posted July 16, 2015 02:07 AM            

I am finally free for the evening, my roommate's 9-year-old son, whom I often watch overnight, snoring peacefully on the couch in the living room above me. It's summer vacation for him, and for the past few weeks, he's been going to bed no earlier than 1:30 a.m., and sometimes as late as 4:00 a.m.. How did I manage -- unintentionally though it was -- to send him to dreamland at least 90 minutes early tonight?

I put on a movie from 1986.

The main character in that movie was a little boy, and much of the story is about the adventures of that boy and his friends. So my young charge was able to stay uncharacteristically interested -- especially seeing children play as freely as we adults allowed them to 30 years ago, in stark contrast to the constant neurotic worries of his fatalistic, germophobic Virgo father, who goes into a state of panic over a stubbed toe, is certain we'll all catch a disease from every biting insect, and won't let him ride his bicycle any further than the end of the short cul-de-sac we live on (and only then under constant adult supervision).

The movie was one I remembered enjoying in my own childhood, and I was right in figuring my roommate's son would enjoy it as well. As I was watching it, the differences between it and modern films became strikingly apparent -- most of all, the difference in pace. This one absolutely crawled compared to anything made post-2000, though it didn't seem "too" slow to me, since I received my earliest and most indelible conditioning in an environment in which that speed was considered normal. Movies today cater to, and thereby encourage, in a sickening feedback loop, the ADHD mindset. The scenes of a modern movie fly by, coming hard and fast; the filmmaker's desperation to hold the attention of an audience that has almost no attention span is obvious. These days, children -- and even young adults -- become bored if they have to endure 30 solid seconds of dialogue or even a 10-second pan of the camera across a beautiful natural vista. If there isn't a gunshot, explosion, curse word, or sexual gesture delivered every five seconds, the movie is considered hopelessly passé and will tank at the box office.

Sure, I'm just another person reaching those years where I start shaking my fist and grumbling about the "damned kids these days" and how society's going down the toilet. It's an old meme, right? Like, the oldest. Happens every generation. And yet...

Somehow, I know there's more to it than just my slipping into the predictable ruts of my aging generation. Since the industrial revolution, the pace of life hasn't just quickened, but it's quickened more and faster every year. I watch The Shawshank Redemption, and listen to Brooks Hanlan's voiceover as an old man being released from prison after having spent the majority of his life there: "the world went and got itself in a big damned hurry." And that was depicting, what, the 1950's? 1960's? The difference in pace that Hanlan observed after 40 years doubled in the next 20, and doubled again 10 later. Now things move so fast that an individual consciousness can't even track it properly. Since the late 90's we've made jokes about how our computers are obsolete by the time we get them home and unpack them, but the sad part is that we're not really joking. iPhone 6? It came so fast some of us weren't aware there was an iPhone 5 yet. (Well, I didn't; this not-quite-even-middle-aged-yet fuddy-duddy still refuses to even own a smartphone, despite being a very knowledgeable computer geek.)

I'm no Luddite, and I've never wanted to be anything but contemporary. I still don't. I recognized long ago that most people mentally stagnate at some point in their life, and stop being interested in or willing to absorb new information, to continue to change and grow. That's a mistake I'll never make. But at the same time, I cannot deny that I see a lot of good human qualities being lost in the shuffle, left behind and forgotten in the world's exponentially-growing "big damned hurry."

Talk about "Indigo children" all you want, but the human mind and the human heart have limitations on how fast they can absorb and assimilate experiences usefully. And the relentless drive for "more, better, faster, cheaper, easier" has surpassed those limits. We're starting to see the fallout of this trend in the last few generations, and it warrants the concern that I and many others of prior generations are feeling.

I watched a little boy who would otherwise have been full of energy for another hour-and-a-half to four hours fall asleep, simply because his mind had to slow down to a reasonable pace. His consciousness is used to being born along effortlessly on constant incoming waves -- big, crashing waves -- of overstimulation to the nervous system. I took away those waves, and his consciousness discovered that it didn't know how to actually swim on its own in calm waters, and sank like a rock.

Frank Herbert, a man with a mind that I've always described as "fathoms deep", recognized this facet of reality when he gave the Fremen in his novels the saying, "Speed is a device of Shaitan." (Shaitan was their version of Satan.) There are sometimes some very worthwhile and necessary benefits to limited speed -- ask anyone who's ever had to drive down a narrow residential street lined on both sides with parked cars and full of unpredictable frolicking children. The comparatively slower speed of pre-millenial movies allowed for many of those benefits. A few moments to process what was just seen, time for characters to exchange realistic and meaningful dialogue. A chance for the heart rate to decelerate after an intense chase scene, so that one doesn't become completely desensitized, so that the next one will actually have a thrilling emotional impact.

I don't think I can overstate my case here. Those of us who are old enough to remember video games that actually had a point and purpose, a way to win and its accompanying sense of accomplishment, those of us who remember those beautiful panoramic sequences and the mentally-engaging dialogue of the films we grew up on, know that what passes for entertainment these days is dangerous mass-produced swill, and that our children are nothing more than nervous-stimulation addicts, burnt-out junkies for whom the thrill is long gone, zombies uselessly chasing the ghost of real excitement.

posted July 16, 2015 02:43 AM            

She needed me to explain it as it all went too fast for her. She's not slow by any means, she's got a very sharp and witty mind and was once an editor of professional journals, and in no way did I think her mentally slow. She just wasn't used to the pace...though she started going to the cinema again and after awhile she got where she could keep up with it, at least when it was worth the trouble.

It's worth keeping in mind that older shows, music, and movies tend to look better in comparison because the gems endure while the dross is forgotten, and so the cycle continues.

That said, I'm about to commit sacrilege to some people so I'm gonna put it in its own post for the convenience of those who will want to rant at me.

posted July 16, 2015 02:59 AM            

Unfortunately, we were to be absolutely disappointed...the ONLY thing we agreed with those who said how awesome this movie was is that there was an intensity about Bela Lugosi's eyes, and he'd be awesome telling stories around a campfire given his face, but that's about it. And none of us felt lust or awe towards him, and I not only rolled my eyes when he commanded a woman to obey him in an imperious tone but one of the other women (who was hoping to enjoy how sexy he was said to be) sighed wearily.

Now there ARE a few extenuating circumstances that I came to realize or have pointed out to me. One being that the director and actors came from the silent film era, which didn't translate all that well to actual movies with audio (as they focused more on expressions, dramatic pauses, etc), and they weren't that practiced in the new form yet. Another bit, at least for me (and a lot of this would apply to those who watched it with me) is that we've seen more modern versions of Dracula, were used to characters like Van Helsing (the action hero of the movie of the same name), Blade, and Buffy (the series, not the movie), and I'd read vampire series (such as the one by Ann Rice) and played Vampire: The Masquerade. This made us a jaded audience, and I'm sure Dracula was probably a lot more impressive making scary faces at Renfeld back in the day when it was fresh and new.

Nevertheless, we were not only unimpressed, mystified by how people found this scary or sexy, but boggled by how boring it was. Like Dracula is walking through London....and still walking....STILL walking....we should've timed it, because he was doing it for like forever. And the characters not only had the tendency to say the obvious, but repeat themselves over and over. And the ending? It was lacking in closure, just some hammering noises and moans that I recall, and THE END. And there didn't seem to be a POINT to it, it was like Dracula was some superstition that just up and moved to London for no reason.

Because of all this, we caught all kinds of plot holes, like Dracula blaming Renfeld for leading Van Helsing to his hideout when Dracula friggin told 'em all where it was, while also telling everybody to listen to Van Helsing! I recall that we talked about the "vampire magic" and "if vampires are actually semi-corporeal spirits" because of how Dracula's brides could walk backwards in those long, trailing gowns without tripping over them (as well as not getting dust and cobwebs all over them--and Dracula's white vest, too), among other things simply because we were bored enough to pick it out (had we instead been engrossed then we'd have overlooked it). Oh, yes, we broke out laughing because one of Dracula's victims got out of bed already wearing high heels!

All in all, in our opinion, this movie is WAY over hyped and we were bitterly disappointed having expected much better. My apologies to those I've offended. I mainly wanted to do a contrast between how slow movies used to be compared to today.

Here, welcome scene from Dracula, 1931:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqr3yzr64V4

Contrast with the welcome to Transylvania from Van Helsing, 2004:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS9N8dEdZCQ

posted July 16, 2015 03:32 AM            

My point is the exponential nature of the increase in society's life-pace. I tend to think that a natural and healthy increase would plot on a graph as a diagonal line, whereas what we're experiencing is an ever-steepening upward curve.

There are things worth learning in life that simply cannot be understood if reduced to an instantly-digestible sound bite. Too much is lost in the reduction. (Geminis seem to face this problem, as a sign...) The ability to concentrate on one subject for a significant period of time, which is absolutely necessary to achieve some ends, is being generally lost. I have plenty of opportunity to observe what the free and easy availability of short bursts of shallow entertainment (YouTube clips via the ever-present smartphone, as the prime example) are doing to its consumers. We thought people had a problem with wanting "instant gratification" when I was young? Now, it's not just desired and chased, it's expected and demanded, and anything else is absolutely rejected. This is Not Good.

As for sacrilege... I say, wtfever. I've never had any desire to watch Bela Lugosi's Dracula precisely because I'd expect the experience to be for me exactly as you described it being for you.

posted July 16, 2015 04:12 AM            

I think one of the best character building exercises was when Granny got me a skateboard for my 14th birthday, something I'd wanted since I was 11 and as Granny was always trying to girl me up (and didn't want me to get banged up falling off a board with wheels, though she still didn't buy me helmet and pads when she got that skateboard for me) it was a very sentimental gift that said my granny loved me even though I wasn't everything she wished I was.

Because of that (the long wait and the sentiment) I was determined to be able to skate but I kept falling, sometimes even when just standing still on it! And as I got a little better and braver I skated down roads in bad need of maintenance which caused me to fall over a lot and I still recall vividly falling into ditches, bull nettles, and once even yellow jackets! I even got into the habit of taking band aids with me!

And yet I focused on how I wasn't falling as much, and that I could go further and faster than before...and then when I returned to Houston months later I had plenty of smooth pavement that was easy in comparison and even some of the local skaters ("thrashers" as they were called then) were impressed, and when they started to teach me tricks I picked 'em up fast because I was so practiced at balancing on my board (in typically harsher conditions). And I continued to improve as months turned into a year and kept going...I'd one day be nicknamed "Thrash" because I was considered amazing by some kids who didn't skate, at least not that much.

I didn't take so much pride in being good as I did in BECOMING good. Walking up a hill isn't hard but climbing a mountain is an accomplishment that has to be worked toward and then focused on (sometimes for days). And while it's ultimately a "chicken or egg" question (did skateboarding help me build character or am I wired from birth not to give up?) I believe that experience helped me not give up as no matter how many times I fell down (metaphorically speaking) I'd just get right back up rather than giving up in despair the way plenty of others did. That is I gained the confidence in myself so that even though I messed up I knew if I kept at it I wouldn't mess up so much and eventually I'd get good at it, and if I tried again it could work out the next time. Even when I realized I had to adjust my strategy I just saw it as part of the learning process and if it seemed too hard then I'd break it down into smaller goals to focus on, one hill at a time. The falling down is just part of the journey but eventually I'll get there, and I wish more kids today got that than I think do.

posted July 16, 2015 05:13 AM            

I got my first phone, and tablet, when I was 39. That wasn't by choice. If I could, I would be posting pictures of a gorgeous beach, on instagram, like just about every other person out there who has been driving me bonkers with them.

Youtube also has guided meditations, broadcasts live concerts, and older movies, and it doesn't have tape that will get caught in a machine, and have you trying to remove it without ripping it. I love that I can find clips from Live Aid, or old television shows.

Also: not all of the youngsters are trying to be instagram, blog, or Real World famous. I keep seeing stories about the amazing things that teenagers are doing, whether it was for a science fair, or something else that benefited people in some way. They sound smarter and more grounded than most kids that I knew at that age - certainly smarter than me. So I'm not worried about the world being in their hands.

posted July 16, 2015 06:08 PM            

So much of modern life is overdetermined (a great word I picked up during my one semester of college last year, it means "having many factors/causes, rather than one or a few"), which makes recognizing and mentally juggling those causes a lot more difficult. The decline in parenting skills (which has as one of its causes the lowered average age of the parents) is surely one. Economic hardship contributes. The media's continual relaxing of moral standards, etc., etc.. Each feeds the others in negative synergy, and we end up with kids who are a lot less mature (in some ways, at least) than we were at the same age.

Here's another example to consider, just because it occurs to me and I can throw it in here: back in 1800's and early 1900's, when America was a lot more rural/agricultural, it was common for children (esp. boys) to be taught how to handle firearms when they were very young, say 7 or 8 years old. Nowadays, society would recoil with a collective gasp of horror at the mere *idea* of putting a rifle into an 8-year-old boy's hands. The Division of Family Separation -- excuse me, I meant "Division of Family Services" -- would be called, parents would go to jail, kids would end up wards of the State, the news media would have something to intersperse with advertisements for a good week. And the so-called "reasoning" behind the hoopla? Encouraging violence, school shootings, kid might accidentally shoot his friend or his own eye out. AND YET, those catastrophes hardly ever seemed to happen way back when. The 8-year-old wasn't just handed a rifle and sent off to play with it, he was instructed carefully by his father in how to properly and safely use it, and when, and why. There were NO Columbine incidents. Parents were different back then; children were different back then. The parents weren't divorced, and didn't have to both work two jobs just to keep a roof over their heads. They could, and did, spend more time with their children. And the children weren't mesmerized by passive, effortless, instant-gratification delivery devices. Those children's pastimes, like your skateboarding, required perseverance and effort to reap the benefits of. And I'm just recognizing that we've lost some very valuable human qualities from then to now. With all our supposed "advancement" and "sophistication", with all the children "in therapy" and seeing the psychiatric "experts" turned out by the modern educational system, why is this loss still occurring? I think the question reveals that we have gone in some terribly wrong directions socially.

teasel, I can't disagree with anything you said. I would just point out that you and I have the advantage over the younger generations that we weren't given these dangerously hypnotic and atrophy-inducing devices until we were already mature enough to not be completely seduced by their implications. We already know the value of sustained effort; we've already learned that if it comes free and easy, it's probably cheap and worthless. The ones who now grow up with an iPad in their cribs and teething on the corner of their parents' smartphones are being exposed to these things before they have any psychological defenses against the negative aspects of becoming dependent upon them.

I will opine once more: it is Not Good.

The 12-year-old sister of the boy I originally wrote about rolls her eyes whenever I admit my unfamiliarity with this or that feature of a smartphone, and is totally comfortable with using a phone's GPS -- but has told me she has NO IDEA AT ALL how to read a map. How to read a map. How to look at a drawing of the area around you and make sense of it. Now, consider that when you use a GPS device, it includes a map. But she's so coddled by the phone automatically taking all the "work" out of it (what little work it requires) -- in ways such as zooming in and out unasked, following your route with a big blue arrow, and most of all, verbally explaining each step exactly at the moment one would need that information -- that the thought of relying on her own senses and ability to think is comp[letely foreign to her. Held in contempt, even.

Can I say it one more time? Not. Good.

posted July 16, 2015 09:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by the7thsphere:
AND YET, those catastrophes hardly ever seemed to happen way back when. The 8-year-old wasn't just handed a rifle and sent off to play with it, he was instructed carefully by his father in how to properly and safely use it, and when, and why. There were NO Columbine incidents. Parents were different back then; children were different back then. The parents weren't divorced, and didn't have to both work two jobs just to keep a roof over their heads. They could, and did, spend more time with their children. And the children weren't mesmerized by passive, effortless, instant-gratification delivery devices. Those children's pastimes, like your skateboarding, required perseverance and effort to reap the benefits of. And I'm just recognizing that we've lost some very valuable human qualities from then to now. With all our supposed "advancement" and "sophistication", with all the children "in therapy" and seeing the psychiatric "experts" turned out by the modern educational system, why is this loss still occurring? I think the question reveals that we have gone in some terribly wrong directions socially.

---

When I was growing up I learned as all children did not to mess with the propane ovens and heaters and also not to touch the guns. It was simply unthinkable to do either when I was a small child and despite that guns are in easy reach (just as a toddler could turn on a gas oven or pull off a pan of boiling water) it doesn't happen because of the near constant vigilance and because of how strongly we were impressed (before I can recall) that these things were not to be touched. I'm not aware of any shooting accidents or propane accidents in our family, ever (though they have--very rarely--happened to others in town).

Granny got my skateboard in Tyler Texas during the Tyler Rose Festival, though I wouldn't know it until my birthday. As she considered that a big city she took her snubnose .38 "just in case" but as we were to do some shopping she had her car placed where it could be cleaned inside and out...and forgot her snubnose. Since she was out of the car telling me to come along and I didn't want to shout that she forgot her gun in front of the men by her who'd be taking care of the car I put it in my shorts and told her I had it when in the store. She was bothered that she forgot but glad I did what I did.

Even back in her day it wasn't unknown for kids who walked to school to carry a .22 due to the occasional wild dog and even hogs. They had a place they could put their guns (the office, I think, no one did that when I went to that school a few years before Columbine though there'd be guns in gun racks in the truck which may belong to faculty or high school students) but it helped that the place was so small that they knew every kid by name with nothing impersonal about it. When Granny was a kid she even took part in the craze of slingshots (supposedly good against varmints and rodents of all kinds) and she even used it on the principal for some reason, for which she was paddled, but she was allowed to bring the slingshot back to school (in contrast I knew a girl suspended and nearly charged as a criminal in the early 2000s for bringing knitting needles to school). And boys who went to school with Granny back then would throw knives at their own feet (in tests of courage) in recess games as well and that was tolerated which is amazing for me to think about.

That said, safety education is generally recognized as being a good thing...and should be whether it's driver safety, safe sex, or gun safety. It is possible to teach safety without saying "okay, now go nuts."

The high school I went to in Houston had metal detectors, cameras, security guards, even random sweeps of police with drug dogs sniffing at lockers and cars while also trying to force some kids to take some drugs while suspending kids for Midol and banning kids from many school activities (even the Honor Roll) if they refused to take drug tests (the principal was also pushing for school uniforms at the time as well). And that was BEFORE Columbine (it got much worse after, and I was in school when that happened) and Granny thought it sounded like a juvenile delinquent center rather than a school, especially as despite this school violence (including felonies, and this includes student on student as well as crazies and perverts who'd try to abduct kids from school grounds) and terrible bullying (that the school faculty winked at if you were a jock or cheerleader doing the bullying and would come down hard on anyone who fought back) continued to happen anyway...and though Midol could get you suspended (zero tolerance for drugs) kids could be required to take Ritalin which some would turn their legal prescription into a powder and sell to other kids as "Vitamin R" (which apparently acted as meth for many kids, at least when snorted) without taking it themselves (or not taking it correctly).

After I was being threatened with being placed in a mental hospital and possible charges for a silly story of the founding fathers coming back and deciding to hold another American Revolution, Granny said she wondered how they'd have handled the kids in her day when they sang songs like The Burning of the School.

And since then things have gotten even more Orwellian...and yet remain unsafe (though not usually as unsafe as they're made out to be), and the school in my district actually has workshops on what to do if someone comes onto school grounds shooting (essentially holing up in specific rooms and creating a barrier, which I suppose is better than the "duck and cover" which used to be the emergency training faculty and kids got, but in this case it's only the faculty that gets the training since they fear the students who attend as much as outsiders).

posted July 17, 2015 09:59 PM            

People in Houston tended to see me as a hick from the sticks while those in rural East Texas tended to see me as a big city punk or worse (though I had plenty of friends in both areas).

posted July 19, 2015 05:36 AM            

I suddenly have an urge to visit Tyler again, another rose festival and maybe the Azalea festival in the spring. I'm curious what the city is like today anyway.