Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

slaytonf

Members
  • Content Count

    8,179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by slaytonf

  1. Many movie songs have transcended movies and time to take a place in our consciousness, and the consciousness of the world. I don't need to note any, and anyone could make long list. But every once in a while I hear a song in a movie that's really good and makes me wonder why it has been forgotten. I can think of three off the top of my head. The first is from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968). It comes at the end of the movie and is called "Doll on a Music Box." Sung by Sally Ann Howes, it's a lovely, lilting, simple song, yet quite affecting: Another I understand why has no
  2. Oh, good! Another thing to get outraged about. Wait, TCM doesn't show looney tunes.
  3. It seems you are using a three-prong strategy of micro-analyzation to obscure the issue, introducing other topics to confuse the discussion, and a tide of words to overwhelm the reader. All for what? All to maintain you position that it's wrong to criticize Gone/Wind (1939) for racist content because it takes place in slave times. Or that it's a love story. Or that its the story of Scarlett O'Hara. My comments aren't focused on the movie, but like others it has overt stereotyping, mis-characterization of the conditions of slavery, and, through it's portrayal of plantation society, gives t
  4. To consider it possible to own someone is to not consider that individual a person. An example of the white-washing of plantation system by southern apologists. It's hard to follow your point. Perhaps you're trying to say people are being hypocritical. That they are not justified in criticizing racism in movies if they don't criticize voter suppression. How do you know they don't? Or perhaps you are trying to distract the argument by introducing elements outside the focus of this forum.
  5. Just read the introductory to Gone With the Wind (1939). You won't find any movie set in the slave-era that condemned the plantation system. At the least they tacitly endorsed its sanitized portrayal, at worst lauded it. It had everything to do with the story. Just like it had everything to do with the Civil War. It was the basis for the southern way of life. The entire socio-economic system was based on it. It was not discussed directly because that is the dictum of the apologists of the southern culture. To maintain its legitimacy, they obscure it bestiality. Ah, now y
  6. With Hitchcock, everything was a metaphor for sex. Except sex, which was a metaphor for perversion.
  7. The objection is that movies set on plantations during slavery glorify the peculiar and perverted system, deny its horrors, and portray its victims as willing and complicit.
  8. I'm shocked! shocked! to find that cross-promotion is going on here!
  9. Why would it be not ok to examine the effects of ingrained racism in America on moviemaking, but ok to examine other aspects of moviemaking? And what's wrong with trying to sway people into thinking a certain way? And what's wrong with condemning racism, and pointing it out in movies, and saying that they are worse for having it in them? It seems to me objections to what TCM is doing are being raised because people have a certain comfortable way of thinking, that it is annoying to have the shortcomings of that way of thinking pointed out and illustrated, and they don't want to think differe
  10. So as I said, no you don't see people pointing fingers at Blazing Saddles (1974). What you see is somebody else claiming it. You accept the article uncritically, maybe it's because the author is saying what you want to hear. But I doubt others would, certainly not without reading the article. And I was asking what made you think that way.
  11. One article where the author is so clueless they can't tell the difference between satire and stereotyping hardly seems to justify your comments about the movie. If you are just trying to convince yourself or others who already think like you, something that made so little an impression you can't remember where you read it, or the title, let alone the author might do, but don't expect to convince anyone else. It's hard to follow your rationale here. But it looks like you don't have any evidence to support your belief. I have made no more of a formal study of the subject than it seem
  12. From Wikipedia: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree) — Latin proverb If TCM were not to record their objection to racist stereotyping, it would mean their consent to it in the movies that they show.
  13. That's the best justification of TCM's programming I've read. As you say yourself, you did not learn of the point of gag on your own, but had to have it explained to you.
  14. Can you cite any instances Blazing Saddles (1974) has been criticized as exploiting and perpetuating racist stereotypes? Do you have any evidence to substantiate your beliefs? I was referring James Shigeta, to Hattie Mcdaniel, to Butterfly Mcqueen, to Eugene Jackson, to Louise Beavers, to Philip Ahn, to Clarence Muse, to Alfonso Bedoya, and to the thousands of others faced with the choice of performing stereotypical and demeaning roles or not working.
  15. Any idea of what kind of movie it would go with?
  16. It was a choice of accepting those roles or not working. No you don't. The movie is a satire of racist stereotyping, breaking them and turning them on their heads. That is what Mel Brooks made the movie to do. Well, that makes it all right.
  17. The only ones allowed to do that being conservatives. Right-wingers, already knowing everything, can't be educated.
  18. Which naturally makes repudiation of prejudice in movies illegitimate. So unless you mark every instance of prejudice in movies in criticism of it, you cannot criticize it at all. I expect that would take about five years of solid programming to accomplish that goal. Though it would probably be difficult to tell the difference from regular programming.
  19. That's good to consider. It's true you have director's and art directors and costumers and such. You also have to think about his input on the dance sequences. Dancing and singing was his core identity, and I'm sure whether it's Hermes Pan, or George Stevens or whoever he's working with, Fred Astaire was the controlling authority. His popularity was huge, and so was his power. As an illustration, consider his requirement that he always be shot in full while he was dancing.
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...