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

heuriger

Members
  • Posts

    976
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by heuriger

  1. > {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}That's awful about the cake. I never pass up free food when offered.......

    In 1789, Marie Antoinette had the same thought in mind when she suggested that the starving Parisian peasants be given "cake" because there was a shortage of bread in Paris. ;) Just a little primer for upcoming Bastille Day on July 14.

  2. FredCDobbs wrote;

     

    Generally, the "producer" of a film is the money man. He raises the money or begs the studio heads for the money, and the studio heads mainly only care about making money. But some times a good director will concentrate very much on art in making a film and I wonder how he can talk a producer into letting him get artsy. Or maybe he just does it without asking.

     

    *In the case of "Citizen Kane", Orson wa**s in charge of production and George Schaefer was the executive producer who was uncredited. So bascially, Orson was his own boss and he had final cut of the film. That's why it turned out the way it did.*

     

  3. > {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}

    > Does anyone really need to be reminded that the movie making business is, well a business, where the goal is making money for stockholders. It is NOT about 'art'.

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    That's why 'mavericks' like Orson Welles and Erich Von Stroheim (as a director) were anathema to the Hollywood establishement. And also it's why 'their art' has stood the test of time because it was created without the commerical concerns of Hollywood. $$$

  4. misswonderly wrote:

     

    With the former, we have no choice. With the latter, we do. We can turn the movie off, or choose not to watch it in the first place.

     

    As I stated previously, I can turn off a movie if I wish but the issue goes deeper. TCM has an obligation to not offend its viewership so I take it they approved of this edit or did it themselves. It's a nice debate but the reality is TCM is removing offensive words whether we like it or not.

  5. If the word was so innocuous why was it removed? But we all have to accept it was removed. We're powerless to do anything about it. I never said just because it has been removed from the film that prejudice is being white washed from the past. It's folly to think that.

     

    That's why we commemorate Dec. 7, 1941. Honoring that day means we will never forget what happened, regardless of what a station does to edit a single word in a film.

     

    I don't think because a word is edited out means people are unwilling to accept the truth of how people felt back then. Like I said, if we need to look for the truth we have Dec. 7, 1941. Removing a hate word from a film doesn't change or make people forget Dec. 7, but it's a way of moving forward.

     

    No one is concerned when a film isn't accurate with historical events .People say, "It's just a Hollywood film." Accuracy isn't expected, but who is to say that some young viewer might not think that fictionalized movie is in fact reality. TCM movies are not the only source for history. ;)

     

     

     

  6. > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}That would be an economic "trend" in films, but not a Rule of the Code. Rules of the Code would be something someone can't do or say in a film because it is offensive to the people who control the Code.

    Exactly, just as the slang word J_ _ was edited out of "They All Kissed The Bride." it seems today that code even reaches back to films from the past. Good point, Fred.

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...