ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มี.ค. 2012
- Subscribe and 🔔 to the BBC 👉 bit.ly/BBCTH-camSub
Watch the BBC first on iPlayer 👉 bbc.in/iPlayer-Home Available online to watch in full: www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/collecti... Part of the Talk collection. A collection of BBC programmes where celebrated interviewers try to get behind the public mask of some of the most influential figures of the 20th century.
Orson Welles discusses the effect of violent films on young people.
#bbc
All our TV channels and S4C are available to watch live through BBC iPlayer, although some programmes may not be available to stream online due to rights. If you would like to read more on what types of programmes are available to watch live, check the 'Are all programmes that are broadcast available on BBC iPlayer?' FAQ 👉 bbc.in/2m8ks6v. - บันเทิง
"... and it doesn't in Edgar Allen Poe does it?" Lol - the interviewers trying to take on Welles, then shot down.
They were just having a discussion.
no, they weren't having a discussion (Orson was). They were trying to take the piss out of the US.
Not that the US doesn't have issues, etc., but it's rather unseemly for one country to talk down about another country's culture. I'm not a fan when I see it in the US (ala Fox News, etc.), nor, in this case, by the Brits.
It's always nice to see pseudo intellectuals being taken down a notch or two by a real artist. As Welles said, Shakespeare didn't seem to incite juvenile delinquency and the pablum they were spewing was just so much bs.
Are you saying violence and the glorification of violence is an essential part of US culture? Lot less gun violence in UK.
TigerMeadows Violence is inherent in all human beings.
More inherent to some continents then others.
his diagnosis of why the youth get rowdy and violent is spot on, this is a man that remembers his own youth and how he felt back then, and has re-analyzed that confused period of his life now as an adult, in contrast the other older gentleman has lost all touch with his childhood self and seems to view the kids with a lack of empathy or understanding
!!!!!!!!!
Wonderful perspective sir. We must return again as children to where we came from; in order to return. ( Gates of Heaven)
Innocence
Orson is always ten steps ahead of everyone else.
Yes, Always!
Not ahead of death he wasn't, huh?
@@avinotion death isn't a being
@@avinotion What a stupid thing to say.
If he were, he would have added this, I submit: She asks of the "glorification" of violence and thus loads the question with a suspect assumption Orson and others often miss. The correct response is to say, "No, the movies show violence under various circumstances, as crimes, as self-defense, as revenge, and so on. What evidence do you have that it is thereby "glorified"? Look and see first, for it may be the exact opposite at times. Your question is flawed with a false assumption."
Classic Welles eyebrow scrunch, looking like he's patiently absorbing your question even though he's formulated an answer in the first two seconds.
I'm the same way. So are you.
Perfectly put
Genius
It’s like he’s thinking, “In the Depths of Your Ignorance!!!”
@@hydrogenroar But none of us have the subsequent monologue already completely written in our heads
That final line and the old man's reaction is just perfect
I need to watch more interviews with this man. His wisdom is distinct.
Got a nice chuckle when he brought up Poe.
And to think that the mainstream media is still pressing on the same issue nowadays... sad.
today it's about videogames.
Thata is it a GOP playbook or something?
The fact the Hillary Clinton tried to ban GTA San Andreas, no.
Don’t blame the mainstream media for it. They may fan the flames, yes, but this continued never ending crusade by each generation who thinks the younger one is worse than ever is very much conceived in the hearts of individuals. People have been perpetuating this myth long, long, LONG before there ever was a mass media.
@@emilytench lib-tards are only focused on wearing pink hats and trying to figure out if they are a boy or a girl.
I guess kids are smart enough to be able to tell the difference between reality and fiction, even if some adults can't.
After the release of the 1986 movie Top Gun, the US Navy enlistment increased by 8 percent.
Military propaganda in film does cause people to join the military. I don’t think Texas chainsaw massacre causes any murders but when propaganda in film is intentional and well crafted it does work.
@@xant8344 Well in both cases you're just promoting inherent tendencies.
"Movies don't create psychos." Movies make psychos, more creative!" (Billy Loomis "Scream" (1996)
And that is not a problem? Also, how does he know that? He is entitled to his opinion, of course, but how valid is it, and why?
The man was majestic.
Welles had such a wonderful speaking voice
what a brilliant man he was
I'd cut off a little finger to talk to him. The world, particularly USA needs someone like him.
That last witty line is delivered in such a perfect tone
notice how after listening to Orson Wells talk all the comments are written like a psudo-sophisticated playwright
it seems to be that way on almost any youtube interview clip of a well-spoken actor from a bygone era. it's really annoying, isn't it? all this bizarre posturing... i watched a marlon brando interview recently and nearly every damn comment was 'being an actor, i know personally what he's talking about. the interviewer is an idiot, he's brilliant. we act as a survival mechanism and blah blah blah..." what freaking assholes.
+chesterbesterfeild
Indubitably. Is it not a fact that TH-cam-molder of mass opinion though it is, or has become, is in every essence just a shameful ignominious mirror that which reflects not wanton eudaimonia, but rather our most prurient desires? That is to say, where are the boobies!
Orson, while extremely smart, is also a master of pseudo-sophistication though
@@beflygelt Who isn't?
You’re right, and there will always be people like that. But there are also people who genuinely like to think, and if there’s any lingering benefit to social media, it’s the potential to interact with them.
A genuinely interesting and genius of a man. The fact that the media and Hollywood torpedoed his career is a tragedy.
He torpedoed his own career by making films he wanted to make and not a lot of others were interested in.
which were still really interesting works @@lampad4549
It's unfortunate that Welles didn't have someone of a higher caliber to interview him than these BBC "media" types who are trying to sell an idea about the movies and comic books without any background in the nature of literature; even of the literature of their own country.
They aren't "selling" anything. The idea that movies and comics were a bad influence on kids was just as widely known, and as well accepted, as Covid being a hoax is known and accepted today. Stop trying to blame the media on the failings of people everywhere.
@@Cryptonymicus The Paris interview is a good one
The fact that the conversation is still going on, albeit with much less style and respect for the language, is a measure of the truth of what Welles is saying. In other words, the jury is in. 'Content', as we say these days, is not in and of itself a trigger, lest it trigger those who are susceptible anyway. Add to that the inarguable fact that violent crime in the day that this was recorded was significantly higher than it is now.
And this is going straight into my Favorites playlist.
Love Orson Welles. Wish he was alive, l could meet this genius.
Same here, ive been a massive fan for years even though hes not of my generation
The illness of our age...
"I think that they may encourage psychotics and homocidal and other dangerous types, but juvenile delinquency is a symptom of the illness of our age."
What an amazingly insightful and loaded statement that is. He's not defending violence in films; in fact he immediately acknowledges that violent films encourage psychotics. What he is saying is that fictional violence doesn't turn good kids into bad ones. A good kid can differentiate between fictional and real violence, as anyone who grew up on the Stooges or Bugs Bunny can attest (I didn't go shoving my brother's head in a letter press, did you?). But to a psychotic individual, yes, violent films can exacerbate the situation. That's what child psychologists should be focusing on rather than whether Hitchcock, or the Road Runner, makes kids push each other off cliffs.
Excellent comment.
I will add to that children are born inherently evil by modern convention. If they are born natural survivers, they will exploit every institution and individual they can until they are stopped by force or mentally traumatised. "Goodness" is something we learn. It is the mark of good parental guidance. I stress that it is through his/her own personal experience that an individual grows up to become civilised. It can not be managed or controlled by others. Thus, whether films cause juvenile delinquency is a function of their _presentation_ and the viewers' receptiveness to it. Whether an individual is capable of making up their mind about good and bad according to those rules we've constructed, is what determines the outcome. And, fundamentally, only those two arguments: presentation and receptiveness determine the influence a multimedia well have on its audience. If you can not guarantee children to do not commit atrocities after having been presented a "good" media, shouldn't you assume the confounder is in their receptiveness to the message? Good education is the answer always, when people are concerned.
@@___xyz___ Interesting, Marie. I like your post. Do you have any reading to recommend? I want more haha.
@@___xyz___ "I will add to that children are born inherently evil by modern convention. If they are born natural survivers, they will exploit every institution and individual they can until they are stopped by force or mentally traumatised."
This is complete cynicism. If we are going to argue on evolutionary terms ("natural survivors"), then you'd find that cooperation is the most advantageous trait, not exploitation.
There is a subsidiary argument here though. Certain drugs are not (supposed to be) generally available because of the effect they have on some people - especially the vulnerable or the deranged. So, in most societies those substances are regulated and officially withheld to protect those people and society from the effects that their general availability might have. To encapsulate it in short, had there not been LSD (or whatever) available, the Manson clan would almost certainly never have done the horrific things they did.
The same can be said of realistic violence in movies; I'm not talking about cartoon violence or non-graphic violence here - I'm talking about materials which glory in detailed violence or which feature stupidly long fight sequences. In real life most fights last maybe 30 seconds, in movies they can go on for 7-8 minutes. Because these things look real they can be likened to a drug which can affect the vulnerable mind. Any police officer will tell you that rapists and killers when they are arrested are almost certain to have a large stash of sexual or violent media at their home.
In short, I don't think it's a simple matter of saying that kids and vulnerable minds are always able to differentiate movie fantasy from real life - cos it's manifestly not true in all cases. Censorship is not the answer either because - like with proscribing drugs - you just create a huge black market. I agree that education is perhaps the best tool we have to counter those effects.
I shall apply Orson Welles' logic of Horror Comics on to Video Games.
Fellow Neo-Gastonist?
What an intelligent man
1:30 “When they are not works of art, they become shoddy and seem to be pandering.”
Modern movies in a nutshell.
I think that it's a great point that's made: it's not of question of the violence itself, but the use that it is put to, whether it is being used to make a statement about the human condition, or only as something to distract us from contemplating the human condition.
suddenly I have a craving for some frozen peas and fish sticks
Muuhwaaaagh the french... champagne.. hasalwaysbeencelebratedforitsexcellence ..
There is a California champagne by Paul Masson, inspired by that same french excellence..
I've had a craving for country goodness and green pea-ness.
AHHHHHHHH could I have a glass of champagne with them?
We'll never sell a wine before its time
Mm, they're even better raw!
What I find particularly striking, fascinating, and prescient is Welles's comment at 0:32: "Juvenile delinquency is I think a symptom of the illness of our age. It doesn't come from lack of playgrounds or bad comic books, but of a great longing for youth TO HAVE SOMETHING TO REBEL AGAINST" (my emphasis).
I think Welles is making an exceedingly sophisticated point. I contend that one of the plausible reasons we find greater violence in our contemporary American society - and, particularly since Columbine, greater incidents of shootings among youth - is the subconscious perception among youth that there is no longer a way to rebel without being subjected to a co-opted form of that rebellion. Since the 1960s in this country, rebellion has MEANT something different; the lines between rebellion and conformity have become increasingly blurred. Most youth in our country today can rebel only within a context rather than rebelling AGAINST a context. It's tantamount to choosing a uniform, and if a youth is not SUFFICIENTLY rebellious, he or she is often ostracized from a group.
This even has roots in 60s rebellion, as Frank Zappa brilliantly pointed out. If I'm reading Welles correctly - that ALL youth have a longing to rebel against something - then in my view their perspective that having the ability to do so through creativity of expression is becoming increasingly co-opted. Disturbingly, for some youth the consequent reaction is often violent.
Then again, Welles does refer to the origin of juvenile delinquency as "the illness of our age," and in doing so it's admittedly unclear whether he feels that rebellion is that illness or another symptom of that illness.
I think the flaw in the Welles' theory is that we don't see equivalent behavior in other societies, even culturally close ones like Canada or Britain.
Further, one can look at this desire to "rebel" as a sympton of an excessively comfortable spoilt generation.
Good point. By extension, I wonder the extent to which this rebellion is reducible to testosterone.
I disagree that the 'desire to rebel' is a symptom of being excessively comfortable or "spoilt" in any way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the divide between the young and the old is fairly similar no matter which society you look at. This is why the pendulum effect exists: one generation comes to generally hold one set of beliefs, and the next reacts counter to that set of beliefs, and the next and the next.
I would say however, I think with each swing of the pendulum some societies have become more and more liberal and safe; with the help of the renaissance and the success of the industrial revolution the Western world and many non-Western countries have become so prosperous and (usually) safe from attack that the youth has less and less to actively rebel against. The result is the kind of aimless rebellion of delinquents who want to feel like they have some control and they aren't just passing from cradle to grave in a static world.
There is still plenty to rebel against and we do have the power to take control of our lives, but it's easy to feel like there isn't and you can't, so that's what I imagine is at the root of juvenile delinquency.
High testosterone and unbelievably high levels of psychoactive stimulants are also probably at least half to blame these days. I maintain that marketing confectionery or any kind of junk food to children should be banned- in Australia cigarettes can't even be advertised to adults, yet maccas, KFC and cereals made of nothing but sugar and coco are allowed to bait kids all day every day.
It can't be high testosterone, Sonofa. Young men today have less testosterone than men of the same age a hundred years ago.
I remember there was a book on Welles composed mostly of interviews and in one of him he proposed that the theater was always an outlet - a release valve - for social tension. He said something like "if we don't allow fake blood on the stage [or screen], then we will start seeing real blood in our streets and homes."
"Well it doesn't in Edgar Allan Poe either you know?"
ouuuuchhhhhhh, i felt that.
What a Legend Orson still is !! His Movies prove it !!
Great words of a great man
"Well it doesn't in Edgar Allan Poe either..." a true genius 👏👏👏
lmao, comics replaced by video games as causing violence, and yet kids with guns available in the house have a higher rate of mortality, such a conundrum.
Orson Welles didn’t talk during an interview, He performed. To be honest, He didn’t talk at all...Ever. His dialogue, and His way of “talking” was so fascinating and eloquent it might as well of been performance art.
Just like the director in *The Other Side of the Wind*... Welles seems to find very few interviewers he can actually talk to, and not just play the part everyone wants to see.
Thanks for posting. What year's this from?
He's right. They are wrong.
Leave it to Welles to be so rational and cool with his answer. During Shakespeare's time the stage would be covered with fake blood for Macbeth. And actually, the interviewer is mistaken, "virtue" almost always "triumphed" in the horror comics back in the 1950s, the "bad" character almost always came to a violent, ironically nasty ending. It's true, video games are blamed in the same way as horror comics were. Although, from my own humble experience, video games demand considerably more attention, cause a lot more stress, and ask for much more emotional and even physical involvement from the player than four color comics ever could. The computer screen affects our senses and brains in ways novels and comic books never have.
I agree to an extent. I myself have discovered horrifying aspects of my personality through playing games. However, that engrossment you describe could just as well be chalked up to a more successful piece of art then a play like Macbeth could ever be because instead of just passively watching a story, you are participating with it and actually living the emotions and feelings of the characters. And in that sense I fall right back into Orson's points.
But watching a good play of movie is never "passive" if you get emotionally involved in the action (like when I get tensed up watching a zombie film for example). You could say gaming induces a kind of "passivity" too. While the gamer is "active" when s/he plays, s/he is actually reacting to virtual stimuli constructed by designers in a game company, and so s/he is in a position of receiving and "passively" accepting the rules of the game simulation. I mean, why get upset when you "die" if it is only a simulation? "Raging" is evidence that a gamer has passively accepted the simulated situation so much that s/he is willing to shout and sometimes lose their temper in the "real" world because they "died" in the game. The gamer even shouts or screams at other people in the room, why? Because they "died" in some manufactured simulation? Depends on your definition of "active" too.
我操。If you want to be a slave to your simulations, go ahead, shit digitally. "You" are tapping out words to an "avatar" on "youtube" Goofy. "You" are reacting to pixellated insect "words" you idiot. The "gamer life" is so fucken significant. You "guys" practically run the world just shitting on you ashes fapping your controller. Oh my God, player "zonkie59032" just killed me! Ragewhaaaa! My diaper is so full! Nothing but a rifle. Pffft. Wow, that's hardcore. Really impressive. Eating canned beans in a microwave. Hardcore.
geinikan1kan
thank you for losing the debate with that rant without any intelligent content or any rational counter arguments. Also learn to quotation mark
"I'll" "try" "my" "best," "thanks" for "letting" me "know" your "comment" is very much "appreciated" Mr. "Field."
That last comment was brilliant
"It doesn't in Edgar Allen Poe either, you know."
BBC has a full long interview Welles gave in the 50s. You should upload it, it's really interesting to listen to Orson, not only show it this section which is great.
A man of pure class, brilliant person. 🎥🎬
Reality is horror. And in reality, "good" often does not "triumph".
Classy intellect.
It feels like the interviewers really want orson to say that the modern films do contribute to violent kids, and orson just speaks his mind
Interesting man.. articulate and in command of what he saying
He had a great voice for narrating documentaries & stuff.
I would say the mid-50's, and the comics are perhaps the famous EC titles (Tales from the Crypt, etc.).
It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on the hyper-realistic violent video games. I think it might change, but that might be me projecting a bit.
When they talk about "horror comics" do they mean the EC Comics? Or the Hammer and Roger Corman horror movies?
Probably both.
remember when this was done they are speaking of the old crypt comic like the crypt keeper. there was a rage of horror comic during this time and they were pushing for censor ship. this lead to the comic code. that why batman the adam west show was the way it was. the comic was writing that way. the comic code started eroding by the time it reach the 80's
Bam! Get 'em, Orson!
Orson Welles is the man.
Good answer
How strange people with different opinions talking rationally, boy times have changed.
+Norgamka And yet even here you can hear the faint traces of the downward spiral debating was to go through.
"Finds one clip where people talk rationally"
OMG it was so much different back then!!!!
@@NostalgiNorden It was. Just look at all the news channels and politics today. One side screams "socialist commie scum!" And the other side screams "fascist nazi!"
"Virtue triumphs". Please somebody hand him a script of Hamlet.
You cannot play darts when the opponent has a crossbow.
When did this interview take place?
no pressure- Logic
One of the few people, ever that deserves to be called genius.
Brilliance
Welles was wise. 🎵👌🎬💚
This reminds me, in a weird, but perhaps understandable way, of Frank Zappa's appearance in front of a Congressional hearing in the '90's, regarding violence in Rock/Pop/Rap lyrics.
Welles is patiently, intellectually, outclassing his interviewers with elegant, eloquent Reason, and he may be the only American who could, simply by being himself, sound more "posh" than a roomful of Brits.
I thought of something very similar. Zappa appeared on the show "Crossfire" in the 80s and debated the same subject with the people from that show. He thoroughly outclassed them there also. I also think of a TV interview of Roger Waters and Syd Barrett in the 60s where the interviewer was so beyond out of touch and "intellectual" that he was, in fact, a fool, and the two Pink Floyd members brilliance was very above him.
Social critics have never learned.
I love how they cleary gave Orson Welles a certain direction they wanted him to answer in, but he's having none of this nonsense. He wouldn't give them an inch.
Damn, we’ve been having the same conversation about violence in media forever
What year it was?
It depends
They never should have banned smoking on television. Always creates a good conversation and discussion.
How is it difficult to find what year was this video made?
Yesssss
I personally think violence comes from the colors on the screen. Look how chill those people were in black and white.
Good god…the depressing thing is people are still debating filmmakers about this crap…
Love the notion of an Elizabethan apprentice (they used to abscond in order to go to the theatre) coming out of The Globe, and attempting to do all the awful things you get in Shakespeare and Webster!
Blaming popular media like movies, books and games for violence is a scapegoat for horrible parenting.
Those interviewers were so pathetically outclassed by Welles. Quite humorous.
From this to the peas advert 🤔
Interviewer: "Virtue triumphs, but in the horror comics it doesn't."
Wells: "Doesn't it?"
Interviewer: "I don't think so. No, it doesn't."
Wells:"Well, it doesn't in Edgar Alan Poe either."
As much as things change, some things remain the same. Even today, people are still trying to blame horror films, and now video games, for violent behavior. In fact, studies show that entertainment, games included, often give people an outlet for their fears. Making it less likely that they will act out actions they see in movies and games in real life.
Art doesn’t cause, it reveals.
Oooh thats a really good one
Delinquency is a symptom of the larger problem of a society which refuses to meet the basic needs of its people. It is a known and proven fact that what we are told is "crime" is socio-economic at its core.
In early times they killed each other with swords, cut off their heads....and they are complaining about a horror movie being violent, really?
You're welcome, Ed.
At this time in history, they are dead wrong about horror comics not being morality plays. The corpse always comes back and delivers justice to the murderer.
❤❤❤❤
Like a boss
Same rhetoric for video games! Always trying to find one single cause that rules the violence
He was so incredibly based!
One thing that contributed to juvenile delinquency during this post-World War II era was the absence of fathers in the home.
orson just laps the people trying to interview him, lmao
My hero
Movie makers are storytellers. Orson once said that "The story teller's first duty is always to the story". As he instances here many classic stories feature violent acts. Those acts shape the direction of the story and narrative. IMO the problem we face now - and a whole lot more than when this discussion was had - is that (aided by the perfection of special effects and make up techniques) a lot of movie makers actively encourage their audiences to glory in the violence. In any story what matters in a fight or conflict is who prevails and to what extent they prevail. Stupidly elongating physical confrontations to 7-8 minutes and having the camera loving dwell on the physical details seems to me very unhealthy and is - again as Orson said - pandering to one of the very worst sides of human nature.
We know a remote farm in Lincolnshire...
Reminds me of Marilyn Manson getting interviewed about violence in art.
Gratuitous violence is easy. Portraying socially constructive behavior in books, plays and film is hard to do without it becoming boring.
that's because it is boring
Weird you got the French Revolution (profoundly violent) without tv and movies to blame.
OWNED
One finds is ironic that the British deplore violence in film, even though they visited it on many others around the world for centuries.
Youthful rebellion is simply reacting to being told how and what and where to be, to a person still himself and still wide open to possibilities. Movies, tv, mags (now internet) show them what is possible.
This is why he is the GOAT
I feel like they were hoping to get opposite response.