The Cinema & The Airplane
The fact is I am quite happy in a movie, even a bad movie. Other people, so I have read, treasure memorable moments in their lives.- Walker Percy, The Moviegoer
Who’d have thought it? The airlines have now become reflections of society’s ever changing mores and in the case of Continental Airlines, its spokesman has become an instructor in the obscure and almost forgotten art of child rearing. And it all has to do with the movies.
The airlines, as all who use them know, are constantly trying to make flying more comfortable and enjoyable while at the same time eliminating those things that make flying more comfortable and enjoyable. One way they have succeeded has been eliminating food service. Food served in airplanes prior to its elimination (by the airplane company) was typically more useful as the topic of jokes than as a thing of nourishment. That food has now been replaced by “no food” and, for the benefit of the hungry, something served in a box that can be purchased for $5.00, the quality of which evokes a feeling of nostalgia, if not hunger, for its predecessor.
Improving the pleasure of flying by eliminating free bad food has been accompanied by (a) ever shrinking space between seats thus enabling passengers to more easily become acquainted not only with those next to them but those in front and behind them and (b) unpredictable arrival and departure times thus introducing a bit of mystery to what were formerly mundane voyages. And these improvements affect only the pleasure of the on-board experience. The pre-flight experience has also been enhanced, but blame for that lies at the feet of would-be terrorists and not with the airlines. Aware of the diminished pleasure experienced by passengers the airlines have done one thing to help passengers take their minds off their physical woes. They have enhanced in-flight movies.
Before recent innovations films shown on overhead screens were relatively innocuous and if not of PG quality, carefully edited to eliminate graphic shots of sex and violence thus making them suitable for viewing by all passengers irrespective of age. That has now been changed and, surprisingly, not everyone is happy even though given enough violence and sex many lose their appetites and don’t notice the absence of food service while others forget that they are uncomfortable.
According to kidsafefilms.org, a recent U.S. Airways flight showed a film on an overhead screen and within the first 5 minutes there was a drive-by shooting, a child crushed to death by a car and children swapping guns. In August some airlines included a scene from “Fracture” in which the husband shoots his wife in the face. Exercising discretion the shot face was not shown. What was shown was the victim’s head with blood oozing out.
In response to complaints about the movie, Eric Kleiman, director of product marketing for Continental Airlines explained that his airline was just responding to the changes in network television and movies. Speaking to a New York Times reporter he said: “Our approach is consistent with where society is going with this.” According to Mr. Kleiman “Parents have to be responsible for the actions of their kids-whether they shouldn’t look at the screen or look away.” Mr. Kleiman believes that well-mannered children will content themselves with looking at the back of the seat in front of them or spending the entire flight absorbed in whatever book they happen to be reading, if they are of reading age. Since parents on airplanes cannot do housework or otherwise engage in useful activity (reading aside) there is no reason they cannot be expected to spend the entire length of a flight distracting children too young to read so that they do not look at the overhead screen.
Mr. Kleiman is apparently childless and understands, as parents should, that watching inappropriate movies is only one part of the flying experience that is truly unpleasant and parents have no right to expect that movies will be geared to the lowest age viewer. As he explains, “People love Pepsi, and we don’t serve that, so there you go, we have ruined their flight. That’s an accurate analogy.” It may be, although Mr. Kleiman neglected to say how many passengers end up with nightmares after having been told they cannot have Pepsi on a long flight. He doesn’t know how many children have ended up with nightmares after witnessing scenes of graphic violence that deficient parents were unable to prevent the children from watching. If Mr. Kleiman ever gets tired of doing what he’s doing, he might try a different career.
Many parents would gladly hire Mr. Kleiman to play the airplane fool who would entertain and divert their children from inappropriate films. They don’t have to. He’s already playing the role but no one is laughing.
Christopher Brauchli
brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu
For political commentary see my web page http://humanraceandothersports.com
OMG, the critical issue of the day. Won’t someone please think of the children!?
People shouldn’t be flying, anyway. It’s the most environmentally-destructive form of transportation. People should take trains whenever possible. At least when travelling inside the Homeland. If trains are unavailable, take the bus. If you find the bus inconvenient, tough. The environment is more important.
I know some people genuinely have to fly sometimes, but at least half of all airplane trips are either unnecessary and/or replaceable by more environmentally responsible forms of transportation.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Have you ever taken a train or a bus in the US? What a damn nightmare. I took Amtrak for a 300 mile trip that took 6 1/2 hours, and was 2 hours late! And Greyhound buses??? If you enjoy traveling with the dregs of society, go for it! Buses in Turkey are first class, and in Mexico, they’re better than the US. Flying is the only option. I am Canadian and have traveled all over the world. US has the worst ground transportation anywhere. Movies on the flights? Well, they reflect what American society is all about…..violence, war, lack of respect for other people, greed, money, and ignorance.
children are just consumers waiting to be programmed.
waiting to be primed for their lives of macdonald’s burgers and fries, denny’s slam breakfasts, 2 gallon glasses of pepsi and coke, chocolate bars, hyper sugared cereal, lead toys, unsafe schools, unsafe streets, unsafe homes, unsafe water, and parent’s who don’t give a damn what happens to them.
children have no other value than that.
do they?
Tep,
Sure there are plenty of other things to worry about than children being exposed to violent movies on a plane, but don’t you get it? The mindset that says I don’t care about the other people on the airplane is the same mindset that says I don’t care about other people on the planet (leading them to do things like choose air travel when they could use more environmentally responsible forms of transportation.)
When we don’t value children we don’t value the future. Why not cut SCHIP? I have insurance. Why spend more money on schools? I don’t have any kids. This one, admittedly small, issue reflects a larger social trend that, aside from being morally bankrupt, is self-destructive.
If you can’t be bothered to care about the most vulnerable sector of our population at least think of it in terms of your own well-being. Kids who are desensitized to violence are violent. Kids without good primary health care become sicker and cost more to the whole system. A poorly educated populace makes for an unstable economy.
I could go on and on. The movies on an airplane might not be the critical issue of the day, but it is certainly part of the critical issue of the day - the race to the bottom we are all engaged in as each of us alone fights for our own little sliver of a rapidly shrinking pie.
mark marshall,
far be it from me to call you an idiot but that is an idiotic thing to say. and people should just stop breathing because of all that carbon dioxide every time they exhale, oy vey! and what’s with “inside the Homeland”?
That’s a very creepy thing to say…
Oh good, I finally get to tell my train story.
Here in California, I wanted to take the train from San Jose to San Diego.
I checked Amtrak’s website. There were 4 options. The fastest way was to take train, then a bus, then another train, then another train.
I repeat, that was the fastest option.
The most straight-forward was to take a train to Los Angeles and then another train.
I went to the train depot. I explained my plan to go SJ-LA-SD.
The counter person said, and I quote “No, you don’t want to do that.”
Huh?
She explained that the line was always late (in fact, it was 5 hours late that day). I had no wish to be stranded in LA at 2 in the morning. I asked for her advice.
She said to take the bus to Santa Barbara, then the train to San Diego. She said Amtrak had their own buses, and I could board right outside the building.
Point of this long story- the train employee suggested that I take their bus.
Any questions about the state of public transport in California?
cruz_ctrl: Thank you for the constructive feedback. But I don’t understand: what exactly did I say that you think is stupid? If you could be more specific I will try to address your concerns.
By the Homeland, I simply mean the country I live in: the combined territories of Canada and the USA, which are the two sovereign states into which the common territorial homeland of the North American nation is divided. What’s creepy (even “very” creepy) about that? If you have been living in this country for the past few years, you are surely aware of the fact that the term “Homeland” has come into widespread use since September 2001. It is analogous to the Arabic term “al-Watan al-Arabi”, which refers to the collective territories of all the Arab states, which constitute the single territorial homeland of the Arab people.
This is a North American website. Most of its readers are North Americans. Surely they know which homeland I am referring to which I speak of “the Homeland”. Did you really not understand - or were you just pretending not to understand?
Mark Marshall
Toronto
I usually prefer to fly on an international airline whenever I can when I go overseas. The Netherlands KLM, Emirates, and Singapore airlines all have good food and have excellent service. We Americans are now stuck with the McDonald’s of airlines which have used the excuse of 911 to rapidly deterioriate on their service. British Airways also sucks as they lost 40,000 peices of luggage back in July.
Mark,
Calling the US “the homeland ” reminds some people of the Nazis and der Vaterland. Its a language thing
I made the mistake in Canada of calling native Americans, “Indians” istead of First Nation. I think you know what happened to me :)in that conversation.
Colleen: about “homeland”/”Vaterland” - yes, I see your point. But just because the term “homeland” is sometimes used by Neocons does not necessarily mean that it is illegitimate. After all, Spanish- and French-speaking peoples routinely refer to “la Patria” or “la Patrie”, which are etymologically related to the German “Vaterland”.
I kind of like the term “homeland”. It can serve to remind us that we North Americans are not that much different from the other nations of the world; we have our own part of this Earth where we belong. It is our homeland. Other parts of the world are not part of our homeland, and we do not belong there (except as invited guests). We have a very nice homeland right here, so what do we want with the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam?
I know the use of the term “Homeland” was first encouraged by Neocons who believe that we are entitled to everybody else’s homelands as well as our own, but I am happy to embrace the concept and use it against the Neocons. And I encourage others to do the same.
The Neocons created a new department called “Homeland defence”? Great! It can serve as a graphic reminder that the purpose of the military is to defend our own country, and not to kill people on the other side of the world, in lands that are most definitely not our homeland. And that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are entitled to defend their homelands, just as we are.
(But I draw the line at “Fatherland”. That really would be creepy!
)
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Having been a former airline pilot, I am inclined to agree with the author of this article. True, airlines could exercise better judgment in film choice on flights. But then again, there are passengers who bring their own laptops and watch violent films and in some cases pornography without the slightest concern for the passenger sitting next to them. As a passenger, I once was on a flight where the owner of a laptop computer was watching a violent film, and a child was sitting next to him. The child’s mother was taking a snooze. The child was watching the movie and the owner of the laptop was unaware of it (or did not care). To me the solution is a combination of parenting children (keeping them occupied with books, crayons, etc.) and airlines showing non-violent movies (I am sure there are plenty of entertaining movies that do not contain violence or vulgarity). But my greater concern is the passenger with the laptop computer. Certainly airlines will never ban laptop computers (nor should they do so), but the computer owners ought to exercise better judgment, especially if they happen to be seated next to or in the vicinity of children. Having a little courtesy (by the passengers and airlines) really can go a long way.
Unfortunately, on my US government job, I have no choice - I live in Pittsburgh an might have to be in San Francisco the next day to investigate an accident. I find the most annoying thing about those new overhead LCD “telescreens” every other row. It is not the movies - since they can be avoided by simply not getting earphones, it is the 1/2 hour of sound-on commercials before and after the movies for among other things the very airline you just paid fare, along with the usual SUV’s financial services, and other shit nobody needs. Is there nowhere where we can be free of this capitalist crap!
Me, I do my damnedest to get a window seat - if the weather is clear, the best show passes by down below - of if there are thunderstorms, past the wingtip. Although the number close passes I see with other airliners in the crowded US skies may be another reason to keep everyone watching the movie.
Instead of Homeland security or Farterland Security why not call it Motherland Security as in Mother Nature….
I reckon what America has been lacking in the Countries Defense and Civil Defense is a good douse of the Feminine….
Way too much Mars and not enough Venus is detrimental for America’s longevity…
As you drive down the highway you are bombarded by billboards which often have the same sexually explicit information on them as you state the movies do on the airlines. Signs for gentlemen’s club, adult stores, movie trailers. Does this mean that by changing methods of transportation that children will no longer be introduced to these ideas that you state they find on the plane? Instead of changing what the airlines are doing, it is more of a societal change that needs to take place. The airlines are reflecting society in order to stay in business and continue to be profitable. They are only reflecting what their average customer want, an enjoyable experience with entertainment, since as you previously stated most other entities have been removed from flights. Most of their customers are not young children and therefore instead of rewarding a small percentage of their cliental, the airlines are aiming to please and benefit their customer norms. What truly needs to be changed is media’s impact on society. We live now in a consumer-based world. I think that is more of the issue at hand is how susceptible young children are to the media at hand. Commercial media is a part of everyday life. Whether it is on the television, in magazines, internet, or wherever you may be, media is more invasive and more persistent than ever. As a society we need to focus more upon media’s influence on younger children and how often media targets young children in order to gain a bigger audience instead of spending our time focusing on how businesses are trying to continue to stay afloat.
On a recent flight, the airline’s magazine featured some consumer items for sale. Among them were eyeglasses that projected the movie or program of your choice onto the lenses. Once again, technology to the rescue.
I’m hoping I see the day when we can travel on energy efficient blimps.
BTW, we always buy food in the terminal and bring it aboard the airplane.
So let’s get a list going of child-friendly airlines, and those that are not, so we consumers can stop this in-air madness once and for all. Boycott the airlines that insist on going along with the way our society is heading, and send more business to those airlines that demonstrate common sense business practices, and recognize that it’s in the interests of their bottom lines to provide an in-air experience appropriate for all travelers.
I don’t fly or have kids, so this isn’t a heartfelt subject for me. But I once worked in an office servicing the public in which a TV/VCR in a waiting area (intended for boring official infomercials) was used to play popular action flicks. This was years ago, when Bruce Willis and Ahnuld were hitting their stride. You’d be on the phone with some businessperson, and suddenly a car-chase or firefight would erupt in the background.
For better or worse, only one person asked me if she could speak to the office manager about it– a psychologist who believed quite rightly that it was inappropriate content. After I sorrowfully informed her that it was the manager who initiated the practice, she desisted. But she was right to express concern, and so is Mr. Brauchli.
That said, I hope that airlines have finite resources to handle Nanny issues, and will shift their priorities to clean up the questionable in-flight movies instead of hassling and busting passengers for dressing a little too slutty, or wearing electronic jewelry, or Arabic script, or are brown-skinned travelling with other brownskins…
Bill Maher suggested an airline with no security checks were we could even carry guns aboard. I’d fly on it.
This “Homeland” and “Fatherland” shit stinks of Nazis.
Have ya been to an “R” rated movie in the last 10 years? I saw “Saw III” and was surrounded by kids and their parents. Every action movie this summer - even “Shoot Em Up” - surrounded by kids and parents. “Resident Evil Extinction,” yesterday, surrounded by kids and their stupid parents. Two babies crying, swear to God.
The future of flight distractions is the “personal viewer,” a la iPod; in-flight movies will soon disappear altogether. Instead of “renting” headphones, you’ll rent the player, too. Meanwhile, the idea that kids today need protection from “sex” and “violence” is just silly, unless there’s a place where kids under the age of 8 haven’t mastered Halo 3 and do not know every name of every MMA fighter and who have never watched local or national news and who have never seen a Disney film, everyone one of which features at least one parent killed within the first ten minutes (”Finding Nemo” - dead mom and thousands of siblings before the credits.) Yes, let’s protect the children by all means…
ezeflyer: OK, so “homeland” and “fatherland” smell like Nazis to you. OK, so let’s try something else: how about “motherland”, as somebody here suggested - or just “our country” or “the country”. I’m OK with those. The point is to remind people that we live in a world full of different nationalities and countries, and we are just one of many. What I like about a linguistic reminder that we are just nation among many others in this world, that we have a specific piece of this planet the rest of which belongs to many other nations, is that it can serve as a reminder that we are just like the others, we have no “universal” mission or destiny.
This “universal” crap - this absurd and dangerous idea that we are not just an ethnic group/nation in a world filled with ethnic groups/nations, but that we are somehow a unique “idea” or “destiny” or “universal dream” or “American dream” or whatever, has caused us - and our victims among the other peoples of the world even more - endless grief. The sooner we bury that idea the better. And the fact of our having a specific territory - call it “homeland”, or “motherland” or whatever - serves to remind us that we are no more “special” or “destined” than the Albanians or the Russians or the Norwegians or the French or the Maltese, or whatever.
We’re not the only ones guilty of this imperial hubris. We were preceded by the French with their “Mission civilisatrice” and the Brits with their “White Man’s Burden”, the Japanese with their “Co-Prosperity Sphere” and so on.
As a nation, we need to be put in our place. And our place is right here - in the territories of Canada and the USA. In North America. In our homeland, our motherland, our country - call it what you will. The point is that it is the only part of the world that legitimately belongs to us. Our place is not Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or El Salvador. The Europeans learned that lesson in the last century: the place of the Dutch people is in Holland, not Indonesia. The place of the French people is in France, not Vietnam or Algeria. The place of the British people is in Britain, not Kenya. The place of the Portuguese people is in Portugal, not Angola or Mozambique. Now it’s our turn literally to be put in our place.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
I agree with ezeflier, ‘Homeland’ stinks of Nazis, but as we appear to live in a Facist country what could be more approprate??
Veteran ‘66-68
Mark Marshall says,
“The point is that it is the only part of the world that legitimately belongs to us.”
I think indigenous people might challenge that premise.
I agree with the first poster. Perhaps there should be a children’s seating area on the plane. Do children really need to be flying anyway?
The reality is that we spend a very small portion of our lives as children and the whole world will never be safe for children or child appropriate. Why should all the adults in the world be subjected to the lowest common denominator of what is appropriate for children. Don’t get me wrong, I personally believe that all children should get free education all the way through college or trade school, as well as free medical care till they have completed such, after all it’s not their fault that they were born of poor parents or in a bad economy. Having said that though, if one decides to have children, these day to day sort of protections and concerns are ones own. I may have chosen not to have children because I would be a bad parent or maybe I’ve already put in 20-25 years raising my own and really don’t want to be supervising yours. Another reality is that they are not little miracles, look up the definition of miracle! I know that I know where they come from and just how they get here, I suspect everybody reading this does too. Anymore the real miracle is when people who have no business being parents aren’t. I have coined a phrase, “free range child rearing” there is far too much of these days!
Claudius says that “indigenous people might challenge [the] premise” that North America “is the only part of the world that legitimately belongs to us”. Indeed they might. Not only might they, they probably would - as would I, if I were an indigenous person. And if the United Nations tells me that I, as a non-indigenous person living in America, tells me that I must leave, because - like an Israeli living in East Jerusalem - my presence here is illegal, I will do so - as, no doubt, would Claudius, if he is a person of European origin living in America. Just as any non-racist Briton of non-Celtic European origin, if the United Nations ruled that he or she must go back to the mainland of Europe where his or her ancestors came from, would do so willingly. We must all obey the law. Just as any non-racist Greek of Aryan origin, if the United Nations ruled that he or she must go back to the interior of Asia where his or her ancestors came from because he or she is not truly genetically Greek, would do so willingly. We must all obey the law.
But until that happens, I will assume that my presence here is legal under international law, and I will stay here. As, I assume, will Claudius, if he is a non-Native American living in America.
(BUT - what will I do if I leave this country on the orders of the United Nations, but no other state in the world will accept me? I’ll be in trouble then. I guess I’ll just have to live the rest of my life on a ship in international waters. But that’s OK. If the law says I must do that, I will do it. Never mind. I’ll survive. I’ll eat fish, along with the non-Minoan Greeks and the non-Celtic Britons)
Mark Marshall
Toronto
Am I the only one who thinks this thread is sounding like an argument for the North American Union?
Hey Mark, I think we should ALL go back to Africa because that’s where we came from.
Hey Grousefeather - excellent idea. Let’s do it. I’m sure our African sisters and brothers will be very happy to take us back.
It is true that children are bombarded with things that they shouldn’t be seeing every day. However, when flying on an airplane, the airline has a choice of whether to show an age respective movie or not. If passengers complained about the lack of sex and violence shown on in-flight movies, they should have been told that they are allowed to bring their own laptops, and watch their own sex and violence-filled movies. These people must also be childless, because to suggest that movies such as Fracture should be shown on an airline where there is a likelihood of children being around is just bizarre.
As for Kleiman, he should probably be careful with what he is saying. Yes, it is true that parents are and should be responsible for the actions of their children. However, the notion that a parent should have to restrain his or her child from glancing at an enormous overhead screen while on an airplane is not only ridiculous, it’s also rude. If a parent is paying to fly on an airline, I am sure that they do not expect to have to shield their children’s eyes the entire flight from a movie playing straight ahead of them. His analogy of movies to Pepsi is completely false, besides being absurd. The kinds of drinks served on a plane have nothing to do with what kinds of movies are shown.
Of course, there are more important issues than this in our world, for those who are not neglecting to point this fact out. However, Mr. Brauchli makes a very valid point. Yes, there are children out there who have mastered every Halo version and have seen every Saw movie. But for the civilized parents out there who don’t let their children do these things, they deserve (besides much respect) to be able to take their young children on an airplane without having to worry about playing the airplane fool.
I agree with Mark Marshall…flying is very environmentally damaging. it’s much better to go by ground, we take amtrak all the time, it has it’s problems but it’s a great way to go. flying is a tight, cramped, expensive and uncomfortable way to travel.
“The point is that it is the only part of the world that legitimately belongs to us.”
“I think indigenous people might challenge that premise.”
My parents were not born in North America, but I was. I am indigenous, “period”.
#
ezeflyer September 23rd, 2007 3:52 pm
This “Homeland” and “Fatherland” shit stinks of Nazis.
Absolutely Correct….. Make no mistake about it…. A Neo-Cons [or Neo-Nazis] wet dream….
My 8 yr. old has it memorized, ” Yes Dad I know, I know, everything I hear and see on T.V. and movie screens is not real. ” You got it kid.
Well, consider that story-telling is intended to be instuctional for societies, even in the sense of a mirror reflecting back to us who we have become.
For decades now, America has been offered a very violent and cruel menu in all our story-telling and it is, of course, intended to create a more violent America, a more fearful America –
And, whether violence permeating our arts or the phony Drug War filling our brutal prisons, these trends have served to deliver a concept of a cruel and feared America — not unlike Christian religious myths distorted to focus on a cross rather than a “god’s” teachings of love and forgiveness.
We need a few simple things –
End patriarchy
End capitalism
because BOTH are suicidal –
Demand electric cars and mass transportation which really works –
End privatization of government –
Um they are more interested in protecting children from scantily clad women vs. blood gore and violence. See the Southwest controversy over a passenger’s outfit. Considering the delays, I would have been livid if they delayed a plane over someone’s clothes.
Regarding train travel, it sucks. I took the train from SF to Seattle and it was absolutely miserable and late. It is an absolute disgrace that our train system is so awful. After being on Norwegian trains, I was appalled by Amtrak. I think they make it awful by design, because after this experience, I will never take the train again.
It’s never too early to start preparing the kiddies for their first deployment to American Mesopotamia. The desensitisation has to start young to be effective.
after this experience, I will never take the train again
which is exactly what the BushCo govt wants you to do, so that they can point to low ridership and strangle Amtrak slowly to death. the slowness of Amtrak’s Coast Starlight line has to do with a complicated history about UP’s failure to maintain the railbed to passenger rail standards, which forces Amtrak to slow down to bicycle speeds over several sections of track in the South; and because UP owns the railbed, UP freights have the right of way and passenger trains have to pull over into sidings to let the freights pass on singletrack stretches. this makes it impossible for Amtrak to maintain a predictable schedule, and this state of affairs is the outcome of decades of discouraging rail travel and prioritising freight over passenger service.
in other words, blame Amtrak for the incredibly lousy food they serve, but not for the infamous Coast Starlate. Kunstler is right, it would “embarrass a Bulgarian” — but so perhaps would many things about contemporary America… such as our prison system, our decaying roads and bridges, and our habit of invading other people’s countries and bombing them into shattered submission (or trying to anyway).
I am Canadian and have traveled all over the world. US has the worst ground transportation anywhere. Movies on the flights? Well, they reflect what American society is all about…..violence, war, lack of respect for other people, greed, money, and ignorance.
I am sorry, but is it possible that this poster doesn’t perceive the connection between “lack of respect, greed, money, and ignorance”… and the unexamined privilege of travelling “all over the world” by air [something that iirc fewer than 15 oct of the world population ever have done or ever will do], the arrogance of despising “the dregs of society” who travel by bus and train [that’s me, btw, a senior software engineer from a prestigious institution who owns a home in pricey coastal Calif], the wilful ignorance of the price that the poor of the world are paying for this profligate fossil fuel binge among the affluent northerners, the lack of respect for other people’s homes and livelihoods [hey, let’s have a few more Katrinas, who cares, I just want to travel with magical speed and comfort whenever I feel like it]…?
I thought Canadians were… well… a little less American. Enjoy the movie… it won’t be running much longer… meanwhile, I’ll be taking the bus or train.