Counter-Currents
3,519 words
People under the age of 55, to the extent that they know who Linda Blair is at all, know her for one thing: her iconic Oscar-nominated dual performance as the 12-year-old child Regan MacNeil and Supreme Master of Evil, Satan, in the legendary 1973 horror film The Exorcist.
People over the age of 55 know Linda Blair for two things: for playing Satan in The Exorcist and for the slew of scandalous made-for-TV movies she was in during the mid-1970s. The most explosive of these was Born Innocent, owing largely to a scene depicting a brutal lesbian rape which many found more horrifying than anything in The Exorcist.
There were big changes in American television during the 1970s. Early television had gone to great pains to be as inoffensive as possible, but as the political, social, and sexual revolutions that began in the streets during the 1960s gained momentum, many of their themes would find their way to primetime television. By the early 1970s, shows such as All in the Family, Good Times, The Jeffersons, and Maude dealt with an array hot-button issues such as rape, abortion, teen pregnancy, divorce, race relations, alcoholism, homosexuality, and affirmative action that would have been considered inappropriate a decade earlier.
As someone who enjoys autistically dissecting propaganda, early 1970s television is interesting because it gives one some insight into how a lot of the Left’s ideas were originally introduced to the public. Many of the Left’s social-engineering theories hadn’t been put into practice yet, or they were but hadn’t had enough time to bear fruit. Some of their ideas may have even sounded halfway plausible at the time. Maybe affirmative action and forced bussing will work. Maybe the black kids will start acting white if you put them in white schools. Who could say? It hadn’t been tried yet.
CBS broadcast Cry Rape in 1973, and it is recognized as the first made-for-TV movie on an “issue.” It was the first of many. A few months later, in February of 1974, NBC aired one of its own: the more famous and critically acclaimed A Case of Rape, starring Elizabeth Montgomery of Bewitched fame.
We’re spent the better part of the last two decades hearing about “rape culture,” but if you want to see how the topic of rape was introduced to the public, see A Case of Rape. It is about a married woman who goes to night school and is raped by a fellow student after he offers her a ride. The movie revolves around her struggle to receive justice, as well as her husband’s difficulties in processing what happened. It’s far removed from the stories about college girls who get drunk, get into bed with a man, but then change their minds halfway through that we hear about today.
A Case of Rape was a massive success and became the most-watched made-for-TV movie of all time. NBC therefore set about making more “issue movies.”
First broadcast on September 10, 1974 — the same year that The Exorcist was the top-grossing film — Born Innocent was highly anticipated. Not only did it have the star of the most popular movie of the year, it also featured Joanna Miles, who had just won two Best Supporting Actress awards at the 1974 Emmys for her performance in The Glass Menagerie with Katherine Hepburn.
Born Innocent was an “issue” movie, ostensibly an unflinching look inside the juvenile correctional system for wayward girls. Linda Blair plays Christine Parker, a nice girl who is dealt a bad hand by life, winding up in a juvenile detention center for girls after her parents give her up to the state.
The movie works on two levels. First, the story of Christine Parker and all the indignities she is made to undergo in jail make Born Innocent seem like a Scare Straight for girls: “Be a good girl or else you will be sent to reform school and this will happen to you.” But there is a subplot concerning a more philosophical debate between two of the detention center’s staff about how to deal with the girl and a Counselor, Barbara Clark.
You can buy Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema here.
Social worker Emma Lasko is the bad-cop avatar for the tough-on-crime conservative. She manages the detention center, running a tight ship and enforcing the rules strictly. She is not really interested in reforming anyone, but rather sees what she does as being akin to a babysitting job. Counselor Barbara Clark is the good-cop, bleeding-heart liberal who wants to put the “reform” back in “reform school.” She really wants to make a difference and turn the girls’ lives around.
Indeed, most of the girls in the detention center are unsalvageable bad seeds and no-hopers. Lasko’s methods work fine when it comes to dealing with them. The conflict arises when Christine shows up. Unlike the other burnouts and criminals, Christine is a good kid from a broken home who just needs some help getting back on track. Yes, she ran away from home six times, but only to get away from her violent father. Yes, she tried to escape the detention center, but only because she was traumatized after being raped by a pack of feral teenage lesbians.
Barbara thinks that a more compassionate approach is needed in Linda’s case, but Lasko cuts her no slack and sends her to solitary as if she is just another criminal. Lasko’s reasoning is that if she starts making exceptions, then the other girls will think that they can get away with anything and order will break down. There is a scene near the end where Clark and Lasko’s worldviews collide:
Lasko: It helps run the cottage. You don’t run the cottage. You have them for six hours. I have them for 18. You don’t see what I see. The burnings, the lying, the stealing, the fighting.
Clark: I see all that.
Lasko: You don’t have to live it. I have to run the cottage.
Clark: Is that the point, then? To run the cottage? I didn’t want to mention it, but is that why Denny was slapped? To help you run the cottage? Did it help you run the cottage?
Lasko: Now, wait a minute. Don’t. Don’t you make me out to be a monster. Don’t you dare. I have been here ten years.
Clark: Oh, have I heard that —
Lasko: You listen to me. Ten years ago, they used to beat these girls with straps. I stood in front of them. I protected them.
Clark: Emma, I’ve heard how bad it was. So what?
Lasko: So what?
Clark: Most of those girls are in here because they are not wanted, not because they are criminals.
Lasko: Some of them are criminals.
Clark: We have homes for pets. I wanted pets in homes for old people. For kids, we’ve got reform school.
Lasko: It’s a country club compared to what it was.
Clark: What about now? What are you doing about it now?
Lasko: I give them a place to live, clean rooms, meals.
Clark: It’s a warehouse.
Lasko: I keep them from getting from getting hurt the way they get hurt out there!
Clark: That’s a cop-out and it’s not good enough. Admit it. It’s not enough because it doesn’t change anything. Most of those girls come in here and go out and come right back in here. Emma, won’t you help me to change it with just one kid?
Joanna Miles as Counselor Barbara Clark. Just as Linda Blair was riding high off The Exorcist, Born Innocent was also Joanna Miles’ first movie after winning two Emmys for her performance in The Glass Menagerie.
In the end, Clark is made out to be the more sympathetic character, but given that the film was made at a time when network TV wanted to avoid being seen as too partisan, both sides of the issue are presented.
It’s always been a rule in broadcast television that they can get away with things that would normally forbidden on broadcast TV if it is for educational purpose. A famous example is Scared Straight, which aired with all its profanity uncensored as it was deemed that the realism added to its effect. When Schindler’s List premiered on network television in the 1990s, they allowed scenes containing nudity to be kept in as it was deemed to be of educational value.
Born Innocent was an “issue movie,” and so it likewise qualified for a “realism pass.” There are quite a few saucy bits that you would not have seen on an episode of Kojak. When Christine first arrives at the detention center, Lasko asks her if she is pregnant or has any venereal diseases. What comes next is the second-most disturbing part of the film: Lasko gives her a cavity search for drugs, and we see Christine wince in discomfort. This was pretty heavy stuff for 1974. What 14-year-old has VD? But it illustrates the extent to which Christine is a fish out of water. She’s a nice girl in a place for junkies and prostitutes.
Lasko and Christine
The film also contains several references to prostitution. Once Linda arrives at the detection center, a girl asks Ms. Lasko if she is in for prostitution. In another scene, a girl says that her mother is eager for her to come home, but the girl doesn’t want to go back because her mother will put her to work as a prostitute.
The risqué parts would have been Born Innocent’s frank talk about lesbianism. Upon arriving at the center, Barbara Clark explains:
Chris, the main thing here is to get along with the girls and the staff and not get involved in any kind of fighting or anything like that. And if you are aware of any homosexual activities, I would like you to report that to the house mother. That’s for your own protection.
On Blair’s first day in the cottage, she is introduced to the lesbian gang led by Moko and her violent henchdyke Denny. Moco tries to court Linda into joining the lesbian clique, but Linda rebuffs her overtures, leading to bitterness.
This bitterness reaches its peak when the lesbian gang ambushes Christine in the shower room and rape her with “Johnny,” their name for a toilet plunger which they use for such purposes.
This infamous scene deserves its reputation. It doesn’t show any nudity, but there is no mistaking what is happening, and it still packs a punch even by today’s jaded standards. I can only imagine how viewers felt in 1974. It is staggering it was ever allowed on broadcast television at all, even for educational purposes.
I’m not sure how many plunger rapes were actually going on in girls’ reform schools in the 1970s, but to me the scene seems like a forced attempt to make a women’s parallel to the “Don’t drop the soap” meme for men. Indeed, feminists at the time such as the National Organization for Women objected to it on the grounds that rape is an intrinsically male activity. Lesbians obviously took great exception to being portrayed as the villains.
After the rape, Christine tries to escape from the detention center, but fails, and Lasko sends her to solitary confinement as per the rules. Ms. Clark, who has by now taken a special interest in Christine, spends many hours outside Christine’s door, keeping her company while she is in solitary. Clark gets Christine to open up about the rape, and she then gets in touch with Christine’s parents and arranges for her to be sent back home over Lasko’s objections.
When Christine returns home, it is clear that her home life is a mess. Her father is disappointed to have his daughter back so soon, and her mother had thought she would be better off in reform school than around her psychotic father. While Christine initially hopes she can avoid her father’s abuse by “staying out of his way,” he starts making wild, paranoid accusations against her, beating her nonetheless. Christine then attempts to run away again in order to live with her adult brother, but the police get to him first and are waiting when she arrives. She is then returned to the reform school and Lasko throws her back in solitary as punishment for running away from home again. Barbara pleads with Lasko for lenience, but to no avail.
Christine then loses all hope of getting out before she turns, 18 and Clark can see her slipping away. After getting out of solitary, Christine starts to become a bad girl. She takes up smoking, carves her initials into her arm, and begins assimilating to the school’s culture. On the plus side, once Christine becomes a bad girl herself she becomes more popular, and eventually wins enough social capital that she can challenge her rival: Moco of the wicked lesbians. She and Moco get in a fight, and Christine winds up in solitary for a third time.
Once she gets out, Christine no longer cares about anything. She has an argument with Lasko during which she becomes violent. A riot then breaks out in which Lasko is severely beaten. At the hearing on the incident, Christine lies and says that Lasko slapped her first. All the other girls in the detention center back up Christine’s story now that she is one of them, given that Lasko does have a history of slapping girls. Christine is therefore believed and gets off without any punishment.
Counselor Clark then has one last confrontation with Christine:
Clark: You lied.
Christine: Big deal.
Clark: I don’t know what to do now.
Christine: What’s the difference?
Christine then approaches Moco and it is clear that the two are now friends. Her journey to the dark side is now complete. Not only did good girl Christine become like bad girl Moco, you’re also left wondering if Ms. Clark will become like Lasko now that her big opportunity to actually reform a reform-school girl has failed.
The moral of the story is that the system took a good girl and made her bad when a more compassionate approach might have yielded better results. Lasko never tried to understand why Christine did the things she does. If she had, Christine might have been saved.
Born Innocent was the most-watched made-for-TV movie of 1974, beating out A Case of Rape. Opinions were strongly divided. The firestorm that followed its broadcast was not so much the result of its political message but due to the brutal rape scene. A 1975 New York Times article announcing Born Innocent’s rebroadcast describes the controversy that following its original broadcast, and quotes NBC President Robert T. Howard’s response:
Although Born Innocent was harshly criticized by many for the sensationalism of the rape scene, it was also praised by sociologists and persons concerned with penal reform for its realistic portrayal of life in many juvenile detention homes and for illuminating the ill effects those conditions may have on inmates. Mr. Howard said the film was being repeated because it was a serious and socially important work, in which sensationalism had‐never been intended.
Officials of Tomorrow Entertainment, which produced the film, had said at the height of the controversy that program executives of NBC had ordered the producers to expand the rape scene and make it graphic for purposes of achieving higher ratings. Mr. Howard denied that NBC gave such an order and said the writers had provided for the scene in the final script.
“Frankly, we didn’t feel initially that it would be a problem,” Mr. Howard said. “Rape, perversion and the problems that arise in juvenile detention homes are subjects that are frequently discussed freely on daytime talk shows.”
He said the network had learned greatly from the experience with Born Innocent and that its standards for program acceptance had since been adjusted. “We couldn’t eliminate the rape scene completely without destroying the turning point in the story, the point at which the girl becomes hardened.” Mr. Howard said of the amended version of the film. While the controversial scene will be edited down, he said, “the viewer mentally will draw the same conclusion as before of the crucial effect of the incident on the girl. We will preserve what is necessary from a creative standpoint but will not be as graphic as the first time.”
What made matters worse for NBC was that four days after the broadcast, a group of children led by 15-year-old Sharon Smith were arrested after sexually assaulting nine-year-old Valeria Niemi with a glass bottle in imitation of the movie. Niemi’s family sued NBC for $11 million, citing negligence. The matter was not settled until 1981, when the California Supreme Court found NBC not liable.
The backlash against Born Innocent was so great that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) implemented the Family Viewing Hour, which mandated that the first hour of prime time television — 8-9 PM Eastern Standard Time — had to be squeaky clean and family-friendly. As a result, more political and provocative shows such as the top-rated All in the Family had to be moved to the 9-10 PM, and were replaced in their old slots by more innocuous shows such as like Happy Days. Family View Hour lasted less than a year after Norman Lear filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC and won.
I wanted to get the perspective of someone who was old enough to remember when Born Innocent was first broadcast, so I asked my mom what she remembers about it. She gave the film a thumbs up:
If released today, it likely wouldn’t get more than a yawn, but it was stunning in its day.
One of the most important movements in the second half of the twentieth century was to try to understand our children. (My mother’s generation was told to be seen, not heard. Grown-ups ate first and the kids were fed the leftovers.) Consequently, at this same time the curtain was being drawn back on parental child abuse. There was no database at that time to report abuse of children, including sexual abuse. What happened in the home was “nobody’s business.” If children were physically abused and taken to a hospital for treatment, the parents could say the child was playing with the toilet bowl brush and . . . Abusive parents were cagey and hard to catch. They shopped hospitals — taking their abused and injured child to various hospitals so there wouldn’t be a pattern of behavior the medical staff could follow or identify. Even if the doctor was wise to the con, his or her hands were tied. There was no place to go, police weren’t called, no database to report, etc. Same with teachers. An abused child was hopelessly isolated and alone; their only recourse was to die, run away, or just endure their pain until they were 18. Some killed their abusive parent because life in prison would be an improvement.
This is where movie media is a good citizen: shining the light on a tragedy that most people denied, ignored, or felt powerless to expose. There were other movies of this ilk that set a national movement in motion to create a child abuse database and give authority to neighbors, relatives, clergy, teachers, etc. to intervene.
The movie was a real eye-opener to many viewers and some people had a difficult time believing its premise. But it was part of a bigger movement to protect children.
Linda Blair had a tough time in her career after The Exorcist. She was too young to be a leading lady and too ugly to be a traditional child star. She became something of a sexpot in adulthood, and even posed for Playboy in the 1980s, but she was a homely child. She thus spent most of the 1970s playing troubled teens in made-for-TV movies. Five months after Born Innocent, she appeared in another “issue movie”: Sarah T — Portrait of a Teenage Alcoholic, which is exactly what you think it is and also featured a pre-Star Wars Mark Hamill.
Born Innocent would serve as a template for other troubled teen TV “issue movies” throughout the 1970s such as Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Runaway, which starred Eve Plumb of Brady Bunch fame. In Dawn, Jan Brady plays a girl who runs away from her an alcoholic single mother, winds up in Hollywood, and turns to prostitution to survive. The film was popular enough for NBC to produce a sequel the following year, Alexander: The Other Side of Dawn, which followed the continuing adventures of Dawn’s male prostitute friend.
The success of Dawn inspired ABC to make their own teen prostitution “issue movie”: Little Ladies of the Night. It then became the most-watched made-for-TV movie up to that time, until it was surpassed in 1983 by The Day After.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
9 comments
I know about Linda Blair through that wonderful romance film, Roller Boogie.
Man, poor Linda Blair just couldn’t stop being used and abused in the 70s, whether it was by demons or dykes. Some folks have all the luck.
She suffered a back injury from one of the possession scenes. I think they had her in a harness on the bed that had some sort of pneumatic contraption that allowed the back spasms. The yelling and screaming was actually her really in pain.
Contra Mrs Le Blanc I think the mid-century approach of children being seen but not heard was the correct one. Children know next to nothing and when in the presence of their elders should be exhorted to listen, perhaps ask questions but not intrude their own opinions unbidden. Similarly priority of feeding teaches a hierarchy and respect for elders. Child-centred rearing practices have led to children growing up with less deference for their parents and their parents’ friends. This is all congenial to the project of loosening the primary ties in order to facilitate social conditioning. The sanctity of the home, which no longer exists, used to reinforce a man’s position as head of the household. Now, successive legal decisions combined with an attitude in favour of intervention render men largely reliant on begging their wives for services. Women may find this arrangement much to their liking but it can hardly encourage a man to put his head in the trap.
I’m banning you for crippling autism and bad manners.
The Norman Lear negro-comedy snippet is really quite sound. There’s no other explanation as to why Certain Groups tested out as substandard 100 years ago and are now top of the heap. It’s because they now have a hand in creating IQ tests.
I remember when I was in kindergarten and an IQ test question was—circle the object that is inflammable. One of them was an Electrolux-style vacuum cleaner. Another was a birdhouse. I forget what the others were, but if you didn’t spend much time with vacuum cleaners or birdhouses, you might well choose one of those.
The left is full of contradictions regarding prostitution. Seemingly gone is the idea that many do it to maintain drug addiction, with a smaller proportion hate the idea of a steady job ‘below them’. Every prostitute is a ‘sex trafficking’ victim, especially if she has been arrested for solicitation, drugs, theft or murder. At the same time, so long as they are happy in their trade, many feminists give it the green light and insist on the name change of prostitution to ‘sex work’.
It’s the feminist dual narrative strategy. 1) Any aspect of something that brings short-term advantage for a woman is “empowerment”. 2) Any aspect of something that’s disadvantageous is something bad that men – often collectively in “The Patriarchy” – do to them. 3) The “something” in 1 and 2 may well be the same thing, despite the contradiction.
Yes thanks. My patriarchal privilege is so blinding I forgot to mention it. What the extreme feminists didn’t see coming was that every other special interest group would come along and copy their strategy. So we hear less and less about this, instead of trans sex workers, missing white women syndrome, ‘Karen’, and so on. All of these groups seem to be less sympathetic to white feminists than all those horrible white guys. Since having a family is a low priority they are being replaced by LatinX and Muslim immigrants…. who are steeped in patriarchy.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment