An Early Run-In with Censors Led Rod Serling to ‘The Twilight Zone’(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
An Early Run-In with Censors Led Rod Serling to ‘The Twilight Zone’
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/early-run-censors-led-rod-serling-twilight-zone-180971837/
89 comments
Legal? For an over sixty-year-old show, where all the participants are long dead? Plainly an area where the law is in the wrong, and public domain stolen from.
> These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1927, are in the public domain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
It's a bit more complicated for pre-1978 works, but that's the gist. It's been this way for a long time; if you want to shorten the copyright period, you must change the law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...
It's a bit more complicated for pre-1978 works, but that's the gist. It's been this way for a long time; if you want to shorten the copyright period, you must change the law.
If the time period keeps getting extended, then it's just a more complicated way of saying "indefinitely."
It stopped getting extended a few years ago, and old works have once again started entering the public domain.
As far as I can tell, the last extension (sometimes called the Mickey Mouse protection act) was in 1998[1]. Steamboat Willie (the first Mickey Mouse film) will enter public domain in 2024 if nothing changes before then.[2] I guess we still have to wait 2 more years to see if Disney is able to extend copyright again, or if they plan to take a softer approach to protect the Empire this time.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie#Copyright_sta...
bonus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Bell%27s_graph_showin...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Willie#Copyright_sta...
bonus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Bell%27s_graph_showin...
Disney has at least claimed that they are not pursuing a further extension. The official stance is that its because trademarks and such give them sufficient protection, but it seems likely that the negative publicity around the Sunny Bono act is also related.
Apparently the GOP is explicitly targeting Disney-influenced copyright extensions in retaliation for its CEO's milquetoast criticism of the Flrodia anti-LGBT legislation:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-disney-ceo-oppo...
(not that I am endorsing Faux News, but you can rely on them to transcribe the party's agenda faithfully).
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-disney-ceo-oppo...
(not that I am endorsing Faux News, but you can rely on them to transcribe the party's agenda faithfully).
Between the bad publicity WDC has been getting for supporting trans rights, not supporting trans rights enough, and funding a self-described cabal in the city of Anaheim, they should definitely be keeping a low profile in politics right now.
They've been losing support of Republicans due to their increasingly lefty posture, so their power over congress may be waning. Guess we'll see.
Who downvoted this factual statement?
https://news.yahoo.com/disney-stock-drops-florida-republican...
https://news.yahoo.com/disney-stock-drops-florida-republican...
It (the film, not the Twilight Zone episode) appears to be available on Vimeo. It was uploaded 12 years ago, so I'm assuming it's OK to share here.
https://vimeo.com/15147706
https://vimeo.com/15147706
The segment with Vic Morrow is a perfect illustration of the article: it would never have been allowed in 1959, and with the rise of Southern Revisionism ("the ~~Civil War~~ War between the States was fought over abstract constitutional issues of States' Rights, not the defense of chattel slavery, not that there is anything wrong with enslaving non-humans"), may not be again soon.
Those looking for the BEST way should get the Blu-Rays, which were scanned from film.
So many shows were shot on film; I wish they'd scan and re-release more of them.
So many shows were shot on film; I wish they'd scan and re-release more of them.
The Paramount+ episodes are the same film scan masters as the Blu-Ray, so they generally look good.
Of course streaming is always worse than a BR because when you don't have a copy of the data, the content masters will always prefer to send you the cheapest and lowest-rate encoding that they can get away with... "How should we meet our 10% cost reduction KPI this quarter? I know, let's dump streaming quality again."
Of course streaming is always worse than a BR because when you don't have a copy of the data, the content masters will always prefer to send you the cheapest and lowest-rate encoding that they can get away with... "How should we meet our 10% cost reduction KPI this quarter? I know, let's dump streaming quality again."
Indeed. Next up: "4K" at sub-30-Mbps rates. What a pathetic joke.
[deleted]
Any idea why it's not included?
Possibly they just got the rights to air the film, but didn't actually get ownership. I'd imagine when the language was written up, the assumption was made that Twilight Zone would only take the form of over-the-air TV broadcast.
This is incredibly common with TV shows produced before the rise of DVD box-sets (early/mid-00s). Shows had a defined lifecycle: they'd premiere (and make back most of the production cost), re-run the following summer (assuming the show was popular enough to not get cancelled), and then if the show reached ~100 episodes, it would be picked up for syndication. All but the most popular shows would essentially cease to exist 10-15 years after their initial run ended, so it was cheaper to license third-party elements (music, this French film) on a time-limited basis to keep costs down.
I had forgotten about summer reruns. That's a blast from the past.
I daresay a good part of the readership here would have trouble imaging that to watch non-live TV shows you had to be sitting in front of a TV at a particular time and if you missed it, that might be it.
Just one reason you mostly couldn't do heavily serialized TV. You could pull it off for a heavily promoted miniseries or limited run series. But, by and large, shows where missing an episode meant you were lost, just wouldn't fly in general.
I daresay a good part of the readership here would have trouble imaging that to watch non-live TV shows you had to be sitting in front of a TV at a particular time and if you missed it, that might be it.
Just one reason you mostly couldn't do heavily serialized TV. You could pull it off for a heavily promoted miniseries or limited run series. But, by and large, shows where missing an episode meant you were lost, just wouldn't fly in general.
I feel like TiVo actually opened up a lot of this and the nascent streaming available at the time (hulu/youtube?) is what kicked off the rise of actually serialized and episodic TV.
It is very funny having to explain to people why shows like "star trek: the next generation" basically had to reset everything by the end of the episode back into it's original state in order for syndication to work (episodes are basically played in any order aside from the few 2-parter episodes).
It is very funny having to explain to people why shows like "star trek: the next generation" basically had to reset everything by the end of the episode back into it's original state in order for syndication to work (episodes are basically played in any order aside from the few 2-parter episodes).
Yes, I assume that Lost--for whatever its problems--was essentially a child of Internet discussions plus TiVo/DVRs. Babylon 5 was even earlier but it was pretty niche and many fans (like myself) were content to timeshift on VCRs by then.
And, yes, syndication was a significant revenue stream that basically didn't work unless you could randomly drop into a Law and Order episode or pretty much any sitcom.
And, yes, syndication was a significant revenue stream that basically didn't work unless you could randomly drop into a Law and Order episode or pretty much any sitcom.
Not just TV shows, but movies too. I saw Star Wars in the theater. I didn’t see it again (there was no way to see it again) until years later when it was shown on TV.
Or second-run/revival theaters. I used to be very involved with a film group undergrad. We could get weekend audiences for a thousand people or more for relatively recent (but no longer still in theaters) movies and hundreds for older films.
These days, whatever preferences some people may have for seeing films in a theater with an audience, attendance has dwindled to very few.
These days, whatever preferences some people may have for seeing films in a theater with an audience, attendance has dwindled to very few.
With the rise of home video and better home-viewing experiences, second-run showings aren't really worth it. Most movies are available on home video by the time their theatrical run ends (and if they're really popular, they may still be in their theatrical run). A digital rental will typically be about the same price ($4USD) as my local second-run theater, only it's far more convenient.
Movie buffs, especially in big cities, will still have repertory/revival showings of old films. But that's a different market -- they're not looking to see an old movie, they're looking to see that movie in a communal environment, and sometimes with additional features like a discussion panel afterwards.
Movie buffs, especially in big cities, will still have repertory/revival showings of old films. But that's a different market -- they're not looking to see an old movie, they're looking to see that movie in a communal environment, and sometimes with additional features like a discussion panel afterwards.
> Just one reason you mostly couldn't do heavily serialized TV. You could pull it off for a heavily promoted miniseries or limited run series. But, by and large, shows where missing an episode meant you were lost, just wouldn't fly in general.
Soap Operas had been managing to do this for decades before B5 showed up (although yeah, B5 did it a lot better)
Soap Operas had been managing to do this for decades before B5 showed up (although yeah, B5 did it a lot better)
And to a related point, there are TV series like Northern Exposure where the music was pretty integral to the show but don't have the rights to, so apparently the DVD releases are pretty compromised.
That's a good example. Another is Beavis and Butthead. My understanding is that when the shows originally aired they were relying on MTV's rights to air the videos featured in the episodes. So now any episodes (streaming or disc) only show the fully animated segments, and not the interludes where the two are sitting on the couch. Sadly, those are some of the best moments of the show...
wkrp in cincinnati suffers from the same issue. Too many great songs as part of dialogue or plot.
Pretty much. And, in fact, most of the value presumably came from (as far as they knew at the time) the initial airing of the episode. So why pay more for all the rights?
Per Wikipedia:
Three years after its production, the film was screened on American TV as part of the fantasy/science fiction show The Twilight Zone. Producer William Froug had seen the film and decided to buy the rights to broadcast it on American television. The transaction cost The Twilight Zone $25,000, significantly less than the average of $65,000 they expended on producing their own episodes; however, Froug's purchase allowed for the film to be aired only twice (the first airing was on February 28, 1964). Consequently, it is not included on The Twilight Zone's syndication package, though it is included with the series on home video releases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Occurrence_at_Owl_Creek_Bri...
Per Wikipedia:
Three years after its production, the film was screened on American TV as part of the fantasy/science fiction show The Twilight Zone. Producer William Froug had seen the film and decided to buy the rights to broadcast it on American television. The transaction cost The Twilight Zone $25,000, significantly less than the average of $65,000 they expended on producing their own episodes; however, Froug's purchase allowed for the film to be aired only twice (the first airing was on February 28, 1964). Consequently, it is not included on The Twilight Zone's syndication package, though it is included with the series on home video releases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Occurrence_at_Owl_Creek_Bri...
IANAL but from the brief info you shared it sounds like the show had rights to include the film on broadcast x times but not the rights for later distribution.
It is out of copyright where I live.
For now
For now
Despite the unfortunate reason for the limitation, as long as the author intends to present a fictional story I think allegorical stories about injustice actually do more to convey the message. There's a lot of fiction that just feels like the writer had tunnel vision on a contemporary issue and forgot to flesh out enough of a story to make it feel like more than a thinly-veiled lecture. Even when I agree wholeheartedly with the message, it can be agonizing to watch.
Just a general thought though, Peele is a good enough creator that I don't expect him to fall into that trap.
Just a general thought though, Peele is a good enough creator that I don't expect him to fall into that trap.
Obviously, Serling was creative enough to work within the constraints to make something that still resonates decades later. One might even wonder if he'd been allowed to be more directly topical if that would still be true.
[Haven't seen the Peele version yet, since no access to P+]
[Haven't seen the Peele version yet, since no access to P+]
>> There's a lot of fiction that just feels like the writer had tunnel vision on a contemporary issue and forgot to flesh out enough of a story to make it feel like more than a thinly-veiled lecture. Even when I agree wholeheartedly with the message, it can be agonizing to watch.
The classic example of that for me is a Star Trek episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefi...
The classic example of that for me is a Star Trek episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefi...
This is one of my favorite episodes. I always thought the thin veiling helped to demonstrate the absurdity of both situations -- perhaps it was even done intentionally for that reason.
I remember seeing that as a small child and thinking that most of my fairy tales were more subtle.
At least they bothered to "thinly veil" it, unlike a lot of things today.
Note that this article is from 2019. Looks like the Peele version lasted two seasons. I guess it didn't set the world on fire.
I saw it. It was pretty hit and miss, like the original but it's far less timeless. If you liked the original, this is better than nothing but it's not going to sate one's desire for more Twilight Zone.
Thanks for the review. When I heard Jordan Peele, I thought hey, his sense of the macabre might work well for the show.
But... he might turn out to be sort of "one-flavor," if not quite one-note.
But... he might turn out to be sort of "one-flavor," if not quite one-note.
Serling was TV's first angry young man.
But he really thought that TV was an important medium and there were things he wanted to say. He just found out that science fiction allowed him to get around censorship.
There are plenty of running themes he includes, but interestingly enough, baseball (he was a huge fan of the Dodgers) and religion have an existence in the Twilight Zone, which always fascinated me.
But he really thought that TV was an important medium and there were things he wanted to say. He just found out that science fiction allowed him to get around censorship.
There are plenty of running themes he includes, but interestingly enough, baseball (he was a huge fan of the Dodgers) and religion have an existence in the Twilight Zone, which always fascinated me.
For TZ fans, Serling's Daughter Ann discusses the fundaments of her fathers writing voice and style along with add'l TZ production ephemera in this podcast observing Twilight Zone's 60th Anniversay.
https://www.gilbertpodcast.com/twilight-zone-60th-anniversar...
“The writer’s role is to be a menacer of the public’s conscience,” Serling later said. “He must have a position, a point of view. He must see the arts as a vehicle of social criticism and he must focus the issues of his time.”
Good quote. It's been weird to see the belief growing the last few years that art should (or even can) be apolitical, and an artist's job is to make art uninformed by their political needs.
Such an art doesn't exist of course, and I'm thankful to see a classic acknowledge that not as a necessary deviation from an ideal, but as an ideal in its own right.
Good quote. It's been weird to see the belief growing the last few years that art should (or even can) be apolitical, and an artist's job is to make art uninformed by their political needs.
Such an art doesn't exist of course, and I'm thankful to see a classic acknowledge that not as a necessary deviation from an ideal, but as an ideal in its own right.
There's more to life than the political, so why should there be only political art?
I see the pressure for art to be political to be somewhat unusual, precipitated by the times. In the 30s, there was a strain of artists who condemned any art that wasn't overtly political. This really seems the exception, probably a cyclically so.
There is a lot of religious art, and probably more normative in the West is art based on the artist's personal expression. Nevertheless, every artifact of culture can be placed within its context and declared political in some way.
Probably we can use the politicization of art as an indicator of a society's health, i.e. is this a culture that no longer believes in itself?
I see the pressure for art to be political to be somewhat unusual, precipitated by the times. In the 30s, there was a strain of artists who condemned any art that wasn't overtly political. This really seems the exception, probably a cyclically so.
There is a lot of religious art, and probably more normative in the West is art based on the artist's personal expression. Nevertheless, every artifact of culture can be placed within its context and declared political in some way.
Probably we can use the politicization of art as an indicator of a society's health, i.e. is this a culture that no longer believes in itself?
> There's more to life than the political, so why should there be only political art?
function_seven's observation that "To write "everything is political" is to water down the term "political" so much that it loses meaning." is the most insightful, but does not answer the question.
But the answer is simple. Those who write "art should be political", do so because they think art will advance their brand of politics. Anything that advances politics counter to theirs is, of course, not art, but propaganda.
function_seven's observation that "To write "everything is political" is to water down the term "political" so much that it loses meaning." is the most insightful, but does not answer the question.
But the answer is simple. Those who write "art should be political", do so because they think art will advance their brand of politics. Anything that advances politics counter to theirs is, of course, not art, but propaganda.
> There's more to life than the political
Everything is political. If you think a subject isn't political, it's because that subject isn't controversial to you personally.
Everything is political. If you think a subject isn't political, it's because that subject isn't controversial to you personally.
To write "everything is political" is to water down the term "political" so much that it loses meaning.
If I paint a picture of a sailing ship cresting a wave, is my art political? I see beauty in the sprays of water, the upward cant of the ship, the sails full of wind, the gulls in the background, etc.
How about a bowl of fruit? Or a blacksmith forging horseshoes?
No, not everything is "political". Yes, politics affects most aspects of life, but that does not mean everything is political any more than "everything is sexual" or "everything is financial". Money and sex also permeate our lives in small and large ways. My painting of the fruit bowl is not a commentary on sex, nor is my blacksmith painting making any sort of statement on money.
If I paint a picture of a sailing ship cresting a wave, is my art political? I see beauty in the sprays of water, the upward cant of the ship, the sails full of wind, the gulls in the background, etc.
How about a bowl of fruit? Or a blacksmith forging horseshoes?
No, not everything is "political". Yes, politics affects most aspects of life, but that does not mean everything is political any more than "everything is sexual" or "everything is financial". Money and sex also permeate our lives in small and large ways. My painting of the fruit bowl is not a commentary on sex, nor is my blacksmith painting making any sort of statement on money.
The problem with your argument(s) is that you remove an important variable from the equation, which is context. Art + context = political. In a way, many people are falsely applying the whole 'death of the author' thing but instead to pieces of artwork.
For example, it would be incredibly hard to argue that the work of HP Lovecraft wasn't intensely political. Much of his work was strongly informed by his racist beliefs (even for the era), which waned as he grew older. Few people would argue that showing the horror of what happened to Emmett Till is political nowadays, but at the time it was a heavily politicized thing as the article mentions.
If you think something isn't political, then you might be lacking the context that makes it political. Some people believe including any sort of gay relationships in a tv series is political, others don't. How do you separate who is right, other than by your own judgment based on your own personal political compass?
For example, it would be incredibly hard to argue that the work of HP Lovecraft wasn't intensely political. Much of his work was strongly informed by his racist beliefs (even for the era), which waned as he grew older. Few people would argue that showing the horror of what happened to Emmett Till is political nowadays, but at the time it was a heavily politicized thing as the article mentions.
If you think something isn't political, then you might be lacking the context that makes it political. Some people believe including any sort of gay relationships in a tv series is political, others don't. How do you separate who is right, other than by your own judgment based on your own personal political compass?
It reminds me a bit of these old paintings which are filled with allegories and symbolism that many people today just completely miss; e.g. a lute is a symbol of female fertility and stuff like that.
I'd have to re-read Lovecraft's works, but I never got this impression myself when reading it. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, just underscoring that the context of the reader also matters as you say.
This also applies in the other direction: you might read "meaning" into some piece of literature or art that the original creator(s) never intended.
I'd have to re-read Lovecraft's works, but I never got this impression myself when reading it. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, just underscoring that the context of the reader also matters as you say.
This also applies in the other direction: you might read "meaning" into some piece of literature or art that the original creator(s) never intended.
> If I paint a picture of a sailing ship cresting a wave, is my art political?
Yes. Modern sailing ships are a symbol of wealth inequality, and historical ones have plenty of other controversial associations, depending on time period.
> How about a bowl of fruit?
Also yes. Access to fresh fruit is a political subject. Just look at maps of food deserts.
> Or a blacksmith forging horseshoes?
Stick around here for long enough and you'll find plenty of people arguing over the idealization of rural life, the roles of domesticated animals, etc.
Yes. Modern sailing ships are a symbol of wealth inequality, and historical ones have plenty of other controversial associations, depending on time period.
> How about a bowl of fruit?
Also yes. Access to fresh fruit is a political subject. Just look at maps of food deserts.
> Or a blacksmith forging horseshoes?
Stick around here for long enough and you'll find plenty of people arguing over the idealization of rural life, the roles of domesticated animals, etc.
This is a semantic distortion of what most people mean when they say something is political.
Yes, a painting of fruit can be discussed within a political context.
But when we say a piece of art is political, we don't mean it can be seen within a political context. We mean that the piece of art is intended to be seen within a political context, or that the political context is blatantly apparent. Yes, this means whether or not something is political is subjective. That's how people use the word, just as they might describe something as angry or meaningful.
When people say "everything is political", just as they say "racism is prejudice plus power", they are discarding the in-practice meaning of these words and replacing them with meanings that were invented to support a particular cause.
Yes, a painting of fruit can be discussed within a political context.
But when we say a piece of art is political, we don't mean it can be seen within a political context. We mean that the piece of art is intended to be seen within a political context, or that the political context is blatantly apparent. Yes, this means whether or not something is political is subjective. That's how people use the word, just as they might describe something as angry or meaningful.
When people say "everything is political", just as they say "racism is prejudice plus power", they are discarding the in-practice meaning of these words and replacing them with meanings that were invented to support a particular cause.
"Access to fresh fruit is a political subject."
There is no such thing as 'food desert' that's a made up term.
Everywhere in supposed 'food deserts' there is access to 'fresh fruit'.
I think you've probably proven the point a bit, there really isn't anything political about a bowl of fruit, at least not in 2022 (maybe 1700 ...).
When you really mean to say is: "Radical ideologues can turn any issue into something".
That does not equate to material controversy.
That does say something about our twisted world, in which I think we have the ability to completely decontextualize any subject, point at some bit of 'fact' and make some kind of statement about it.
So by this mundane standard, most 'art' is not political. Much of it is, and that's fine.
There is no such thing as 'food desert' that's a made up term.
Everywhere in supposed 'food deserts' there is access to 'fresh fruit'.
I think you've probably proven the point a bit, there really isn't anything political about a bowl of fruit, at least not in 2022 (maybe 1700 ...).
When you really mean to say is: "Radical ideologues can turn any issue into something".
That does not equate to material controversy.
That does say something about our twisted world, in which I think we have the ability to completely decontextualize any subject, point at some bit of 'fact' and make some kind of statement about it.
So by this mundane standard, most 'art' is not political. Much of it is, and that's fine.
> Yes. Modern sailing ships are a symbol of wealth inequality, and historical ones have plenty of other controversial associations, depending on time period.
So what statement am I making about any of these? My painting is of a ship, cresting a wave.
> Also yes. Access to fresh fruit is a political subject. Just look at maps of food deserts.
I didn't paint a food desert, or of anyone having or not-having access to the bowl in my painting. My painting is of fruit. In a bowl. What political statement am I making?
> Stick around here for long enough and you'll find plenty of people arguing over the idealization of rural life, the roles of domesticated animals, etc.
So what political statement is my painting making here?
If the viewer of any of these paintings is interpreting them through their own political lens, it does not mean the art itself is political. It means the viewer is.
Obviously if I paint a group of infantrymen menacing poor villagers who cower in fear, I'm making a statement. A lot of effort is required to present the menace, the fear, the looming and the cowering, the sneers and the pleas, etc. An apple sitting in a bowl presents none of those attributes.
Unless you want to make appreciation of natural beauty a political issue. I won't go there.
So what statement am I making about any of these? My painting is of a ship, cresting a wave.
> Also yes. Access to fresh fruit is a political subject. Just look at maps of food deserts.
I didn't paint a food desert, or of anyone having or not-having access to the bowl in my painting. My painting is of fruit. In a bowl. What political statement am I making?
> Stick around here for long enough and you'll find plenty of people arguing over the idealization of rural life, the roles of domesticated animals, etc.
So what political statement is my painting making here?
If the viewer of any of these paintings is interpreting them through their own political lens, it does not mean the art itself is political. It means the viewer is.
Obviously if I paint a group of infantrymen menacing poor villagers who cower in fear, I'm making a statement. A lot of effort is required to present the menace, the fear, the looming and the cowering, the sneers and the pleas, etc. An apple sitting in a bowl presents none of those attributes.
Unless you want to make appreciation of natural beauty a political issue. I won't go there.
I think what you've shown is that everything is political to you. Most people don't see a bowl of fruit and see it as a political message.
Everything having to do with maintaining relationships between persons is political. This also includes one maintaining the relationship with oneself. So, everything in your subjective experience, as centered on the personal narrative (ego), is political.
[deleted]
If I understand "political" to pertain to any activity that occurs in a polis, then you're right. If I were to spend time studying number theory, that, too, is political because it is an activity carried out within a polis, and it is impossible to separate the act from the entire web of interdependencies within the polis.
I think your linkage of the political with the controversial is telling and makes me think this is not the idea of "political" you have in mind. In which case, I hope I'm making the non-controversial statement that an artist's intent is distinct from the interpretation of the artist's work. Sometimes an artist's intent is political, sometimes it is not. Sometimes a political interpretation sheds light on a work, and sometimes it doesn't.
A long time ago, I recall one of my classmates telling me about a lecture he attended in which an analysis of Ancient Voices of Children was given with George Crumb in the audience. Afterwards, Crumb said he found the analysis fascinating and that he was unaware of the set of relationships discussed in the analysis until they had been pointed out, but none of those things were salient to him while he was composing the work.
So I think the artist's intent is privileged, while any mode of analysis or interpretation has the burden of proving its value in each particular case.
I think your linkage of the political with the controversial is telling and makes me think this is not the idea of "political" you have in mind. In which case, I hope I'm making the non-controversial statement that an artist's intent is distinct from the interpretation of the artist's work. Sometimes an artist's intent is political, sometimes it is not. Sometimes a political interpretation sheds light on a work, and sometimes it doesn't.
A long time ago, I recall one of my classmates telling me about a lecture he attended in which an analysis of Ancient Voices of Children was given with George Crumb in the audience. Afterwards, Crumb said he found the analysis fascinating and that he was unaware of the set of relationships discussed in the analysis until they had been pointed out, but none of those things were salient to him while he was composing the work.
So I think the artist's intent is privileged, while any mode of analysis or interpretation has the burden of proving its value in each particular case.
The point of view to which you object is not by any means recent, and it has always been prominent, if not predominant. I find most art with a political message as its purpose intolerably dull. I know where to go if I want to wallow in politics. Art should deal in the sublime.
Art whose political message overrides its art tends to be dull. Art that intertwines itself with its message is far more interesting.
If you want a fun experiment, compare the video games Cyberpunk 20777 and Umurangi Generation: both released in 2020, and both make political statements. In one, the political statement is steeped throughout the game, but it gives the player enough space to draw their own conclusions; in the other, the political message is forced onto the player in a fairly haphazard way.
If you want a fun experiment, compare the video games Cyberpunk 20777 and Umurangi Generation: both released in 2020, and both make political statements. In one, the political statement is steeped throughout the game, but it gives the player enough space to draw their own conclusions; in the other, the political message is forced onto the player in a fairly haphazard way.
What did you make of Disco Elysium?
Often, the best satire exists in a state of cognitive dissonance, with absurd characters acting in obviously ridiculous ways that nevertheless feel like the product of the exact same systems that govern our lives, with the obfuscation swept away.
Dr Strangelove and Catch-22 are my favorite examples. The 60s US nuclear policy wasn’t really set by generals named Jack Ripper who want to inflict atomic hellfire because of baseless conspiracy theories… except that’s the chain of order the bureaucracy produced, with a longer timeframe and more words. Catch-22 is a comedy because the betrayals, idiocy, and soulless power moves all occur in one squadron with one or two links between people, instead of over the breadth of the theater and spread over many people so every step looks reasonable.
It’s very hard to make this kind of satire because condensing and heightening narratives like that makes it so, so easy to tilt things a little more in favor of your ideas, which immediately loses that ephemeral sense of reality and turns your satire into a sermon with clown makeup. This is why there are so many attempts and so few successes. I’d say Disco Elysium is one of those successes.
Dr Strangelove and Catch-22 are my favorite examples. The 60s US nuclear policy wasn’t really set by generals named Jack Ripper who want to inflict atomic hellfire because of baseless conspiracy theories… except that’s the chain of order the bureaucracy produced, with a longer timeframe and more words. Catch-22 is a comedy because the betrayals, idiocy, and soulless power moves all occur in one squadron with one or two links between people, instead of over the breadth of the theater and spread over many people so every step looks reasonable.
It’s very hard to make this kind of satire because condensing and heightening narratives like that makes it so, so easy to tilt things a little more in favor of your ideas, which immediately loses that ephemeral sense of reality and turns your satire into a sermon with clown makeup. This is why there are so many attempts and so few successes. I’d say Disco Elysium is one of those successes.
There are a few videos on YouTube where Serling talks with groups of aspiring writers. He is quite passionate about writing and storytelling. He also smokes incessantly, which lead to his untimely death at the age of 50.
I assume there are video interviews with Serling where he isn't smoking but you probably have to search a bit.
This will be unpopular ... as a long-time horror fan, I found Serling's episodes to tend toward the heavy-handed, the obvious, often schmaltzy. I favored the Beaumont and Matheson far more, even decades later.
I'd have to look up who wrote what episodes although it looks like Beaumont wrote some classic ones.
The Twilight Zone was always something of a mixed bag but, because it was episodic, from the distance of time we can easily pick and choose and skim the cream.
The Twilight Zone was always something of a mixed bag but, because it was episodic, from the distance of time we can easily pick and choose and skim the cream.
>Such an art doesn't exist of course...
... what? Art absolutely can be apolitical. A piece of music can exist without political meaning; a beautiful oil painting of a garden likely doesn't have politics attached to it. I could go on and on. Some art has something to say while other art exists simply for the sake of existing.
... what? Art absolutely can be apolitical. A piece of music can exist without political meaning; a beautiful oil painting of a garden likely doesn't have politics attached to it. I could go on and on. Some art has something to say while other art exists simply for the sake of existing.
Only if you have a narrow modern definition of politics based on eg political parties and elections.
Just as a very simple explanation with this example: a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it if not everyone has recreational access to that garden. A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical", where a painting of it by someone who shouldn't be in it could be transgressive, or even threatening.
These things are small and may seem like a stretch but this is politics. It's kind of like that joke "gamers think there are two genders: male and political." What we think of as political or not is itself an embedding of politics, not a neutral external fact derived from the universe.
Just as a very simple explanation with this example: a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it if not everyone has recreational access to that garden. A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical", where a painting of it by someone who shouldn't be in it could be transgressive, or even threatening.
These things are small and may seem like a stretch but this is politics. It's kind of like that joke "gamers think there are two genders: male and political." What we think of as political or not is itself an embedding of politics, not a neutral external fact derived from the universe.
My definition of politics extends beyond governments, political parties, yadda yadda. I also think that your response supports my assertion that your absolute - that apolitical art does not exist - is false.
>... a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it IF not everyone has recreational access to that garden.
And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden?
>A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical"...
I am unsure how to take this sentence as anything but you agreeing that that piece of art is, in point of fact, apolitical. Please point me in the right direction if I'm off base here.
>... a painting of a garden has politics embedded within it IF not everyone has recreational access to that garden.
And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden?
>A painting of a garden by a member of the family that owns it is just a painting, "apolitical"...
I am unsure how to take this sentence as anything but you agreeing that that piece of art is, in point of fact, apolitical. Please point me in the right direction if I'm off base here.
> And if everyone does have recreational access to the garden?
There is an artist's intent, and then there is interpretation of the work. You can't prevent someone from applying a political lens for interpretation -- oh, look, those people are out of place, etc. Sometimes this can shed light on the work, other times obscures it.
Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony was explicitly political and changed the dedication as political events unfolded. Later, Beethoven wrote the "Harp" quartet in a cellar in Vienna while it was being bombarded by Napoleon's army. The quartet is the last thing you'd imagine it to be under the circumstances of its composition, and maybe that was the point, in which case you can say there is perhaps an inverted political intent at play here, too. The political context adds a dimension to how I think of that quartet.
(I can't resist mentioning Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" -- not highly regarded and very corny and probably more on the order of what you expect from "political" art).
Now give me a political interpretation of Beethoven's C# minor quartet. I'd maybe have to take Taruskin's approach of considering it the work of not a single individual, but what was required from the whole society for such a work to have been produced. Everything from fiddle makers to music instruction to how arts were funded. At that point, I don't think the mode of analysis any longer has anything to do with the C# minor quartet.
I strongly endorse the idea of autonomous expression in art; when there is reason to believe the artist's intent was political, I'll follow along; when not, a political interpretation is useful only insofar as it sheds light on the work.
There is an artist's intent, and then there is interpretation of the work. You can't prevent someone from applying a political lens for interpretation -- oh, look, those people are out of place, etc. Sometimes this can shed light on the work, other times obscures it.
Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony was explicitly political and changed the dedication as political events unfolded. Later, Beethoven wrote the "Harp" quartet in a cellar in Vienna while it was being bombarded by Napoleon's army. The quartet is the last thing you'd imagine it to be under the circumstances of its composition, and maybe that was the point, in which case you can say there is perhaps an inverted political intent at play here, too. The political context adds a dimension to how I think of that quartet.
(I can't resist mentioning Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory" -- not highly regarded and very corny and probably more on the order of what you expect from "political" art).
Now give me a political interpretation of Beethoven's C# minor quartet. I'd maybe have to take Taruskin's approach of considering it the work of not a single individual, but what was required from the whole society for such a work to have been produced. Everything from fiddle makers to music instruction to how arts were funded. At that point, I don't think the mode of analysis any longer has anything to do with the C# minor quartet.
I strongly endorse the idea of autonomous expression in art; when there is reason to believe the artist's intent was political, I'll follow along; when not, a political interpretation is useful only insofar as it sheds light on the work.
I put apolitical in quotes there for a reason. Likely to be perceived as neutral, not politically active or making any particular statement. But that perception isn't from nowhere and doesn't mean it's not political.
You can refute any specific thing I say about a garden or whatever. But there will always be things. Everyone has recreational access, but does everyone have recreational time? Can everyone get the paints needed to recreate it? etc.
Something is apolitical from a person's perspective when it embeds their political assumptions, basically. It's not necessarily wrong to describe something that way, but that assertion needs to carry with it a context within which it is neutral. Whether a specific viewer will receive it as political is a fact about the observer, not the piece of art.
You can refute any specific thing I say about a garden or whatever. But there will always be things. Everyone has recreational access, but does everyone have recreational time? Can everyone get the paints needed to recreate it? etc.
Something is apolitical from a person's perspective when it embeds their political assumptions, basically. It's not necessarily wrong to describe something that way, but that assertion needs to carry with it a context within which it is neutral. Whether a specific viewer will receive it as political is a fact about the observer, not the piece of art.
> Whether a specific viewer will receive it as political is a fact about the observer, not the piece of art.
That’s your key point. If someone wants to see politics in a work of art for which the artist imbued no politics of his own, they will find it. If someone wants to take offense to a statement, they will, regardless of speakers intent.
And so this really is a pointless discussion when you are saying that an elephant can be interpreted as a mouse, if the observer perceives it as such.
That’s your key point. If someone wants to see politics in a work of art for which the artist imbued no politics of his own, they will find it. If someone wants to take offense to a statement, they will, regardless of speakers intent.
And so this really is a pointless discussion when you are saying that an elephant can be interpreted as a mouse, if the observer perceives it as such.
[deleted]
I think the problem with "political beliefs" is do you really believe in them or do you want to be apart of a club? Pretty much anytime I've had a calm political discussion with someone, I've found out that they're a scatter chart on that political leaning grid instead of a solitary point. Yet they still say I'm this party. Or they're just a parrot for whoever is the poster child that week for whatever party.
Political beliefs when parroted as a clear cut, right/wrong for every situation is what makes people's stomach churn to projectile levels.
Political beliefs when presented as a complex flaw of the human condition that makes us all realize we're better off burning it all to the ground and sleeping on grass again... then enacting a system to severely punish anyone who tries to bring it all back, which would require a group to enact said system with then another group to oversight that group... oh shit wait...
Political beliefs when parroted as a clear cut, right/wrong for every situation is what makes people's stomach churn to projectile levels.
Political beliefs when presented as a complex flaw of the human condition that makes us all realize we're better off burning it all to the ground and sleeping on grass again... then enacting a system to severely punish anyone who tries to bring it all back, which would require a group to enact said system with then another group to oversight that group... oh shit wait...
Growing belief?
It's hard to square that with the enormous amount of censorship Serling faced.
It's hard to square that with the enormous amount of censorship Serling faced.
? No ... this is a problematic statement.
To suggest that art cannot be 'apolitical' is ridiculous.
Most art is fairly apolitical.
A lot of art doesn't even make a statement.
And FYI much of the criticism over 'politicization' of art, generally has to do with 'which politics' the artists has chosen, which medium, and which corporate giant etc..
To suggest that art cannot be 'apolitical' is ridiculous.
Most art is fairly apolitical.
A lot of art doesn't even make a statement.
And FYI much of the criticism over 'politicization' of art, generally has to do with 'which politics' the artists has chosen, which medium, and which corporate giant etc..
The idea that art should always be pushing an agenda, implicitly meaning the artist is somehow more civilized than the rest of us plebes, is pretty arrogant.
Given Depp/Heard, Smith/Rock, etc., does anyone really think that artists are morally superior?
Given Depp/Heard, Smith/Rock, etc., does anyone really think that artists are morally superior?
What the hell is political about some random instrumental lofi track?
To claim no art can be apolitical indicates either your field of view of art is massively limited in scope or that you just haven’t experienced enough art.
To claim no art can be apolitical indicates either your field of view of art is massively limited in scope or that you just haven’t experienced enough art.
Who has access to the instruments to make it and who doesn't? Who has had exposure to the musical forms it is based on? These things aren't universal or evenly distributed across the planet, why is that? There's the politics.
I'm not claiming that all art has an explicit political position. Just that all art exists in a context that is impossible to perfectly separate from politics.
I'm not claiming that all art has an explicit political position. Just that all art exists in a context that is impossible to perfectly separate from politics.
> I'm not claiming that all art has an explicit political position. Just that all art exists in a context that is impossible to perfectly separate from politics.
You could say the same thing about anything. Every single piece of art is about oxygen. The artist had to breathe while creating the art; it's impossible to separate the art from the oxygen that enabled it. All art is oxygenated.
It's a pointless and un-insightful comment to make. Just because you can draw a tenuous connection between a peice of art and politics doesn't make the art about politics, and more than the art is about oxygen.
You could say the same thing about anything. Every single piece of art is about oxygen. The artist had to breathe while creating the art; it's impossible to separate the art from the oxygen that enabled it. All art is oxygenated.
It's a pointless and un-insightful comment to make. Just because you can draw a tenuous connection between a peice of art and politics doesn't make the art about politics, and more than the art is about oxygen.
This is what we call a 'tenuous' connection, rather than a direct connection. It is not a result of the intention behind the art, which is the message.
'Run the Jewels' is objectively political music. 'Pussy Riot' is political music.
The tunes on the LoFi girl channel are as apolitical as it can be. Lounge Jazz? Like...there are so, so many examples.
I seriously got a chuckle from your comment, though - made my day tbh. :)
'Run the Jewels' is objectively political music. 'Pussy Riot' is political music.
The tunes on the LoFi girl channel are as apolitical as it can be. Lounge Jazz? Like...there are so, so many examples.
I seriously got a chuckle from your comment, though - made my day tbh. :)
> It's been weird to see the belief growing the last few years that art should (or even can) be apolitical, and an artist's job is to make art uninformed by their political needs.
Interestingly, this is a somewhat old belief. When you read about art history, a lot of these ideas about an artist being apolitical were associated with the classicist tradition and the French Academy, I believe. Later on, when the Impressionists and others challenged these views, they courted controversy for introducing political topics into their artwork in very subtle ways, from the way a woman posed, to what she wore, to even the colors that the painter used. So this is really an old debate that’s been around for a long time.
It later became more of an issue in the 20th century as the old ways of doing art began to be replaced with modern art. I recall reading about it in terms of censorship and the red scare in the 1950s. Remember, before the free speech movement in the early 1960s, artists and writers were frequently attacked by the establishment for addressing political issues, and artists and writers who steered clear of these things were often rewarded and elevated by the then status quo. Those who didn’t stop and challenged the establishment could be blackballed as we saw in Hollywood in the film industry at that time. This also famously applied to artists who tried to address LGBT issues, which were pretty much forbidden and met with punishment.
These people were frequently derided as "agitators" in the popular media of the time, a term that is rarely heard these days. Years before this, musicians like Billie Holiday had tried to address racism in the US, and the FBI went after her and other musicians who tried to raise awareness about the hardships they faced and they destroyed their careers. In many ways, just like today, elements of the US government acted like morality police, and their litmus test was politics. If you were a political artist of any kind, you were put on a watchlist and monitored. My understanding is that this is still true in many countries today.
There’s also the popular and somewhat established conspiracy theory about abstract expressionism. On the one hand, some experts argue that it was a form of soft power to fight communism and to promote the American value of freedom of expression. But I have an altogether different take.
In an earlier period of my life, I spent a lot of time investigating abstract expressionism and immersing myself in it. And I came to the conclusion that it could have been viewed as apolitical in one sense (and psychological in another), which would also work as a propaganda/disinformation tool to disengage the audience from current events and political concerns, in effect fulfilling the goals of its proponents, such as mitigating social and political dissent during the Cold War, the civil rights movement, and the various cultural issues at the time.
Perhaps this is one reason why, during the height of the post-9/11 period, during two wars, a Great Recession, a housing crisis, an opioid epidemic, and the loss of personal privacy, there was a resurgence of apolitical abstract expressionism in the US. Maybe people were attracted it to because it took their minds off of real issues.
When you spend a lot of time around abstract expressionism, you realize that it acts as a mental palette cleanser of sorts, and diverts your cognitive attention away from political controversy and social concerns. If this truly was a soft weapon as the conspiracy theorists claim, that it could possibly act to pacify people and keep them silent. My take only, of course.
Interestingly, this is a somewhat old belief. When you read about art history, a lot of these ideas about an artist being apolitical were associated with the classicist tradition and the French Academy, I believe. Later on, when the Impressionists and others challenged these views, they courted controversy for introducing political topics into their artwork in very subtle ways, from the way a woman posed, to what she wore, to even the colors that the painter used. So this is really an old debate that’s been around for a long time.
It later became more of an issue in the 20th century as the old ways of doing art began to be replaced with modern art. I recall reading about it in terms of censorship and the red scare in the 1950s. Remember, before the free speech movement in the early 1960s, artists and writers were frequently attacked by the establishment for addressing political issues, and artists and writers who steered clear of these things were often rewarded and elevated by the then status quo. Those who didn’t stop and challenged the establishment could be blackballed as we saw in Hollywood in the film industry at that time. This also famously applied to artists who tried to address LGBT issues, which were pretty much forbidden and met with punishment.
These people were frequently derided as "agitators" in the popular media of the time, a term that is rarely heard these days. Years before this, musicians like Billie Holiday had tried to address racism in the US, and the FBI went after her and other musicians who tried to raise awareness about the hardships they faced and they destroyed their careers. In many ways, just like today, elements of the US government acted like morality police, and their litmus test was politics. If you were a political artist of any kind, you were put on a watchlist and monitored. My understanding is that this is still true in many countries today.
There’s also the popular and somewhat established conspiracy theory about abstract expressionism. On the one hand, some experts argue that it was a form of soft power to fight communism and to promote the American value of freedom of expression. But I have an altogether different take.
In an earlier period of my life, I spent a lot of time investigating abstract expressionism and immersing myself in it. And I came to the conclusion that it could have been viewed as apolitical in one sense (and psychological in another), which would also work as a propaganda/disinformation tool to disengage the audience from current events and political concerns, in effect fulfilling the goals of its proponents, such as mitigating social and political dissent during the Cold War, the civil rights movement, and the various cultural issues at the time.
Perhaps this is one reason why, during the height of the post-9/11 period, during two wars, a Great Recession, a housing crisis, an opioid epidemic, and the loss of personal privacy, there was a resurgence of apolitical abstract expressionism in the US. Maybe people were attracted it to because it took their minds off of real issues.
When you spend a lot of time around abstract expressionism, you realize that it acts as a mental palette cleanser of sorts, and diverts your cognitive attention away from political controversy and social concerns. If this truly was a soft weapon as the conspiracy theorists claim, that it could possibly act to pacify people and keep them silent. My take only, of course.
Paramount+ contains every episode except season 5, episode 22 An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Occurrence_at_Owl_Creek_Bri...
> An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (French: La Rivière du hibou, lit. 'The Owl River') is a 1961 French short film, almost without dialogue. It was based on the 1891 American short story of the same name by American Civil War soldier, wit, and writer Ambrose Bierce. It was directed by Robert Enrico and produced by Marcel Ichac and Paul de Roubaix with music by Henri Lanoë. It won awards at the Cannes Film Festival and the Academy Awards. The film was later screened on American television as episode 22 of the fifth season of The Twilight Zone on 28 February 1964.