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

These are the 18 'problematic' classic films TCM will examine in a new series


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Oh, please.  Silly pretentious drivel.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a mentally ill young man who misses his mommy is just a mentally ill young man who misses his mommy.

Precisely. Norman is just messed up mentally, and isn't gay or a transgender or a cross dresser in the normal sense. This would be true of the killer in De Palma's Psycho rip-off Dressed to kill (1980), but not of Norman in Psycho.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 11:33 AM, Sepiatone said:

I don't think the purpose was to intentionally "glorify" slavery, but maybe....just MAYBE.....

The perversions and horrors of slavery had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY???  :rolleyes:

And it's easy for me to believe that a number of slaves at least gave the impression to their "Massa's" that they were complicit.  Particularly if it meant less whippin's.    Kinda like Luke "gettin' his mind right." (but not really, eh?)

Sepiatone

Cleary a nostalgia for those AnteBellum plantations that were dependent on slavery is most definitely a huge part of Gone with the Wind.  However, I do agree with your suggestion that some of the appeal of GWTW lies in other aspects of the story, as I pointed out in an earlier comment I posted on this thread and am repeating here  ( full disclosure; I actually thought I made  one or two legitimate points in the post below, and was mildly miffed that nobody seemed to notice the post at all.   sniff.  )

On 3/29/2021 at 7:19 PM, misswonderly3 said:

I'm actually not a big fan of Gone with the Wind, not because it is "problematic" in its depiction of Black people and slavery  (although I don't deny it is), but just because I don't much like big fat epic movies that go on and on.   It's just not my favourite classic movie.  That's not to say I don't recognize the reasons why it is regarded as a great film today, despite its undeniable racist undertones.

All that said,  I'm responding to your post because it looks as though you're assuming the reason both the book and the film were (and still are) popular is because they romanticize the "Old South" and its accompanying implied support for slavery.  

That may be so with some fans, but I do want to remind you that GWTW is also several other things:  a love story,  a (for the time) graphic depiction of the horrors of war, and a character study of a strong, independent, willful woman.  It's a story about all those things, not just a faux nostalgic look at the Antebellum south and the racism that propped up that way of life. So it's quite possible and likely that there are people who love Gone with the Wind for those reasons - particularly the complicated relationship between Scarlett and Rhett - rather than any romanticized depiction of the pre-civil war southern states and their slave-supported way of life.

(Although as I said, I personally never quite understood why this film is regarded as so fantastic. But that's just me.)

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In some regards, I think Gone With the Wind is held up still as a model of filmmaking because of its sheer momentum. It's an almost four hour film that feels much shorter (plenty of movies that are three hours long begin to feel a bit draggy). Do I regard it as an accurate portrayal of the South prior to the war? No, far from it in fact, as storywise its closer to one of those sweeping miniseries they used to put on TV in the 80s like The Thorn Birds, and even Hattie McDaniel only has 10 minutes onscreen. But it is a  character study with fine acting, especially from Vivian Leigh. Its also one of the quintessential "women's pictures" and one of the earliest depictions (outside of gangster films) of an antihero in a Hollywood film.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 2:49 PM, TopBilled said:

This is TCM's way of trying to hold on to an audience. They are saying please don't feel guilty, don't stop watching these films.

The whole thing is self-serving, an orchestrated campaign to retain the classic film brand they have established.

It should be okay to feel guilty about something and not watch it. Especially when there might be better, healthier things to watch instead.

 

Right, and we should all prefer steamed kale to fish and chips, because it's healthier.  Very virtuous.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

In some regards, I think Gone With the Wind is held up still as a model of filmmaking because of its sheer momentum. It's an almost four hour film that feels much shorter (plenty of movies that are three hours long begin to feel a bit draggy). Do I regard it as an accurate portrayal of the South prior to the war? No, far from it in fact, as storywise its closer to one of those sweeping miniseries they used to put on TV in the 80s like The Thorn Birds, and even Hattie McDaniel only has 10 minutes onscreen. But it is a  character study with fine acting, especially from Vivian Leigh. Its also one of the quintessential "women's pictures" and one of the earliest depictions (outside of gangster films) of an antihero in a Hollywood film.

Subject matter aside, it is a technical achievement in Hollywood filmmaking, given that it's only 10 years or so removed the commercial adoption of sound, and its use of cumbersome Technicolor technology of the era.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

 I actually thought I made  one or two legitimate points in the post below, and was mildly miffed that nobody seemed to notice the post at all.   sniff.  

 

I noticed and I agree it's the love story and pageantry of the film rather than the setting that keeps it's popularity up there. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 10:04 AM, TopBilled said:

I think when Norman is dressed as mother he is not trying to become a woman, he is psychologically a woman at that point and it is at odds with him not being a biological female. That version of mother still has male genitalia. Therefore it does make him trans. A person who is trans can also be afflicted with multiple personality disorder and I think the trans community does not feel such a portrayal, such reality may be positive. Added on top of this, he/she is a killer which makes it even more unfavorable and controversial.

Physically speaking Mrs. Bates does not commit the murder. She is dead. Norman himself, with his male genitalia intact, commits the murder thinking he is a woman. It is the psychopathic disturbed aspect of the story, which the trans community feels is a negative depiction of the condition. They want the character to be sympathetically portrayed, not shown as a killer of women, especially if he is supposed to be transitioning to a woman.

I can see why PSYCHO was included in the series. It would have been remiss to exclude it. The narrative of PSYCHO contains within it a lot of gender identity confusion, misogyny and phobia.

Nah, it doesn't contain any of that stuff.   And nobody except perhaps you is thinking Norman Bates is "supposed to be transitioning to a woman".  How can someone who claims to be so educated in film studies possibly think that?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2021 at 1:34 AM, TopBilled said:

I don't see it as a poor argument. Transgender is not a 2021 phrase. Christine Jorgensen's sex change operation occurred in the 50s, prior to the making of PSYCHO. Before her full transition, s/he was probably transgender but was later labeled transsexual. Anyway, there have been informed, insightful writers exploring these subjects before Hitchcock and screenwriter Joe Stefano invented Norman Bates.

I think people trying to cling on to the notion that Norman's issues are not related to sexual identity are practicing a modern-day form of suppression and bias. It shouldn't be scary to look at Norman as a trans individual. It shouldn't be a threat to anyone's sensibilities. But I suppose homophobes and transphobes are going to be rocked to the core and have to keep living under a rock.

The only thing that's scary about looking at Norman as a trans individual is that it's apparently possible to be so profoundly wrong in interpreting a movie. To suggest that anyone who doesn't think Norman Bates is "trans" is a homophobe or transphobe is just ridiculous.  Pompous and consdescending too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2021 at 1:20 PM, Vidor said:

 

It's not scary.  Your note of condescension is impossible to miss, but I promise you I am not scared by this topic.  I lack any fear as I type this post!  It's not *scary* to talk about "Psycho" being anti-trans, it's *dumb*, because--once again, for the people in the back--Norman Bates isn't trans.  Norman Bates lusts for women.  Norman Bates's psychological issues are wrapped up in his lust for his mother, and how he murdered her, and how he can't deal with the fact that he murdered her.  If Norman has parents in a steady marriage, he doesn't start pretending to be a woman.  If Mrs. Bates never takes a lover, but instead is content to stay home and focus all her attention on her creepy son, he doesn't start putting on women's clothing.  Identifying Norman Bates as trans does not mark one as enlightened on transgender issues, it simply marks one as a person who does not understand the plot of "Psycho".

 

Thank you, thank you !  Just what I was saying , but you said it better !

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to clearly state here that I am not questioning TopBilled's intelligence.  He writes well and clearly knows much about classic movies  (and, I've little doubt, not-so-classic movies as well.)   I am merely questioning his interpretation of the Norman Bates character in Psycho.  And I am not the only poster here to be doing so.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

I would like to clearly state here that I am not questioning TopBilled's intelligence.  He writes well and clearly knows much about classic movies  (and, I've little doubt, not-so-classic movies as well.)   I am merely questioning his interpretation of the Norman Bates character in Psycho.  And I am not the only poster here to be doing so.

By a long shot.  😡

Or, questioning his obviously motivated "Well, everyone SHOULD think it's a gay/trans issue, even if it isn't; I'm dedicated in my belief, and if you just can't see it, you're against a good cause!" attempt to push the issue out of personal idealism long past the point where logic is rapidly winning against him.  

Sometimes, there's a time to just give up the fight for cultural appropriation, even if it's to try and jam a good cause into the discussion till it fits.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

I would like to clearly state here that I am not questioning TopBilled's intelligence.  He writes well and clearly knows much about classic movies  (and, I've little doubt, not-so-classic movies as well.)   I am merely questioning his interpretation of the Norman Bates character in Psycho.  And I am not the only poster here to be doing so.

Trying to justify her bullying, by saying mob rule against one person is okay. This needs to stop.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

That may be so with some fans, but I do want to remind you that GWTW is also several other things:

I have my Mother's copy, given to me for my 16th birthday. I loved how spoiled Scarlett was and recognized myself in her emotional reactions. I loved how as her world fell apart around her she took charge. I liked the Wilkes' and other charactors, her relationship with her Mother, so stodgy just like any teen views their parents. I liked how she was brought up to be helpless but ended up responsible for many. 

I've tried reading it again but just can't get through it.

16 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

Norman is just messed up mentally, and isn't gay or a transgender or a cross dresser in the normal sense.

As for Norman being transgender/cross dresser in PSYCHO....didn't the Dr say Norman dressed like his Mother to keep her alive by "giving up his own life" for her to live through him? It was Mother who killed the girl, not Norman. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 7:25 PM, misswonderly3 said:

It's very concerning how rabidly angry Twitter mobs seem to have so much power.  They can get people fired, ruin the lives of anyone they deem to be out-of-step with their own self-righteous views,  and, apparently, get an entire television channel  (a non-commercial one at that !) extinguished.  I loathe those people who seem to spend half their lives posting angry nasty Twitter comments, often without even looking into the details of whatever they're so furious about.

Look where it all started. Thankfully, he's been turned off.

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

"Well, everyone SHOULD think it's a gay/trans issue, even if it isn't; I'm dedicated in my belief, and if you just can't see it, you're against a good cause!" attempt to push the issue out of personal idealism long past the point where logic is rapidly winning against ...

It's a familiar tactic, just fill in the cause blank. Then if logic continues to prevail reframe/redefine the cause.  Old political analogy; "If the dog won't eat the food, it must be the bowl!"

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

Trying to justify her bullying, by saying mob rule against one person is okay. This needs to stop.

Calm down. No one is bullying you, it's called debate.

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

"I have my Mother's copy, given to me for my 16th birthday. I loved how spoiled Scarlett was and recognized myself in her emotional reactions. I loved how as her world fell apart around her she took charge. I liked the Wilkes' and other charactors, her relationship with her Mother, so stodgy just like any teen views their parents. I liked how she was brought up to be helpless but ended up responsible for many. 

I've tried reading it again but just can't get through it."

I bought a copy and it's next up. I've done a little preliminary word search recon and it looks like there's -not surprisingly- a lot of exaggeration being written on certain subjects.

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

Trying to justify her bullying, by saying mob rule against one person is okay. This needs to stop.

You know Top, everytime you write stuff like this it makes me think of another long-time poster with many posts who would write like this and take offense when someone else would disagree with them or debate them...

HollyGolightly.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, fxreyman said:

You know Top, everytime you write stuff like this it makes me think of another long-time poster with many posts who would write like this and take offense when someone else would disagree with them or debate them...

HollyGolightly.

I think you meant HollywoodGolightly.  Let's not drag Audrey Hepburn into this! Oh, maybe I should not have used "drag."

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fxreyman said:

You know Top, everytime you write stuff like this it makes me think of another long-time poster with many posts who would write like this and take offense when someone else would disagree with them or debate them...

HollyGolightly.

It's interesting that you mention her. I was thinking about her yesterday when I read misswonderly's posts.

I remember when I started here years ago, I received some private messages from HollywoodGolightly. I think she lived in the Seattle area, because she talked about the weather there and that her favorite director was Tim Burton. She felt bullied and stopped posting about a year or two later.

I think she was a very sensitive soul.

Looking back on it now, I bet she private messaged me in the early days and took me under her wing because she felt I was a kindred soul. And she didn't want me to feel bullied or run off. I've been here about ten years with over 120,000 posts. I would never quit posting because someone else does not know how to communicate a difference opinion as a mature adult. I would only quit posting the day I feel I have run out of things to say about classic film.

Anyway, I had sent a private message to misswonderly and the moderator yesterday, which is why misswonderly came on a short time later to try and justify her behavior. I had asked misswonderly not to quote me anymore or to reference me directly, because I think that kind of nonsense will derail threads where she and I are both posting our views/opinions. My concern with misswonderly's recent behavior is that she does not seem to be content with simple disagreements. She goes out of her way to insult/attack someone whose views differ sharply then her own. In my message to her and the mod I stated that this is a community and we should be supportive of one another. Trying to justify bullying is not acceptable, it is not the solution to anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scsu1975 said:

I think you meant HollywoodGolightly.  Let's not drag Audrey Hepburn into this! Oh, maybe I should not have used "drag."

Seems like a conspiracy theory with veiled/cryptic humorous comments that are homophobic in nature.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, and speaking of "Trannies"...

Just wanna say here that the 6-speed manual one in the Fiat 124 Spider Abarth I purchased yesterday down in Tucson, shifts like butter.

STILL can't believe 80 percent of 'em in these cars came with freakin' automatics...SACRILEGE!!!

(...oh and btw here TB...sorry dude, but you're way off-base regarding your whole "Norman Bates was one", and not of course either an automatic or manual OR a person who desires to be the other gender, and because and as a few have already mentioned in this thread, Simon Oakland who plays the shrink in this flick CLEARLY points out at the end why he isn't one)

 

 

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...