Hollywood and Teens

Robin Swicord deserves a standing ovation for her insightful and enlightening article (“Youth Must Be Served--With Respect,” May 30). I am so tired of hearing TV and film producers relinquishing responsibility, singing their well-worn song, “We’re only giving the public what it wants.” Bull!

Children don’t know what they want--it is our job, as the adults in society, to help them learn. And, no, Mr. Violent Movie Producer, you can’t always rely on parents to teach and police their children. Most children don’t live with Ozzie & Harriet. Many live with parents who could be characters in one of your movies. Our children need all the help they can get--from all of us. And the question is: Are you going to help them or hurt them?

We--each of us--need to live up to our highest sense, always. There is never an excuse for taking the path of least resistance or the quick buck. The “buck” stops over and over, every second, and it stops with every thinking, feeling, moral human being. Let’s not let anyone off the hook.

EILEEN FLAXMAN

Los Angeles

*

Congratulations to Swicord for being willing to tell the emperor about that nasty outfit. In a business where rewards, and therefore stakes, are mind-bogglingly high, and players frantically seek the next wunderkind, her voice of reason is simple and powerful.

At great personal risk--you can bet Swicord’s “team” is sweating possible reprisals--she has demonstrated the finest element of any protagonist, the ability to be honest.

DAN EVANS

West Hollywood

*

I agreed with nearly all of Swicord’s essay until she joined the mindless chorus of pundits jumping on “The Basketball Diaries” as a classic example of what is wrong with the movies.

The real message of the film is not violence; it is a staunchly anti-drug message. One dream sequence taken out of context has been used to portray the film as a symbol for what is wrong with the media. If any of these pundits had actually watched the film, maybe they would have gotten the real message.

PATRICK MALLON

San Luis Obispo

*

Swicord’s rant about Hollywood’s responsibility to the youth of America was not only extremely self-serving but offered no solutions of any kind that involve Hollywood. (She mentions but then passes by our faulty educational system, which is the real heart of our failure of our children.)

The answer to “fixing” societal violence is apparently making more of the movies that Swicord wants to write. The unfortunate reality is that her movies have all been financial disappointments. So have the “Y/A fiction” (her term) that has spoken to the painful realities of adolescence. Quality films like “Rushmore,” “Go,” “Election” and “10 Things I Hate About You,” all made and released by major studios, won’t come close to $100 million in box office as a group. And yet, none of the makers of these films, who all deserve to be deeply disappointed by the box-office results of their efforts, is writing overwrought op-ed pieces about Hollywood and responsibility. They are developing their next films, which will surely be financed by studio money.

If there is a “responsible” future for Hollywood, stop finger-pointing and just look at Drew Barrymore. She’s making movie after movie that is youthful, vibrant and modestly enough budgeted to be financially viable. And she’s doing it because she wants to, not out of responsibility.

DAVID POLAND

Columnist, roughcut.com

Los Angeles

*

Swicord’s fine analysis of our society’s love/hate relationship with our teens, particularly in the movies, failed to mention one element of teen activity that has proven to be a positive influence on them.

If movies ever show teen involvement in church or synagogue, it is usually in a mocking tone, as though no connection with God could ever be of any value. I only wonder if the studios dare not portray religion as a plus for teens lest they risk losing their audience to an even higher power.

STEVE SMITH

Costa Mesa

*

I commend Swicord for her well-written piece. My only counterpoint is regarding her reference to schools being like “impersonal office parks.” Most of these kids will eventually be 9-to-5ers, so why not let then get used to that environment now?

WALTER DuRANT

Trabuco Canyon

*

As the mother of a 13-year-old daughter and a personal manager handling talent for the last 17 years, I clearly see the cause and effect. Isn’t it obvious? First we use TV as a baby-sitter and then it becomes a tool of socialization.

As Swicord aptly says, Columbine is “the teachable moment.” I hope this is a wake-up call to Hollywood, especially to that substantial group of very young executives and filmmakers without kids that often dictate content.

LYNDA BENSKY

Sherman Oaks

*

If Swicord will lead the battle to help save our kids, count me in as one of her fearless and loyal foot soldiers.

Here’s a relevant anecdote to add to her arsenal: Years ago, my daughter was a classmate of the daughter of the executive producer of a top-rated TV show that stylistically glorified sex and violence. She told us that her father had the editors make a special cut just for her and her siblings, eliminating the sex and violence.

In other words, here was a producer who was willing to expose that crap to other people’s children--just not his own.

MARC B. RAY

Sherman Oaks

*

Kudos to Swicord for her thoughtful and significant commentary on how we are constructing a culture that treats adolescents with “contempt.” (I share her frustration with the “whore” styles that even preteens are assaulted with--essentially the same styles you’ll find in a Victoria’s Secret catalog.)

But shame on Brian Lowry (and the editors) for his article in the same issue about television writer-producer Dottie Dartland, described by Lowry as “wrapped up . . . in a beguiling package that wouldn’t appear out of place in front of the camera instead of behind it.” Face it: David E. Kelley would never be so sexually objectified.

SHARON CORENBLITH

Santa Monica