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

17 hours ago, MerryPickford said:

 

TCM should absolutely show GWTW because it's a masterpiece all across the board that I could probably write 1000 pages on. HOWEVER, it contains sensitive elements that do need to be mentioned before the film starts, either a simple video pre-recorded by one of the TCM hosts or a simple message displayed in text before the Selznick studio sequence.  

I don't mean to offend anyone but I'm not sure I understand why one would be against contextualization since it doesn't interfere with the movie at all, it's simply out of respect for those that have suffered from years of discrimination and systematic racism. 

There is no problem with "contextualization," but rather with what the thread starter wants - banning GWTW entirely (see thread title).  Also, how the contextualization would be done.  A disclaimer type at beginning is no problem, but the wraparounds that some want would be problematic for many.  Who would do it and what biases would they bring to their presentation?  If a panel, who would be on that?  Also a wraparound would add length to an already lengthy movie.

Most importantly to me is, where does it stop?  We would need  "contextualization" for every movie made before 1990.  We would need "contextualization" for every social issue, but especially those movies that might touch on religion, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation.  

Would "contextualization" be "required" for all DVD's or other methods used to distribute the movie?  Would local TV stations be required to "contextualize" movies and old TV shows they show?

I previously mentioned how blacks are portrayed in Nancy Drew and Hildegarde Withers movies and there are hundreds more involving blacks, let alone a multitude of religious and ethnic groups and women.

As for fast forwarding through the wraparounds, if you are watching it on regularly programmed TV this is not possible.  

Basically, it is excessive since 99% of the people in America already know this.

 

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

I previously mentioned how blacks are portrayed in Nancy Drew and Hildegarde Withers movies and there are hundreds more involving blacks, let alone a multitude of religious and ethnic groups and women.

If you mean the Drews' housekeeper, she's been Swedish in the recent books since the 30's movies were made.

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

Stupid question; Shelving Ted “TCM” Turner’s favorite feature because a group of radicals won’t turn the channel?

Gone with the Wind is a multi-award winning (8 OSCARS!!!) movie in the most golden year of Hollywood.

Liberty is having the ability to make your own choices perhaps having your opinions/views influenced by others but not about having others make their decisions for you, while human “servitude” continues throughout the world as a means of social survival.

The number of Oscars a film receives is not going to keep it from being censured if it needs to be censured.

I find it sad that people refuse to get with it and become more woke. Instead they cling to ideas and "beliefs" that are outdated and out of style. 

Why would these people choose ignorance? Are they that insecure and that unable to admit their way of thinking is primitive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

A MONEY THOUGHT:  Is it cheaper for TCM to lease "Gone With the Wind" for a viewing -OR- to lease 3 other movies from the 1930s that run 70 minutes, 70 minutes and 80 minutes? 

Just let Ted Turner keep it on a perpetual loop in his Theater of Ignorance in Atlanta. It would certainly be easier to picket that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fedya said:

 

Apparently you can read other people's minds.  Nice bit of armchair psychoanalysis there.

I'd say I resent the fact that you think I'm immature just because I disagree with you, but then I figured it's just the tedious hypocrisy you engage in all the time.

In fact, woke culture has come up here before.  Half a year ago I specifically brought up "woke knitting" as an example of how people use "wokeness" as a cloak to be incredibly nasty bullies who claim while they're being so nasty that they are in fact virtuous.  And such people inevitably focus on smaller and smaller things as they try to control more and more of people's lives.  I thought I posted the links here before, but a search of the site cant find it; but the UK Guardian's "Comment is Free" section has had pieces on the racist and/or sexist nature of things as mundane as barbecue and cupcakes.  Such people are nasty and deserve to have their nastiness pointed out to them at every opportunity.

I was going to reply to this post, but it would just be more of me repeating that I feel some people need to be more woke. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MerryPickford said:

Since I have some free time, I wanted to share something that relates to the topic of contextualization of racially insensitive films. I was very fortunate to attend a restoration screening of "Little Annie Rooney"(1925) a Mary Pickford film that was shown at LACMA and UCLA around 2014-2015, I forget the year. Anyway, I invited my co-worker to join me since she had seen The Crowd(1928) with me over at Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills and was mind-blown at the high production value of a silent film.  I proceeded to passionately and rather obsessively share my love and joy of silent cinema to her and asked her if she would be willing to go to another silent film screening with me since I didn't have many friends that were interested. 

She told me that she would love to try and attend the screening with me.  After I invited her that in the film, I suddenly remembered there being a black character depiction performed by child actor Eugene Jackson that is incredibly jarring that absolutely needed a warning, otherwise I would be irresponsible and feel badly if she was too taken aback by it due to a lack of commentary.  Ultimately it turned out she couldn't make it to the screening after all so I never gave her that context in the end, but when I attended that screening alone with all those people, the people from the Academy that helped with the restoration made no mention of the racially insensitive material nor did anyone ask. To be fair, it was probably 97 percent white people that were over the age of 40 and a few young people that looked like students. Maybe me and 3 other people were the only non-white audience members. 

I guess the reason I shared that experience was as a reminder that even the people involved with film archives and restoration projects don't always think about these things because it probably doesn't occur to them  so it's absolutely important for people to bring these issues to light. Thanks for reading. 

I love this post! Thank you so much for sharing your experience!

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

BB15lOmN.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=

Jeanne, do you think having Donald Bogle introduce GWTW would be giving in to the "cancel culture"?

And while I'm at it,  "cancel culture" might well have been used to describe the casting of a certain white actress in the lead role of Pinky , thereby effectively "canceling" the reality of Pinky's race.   But I digress.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JeanneCrain said:

BB15lOmN.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=

Most people here that wish for content providers to continue to show GWTW without any type of historical wraparounds support that POV  by saying that GWTW isn't a historical films,  that historical events like slavery and even the Confederacy,  are NOT central to the plot  (which is about the life of a what starts out as a silly young girl into a strong woman in a male dominated society).

You appear to  have a different POV since you continue to 'link' GWTW to the removal of Confederate statues,  naming of military bases,  and overall history of the Southern states,  which of course includes slavery and the PC \ cancel culture movement.

I find the above distinctions interesting (assuming I understand them).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MerryPickford said:

Since I have some free time, I wanted to share something that relates to the topic of contextualization of racially insensitive films. I was very fortunate to attend a restoration screening of "Little Annie Rooney"(1925) a Mary Pickford film that was shown at LACMA and UCLA around 2014-2015, I forget the year. Anyway, I invited my co-worker to join me since she had seen The Crowd(1928) with me over at Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills and was mind-blown at the high production value of a silent film.  I proceeded to passionately and rather obsessively share my love and joy of silent cinema to her and asked her if she would be willing to go to another silent film screening with me since I didn't have many friends that were interested. 

She told me that she would love to try and attend the screening with me.  After I invited her that in the film, I suddenly remembered there being a black character depiction performed by child actor Eugene Jackson that is incredibly jarring that absolutely needed a warning, otherwise I would be irresponsible and feel badly if she was too taken aback by it due to a lack of commentary.  Ultimately it turned out she couldn't make it to the screening after all so I never gave her that context in the end, but when I attended that screening alone with all those people, the people from the Academy that helped with the restoration made no mention of the racially insensitive material nor did anyone ask. To be fair, it was probably 97 percent white people that were over the age of 40 and a few young people that looked like students. Maybe me and 3 other people were the only non-white audience members. 

I guess the reason I shared that experience was as a reminder that even the people involved with film archives and restoration projects don't always think about these things because it probably doesn't occur to them  so it's absolutely important for people to bring these issues to light. Thanks for reading. 

I want to discuss the above post a bit more in-depth.

First, what I like about Merry's comment is that she is telling us she practiced cultural awareness AND cultural sensitivity when others around her did not. Also, her experience reminds us that we should be more responsible in how we look at film and share film.

This experience marginalized her because it made her feel self-conscious about being one of only a few non-whites in the audience. That happened because the presenters were not inclusive and did not cover the racially divisive elements of the film before or after it screened. They were irresponsible and ignorant.

***

My favorite late 90s film is EVE'S BAYOU (1997). I admire the fact that Diahann Carroll had the balls to play a role in whiteface. She took racial dis-ease and flipped it around on its ugly backside.

Screen Shot 2019-02-09 at 8.30.43 AM.jpeg

I'd love to watch this film with you, Merry!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a lot of heat when I joined this forum because I was displeased with a "joke" a TCM host made that I can only describe as "unwoke".   Being offended by such remarks is not uncommon, and many of us might consider ourselves "woke" before that term had become part of the mainstream.   True, the remark was made by a host, not in a film.  Offenses in film are also not uncommon, and perhaps to be tolerated at least in a historical context.  Offensive comment choices made in 2020 are unacceptable.  The culture needs to be "woke". 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JeanneCrain said:

it's hard to find any meaningful difference between the NAACP and the ****

Yeah, one of them didn't spend decades lynching people from the other race.

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

I want to discuss the above post a bit more in-depth.

First, what I like about Merry's comment is that she is telling us she practiced cultural awareness AND cultural sensitivity when others around her did not. Also, her experience reminds us that we should be more responsible in how we look at film and share film.

This experience marginalized her because it made her feel self-conscious about being one of only a few non-whites in the audience. That happened because the presenters were not inclusive and did not cover the racially divisive elements of the film before or after it screened. They were irresponsible and ignorant.

***

My favorite late 90s film is EVE'S BAYOU (1997). I admire the fact that Diahann Carroll had the balls to play a role in whiteface. She took racial dis-ease and flipped it around on its ugly backside.

Screen Shot 2019-02-09 at 8.30.43 AM.jpeg

I'd love to watch this film with you, Merry!

 

I've yet to see the film but the title sounds very familiar(As many films as I've seen in my relatively short lifetime, you'd be surprised how many I haven't seen yet).  Diahann Carroll looks STUNNING in this still photo and I absolutely love her so I'll definitely place it on my list of movies during this quarantine. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MerryPickford said:

I've yet to see the film but the title sounds very familiar(As many films as I've seen in my relatively short lifetime, you'd be surprised how many I haven't seen yet).  Diahann Carroll looks STUNNING in this still photo and I absolutely love her so I'll definitely place it on my list of movies during this quarantine. 

EVE'S BAYOU is currently on Amazon Prime video. I remember watching it in the theater when it first was released. It gets better with time. The writing is strong and so are the performances.

Diahann Carroll plays a fortune teller named Elzora. It's a supporting role, but she steals the movie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JeanneCrain said:

BB15iFRu.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=

Uh,   who are the "we" here?

To me that question is at the heart of this (as it relates  to movies,  music and privately owned works of art).     If the "we" was the government then I would be very concerned,  but it isn't.   The "we" is each private business making individual decisions with regards to what they define as appropriate content related to what they believe is their customers (consumers),   expectations. 

Of course the monuments and statues are on government property and often are owned by said government,    but to me that doesn't relate to the topic of privately owned content provider and whatever self-imposed censorship they wish to utilize as part of their branding. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need some "movie historian" to tell you that racial hatred is wrong then you might be totally clueless.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sukhov said:

If you need some "movie historian" to tell you that racial hatred is wrong then you might be totally clueless.

Except that's not at all what a movie historian would be saying.  A movie historian would be setting the film in its historical context.

Ben does this all the time.  Eddie Muller always enhances the Noir Alley viewing experience by giving us both the cinematic and historical backgrounds to the films on his playlist.  Has anyone complained about that?

What on Earth would be objectionable about Donald Bogle or some other reputable film historian providing TCM viewers with some specific context that surrounded GWTW?  What are people afraid of?  This has nothing at all to do with being "woke", and everything to do about expanding the knowledge of viewers who know little or nothing about GWTW except its plot and its ongoing popularity.

Folks, there's more to movies than that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AndyM108 said:

Except that's not at all what a movie historian would be saying.  A movie historian would be setting the film in its historical context.

Ben does this all the time.  Eddie Muller always enhances the Noir Alley viewing experience by giving us both the cinematic and historical backgrounds to the films on his playlist.  Has anyone complained about that?

What on Earth would be objectionable about Donald Bogle or some other reputable film historian providing TCM viewers with some specific context that surrounded GWTW?  What are people afraid of?  This has nothing at all to do with being "woke", and everything to do about expanding the knowledge of viewers who know little or nothing about GWTW except its plot and its ongoing popularity.

Folks, there's more to movies than that.

What you lay-down here sounds reasonable to me but I do understand why some fans-of-TCM might be miffed (and even upset),   if TCM was to ALWAYS show (or ONLY show) such a film as GWTW with such historical commentary.       I.e.  TCM decided it would never show GWTW again unless it was with this historical commentary.

I'm curious what your POV is on that:   E.g. if you where head of programming at TCM you would of course show GWTW with a reputable film historian providing some specific context,,,,,.

But would you ONLY show GWTW with such commentary?     

 

 

 

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...