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

56 minutes ago, Dargo said:

LOL

Why is it I'm now envisioning Humphrey Bogart juggling around a couple of little steel balls in his right hand???

(...hey Moe...you wouldn't happen to look like Jose Ferrer, would ya?)

I know I'm guilty of steering the thread a bit off topic but......juggling balls............ ahem!

I wish I looked like Jose. There was a time I was often mistaken for a certain crooner who fronted the Faces. Now I look like Uncle Fester. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Moe Howard said:

I know I'm guilty of steering the thread a bit off topic but......juggling balls............ ahem!

I wish I looked like Jose. There was a time I was often mistaken for a certain crooner who fronted the Faces. Now I look like Uncle Fester. 

Wow! From Rod Stewart to Jackie Coogan, eh?!

(...sounds like a metamorphosis that even ol' Franz himself might've found interesting)  ;)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Moe Howard said:

I know I'm guilty of steering the thread a bit off topic but......juggling balls............ ahem!

I wish I looked like Jose. There was a time I was often mistaken for a certain crooner who fronted the Faces. Now I look like Uncle Fester. 

you mean 

three button hand me down - small faces and rod stewart - YouTube

?

well, every picture tells a story.😎

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

...well, every picture tells a story.😎

OM=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw

(...you forgot the last of that lyric, MissW!)  ;)

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

OM=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw

(...you forget the last of that lyric, MissW!)  ;)

 

....don't it?     (perhaps we can all treat ourselves to a nice doUghnUt  after the steamed kale dinner.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

 

don't it?     (perhaps we can all treat ourselves to a nice doUghnUt  after the steamed kale dinner.)

Ah-HA! NOW you're tryin' to get ME all riled up with that superfluous 'U' (not to mention the 'G' and the 'H' there), are YA?!

Ooooh, you ARE an evil one, aren't ya! 

(...BUT, you can still quote me in the future any ol' time you want!)  ;)

LOL

 

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

I think it should go on an extended (even if not permanent) hiatus.

 

Well, let's hope no one listens to you.

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

 

Well, let's hope no one listens to you.

I believe controversy grows the audience, particularly when people speak in such moral tones. The more people come down on GWTW, the more curiosity is piqued.

The film opens everything to discussion and I love it when people get impassioned about it. The old statement "Hope it IS gone,"... etc. has a beard, and still it is a film that draws audiences in a way other classic films do not:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-gone-wind-sets-record-fathom-1195914

As Elizabeth Bennet says (at least via MGM in 1940), " Perhaps the wish is father to the thought." Just the same, who would expect the film to be the hot brick it became just this year, because Mr. Ridley started kicking it?

The name recognition has grown stronger at the hands of those who would suppress it.

https://variety.com/2020/digital/uncategorized/gone-with-the-wind-amazon-best-seller-hbo-max-1234630577/

 

 

 

 

 

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

The film opens everything to discussion and I love it when people get impassioned about it.

 

I feel weird defending "Gone with the Wind" because I don't like the movie!  First, it really actually is pretty darn racist.  Second, why are we supposed to root for Scarlett?  You can have an anti-hero (heroine) but there needs to at least be a reason to care about them.

 

But this idea that movies should be "retired" is loathsome.  It's an important film.  It should be available for people to see.  A channel like Turner Classic Movies, which is nominally dedicated to, you know, "classic movies" (at least the ones from MGM and Warners), should show it.

 

I think that this series is a good idea.  If you find "Gone with the Wind" troubling, listen to our hosts talk about it.  If you don't want to think to hard about racism in Hollywood, fast-forward.  If you think the movie should be "retired", well, turn the channel.

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

 

I feel weird defending "Gone with the Wind" because I don't like the movie!  First, it really actually is pretty darn racist.  Second, why are we supposed to root for Scarlett?  You can have an anti-hero (heroine) but there needs to at least be a reason to care about them.

 

But this idea that movies should be "retired" is loathsome.  It's an important film.  It should be available for people to see.  A channel like Turner Classic Movies, which is nominally dedicated to, you know, "classic movies" (at least the ones from MGM and Warners), should show it.

 

I think that this series is a good idea.  If you find "Gone with the Wind" troubling, listen to our hosts talk about it.  If you don't want to think to hard about racism in Hollywood, fast-forward.  If you think the movie should be "retired", well, turn the channel.

I did post a link earlier to slave narratives done by the WPA interviewing ex-slaves. The troubling ones for today are the ones that speak of slavery happily. But it takes a hardy soul to sustain itself through that, and that's what allows any race to last. But white people are not speaking for them, at least. And Margaret Mitchell did not do that.  It would have been presumptuous. She covered territory she knew from a perspective. To vilify her characters and dismiss them would be missing the point that these were people, who were as human in their joy and suffering as anyone, and could be you or I.  

IMO, Scarlett is the terror of most straight men, and the scorn of a lot of upright women.  Maybe it's hard to find her likeable, but almost impossible to not find her behavior human. A reviewer on a Marilyn Monroe bio once said that the bio was not very revealing. He said if MM were to come to life and read it, she'd think, "My secret is still safe...", but if Scarlett came to life and read GWTW she'd say, " Oh my God! How did they know!"

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 12:40 AM, kingrat said:

Oh, thanks, slayton. There are so many films with blackface that it deserves a series of its own.

True indeed. More than a two minute documentary about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Leighcat said:

IMO, Scarlett is the terror of most straight men, and the scorn of a lot of upright women.  Maybe it's hard to find her likeable, but almost impossible to not find her behavior human.

She's the terror of most anyone: her parents, siblings, acquaintances. It may come as a big surprise to some, but most go through the transition of being the center of their family's unconditional love to having to navigate relationships based on actual merit. My favorite scene is where Scarlett overhears other girls talking about her as she hides under the stairs, her first realization she's not "accepted".

This is why both my Mom & I loved reading the book-we recognized that spoiled adolescent.  It helps that many of her problems revolve around outdated social mores like wearing black, suffering for beauty, being coy, shy, etc. It may seem silly to us now, but the only hope a woman had was to be married/taken care of and her only asset was her beauty/manners.

It's fabulous that her story is set in Civil War Georgia because of the these old fashioned ideas.  The entire POINT is the slave owners have been born into a life where owning people was OK, a sign of wealth.  Scarlett's personal transition mirrors the transition of the South. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The March issue of The Atlantic had an interesting article on the FWP's ex-slave narratives done

in the 1930s. Historians have some concern as to how accurate some of the interviews were.

Most were done by white southerners, who might have changed the dialect of interviewees. There

was also the issue of some black ex-slaves telling white interviewers what they wanted to hear and

not what actually went on. But I'm guessing there were some slaves who gave a less negative view of

slavery than others. The descendants of the ex-slaves interviewed were mostly glad to have a record

of their ancestors, however incomplete, as such records are hard to come by for many of the descendants. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I make no apologies about liking the novel GWTW.

I also admire and enjoy the film.

I dislike the lazy "it's a terrible book."

But whatever. 

All of this nonsense is judgmental.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vautrin said:

The March issue of The Atlantic had an interesting article on the FWP's ex-slave narratives done

in the 1930s. Historians have some concern as to how accurate some of the interviews were.

Most were done by white southerners, who might have changed the dialect of interviewees. There

was also the issue of some black ex-slaves telling white interviewers what they wanted to hear and

not what actually went on. But I'm guessing there were some slaves who gave a less negative view of

slavery than others. The descendants of the ex-slaves interviewed were mostly glad to have a record

of their ancestors, however incomplete, as such records are hard to come by for many of the descendants. 

I'll go along with that.  And mostly because I don't believe all slave owners were alike.  Oh, now don't anyone fly off the handle and think I'm giving slavery a "pass".  The institution itself was no less than an abomination.  But as I did mention earlier, slave owners did consider their slaves as property or(in some cases) "livestock" , which makes no sense to continually brutalize which would lessen their "value" as a commodity, which slaves were also considered. After all, not all slave traders were those who brought them in by the boatload.  Many slave traders  were selling what could be considered( and disgustingly) "home grown" goods.  And NOBODY was going to pay top dollar for a starved and battered  slave.  

Sepiatone

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

I'll go along with that.  And mostly because I don't believe all slave owners were alike.  Oh, now don't anyone fly off the handle and think I'm giving slavery a "pass".  The institution itself was no less than an abomination.  But as I did mention earlier, slave owners did consider their slaves as property or(in some cases) "livestock" , which makes no sense to continually brutalize which would lessen their "value" as a commodity, which slaves were also considered. After all, not all slave traders were those who brought them in by the boatload.  Many slave traders  were selling what could be considered( and disgustingly) "home grown" goods.  And NOBODY was going to pay top dollar for a starved and battered  slave.  

Sepiatone

True. I remember reading a book about twenty years ago that considered slavery from an economic point of

view. The authors made it clear they condemned slavery as an institution, though there was still some controversy

about the book. One of the things they pointed out was that slaves were valuable property to their owners, so

it would be foolish for them to kill or maim slaves. They would just be losing value. I'm sure some slave owners

let their temper get the better of them and did brutalize their slaves, though from a financial viewpoint they were

also hurting themselves.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll take this opportunity to mention the channel C-SPAN3 (aka The American History channel) is showing a program about "Slavery In Cinema" @ 6:00pm this evening.  Why not view another take on this topic?   I really don't know what it's all about though.  

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything old is new again.

TCM covered some of this so-called "cancel" territory more than a decade ago, in their "Race & Hollywood" series, with Robert Osborne.

 

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

And I'll take this opportunity to mention the channel C-SPAN3 (aka The American History channel) is showing a program about "Slavery In Cinema" @ 6:00pm this evening.  Why not view another take on this topic?   I really don't know what it's all about though.  

Sepiatone

Looks interesting.

"1 hour, 15 minutes

Hampden-Sydney College professor Matthew Hulbert looked at depictions of slavery in Hollywood films ranging from "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone with the Wind" to "Django Unchained" and "Free State of Jones." He talked about how early films glorified the Lost Cause and argued that while recent films show the horrors of the slave trade and resistance by enslaved people, the idea of the white savior is often still central to the narrative. Virginia Tech's Center for Civil War Studies hosted this event and provided the video."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel he unjustly lumped too many in the same category.  Not all "glorified" the lost cause,  but simply(in the case of GWTW) displayed an exagerrated example of what the lifestyle of the "privileged "  class was like.   To say any film "glorified" any of that is to insinuate that the film makers endorsed any of it., which of course, they didn't.  It seemed to me Mr. Hulbert  gave creedence to something that didn't really happen.  Like all the talk about "white saviors" in movies.  Like in AMISTAD, claiming it too gave into the "white savior" narrative.  But having seen the movie, I ask you...

What were the chances of  any of the slaves getting any legal assistance from any attorneys who WEREN'T white in 1840?   And too, weren't many of the "stops" on the "underground railroad"   the homes and farms of whites who also had abolishionist   leanings?   How does any accurate depiction of these FACTS  somehow become negative?  I came away with the feeling that Prof. Hulbert  was too immersed in undeserved white guilt to objectively look at the subjects on hand.

Sepiatone

 

 

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

but simply(in the case of GWTW) displayed an exagerrated example of what the lifestyle of the "privileged "  class was like.   To say any film "glorified" any of that is to insinuate that the film makers endorsed any of it., which of course, they didn't. 

(snipped)

And too, weren't many of the "stops" on the "underground railroad"   the homes and farms of whites who also had abolishionist   leanings?   How does any accurate depiction of these FACTS  somehow become negative?

Thanks for pointing that out. The only glimpse you see of working class Atlantans in the movie are the "white trash Slatterys" and working gal Belle Watling.

Well my city was a very important "stop" on the URR. One of the ways to signify was having a "Jocko" horse hitch with lantern in front of your house. Jocko Graves was a real person, a Revolutionary War hero that Washington paid tribute to with the familiar statue. My house has it's original Jocko and I cannot display it in front of my home.

THAT's "How accurate depiction of FACTS  somehow become negative."

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 3/12/2021 at 8:57 PM, Dargo said:

Yes, that IS a terrific point that the newbie here brought up, Ls. I agree...ABSOLUTELY!

Same as yourself, I too missed the little "history lesson" the hosts imparted upon us during this last showing of this film, as I also last watched this film when TCM presented it just a week ago or so. 

And so now to attempt an explanation to the newbie Shana's incredulousness to our hosts failing to bring this point up, I'll now offer the following.

I have a tendency to believe the reason they didn't bring this issue up was because the concept of "reverse-discrimination" or "reverse-racism" (and make no mistake here, Poitier's father's world view is presented as just THAT) has become viewed within our culture as a more "acceptable" form of racism than that which holds to the idea of white supremacy.

Yep! I'll betcha the reason our TCM hosts didn't bother to mention nor examine one of THE most defining moment in this film was because they, first, didn't think it important enough for some reason, and secondly because and as I mentioned above, the concept of "reverse-discrimination"/"reverse-racism" is one that it seems is not nearly as "controversial" in today's America as is your general form of racism.

And from what I understandand and have seen firsthand in my life, incredulously, many people in this country do not even accept nor acknowledge the existence of it and/or will attempt to give you rationalizations as to why it is "acceptable".

(...okay, and NOW let the fireworks begin)

Thank you!  I think they forgot to consider the movie was made in a different time when discussing.  Shouldn’t they have kept the discussion within the context of when it was produced since that was a monumental line in the movie?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you!  I think they forgot to consider the movie was made in a different time when discussing.  Shouldn’t they have kept the discussion within the context of when it was produced since that was a monumental line in the movie?  I get what others said about it either being an uncomfortable discussion or trying to discuss the movie within today’s context. Unfortunately it is falling victim to today’s over use of race theories.  The message between two generations was so key, so factual. I disagreed entirely with their conclusion that the movie was about the white man father controlling everyone. The movie was entirely centric around S T’s character and with him dealing internally with the decision of his daughter and fiancé.  By making the white father the villain in the movie, they erased the beautiful underscore of the differences of black generations, and the momentum of the civil rights movement. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Shana Krenz said:

Thank you!  I think they forgot to consider the movie was made in a different time when discussing.  Shouldn’t they have kept the discussion within the context of when it was produced since that was a monumental line in the movie?  I get what others said about it either being an uncomfortable discussion or trying to discuss the movie within today’s context. Unfortunately it is falling victim to today’s over use of race theories.  The message between two generations was so key, so factual. I disagreed entirely with their conclusion that the movie was about the white man father controlling everyone. The movie was entirely centric around S T’s character and with him dealing internally with the decision of his daughter and fiancé.  By making the white father the villain in the movie, they erased the beautiful underscore of the differences of black generations, and the momentum of the civil rights movement. 

I never saw Tracy's white Father role in the movie as one of being the "villain".  Realize though, much of the focus on his character was that it was centered around HIS daughter, and taking place in HIS house!  And some see wrong in the idea that HE should maintain some level of control?   And remember, the idea was his character( an influential liberal newspaper editor) has to face up to his daughter, brought up with her parent's liberal sensitivities fed to her  for most of her life, falling in love and willing to marry a black man,  and how, when faced with her bringing his assumed beliefs "back home",  he deals with it.  Leaving the audience to wonder if he'll show open arms or that all his liberal "tolerance" position was a lot of lip service. 

Sepiatone  And a huge WELCOME to ya, Shana!  ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the whole story of Jocko Graves and its later use as a signal on the Underground Railroad

is one of those made up stories that sometimes appear in American history. These oft-repeated tales

get their accuracy simply by being oft-repeated without folks stopping to check their truthfulness.

According to the legend Graves was a young boy who Washington thought was too young to cross the

Delaware with the rest of his troops. So Graves held the horses with a lantern nearby. Young Jocko

was so faithful that he stayed in that position all night and froze to death still standing by the horse.

There is no historical evidence for this and none for the later use of statues of Graves as a signaling

device on the Underground Railroad. Too bad because it is a good, though somewhat bizarre, story. 

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...