Sign in to follow this  
TopBilled

Believability in certain roles

130 posts in this topic

What got me started about this thread was the sidetracking of it into what became a chat about independent films in general. The great thing about this thread was (and I'm sorry I can no longer say "is") the specificity of the subject, just like any other sub-genre subjects: pre-code, westerns, etc.  It has become much more of a thread that fits the exact type of thread that one finds in general discussions.  And I fear what may come next -- a thread that changes thread titles regularly? Oy vay. This has all made me realize that, although this LGBT space is a good one, I think it may NOT be a good idea to keep these sorts of discussions from non-LGBT view; hence, although I may join in a thread here if I find it interesting, any future threads I begin related to LGBT issues will probably find themselves in General Discussions.

Well, the most I can say to that is that anyone can click on this sub-genre thread any time they want to. Unless there is restricted access I don't know about saying "only LGBT members can post here, " this is news to me. Please don't take that as if I am making fun. It would be great if LGBT and other "minority" groups were included in general dialogue anyway, from this message board forum and beyond, but we're not there yet and we are still separated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the most I can say to that is that anyone can click on this sub-genre thread any time they want to. Unless there is restricted access I don't know about saying "only LGBT members can post here, " this is news to me. Please don't take that as if I am making fun. It would be great if LGBT and other "minority" groups were included in general dialogue anyway, from this message board forum and beyond, but we're not there yet and we are still separated. 

But actually the separation began fairly recently -- with the creation of this sub-genre thread. I guess we just have to make judicious decisions about how to use it. I originally felt this space was sort of like a "gay bar," which would mostly attract LGBT customers, though anyone is welcome. But when the thread in question deteriorated (sorry) into a tangent worthy of the excesses of some of the General Discussions threads, it ruined my feeling about this sub-genre. Let's just see if the thread title changes again -- and again -- and again.  Will we get to the place where we have to endure "Today LGBT topic..."

 

I guess one could paraphrase Oscar Wilde:  "The LGBT sub-genre is like a delicate exotic fruit. Touch it and the bloom is gone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But actually the separation began fairly recently -- with the creation of this sub-genre thread. I guess we just have to make judicious decisions about how to use it. I originally felt this space was sort of like a "gay bar," which would mostly attract LGBT customers, though anyone is welcome. But when the thread in question deteriorated (sorry) into a tangent worthy of the excesses of some of the General Discussions threads, it ruined my feeling about this sub-genre. Let's just see if the thread title changes again -- and again -- and again.  Will we get to the place where we have to endure "Today LGBT topic..."

 

I guess one could paraphrase Oscar Wilde:  "The LGBT sub-genre is like a delicate exotic fruit. Touch it and the bloom is gone."

 

To me any 'separation' happened when one of the moderators created this forum (LGBT) under 'genre'.     Users can't create forums (as far as I know)  but only threads.    Users can also re-title threads they create. 

 

And yes,  you may have to endure the creation of additional threads under this forum, as well as the changing of titles since the owner of this website allows users these options.

 

You will also have to endure moving of treads from one forum to another when a moderator decides to do that.        

 

 But I am sorry that the creation of a thread appears to have ruined a sub-genre forum for you.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just see if the thread title changes again -- and again -- and again.  Will we get to the place where we have to endure "Today LGBT topic..."

 

I think you're taking swipes again. We had a very nice series of private messages yesterday, but apparently you are still upset about something you cannot control. You cannot control how many times a thread title changes that has been created by someone else, just like I cannot control how many times you change thread titles you create. And that's not even the point here. Nowhere was it indicated that this would become a thread with updated titles. It was explained very well earlier in this thread and by me to you in several private messages yesterday why the thread title was updated (to more accurately define the conversation occurring here in the thread). If you are trying to control that, I believe you are going to fail. Just like you will probably fail at trying to regulate how judiciously this sub-forum is used. We have no idea if the sub-forum will continue in its present form, and if it does, how future message board participants will use it. So I am very disappointed that you continue to go out of your way to find fault where there really isn't any fault to find. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me any 'separation' happened when one of the moderators created this forum (LGBT) under 'genre'.     Users can't create forums (as far as I know)  but only threads.    Users can also re-title threads they create. 

 

And yes,  you may have to endure the creation of additional threads under this forum, as well as the changing of titles since the owner of this website allows users these options.

 

You will also have to endure moving of treads from one forum to another when a moderator decides to do that.        

 

 But I am sorry that the creation of a thread appears to have ruined a sub-genre forum for you.    

Well, it's good to have this space, but it made me realize that we should continue to address specifically LGBT film-related issues in General Discussions (just as all the other subjects which have sub-genres are also addressed in General Discussions). The full community there should see them; whether they want to read them/join in, is their choice. And as I recall, there was one shrieking homophobe who, when this sub-genre was created, basically said we should have all the LGBT discussions here, and not use General Discussions. We shouldn't pander to that kind of person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me any 'separation' happened when one of the moderators created this forum (LGBT) under 'genre'.     Users can't create forums (as far as I know)  but only threads.    Users can also re-title threads they create. 

 

And yes,  you may have to endure the creation of additional threads under this forum, as well as the changing of titles since the owner of this website allows users these options.

 

You will also have to endure moving of treads from one forum to another when a moderator decides to do that.        

 

 But I am sorry that the creation of a thread appears to have ruined a sub-genre forum for you.    

Perfect. I should have read your post before I just replied to Swithin. You said it so much better than I did. I hope Swithin reads what you wrote and takes it to heart. Again, I feel he is finding fault where there isn't any to find. I don't understand why someone is going out of his way to project antipathy about threads on a message board. Unless he just wants to argue for the sake of arguing-- which seems silly. We have bigger fish to fry folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's good to have this space, but it made me realize that we should continue to address specifically LGBT film-related issues in General Discussions (just as all the other subjects which have sub-genres are also addressed in General Discussions). The full community there should see them; whether they want to read them/join in, is their choice. And as I recall, there was one shrieking homophobe who, when this sub-genre was created, basically said we should have all the LGBT discussions here, and not use General Discussions. We shouldn't pander to that kind of person. 

Nobody is saying you can't address LGBT film-related items in other forums. If you stopped doing that, it was your own choosing. 

 

And people who feel more comfortable limiting these topics to this sub-forum should be allowed to do so without being singled out by you. This sub-forum was created for a reason-- not to construct a visible closet or a 'gay bar' type atmosphere. It is merely a classification of a genre of films. If you go into Barnes & Noble (and other bookstores) you will see they also have a separate section for these kinds of materials. Businesses sort products and services by individual customer needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's good to have this space, but it made me realize that we should continue to address specifically LGBT film-related issues in General Discussions (just as all the other subjects which have sub-genres are also addressed in General Discussions). The full community there should see them; whether they want to read them/join in, is their choice. And as I recall, there was one shrieking homophobe who, when this sub-genre was created, basically said we should have all the LGBT discussions here, and not use General Discussions. We shouldn't pander to that kind of person. 

 

Well since people are just unwilling to use the 'view new content' feature,   maybe the solution is for ALL threads to be placed under GD,  automatically by the system,  as well as the specific forum where the creator of the thread created it.     e.g. one creates a thread under LGBT and the system has a duplicate thread under GD.      This way those that only wish to go to GD would 'see' all threads. (but again,  if one just uses 'view new content' they view all threads with comments they have NOT read).  

 

I do understand your point about not pandering to that one person that was offended by LGBT discussions.   Yes,  we shouldn't use any topic specific forum because of that.    So in this regards,  I can agree that there never was a sound reason to create the LGBT forum in the first place.   (and now I wonder why the moderator did.   I hope it wasn't to appease that one person!).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying you can't address LGBT film-related items in other forums. If you stopped doing that, it was your own choosing. 

 

And people who feel more comfortable limiting these topics to this sub-forum should be allowed to do so without being singled out by you. This sub-forum was created for a reason-- not to construct a visible closet or a 'gay bar' type atmosphere. It is merely a classification of a genre of films. If you go into Barnes & Noble (and other bookstores) you will see they also have a separate section for these kinds of materials. Businesses sort products and services by individual customer needs. 

 

The gay-bar issue is rather a big one now with my gay friends and in gay friendly cities like Laguna Beach CA.     We were talking (8 gay men and me),  and a few of them said they didn't like that most of the gay-bars in town had closed.   I pointed out that they had closed because all the bars in town were now gay friendly,  where everyone was welcome and mixed (one can see this by who is dancing with who).   I just love that type of environment.   But some said that they missed exclusive bars and wished that non gays wouldn't rain on their spot.       

 

The town use to have gay events with titles that were exclusive but now they are called 'rainbow' or 'lets all come together' type names.    To me that is progress but not to everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since people are just unwilling to use the 'view new content' feature,   maybe the solution is for ALL threads to be placed under GD,  automatically by the system,  as well as the specific forum where the creator of the thread created it.     e.g. one creates a thread under LGBT and the system has a duplicate thread under GD.      This way those that only wish to go to GD would 'see' all threads. (but again,  if one just uses 'view new content' they view all threads with comments they have NOT read).  

 

I do understand your point about not pandering to that one person that was offended by LGBT discussions.   Yes,  we shouldn't use any topic specific forum because of that.    So in this regards,  I can agree that there never was a sound reason to create the LGBT forum in the first place.   (and now I wonder why the moderator did.   I hope it wasn't to appease that one person!).   

James,

 

I can assure you this sub-forum was not created to pander to one person who wanted gay topics off the other forums. It was created because TCM sees gay and lesbian film as a genre of movies they occasionally broadcast. 

 

Does creating a sub-forum about silent films mean that nobody can ever mention a silent film is their favorite in the Your Favorites forum? Of course not. There is going to be some crossover in content among sub-forums. 

 

For Swithin to come on here and say a topic belongs in the General Discussions area seems a bit heavy-handed to me. I feel he is stirring up an unnecessary amount of trouble. And for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gay-bar issue is rather a big one now with my gay friends and in gay friendly cities like Laguna Beach CA.     We were talking (8 gay men and me),  and a few of them said they didn't like that most of the gay-bars in town had closed.   I pointed out that they had closed because all the bars in town were now gay friendly,  where everyone was welcome and mixed (one can see this by who is dancing with who).   I just love that type of environment.   But some said that they missed exclusive bars and wished that non gays wouldn't rain on their spot.       

 

The town use to have gay events with titles that were exclusive but now they are called 'rainbow' or 'lets all come together' type names.    To me that is progress but not to everyone. 

It also applies to separate churches or worship places for gays and lesbians. It's the whole separate but equal stuff.

 

But we're getting off-topic again. LOL

 

As Columbo would say, 'just one more thing'-- I do not think this sub-forum was created to function as a 'gay bar' type atmosphere. It is a place to discuss a specific style or genre of films. That is all.

 

If we keep questioning it, will TCM just pull this sub-forum? I am sure some would want that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

 

I can assure you this sub-forum was not created to pander to one person who wanted gay topics off the other forums. It was created because TCM sees gay and lesbian film as a genre of movies they occasionally broadcast. 

 

Does creating a sub-forum about silent films mean that nobody can ever mention a silent film is their favorite in the Your Favorites forum? Of course not. There is going to be some crossover in content among sub-forums. 

 

For Swithin to come on here and say a topic belongs in the General Discussions area seems a bit heavy-handed to me. I feel he is stirring up an unnecessary amount of trouble. And for what?

 

As I pointed out some people only go to GD and only GD.  Therefore any thread posted in a forum other than GD is missed by those folks.    I believe that is the point Swithin was making.

 

This is why I offered my solution that GD contain a duplicate of all threads posted in other treads.  (but I still say one should just use 'view new content').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since people are just unwilling to use the 'view new content' feature,   maybe the solution is for ALL threads to be placed under GD,  automatically by the system,  as well as the specific forum where the creator of the thread created it.     e.g. one creates a thread under LGBT and the system has a duplicate thread under GD.      This way those that only wish to go to GD would 'see' all threads. (but again,  if one just uses 'view new content' they view all threads with comments they have NOT read).  

 

I do understand your point about not pandering to that one person that was offended by LGBT discussions.   Yes,  we shouldn't use any topic specific forum because of that.    So in this regards,  I can agree that there never was a sound reason to create the LGBT forum in the first place.   (and now I wonder why the moderator did.   I hope it wasn't to appease that one person!).   

I think there have been two kinds of discussions about LGBT and film. One relates to films which clearly deal with LGBT subjects or have one or more characters who are clearly defined as LGBT. The other is the "between-the-lines/subtext" kind of discussion, where one might suggest that a classic film, which has no overt LGBT thematic material, might actually have one, which had to be couched due to codes, mores of the time, etc.  It's the latter I think that puts off some straight people who may not want to accept, or even consider,  that a beloved classic film has a gay subtext. "I can't see it, it's not there," is usually the cry.  The latter is the sort of discussion that some people are not comfortable with. As to the former, the overtly LGBT-themed films, I don't think that has been a problem-- just as we all get deeply involved in General Discussions about films related to people from all sort of groups of which we are not part.

 

So this whole argument I've been having in this thread is sort of behind me now. But it's made me realize that some of the threads I've started here should probably have been started in General Discussions. It's ironic -- I began by suggesting to another poster that his thread should be moved to General Discussions. And I ended up in a place where I think that MY threads here should have begun there!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can respond to the current discussion, I do like the new title of this thread, and since it is a universal, well-drawn out conversation look at authentic representation of different social groups in film, I don't see why it wouldn't be a General Discussions thread also. But I also agree as to why its been regulated to this specific sub-genre discussion thread.

 

I often wonder why we as a culture separate discussions, views, entertainments, and topics to the labels of difference. We aren't a society that celebrates differences as positive things unless there is a guise of denial to it saying "I know you are a human being, but don't tell me how society treats you for being different because I don't want to hear it." It's a constant excuse that often leads to heated discussions about race, sexual orientation, gender, class, disability, and the like. How we socialize difference in our ability to not discuss another person's experiences and history of those experiences is not helping advance anything. 

 

It took a long time for TCM to grant us this sub-genre space called LGBT because in the General Discussions, things were getting heated to a point of lava in a volcano and people wanted a space to talk about LGBT films and themes in film relating to the LGBT experience. Personally, I think because this individual thread merits more than just LGBT- centered representation in film, but representation of other social groups deemed different, and maybe that's why the OP thinks that it would be better suited in the General Discussions, but since this is ( I hope) a "safe space" I can see why there is an upset to suggest this topic shouldn't be here, even though the origin of conversation started and carried to a point of authentic representation in film. 

 

I think if we could return to talking about authentic representation in film and less on where the place is in this forum, the better. I have a few new thoughts on the matter myself and would like to articulate them at some point. 

You have a slight error here, hepclassic. I put the error in bold font. I am the OP, and I never said this topic was best suited to the General Discussions board. What I said, in response to Swithin, was that I felt more general LGBT discussions can occur here in this sub-forum alongside other thread topics that are more narrow and specific in scope.

 

I am definitely not going to put the word gay or the word lesbian in all my threads in this sub-forum. I should be able to make some generalized statements, and so should anyone. In the case of casting and believability in certain roles, some characters on screen are ambiguously shaded and portrayed without being specifically gay or specifically lesbian. We can reference those scenes in those movies without having to label it one hundred percent gay or lesbian, especially since the filmmaker(s) wanted it left open to interpretation anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out some people only go to GD and only GD.  Therefore any thread posted in a forum other than GD is missed by those folks.    I believe that is the point Swithin was making.

 

This is why I offered my solution that GD contain a duplicate of all threads posted in other treads.  (but I still say one should just use 'view new content').

Personally, I think Swithin is unhappy with me because other posters' negativity about me has probably rubbed off on him, and he is using this thread title change to challenge me. If so, it is getting in the way of the productive conversation that occurred earlier in the thread. I do not like it, especially since I spent an hour yesterday having what I thought were nice, intelligent and reasonable private messages with him about this thread and this sub-forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think Swithin is unhappy with me because other posters' negativity about me has probably rubbed off on him, and he is using this thread title change to challenge me. If so, it is getting in the way of the productive conversation that occurred earlier in the thread.

No, that's not it. Perhaps one needs to accept that one can come to conclusions for oneself. Actually, I didn't like the title of this thread even before you changed it. (I'm allowed to say that aren't I?) I also became nervous about this thread when I saw it begin to segue into a discussion of independent films. This sub-genre has been so specific -- of course it doesn't have to be, but that specificity is one thing I liked about it. And then I saw your comment about new ideas for threads in this sub-genre, and that made me even more nervous, because I thought that would really change the whole nature of this sub-genre. I'm not saying you don't have a right to do that; I'm talking now about what I've liked here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not it. Perhaps one needs to accept that one can come to conclusions for oneself. Actually, I didn't like the title of this thread even before you changed it. (I'm allowed to say that aren't I?) I also became nervous about this thread when I saw it begin to segue into a discussion of independent films. This sub-genre has been so specific -- of course it doesn't have to be, but that specificity is one thing I liked about it. And then I saw your comment about new ideas for threads in this sub-genre, and that made me even more nervous, because I thought that would really change the whole nature of this sub-genre. I'm not saying you don't have a right to do that; I'm talking now about what I've liked here.

The reason I referred to those other ideas, is because I felt that some of hepclassic's comments were referring to whole other themes and gay-film topics that deserved their own threads for richer and fuller exploration. I do not know if there was much emphasis on independent films, but what is the harm in looking at all types of filmmaking (studio as well as independent). I was quite excited-- thinking, wow, there is so much ground to cover here and thank goodness TCM gave us this wonderful sub-forum to do so.

 

I did not want to let those ideas just drop or get buried in this thread. I do hope hepclassic feels free to start new threads down the road that go deeper in those other areas, because I would like to discuss them. If those ideas or topics make you nervous (though I do not see why they would make you nervous), then just avoid those threads.

 

You have created threads here I do not care for-- ones that tend to focus on much newer films I do not regard as classics. But I do not go on to those threads and try to discourage you, because I believe you enjoy those films and need to discuss them. Should I be nervous that you could take this sub-forum into discussions about modern films?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I referred to those other ideas, is because I felt that some of hepclassic's comments were referring to whole other themes and gay-film topics that deserved their own threads for richer and fuller exploration. I do not know if there was much emphasis on independent films, but what is the harm in looking at all types of filmmaking (studio as well as independent). I was quite excited-- thinking, wow, there is so much ground to cover here and thank goodness TCM gave us this wonderful sub-forum to do so.

 

I did not want to let those ideas just drop or get buried in this thread. I do hope hepclassic feels free to start new threads down the road that go deeper in those other areas, because I would like to discuss them. If those ideas or topics make you nervous (though I do not see why they would make you nervous), then just avoid those threads.

 

You have created threads here I do not care for-- ones that tend to focus on much newer films I do not regard as classics. But I do not go on to those threads and try to discourage you, because I believe you enjoy those films and need to discuss them. Should I be nervous that you could take this sub-forum into discussions about modern films?

You are quite right -- we have all created threads (and posts) that others haven't liked. I sometimes wish there was a "don't like" thingy we could check -- but I fear that would lead to chaos.

 

But just to get out of our argument -- which I think has been played out -- you bring up the "classic vs. modern" subject. I finally read the Code of Conduct recently. I actually couldn't find anything in the Code that said this Board is about classic movies! The Code gives all kinds of other information, restrictions, and guidelines, but nothing about keeping your thread to that amorphous commodity "classic" films! (Unless I missed something).

 

Btw -- as you may have seen, I started a post in this LGBT sub-forum about the gay character on "Downton Abbey," which is of course a television show, not a movie of any kind, classic or modern. Do you think that would have been more appropriate in the "Off-Topic" section?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... you bring up the "classic vs. modern" subject. I finally read the Code of Conduct recently. I actually couldn't find anything in the Code that said this Board is about classic movies! The Code gives all kinds of other information, restrictions, and guidelines, but nothing about keeping your thread to that amorphous commodity "classic" films! (Unless I missed something).

 

Btw -- as you may have seen, I started a post in this LGBT sub-forum about the gay character on "Downton Abbey," which is of course a television show, not a movie of any kind, classic or modern. Do you think that would have been more appropriate in the "Off-Topic" section?  

That's interesting about the code of conduct not being specific about classic film. Maybe it is implied or simply understood (but I believe it should be spelled out). Probably when they wrote the C of C, they were focused on posting behaviors instead of posting content (which seems like a job half-done). 

 

As for the Downtown Abbey discussion, I personally have never watched the show-- but if they hire classic movie stars and there are LGBT stories in it, then I don't see why it can't be posted here in this sub-forum. It does not seem extremely off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a slight error here, hepclassic. I put the error in bold font. I am the OP, and I never said this topic was best suited to the General Discussions board. What I said, in response to Swithin, was that I felt more general LGBT discussions can occur here in this sub-forum alongside other thread topics that are more narrow and specific in scope.

 

I am definitely not going to put the word gay or the word lesbian in all my threads in this sub-forum. I should be able to make some generalized statements, and so should anyone. In the case of casting and believability in certain roles, some characters on screen are ambiguously shaded and portrayed without being specifically gay or specifically lesbian. We can reference those scenes in those movies without having to label it one hundred percent gay or lesbian, especially since the filmmaker(s) wanted it left open to interpretation anyway.

I agree, TopBilled, and I apologize for that error. 

 

Getting back to what you mentioned in your last post as of late, in relation to Downton Abbey- that show is doing something very different compared to past presentations of "authentic" in entertainment. I've been having this discussion with other actors I know outside this forum, because it affects the work we do. 

 

Anyway, in previous models of entertainment, looks at the past meant using past stereotypes in a nostalgic light as means to get away with it under the guise of modern entertainment. For example, Notes On A Scandal, tapped into old stereotypes of what constitutes a lesbian from previous generations by using previous generation's dominant views of lesbianism by means of secret lust translating to psychological trickery and betrayal as means to achieve intimacy. Maybe we can call it Danversism, after Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca. 

 

Downton Abbey does the better, looks at the past authentically without using the past to dictate free use of stereotype. We know what it was like to be gay in the early 20th century, but the character in question doesn't fall to type because the character is allowed to be dimensional and complex. Now if every screenwriter did that for every "minority" group what a better, more appealing entertainment we would be in. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, TopBilled, and I apologize for that error. 

 

Getting back to what you mentioned in your last post as of late, in relation to Downton Abbey- that show is doing something very different compared to past presentations of "authentic" in entertainment. I've been having this discussion with other actors I know outside this forum, because it affects the work we do. 

 

Anyway, in previous models of entertainment, looks at the past meant using past stereotypes in a nostalgic light as means to get away with it under the guise of modern entertainment. For example, Notes On A Scandal, tapped into old stereotypes of what constitutes a lesbian from previous generations by using previous generation's dominant views of lesbianism by means of secret lust translating to psychological trickery and betrayal as means to achieve intimacy. Maybe we can call it Danversism, after Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca. 

 

Downton Abbey does the better, looks at the past authentically without using the past to dictate free use of stereotype. We know what it was like to be gay in the early 20th century, but the character in question doesn't fall to type because the character is allowed to be dimensional and complex. Now if every screenwriter did that for every "minority" group what a better, more appealing entertainment we would be in. 

Interesting.

 

I know Swithin has a separate thread about Abbey, so I won't comment on the program here except to say that if we're talking about believability in certain roles-- we should be careful. If something is too revisionist, it may lose credibility.

 

If we refuse to depict the stereotype as it actually was in the past, then we are creating a new fiction about it. Part of any minority group's empowerment comes from owning the past, not re-presenting it as something it never was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

I know Swithin has a separate thread about Abbey, so I won't comment on the program here except to say that if we're talking about believability in certain roles-- we should be careful. If something is too revisionist, it may lose credibility.

 

If we refuse to depict the stereotype as it actually was in the past, then we are creating a new fiction about it. Part of any minority group's empowerment comes from owning the past, not re-presenting it as something it never was.

True, which is why there is the image-consciousness analyses there are. 

 

So much mainstream entertainment comes from mainstream views on differences. How can there be ownership of the past without acknowledging the truth of it, and when heterosexual people view homosexual people, the view doesn't often show from the perspective of the homosexual, but the heterosexual view on the homosexual. For example, in Philadelphia, a good chunk of our perception is influenced by Denzel Washington's character as he encounters Tom Hanks' character. When we view people of color, we see them through the eyes of white people, the white view of the person of color. For example, our perception of Halle Berry's character in Monster's Ball is heavily influenced on seeing her through the encounters of Billy Bob Thornton's character. Our perception of Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer's characters in The Help is heavily influenced on what Emma Stone sees. Not to discredit these films and these performances, but if we are always encountering and not seeing from these characters from the get go, there presents the problem of authenticity. 

 

Hollywood is trying to make more female-perspective films, and while its a work in progress, we are on the verge of seeing a more authentic Hollywood than before if progress progresses and its not just a fad. Cate Blanchett was right to say that women in film and film that features women are not niche experiences. They are universal. Same for LBGT and people of color. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right -- we have all created threads (and posts) that others haven't liked. I sometimes wish there was a "don't like" thingy we could check -- but I fear that would lead to chaos.

 

But just to get out of our argument -- which I think has been played out -- you bring up the "classic vs. modern" subject. I finally read the Code of Conduct recently. I actually couldn't find anything in the Code that said this Board is about classic movies! The Code gives all kinds of other information, restrictions, and guidelines, but nothing about keeping your thread to that amorphous commodity "classic" films! (Unless I missed something).

 

Btw -- as you may have seen, I started a post in this LGBT sub-forum about the gay character on "Downton Abbey," which is of course a television show, not a movie of any kind, classic or modern. Do you think that would have been more appropriate in the "Off-Topic" section?  

 

First I just want to say I don't care what forum threads are created under as it relates to 'does that thread belong in that forum?'.   Like I said I use 'view new content' and where a thread is doesn't matter when one uses that feature.   

 

As it relates to the code of conduct;  You posted about this a few weeks back and I had to read it and as you know, it doesn't say anything that this board is designed for movie related topics.     But the 'off topic chit-chat' forum does have  'for non movie related topics'  listed right underneath the title (the only forum that has additional wording).     To me that says that other forums are FOR movie related topics and therefore General Discussions is for general movie related topics.      But hey,   maybe I'm all wet and my assumption here is bogus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the 'off topic chit-chat' forum does have  'for non movie related topics'  listed right underneath the title (the only forum that has additional wording).     To me that says that other forums are FOR movie related topics and therefore General Discussions is for general movie related topics. 

You raise a valid point, james. I look forward to seeing what Swithin replies back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it relates to the code of conduct;  You posted about this a few weeks back and I had to read it and as you know, it doesn't say anything that this board is designed for movie related topics.     But the 'off topic chit-chat' forum does have  'for non movie related topics'  listed right underneath the title (the only forum that has additional wording).     To me that says that other forums are FOR movie related topics and therefore General Discussions is for general movie related topics.      But hey,   maybe I'm all wet and my assumption here is bogus.  

 

Interesting point. But this is the way I see it, and, based on what various moderators have said in referring us to the Code, it is not open to posters to make assumptions about things that are not there. Although this is really not relevant to our recent arguments in this thread, I was indeed surprised to see that the Code includes nothing about this being a site for movies-only discussions! 
 
In revamping the site, the Off-Topic space was added, which is great. The inspiration seemed to be, NOT that there were specifically non-movie threads in General Discussions, but that posters writing in threads with very specific subjects were too often segueing into different topics, many times politics and other potentially inflammatory issues. But sometimes just segueing to innocuous topics, (even often film related but not related to the thread) which had only a vague or no connection to the thread topic. And that led to irritation and arguments.
 
On the other hand, of course we're all here to discuss films -- that's what brings us here. I have seen the Code enforced inconsistently -- one time a television star's obit was moved to Off-Topic; another time not. Similarly with television programs. There have been disagreements because certain people feel that only classic films should be discussed on this Board (and who but one or two people has the nerve to try to define that amorphous term!) There is no evidence in the Code that that's the case, and posters are not invited to infer.
 
James -- specific to the way you say you view threads, which is not to care where a thread is: Our friend TB, though his comments in the past in General Discussions, has indicated it matters to him very much where a thread resides, and has clearly stated that, when he feels a thread should be in another part of the Board. I don't care too much; I tend to care more in the Sub-Genre forums, because they are so specific and are not General Discussions (until recently). 
 
So -- the question of the fact that no where does it say in the Code of Conduct that this Board is for the discussion of movies is really academic. Of course we're here to discuss movies. But a strict constructionist would say that there is no evidence for that in the Code. And, for better or worse, we seem to be living in an age of fundamentalism, whether we're referring to the Bible, the Constitution, or the TCM Code of Conduct.

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