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

Check in if you think TCM should keep GONE WITH THE WIND off the schedule


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MusicalsGalore said:

Gone with the Wind is a historically significant film, despite it's story and reputation. I don't think they should quit showing it just because people are too sensitive. Get thicker skin or don't watch it 

Is this the "snowflake" argument? People are snowflakes and thus their opinion doesn't matter? What's wrong with practicing a bit of sensitivity? Maybe if people were a bit more sensitive, then we'd have greater togetherness in our communities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a better idea. How about we keep GWTW and Birth of a Nation on the schedule. And keep Cornell West off the schedule.

I'd vote for that ! :)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

For any readers who are interested this is what LEONARD MALTIN'S TV MOVIE AND VIDEO GUIDE/1990 EDITION says of "Love's Savage Fury" . . .

LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY (1979)  C-100m. TVM 

Jennifer O'Neill, Perry King, Raymond Burr, Connie Stevens, Robert Reed, Ed Lauter.

"Petulant Southern belle fights to hold onto the family mansion when the Union Boys march through in this blatant ripoff of GONE WITH THE WIND -- and even the letters of the title sweep across the screen in the opening credits!  BELOW AVERAGE (and contempt)."

:)  I don't think the 'reviewer' like "Love's Savage Fury" very much!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mr. Gorman said:

For any readers who are interested this is what LEONARD MALTIN'S TV MOVIE AND VIDEO GUIDE/1990 EDITION says of "Love's Savage Fury" . . .

LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY (1979)  C-100m. TVM 

Jennifer O'Neill, Perry King, Raymond Burr, Connie Stevens, Robert Reed, Ed Lauter.

"Petulant Southern belle fights to hold onto the family mansion when the Union Boys march through in this blatant ripoff of GONE WITH THE WIND -- and even the letters of the title sweep across the screen in the opening credits!  BELOW AVERAGE (and contempt)."

:)  I don't think the 'reviewer' like "Love's Savage Fury" very much!  

It can't be all bad if PERRY KING is in it! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY was an all-right movie.  I wish I'd have kept my spare copy instead of trading it off years ago.  I could advertise it on eBay for sale for an outrageous sum of money and see what happens.  :P  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NickAndNora34 said:

As  a young person of color, I say keep it on the schedule. 

Without any historical-in-context commentary?      I ask because that is what the screenwriter of 12 Years a Slaves,  John Ridley,  recommended to HBO in an editorial  in today's L.A. Times.

Related to the film, he would like HBO to:  "that the film be re-introduced along with other films that give a more broad based and complete picture of what slavery and the Confederacy truly were.   Or,  perhaps it could be paired with conversations about narratives and why it's important to have many different voices sharing stories from different perspectives rather than merely those reinforcing the views of prevailing culture".

He goes on to say "currently,  there is not even a warning or disclaimer preceding the film".       (which to me implies that even if there was,  it wouldn't be good enough for Mr. Ridley).

  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Want a different perspective?  Watch BOOK OF NUMBERS (1973).  Directed by and starring Raymond St. Jacques as 'Blueboy'.  Also features a young Phillip M. (Michael) Thomas , Freda Payne, D'Urville Martin.  Only runs 81 minutes and you can watch the trailer on YouTube -and- you can watch the entire movie on YouTube if you so choose. 

The plot is about a black numbers racket during the 1930s and what happens when it becomes so successful the white Mob wants to move in and take over.  The town 'El Dorado' is mentioned and there is a town with that name in Southern Arkansas so I'm assuming that's where the movie takes place.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another movie with a different perspective: 

JUDGE HORTON AND THE SCOTTSBORO BOYS (1976-Tv movie)  Arthur Hill, Vera Miles.  Definitely worth a watch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Without any historical-in-context commentary?      I ask because that is what the screenwriter of 12 Years a Slaves,  John Ridley,  recommended to HBO in an editorial  in today's L.A. Times.

Related to the film, he would like HBO to:  "that the film be re-introduced along with other films that give a more broad based and complete picture of what slavery and the Confederacy truly were.   Or,  perhaps it could be paired with conversations about narratives and why it's important to have many different voices sharing stories from different perspectives rather than merely those reinforcing the views of prevailing culture".

He goes on to say "currently,  there is not even a warning or disclaimer preceding the film".       (which to me implies that even if there was,  it wouldn't be good enough for Mr. Ridley).

  

There might be the problem.  Would you need a 30 minute introduction and outroduction with a panel of five or so people to discuss GWTW from various perspectives for every showing?

Are Americans by and large so stupid and ill informed that they cannot make up their own minds that slavery was (and still is) a terrible thing or that the Confederacy fought for the wrong cause or that GWTW is primarily just a "soap opera?"  Would the UDC or SCV be permitted to participate in the panels?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, TheCid said:

There might be the problem.  Would you need a 30 minute introduction and outroduction with a panel of five or so people to discuss GWTW from various perspectives for every showing?

Are Americans by and large so stupid and ill informed that they cannot make up their own minds that slavery was (and still is) a terrible thing or that the Confederacy fought for the wrong cause or that GWTW is primarily just a "soap opera?"  Would the UDC or SCV be permitted to participate in the panels?

In John Ridley's editorial he mentions his children;     I.e. that it can cause a lot of 'pain' to younger minds to stumble upon such content without such content being placed  into some type of historical context.

Note I'm not defending or validating his POV,   but just noting what the perspective of an African-American parent of younger children is.    

Isn't this what 'this' is mostly about;    each trying to understand the perspective of others?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The title of this thread is now somewhat misleading as many posters have checked in to oppose removing GWTW from schedule.

Maybe it should be merged into the other GWTW thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Without any historical-in-context commentary?      I ask because that is what the screenwriter of 12 Years a Slaves,  John Ridley,  recommended to HBO in an editorial  in today's L.A. Times.

Related to the film, he would like HBO to:  "that the film be re-introduced along with other films that give a more broad based and complete picture of what slavery and the Confederacy truly were.   Or,  perhaps it could be paired with conversations about narratives and why it's important to have many different voices sharing stories from different perspectives rather than merely those reinforcing the views of prevailing culture".

He goes on to say "currently,  there is not even a warning or disclaimer preceding the film".       (which to me implies that even if there was,  it wouldn't be good enough for Mr. Ridley).

I am glad that he's advocating a warning or disclaimer. And if HBO takes him up on that, then I think TCM will have to do likewise if it insists on continued airings of the film.

GONE WITH THE WIND is now a film that will have to be explained and apologized for.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That the movie ISN'T about how slaves were treated or black people's treatment in the Antebellum South  and through and after the civil war makes the argument over whether to show the movie or not because it features the fact of slavery in this country and shows black people in the roles of slaves, servants and nannies and for a relatively SCANT amount of the movie's running time is just a tempest in a teapot. I've known several African-Americans(co-workers) whose only objection to the movie is that it's "TOO DAMN LONG!"  Or they found it boring, or never did like Clark Gable or some other reason.  But, NEVER did any of them say anything objectionable about how black people were portrayed.  And to put it on the same plane as BIRTH OF A NATION is an abomination.  After all, BOAN does portray black people in an offensive way( like the scene of the n e g r o "congress".) with more white actors and extras in blackface than hired and paid African-American extras.  

To deny the existence( which is what it boils down to) of GONE WITH THE WIND is to perpetrate a lie about how black people lived in the Antebellum South and how that existence came to an end.  I would ask CHAYA BAT WOOF-WOOF( or whatever) if she would insist that no channel on TV ever show SCHINDLER'S LIST because of how Jews were portrayed or treated in the film.  Indeed, The Jewish do their best to keep the FACT of the holocaust in the forefront in the belief that to hide the truth is to forget it.  Thereby increasing the risk of REPEATING it. 

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

In John Ridley's editorial he mentions his children;     I.e. that it can cause a lot of 'pain' to younger minds to stumble upon such content without such content being placed  into some type of historical context.

Note I'm not defending or validating his POV,   but just noting what the perspective of an African-American parent of younger children is.    

Isn't this what 'this' is mostly about;    each trying to understand the perspective of others?  

I suggest Ridley raise his own children. And not depend on some network panel to do it for him.

I was nine years old when the mini series Roots (1977), first aired. My mother sat and watched it with me. And afterwards, we talked about it. I asked questions, she gave answers and told me about her own experience growing up in Mississippi.

The real solution is not for TCM or anyone to hire a bunch of talking heads to scream and yell at each other (like every other show on TV), to dictate to America what they should and should not watch. Its for families to get together and discuss these issues.

When you depend on TV to tell you what's right or wrong, you never know their motives. Most on are on the screen for their own personal gain. Either to gain popularity or money or fame. They couldn't care less about your children. As a matter of fact, when the cameras go off, often times, the same people who debated each other, go out and have a drink together and laugh.

This is a time for families to educate themselves. We all have personal experiences. Let that be the determining factor. Not the box on the wall.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GGGGerald said:

I suggest Ridley raise his own children. And not depend on some network panel to do it for him.

I was nine years old when the mini series Roots (1977), first aired. My mother sat and watched it with me. And afterwards, we talked about it. I asked questions, she gave answers and told me about her own experience growing up in Mississippi.

The real solution is not for TCM or anyone to hire a bunch of talking heads to scream and yell at each other (like every other show on TV), to dictate to America what they should and should not watch. Its for families to get together and discuss these issues.

When you depend on TV to tell you what's right or wrong, you never know their motives. Most on are on the screen for their own personal gain. Either to gain popularity or money or fame. They couldn't care less about your children. As a matter of fact, when the cameras go off, often times, the same people who debated each other, go out and have a drink together and laugh.

This is a time for families to educate themselves. We all have personal experiences. Let that be the determining factor. Not the box on the wall.

I hear you;   I had a similar reaction when Tipper Gore co-founded the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC),  with the goal of labeling records.

And of course there is the now famous Charles Barkley  line:  "I'm not a role model".  

 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

In John Ridley's editorial he mentions his children;     I.e. that it can cause a lot of 'pain' to younger minds to stumble upon such content without such content being placed  into some type of historical context.

I did a book report on one of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels back in 6th grade in 1984.  Kids today are apparently made of much less stern stuff.  Not that it's a surprise, though, considering the omnipresence of helicopter parenting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

I am glad that he's advocating a warning or disclaimer. And if HBO takes him up on that, then I think TCM will have to do likewise if it insists on continued airings of the film.

GONE WITH THE WIND is now a film that will have to be explained and apologized for.

And you still don't respond to my comments about other films frequently shown on TCM that feature blackface, yellow face, brown face, racial and ethnic stereotypes, casual sexual assault, and misogyny.  By your reasoning, shouldn't these be apologized for as well?  What is the fixation with this ONE film?  It makes sense that it's causing a big ruckus on HBO Max because I presume they don't offer many films from the classic studio era. which makes it an outlier and an easy target.  But on TCM, it's just par for the course.

TCM by its nature celebrates a period in history when Hollywood not only reflected social attitudes that are now outdated or even reviled but actively perpetuated them.   Even the most harmless films of the era are a product of that mentality.  That's why there are no major studio films directed by people of color, few directed by women, most lead actors are white, etc.  If you demand that TCM forever apologize for Gone with the Wind, you might as well ask that they constantly apologize for the entire studio era and the existence of their own channel (I can see the new slogan, "LET'S APOLOGIZE!").

That's not the answer.  I like where TCM is going and has been going for many years, even before Robert Osborne passed away, by shining spotlights on the depictions of various minorities and films directed by women.  This month's LGBTQ theme is great as well.  By adding new and more varied voices into the mix, viewers will glean a better understanding of film history and artistry than if we start taking things away.

Also, more than one person of color (myself included) has objected to your proposal in this thread, and you refuse to engage in meaningful discussion beyond shouting platitudes in large font and implying that naysayers are basically racist.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

That the movie ISN'T about how slaves were treated or black people's treatment in the Antebellum South  and through and after the civil war makes the argument over whether to show the movie or not because it features the fact of slavery in this country and shows black people in the roles of slaves, servants and nannies and for a relatively SCANT amount of the movie's running time is just a tempest in a teapot. I've known several African-Americans(co-workers) whose only objection to the movie is that it's "TOO DAMN LONG!"  Or they found it boring, or never did like Clark Gable or some other reason.  But, NEVER did any of them say anything objectionable about how black people were portrayed.  And to put it on the same plane as BIRTH OF A NATION is an abomination.  After all, BOAN does portray black people in an offensive way( like the scene of the n e g r o "congress".) with more white actors and extras in blackface than hired and paid African-American extras.  

To deny the existence( which is what it boils down to) of GONE WITH THE WIND is to perpetrate a lie about how black people lived in the Antebellum South and how that existence came to an end.  I would ask CHAYA BAT WOOF-WOOF( or whatever) if she would insist that no channel on TV ever show SCHINDLER'S LIST because of how Jews were portrayed or treated in the film.  Indeed, The Jewish do their best to keep the FACT of the holocaust in the forefront in the belief that to hide the truth is to forget it.  Thereby increasing the risk of REPEATING it. 

Sepiatone

You're right about the lack of screentime for the black characters. There is someone on another website who times Oscar-nominated performances, and Hattie McDaniel only had about 10 minutes onscreen in a 233 minute film. If she had 10, then Butterfly McQueen must have only had about 5 or 6. And Oscar Polk, the only other black character seen close up in the film, had a smaller role than both of them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Feego said:

And you still don't respond to my comments about other films frequently shown on TCM that feature blackface, yellow face, brown face, racial and ethnic stereotypes, casual sexual assault, and misogyny. 

Just today, TCM ran Days of Glory (1944), a movie praising a regime practicing a murderous ideology that enslaved tens of millions and ethnically cleansed millions.  Should we have a wraparound pointing out the wickedness of Soviet Communism every time this movie airs?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fedya said:

Just today, TCM ran Days of Glory (1944), a movie praising a regime practicing a murderous ideology that enslaved tens of millions and ethnically cleansed millions.  Should we have a wraparound pointing out the wickedness of Soviet Communism every time this movie airs?

True. And Song of Russia, Mission to Moscow, and The North Star were three other films of the era praising the USSR since they joined the allied cause midway through the war after the Nazis double crossed them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TopBilled said:

I am glad that he's advocating a warning or disclaimer. And if HBO takes him up on that, then I think TCM will have to do likewise if it insists on continued airings of the film.

GONE WITH THE WIND is now a film that will have to be explained and apologized for.

Explain what?  "People in Antebellum South thought they were aristocratic kings of the world, and owned slaves"?  Even Rhett Butler calls them out for their "Cotton, slaves, and arrogance".

If you're looking for didactic Birth of a Nation propaganda, try DW Griffith:  Margaret Mitchell's book may have been "nostalgic" for Old Magnolia disappearing, but the movie, like most studio-mogul'ed Hollywood at the time, keeps it as just sympathizing with the heroine who's grown up in that world, and she doesn't exactly come off as anyone's role model.  The interested protesting parties literally seem to have trouble telling the difference between depicting grammatically-impaired black slaves in a story--like, say,  Huckleberry Finn discovering that his pal Jim isn't "inferior" after all--and being sentimental for it, like any number of Stephen Foster showboat songs about that old Kentucky home...And gosh, for a moment, it almost sounds like they just want to tell everyone it never happened.

(And besides, it's just Warner:  Even money any disclaimer is going to be "the Bugs Bunny screen", only without Whoopi Goldberg this time.)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Feego said:

And you still don't respond to my comments about other films frequently shown on TCM that feature blackface, yellow face, brown face, racial and ethnic stereotypes, casual sexual assault, and misogyny. 

I think you can (accurately) guess that I would not be a fan of those depictions either. I strongly dislike DRAGON SEED (1944) for this very reason. 

However, the discussion here is about GONE WITH THE WIND. If someone made a thread about the ethic stereotypes in DRAGON SEED or any other film, I would surely chime in.

In the past I have commented extensively on PINKY (1949) since I feel that Jeanne Crain is too obviously Caucasian to be effectively cast as a part-black woman. I have said that Lena Horne or some unknown light-skinned black actress should have been cast in that role, not Crain. But again that is a discussion for a thread about the shortcomings and merits of that film.

We're discussing whether GONE WITH THE WIND should stay off TCM's schedule.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EricJ said:

Explain what?  

Explain that racists in Hollywood made the film in the late 1930s. And explain why it is not acceptable at this time to give it a continued national audience.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...