Sign in to follow this  
calvinnme

Wow this guy really doesn't like TCM anymore!

43 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm sure their head exploded if they heard Ben give the intro today for The Grapes of Wrath.    Ben did make one comment I found odd;   that the depression signaled that capitalism failed.     To me this is a gross overstatement.   Also, if capitalism failed,  the comment implies it was replaced with something else.  NOT.   It was just modified\regulated. 

I would have said laissez faire capitalism failed.    But maybe he didn't use that phase since that could be viewed as being too political.

I didn't watch this particular intro, but in the context that you describe, it sounds like a reasonably fair comment - capitalism may have continued on as a workable economic framework, but the great depression was certainly a failure of the system for those who had no way to avoid it's effects & that it allowed (or even arguably encouraged) unrestricted boom-bust activity. A correction, yes & not a terminal failure, but still a failure, which economic events in the century following perhaps show that the lessons from that correction have not yet been fully embraced by governments with responsibility to control the economic system.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, limey said:

I didn't watch this particular intro, but in the context that you describe, it sounds like a reasonably fair comment - capitalism may have continued on as a workable economic framework, but the great depression was certainly a failure of the system for those who had no way to avoid it's effects & that it allowed (or even arguably encouraged) unrestricted boom-bust activity. A correction, yes & not a terminal failure, but still a failure, which economic events in the century following perhaps show that the lessons from that correction have not yet been fully embraced by governments with responsibility to control the economic system.

 

FDR's New Deal wasn't so much a bandaid on capitalism as down right socialistic programs to keep the ball rolling until the US' entry into World War II really put people back to work and even employed  minorities like women and black Americans who hadn't had  decent jobs or any jobs before.

Plus the federal government's oversight and direct intervention with the advent of World War II of capitalistic enterprises, from the movie industry to the automotive industry, was definitely a socialistic implementation which could have easily been the first step toward socialistic nationalization of these industries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, if Ben had said, "...that bourgeoisie running dog capitalism didn't work." , well, THAT would have been political. ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I'm sure their head exploded if they heard Ben give the intro today for The Grapes of Wrath.    Ben did make one comment I found odd;   that the depression signaled that capitalism failed.     To me this is a gross overstatement.   Also, if capitalism failed,  the comment implies it was replaced with something else.  NOT.   It was just modified\regulated. 

I would have said laissez faire capitalism failed.    But maybe he didn't use that phase since that could be viewed as being too political.

 

 

 

Ha ha, I almost walked over to my laptop and started a thread right when he said that! But I figured several others would have already beat me to it. I am a Ben M. supporter, but I was pretty baffled by that statement. He was trying to justify why the novel Grapes of Wrath "which at times reads like a socialist manifesto" (I believe were his words) could be so popular and the failure of capitalism was his explanation. I thought this was an oversimplification. I think people more responded to it because of identification with and empathy for the characters and their situations. I mean, maybe capitalism in the form it was taking at the time wasn't going great guns, but as James said, to imply something failed usually means to say it was then done away with and replaced with something else. And in the long run capitalism has done all right by a lot of Americans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as far as that blog goes, I couldn't get six paragraphs into it. There's probably a really good essay to be written about how TCM has changed in the post-Robert era, but this ain't it. Using character assassination as your primary writing device is not going to go very far with me. After seeing his doctored photo of Alec Baldwin, which maybe was intended solely to make him look goofy but borders uncomfortably close to some WWII-era racial caricature and then reading him saying Baldwin "knows nothing about the movies" (patently untrue) and describing Sally Field as "mentally sick", well, I refuse to give that idiot another second of my time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

K..... Good for him. He doesn't have to like it. Not sure why you're expecting us to care about some dumbazz's blog though. :unsure: 

I really didn't expect anybody to care, and maybe I should have dragged this to the OT forum to begin with. It just seemed like a good example of how rough and ignorant some people have gotten in their discourse with the example of certain political leaders who they adore who have equally rough and ignorant discourse. And from the number of like minded comments you can tell this fellow is not alone. I actually responded in kind to his entire post using logic and staying away from insults of any kind. My comment went into moderation and - not surprisingly - he rejected my comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

Ha ha, I almost walked over to my laptop and started a thread right when he said that! But I figured several others would have already beat me to it. I am a Ben M. supporter, but I was pretty baffled by that statement. He was trying to justify why the novel Grapes of Wrath "which at times reads like a socialist manifesto" (I believe were his words) could be so popular and the failure of capitalism was his explanation. I thought this was an oversimplification. I think people more responded to it because of identification with and empathy for the characters and their situations. I mean, maybe capitalism in the form it was taking at the time wasn't going great guns, but as James said, to imply something failed usually means to say it was then done away with and replaced with something else. And in the long run capitalism has done all right by a lot of Americans.

I'm a big Ben supporter.   I meet him a few years ago in the Atlanta airport and we had a short chat.   Nice man that clearly has a love of film.  

I agree his explanation was an oversimplification and that is understandable since this was a film intro and not a discussion of the US economic system and the changes FDR made to said system.    I wasn't rattled by his comments but like I said,  I'm sure some were,  especially those that believe Ben is too political \ left wing for their taste.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, calvinnme said:

I really didn't expect anybody to care, and maybe I should have dragged this to the OT forum to begin with. It just seemed like a good example of how rough and ignorant some people have gotten in their discourse with the example of certain political leaders who they adore who have equally rough and ignorant discourse. And from the number of like minded comments you can tell this fellow is not alone. I actually responded in kind to his entire post using logic and staying away from insults of any kind. My comment went into moderation and - not surprisingly - he rejected my comment.

Calvin-- it seems that in polite Society there were always people who were actively only polite in public because it was expected and it was reinforced by the General Public.

Those people now don't feel any reason to be civil because it's not being reinforced by a number of people in the public sphere.

What makes this so bad is that young people growing up will not have realistic parameters of exactly what is acceptable and what's  unacceptable for civilized people in a civilized developed Society.  So much more important for the future in a global Society.

But you know what they say about the swinging pendulum --what goes up must come down.

People who have ethics and principles with decent character will go on teaching their children what they believe is necessary for them to know. Chacun à son goût-- to each his own.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, calvinnme said:

I really didn't expect anybody to care, and maybe I should have dragged this to the OT forum to begin with. It just seemed like a good example of how rough and ignorant some people have gotten in their discourse with the example of certain political leaders who they adore who have equally rough and ignorant discourse. And from the number of like minded comments you can tell this fellow is not alone. I actually responded in kind to his entire post using logic and staying away from insults of any kind. My comment went into moderation and - not surprisingly - he rejected my comment.

Many people are like that. You can just ignore them really. They'll just fight you if you question their (shaky) beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gershwin fan said:

Many people are like that. You can just ignore them really. They'll just fight you if you question their (shaky) beliefs.

Yes.  Some people are just not worth discussing things with.  They are so stuck in their ways that they refuse to consider any other possibility.  It's best to just let them be and move on with life.  That seems to be the way in personal relationships as well.  As you get to know people really well, you learn what topics to avoid discussing with them as to avoid an argument.  With many people, it's best to avoid discussing politics, religion and abortion.  These are such hot-button issues that it's pointless to discuss them.  Apparently, we can now add "post-1960 movies" and "Robert Osborne-less TCM" to the list of topics to avoid.  Lol. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, speedracer5 said:

Yes.  Some people are just not worth discussing things with.  They are so stuck in their ways that they refuse to consider any other possibility.  It's best to just let them be and move on with life.  That seems to be the way in personal relationships as well.  As you get to know people really well, you learn what topics to avoid discussing with them as to avoid an argument.  With many people, it's best to avoid discussing politics, religion and abortion.  These are such hot-button issues that it's pointless to discuss them.  Apparently, we can now add "post-1960 movies" and "Robert Osborne-less TCM" to the list of topics to avoid.  Lol. 

oh, if anything film is a very sensitive medium to talk about. I used to get upset about certain films, but aside from one occasion last year when I was appalled by what i read on the internet concerning one new one release and what it included in its runtime, I rarely raise my voice about films I dislike unless there is a worst film thread going on somewhere. See, every film has at least one defender in the world, and I also think it is more beneficial to talk about films one actually likes rather than ones people dislike. It's just better to spread the love. otherwise, if one focuses on film negatives, it comes across eventually as misanthropic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

oh, if anything film is a very sensitive medium to talk about. I used to get upset about certain films, but aside from one occasion last year when I was appalled by what i read on the internet concerning one new one release and what it included in its runtime, I rarely raise my voice about films I dislike unless there is a worst film thread going on somewhere. See, every film has at least one defender in the world, and I also think it is more beneficial to talk about films one actually likes rather than ones people dislike. It's just better to spread the love. otherwise, if one focuses on film negatives, it comes across eventually as misanthropic. 

Agreed.  There's already too much hate in the world, why sit on dwell everything you dislike?  Even the worst film, I can usually try to find something I liked about it.  I know that I really dislike a film if I cannot find anything nice to say about it.  Case in point, Apocalypse Now, the only thing nice about it I can say is that I was really happy when it was over.  However, I know that for every film I love, there are multiple people who hate it and vice versa.  It is these differences that makes film discussion very interesting.

I agree about film being a sensitive topic.  I believe it is because film can be such a personal experience for everyone.  You can have ten people watch the same film and each person will come away with a different perspective and reaction to seeing the film.  I believe that some people feel personally offended when people dislike a film they love, only because they view it as a personal attack on their intelligence or what not.  I love The Long, Long Trailer, but I am sure there are those out there who hate the film.  I don't care what they think, but another person, who may absolutely LOVE a specific film may feel upset that someone doesn't feel the same way they do about it.  There may also be those superfans out there who LOVE a movie so much that they may view a dissenting opinion as almost an attack on something they love and feel that they need to defend it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter. The U.S. has never had a strictly capitalist economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Doesn't matter. The U.S. has never had a strictly capitalist economy.

I dunno 'bout that, Vautrin.

Ya see the reason I don't about that is just last week I watched an episode of PBS's American Experience series titled "The Gilded Age", and from what I could tell it sure sounded as if those late-19th century business tycoons such as Carnegie, Morgan and few others, ruthlessly worked every angle they could to ensure that their rather sizable part of the U.S. economy was as free and unrestricted as humanly possible, anyway.

(...jus' sayin')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, calvinnme said:

I really didn't expect anybody to care, and maybe I should have dragged this to the OT forum to begin with. It just seemed like a good example of how rough and ignorant some people have gotten in their discourse with the example of certain political leaders who they adore who have equally rough and ignorant discourse. And from the number of like minded comments you can tell this fellow is not alone.

He was writing in crude terms to his own kind of conservative thinking Ben-is-a-damn-leftie crowd rather than to members of this board. He probably knew he had built-in applause awaiting him there as he crafted his piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dargo said:

I dunno 'bout that, Vautrin.

Ya see the reason I don't about that is just last week I watched an episode of PBS's American Experience series titled "The Gilded Age", and from what I could tell it sure sounded as if those late-19th century business tycoons such as Carnegie, Morgan and few others, ruthlessly worked every angle they could to ensure that their rather sizable part of the U.S. economy was as free and unrestricted as humanly possible, anyway.

(...jus' sayin')

"As free and unrestricted as humanly possible" for THEM anyway, right? ;) 

At any rate, and back to topic, that malcontent proves the sad existence of the "downside" of the internet.  That any blowhard with a laptop and videocam can fool himself and also sadly, many people into actually believing that they're some kind of "expert" on anything despite their offerings proving how true the opposite is.  That he had to go online to seek out anybody willing to read and agree with his tripe just proves that conventional and long accepted venues wisely took a pass on his rantings.  And with good reason.

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoyed reading the majority of the posts here, and as for one or two others, I now realize apparently that projection isn't only found in the movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dargo said:

I dunno 'bout that, Vautrin.

Ya see the reason I don't about that is just last week I watched an episode of PBS's American Experience series titled "The Gilded Age", and from what I could tell it sure sounded as if those late-19th century business tycoons such as Carnegie, Morgan and few others, ruthlessly worked every angle they could to ensure that their rather sizable part of the U.S. economy was as free and unrestricted as humanly possible, anyway.

(...jus' sayin')

Granted there was a lot less gov't regulation during that time period, but there

was still some and there would be more to follow, some as an effect of the robber

barons' methods of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us