While I was sick I got to watch a lot of movies. I especially love older movies as they often represent what society considered flow (or what those in power wanted society to say was flow) at the time. Two particularly interesting movies I viewed were from the 1930s. One was a talkie called Son of India from 1931. I say it was a talkie (meaning sound and picture as today) since its star was Ramon Navarro, one of the biggest silent picture stars ever.

Son of India, a story about a rich white woman falling in love with a rich Indian merchant, was a tale of prejudice and “knowing your place”. What made this movie stand out was its morality. The interracial couple was desperately in love, a fact the movie ever denied. Her white family naturally protested her marrying an “inferior race” no matter how rich. That was to be expected given this film was geared towards intolerant white America. What was different was the Indian perspective. An Indian swami, representing the movie’s spiritual voice (its morality), tells Navarro that he and his white love can be together in heaven but it was a grievous sin (offensive to the gods) to be together in the real world.

Thus this 73-minute movie clearly (and blatantly!) shows both flow and flow blockages. To do “the right thing” the main characters must suppress their flow and follow what friends, family and society say is flow — even though they themselves admit it is wrong.

The second movie I found fascinating from a flow perspective was a drama from 1939 called Five Came Back, starring Lucille Ball of all people. Not a comedy, twelve passengers and crew crash land in the Amazon, right in the midst of “savage country” as the movie explains. Towards the end of the movie three people are left behind as the “savages” are approaching.

Now this is where it gets interesting.

Traditionally Hollywood followed the Catholic belief when it came to suicide — suicide was an unforgivable sin in any way, shape or form. Only evil characters committed suicide. But in Five Came Back that morality suddenly didn’t apply. Two survivors (both elderly so it was “okay” that they die as the movie makes clear) had a choice of dying by suicide or suffering torture at the hands of the savages. They chose suicide. This morality was a highly noble act (confirmed by the background music).

Yet if this same couple committed suicide under different circumstances, say dying rather than face jail time, it would have been seen as a sin. Even in old Hollywood movies where “morality” is set in stone the definition of flow would change with the wind.

My point in telling you this is to, once again, point out how crucial it is to understand your own flow. Especially when those around you subscribe to a “morality of the week” philosophy. One need only look at Sarah Palin to see this in action. In 1992 Vice President Dan Quayle caused a huge stir by saying the Los Angeles riots were caused by a “poverty of values” that included the acceptance of unwed motherhood.

Today, twenty years later, Sarah Palin’s STILL unwed teen-mom daughter gets $30K a speech and is celebrity. Grandma Palin is praised for being a great mother and raising great children.

Morality, as usual, changes with the wind.