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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by slaytonf

  1. On 3/9/2021 at 8:59 AM, Sepiatone said:

     But I do take exception to those who insist that, for example, a movie like GWTW is based in racism because it shows black people as slaves and "mammies" in a story that takes place in a time when black people WERE slaves and "mammies". 

    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.

    • Sad 1
  2. 15 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    They could just do a disclaimer before the movie indicating their lack of "consent".  What they're doing now is a disservice to the viewer in that it doesn't allow for them to come to their own conclusions, or think they're capable of coming to an objective one.   It's almost as if TCM is trying to sway their audience  into what to think or how to feel.


    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 differently about movies they have a cherished affection for even if it means minimizing or denying the wrongs and affronts to others in them.

    • Like 1
  3. 14 hours ago, KidChaplin said:

    All I was saying is that the author of the piece had mentioned some of the radical cancel culture bringing up "Blazing Saddles" as a racist movie and didn't see it the way Brooks made it

    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.

    14 hours ago, KidChaplin said:

    I was just saying that I dont think every single actor or actress has.

    And I was asking what made you think that way. 

  4. 7 hours ago, KidChaplin said:

    They were not seeing it for the point you relayed to me. I admit I cannot remember the title of the piece, but I know I didnt dream it either.

    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.

    7 hours ago, KidChaplin said:

    As far as other races and cultures working in controversial or offensive films, I dont think we can say that every single, solitary person that wasnt white bent their beliefs just to get work. Look at both sides of the coin. There were Native Americans that were offended by the Redskins, there were Native Americans that were not. That being one of many examples. Plus, the absolute fact, that some refuse to believe, that shows things as they really were. One of the writers of "The Andy Griffith Show" was asked how come their arent more black people in Mayberry. He said for the simple fact there wasnt very many black people in 1960 small town North Carolina.

    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 seems you have, but I have never seen any statement from any minority actor--African-American, Latino, Japanese, Chinese, etc.--or any analysis by a movie scholar which has indicated they were indifferent or accepting of the roles which could not help being hurtful and repellent to perform.  In fact, what little I have heard and read has indicated the opposite.  For instance, there is the well-known quote by Hattie McDaniel about her career:

    When a friend criticized her for ''playing so many servant parts, or 'handkerchief heads' as they came to be called,'' McDaniel responded, ''Hell, I'd rather play a maid than be one.'' As Mr. Jackson notes, ''She certainly had had experience as a maid both in movies and real life.''

    That's from an article here: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/15/books/id-rather-play-a-maid-than-be-one.html

    To find out more about the way minority actors thought about their roles, you can search for articles about Clarence Muse.  That is, if you are sincere about this dialog.  If you're just looking around for anything to justify your preconceptions, well, nevermind.

  5. 3 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

    I spit my coffee seeing this a few years ago....I had only seen it as a teen and DID NOT GET THE JOKE then. It actually had to be explained to me as an adult. Now does THAT tell you anything about racism in film?

    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.

  6. 1 hour ago, KidChaplin said:

    1. Uh, yes, I do. Before you just flat tell me, "No, I dont", I am not referring to myself. I am referring to our current cancel culture bringing up "Blazing Saddles." They are not seeing what you are pointing out to me.

    Can you cite any instances Blazing Saddles (1974) has been criticized as exploiting and perpetuating racist stereotypes?


    1 hour ago, KidChaplin said:

    2. I believe many other races and cultures were in movies where they didn't have a problem with the material or did see the comedy / message in it. And Richard Pryor and Cleavon Little were in an OK position to turn down one movie.

    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.

  7. 1 hour ago, KidChaplin said:

    "Wait...there were Black, Asian, Indian actors in that movie. If they found it so bad, why didn't they say no to the script or idea?!"

    It was a choice of accepting those roles or not working. 

    1 hour ago, KidChaplin said:

    For example, I see racist fingerpointing at "Blazing Saddles."

    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.


    1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

    Incidentally, Mickey Rooney had less than 2 and a half minutes of screentime in Breakfast at Tiffany's.....

    Well, that makes it all right.

  8. 30 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

    The whole thing is a way for them to exploit the political-cultural wars.

    The only ones allowed to do that being conservatives.

    31 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

    That's why I said it was disgraceful. They've jumped the shark big time with this, but they actually think they are educating the right-- that's what makes it even more absurd.

    Right-wingers, already knowing everything, can't be educated.

    • Like 2
    • Haha 2
  9. 16 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

    Notice they do not include any "B" films or foreign films. It's just well-known Hollywood "A" films.

    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.

    • Like 3
  10. 2 hours ago, sagebrush said:

    o, my question is- is a performer such as Astaire responsible for the clothing he wears for a musical number in a film? Isn't costume produced by someone working on the set? Please, I'm not trying to contradict what Mr. Boyle says just because I'm an Astaire fan; I'm merely asking a question.

    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. 

    • Thanks 1
  11. June Christy is the best evidence I know of the existence of angels.  What else but an angel come to earth to grace us could account for her voice?  The song is titled "This Time the Dream's on Me":

    The movie is about rekindling something that used to be, but ended because of--what?--someone not holding up their end, or not being where they should have been.  And that someone regrets being undependable, and not having understood the value of what was.  And there's the sense of the promise that things can be set right.  And maybe they don't end up together. . . .hey, wait.  That's sounding like Casablanca (1942).

    • Like 1
  12. You can watch it on the Internet Archive:


    or dailymotion (probably with commercials):


    or YouTube (one of many postings):


© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...