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

16 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

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.

  "Racists in Hollywood made [GWTW]."    I guess everyone in Hollywood and New York and the entire movie and publishing industries were "racists" in your opinion.   The film was made by a bunch of people who saw that is was the number one selling book in American and well liked by vast majority of Americans.  Therefore it would make a profitable movie.  They were in for the money!!!!!!  Had nothing to do with racism.  You really do have blinders on over this subject don't you.

There are dozens of movies that present African Americans and other ethnic groups in a derogatory manner.  Why not censor (not show) them as well.  Already made reference to Nancy Drew and Hildegarde Withers movies.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a documentary about them making of the film on a special edition DVD I once had, and was interested to learn Selznick didn't consider himself a racist. In fact, he imagined the things he was doing with the film were quite progressive, which seems way tone deaf with the gift of hindsight, but anyway: he consulted all sorts of community leaders and public opinion makers, including many African-American ones, about whether the "N" word should be used in the film (apparently it's used a lot in the novel) and carefully considered all of their input before deciding it would have been hurtful to the African-American community to do so. The way all the black people in the movie talk and act apparently never struck him as demeaning.

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

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.

IOW, why nobody should ever watch it again because YOU say so.

Nnnnnn-no thanks.  Film preservation don't work that way.  News is temporary, film is permanent.  (Unless it's still on nitrate.)

Looks like you're just as in need of the Warner Looney-Tunes Disclaimer (which has now become a good name for it) as the movie is:

U8UZyVI.jpg

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

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

And you've yet to provide one good reason why Gone with the Wind should stay off TCM's schedule that wouldn't apply to so many other movies.  It's racist.  We get it.  Literally everyone agrees with that.  So are a good number of movies regularly shown on TCM.  This thread is only about Gone with the Wind because YOU made it about Gone with the Wind.  Why?

 

2 hours ago, TopBilled said:

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.

We know racists made this movie in Hollywood in the late 1930s.  Why is it not acceptable to give it a continued national audience?  Before you say, "cuz it's racist," you really need to consider what makes this film so much more hateful than other racist films that it deserves this singular treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not long ago TCM posted a comment on Twitter about meaningful action in solidarity with the black community. Airing GONE WITH THE WIND without proper warning or wraparound discussion, would NOT be in solidarity with the black community.

 

0rx2PjOG_normal.jpg
 
 

As part of our pledge to take meaningful action in solidarity with #BlackLivesMatter, TCM is amplifying the work of Black voices.

Here is a list of the steps we are taking, and the films we are airing to showcase different aspects of Black life: https://bit.ly/2YcVr9D 

View image on Twitter
Link to post
Share on other sites

TopBilled, I probably assumed you didn't spend much time around other people because of your lack of insight into the human mind.  We are a very complicated species, and liking or not liking a certain movie does not define someone socially or politically.

Your simplistic, parochial view is this:  a person cannot be sensitive or sympathetic to racial injustice if they like GWTW or don't agree that it requires an apology or explanation prior to its broadcast.  And it doesn't require a wraparound in my view.  I've seen films on TCM that I thought contained something racially offensive, and I didn't like what I saw/heard . . . but I'm an adult and am able to decide if something is offensive or not without Donald Bogle telling me so.

Also, in the first sentence of your second paragraph, you failed to use the word 'woke.'

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, I just saw the TCM piece on blackface in the movies right before the primetime airings. And I liked watching Donald Bogle saying it's okay to watch these movies. How else are we going to learn about history of attitudes some humans had towards others at different times? This commercial was probably planned to air before the present crisis, but it's a fascinating piece to be presented in a new context (and isn't that what TCM is about? When they show North by Northwest for the three thousandth time, they try to think of some context in which it might be considered).

Personally, I feel there are probably of people who need to be lectured to about what is racist, because they seriously don't have a clue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Feego said:

And you've yet to provide one good reason why Gone with the Wind should stay off TCM's schedule that wouldn't apply to so many other movies.  It's racist.  We get it.  Literally everyone agrees with that.  So are a good number of movies regularly shown on TCM.  This thread is only about Gone with the Wind because YOU made it about Gone with the Wind.  Why?

 

We know racists made this movie in Hollywood in the late 1930s.  Why is it not acceptable to give it a continued national audience?  Before you say, "cuz it's racist," you really need to consider what makes this film so much more hateful than other racist films that it deserves this singular treatment.

I don't consider the film to be "racist" because the story ISN'T about the racist treatment of black slaves in the Antebellum South and showing THAT in an acceptable manner. If the movie had yards of film images of black actors and extras following a script that INTENDED to show black slaves as ignorant, shifty and lazy clowns, then THAT would make it(and any other movie) "racist"..  Actually, I think any movie that depicts black people as slaves and other servants and thus treated dismissively and cruel by their white "keepers" more puts WHITE people in a bad light than  black people.

Sepiatone

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

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.

Under your standard, all movies made in Hollywood before the 1950's (or later) were made by racists.   Under your standard, all movies made by the producer, director and actors in GWTW must have been racist. 

And here you go again asking for it to be censored.  Your posts on this topic are the most prejudiced, biased and discriminatory of any on this post or forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting editorial in the L.A. Times:    Shelve GWTW but don't cancel Hattie McDaniel (by Pamela K. Johnson writer of "Hattie and Walter").

Here is just one part: ",,although the portrayal of Black womanhood in the movie causes me pain.  I'm Team Hattie,  not Team GWTW".

 

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

Interesting editorial in the L.A. Times:    Shelve GWTW but don't cancel Hattie McDaniel (by Pamela K. Johnson writer of "Hattie and Walter").

Here is just one part: ",,although the portrayal of Black womanhood in the movie causes me pain.  I'm Team Hattie,  not Team GWTW".

 

How can you give full appreciation to Hattie McDaniels by shelving GWTW.  After all, she was the first African-American to win a major Academy Award in a movie where Clark Gable did not.  If you cannot see McDaniel's performance, you can't really appreciate her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCid said:

How can you give full appreciation to Hattie McDaniels by shelving GWTW.  After all, she was the first African-American to win a major Academy Award in a movie where Clark Gable did not.  If you cannot see McDaniel's performance, you can't really appreciate her.

She has an obvious answer:   Buy her book!    

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

She has an obvious answer:   Buy her book!    

Reading a book cannot begin to show Hattie McDaniel's performance in GWTW.

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

Interesting editorial in the L.A. Times:    Shelve GWTW but don't cancel Hattie McDaniel (by Pamela K. Johnson writer of "Hattie and Walter").

Here is just one part: ",,although the portrayal of Black womanhood in the movie causes me pain.  I'm Team Hattie,  not Team GWTW".

What "pain"?   Mammy's the only intelligent character in GWTW, BECAUSE she's on the lowest tier, and that's pretty much the theme of the movie:

The South crumbled because it had a self-created autocracy sheltering themselves from the world, until their feudal-aristocratic fantasies tried to take on the real world, and the real world, who didn't consider them "elegant" and "gracious", bit back, boo-hoo.  Margaret Mitchell may have been sentimental for seeing it all "blown away", but in following Ms. Spoiled-Pants from riches to rags, it shows that the Old South was trying to hold off inevitable change, while those on the bottom just had to roll with the changes and scrape out some sense for themselves.

(And that's just an analysis from someone who doesn't even like the movie, although Hattie was still a great talent moving on to a B-player on the radio Amos & Andy.)

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

What "pain"?   Mammy's the only intelligent character in GWTW, BECAUSE she's on the lowest tier, and that's pretty much the theme of the movie:

The South crumbled because it had a self-created autocracy sheltering themselves from the world, until their feudal-aristocratic fantasies tried to take on the real world, and the real world, who didn't consider them "elegant" and "gracious", bit back, boo-hoo.  Margaret Mitchell may have been sentimental for seeing it all "blown away", but in following Ms. Spoiled-Pants from riches to rags, it shows that the Old South was trying to hold off inevitable change, while those on the bottom just had to roll with the changes and scrape out some sense for themselves.

(And that's just an analysis from someone who doesn't even like the movie, although Hattie was still a great talent moving on to a B-player on the radio Amos & Andy.)

Of course I can't speak for how someone else reacts to a character in a movie (i.e. Ms. Johnson). 

Who is that analysis from?    Hattie herself?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind meeting a nice girl and settling down, but it's not happened yet.  And so I have my cockatiel and a bunch of aging VHS tapes.  Could be worse!  :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Next thing we will be reading from TB is how often Robert Osborne spoke about this film and how much he adored the film. And because of that, all appearances of Mr. Osborne will need to be excised from TCM. Oh my god, he must have been a racist!!!

Edited by fxreyman
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Who is that analysis from?    Hattie herself?

No, me; I can't stand the movie, but I like overambitious credibility-hungry social protests even less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's much too offensive for my taste. I say instead show only Lars von Trier movies 24/7.  That would be much more suitable.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gone with the Wind usually airs at 8pm or 10pm ET and thus is presented with comment through the wraparounds. During 31 Days of Oscar it is presented in the context of a film that won 8 Academy Awards for its strong performances and outstanding technical merits. When shown in December to honor its Atlanta premiere it is presented as a box-office phenomenon. When included in performer tributes, it is presented as an outstanding title from the performer's body of work. I wouldn't call any of those occasions as "casual viewing."

A scholar is not the only type of person who can communicate the horror of slavery that existed in the U.S. until 1865 or the dehumanizing condition African-Americans endured thereafter.  The TCM hosts are noted for their experience with film and have been trusted to mention the segregation in seating Hattie McDaniel at the Academy Awards where she recited her studio-scripted acceptance speech, or the fact that she was not allowed to go to the Atlanta premiere. Their job is to educate and inform the viewer, and TCM plays a part in educating millions about film as history and history as film. 

Concerning performer tributes where the performer's greatest performances are re-examined and celebrated as a chapter in their body of work, TCM would be doing a disservice if it did not air GWTW as part of a tribute to any of the 5 principal actors, with the possible exception of Clark Gable due to the breadth of his work. Indeed, TCM may have difficulty scheduling 24 hours of Hattie McDaniel or Butterfly McQueen movies without GWTW, and I think allowing viewers to see performances of African-Americans on film is desirable, is it not?

Finally, there will come a time when TCM schedules a 24-hour tribute to the last surviving main cast member of GWTW. I imagine that TCM viewers will relish being able to watch her Academy Award nominated performance on television simultaneously with other fans, fully understanding the racism depicted in the film and noting the immense progress the U.S. has made in the greater than one-hundred years since the time of her birth.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Interesting editorial in the L.A. Times:    Shelve GWTW but don't cancel Hattie McDaniel (by Pamela K. Johnson writer of "Hattie and Walter").

Here is just one part: ",,although the portrayal of Black womanhood in the movie causes me pain.  I'm Team Hattie,  not Team GWTW".

Thanks for recommending this article. Very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, teal_sunset said:

A scholar is not the only type of person who can communicate the horror of slavery that existed in the U.S. until 1865 or the dehumanizing condition African-Americans endured thereafter.  The TCM hosts are noted for their experience with film...

TCM does occasionally bring scholars on to discuss the classics. Including scholars who have written books about social conditions and social issues in film. I think Cornel West might even have been a guest on TCM before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!

WHY do so many people feel the need to cry so much over nothing?  Or insist on seeing something out of context, misinterpret it's presentation yet still insist what THEY perceive, regardless of how off target that perception is, was done intentionally?  What're we gonna see next?

Let's excise all DAFFY DUCK cartoons, or cartoons the character appears in because he's a loser, not that smart and can't speak that well, and drawn as a BLACK duck on top of it? Therefore, the Daffy Duck cartoons and the people at Warner Brothers' animation department must be "racist"!  :rolleyes:

Y'know, I'm willing to bet my next mortgage payment that GWTW wasn't made with ANY intention of  denigrating  African-Americans and African-American women specifically, nor to "glorify" the confederacy( yep. I've heard some complaints of that in the past) .  In fact, the African-Americans in the movie, save for Ms. McDaniel, as those extras playing both Union and confederate soldiers were simply peripheral characters and of no major importance to the main gist of the story. They could have been merely alluded to and not seen and the movie would have been practically the same.   And who says the crying can't go both ways?

I suggest( no, COMPEL)  Television station quit showing reruns of the '70's mini-series ROOTS due to the series showing white people in a negative light.  We are NO LONGER slave holders or traders just as  African-Americans are no longer slaves, servants of "Mammies".  :rolleyes:

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Oh, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!

WHY do so many people feel the need to cry so much over nothing?  Or insist on seeing something out of context, misinterpret it's presentation yet still insist what THEY perceive, regardless of how off target that perception is, was done intentionally?  What're we gonna see next?

WHY do so many people marginalize the feeling of those that are not like them,   mocking them,  and implying they are misguided fools?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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...