From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Why are the British portrayed so falsely on TV/Film
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 18:24:22 GMT

In article <68075@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1111a@prism.gatech.EDU (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <1992Sep13.001649.19051@cs.hw.ac.uk> neilp@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Postlethwaite) writes:
>>Having watched a few video's over the weekend, one thing with them I find
>>is that the British get such a false stereotypical portrayal of them. It
>>makes me wonder if the writers have ever been outside their country.
>
>Hey it's not just foreigners, American entertainment stereotypes Americans
>too! Most writers probably never leave LA. All Americans from the Southeastern
>part are apparently inbred morons judging from their portrayals.
[....]
>Holywood seems to be trying for ever-harsher distortions and stereotypes.

It is my opinion (and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if many others
share it) that most films are products of meetings where a list of
the currently-popular devices are listed, such as portraying the
"evil" of whatever group comprises the currently-fashionable enemy,
and these are pepppered throughout the film.  Again, IMO, I think
this is due to the economic conservatism of producers and companies
that are unwilling to take a risk, understanbably but unfortunately,
for art over profit.  I think it's also fairly unavoidable (and I
apologize to those to whom this is obvious) due to the fact that the
primary purpose of any business is to make money, and often means
playing to the emotional drives of an ignorant majority which may
be further emotionally conditioned by the lack of contrary images,
role-models, and concepts.

We hear so often of test screenings where endings are changed because
the audience reacted negatively to emotionally-unpalatable conclusions.
The hero dies, the flavor-of-the-week "evil" group representative doesn't
suffer enough.  We see scenes where some group or individual representing
a group is attacked, and the audience cheers.  The southern sheriff
crashes into a phone pole, and that's funny.  The yuppy is on his car
phone and his car is smashed, and that gets laughs.   This underscores
the need for positive role-models.  But, again, IMO, this is not a positive
thing, but rather very negative.  The message seems to be that the
public is too stupid to think, and must have their basic instincts
catered to, that they are too simple to figure out that, for instance,
a member of a minority group can be educated, without seeing images of
educated and successful minorities, regardless of the fact that they
are obviously watching a fictional story.  It's sad that this kind
of manipulation is so successful and so necessary to get a concept
across, and that, not only is rational thinking not used, actually
avoided in many cases, but that the media may never want to chance
it.

I find it ironic that when we, and I include myself, complain about
a vehicle portraying some member of a group in a negative light,
that we are effectively admitting that at least some portion of the
audience is inherently incapable of making the distinction between
fiction and reality.  In effect, we "protest too much", but we
also know that, contrary to what we should logically know, ignoring
an accusation we might find too ridiculous to respond to, we may
be perceived in the light of "silence equals consent".  I wonder
how many images from past films and television come subtly into
play when our current presidential race is decided.

I realize that movies and television are supposed to be escapism
a lot of the time, and that they are not usually meant to reflect
real life, real issues, real conclusions, true situations.  But I
argue that that is often unfortunate, because the effect they seem
to have on the viewer is real, and there seems to be no end to this
self-fulfilling cycle of thinking with the reptilian brain.

GMS