One of the reasons why I enjoyed reading “View From The Right”  was Lawrence Auster’s thoughtful discussions of motion pictures – specifically, what is right about classic motion pictures and what is wrong with modern motion pictures. On this theme, I offer the following thoughts:

Can any of your readers imagine today’s American motion picture industry saying: “We have the responsibility to see that what appears in our pictures is decent and moral – fit for the families of all the world. Decent entertainment continues to be the best entertainment.”

Of course the major studios are not going to say that. How could they, in light of the indescribable evil, ugliness, and depravity they choose to glorify in their motion pictures?

But they did say it in 1954:  Eight motion picture studios pledged their continued support that year of the Motion Picture Production Code, which was not a form of “censorship” (as Modernists would have us believe) but a voluntary system of self-regulation.  [ “Industry Heads Throw Weight Behind Code,” Motion Picture Herald, Feb. 20, 1954, pp. 12-13 ]

Voluntary adherence to that Code was one reason why so many movies from the 1930s-1950s are as good as they are.  They reflect an understanding of decency, balance, form, proportion, perspective, and restraint.

It has often been said that “they don’t make them like they used to.”  Of course they don’t. They can’t “make them like they used to” because they lack the imagination, the discipline, the desire and the capacity for self-restraint; because they are not grown-up; because they are drunk on adolescent-wittedness, toys, technology, and sensation.

Modern libraries that make themselves as hip and cool as can be do not make it easier to appreciate good books.  They make it easier to promote junk.

Just so, regarding movies: Advanced motion picture technology does not make it easier to produce decent entertainment. It makes it easier to produce junk.

I lived through the tail end of that era in which decency in motion pictures was accompanied by decency throughout much of American culture. It was a culture in which depravities like abortion-on-demand, rap “music,” “same-sex marriage,” mass murder in schools, and “gender surgery” not only did not exist but were unimaginable. I can remember sitting in stately movie theaters as late as 1965 and being surrounded by movie-goers who were well-dressed and on their best behavior before, during, and after the presentation.

Watch Random Harvest from 1942 or The Miracle of The Bells from 1948. You will see a world that disciplined white men and women created but that no longer exists. British culture is depicted in Random Harvest, but it was made in Hollywood and reflects the same high moral, and esthetic standards that are seen in The Miracle of The Bells, which depicts an American culture long since abandoned.

In such motion pictures, you will see no adolescent-witted people, feminoids, or boy-men.  You will see no women in pants. You will see no one in blue jeans, T-shirts, and baseball caps.  You will see grown-ups acting and speaking as grown men and women ought to act and speak – and once did, in life as well as in motion pictures. They do not crash automobiles, blow up buildings, launch revolutions, or perpetrate mass murder. Instead, they talk. But they do not talk the way cool people talk. Their speech is disciplined and measured. They do not stoop to profanity or the kind of smarmy, smart-aleck wisecracking without which Modernists would cease to exist. They speak beautifully and effectively, in complete sentences, with precision and restraint. There are segments of extended dialogue.

In classic motion pictures, the camera lingers. It does not move about suddenly or erratically, as it does in modern motion pictures. It is the actors who move, not the camera. The camera is not a character in the story and is never permitted to deflect attention from that story. The story is about ideas and values, not sensations.  Those who made movies in Hollywood’s Golden Age understood such things. Those who make them today have never learned them and do not want to learn them, because they involve restraint, which Modernists hate more than anything else in life.

You will see outstanding performances by Greer Garson and Ronald Colman in Random Harvest,”and by Fred MacMurray and Frank Sinatra in The Miracle of The Bells.

In each case, all those things were woven together masterfully into a two-hour presentation. Audiences were entertained, yes, but they were also uplifted.

“….Those who were tired went away refreshed.  And those who were sick went away feeling better.  And those who were sad went away feeling very happy.”  These words were spoken by actor Danny Thomas in an episode of his television series Make Room For Daddy”in April 1956.  He was speaking of audiences who came to see shows on the stage of the Palace Theater in New York.  But his words apply equally well to many classic motion pictures, which left audiences feeling  uplifted, rewarded, reassured that decency, virtue, and beauty are possible in a world of limitless evil and ugliness. That is how they felt in the 1930s after seeing the films of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, in the 1940s after seeing the B-Westerns of Hoppy, Roy, and Gene, and in later years after seeing films like I’ll See You in My Dreams (1951) and The Music Man (1962). All are examples of the decent entertainment that Hollywood once took pride in producing.

Greer Garson did not admire what motion pictures had become by the 1970s. “The screen’s main function, I believe, is to give the world beauty and romance…..to send us out of the theater with a lift of the heart,” she said in 1976.  By “is,” she meant “ought to be,” and she was right.  She achieved that worthy goal in her motion pictures.  Modernists have inverted that:  They drag their audience into the gutter and celebrate being there. And more often than not, their audience responds by saying “Thank you and please give us more.”

Consider the moral and cultural distance between an accomplished actress like Greer Garson and the profane, sensation-drenched, adolescent-witted pablum that fills movie theaters today.  No one can force Americans to accept such drivel in the name of entertainment.  But they do by the millions. Imagine what Sam Goldwyn or Louie B. Mayer – or Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin – would say about that.  Many motion pictures from the 1930s-‘40s stand as an achievement of moral giants compared with the vile junk that Americans agree to accept today. Consider the contrast between now and then:

Modern motion pictures are characterized by technical gimmicks, “special effects,” profanity, dialogue that is loud, fast, crude, and trendy, adolescent-witted humor, in-your-face ugliness and gore, rapidly-changing scenes, undisciplined use of the camera, and explicit contempt for traditional moral judgments.  Such things are designed to appeal to earth-bound, of-the-moment whim-worshippers. Such motion pictures are aimed at the eye and the ear, not at the mind – which is to say: Not at people who are grown-up but at those who remain adolescents. They are spectacles of noise, commotion, and sensation.

By contrast, classic motion pictures, like Random Harvest and The Miracle of The Bells, are characterized by measured pacing, scenes of extended dialogue, highly-polished acting and craftsmanship, sensibilities befitting grown men and women, the principle of “esthetic distance” (or “classical restraint,” as Spencer Warren has described it), the fade to black (giving the viewer time to absorb and reflect), restrained use of the camera (whereby the viewer remains unconscious of it), and adherence to an iron moral code that makes decent entertainment possible.

Such things were designed to appeal to people with a capacity for reflective thought. Such motion pictures were aimed partly at the eye and the ear but also at the mind.

It is a hallmark of modern, cool Americans to express laughter, disdain, or incomprehension at the kind of moral and esthetic values depicted in motion pictures like Random Harvest and The Miracle of The Bells. That, they tell us, is a measure of how much “better-informed” they are, how superior they are, how much more “advanced” they are over those primitive moral and esthetic standards.  I suggest it is a measure of how degenerate and dull-witted they are.  Their incapacity to understand and appreciate those standards is near perfect, one consequence among many of growing up in a culture that is technologically advanced but morally bankrupt.   The moral framework in classic motion pictures is as alien to such people as Edmund Burke’s admonition about moral chains upon the appetites.

I was young and ignorant when I first saw Random Harvest by chance on late-night local television in or about 1968.  But something about it impressed me most favorably.  When I watched it again, decades later, my original impression was confirmed many times over.  Watch it and you will see an example of motion picture production at its finest.  Listen to the respect for words – which means: respect for thought – reflected in the dialogue. And listen for the recurring musical motif associated with the key in Ronald Colman’s pocket that opens the door to a house whose location he does not know until the closing scene.

“Have never lived through such a wonderful picture” one movie patron wrote on a comment card after seeing Random Harvest in its preview presentation in 1942. Of all her films, Greer Garson said Random Harvest was her favorite. It is easy to understand why: It radiates decency, restraint, and excellence in all departments. Such motion pictures are alien to modern audiences because modern audiences know nothing of such virtues.

—- Comments —–

Christina writes:

During my daily check to your fabulous website today, I came across this post about classic films.  I myself can’t say that I’ve ever seen many classic films, though I did enjoy watching classic television shows when I was a kid.  Shows like Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show, etc.

With that in mind, I have to say that, when I contrast those shows, with their current counterparts, shows like Raising Hope, Modern Family, etc. then it’s clear that the modern shows just don’t add up.  The dialogue is often just laughably horrible; the ridiculous situations the characters find themselves in are too bizarre to ever really happen in one’s normal life, and the men…well, they’re all portrayed as hopeless buffoons.

With that being said, and keeping in mind that the vast majority of junk being touted as “entertainment” today looks like something one of my old friends from high school could have written in detention one afternoon, I must make one notable exception, and that is The Lord of The Rings film trilogy.  Now I know some people may point to the large amounts of violence, the CGI, and probably the bits of the story director Peter Jackson left out, but I have to say, as far as decency in a modern production, this is about as decent I know.  The women are all ladies, and behave as such.  Even Eowyn, the fighter, still does as she is told, only going to battle when she is needed, to defeat that which living men cannot.  The men are portrayed as noble, wise, and strong.  The story is nearly overflowing with lessons about duty, honour, sacrifice, love of kin, love of home, and above all, something sorely missing in most Hollywood productions, proper love in marriage. You will find no overtly sexual themes in this tale, only love as it ought to be, modest, reserved, and true.  The fight sequences are a bit brutal, yes, but the heroes of our tale are fighting a good fight, so the violence has to be a bit overlooked, and that is why I make one notable exception for these films.  It’s the reason why I never grumble too much when my 15-year-old nephew begs to watch it for the millionth time when I see him, because I know he could be watching much worse than that.

Fred Owens writes:

This was an excellent post on the movies. It articulated what I myself have not been able to describe.

Thank you very much.

Stephanie writes:

Your post on “The Classic Movie” was very timely for me. I have always enjoyed classic movies, but last night I watched Life with Father starring William Powell and Irene Dunne. The movie is almost entirely set in a home and follows the daily domestic disturbances of an 1880s New York businessman and his family. While I had seen it before, I was immediately struck how even with the caricatured (and somewhat eccentric) personalities of the main characters and their bickering, I don’t believe the family was in any way “dysfunctional,” at least not in the modern sense of the word. I really was encouraged after watching it and it has bothered me since then that I do not believe that this film, or the Broadway play or book it was based on would stand a ghost of a chance if it were conceived in today’s society. It is quite sad, because there are some very hilarious moments and the acting is superb. I wish someone had brought it to me as an example of familial relations when I was an adolescent, when I was getting most of my ideas from My So Called Life.

Paul writes:

Let me suggest TV’s Hallmark movies (particularly Larry Levinson movies).  Hallmark comes close to the pre-60s and often includes God.  The Lifetime channel becomes similar  beginning around Thanksgiving.

And Indie’s offer us sensitivity and thoughtfulness but with modernity, as rough as that can be.  Here are just three that I discovered recently and highly recommend: The Yellow Handkerchief, Stolen, and especially Never Let Me Go.  They all have big stars and have many nominations, but you never saw them because of the problem that Alan points out.

These Indies lack the excessive vulgarity, pornography, and gore we see today.  Character is primary, and you get to enjoy the talent and charisma of these big stars when they are not being overwhelmed by fast pacing and special effects.  There are many, many great Indie movies with big or up-and-coming stars.  For example, I recall Keira Knightley from an Indie movie before she was a star.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy is unsurpassed fantasy in my view.  The writing is beautiful.  Tolkien was Catholic and endured the trench warfare of World War I, as did his friend C.S. Lewis.  In the novel, Lord Faramir (played by an actor in the Rings and an actor and narrator of the movie 300), a man of the “West,” laid it on the line to the prideful Lady Eowyn when he proposed to her and she accepted:

You desired to have the love of the Lord Aragorn.  Because he was high and puissant, and you wished to have renown and glory and to be lifted far above the mean things that crawl on the earth.  And as a great captain may to a young soldier he seemed to you admirable.  For so he is, a lord among men, the greatest that now is.  But when he gave you only understanding and pity, then you desired to have nothing, unless a brave death in battle.

J. writes:

I had to email after reading the comment about the ‘decency’ of the films of the Lord of the Rings. I believe that any decency in those films is a remnant of what they were imbued with by Tolkien, and that the influence of the modern film-makers has been awful. The monsters are ghastly rather than merely brutish, everything is overblown, and Jackson seems completely incapable of any kind of subtlety. They have also been ruined by the introduction of foolish contrivances, e.g. Legolas ‘surfing’ through a battle scene. Possibly the worst of all, for me, is the cloying musical theme. I am quite sure Tolkien would have loathed the movies.

I wanted to love them as I’d enjoyed the books as a child, but found them frenetic, heavy-handed and bordering on indecent. I did not even watch the last one, or The Hobbit, which was my favourite book as a child.

Alan’s assertions are correct, and the points well-made. We mostly watch old movies. It is sad how often a modern movie that could have been quite good is spoiled, totally unnecessarily, by a few expletives or other content. It’s also alarming how often mainstream movies are now sullied by promotion of homosexual lifestyles.

 Laura writes:

My loss of confidence in today’s movies is so thoroughgoing that I have never seen Lord of the Rings. People say the scenery is spectacular. J. mentions the monsters that are “ghastly rather than merely brutish.” This is so typical. With high-tech gimmicks, monsters and animated creatures lack human qualities of any kind. (The point of monsters in fantasy is their resemblance to human beings.) I can’t bear to look at them even.

Mary writes:

The Wikipedia entry on the Motion Picture Production Code is very interesting as it follows the decline of Hollywood’s standards. Apparently the film studios willingly complied not out of genuine concern for morality but to avoid government intervention, Hollywood having never been a paragon of virtue. The National Legion of Decency is another interesting entry. Both organizations were initiated by Catholics. The Legion of Decency wielded great power in it’s day and it’s recommendations were followed by Catholics and Protestants alike. Movies banned by the Legion of Decency had significantly lower attendance. Hollywood has never been self-regulating in the moral sense; rather these organizations held Hollywood in check. Hollywood complied to avoid legal problems and to make money. That said I love old movies. Many of the movies that were generated by the moral restrictions placed on Hollywood are memorable and beautiful and edifying. I wish Hollywood appreciated that these limits actually improved their material significantly and would do so today once again.

I would recommend anyone interested in the Lord of the Rings movies read the books first. My teenage children love the movies but know exactly where the story line falters. The books are not children’s literature; I just read them aloud to my youngest and we both loved them. Some of my favorite passages were the ones describing the affection and love between the male characters; genuine male friendship has been so abased in modern times. Peter Jackson has a background in horror movies so his vision for the movies tended in that direction unfortunately. I would say in avoiding the movies Laura is missing absolutely nothing; those that have only seen the movies without reading the books are missing much.

Teresa writes:

It’s already been mentioned about the importance of the Catholic Legion of Decency in restraining Hollywood, and guiding moviegoers in their selection of movies. The Legion of Decency’s rating was pretty much: A — for everyone; B — for Adults w/reservation; C — Condemned. Watching a ‘C’ movie was cause for confession. If I remember correctly, A and B ratings had subsets.

Let’s consider this was in the glory days of Hollywood. Gone with the Wind was rated ‘C’. I’m not sure many of us, today, can understand that rating; even those of us who value ‘good movies.’ Thinking with the mind of the Church, which is the mind of Christ after-all, is a life-long endeavor.

Thank you, Laura, for a very interesting post.

Samson writes:

Commenter J. writes:

Possibly the worst of all, for me, is the cloying musical theme.

Eh?

I can’t begin to make sense of this comment. Howard Shore’s Fellowship of the Ring music is magnificent; brilliant; in fact, I have thought in the past that it’s evidence of Hollywood’s lingering capacity to get things right in spite of whatever poor values they may otherwise endorse.

I can’t believe there’s a traditionalist alive who fails to appreciate the faint, subtle choral themes surrounding Gondor and the Ring, themes that make me shiver and say, This is what the echoes of an ancient civilization sound like. Likewise, the musical theme surrounding Aragorn’s temptation, and Boromir’s death, is sublime – it’s literally the aural representation of what temptation feels like.

Great thread otherwise! I was very pleased to read Alan’s opening statement about VFR, as I enjoyed Auster’s writing for that reason as well – in fact my wife and I watched one or two of his recommendations and enjoyed them thoroughly. Maybe a traditionalist film list would be in order?

Catherine H. writes:

Although my husband and I regard movies as a lower form of culture in general, they are undeniably entertaining and difficult to to deny oneself.  We are always on the lookout for movies that reflect a traditionalist viewpoint (or approximate one) and are overjoyed when we find one, few and far between as they are.  Here is a short list that we recommend (some of these reflect or incorporate traditionalist principles, but others are at the very least well made and do not offend modesty):

Anna Karenina (2012)
Babette’s Feast (1987)
I Know Where I’m Going (1945)
The Village (2004)
The Verdict (1982)
The Lake House (2006)
Take Shelter (2011)

And of course most of the adaptations of Jane Austen’s novels are worthwhile (with the exception of 1999’s Mansfield Park), and the many BBC productions of 19th century British literature, especially Dickens’s novels, are quite well done.

I wanted to call particular attention to the 2012 version of Anna Karenina, which shocked my husband and myself when we found that it was a beautifully-made, well-acted, and best of all, faithful version of Tolstoy’s book.  We had thought such a thing would be impossible for a modern director (especially one who had fumbled the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice).  Nevertheless, we were happily proved wrong and it is now one of our favorites (despite two unfortunate scenes of sensuality, which, while not graphic, could have been tamer).

Laura writes:

Thank you for the recommendations.