Guest Post: Tara Sonenshine on Movie Portrayals of Aging

Posted on August 3, 2013 at 8:00 am

Many thanks to Tara D. Sonenshine for allowing me to post this guest commentary about the portrayal of aging in recent film:

Movies come in thematic waves. Recently I’ve noticed many new releases about—well, getting old. Aging actors playing aging characters. Are baby boomers running Hollywood and desperate to remind us we were born many moons ago?

But there’s a twist in these aging sagas: most of the main characters are old men playing male caregivers taking care of aging wives. That’s a switch! The men live longer.

From “Amour” to “Unfinished Song,” from “Quartet” to “Still Mine,” the plots are about the sunset years…which turn out not all that golden. The Motion Picture Association of America might need a new disclaimer: BEWARE: These movies contain scenes of physical and mental deterioration related to the aging process.”

What happened to “aging gracefully?” Aren’t we supposed to be living “longer and stronger?”

Not according to Hollywood.

In “Amour” Austrian director Michael Haneke insists we have few, if any, light moments. Anne, a retired music teacher, endures a stroke early in the film and for two hours we watch, literally watch, as Anne grows frail and incapacitated. We move with her into a wheelchair. Her husband is nothing short of heroic in trying to take care of her, but he ages, not very well, throughout the process of coping with end-of-life grief. Relief comes only in imagining heaven as an upbeat alternative.

Vanessa Redgrave is stunning in “Unfinished Song” as Marion, who is dying from cancer and has only a few months to live. Although it is not a very cheerful premise, Marion’s attitude towards life and music and her fierce dedication to sing with an elderly chorus, makes this a kind of second-chance film. But even though the movie has its uplifting moments and happy songs, the fact remains that Vanessa Redgrave weakens and dies. Her husband, Arthur, played superbly by Terence Stamp, is the classic grumpy old man, who only lightens up in the last fifteen minutes of the film—too late, really, to enjoy the rest of his marriage to Marion.

The most upbeat of these aging films is “Quartet” which takes place in a British retirement home for musicians. There are funny moments of elder romance and old love affairs to distract you from the fundamental reality that some of these residents don’t really want to be living in a group home but have little choice. But after seeing life in “Beecham House,” the British retirement home in the movie, it sure beats aging at home.

As for powerful and poignant, I’d pick “Still Mine,” a Canadian film starring James Cromwell as the 87-year old Craig Morrison, desperate to build a new house for his aging wife who is losing her memory. Genevieve Bujold is brilliant as Irene Morrison, Craig’s wife of 61 years, but you have to endure her steady decline to the point of losing her way, falling, and breaking a hip. The best line of the film is “age is an abstraction, not a straight jacket.” Great — unless you happen to be getting old.

Film critics and historians will rightly point out that growing old is not a new theme. Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth goes downhill in the 1600s over the course of the play. At one point her Elizabethan doctor says that Lady Macbeth is “with thick coming fancies”—resembling modern day Alzheimer’s. (Shakespeare kills off Lady Macbeth with a romantic twist as she begs to be “unsexed.”) Similarly, in “King Lear” we meet an old man faced with regrets and resentment at how his daughters turned out. He begins to decline early in the play. By the end, Lear is self-described as “a very foolish old man” whose mental prowess is fading—by his own account “not in my perfect mind.”

Growing old can be productive. In the Book of Genesis, Sarah does it—pretty well, bearing a child in her eighties and proving that with age comes wisdom. We all want to look like we imagine Sarah looked in the Bible. Good.

Perhaps the answer lies in the movie ratings. “G” sounds good to me. “Gleeful” and “glad” to be part of a generation that thinks “strokes” are for tennis games or golf courses.

In the end, given the choice, I’d pick youth over aging. But if old age is the only option, there are plenty of good lessons to be learned—at the movies.

Tara D. Sonenshine is former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. She is an avid moviegoer.

Related Tags:

Commentary

MPAA’s New Check the Box Ratings

Posted on April 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm

The MPAA ratings board announced some new “check the box” enhancements to the movie ratings system to give parents better and clearer information about the content of the movies, along with an ad campaign, an updated website for checking ratings, and some revisions to the rules about trailers.

I am in favor of any improvement in the information available to parents. If this means the end of the dreaded, “Rated PG-for thematic elements,” which required a degree in semiotics to parse, that’s very good news. As I told The Christian Science Monitor,

It is a step, says Nell Minow, film critic for Movie Mom, a website for family entertainment guidance. “But a very small one,” she says, adding that what parents really want is reliable and consistent information about films. The arbitrariness of a ratings system that allocates a PG-13 to a comedy and then an R rating to a drama with essentially the same content “leaves parents not knowing what to trust,” she says.

However, there are inherent limits to an industry-run rating system that defiantly refuses to consider the expertise of child development specialists or teachers in assigning the ratings. I do not see anything in these announcements that makes me feel any more confident that the arbitrariness so compellingly examined in the Kirby Dick documentary, “This Film is Not Yet Rated” has been addressed. The MPAA’s absurd view that one or two f-words are permitted in a PG-13 movie as long as they do not refer to sex, the inconsistent standards applied to independent films and documentaries, the appeals process that gives film-makers a chance to ask for reconsideration but not parent groups, and the inclusion of material in a PG-13 comedy that would get an R in a drama are problems that are not addressed by these changes.

It is worth noting that the two key elements of the Boston Marathon bombs were both features of recent movies. “Four Lions” was about a terrorist attack at a marathon. “Act of Valor” explained how ball bearings could increase the damage from a simple, cheap, easy to make bomb exponentially. Both movies had strong anti-terrorist messages, but that doesn’t mean that was how they were received by all viewers.

We don’t know if the person or people who planted the bombs in Boston saw those films. But we do know that there is a multi-billion dollar industry called advertising devoted to the idea that people’s ideas and behavior are influenced by messages in the media. The MPAA should be a part of the conversation about the best way for parents and moviegoers to understand the context as well as the content of films and make wise decisions about what they want to see.

MPAA Head Chris Dodd Speaks at the National Press Club

Posted on February 16, 2013 at 6:43 pm

Yesterday Chris Dodd, head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), spoke at the National Press Club, which prepared movie poster cookies in his honor. As a member of the club who writes about movies, I was invited to watch from the head table. Dodd, who was a Connecticut Senator for 30 years (his father also represented Connecticut in the Senate), now runs the trade association for the film industry, which includes lobbying Congress and the Senate on matters like piracy and copyright and assigning ratings from G to NC-17. He spoke eloquently on “why movies matter.” As an art form, he said, it is a “spectacular convergence” of visual arts, language arts, and music, attracting some of the most talented people in the world who want to paint on one of the largest and most stimulating canvases ever created. They “tell stories that help us make sense of our world” and are “a vehicle to raise awareness of social and political issues.”

He emphasized the importance of the movie and television production industry to the US economy. There is a 7 to one export/import ratio, higher than in any other sector. “For every unfathomably rich and beautiful star” there are thousands of people who are employed by the industry, more than 2 million, who have careers, not just jobs, many of which are good paying jobs even for those without a college degree. Also, movies brand America in the eyes of the world, communicating our openness and opportunity. He quoted one man who told him that he did not agree with much of what the US does, but had to admire the way our filmmakers are so open in their own critiques of America and its policies. “Your movies examine, ridicule, and challenge public institutions — and get awards for it!”

And he said that every movie is hand-crafted. Movies also inspire unique technological breakthroughs. Ang Lee had to wait 12 years from the time he first wanted to make “Life of Pi” into movie until the technology could be developed to make it work.

Dodd spoke of the need to balance the “free and open internet,” which he supports, with protection of intellectual property. “Free and open cannot be synonymous with working for free.”

Asked about the responsibility the movie industry bears for its portrayal of violence and the impact that has on audiences, especially children and teenagers, he said with evident feeling that Newtown affected him personally — he once represented the Sandy Hook community. And Connecticut is the seventh largest producer of guns. “It is not an abstraction to me.” But his comments were on the abstract side — along the lines of “we of course want to be part of the conversation,” emphasizing the “slippery slope” of content regulation, and pointing to the lack of support for the mentally ill and their families as a more important problem. “We provide choice. Not every movie is for everyone.” The MPAA supports educating the audience about the tools it already makes available for control. Similarly, he was not willing to commit to any overhaul of the MPAA’s unnecessarily obscure, inconsistent, and biased toward the big studios ratings system. He also dodged specifics in answering questions about privacy and copyright extension.

The Media and Violence — Changing Perspectives After Sandy Hook

Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:28 pm

The comprehensive public safety reform package proposed by President Obama today includes new programs and proposed rules to increase support for the mentally ill, restrict access to the most deadly weapons, and provide additional security through more funding for law enforcement. Vice President Joe Biden included meeting with media industry representatives in developing the proposals. According to The Wrap, the meeting was “cordial,” and consisted primarily of a presentation about the effectiveness of the industry’s rating system to help parents make choices based on their own values and the needs of individual children. Today’s proposal, as expected, made no effort to address the content of media (which is protected by the 1st Amendment) or revise the rating system (which is industry-controlled and not regulated by the government). It does include some funding for additional research into the impact of violent games (not television or movies) on viewers.

There have literally been hundreds of studies already on this subject. We know that violence in media impairs empathetic responses and promotes a distorted world view that can lead to bad choices. We have a multi-billion dollar industry called advertising that is based on the notion that tiny snippets of media can influence opinions and behavior, so we should be long past arguing about whether violent media influences children and vulnerable adults. Any new research should be devoted to understanding better how media can help people better understand the consequences of violence and learn to make better choices.

PBS has announced a special week of programming inspired by the tragedy at Sandy Hook.

This special programming will kick off each night with a PBS NEWSHOUR report focusing on topics tied to the Newtown tragedy, including violence in the media, gun control policy and how cities like Aurora, Colorado are moving on after a similar tragedy. The series also includes a FRONTLINE special report, in collaboration with The Hartford Courant, profiling the Connecticut shooter and his relationship with his mother as well as a report on the battle over America’s gun laws and gun culture; a NOVAdocumentary about violence and the brain; two independent documentaries — one on the history of guns in America and the other on school security; a NEED TO KNOWreport about the ripple effects of a fatal shooting incident; and an update on political action in the nation’s capital surrounding gun control from WASHINGTON WEEK WITH GWEN IFILL.

“This week of specials gives PBS the opportunity to take an in-depth and thoughtful look at the issues the Newtown tragedy laid bare,” said Beth Hoppe, Chief Programming Executive and General Manager of General Audience Programming for PBS. “As we mourn the lives lost in Newtown, it is important to present the facts, the science, and the history behind the issues to provide information and context as we collectively look at how better to protect and serve our communities.”

Tweet Seats in Movie Theaters?

Posted on January 9, 2013 at 8:00 am

Before the movie begins we all sit through those clever reminders to turn off our phones. But of course people who are inconsiderate enough to use their phones in a movie theater are not going to to pay attention. Minnesota’s famous Guthrie Theater for live performance has a new idea, “tweet seats” for those who want to use social media while they watch the film.

The seats are located in the balcony-level of the theater so that the tweeting won’t be disruptive to other audience members.

“Tweet seats” are part of a growing trend in theaters across the country. The Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, Palm Beach Opera in Florida and the Public Theater in New York have all experimented with designated sections for patrons who just must use their phones, The Daily Mail notes.

All of the theaters offering “tweet seats” feature live performances. The perk is meant to encourage audience interaction and to create a buzz about the production. But there is also the chance that introducing these seats legitimizes a behavior that is widely regarded as just plain rude.

The problem with tweeting, texting and other cell phone use in theaters has become so widespread, that an app has been created to offer rewards to theatergoers who switch their phones to vibrate during screenings.

Will this spread to movie theaters? Should it?

I like the idea of apps that let viewers of television shows interact with each other and get access to additional material via apps. But I’m with the folks at the Alamo Theater — no one should be allowed to create disruptions or distractions during performances, whether stage or film.

Related Tags:

Commentary