Many people have a nostalgic feeling about American television of the nineteen-fifties and sixties. They point to an innocence often missing in the nineties. At the same time, it's fashionable these days to look down on family programs from that earlier period as out of touch with reality.
The television picture may have been black and white in the fifties, but there shouldn't be an oversimplified, black-and-white analysis of the quality of TV from any period. We can find worthwhile programs today as well as yesterday, and, of course, a good deal that's disappointing. But the argument that television in earlier decades was out of touch raises the question of what it means to be in touch with reality. Is it being in tune with promiscuity, infidelity, cynicism —elements that are more evident in many of today's programs? Is this the basis of a colorful, enriching life? Is a portrayal of contented family life synonymous with a static, unprogressive existence? Does it represent dullness and lack of freedom, a repressing of true feelings?
Pleasantville, a movie that attracted a lot of attention last year, inspires such questions by sending a teen-age brother and sister back in time to a black-and-white town considered a model of fifties television values. As the pair's nineties perspective influences the people of Pleasantville, their lives take on color— literally and figuratively. The questions implied in the story are worth looking at more closely, although this isn't a recommendation of the film itself.
Being in touch
with reality
doesn't mean
being cynical.
For example, at least one image—the offering of an apple—calls to thought the Biblical allegory of Adam and Eve. The serpent in the allegory suggests to Eve that she will benefit by eating of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." See Gen. 2:9; 3:1-3 Eve knows this has been forbidden by "the Lord God." But the serpent argues, "God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen. 3:5 In a similar vein, elements of popular thought often argue: "Open your eyes to the material world, to its obvious pleasures and irresistible attractions. There's no other route to freedom or satisfaction."
This argument, as the Biblical allegory illustrates so well, is totally deceptive and leads to suffering. It would enslave us in the false conviction that life and ... happiness have a material basis, and that evil is at least as real and powerful as good, if not more so. Indulgence in sensual pleasures isn't the answer to happiness; it's a dead end because it doesn't lead us to the one true God—Spirit—the source of all good, or to a discovery of who we really are as God's blessed spiritual offspring. As Mary Baker Eddy observes, "A knowledge of evil was never the essence of divinity or manhood." Science and Health, p. 537
On the other hand, a contented but unprogressive state of thought—blind to evil or ignoring it—is no panacea. Both standpoints are rooted in a false, materialistic concept of existence. Neither is the road to salvation.
There's room for
more of the light
and color of Love.
When film or television depicts happy family life, an unpolluted childhood, moral responsibility, this perspective isn't out of touch with reality. Through the Godlike qualities it highlights and the harmony it portrays, it can provide a glimmer of reality in a higher sense of that term, hint at the purity of Spirit and its expression, man. It can indicate the divine influence in human thought that triumphs over the chaos of sensualism, that brings lives back from the brink of darkness to the light and color of divine Love.
Of course, one could claim that hatred, prejudice, indifference, lust, infidelity, may well be lurking just beneath the surface in day-to-day life, and should therefore be depicted on the screen as well. There's no question that evil can't simply be glossed over. And television entertainment may sometimes convey a constructive message— uncover hypocrisy, prompt an examination of prejudices—through a dramatic or even comedic treatment of harmful behavior. But this isn't an argument against inoffensive family entertainment, entertainment that conveys helpful moral lessons, or at least spares the viewer an assault of violent or sensual images.
It's clear that there's no more virtue in the portrayal of life as a static, black-and-white, mindless routine than in the portrayal of it as "anything goes." But there is virtue in television that uplifts instead of degrading, that reinforces the normalcy of moral behavior instead of undermining it, that shows a responsible understanding of the effect of its pictures and values on impressionable viewers. Science and Health states, "Children should be allowed to remain children in knowledge, and should become men and women only through growth in the understanding of man's higher nature." Ibid., p. 62
Underlying the demand for a higher standard in TV and film is the demand that we all wake up to the reality of man's higher nature. An embracing of this nature doesn't restrict freedom or satisfaction; it promotes them. It doesn't stifle progress; it impels it. Man, as the outcome of God, isn't a sensuous mortal but the immortal expression of Spirit. He includes the richness, variety, color, purity, integrity, satisfaction, and joy inherent in God's nature. This view isn't confirmed by the physical senses, but it's the ultimate and only reality, perceived by God-given spiritual sense. This reality is ours to live and progressively demonstrate now.
Television that consistently points to the degraded opposite and says, "This is real— imbibe it, identify yourself and others with it," isn't doing anyone a service. Television that awakens or reinforces a higher concept of life, not through ignoring evil but through delighting in the possibilities of good, can offer something constructive, whether we find it in the fifties, the nineties, or the next century.
