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

slaytonf

Members
  • Content Count

    8,240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by slaytonf

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Any idea of what kind of movie it would go with?
  7. 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.
  8. The only ones allowed to do that being conservatives. Right-wingers, already knowing everything, can't be educated.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  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'
  12. Indeed. The rubric of which should be, that it is not what you think of it, but what the object of the practice (any practice) thinks of it.
  13. It's because of the tribute to Bill Robinson with Astaire in blackface, and uncharacteristic (for Robinson) garb.
  14. You can watch it on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/AlfredHitchcockNotorious1946_201904 or dailymotion (probably with commercials): https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21hehg or YouTube (one of many postings): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IrJTsewjD0
  15. It's a good thing Madeleine Carroll is so beautiful, otherwise she would have been upstaged by her dresses.
  16. What's not to like about Karl Marx's head coming out of the mist vomiting guns?
  17. At least you have Charlotte Rampling to wait the Covid out with.
  18. The man is not kissing her head, but resting his against hers. The woman looks like Joan Fontaine. And the chin looks like Robert Mitchum. But they never appeared in a movie together. The pic of Telly Savalas is from The Dirty Dozen (1967). The woman is Dora Reisser. The man in the cap looks like Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. to me. But don't hold me to it.
  19. No need to defend John Agar. He was a solid actor with a number of good roles. But even John Wayne made some bad movies.
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...