darkblue
-
Posts
22,191 -
Joined
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by darkblue
-
-
There's lots of movies involving characters that are both and neither. I believe the term given is anti-hero.
The man with no name in Leone's 'A Fistful of Dollars' might be an example of this. I believe the term was used to describe Paul Newman in 'Hud' as well.
With the end of the "code", movies were no longer restricted to moral certitude in the character portrayals on screen ("bad" guys were allowed to win now) - and this breakage from forced ideology has provided far more nuance in how characters are explored.
-
1
-
-
Bobby Darin was a surprisingly competent actor (for as pop star).
-
There are plenty of these discussions going on, along with side trips into humor and fighting. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Very few posters want to spend ALL their time on these boards engaged in serious film discussions.... and, incidentally, anyone should have realized that my initial remark about MacMurray possibly being impaired at the age of 86, was done with my tongue squarely in cheek. LIghten up.
To paraphrase lavender, Just Stop it Already (Sob)!
Seriously, just do as Topper tells you. He's the boss of what can be posted, you know. Otherwise, we'll all get another well-deserved lecture (and I'm not sure Dargo's shield of good-nature can withstand many more).
-
why didn't I just say American border patrol, but it is highly ironic that an Australian-born woman's husband is stopped and questioned at the checkpoints because he looks Mexican when the agents who are interrogating him look just like he does!
Imagine that. Along the border, south of which every single country is almost entirely populated by latino peoples, border patrol agents tend to be more suspicious of latino people crossing that border to enter the U.S. illegally than they are other races.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
-
No more comments on this point, darkblue. You are misconstruing everything I say (apparently on purpose) and you are peppering your replies with confrontational words. I reserve the right to avoid protracted arguments with you. Moving on...
Well, it's clear that you can't or won't answer the question I asked. I have no other option than to believe you made it all up in an effort to stimulate a false discussion.
-
I agree that the source material should be the target for those looking for offensive material.
The day after 'Song of the South' premiered, NAACP secretary Walter White wrote:
"the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, 'Song of the South' unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts."
It would appear that the source material was not what was troubling (actually referred to as "beautiful Uncle Remus folklore"). It was the movie that Disney made that was troubling.
-
1
-
-
I think you may be misinterpreting me. I did not say Harris' writings were under scrutiny prior to the making of the film.
You said:
why didn't black Americans who objected to the Uncle Remus stories not try to get Harris' writings banned? Why go after the movie instead of the book? Is there a vendetta afoot against Disney?
You clearly stated that there were African-Americans who had a problem with the Uncle Remus stories. Again I'll ask, where'd you hear that? Just like when I asked where'd you hear that Disney pressed ahead with production against the complaints of "black" people (which I believe you've since edited) and you didn't answer then either.
I know the Disney movie garnered some negative reaction from African-Americans, but your assertion that they also had a previous problem with Harris' stories is news to me. Or that they were complaining about the making of the movie even before the movie premiered. Also news to me.
There's no problem with me or anyone else misinterpreting your posts. They're so wriggly, so subject to later alteration, and so all over the map in terms of changing the direction of the conversation, there's really no "interpreting" to be done at all. It would be nice if you were consistent and willing to answer simple questions with simple answers, but pretending that other members misunderstand what you say is what we get instead.
-
As for why go after the movie; To me the answer there is very simple; movies are a visual media. Books take a lot more time and effort to read and digest. So movies are targeted before books because they are easier targets.
And Disney movies are specifically produced for, and marketed to, children. Children are impressionable. So Disney product receives a different kind of scrutiny than that of other companies.
-
I would have to go back and dig it up-- it would be easier for me to turn this part of the discussion over to someone else who knows more about that. But I do think blacks (not all, but some influential black leaders) objected in the mid-40s when they found out Disney was making a film based on these stories. And after it was made, they protested at the premiere. Let me go back and try to find it. If anyone else knows, feel free to jump in. The point is that this film was controversial from the very beginning. But Disney pressed ahead.
See, again - I have to ask where you heard that. I'm aware that there was criticism of the Disney movie from members of the NAACP and certain African-American media figures following the premier of the movie. I wasn't aware there'd been any outcry prior to that - or of any ongoing criticism of Harris and his writings. The movie was the catalyst for the outcry - that's what I understood. I'm willing to admit I could be wrong but it would be helpful to know the source for what you're claiming.
I'm not saying you're making it up. But I am wondering if you are.
-
Are you saying I'm wrong?
I'm asking a question. I have no idea if what you're saying is factual or not - that's why I asked where you heard it. Or read it.
-
the NAACP (or whatever group it was at the time) was objecting to the adapting of Harris' well-known stories
Where'd you hear that?
-
Wasn't that rotten ? Here t.c.m premiere's a documentary about Edger J Ulmer and yet they Don't premiere his never before seen classics.They could have introudced some of his Yiddsh films.But. you see t.c m, only serves more than our side the fans of popular classic films .These stupid fools don't want to see a lot of old moies like our side does .I had already an argument with two t.cm fans,one was a member of the Vitaphone project.They were both defending time Warner bieng discriminatory about the film titles they showed.One called me insane another feared that my opinion would cause him to lose his job,presevation .T.c.m. shows classic film strictly for profit and ratings. only ,although fox is worst.T.c.m. never has enough variety like they should
Yeah, baby!
Whadda we want? Yiddish films!
When do we want 'em? Now!
Whadda we want? Yiddish films!
When do we want 'em? Now!
-
1
-
-
It's on again at 5:15 a.m. - just a few hours from now.
Set your alarm clock, GayD.
-
Is that Leon Russell on piano?
Sure is. That clip is, I believe, from George's concert for Bangladesh.
-
My guess as to why it has become "such a thing" is that somehow the young women who affect it believe that lowering their voices below their natural vocal register makes them sound more authoritarian.
Appropriately termed, that - my voice has been doing that for years whenever I've been seriously fried.
-
Why are you asking me a question about my asking a question? Both james and Nipkow can answer (or not) about why they are both discussing rap music.
Because he noticed you were asking the person who didn't introduce rap music into the discussion, rather than the person who did? Maybe? Possibly? And why would you engage in such transference? All worth being curious about? Maybe not.
-
Top Billed, you just disproved yet another of my stereotypes: that TCM posters don't have Korean island dogs!
I hear they're delicious.
-
1
-
-
yes, I CAN see how some black americans could have a problem with song of the south but to me it is simply a harmless children's film....and that concludes my contribution to this thread.
Before you go, I just want to say that I did see your point - and it was a valid one - about the degree of offensiveness that can be perceived as present in each example (be it the movie or be it rap music).
And I know it wasn't your intention to make a racial statement. In fact, there's a truth to the notion that feeling offended is an emotional response not rooted in rationality. But when I read your allusion to a "rational mind" in a topic that will, for some, revolve around different racial perspectives, an alarm went off in my head. It's so easy to get into trouble with any statement that can be seen as something different than intended when it comes to issues of race.
-
I never pretended myself to know who started objecting to the racial depictions in sots but I have read that Hattie McDaniel never had any problem with appearing in sots.
Actually, you're pretending not to know. It's knowledge that's been posted here several times - once earlier today in a post addressed to you specifically.
-
"Snowbirds", as they're often referred to, are part-time residents of the U.S. While there, it's easy to understand that they would cross the nearest international border to obtain meds at a reasonable cost. But trust me, when they're in Canada, there's no way they'd dream of driving all the way to Mexico for their meds.
If the U.S. didn't allow such price gouging, none of this would be happening. They'd only live in the U.S. for the warm weather part of the year, which is why they are part-time residents to begin with.
-
I meant all people's rational mind.
Okay. It's just that the objections to the movie on the basis of racist depiction began with African-American commentators, so it's wise to remember that when questioning "peoples" rational minds.
-
I really don't keep up too much with all the Baldwins, but reading about Stephen, he does seem a bit of a kook.
Not sure "kook" is the description I'd go to. Let's just say he and Ted Nugent share some aspects of personality.
-
A lot of "white" Canadians go to Mexico for their meds-- these are the snowbirds who live in southern Arizona during the winter months. So there is a lot of back-and-forth traffic of all races and nationalities. One of the reasons I wanted to come up to Wisconsin for awhile is because I feel that Arizona is becoming too militaristic. Within a 50 mile radius, we had three branches of military plus all the border patrol personnel. I am sure that where Dargo is located in the northern part of the state, it's not like it is in the southern part. I am still undecided about whether I will go back. I ended up renewing my lease on the place I took here so I could have more time to decide.
But aren't they already U.S. residents? Just wait till more Australians and Swedes and Nords and Russians and Finns and Brits and all the other Caucasians from around the world start travelling to Mexico before entering the U.S.
Then we'll see whether "white" people start getting questioned a little more diligently.
-
what should be considered more offensive to the rational mind? SONG OF THE SOUTH, a dated Disney film meant for children or a modern form of "music" that habitually characterizes mostly black women as hoes?
Questioning the rationality of "black" peoples' minds seems like a good idea to you?
The Innocents
in General Discussions
Posted
It seems like TCM shows this an awful lot, year in and year out. They must own a copy of it.
Anyway, I've seen it several times. I wrote about it at IMDb - where I gave it a 7 out of 10 score (I'm not as inclined to consider it a master work as some are) and I guess I was feeling a little cranky when I wrote the following comment back in 2006:
Only One Shiver
The woman seen staring across the lake is the only scene that actually gave me a shiver and I believe it's the only scene that gives any validity to this being a 'ghost' movie. If it weren't for this one instance in the film I would have to conclude that the governess is just plain batty. The ending is particularly baffling to me in that I fail to be convinced that her hysteria could cause a healthy eleven year old boy to expire. Particularly one as intelligent and adult-like as Miles.
So why do I give it a 7 out of 10? First, because of the performances of the children. Flawless. Second, the black and white cinematography. Innovative and atmospheric. Third, it has all the potential to be as good a ghost story as so many reviewers here seem to think it is - if only there were a few more chilling moments on par with the 'woman by the lake' scene. If only.
I haven't watched it since I wrote that, but I doubt I'll change my mind if I watch it again.