As you’ve likely heard, a good chunk of the entertainment industry is on strike. Its largest union, the 160,000-member SAG-AFTRA, has stopped working on countless movies and TV shows, and several actors even walked out of the London premiere of the much-anticipated film Oppenheimer.
The writers and actors who comprise the union are seeking protection amid a rapidly changing industry. The issues at stake are big and, in my opinion, fascinating. And a lot of it is centered around technology and streaming. For instance, actors are worried that artificial intelligence may give studios the ability to create digital background “actors,” thus taking real performers’ jobs. Writers are worried that their own work might be used to teach AI how to write scripts. And everyone feels as though streaming—despite its massive demand for writers and actors—is suppressing earnings. Seasons tend to be shorter, for one thing, and residual payments are lower.
Given that Hollywood is still dealing with the aftermath of the COVID epidemic and (at least judging by box-office returns) reevaluating what constitutes a hit movie these days, the strike comes at a particularly vulnerable time.
“There’s going to be a lot of blood in the water,” Jonathan Taplin, director emeritus of the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California, told the Los Angeles Times. “This I not going to end well.”
But for families? Well, things could be worse.
The streaming era has long been a mixed bag for families. On the upside, services such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+offer a staggering amount of content. And just because of the sheer amount of stuff now available to stream, some fraction of it is going to be reasonably navigable. (And while finding that fraction can be a challenge, Plugged In does its best—both in its movie and television review sections—to keep you updated with new, potentially good, stuff flowing down the pipe.)
But overall, the same services have hastened the coarsening of our culture and made it exponentially harder for parents to safeguard their children from problematic entertainment.
Take The Summer I Turned Pretty, which is in its second season now. Clearly, Amazon’s Prime Video is targeting teens. But the show itself, if it was playing in a theater, would most certainly win an R rating. R-rated movies—from blood-drenched thrillers to steamy erotic flicks that might border on softcore porn—are widely available on streamers. But unless users school ourselves on a service’s parental control or have a third-party filtering service that helps protect kids, this stuff is just a button click away.
And, of course, Hollywood continues to push certain ideals, agendas and lifestyles that many a mom and dad might disagree with—or, at the very least, would like the opportunity to discuss with their children before a TV show forces the issue.
Listen, I’m no Hollywood hater. I love stories, and I think the entertainment industry still produces some great ones. But on balance, it’s getting harder and harder to fish those great products out of what seems like increasingly muddy waters.
So while we can all mourn the fact that a superhero sequel might be in mothballs or that the next season of our favorite show could be delayed, those delays might also give parents the opportunity to rummage through Hollywood’s older fare—which, thanks to streaming, is paradoxically more accessible than ever.
No, old entertainment doesn’t necessarily equal good entertainment, either aesthetically or morally. Let’s be honest: Plugged In would have plenty to say about even Gilligan’s Island today. (Are those bikinis really necessary? And why is Mr. Howell constantly smoking?) But entertainment from previous eras were designed for audiences that had a different definition of decorum than the secular world does today—and had a much stronger understanding of what “family entertainment” meant.
From the mid-1930s to the late 1960s, movies were under the so-called Hayes Code, a set of regulations that forced moviemakers to craft films technically fit for the whole family. I don’t think it’s any accident that the Hayes Code also coincides with Hollywood’s so-called “Golden Age.” Unable to rely on gratuitous sex or violence or language to gin up interest, storytellers had to concentrate on (shocker) the story, and those limitations inspired Hollywood to churn out some of its most creative, most revered work.
When television horned into the entertainment world, it, too, was forced to abide by some strict broadcast standards. And while the storytelling probably wasn’t as strong as it became in the era of prestige TV and our current streaming bonanza, it was far easier to navigate—and often quite entertaining. Just watch some YouTube clips of Lucille Ball in action, and you’ll find comedy that transcends generations.
And while I’d argue that introducing your kids to classic black-and-white Hollywood oldies might be a fun and even enlightening thing, you don’t have to dive that far back into Tinseltown’s vaults to find fantastic fare. Disney and Pixar tag-teamed to produce some incredible movies between 1995 and 2014, most of which should be available on Disney+—or maybe even your dusty old DVD bin.
But here’s the other good news: If the strike goes on for a while and Plugged In starts running out of new stuff to review, we’ll very likely turn our attention to those older movies, and perhaps even TV shows. We might even highlight some older, widely available fare that feels like it might be worth considering. No guarantees, of course—it’s up to you, not us, to decide what’s worth your time. But we’ll help wherever and whenever we can.
The strike could shake Hollywood to its foundations. But for families that have been shaken by Hollywood itself for some time, the strike might usher in a time of surprising stability.
22 Responses
-I hope this means Tinseltown will start embracing original concepts and ditch the remakes, reboots and pointless sequels.
-Those are all the things making money. Hollywood has always had remakes, reboots, and sequels.
-If that’s what you want (and I don’t blame you), I would say embrace more indie films and studios, but it might be harder to filter out content issues in that case. A lot of families will say no to A24’s* typical content, for instance (which I can understand even as “Everything, Everywhere” was my second-favorite film of last year behind Top Gun: Maverick).
* Not to be confused with A21, the anti-human-trafficking organization
-“certain ideals, agendas and lifestyles that many a mom and dad might disagree with”
I’m honestly very curious as to why an opinion piece that had no issues talking about “blood-drenched thrillers,” “steamy erotic flicks,” and “softcore porn” suddenly uses euphemisms and indirect language to talk about movies and shows that endorse or even depict LGBT characters. (On that note, I’d like to see more Christian movies that approach the subject of how to love such people, because such characters, in my experience, rarely even appear in our genre. How do we let them know that it’s not okay for them to be bullied, it’s not okay for them to be kicked out of their homes, and it’s not okay for people to promote violence against them. The reason I ask is that I think too many Christian films dodge the subject, and I don’t see that improving if we won’t even address the subject in direct terms while openly talking about things that are a lot more controversial and sometimes a lot more dangerous.)
“Unable to rely on gratuitous sex or violence or language to gin up interest, storytellers had to concentrate on (shocker) the story”
Technically a false dichotomy — there’s no reason a movie couldn’t end up with both (or neither), and there have been plenty of films widely revered for their story that nonetheless have family-unfriendly content (similar to when Plugged In rightly praised Saving Private Ryan for its story while putting its graphic violence in proper perspective).
I love watching old episodes of Next Generation, Twilight Zone, and sometimes I Love Lucy on my Roku, with nary a sub fee in sight.
-Speaking anecdotally, but I generally only (or at least overwhelmingly) ever see that phrase used for that meaning. When “lifestyles” means “drugs,” for an example, I usually just hear Christian authors say that without resorting to euphemisms. Or if it refers to alternative belief systems or even to promiscuity. I’m not really ‘affirming’ of LGBT, as I think a lot of their arguments (and also their opponents’) are flimsy, but in the church I see way more obsession with condemning those people for one thing or another, than any kind of “obsession” with making sure they are safe and being treated well.
-I understand Paul Asay’s desire to see Hollywood put out more family content in his piece “Could the Writers/Actors Strike Be a Home Run for Families?” But I do believe some of the things he stated were misleading.
While I was glad to see him mention that some of the TV shows and films from the past were not all “family friendly” like Gilligan’s Island, he also stated the Hayes Code forced Hollywood to make films that relied on story rather than sex, violence, and graphic language. “Those limitations [of the Hayes Code] inspired Hollywood to churn out some of its most creative, most revered work,” said Asay.
I disagree. As an African American the films during that time either left us out or depicted us in the most stereotypical ways. Many of the films from that “golden era” in the 1930s to 1950s portrayed black people as dim-witted and criminals. Black actors were not allowed to play doctors, attorneys, and bankers during that era.
Also, many white actors of that “golden era” performed on screen wearing blackface. Actor and director Mario Van Peoples once said in an interview that as a black father he is worried less about gratuitous language, sex, and violence in a movie, and more about whether they portray African Americans as three-dimensional human beings.
Sidney Poiter was the first black movie star, but for a time he was the only one.
For me the 1990s was one of the “golden age” of cinema because for the first time I saw movies where black people were portrayed as bankers, doctors, heroes, and artists in film. Some of the films were R-rated, while others were rated PG and PG-13, but my family and I were overjoyed to see people who looked like us showcased in a much better light.
I just ask that when you comment on Hollywood and rightfully criticize some of the messages and content in their films and T.V. shows that you remember that a film or television program can be void of graphic sex, language, and violence, but still be offensive to a section of America.
-Gilligan’s Island was family friendly.
-For me the 1990s was one of the “golden age” of cinema because for the first time I saw movies where black people were portrayed as bankers, doctors, heroes, and artists in film. Some of the films were R-rated, while others were rated PG and PG-13, but my family and I were overjoyed to see people who looked like us showcased in a much better light.
****
That was the Golden age of showing Black people as violent criminals. Even the ones produced by black directors.
Surely this is a balance between Black person as clown (20s, 30s, 40s) to black person invisible (50s, 60s) to black person as being largely violent, cursing, drug using gangstas like in the 90s.
-Excellent response. Mario Van Peebles? The son of Melvin, who as I understand, basically showed Hollywood that black audiences were a viable market? But yeah, this goes along with a number of concerns I’ve made about some parts of secular (and religious) culture being more concerned about naughty words (a subjective list that changes over time) than about challenging racist or otherwise prejudiced stereotypes.
-Well put, Barry. The Hays Code promoted paternalistic depictions of race and generally stifled the progress of film as an art.
The language of filmmaking evolved during the pre-Code era and (at least in America) stagnated from the mid-’40s to the mid-’60s because filmmakers were discouraged from depicting reality in a frank, morally complex way. The movies from that era took on a corporatized, star-driven quality that often comes off as toothless and bland, and the classic films from that era (like Hitchcock’s) tended to be the ones that pushed the limits of the Code.
The decline of the Hays Code and the influence of innovative foreign films that weren’t subject to the Code inspired a new generation of filmmakers (Kubrick, Penn, Scorsese, Coppola, Cimino, Altman, Polanski…) to produce groundbreaking movies that reflected the restless, probing and morally ambiguous spirit of a tumultuous era where traditional norms were being questioned. Those directors didn’t use adult content to “gin up interest” — they used it because they wanted to portray the world as they perceived it, which is the whole point of art.
Anytime a government or society imposes limits on what an artist can and can’t say, artistic quality is going to diminish and (as Barry points out) the people who DON’T have a say in those limits are going to suffer.
-I agree with Mr. Ward’s objections to the Hayes Code – while parts of it were not bad, the bad parts (not allowing interracial intimacy, for one) was incredibly damaging, morally and socially. I would also add, this could be a good time for families to put away all movies and TV for a while. Board games, card games, family crafts or other projects, half day or full day trips, service projects – all are fantastic alternatives to screen entertainment (yes, I’m typing all of this on a screen).
-As late as 1960, only 5% of americans agreed with interracial relationships. That included polling African Americans.
-That doesn’t make those relationships in any way immoral, though.
-I question whether studios adhering to a modern version of the Hayes Code would produce family oriented comedy shows of the same popularity as the ones of the 60s like Gilligan’s Island, Hogan’s Heroes, Batman ’66, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Get Smart. It is true that these shows have many innuendoes, but the way the characters treat each other feels much more innocent so that the shows automatically feel more uplifting. It was also easier at that time to tell jokes without offense, however, it often went too far, such as in the depiction of the Polynesians in Gilligan’s Island. Although it bears mentioning that all of the characters in Gilligan’s Island are stereotyped, the Polynesians are more one-dimensional, as Barry Ward mentions as happening in that time.
I have seen the first seasons of a couple modern shows that have a similar innocent feel and comedy as those of the 60s: Big Time Rush (Nickelodeon) and K.C. Undercover (Disney). However, these are aimed at tweens rather than general audiences and rely more upon bathroom humor.
I think maybe the feeling of TV shows in the 60s was in part due to a decision to move away from the horrors of WWII and the attitude that anything can be achieved if we work hard enough. Maybe A.I. could recreate this feeling in its works, but I think Hollywood writers and actors are right to demand not to be copied by A.I. Disney has gone so far as to recreate dead actors with CGI and A.I. can now steal writers and artists styles to a certain extent. However, it can’t be truly creative, it can only copy.
-Absolutely wonderful! For some years now, I have attempted to glean older movies and shows that have better content from a morality standpoint and suitable for family viewing. I have run through almost everything I watched as a kid and young adult (even the old black and whites my mom always showed me). I welcome with glee the prospect of PluggedIn to go back to some of the oldies (or not so oldies) to give me ideas for alternative viewing that are a stark contrast to the multitide of filth released today. I am absolutely thrilled and hope you do this strike or no strike!
-If the strike continues, I hope it leads to more older films being re-released in cinemas. Here are some classic films that I think should be brought back to the big screen:
The Invisible Man (1931)
Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Dumbo (1941)
It’s A Wonderful Life (1947)
Cinderella (1950)
Roman Holiday (1953)
Rear Window (1954)
The Ten Commandments (1956)
Funny Face (1957)
Breakfast At Tiffany’s (1961)
If you can think of any other classic movies that should be brought back to the big screen, please let me know.
-Some of those have racial problems that will be difficult for them to air on a big screen/
-I think a fair compromise would be to have a “warning, this film unironically contains depictions we’d now consider racist” content warning on Fandango (not in the theater since I think you should know what you’re going into before you arrive at the theater * ), similar to what Disney+ did with some of its older films without removing their content.
* For something like the pilot of HBO’s “Watchmen” series, however, I really, really would have appreciated a warning about KKK vigilantes running around (and I doubt I would have watched it if I’d known about that in advance, because that was terrifying).
-I’d like to see reissues of “E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial”, “The Lion King (1994)”, “March Of The Penguins”, “The Jungle Book (1967)” and “Pinocchio (1940)”.
-While we’re at it, we should also reissue “The Sword In The Stone”, the 1973 version of “Robin Hood”, “One Hundred And One Dalmatians (1961)”, “Lady And The Tramp (1956)”, “The Aristocats”, “The Fox And The Hound” and “The Black Cauldron”
-Here’s another movie I forgot to mention that I’d like to see reissued: “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”. I know that movie has its share of problematic material, but compared to a lot of content produced today, it’s pretty tame.
-I could see this happening, especially with Fathom Events. Studio Ghibli movies get short-term re-releases pretty much every year.