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

14 hours ago, KidChaplin said:

All I was saying is that the author of the piece had mentioned some of the radical cancel culture bringing up "Blazing Saddles" as a racist movie and didn't see it the way Brooks made it

So as I said, no you don't see people pointing fingers at Blazing Saddles (1974).  What you see is somebody else claiming it.  You  accept the article uncritically, maybe it's because the author is saying what you want to hear.  But I doubt others would, certainly not without reading the article.

14 hours ago, KidChaplin said:

I was just saying that I dont think every single actor or actress has.

And I was asking what made you think that way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

They could just do a disclaimer before the movie indicating their lack of "consent".  What they're doing now is a disservice to the viewer in that it doesn't allow for them to come to their own conclusions, or think they're capable of coming to an objective one.   It's almost as if TCM is trying to sway their audience  into what to think or how to feel.

Sepiatone

Why would it be not ok to examine the effects of ingrained racism in America on moviemaking, but ok to examine other aspects of moviemaking?  And what's wrong with trying to sway people into thinking a certain way?  And what's wrong with condemning racism, and pointing it out in movies, and saying that they are worse for having it in them?  It seems to me objections to what TCM is doing are being raised because people have a certain comfortable way of thinking, that it is annoying to have the shortcomings of that way of thinking pointed out and illustrated, and they don't want to think differently about movies they have a cherished affection for even if it means minimizing or denying the wrongs and affronts to others in them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

Why would it be not ok to examine the effects of ingrained racism in America on moviemaking, but ok to examine other aspects of moviemaking?

Directors have intentionally explored other aspects of movie making, but with the exception of D.W. Griffith, nobody's ever directorially set out to do a racist movie, which means the rest of the "examination" would be in the paranoid eye of the beholder.

And that's where the trouble usually starts...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, slaytonf said:

Why would it be not ok to examine the effects of ingrained racism in America on moviemaking, but ok to examine other aspects of moviemaking?  And what's wrong with trying to sway people into thinking a certain way?  And what's wrong with condemning racism, and pointing it out in movies, and saying that they are worse for having it in them?  It seems to me objections to what TCM is doing are being raised because people have a certain comfortable way of thinking, that it is annoying to have the shortcomings of that way of thinking pointed out and illustrated, and they don't want to think differently about movies they have a cherished affection for even if it means minimizing or denying the wrongs and affronts to others in them.

Point taken.  But what I'm going on about is that by now it's all "beating a dead horse".  And since nobody here was THERE when these movies were made, along with Bogle and others who claim it was all done in racist motive don't consider the possibility some of it just could have been tragically misguided tribute.  After all, a lot of that stuff, like Astaire wearing certain clothing and appearing in blackface probably wasn't done in an attempt to insult black people.   Astaire and Kelly, along with many other white "hoofers" of the time had nothing but respect and admiration for dancers like Bill Robinson and the Nicholas brothers.   And besides all that....

I never ONCE said it's wrong to condemn racism.   But I do take exception to those who insist that, for example, a movie like GWTW is based in racism because it shows black people as slaves and "mammies" in a story that takes place in a time when black people WERE slaves and "mammies".  in a particular place in the nation.  And it's confounding that another member of these boards is arguing with me because a particular African-American actor DIDN'T play movie roles of racist stereotype African-American characters.  And I'm willing to bet that if he DID play roles like that, the person's complain would be that the actor was "relegated" to playing such racially offensive roles.   And in the words( as best I can remember)  of an African-American acquaintance of mine....

"Why should I get all het-up about some h o n k y actor in blackface when there wasn't a big Asian "hoopla" made about white actors playing Charlie Chan?   It's all under the bridge anyway."

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2021 at 5:31 PM, TopBilled said:

Desperate ploys for publicity.  And trying to justify it as if they are doing the public some sort of community service.

Disgraceful.

Thumbs down TCM.

 

Absurd, hysterical overreaction.  None of y'all have to watch any of these intros if you don't want to!  Just fast-forward past them!  Seriously, people, "Gone With the Wind" actually is really racist, and if TCM wants to market it with a round-table discussion about how racist it is, who cares?  This strikes me as categorically different than memory-holing movies.

 

Again, the fast-forward button is your friend.  It's that thing on your remote control with the arrows pointing right.

 

----

 

That being said, calling out "Psycho" as a problematic film is weird.  Norman Bates isn't a "transvestite", he's a deranged young man who's assumed the identity of his dead mother.

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

That being said, calling out "Psycho" as a problematic film is weird.  Norman Bates isn't a "transvestite", he's a deranged young man who's assumed the identity of his dead mother.

What i tjhought they said was that Norman was a transgender indivuidal, which is even stranger, because such a topic never would have been brought up in 1960 in a big film, and also because he was a split personality, not wanting to become a woman. (Made clearer by the slasher sequels to it that arrived in the 80s). A part of me wonders if they mixed it up with Dressed to Kill....

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

Again, the fast-forward button is your friend.  

And the ignore button may be your friend on a message board where people post views that don't mesh with your own. :) 

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

And the ignore button may be your friend on a message board where people post views that don't mesh with your own. :) 

 

Much more fun to call out silly opinions as silly!  That's what makes message boards great! 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vidor said:

Much more fun to call out silly opinions as silly!  That's what makes message boards great! 

Strange reply. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

What i tjhought they said was that Norman was a transgender indivuidal, which is even stranger, because such a topic never would have been brought up in 1960 in a big film, and also because he was a split personality, not wanting to become a woman. (Made clearer by the slasher sequels to it that arrived in the 80s). A part of me wonders if they mixed it up with Dressed to Kill....

 

Indeed.  Categorizing Norman as transgender just seems to me to be a fundamental misreading of "Psycho".  "Transvestite"--well, Norman clearly isn't a transvestite as we normally imagine them, but can one connect the unease that viewers feel when they see Norman (I've seen this film several times and the reveal of Norman in the dress and wig still freaks me out) with the unease that some folks feels when they see a man in a dress?

 

Hm, seems like good fodder for a TCM host roundtable!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TopBilled said:

Strange reply. 

 

I don't think so.  Message boards are not for Person A to say "I think this" and Person B to say "I agree with that" and Person C to say "I also agree with that" and Person A to say, "Yeah, I was right!"  Sometimes Person A will say "I think this" and Person B will say "You are talking complete nonsense" which is what you and I did!

I think that memory-holing movies is very bad and we should not do that.  It would be a bad thing if TCM stopped showing "Gone With the Wind".  I think content warnings are silly.  "WARNING: This movie may be racist!" is pointless virtue signaling.

 

But a thoughtful discussion between film experts about a movie like "Gone With the Wind" and how it exhibits all kinds of unfortunate tropes like minstrelsy, Lost Cause mythology, Reconstruction revisionism...that's what TCM does, and should do.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

260px-The_Unholy_Three_(film_1930).JPG

There is a difference of intent between a cross gender "disguise" for committing a crime and as stated in Psycho, "sexual release & satisfaction" from cross gender dressing - in the movies at least.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In both versions of PSYCHO the murder does lead to a form of release. 

Hitchcock often presented murder as a metaphor for sex. That was one way for him to flout the production code.

I think the reason PSYCHO is included in this series is because in some film criticism circles Norman is considered a repressed eunuch that dresses up as his mother to perform. He becomes an omnisexual pervert who uses the victimization of his guests to generate raw energy that rejuvenates his dormant sex life. He doesn't do it as a man. He does it as a "woman" with mother in control of his brain and his movements.

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

This transvestite made life interesting in Mayberry.

Screen Shot 2021-03-10 at 6.47.31 AM 2

Did you know that Don Knotts was quite the lady's man in his day? Looks can be deceiving. Apparently the guy had confidence, unlike nervous Barnie.

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

Did you know that Don Knotts was quite the lady's man in his day? Looks can be deceiving. Apparently the guy had confidence, unlike nervous Barnie.

Thanks.  I've read that somewhere years ago and brought it up in here a few years ago and nobody seemed to believe it.  

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 8:59 AM, Sepiatone said:

 But I do take exception to those who insist that, for example, a movie like GWTW is based in racism because it shows black people as slaves and "mammies" in a story that takes place in a time when black people WERE slaves and "mammies". 

The objection is that movies set on plantations during slavery glorify the peculiar and perverted system, deny its horrors, and portray its victims as willing and complicit.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Hitchcock often presented murder as a metaphor for sex.

With Hitchcock, everything was a metaphor for sex.  Except sex, which was a metaphor for perversion.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, slaytonf said:

With Hitchcock, everything was a metaphor for sex.  Except sex, which was a metaphor for perversion.

Why slayton, whatever do you mean here?

Oh...wait.

You mean kind'a like THIS here maybe?...

 

north+by+northwest+train+tunnel.gif

;)

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I saw the promo TCM streaming just launched defending this series, almost apologizing for it:

Seems like a retort to some backlash. It may have had more impact if Jacqueline Stewart defended the series.

Wow-Ben Mankiewicz sure had adopted a new efficacious habit/manner of speaking- dragging guttural sounds at the beginning of his sentences. C'mon....Ben, that's tiring. You can emphasize your reading better than that.

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...