What's Wrong With Wholesome?

If you are a parent, especially of a girl between the ages of say 6 and 16, and your child watches the Disney Channel, you are probably aware of the juggernaut known as High School Musical. The first movie debuted in 2005 (I think) and surprised even Disney execs with its popularity. The Disney Channel Original Movie (DCOM) spawned a mega-hit soundtrack, clothes, toys, various accessories and, most recently, a sequel - High School Musical 2. The HSM2 debut was anticipated by eager fans with at least as much enthusiasm as any Hollywood blockbuster, including Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings. The Girl attended a premiere party at the house of one of her friends, and even The Boy wanted to stay up an watch. Lots of sports pretty much guarantees boys will be interested too, I guess. Young stars Zac Efron, Vanessa Hudgens, Corbin Bleu, and Ashley Tisdale (and others) catapulted from relative obscurity to high popularity with the teeny-bopper crowd.

The story lines of these movies are not very deep - boy meets girl (or in the case of HSM2, boy has girl), boy loses girl, boy gets girl. And in the true spirit of Disney, they are a little campy. I mean really, no high school has that many good-looking kids. Even the one overweight girl is pretty. But all that aside, there are some good messages about friendship, being true to yourself even when that's not easy, and the pressure to conform (The first HSM has a rather catchy tune called "Stick to the Status Quo" that is all about not stepping outside of your social circle; if you're a brain, don't say you like hip-hop, for example.), all good themes. And the music is catchy.

The movies are also something of a rarity in entertainment - pure "G" rated fare. Just about every one of today's animated movies, from Pixar to Shrek, contains something that kids don't really get, but adults do. Not HSM. When director Kenny Ortega wanted to put in a line that "parents would get, even if kids didn't" he was told "this is a movie for kids, not adults." The line did not go in. The result is two movies completely devoid of drugs, alcohol, sex (not even much kissing), swearing, law breaking, cigarettes, suggestive dance moves, questionable song lyrics, baggy pants or bare midriffs. HSM2, which takes place at a country club with pool, shows all the girls wearing either one-piece suits or tankinis, with nary a belly button or butt cheek in sight. To those without kids this seems ludicrous, but let me tell you that as a parent of two young kids it's a refreshing thing. Something I can let my kids watch unsupervised and know they aren't seeing anything I wouldn't want them to see.

So this is good, right? Newspapers and magazines are cheering this event, right? Maybe, maybe not.

A few weeks ago, I happened upon a copy of Newsweek that had a brief write-up about HSM2. The article left me feeling a bit perplexed. It started off positively enough, citing many of the things I mentioned above, while simultaneously making snide comments about Lindsey Lohan, the Disney child star turned party girl. But I got the impression that the article was somehow both disbelieving and disappointed at the lack of "dirt" on the HSM stars. Hudgens' Disney-approved biography was cited as listing "walking in the rain and puddle jumping" as one of her favorite activities in a scoffing manner that left me thinking the author didn't believe it could be true. I would suggest that the author visit the campus of my college alma mater when the rugby fields flood after a severe rain storm. He'd find about 50 undergrads, and more than a handful of grad students, having the time of their lives treating the fields as a gigantic Slip-n-Slide. It snidely stated that both Efron and Bleu said they never got a detention in school, as if such things don't happen. Hey, I never got a detention either. By the end of the article, I couldn't decide if Newsweek thought the apparently wholesome nature of the HSM cast was refreshing, disappointing, or fake.

I pondered this for a while. What is the lament of entertainment industry analysts everywhere? A lack of good, quality entertainment for children, things that don't give parents nightmares. And whether you be a Disney fan or not, here is exactly what these pundits are crying for. So why the disappointment?

The answer, I think, lies in the peculiarity of the American culture. At heart, American culture is puritanical. Yes, those pesky Puritans haunt us still. The so-called "Moral Majority" is practically raised on Calvin. Think of the Puritans and the stereotype: rigidly moral, against sex, against fun, disapproving of any who fail to conform. But underneath, there is the pull to things decided un-Puritan: sex, money, gossip, scandal.

Fast-forward 300 years and not much has changed. Oh, we deplore the antics of Lohan, Paris Hilton, Russell Crowe, Ray Lewis, and every other spoiled celebrity out there. "Oh, what a poor example for the children," we cry. "American society is degrading, morals are missing, oh we're surely headed to hell in a hand basket," we lament. (Note that I'm speaking of American culture as a general thing here, not about specific individuals. Ask any European, Americans are much more prudish about sex and drugs than those cosmopolitan Continentals.)

Yet what is the staple of the American check-out counter in supermarkets, convenience stores, and drug stores everywhere? If you don't know, you are a) completely non-observant, b) living under a rock, or c) shopping from the Internet. The answer, of course, is the tabloids. Headlines in bold, screaming print blast the latest gossip about all the Hollywood antics. Brangelina is over, no they aren't; Lohan arrested just days after completing rehab; Nicky Hilton pregnant and 87 pounds; all the starlets who weigh less than my 7-year old; Whitney Houston on another coke binge; Tom-Kat and all the drama surrounding them. It's all there in letters so big even the most myopic of shoppers can't miss it.

And believe you me, it sells. Oh boy does it sell. I know this because if it didn't sell, these papers wouldn't exist. Oh, some of them are higher class than The Enquirer or The Globe. It's hard to put the shiny cover of People in the same category as a trashy newsprint. But make no mistake -People is just a tabloid in pretty clothes. The same goes for In Style and all the rest of those rags. They make their money reporting on the foibles, foul-ups, and decadent lifestyles that are fodder for celebrity gossip. And the American public eats it up.

Unfortunately, the young stars of HSM didn't stay unknown or exempt for long. People recently featured real-life couple Efron and Hudgens on its cover, talking about how they started dating on the set. In Style showed Efron, flanked by Hudgens and Tisdale, with the headline "Behind the set!" and a sub-heading talking about the sniping and fighting "especially over Zac!" And while I have not seen it, Rolling Stone reportedly featured Efron on the cover with a half-buttoned shirt and is left hand up the front.

All in all, it's kind of sad. Yeah, kids grow up and the innocence is lost, but why do we treat this as inevitable? Why is it so difficult to believe in a group of kids who just might be what they seem to be - good-natured, sensible kids who just like making movies, music, and having fun? Why must we drag them on to the tabloid covers?

I don't have the answer. I'm not sure anyone does. But I do believe this: When we figure out the answer, and actually act upon it, maybe some of the "oh, society today has no morals" outcry will lessen.

Or maybe not. Just ask Socrates.