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

4 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

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?     

 

 

 

I guess I thought it was always shown in prime-time, and thus always had a host intro anyway.  Has it ever been shown without a host introducing it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading many -- if not all -- of the posts in this thread I was thinking what could I watch instead of the 3 hour and 40 minute movie GONE WITH THE WIND . . .

IDEA! 

I decided to take my old UNICORN VIDEO release of THE BLACK GESTAPO (1975) out of its resting place.  

"WHETHER THEY WIN OR DIE IS NOT THE QUESTION!"

AS the video box summary explains:

"It could have happened in any major city in the United States.  Ex-Vietnam veteran General Ahmed fought for years for a grant from the city to operate a people's army, a black organization dedicated to dealing with the problems of the Black Ghetto.  It was Ahmed's Chief of Staff who suggested they form a security force.  Ahmed is cautious knowing that he is capable of extreme violence and does not wish to start a blood bath between Whites and Blacks.  Ahmed gives in to the demands for a security force and the target is vengeance, power and THE BLACK GESTAPO."

Whoever did the write-up on the back of the UNICORN box also included the review from Variety.  That was a nice touch. 

"Pic is extremely brutal, with dozens of shootings, beatings, garrotings, and other kinds of mayhem . . . Violence isn't contained to the male combatants, since women come in for an amount of abuse unusual even to this genre."  Variety

Starring Rod Perry, Charles P. Robinson (he later had a long-running role on "Night Court" from 1984-92), Phil Hoover, Ed Gross and Angela Brent. 

Featuring :  Dona Desmond, Charles Howerton and David Bryant

89 Minutes/Color  

. . . so dig in to THE BLACK GESTAPO!  It's shorter, it's meaner and it's got an attitude!   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

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?     

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer:  But I would apply that to ALL films in time slots that are accompanied by host or guest host commentary, not just GWTW,  and not just films with racial implications.  I can't remember GWTW ever having been shown in off hours.

I've mentioned Donald Bogle as a prime candidate for introducing GWTW.  He's co-hosted many times before and given much insightful commentary on films with black actors and / or black-related themes, without any noticeable objections.  Seems to me that he and GWTW would be a natural fit.

I also wish that more of the more interesting films with "political" implications would be shown in prime time, with commentary, rather than in the wee hours of the morning or during hours when much of the potential TCM audience is at work.  I realize that this is done sometimes, but it kind of pains me that many of the best films that might qualify for such commentary are usually relegated to the 12:00 AM - 6:00 AM Sunday night slots.

Don't get me wrong:  I'm forever grateful that TCM shows these often neglected silent and foreign movies at all.  But I'd love to see them complemented with some critical input from movie scholars.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

I guess I thought it was always shown in prime-time, and thus always had a host intro anyway.  Has it ever been shown without a host introducing it?

I wasn't clear;  I wasn't talking about the standard short intros \ outros done by the standard host,  but instead longer commentary of an historical nature:  and "historical" from the POV of the actual historical events a film is covering  versus the historical events surrounding the making of the film (which is what the host typically covers).

What I'm trying to understand is the various 'options' a network like TCM has related to a film that is deemed to be controversial (at least by enough people today to cause a cultural division).    Here is what I view as those options:

1)  Don't show such films.

2) Show such films but only with historical commentary.      (much more than the standard host comments as noted above).

3)  Show such films with historical commentary,   but clearly note that in the schedule,  and show such films with NO commentary (or just standard host comments).

4) Show such films like all other films;   just standard host comments or NO comments at all. 

My gut tells me that most fairly-regular TCM viewers favor #3,    but then I'm often a middle-of-fence kind of guy  (so maybe most TCM viewers favor #4,   and then #2?).    (with little support for #1?).

 

 

    

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

I wasn't clear;  I wasn't talking about the standard short intros \ outros done by the standard host,  but instead longer commentary of an historical nature:  and "historical" from the POV of the actual historical events a film is covering  versus the historical events surrounding the making of the film (which is what the host typically covers).

What I'm trying to understand is the various 'options' a network like TCM has related to a film that is deemed to be controversial (at least by enough people today to cause a cultural division).    Here is what I view as those options:

1)  Don't show such films.

2) Show such films but only with historical commentary.      (much more than the standard host comments as noted above).

3)  Show such films with historical commentary,   but clearly note that in the schedule,  and show such films with NO commentary (or just standard host comments).

4) Show such films like all other films;   just standard host comments or NO comments at all. 

My gut tells me that most fairly-regular TCM viewers favor #3,    but then I'm often a middle-of-fence kind of guy  (so maybe most TCM viewers favor #4,   and then #2?).    (with little support for #1?).

 

 

    

I knew what you meant.  I wasn't clear.  I can see where the standard intros can serve this purpose.  I don't know that every showing needs an in-depth treatment, but I think it should be acknowledged in some manner.

One thing I do know : whatever is done, some people won't be happy.  That's just a given - always has been, and unfortunately, probably always will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

I knew what you meant.  I wasn't clear.  I can see where the standard intros can serve this purpose.  I don't know that every showing needs an in-depth treatment, but I think it should be acknowledged in some manner.

One thing I do know : whatever is done, some people won't be happy.  That's just a given - always has been, and unfortunately, probably always will be.

Yea,  there is another option somewhere between #2 and  #3;    use standard intros for a brief commentary (some might call this a disclaimer),  and only have in-depth type treatment (commentary),   on special occasions (e.g. like we saw this week with films like Victim,  with a guest host).

 As for your last two sentences:  ain't that the truth! 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

What I'm trying to understand is the various 'options' a network like TCM has related to a film that is deemed to be controversial (at least by enough people today to cause a cultural division).    Here is what I view as those options:

1)  Don't show such films.

2) Show such films but only with historical commentary.      (much more than the standard host comments as noted above).

3)  Show such films with historical commentary,   but clearly note that in the schedule,  and show such films with NO commentary (or just standard host comments).

4) Show such films like all other films;   just standard host comments or NO comments at all. 

1. Definitely a non-starter.

4. I don't like that, either.

My inclination is to add expanded commentary to all films shown in prime time and on weekend afternoons, and not just for films deemed "controversial".

Again I refer to Noir Alley.  There's nothing all that controversial about 99% of noirs, at least not for today's audiences, but Eddie Muller's informed commentary adds enormously to the viewing pleasure for those films.  I find myself allowing time on Sunday morning to watch all of those movies again, even though I've seen nearly all of them before. 

So why not do that for all films that currently rate any kind of introduction?  The standard abbreviated intros for those movies aren't bad, but they don't really tell us much about those movies that we didn't know already.  And that's where a good guest co-host should come in.

And for those who don't want to sit through those introductions?  Simply note on the schedule the actual starting time for the movie itself.  Problem solved.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(With multiple threads on this topic, I'm not sure where to post this, but this thread appears to be the most current.)

Jacqueline Stewart wrote an article for CNN where she indicates that she will provide some context for re-posting GWTW on HBO Max.

Here is a USA Today article summarizing, which also has a reference to the CNN article that Jacqueline wrote:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/06/14/gone-wind-hbo-max-introduction-jacqueline-stewart/3188959001/

Direct link:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/12/opinions/gone-with-the-wind-illuminates-white-supremacy-stewart/index.html

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

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

No, the roles of Willie Best, who was in Murder on a Honeymoon (credited as Sleep n' Eat) and Nancy Drew, Trouble Shooter.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours 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.

Reminder: this thread is solely about removing GWTW from broadcast.  Period per the thread starter.

Why should GWTW be selected as the ONLY movie requiring extensive wraparounds, "contextualization," and explanation to the viewers?  Based on some of the posts, those wraparounds would be presented from one viewpoint.

As for current wraparounds and discussions re: TCM movies, most of them are about the making of the movie or the people associated with it.  This thread goes far, far beyond that.

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

Based on some of the posts, those wraparounds would be presented from one viewpoint.

It almost sounds like your saying that there were good people on both sides in the old Confed, lol, I don't think you mean that. What other viewpoint are you speaking of?

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

It almost sounds like your saying that there were good people on both sides in the old Confed, lol, I don't think you mean that. What other viewpoint are you speaking of?

So, who were the "good people....in the old Confederacy?

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

So, who were the "good people....in the old Confederacy?

I'm asking you? Quote: "those wraparounds would be presented from one viewpoint." What would be the other viewpoint?

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

I'm asking you? Quote: "those wraparounds would be presented from one viewpoint." What would be the other viewpoint?

In the case of GWTW, "the other viewpoint" gets rather well represented for about 221 minutes, not counting the overture, intermission, entr'acte, and exit music.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

I'm asking you? Quote: "those wraparounds would be presented from one viewpoint." What would be the other viewpoint?

Actually I'm beginning to be confused as to what you and others believe the wraparounds should say.  Slavery was evil and slaves were mistreated?  That is true, but seems you and others want presenters to say that the entire movie is evil.  All the white characters in it are evil.

As for other presenters, what about a representative from the Southern Historical Association?  You could go with the UDC or SCV, but that may be a stretch.  If you want the presenter to comment on its historical inaccuracies, get someone other than a film expert.

GWTW is a work of fiction and a romantic drama, just like thousands of other movies.  It isn't supposed to be the truth or even factual.  Here again, I just don't understand the focus on GWTW when there are so many other movies and TV shows that present minorities and their treatment poorly or inaccurately.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Actually I'm beginning to be confused as to what you and others believe the wraparounds should say.  Slavery was evil and slaves were mistreated?  That is true, but seems you and others want presenters to say that the entire movie is evil.  All the white characters in it are evil.

That's just paranoia.  Have you ever seen Don Bogle when he's been the guest co-host?  Has he ever presented any kind of analysis on that kindergarten level?  Do you object to Eddie Muller's Noir Alley introductions when he points out the fate of many directors and screen writers during the time of the Hollywood blacklist? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AndyM108 said:

That's just paranoia.  Have you ever seen Don Bogle when he's been the guest co-host?  Has he ever presented any kind of analysis on that kindergarten level?  Do you object to Eddie Muller's Noir Alley introductions when he points out the fate of many directors and screen writers during the time of the Hollywood blacklist? 

I watch Eddie and some of the other presenters regularly and what they do is NOT what you and others are asking.  I thought of this almost every time I responded, as well as commentary on the blacklist.  NOT applicable to this discussion.  They discuss things directly relevant to the movie being shown or to the people involved in the movie.  Context!

You and others are asking for presenters to go into the political, social and economic historical realm of the country, specifically the South, during this period.   Both presenters recommended by you and others are black and specialize in blacks in movies.  No problem with that, but it is a limited perspective.  Also, tends to imply they will dwell on the plight of the slaves and the "fiction" of the whites?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the commentary needs to be about Reconstruction Era South at all, actually, or even the South in general, but instead about the way Hollywood in 1939 still thought it was okay to present things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sewhite2000 said:

I don't know if the commentary needs to be about Reconstruction Era South at all, actually, or even the South in general, but instead about the way Hollywood in 1939 still thought it was okay to present things.

Now, what WAS that line Hal Holbrook said in that movie about the Watergate break-in and coverup?

Oh yeah..."Follow the money".

And meaning here that I would think it almost self-evident the reason Hollywood thought that in 1939 was because they knew to show anything else BUT some sanitized version of that era and its race relations would most likely not only limit the box office returns in the then Jim Crow South, but also limit its appeal to the many with an "unwoke" mindset north of the Mason-Dixon Line at the time as well.

And as I think most of us know, racism existed throughout much of this entire country and in even greater quantity than it does today.

(...or in other words, Hollywood's motto has always been: "Give the people what they want")

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sewhite2000 said:

I don't know if the commentary needs to be about Reconstruction Era South at all, actually, or even the South in general, but instead about the way Hollywood in 1939 still thought it was okay to present things.

The problem is that virtually anyone with even slightest interest in seeing this movie already knows how things were in the US back then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dargo said:

Now, what WAS that line Hal Holbrook said in that movie about the Watergate break-in and coverup?

Oh yeah..."Follow the money".

And meaning here that I would think it almost self-evident the reason Hollywood thought that in 1939 was because they knew to show anything else BUT some sanitized version of that era and its race relations would most likely not only limit the box office returns in the then Jim Crow South, but also limit its appeal to the many with an "unwoke" mindset north of the Mason-Dixon Line at the time as well.

And as I think most of us know, racism existed throughout much of this entire country and in even greater quantity than it does today.

(...or in other words, Hollywood's motto has always been: "Give the people what they want")

Yes, it was about making money, as it is with 98% of all movies made.  And racism did exist everywhere in the US, either de facto or de jure.

I would say that racism existed throughout the entire country in 1930's and well beyond.  Look how blacks were treated in military during WW II, Korea and even into Vietnam.  Remember there was also racism as worse or worse against Hispanics, Asians, Native-Americans and many others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2020 at 6:38 AM, TheCid said:

Based on some of the posts, those wraparounds would be presented from one viewpoint.

What other viewpoint is there? That the antebellum south was totally justified in starting a Civil War to retain slavery for their precious plantations, and the Mammy(Mammy, Prissy) and Uncle Tom(Pork) stereotypes are totally accurate and appropriate? 

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

And as I think most of us know, racism existed throughout much of this entire country and in even greater quantity than it does today.

Unfortunately, I've heard the "N" word thrown around by white people in anger and paranoia in the last two weeks( 5-10 times in person just yesterday, maybe over 50 times on television/social media, and 100s of times in written posts/threads the last 3 weeks) than what I ever really heard in the last 20 years so I am not sure if you've been living under a rock lately or what. Racism, or blatant racism that you may be referring to usually stays hidden nowadays until a civil rights uprising occurs like what is currently going on regarding BLM and the opposing ALL LIVES MATTER banner that white people shout. Unfortunately, white populations respond defensively as though they are being attacked personally, becoming enraged and feeling it's finally appropriate to shout racist rants that may have been internalized for a long time. 

  • Thanks 2
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...