FredCDobbs
-
Posts
25,502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Posts posted by FredCDobbs
-
-
Has anyone ever known British critics of the 20th century to be anything less than hyperbolic in the extreme?
Well.... years ago I met one who was parabolic.
-
See, you're already becoming more like me.
Yes Master. I am.
-
Dream on.
Thank you very much.
-
James. I checked and double checked and I didn't see your listing of Joan Blondell's name. I saw Ginger Rogers and Miriam Hopkins (which you indicated SHE worked into the 1960's). What gives?
When I was searching for the legs today, I thought I remembered someone mentioning Joan Blondell but I thought you rejected that name, so I didn't search for it on Google, and I didn't search for the post on this thread.
I finally hit upon some keywords that might work, since the license plate is dated 1930, so I used this search term on Google Images today:
1930 actress legs in car
Since it was Joan Blondell, and I thought someone had already mentioned her, I decided to post the actual photo I found to show how I found it and that I wasn't copying someone else's answer.
-
No way I'm going to see the movie.
I didn't really think you would.
-
Well, in future, take time to understand a post before replying to it and it'll help keep you on point.
LOL. Yes sir. And I'll go back and un-watch the movie so I'll be just like you.
-
That POV is total folly.
That POV is what you just said, not what I said.
You are arguing just to argue.
-
I'd say you're the one who misunderstood. You highlighted my statement that "Disney's releasing of the movie is not worth the criticism they'd get - a criticism that they are attempting to propagandize children to unacceptable racial stereotypes".
So, it was clear that you didn't get why Disney believes it's not worth re-releasing the movie, even though I stated distinctly why. As to the 'why' - well, why do you think African-Americans who object to the movie object to it if not that?
I don't know what you are talking about. I told you what I meant, and see my post about the dollar scale. Also, see the movie so this discussion will become more clear to you..
-
Now me, I've never seen the movie
I think it would help you if you would actually see the movie, so you can talk about it.
-
1
-
-
That's not the subject of my post. What Fred says he doesn't get is why Disney would feel it's not worth the blowback to re-release it. And you liked that.
It's such a simple thing to understand and yet you two apparently don't. Can you say "mental block"?
You misunderstood my post. I was talking about the last part of your statement, about people not liking the film. This: "a criticism that they are attempting to propagandize children to unacceptable racial stereotypes."
Regarding the blowback, you must have missed my post about Disney using the money scales to make their decision about whether or not to release a DVD.
-
When I saw this movie as a child of seven I thought that all the children-Black and White-were slaves and didn't think anything about it. It was like Christians being Baptist, Catholic or Methodist. When I used the term "white slave" in describing the movie to my mother you can imagine her reaction; it would be years before I learned what the term meant in the modern world.
I grew up in the South in an era that still had Plantations and plantation houses and worker's shacks, and mostly-black workers. Some of the foremen were white with some white kids. Lots of both white and black families still lived in old shacks in the 1940s when I was a kid. My grandparents in Mississippi didn't have electricity until about 1950, and eventually gas heat and running water by the late 50s or early 60s. This was common in rural areas.
So, I saw the film not so much as "slaves" but poor plantation workers and the rich plantation owners.. We black and white kids didn't associate with one another very much, since we had different languages, literally, and we usually couldn't understand each other. Lots of slang expressions in each language. They couldn't understand us much either. In my childhood, I went to school with one black kid (in Montana) and I briefly had one black playmate my age (in the South) whose father worked on a dairy farm where my grandparents lived.
And of course our schools were segregated back in those days. Black people saw the same films I saw, because if the theater was large enough to have a balcony, blacks had their seating in the balcony. We could hear them laughing up there at the same jokes we laughed at.
In real life, many black people spoke clearly like Uncle Remus, but others spoke with a lot of fast talking slang like Br'er Rabbit and Br'er fox.
As a kid, when I saw the film, I saw all the "poor" kids in the movie as being equal (except for the "low class" bad white boys), and I saw Bobby Driscoll as being equal too (equal to the blacks and other poor kids in the movie, because he fit in with them), but I saw his mother as being somewhat bad and "uppity". Originally, my parents saw this film with me and they liked it too.
Back in those days, lots and lots of white people in the South were poor and we were sometimes treated with disrespect by the rich whites, since we weren't rich and we weren't as educated as they were.
Uncle Remus was similar to my two grandfathers who used to tell us kids stories about the old days. Every time I watch the film, after a while, the races gradually disappear and I just see people.
-
1
-
-
I want to see this movie so I can appreciate or deride it as an adult.
I posted a link to the full movie on Friday Sept 12, on the OLD MOVIES ON YOUTUBE thread.
I've watched it twice again already.
-
2
-
-
-
As for a small percentage speaking for a group; yes, that is very true. Sub-Groups are formed to give the impression they represent the larger group.
Thank you.
-
BUT to not understand why they would feel the way they do? To me that is disrespectful.
No it's not.
I know why some don't like the movie. Other people also know why.
You see, about 90-95% of people who are said to "not like" such and such, are being spoken for by only 5-10% of the troublemakers who claim to speak for everyone.
I've never heard anyone in real life complain about the movie, The complaints only turn up on the internet and are written by the people who want to claim that they know what "everyone else" thinks and they claim to know how "everyone else" SHOULD think.
-
The other interesting thing about this is that although there were objections when the film was being made and when it was released in '46, it still hit theatres. And it kept returning to U.S. theatres for the next forty years-- so despite all those objections, it was profitable or else it would not have been re-released so many times.
There is a hidden factor that I learned about in the news business. There are small groups of people who can threaten big-time boycotts of companies, and the leaders of these people are excellent scam artists. If they claim to be "offended", they can threaten to organize big boycotts which, in reality, they can not actually organize because they can't get enough people to join it, But they claim they will not organize such a boycott if the offending company gives them a lot of money. They can get millions of dollars in "donations" like this, for various kinds of mass "sensitivity" projects, classes, education projects, etc.
So, while a DVD of SONG OF THE SOUTH might not actually generate a real massive boycott today, there are these "organizations" that could threaten Disney and squeeze millions of dollars out of them, by threatening a big boycott. This would cut down on the profitability of a commercial release of the DVD.
-
Disney's releasing of the movie is not worth the criticism they'd get - a criticism that they are attempting to propagandize children to unacceptable racial stereotypes.
I don't understand how anyone could think this way.
A kind gentle old black man who tells funny and interesting stories to black and white children gathered around the fireplace at his house. A hero. A wonderful man. A problem solver. A man who has good advice for kids and helps them when they are in trouble. A Santa Claus in person.
Black and white kids playing together and don't notice they are black or white.
I just don't get it.
I think that people who don't want this film released today are people who don't want to admit that we can all socialize together and get along together.
-
1
-
-
Man....after reading a review like this, I've got to make a note to watch this baby if if pops up on TCM's schedule in the future!
Yes... for film buffs, "Blandish" is a GREAT film! Lots of fun to watch.
-
What little I watched before getting bored. Difficult to follow a plot (if there was one) while trying to read subtitles. You can either read what they are saying or watch what they are doing - can't do both.
If it was really any good, it would have been dubed into or done in English to start with.
I agree. They need to cut out the dialogue, and cut it down to only scenes where the actress is naked, then run it as a short.
-
JOAN BLONDELL
-
Spoiler Alerts for Temple Drake.
The Story of Temple Drake is confusing as it relates to the so called relationship between Drake and Trigger. I assume Trigger raped her and this is how their relationship started. But did she fall for him after that or was this some type Stockholm syndrome thing? To me it isn't clear.
Yea, we knew she wanted to lead a different type of life but with a person like Trigger? Anyhow it was an enjoyable movie to watch just for the performance of Miriam Hopkins.
The film is not necessarily based on any kind of reality. It’s based on Faulkner’s novel, which contained a lot of fantasy xxx stuff of a salacious nature that was designed to titillate his readers so he would sell a lot of books. And the film tries to do the same thing.
Listen to what Jack La Rue says right after he gets her to his hideout in Memphis, and he says to her, “I ain’t hurt ya none. I spotted ya the minute I seen ya. Ya holler and ya faint, but.....you’re crazy about me.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qLzuMd0zK4&index=5&
La Rue is basically saying he knew she was just a college-girl tease who only teased college boys, while pretending to be a free-thinking wild girl. He tells her he knew after first seeing her that all she really needed was the lust of a real man, like him, who knew how to seduce women, and with that approach he had finally turned her into a loose free-thinking woman.
She denies it, and shows some fear of him, but she doesn’t try very hard to get away. Whether or not she really liked his method of seduction is not completely clear in the book or in the film, but she does stay with him until her old boyfriend turns up, and then she decides to get away.
It’s salacious books and movies like this that started the old myth that if a cold woman is raped by a “real man”, she will like it and will stay with him.
-
1
-
-
Thanks for the info. That statement does sound like a cover up. If Disney really believes 'we want people to see Song of the South' why did they quietly shelve it in the first place? It looks like they are trying to have it both ways; appease the people that don't want them to make the film available but pretend that this isn't what they are doing to appease people that feel no movie should be censored.
Each year they probably weigh a few dollars on both sides of a scale...... dollars on one side represent how much can be made off a few sales of a DVD of a 70 year old film. The dollars on the other side represent how many dollars will be lost if such a DVD starts a boycott of their other products.
-
The IMDB poster is certainly entitled to his opinion, but he doesn't seem to have a good sense of history. The "people" at issue haven't "all been dead for over a hundred years." When SONG OF THE SOUTH was made, there were still a large number of ex-slaves alive --
I think he is talking about now... about releasing a DVD of the film now.
-
I did then and I still find it frightening. Between the Middle East and the new Hitler in Russia, well, be afraid, be very afraid...
Me too.
Jack La Rue, Temple Drake & Miss Blandish
in General Discussions
Posted
No, he was quite a square when he was born.