Social Consciousness in the Movies

[moira finnie]

Do you think that Warner Brothers movies in the studio era reflected the social concerns of average viewers or would you name another studio such as Columbia as more aware of what was going on beneath the surface of society in the 30s-50s?

Thanks.

[mrsl]

Can't help you much on this one Moira, I don't know one studio from another except maybe MGM musicals.

Anne

[ChiO]

If one had the time, research materials and inclination, then determining which studio released the most movies during the 1930s-1950s dealing with social concerns would be a reasonably easy proposition: identify the “social concern” movies by studio, and the studio with the most or, likely more telling, the greatest percentage of its output in that category is the winner. Or, is it so easy?

Methinks that Moderator Moira has slyly buried several more provocative questions in her seemingly straightforward question, some of them being:

What is a “social concern” and whether a movie dealt with it?

Racism or, more broadly, unjust discrimination on the basis of a characteristic may be commonly considered to be a “social concern”. Two movies that immediately come to mind that explicitly and overtly dealt with the issue are GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT (1947, 20th Century-Fox) and THE DEFIANT ONES (1958, distributed by United Artists). Identifying such sledgehammer “Message” films is relatively easy. But what about a movie such as STARS IN MY CROWN (1950, M-G-M)? Racism is clearly a major plot point; however, one could make a strong case that it is not about racism. In or out as movie about a “social concern”? Consider a screwball comedy such as HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940, Columbia). Is it about anything other than being a hilarious, rapid-fire battle of wits between a man and a woman, or is it really about the battle fought over discrimination against women, discrimination against the mentally ill, and the existence of a corrupt political system (another “social concern”)? FRANKENSTEIN (1931, Universal): chills and thrills, or discrimination against the “Other”, or the havoc caused when Man tries to make himself God and thereby attempts to displace God? Just thinking about how ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS (1955), WRITTEN ON THE WIND (1956) and IMITATION OF LIFE (1959) (all Universal International) fit in may make my head explode.

Then there are the corollary questions. In determining if a movie deals with a social concern, is it the studio heads’, directors’, screenwriters’ or audiences’ view(s) that is paramount? Do we only consider what people then consciously viewed as social concerns as opposed to what we now view as social concerns, or what we now view as social concerns of that era, and impose our contemporary view on them? Which leads to…

Who was the “average viewer”?

Urban, rural, small town? Age? Gender? Education? Take into account frequency of movie attendance? How might the demographics, behavior and attitudes of the average viewer have changed during that thirty year period? I would think that if one asked a farmer or small town resident in Iowa in 1935 whether racism or discrimination generally was high on the list of social concerns, the response would be “no”; however, in urban areas, the answer might be “yes”; and the response in both locales might increasingly become “yes” as we come forward in time. Ask a teenage boy (most frequent moviegoer?) and the response might have been, “huh?”.

Once we know who the “average viewer(s)” was, it could be useful to know why that viewer went to the movies and saw the movies that he or she did. Did such viewers see THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940, 20th Century-Fox) because it reflected their social concerns about the plight of Okies or the poor in general or displaced persons and communities, or because it was playing at the local theatre and they liked Henry Fonda? Maybe the why doesn’t matter as much as whether the movie comported with their world view, even if was merely a coincidence or subconsciously.

My guess in direct response to Moira’s question (though I’m cheating a bit): The Poverty Row studios that churned out cowboy movies and exploitation movies. Good guys beat bad guys (that bad guys might win, or often appear to win, in real life is always a social concern) and save the honest small town folk (how most people probably view themselves or their personal histories); and, “education” as to the scourges of crime (especially juvenile delinquency), drugs and sex. MOM AND DAD, the Kroger Babb/William Beaudine “sensible sex” classic, was purportedly (if IMDb is to be believed) the highest grossing film of 1947 – the same year that three of the nominees for Best Picture were Message movies: GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT, CROSSFIRE (RKO) and MIRACLE ON 34th STREET (20th Century-Fox). Reflect on that.

[Moraldo Rubini]

I suppose, ChiO, we can categorize these pictures under the banners of "inadvertent social concern" movies vs. "intentional" or "cognizant social concerns" flicks. Though Mary Shelley certainly wrote Frankenstein for its theme of the horror resulting from man's ambition to "play God", I'm betting Universal just wanted a good chiller to sell tickets. Luckily, Shelley's theme wasn't lost on James Whale. He made a movie that can be viewed from each level.

The first movie that came to my mind was Warner Bros. Dead End, the social realism flick about the head-butting of American class structures. I fear modern audiences find this film to be too didactic, but I fall for it everytime. Sylvia Sidney's welling eyes are so sincere, her salty tears diminish the syrupy sentimentality of the character's plights. Marjorie Main's raw performance as a gangster's forgotten mother is sobering and unforgettable. The inner-city issues are as relevant today as they were in 1937.

Motion picture making is a collaborative effort. So questions of intent unearth auteur theories. Whose message is it? The director's [Elia Kazan]? The producer's [Dore Schary]? The writers [Dalton Trumbo]? The studio heads [Darryl Zanuck]? Perhaps I was too cynical in guessing that Universal was more interested in chills and ticket sales than messages. Wasn't Carl Laemmle behind Show Boat and Back Street, each with their own messages regarding racism and class systems?

[melwalton]

Good one, Moira provocative. but not being an Einstein, I could never answer
, yes, no or even maybe.

However, I would like to comment.

The studios main concern was to provide material for their box office stars, The brothers had CAGNEY, ROBINSON AND BOGART SO THEy made
gangster movies which were overly melodramatic, .they also had Powell so they made musicals. which were enjoyable fantasy, I'd heard that Warners, when editing a film, cut what they considered stagnant scenes in order to speed up the action,


But your question was about social issues. I keep thinking of Joan Crawford playing a waitress with a million dollar wardrobe.

Because of my computer, ii"ll have to continue this elsewhere.

[melwalton]

i CHANGED MY MIND, maybe too huriedly Yes, I think the brothers was more in tune with the tmes. this is off the top of my head. Th question demands research. I keop seeing Garfield and LANE STRUGLING WITH POVERTY DURING THE 1d
EPRESSION. ... MEL

[ChiO]

I suppose, ChiO, we can categorize these pictures under the banners of "inadvertent social concern" movies vs. "intentional" or "cognizant social concerns" flicks.

I watched THE DEVIL AND MISS JONES for the first time in ages this week. What a delightful comedy with a marvelous cast (love that Jean Arthur!) at each member's height of his or her craft. But speaking of social consciousness...

Does anyone else see the "social consciousness"? Coincidence that the director, Sam Wood, was the founder of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, attempted to destroy the Screen Director's Guild, and testified as a friendly witness on the first day of HUAC hearings on the "infiltration" of Hollywood by Communists? Was RKO, the film's distributor, covering its bets for the same year it released CITIZEN KANE?

[moira finnie]

I really appreciate your thought provoking replies. I have always sort of assumed that Warner Brothers with their ripped from the headlines stories and working class heroes was much more socially aware. Yet, where were some of the most provocative movies about issues of the '30s made? I think this deserves some re-evaluation...based on just the following, as well as the films that you guys have named:
American Madness (1932) Columbia
Fury (1936) MGM
The Power and the Glory (1933) Fox
An American Tragedy (1932) Paramount
Little Man, What Now (1934) Universal