Posted on 11/14/2005 1:03:09 PM PST by Frank T
The author brings up the point that when these people were born after the second world war, their parents had as much responsibility in creating the mind set we are dealing with now. In the attempt to sheild the children from what they saw and went through in the previous two decades, they altered the parenting style to extend childhood and celebrate it as a worthy stage of development, rather than something that one naturally wants to discard. In otherwords, the "Ozzy and Harriet" era that the left is so reactionary against was an experiment gone wrong, and was part of the problem.
The author doesn't cover this, but I don't think the analysis ends there. Part of the change that occured was people voting in Democrats for all those years. I don't mean to sound partisan, but in the Woodrow Wilson and FDR administrations, they did everything they could to make America a socialist/parental state. People were to some extent "liberated" from doing as their forebearers had done and to make it mostly on their own, with their own, and with only a limited role by the state. Those who voted in those kinds of over-arching federal government were not "laissez-faire" activists.
But. These governments didn't elect themselves, there would of had to have been some sort of consensus in the electorate to radically change the nature of government, even before a crisis like the Depression which would have shaped the Boomers' parents. My guess is there was the notion that we are all marching towards some sort of ideal conclusion, a more modern way of doing things, and the checks and balances of the past were no longer necessary. That, as far as governing was concerned, you could have your cake and eat it too. The expectations were too high.
I just want to reiterate one of the author's points, about actors in movies. What the heck DID happen? I notice that too, in that the performers used to come across as adults much more than films typically do these days. A 35 year old guy in a b/w flick was a man back then, in a way a typical 35 y/o isn't the same on screen now. I had mostly put that off as some sort of consequence of us not being prudes now, and more broadly democratic/populist, but the article does make the point that maybe we don't know how behave as adults that young anymore.
A good movie to see on the threshold of that the two eras (pre-hippy/post-hippy), I found, is Hitchcock's "Vertigo." A San Francisco, that never had a hippy, imagine that! Not for much longer though ;-)
Well there was that really bad 70s remake with Marlo Thomas...
"I came across this interesting article that I thought I'd throw up on here. It's an interesting take on the Boomer generation, one that neither celebrates it nor gnashes teeth. "
Interesting, but I'm not sure it's about the Boomers, actually. I'm in the first wave of Boomers, born at the end of 1945. I'm 60 years old, now, not 35 or 40.
My wife, born in 1956, is almost 50 now.
My boomer brothers and sisters have grandchildren.
I think this article is actually about the generation after the Boomers, frankly.
I think actors are more realistic now.... movies of the 30's and 40's puts off a cheesy-broadway vibe(you know, like they try too hard)... if you walk into auditions today and act like one of those old school movie stars, your going to get thrown out and laughed at.
the reason why it is different now then earlier, is because acting standards have evolved in hollywood... the only place you are going to find 30's era acting is in some high school drama course, and some of the lower budget broadway plays.
No Barf Alert needed! It deserves a bump.
She needs to bone up on her history. Early marriages were more or less the rule only with rural populations [until recently an overwhelming majority] because there was little need "to save up". However, the burghers, in Middle Ages or later, almost universally needed "to save up" [as guild apprentices or equivalent] before becoming sufficiently independent economically to start a household. Thus her explanation does not hold much water. Economic independence nowadays comes later than it used to.
I have spent many, many an hour pondering all of this. It is very, very real. It's not just baby boomers, and certainly not just post-boomers. Think about the generation that produced the baby boomers. They were a little younger than the actors and viewers of these movies. Think about the politics of AARP. Essentially every generation now is full of -- punks.
I conclude, as many others, that this has all been brought on by wealth and ease. This is the lesson of the material gifts earned and passed on by those who were very young adults during WWII.
To put in one word what has afflicted our society: Vanity.
Another: Psuedo-sophistication.
I am sorry to conclude that only *suffering* will ever fill our society with respectable people behaving like adults.
So whatever ill befalls us will produce some good.
All you happy-go-lucky libertarians and such: we just disagree. Don't bother me with your criticism.
Maturity is lacking in most of American popular culture. It is associated with middle age, responsibility, conservatism, etc. ... so of course, it is anathema in Hollywierd. If you don't look and behave like a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader, forget you... It is especially obvious in 'men' who are supposed to be celebrities. To me, they look and behave like boys and are not masculine. That aspect is missing. There is a is some of that in Russell Crowe but when you see that he is not in control of himself and throws temper tantrums in public... well it undercuts what he can be on camera.
"adulthood was a much-desired state of authority and respect."
It still is - the problem is that many teenagers and young adults want authority and respect without having to earn it - as though respect were a right. It ain't.
Anyone who's studied as many photos of ballplayers from the 1920s and 30s knows that people "aged" more quickly back then. Hence a large part of the on-screen maturity look. I suspect it was due to life being harder then--fewer drugs, more diseases, more poverty, etc. Where I agree with the article is that actors today act LESS mature than their age.
"acting standards have evolved". Hmmm - I really think the issue is more that the movie actors of the 30s - early 60s were trained in the theater (or by theater types), where gestures, diction and facial expression had to be big enough to reach the back row. Theater performers today have many of the same attributes.
I think a big part of the problem is that these parents wanted to shield their children from the same hardships that they experienced. In other words, the children were insulated from the same experiences that built character in their parents. Without knowing hardship and sacrifice, the following generations became more and more selfish. You think there will be issues when the boomers retire, just wait until their kids and grandkids retire.
It's probably a mistake to "blame" this on any particular generation -- which is a somewhat artificial distinction to begin with. Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and a few of of my cousins come to mind as the type of person being described here. By the same token, I know people who are much younger who meet the same general description. Their chief traits are best described as "rewarded narcissism."
The problem, of course, comes when you try to raise your own kids in a society that actively promotes bad behavior. The Hollywood train wreck is a very powerful force -- even if you don't let your kids see it, a lot of their friends will, and it passes on through them.
I guess this is what decadence looks like.
I'm right in the middle of the Gen X generation. Most of the people my age that I know are far more conservative and family oriented than their parents. Sure, the idiots that move home after college, or spend 8 years in college, or are professional protesters are the ones you read about here on FR, but I think that it's a case of the squeaky wheel.
It is a strange disconnect, for me at least, to see a straight-laced man my age with hippie parents. It's even stranger to see him discuss his parents drug use with the same disgust/disbelief that we normally would save for our own kids. And, as my friends transition into responsibility - kids, professional jobs, home ownership - they seem to get more and more conservative.
I figure that kids in my generation watched their parents screw up royally - easy divorces, drugs, latchkey kids where Mom and Dad were never around, etc - and decided not to take that route.
I have read articles which present the theory that declines in the divorce rate are attributable to the marriages of the first generation of children raised in an era of no-fault divorce. The theory is that these adults, who now are getting married themselves, are more determined never to put their own children through the unhappiness they experienced themselves as the children of divorce.
Two words: JOHN WAYNE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.