Reagan spoke of states' rights. "Welfare queen" was a recurring note in his campaign speeches. He invoked the restoration of America, the recapturing of its destiny, implicitly led astray by . . . well. You know. Those people. And he won in a landslide. He made racism produce for him.
no subject
Thank you!
However, presumably it helped that the general cultural climate in the 1970s encouraged said nuance, and that of course most of the film makers were of that generation, with protests etc. a very recent memory lingering into the present.
I was thinking first of Oliver Stone's Platoon (1986) and Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987). Kubrick was working from a novel by Vietnam veteran Gustav Hasford; Stone was a decorated veteran himself. I agree that Vietnam stayed speakable through the '80's and even into the '90's. The musical Miss Saigon, for all its faults, does not heroize American involvement in Vietnam; it opened in the West End in 1989 and transferred to Broadway in 1991.
On the other end of the scale, of course, we have things like the first film version of The Quiet American (1958), which I link every time I want to talk about the damage of which Code-era Hollywood was capable, not just to source material but to the American capacity for self-awareness.
. . . I just remembered that the second film version of The Quiet American, the one that is actually faithful to the book and which I have been meaning to rewatch since I wrote that review, was held up in release for a year because of 9/11. It was considered unpatriotic. That's what we've been talking about in action, that's the scrubbing of the memory of Vietnam. God forbid we prosecute a new war with any consciousness of how the last major one (skip the Gulf War) went down. Now I will have to rewatch it. It's my smoking gun. I wonder how many other projects during that period just died.
Presumably the difference is that Carter didn't blame outside forces and/or his political opponents?
Yes, I think so. Carter didn't provide scapegoats. I don't know if you read David Schraub—have you seen his latest, "Racism Is a Productive Ideology"?
"Racism is a productive ideology.
"It builds things. It makes things happen. It motivates voters, it lubricates alliances, it stirs up passions. There are times where one can't do certain things one would very much like to do unless one is willing to harness a bit of racism.
"That's why standing up to racism requires real moral fiber. Not just because racism is 'wrong'. But because standing up to racism, in practice, means not availing yourself of certain opportunities and benefits that one greatly desires and which are in your grasp if only you agree to play with some racism.
"It's no great thing to oppose racism when it's hurting you. It's not even that difficult to oppose it when it's only hurting others. But it takes real strength to know for a fact that opposing racism will cost you – will mean losing elections you might otherwise win, will mean that the other party might get a Supreme Court seat that you'd otherwise appoint, will mean that your cherished tax policy won't see the light of day in Congress – and nonetheless say 'no.' It's so easy to console yourself with the fact that you 'don't like it', that politics 'is about making compromises', and that the ends justify the means. Racism flourishes in America because of what it can produce. For it to be rooted out, politicians and leaders must be willing to draw a line and decline its bounty."
I don't know if it cost Carter votes that he drew the line and declined. I would like to think not, at least not in isolation. But Reagan did not just tell America about its greatness; Reagan dogwhistled its greatness to white America. Reagan spoke of states' rights. "Welfare queen" was a recurring note in his campaign speeches. He invoked the restoration of America, the recapturing of its destiny, implicitly led astray by . . . well. You know. Those people. And he won in a landslide. He made racism produce for him.