The best documentaries are unintentional. By this, I mean that no matter what the subject matter of the movie, or period it is set in, there are assumptions made by the film makers about “the way things are” that will date the movie and tell you more about the moviemakers and their culture than they originally intended. These are things that only occasionally find their way into contemporaneous documentaries.
For instance, note the portrayal of blacks (when they are present at all), in any movie made during the '30s and '40s. Also note the distinct disco influence in a few movies made during the late '70s and early '80s, even in movies that were not about disco.
A few movies I recommend for granting an unintentional look into their time period:
The Andrew Hardy series: In one of them, I recall how the daughter, while seeking a job, is reminded by her father to be careful not to take a job that might be needed by some man to support his family.
Men of Boy’s Town: In one part of the movie, Whitey (yep, that’s his name) calls in Father Flannigan to help reform a “reform school” using what I think of as the “internet of its day”, a shortwave radio set. (A shortwave radio also featured in Love Finds Andy Hardy, if I’m not mistaken.)
Some of the “Frankie & Annette” movies: Featured black performers (Little Richard, Little Stevie Wonder) who are included to show how hip the whitebread surfers are. “See? We listen to music performed by negroes, aren’t we cool? (Notice how we say ‘negroes’ instead of ‘colored people’?)”
Forbidden Planet: When Dr. Morpheous (sp?) demonstrates Robbie the Robot’s utility, Leslie Nielson (with dark hair!) comments “Why, he’s every housewife’s dream!”
What other movies can you think of that blatantly display things about the movie makers and their basic assumptions that they weren’t even conscious of?
<< For instance, note the portrayal of blacks (when they are present at all), in any movie made during the '30s and '40s.>>
just a little nit: be careful not to stereotype movies. While it’s true that many old movies portray black characters in stereotypes that are embarrassing today, I wouldn’t say it was true of “any” movie. We just watched DESTRY RIDES AGAIN (1939), and the black character is definitely not a stereotype, but an interesting character on her own. I grant you, she’s Marlene Dietrich’s maid, but that’s not “stereotyping” per se, that was a job commonly filled by blacks.
Also, please note, there were a fair number of films with all black casts, made for black audiences, that certainly didn’t cater to stereotyping.
On a broader scale, I find hair styles to be interesting. In most Westerns, until perhaps the last couple of decades, hair styles reflect those of the time period when the movie was made, not those of the Old West.
I suppose I should’ve qualified that statement. Some of the best movies of that era were made with all-black casts for black movie-goers (primarily in the South). These movies were, however, not widely seen by other than their target audience. I challenge you to find any of them at a Hastings or other commercial outlet. I know I’ve tried (no luck thus far :p)*.
Destry Rides Again is an anomaly with regard to the portrayal of blacks in cinema (in that era), and probably not the only one. It’s also an atypical western (one of the Greats, really, and without regard to genre). After all, the hero refuses to use a gun. OTOH, I believe the sympathetic portrayal of the maid charachter says more about the makers of that movie than it does society at large (or perhaps it does – not everybody thought that blacks were somehow less-human than whites: “smarter than a dog, not as smart as you or me”**). Even today, horror movies seem to assume that evil thingies like to eat/destroy/kill black folks in favor of others, since they (to my knowledge) rarely seem to get out alive. Of course, they (evil thingies) seem to have a taste for scantily-clad young ladies who flaunt convention, as well.
Getting back to the OP, however, I believe that the past is a different culture, sometimes in unpleasant ways. It is filled with people who, though they are often trying to be decent human beings, cultivate virtues we do not value ourselves (or at least value very little), while also discounting virtues we do cultivate. They weren’t necessarily evil, but they certainly were different in a lot of ways.
That’s one of the things I was thinking of when I started this post, though I note that I did not specifically call attention to it. Also note that “saloon gals” seem to be wearing an interpretation of the styles of the period, modified to appeal to the tastes of the viewing audience (something that I guess would fall under “poetic licence”).
–SSgtBaloo
If you know where I can find any of these – I kind of like the movies of the late 30s through the early 40s. Let me know, huh?
**I never actually heard that phrase used, but even some people who were against unequal treatment often proceeded from the perspective that it’s wrong to exploit inferior people. My parents were raised in Arkansas during the 20s and 30s. It took them a little while to shuck their attitudes towards blacks. Dad’s epiphany came when he worked for the “welfare department” in California (now it’s the Department of Human Services). He saw a lot more black people in person, and got to know them. I believe he became a much more decent human being as a result.
I’ve mentioned before the part in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town when Gary Cooper is told he can’t meet people “dressed like that.” He is wearing slacks and a white shirt, but no tie. So they have in put on a dressing gown and ascot, which to modern eyes makes it look like he’s in his bathrobe.
Not a movie, but in Ellery Queen’s The Chinese Orange Mystery the entire entire plot revolves upon the body being found with all its clothes on backwards. (That’s given in the book blurb, BTW, so not a spoiler). This is:
The murderer did it to keep people from realizing the victim was a priest with a backwards collar (which implies a snap-on collar to begin with). When asked why the murderer didn’t just turn the collar around instead of all the clothes, Queen points out that everyone would notice there was no tie and suspect what had happened.
It’s interesting to watch the evolution of attitudes towards authority. In most older movies the hero is championing the laws and customs of society. Then in the 50s you see the “Lone hero following his conscience against opposition” (Twelve Angry Men, High Noon) and by the 60s you have the Anti-Hero rebelling against the corrupt unjust system.
In Them! (the giant ant movie), Fess Parker plays a pilot who spotted the giant ant queen on her mating flight. The military’s response is to hold him incommunicado in a psychiatric hospital to maintain security. And apparently that isn’t meant to be in any way outrageous.
In the original, 1960 version of Village of the Damned, what I find remarkable, and what really dates the film, is that these Brits in the small town of Midwich are such automatons! They display what psychiatrists nowadays call “flattened affect” (and usually mark down as a symptom of some pathology). They’re so stiff that the blonde alien children seem human by comparison! More recent British films are nothing like that. I find myself wondering, did they just cast a bunch of really, really wooden actors for the sake of creating a low-key, creeped-out atmosphere? Or was there a time, not so long ago, when typical countryside Brits were actually like that?
