Old stories, new attitudes

Human culture is nothing but the sum (or perhaps the intersection) of the culture of each individual in a society, and as such it evolves as the culture of each individual changes with time, and also as some individuals die and are replaced with new generations. The difference in the culture between the young and the old in a society are the source of the so-called generation gap: as the older generation has longer time perspective and has lived through different events, or even lived some of the same events from a different perspective, their attitudes and opinions can be significantly different, as a group, from those of younger generations.

In view of this constant change, one of the goals of some of the humanistic sciences is the preservation of the history of the culture(s): history, literature, anthropology, sociology, ethnography, economics, they all try to register some part of the culture across cultures, along time or a combination thereof. Because keeping the history is the first step to identifying change, which in turns can allow us to infer the reasons for the change and, eventually, help inspire different attitudes whenever they are socially necessary.

Photo: Ian

One of the means to register the culture in the past is to preserve the material culture, the objects created by the individuals, because they are not only an expression of the technological development, but also acts as means of expression, in particular in the case of artistic production. The problem arises when old objects are regarded by citizens of a current culture with the caution of putting that work in context: it seems outdated, when not openly offensive because it fails to take into account new sensitives that just did not exist when the art piece was originally created.

This has happened recently to six books by Dr. Seuss, which will go out of print because they contain racist imagery. Let me start by saying that it is an excellent example to see that the owner of the publishing rights removes only some of the books and not the whole collection of Dr. Seuss: the current cultural trend seems to be asking for the cancellation of public figures at the first sight of a stain in the record, but that leads to a dangerous summary cancellation that would lead to huge losses.

The other point in this discussion is that these books were frequently being used to teach our kids. By their young age and lack of historic perspective, primary school children are particularly ill prepared to understand that the cultural context when the book was written (one of them as far back as 1937) was significantly different from the current one. It is only under these circumstances that I consider this kind of "censorship" acceptable: because the books are children's book (although for a different century), they might be taken for modern ones and be shown to children now and convey misleading messages.

However, once we get into the young-adult range, censorship stops being acceptable and instead reader discretion should be, at most, advised. In the end, most of the writers we currently read have been dead for decades or centuries, and have not had a chance to revisit their work and update it to the sensitivity of today. Furthermore, even if they had a chance, it is very likely that the story (or the paint, or the sculpture) would not make sense if it were to be adapted to the present time. Think about the arch-famous Adventures of Huckleberry Finn published by American writer Mark Twain in 1884, which still depicts a society where slavery is the norm. Shall we stop reading this masterpiece only because it was written in a context where the abhorrent concept of slavery was still commonly accepted?

Going back to the recent past, in the last 20 years the habit of smoking in the movies has been intentionally reduced from a go-to form of relaxation or even sophistication to the last resort of those under a panic attack. Shall we cut another masterpiece like Casablanca to remove all the smoking scenes? The movie was shot in 1942, when there was no evidence of the noxious effects of tobacco, so smoking is pervasive; we would be left with only 20 minutes of disconnected action.

In the end, it is a matter of trying to understand an appreciate the value of the artwork in its context, its ability to convey the feelings and the ideas of the artist and the society of the time. I would like to leave you today with two examples to think about: on the one hand the photograph of "V-J Day in Times Square", where a sailor grabs and kisses an total stranger to celebrate the victory; by our current standards, this is an example of normalized sexual assault, but it is likely that the "victim", once she got over the initial surprise, felt even flattered that the sailor had picked her. This would not make it acceptable today, but it made it acceptable back them.

The other case is American producer Havery Weinstein, convicted of many counts of sexual abuse. I have read in the media invitations to the viewership to stop watching his movies as a form of boycott, but I cannot agree to this policy: first because each movie is the work of hundreds or thousands of people, most of which had nothing to do with the sex abuse; and second because, hateful as the person might be, his work is not him, and his movies deserve an evaluation separate from the one of their producer. It is understandable that nobody wants to work with him now (he is also in prison), but I would still consider watching his movies. Other artists have been known to be terrible people, and we still profess devotion to their production. Why should the cinema be different? Have a nice week.