Watched this episode three times yesterday and I laughed every time. A really absurd and funny play.


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5roosq


[Edited to add the Off Topic advisory in the title.]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 05:20PM by Tevai.

I am interested in any response you might have.

"Absurd" is not what "The Twilight Zone" was going for.

"Funny" is not what was being presented in this episode.

This TV series was meant to be a "canary in a coal mine," "serious on the down low," kind of entertainment [as popular TV shows go], warning of things to [possibly] come within American society if certain below-the-common-radar elements of specifically American culture were allowed to run (and grow) unhindered--into the decades which followed, and into the future new century to come.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 06:08PM by Tevai.

Having watched the series as a child, this is the first I've heard mention it was a commentary on our society. I thought it was intended for purely entertainment. That does help to explain some of its darker themes.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having watched the series as a child, this is the
> first I've heard mention it was a commentary on
> our society. I thought it was intended for purely
> entertainment. That does help to explain some of
> its darker themes.


When it comes to screen drama (film or television), there is often (but not always--most action films would be one exception) a sub-text which conveys a message, often very clearly, to the intended audience.

In the beginnings of filmed drama (from silent films through to the establishment of talkies), there was explicit censorship instead of sub-text. Local jurisdictions (states and cities) created local laws which prohibited the showing of films which included certain subjects (such as prize fighting, which was prohibited as a film subject in the state of Maine). There were also "gentlemen's agreements" about things like interracial relationships, or anything which OVERTLY indicated homosexuality (although Laurel & Hardy were, pretty obviously, a gay couple for those who could "read" the signs).

At the same time as this overt censorship, however, there was also a great deal of "sub-texting" going on, mostly regarding racial issues, gender issues, sexual issues (and, to a certain extent and for some films, issues which involved religious prejudice: frequently against Catholics, and against Jews).

Later, the Hays Production Code was created, and it ruled general film production for many decades--while similar, "censorship"-type agreements were widely applied to film and TV productions until the early 1970s or so.

Around the time that the heavy, Hays Office kind of censorship was beginning to lose its grip on the film/TV industry, sub-text began to be used in filmed drama especially, and also in television. If you think about "Ozzie and Harriet," for example, the "sub-text" is VERY clear: THIS is how "American" families DO live, and how they SHOULD live. (The fact that the real-life Nelson family did NOT live this way in their own, non-screen, lives notwithstanding.)

As I mentioned a few days ago, Disney (from a very early date) was using sub-text, as well as what we today would call subliminals, in their cartoon works especially, and also (at least sometimes) in their filmed-actor works too.

The people who wrote for "Twilight Zone" were very thoughtful people (all of those I personally know about were/are males; if anyone is aware of any female writers on "Twilight Zone," I would like to learn any of these writers' names).

It is not surprising that those who wrote for "Twilight Zone" used their considerable talents in ways they believed to be positive contributions to the world at large.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2018 12:33AM by Tevai.

I loved watching the Twilight Zone growing up. It was one of the more intelligent entertainment programs going on television.

That does help to explain a lot!

My son while working for the DreamWorks Animation Studios relayed to me some similar messages how the movie makers there would incorporate subliminal themes into their animated features. I was surprised to learn of it, but that is apparently part and parcel of the movie industry. That even us parents were not aware of it as we take our children to the movies. Well ... that's the cultural conditioning of Hollywood for you on shaping American values.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The people who wrote for "Twilight Zone" were very
> thoughtful people (all of those I personally know
> about were/are males; if anyone is aware of any
> female writers on "Twilight Zone," I would like to
> learn any of these writers' names).

Lucille Fletcher indirectly did -- a radio play she wrote for Orson Welles was adapted for an episode.

Serling's wife Carol apparently wrote parts of many episodes, but almost never got credit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucille_Fletcher

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The people who wrote for "Twilight Zone" were
> very
> > thoughtful people (all of those I personally
> know
> > about were/are males; if anyone is aware of any
> > female writers on "Twilight Zone," I would like
> to
> > learn any of these writers' names).
>
> Lucille Fletcher indirectly did -- a radio play
> she wrote for Orson Welles was adapted for an
> episode.
>
> Serling's wife Carol apparently wrote parts of
> many episodes, but almost never got credit.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucille_Fletcher


Other than Serling's wife, this confirms my prior understanding of the situation. (Buying rights to script, or re-script, previously published/produced material is common, and was in that time one of the continuing injustices women writers were forced to "accept." Their original creative work was often definitely wanted, but not their film scripting talents. This was true at all levels, and in most creative capacities, of the industry, and still is to some extent.)

I am not surprised by the lack of credits to Serling's wife. For women, whether as the individual people they were, or as creative talents in their own rights, the surrounding minimalization (as in infantilizing them) was intense and monolithic.

I was the distinctly "younger generation" within these particular people (beginning when I was 16), and therefore on what we can now see as a kind of "tail-edge" of that kind of intense and unrelenting discrimination, but things are still in the PROCESS of "getting" "better." Improvements have been won, but equality of women in the industry based on proven talent and earned credits is still a goal to be aspired to.

Thank you, Hie!

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not surprised by the lack of credits to
> Serling's wife. For women, whether as the
> individual people they were, or as creative
> talents in their own rights, the surrounding
> minimalization (as in infantilizing them) was
> intense and monolithic.

I'm not surprised, either, given the times.
I'm still sad about it, though. She was a very smart, accomplished writer.

:)

Dear Tevai and every other commentator.

I am writing my post out of a country that is a little bit culturally different than the US. I suppose the majority here on the board are from the US so I must explain the difference between our countries.

If law is the backbone of society one can also see that there are different law systems in the world because countries are different.

Where I live law is not discovered in nature of existence or in the nature of humanity but it is all created by men. In such a system there are no awareness of any independent standard and law makers do not make any references to any independent standard.

So why it is funny? Because I saw my own country in that little kid. There are lots of people here where I who are walking on egg-shells. I laughed because I could recognise it.

- If they do not like it they just "remove it".

Okay, so it's either laugh or cry...

I watched the first 5-10 minutes of this episode last night before falling asleep, and I laughed at what I saw. Maybe because I hadn't gotten into the disturbing part/s yet. That they were calling the little boy "the Monster," cracked me up. When he stared into the camera lens with his googly eyes it was hysterical.

Will try to watch the rest of it later today after returning from a doctor visit. Anything featured from the Twilight Zone I expect will have a darker theme, so I await the outcome with baited breath.

:o)

Pelle Pellezon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why it is funny? Because I saw my own country
> in that little kid. There are lots of people here
> where I who are walking on egg-shells. I laughed
> because I could recognise it.
>
> - If they do not like it they just "remove it".

Thank you for this explanation.

How did you find this episode funny? I found it disturbing, to say the least. I feel the same way about your observation.

Frankly,it's a horror story!

Here, read the short story from which the screen play was derived...

https://www.google.com/search?q=jerome+bixby+it%27s+a+good+life&oq=jerome+bixby&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.9748j0j8&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

...you guys are just worried about getting "sent to the cornfield." Similar to a member being sent to Church court and being "excommunicated".

Ha ha ha!

I just HAD to watch the one with Telly Savalas and the talking doll! One of my favorites.

Maybe I can find the one with a very young William Shatner seeing a creature on an airplane wing. . .

For the longest time, my mother insisted that it was "about monsters," and that it would give me nightmares. Then I managed to get Dad hooked on one of the episodes. From then on, he and I watched it together, every week. I remember saying, "It's like taking something ordinary, and then asking,'what if?' " Dad thought that was a good summary.

Here ya go catnip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6gv2_KhiOg

Thank you! It was an abridged version, but it captured the important stuff!!

After watching GC, I think several of the GA's have already been turned into talking heads on a spring.

"You're a bad man! You're a very bad man!!"

As soon as I saw the title, I knew it had to be this episode.

It's one of the episodes that will stick in your mind. It's easy to wish that you could be Samantha Stevens, twitch your nose and make anything happen.

But what would really happen if we could do that?

I found Sabrina, Samantha's alter ego, to be equally bemusing.

To be able to twitch her nose that way ... now that was bewitching.

;o)

Follow-up to that episode:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6uyyji

I like the one that depicts all the families trying to break into the neighbor's bomb shelter.

My pediatrician kept a bomb shelter in his home, where I grew up. It was common knowledge in our ward. His shelter was 3-4 stories underneath his house. He was married with eight children.

It wasn't a bomb that got him though. Tragically he died while ice fishing. Very sad and untimely demise for him and his young family. He was a very kind doctor. He felt so bad I missed Halloween trick-or-treating one year I needed surgery that he drove me home from the hospital, and bought me a sandwich from the fast food drive-in on the way home. You just don't get that kind of service anymore.

My mom worked for a pediatrician from 1955 until she retired in 1985, in Las Vegas. This was after working at Childrens' Hospital in Hollywood from her graduation from nursing school there in 1935 until the family moved to Las Vegas in 1953. The pediatrician's name was Dr. Ryan. He was the pediatrician to Charo's kids.

He finally retired and moved to Hawaii, but would send my mom the occasional postcard.

I know nothing about any bomb shelters he may have had in Las Vegas or Hawaii. He was a very nice man, and he had a house in what was the then the swankiest part of Las Vegas, Rancho Circle. It's weird that this last fact just popped into my head!

The video has been pulled from the DailyMotion. Instead I read the story narrative. It's disturbing alright.

A sequel was made 40 years later with little Anthony grown up. That seems just as disturbing. ")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QodTptmtZ74

I guess someone put the video in the cornfield.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!!!

That's what makes it funny to me.

It's horrible.