Interesting, but this hinges on the want of the audience to feel for the characters or connect to them or sympathize with them and watch films as a sort of dream or fantasy rather than as works of art made within a specific context in a specific time, that you must approach from the point of view of an in-the-future watcher. Clearly, this leaves a lot out like what you already mentioned:
So I think the main caveat here would be the filmmakers' consciousness (or lack thereof) that what they're depicting can seem off in the future due to social changes and greater awareness amongst the audience. As much as I hate phrases such as "the product of its time", it still seems to me this argument largely floats around the idea of fun and entertainment taken directly from the film at face value rather than a higher level of engagement that circumvents this to see the film as what it was during its release. It was a box office hit. It was seemingly loved by everyone, including by the leftists, who were too preoccupied with capital vs. labor to care about modern-day liberal sex politics.
Fair, I guess, especially as a general statement.
So I think the main caveat here would be the filmmakers' consciousness (or lack thereof) that what they're depicting can seem off in the future due to social changes and greater awareness amongst the audience. As much as I hate phrases such as "the product of its time", it still seems to me this argument largely floats around the idea of fun and entertainment taken directly from the film at face value rather than a higher level of engagement that circumvents this to see the film as what it was during its release. It was a box office hit. It was seemingly loved by everyone, including by the leftists, who were too preoccupied with capital vs. labor to care about modern-day liberal sex politics.
Fair, I guess, especially as a general statement.