slaytonf

>casablancalover2: >One is a history lesson of the experience, the other is a party to entertain in a fantasy setting. >As long as people keep bringing the subject up with current offensiveness, we will need to keep revisiting it. Because clearly some yet can't get over it. ? Very well put. >FredCDobbs: >Ok, so she said "Japs" during the war. Get over it. The Japanese had bad names for us back then. After the war, they got over it. Of course, I am only familiar with Japan from what I hear and read in the news, so it will not likely be an accurate picture. But from that it seems the Japanese, being human, still cultivate a strong strain of racism and national chauvinism. Their politicians and national leaders still go to shrines dedicated to individuals we have judged and executed as war criminals, and minimize or deny the horrors they visited on the Chinese, Koreans, and others (Imagine seeing a U. S. President laying a wreath at a confederate war memorial!). World War II as taught in Japanese schools would be unrecognizable to us. It would naturally be difficult in a culture that to me has a heavy element of pride and conceit in it to be explicit about its atrocities, especially as it will always have to deal with being on the losing end of a painful and disastrous war. From what I've seen of Japanese movies, the war is not a prominent topic. In Ozu's films, it only comes up when lost sons or husbands are remembered. The only film I can think of that deals directly with fascism in Japan, and its effects before, during, and after the war is Kurosawa's No Regrets for Our Youth. It doesn't deal with the war, so much as the effects of fascism and warmongering on education, educators, and those opposed to it. It's an unknown Kurosawa film, but one of his best.

>jsmesjazzguitar: >All she wanted was to give her Husband a party with a southern pre-civil war vibe. For this vibe to be realistic all the servers needed to be black and play the role of a slave. I doubt if she would be able to find African-Americans who would be willing to participate. She most likely would have to hire non-A-As (perhaps ones not here legally) and have them work in blackface.

I agree, it's a terrific movie. Richard Lester does a fine job of directing, managing to create haunting, nostalgic ache in the atmosphere of the film, and George C. Scott turns in one of his best performances. But the top prize goes to Julie Christie. Her role could easily have been horribly misplayed to make her seem like a ditzy, shallow air-head. But Miss Christie portrays her as a free-spirited, spontaneous, and compassionate woman. TCM has shown Petulia in the long past, perhaps a handful of times.

As I said before, I didn't have an interest in commenting because people don't affect one another's opinions, and discussion turns into a round of repeated arguments. But I'll have one more go at it. At least we're not talking about bacteria anymore. You posted: It is probable that at some point in the future that society will view speciesism the same way in which we view racism today. That's a big conclusion to begin an argument with. But I'm a generous person, so I'll give you that. In fifty or so years, let's say all animals have equal rights as humans. Could animals ever have oversight or control of human activities? Would an animal ever be elected to public office? Of course not (not withstanding the occasional dog-elected-as-mayor story). Treating people with equal dignity and consideration is of a completely different order than whatever we decide to do with animals. And it is we who do the deciding, not the other way around, so whatever rights animals might get, they will never, can never be equal. Your argument was not an example of the absurdity my position would lead to, but a contrived case, with intentional flaws designed to be easily knocked down--a straw man. What you cite is more akin to our changed attitude toward smoking. It used to be extolled and cool, now it is discouraged and marginalizes. Do I look at movies with people smoking in them as flawed? Of course not. The smoking in some of them is an integral part of the artistic conception. And in the future, when animals have equal rights, and we are all made vegetarians by the nanny state, will I look at films with meat-eaters in them as flawed? Of course not.

It may be over-written, it may be hyperbolic, but it is fun. And to under-write, or to write parabolically, would not be fun. And fun is the point of all this. And as a great sage said one time, one where, in a movie I think: To heech izzown. Which, roughly translated, means: To err is human, and baseball. And what could be better than America's Pastime?

Dear Dargo2: Naturally, I am gratified whenever anyone recognizes my genius. But then again, why shouldn't they? I can claim credit for the phrasing, but not the concept of not trusting movies to tell anything else but stories convenient for themselves. I don't know where I got it from, maybe from Mr. Osborne's comments on some biographical and historical movies TCM has shown, and how history was cut and pasted to serve the needs of the story. And even though I don't support editing movies or other works (Huckleberry Finn is the go-to example), in this case, I don't see a major rip in the fabric of existence because one word has been cut out. But then again, that may be the edge of that slippery slope everyone always talks about (though I've never seen it), and we're on the way down into the abyss.

What you have done is not argumentum (or reductio) ad absurdem, but the wholly different process of setting up straw men. There is nothing in what I posted that could be logically extrapolated to the absurd ends you propose. The progress of societal and cultural develpment has, overall, been away from absurdity, or irrationality, toward rationality, and equity. Can anyone deny that, in spite of the many shortcomings that still exist, America is a more just, fair, open, and free country today? My posts concerned the inaccurate view the mainstream of thought in this country has of its history, and the inadvisability of using films of any time for an understanding of contemporary social conditions. As I posted before, the Great Movie Buddha says: Don't get your history from movies. As for our concerns here, what I object to when this topic is discussed, is the necessity felt on the part of some to minimize, or excuse the offence of bigoted or prejudicial material in films in order to make it easier to enjoy watching them. When you can blame a different time, or different mores, you don't have to feel ambivalent or troubled about a film you really like.

I think it means she was gonna cut. her. throat.

The best I can get from the movie is that it was implied Douglas did some soul searching off camera in the intervening time between his and Torry's talk at about 7 minutes or so and when he comes on to the bridge. An indication that would happen comes at the end of thier talk when Douglas apologizes for his bitter comment that he didn't give a damn. He enters the bridge in a rain slicker because the ship is most likely passing through a storm. Symbolically, it's a reflection of his dark mood passing, or being washed away.

You got it.

As I posted before, darkblue: >I don't think films should be edited. and as I also posted: >[H]owever, I don't excuse the offensive material, or minimize it, by the patent rationalization that it is a product of its time. I consider these films flawed and of less value than they otherwise would have been. The people of the time knew what they were doing was wrong, that it was hurtful. But they went ahead and did it anyway. Hope this makes it clear.

Very scrupulous non-standard English. I am impressed. TCM has shown Buck and the Preacher, Amistad, Watermelon Man, A Raisin in the Sun (ok, maybe too mainstream for you), Great White Hope (ok, also probably too mainstream), Lilies of the Field, Cry the Beloved Country, Do the Right Thing, Bird, A Soldier's Story, Shaft, Shaft's Big Score, Shaft in Africa, Darktown Strutters, and, if I remember correctly, Superfly. Not necessarily during Black History month (now devoted to 30 Days of Oscar). TCM also particularly features films by Charles Burnett, like Killer of Sheep, and My Brother's Wedding. So keep an eye on the schedule. Many of these films will repeat. Eventually. I would definitely like to see Sweet Sweetbacks's Badasssss Song, and Cottom Comes to Harlem, and anything else with Godfrey Cambridge.

Great Movie Buddha say: Don't get your history from movies. This refers not only to the accuracy of "historical" movies, but also to extrapolating contemporary social conditions from what's in them. Movies can reflect, confront, play against, decry, or endorse contemporary trends. Movies at that time, a great many of them, were consciously put forward a as vision for the American way of life as it should be, not necessarily how it was. The mainstream, or White, if you will, view of American history ignores, or forgets, a lot of what was going on in the social currents of the pre-civil rights America. Filmers like us see only the ingrained racism and the casual acceptance of it by the White majority. We don't see, or remember the strenuous objections of the oppressed, individually and through their organizations. We get small indications. Whenever The Birth of a Nation is shown, for example, the vigorous and desperate response of the black community is often cited, as well as Griffith's attempt at self-exoneration in his making of Intolerance--though how that movie makes up for his rank and noxious racism exampled in The Birth of a Nation is beyond me. The messages that racism and prejudice were wrong were readily available in American society, if one were open to them, just as the messages about the infamy of slavery were in ante-bellum America.

TCM makes it clear they do not edit films. In fact, many times they go to great lengths to show restored versions of movies that have been ravaged over time. It is my understanding, however, TCM has no control over the films they get from distributors, which may have edits.

Another nitpick. There was a concept of politcal correctness back at that time, but it is not what we think of it today. That is, what are the many various conceptions of it.

>phoenixgweidy91: >this guy tries to serenade a girl in the snow and she turns on the wipers of her car, spraying snow in his face. This sounds like it's from Swing Time, with Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3413/Swing-Time/ The song was "A Fine Romance." Music by Jerome Kern Lyrics by Dorothy Fields

Dear missw: It's gratifying to know your estimation of me. The respect is mutual. I didn't comment on the subject not becasue I was tired of it, or indifferent, but because I didn't find anything original in the discussion, or anything worthwhile I could contribute. I do have an opinion, and if you would like to know, I don't think films should be edited. As I've stated in previous threads, however, I don't excuse the offensive material, or minimize it, by the patent rationalization that it is a product of its time. I consider these films flawed and of less value than they otherwise would have been. The people of the time knew what they were doing was wrong, that it was hurtful. But they went ahead and did it anyway. No doubt there were a number, maybe not inconsiderable, of goddamned racists who enjoyed the demeaning practices. Perhaps most people were morally weak, and, taught to conform in other aspects of their lives, conformed in this. And there were some who voiced the proper rejection of these practices, and sometimes these rejections actually made it into film all the way back into the early sound period and silents. Other posters have noted some titles. One other I can think of as a good example of a film that depicts African-Americans simply as human beings is Sporting Blood (1931). They are still in subordinate positions, yet they are shown as competent in their professions and without offensive stereotypical caricaturing. A rare breath of fresh air.

IMDB lists the Bedford Falls town set at the RKO ranch in Encino, California. That's in the San Fernando Valley, just north over the Hollywood Hills from Los Angeles proper. The area is now a flood control basin with parks and golf courses. In Mapquest, enter: {font:arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif}5600 Balboa Blvd, Encino, CA 91316, and you will see the area.{font}

Man, that bites. Anything by Kiarostami is a treat.

Jane Wyman was magnificent as Orry Baxter, a woman desperate to love her last remaining child, yet so terrified at the pain losing him would cause, she deliberately distanced herself from him. It's wonderful to watch her struggle to overcome her fears and at the end let herself love him.

>missw: >It seems to me there's a lot of sophistry being used on this thread. I won't speak for other posters, but as for myself, far be it from me to aspire to sophistry. I still decline to comment on the subject of this thread, and if anyone cares to know why, it's because this topic has come up before, been thrashed out, no one's opinion being changed, or changing others. But I will make one observation about the quality of the debate in this thread. Rather, the absence of debate. It's easy to see the overwhelming agreement of the posters. Considering the absence of strong opposition, it's hard to understand the energy which is spent defending keeping the old movies as they were made. Methinks the posters protest too much. Why the vehemence? Everyone's agreeing. Perhaps there is something more to it. What I can't say. Maybe someone else can.

I recorded it and will watch it tonite.

>calvinnme: >But if the RIGHT brother marries the WRONG sister, and the WRONG sister gets away with it and lives -somewhat - happily ever after, wouldn't this be breaking the production code edict that wrong-doers must never profit from their crimes? This is assuming that whoever vetted this movie understood what was going on.

>NoraCharles1934: >I don't know if this is at all pertinent, but you made me remember that Mississippi only got around to ratifying the 13th amendment earlier this year! Indeed. >misswonderly: >But I am sure that if any such technically still-existing law was discovered to be in any way racist or otherwise discriminatory, it would be revealed and deleted immediately. Not here. Sepiatone, it was not my intention to comment on the subject of this thread. It was misswonderly's observation that laws, being effective, must be expunged, while words in moives, not being effective, must not be expunged that prompted my response. It is for others to wonder that if there are laws that are not effective, might there not be words that are?

Not to nitpick, or, rather, yes to nitpick, there are many laws on the books on all levels of goverment througout this country today that are either not enforced, forgotten about, made obsolescent by the passage of time, court judgements, or constitutional ammendment. I am sure all the readers are familiar with the ocasional newspaper article about laws relating to the conduct of horses on city streets, or a jim crow-era law finally being abolished by a tardy legislaure.