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

20 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

1.   Wasn't the gist of the storyline to relate the story of Scarlett O'Hara and how her world(self centered as it was) was turned upside down and how she adapted and endured, but only to wind up not really too much changed for the better in the end?  And not necessarily a condemnation of slavery?  Look.  By the time the book and movie hit the public, most Americans knew of the blot on America's history slavery was.  And I don't think anyone with a working brain thought the movie "endorsed" slavery.  And just how would displaying ugly scenes of slavery brutality support the treatise of Scarlett's tribulations?  

2.  Seems to me in the Antebellum South the socio-economic system was based on cotton and tobacco.  Maybe a few other crops.  Slavery was just(to them) a way to produce those resources cheaply.  That to eradicate the practice of slavery and the slave trade was the main cause of the civil war,  that had little bearing on showing the effect the war had on Southern non-combatants(you know, just plain citizens).  One might have thought that the striking scene of Scarlett walking through a train yard littered with the wounded and dying bodies of Confederate soldiers, most who weren't slaveholders to begin with would have proven to people of the folly to defend such a practice as slavery.   And to show how wealthy plantation owners lived in the Antebellum South doesn't mean they "laud" it.  Although I can't say the same for BIRTH OF A NATION. 

But then it's only one example of "problematic"  film history.  What about westerns?  and the similar(to you) silent endorsement of the treatment of women and Native Americans?  

Why no outrage about that?  Too small of a BANDWAGON?   That in many old "classic" Westerns prostitutes were "masked" as "saloon girls" who were shown sitting around looking pretty with big smiles on their faces while many smelly, drunken saddle tramps pawed them and bought them drinks(which usually meant two at a time, one for her and one for him of which he'd wind up drinking both)  .  And that those girls had not much other choices in order to survive?   Or else become brood mares for their menfolk?  It all was just another form of the slavery you're so lathered about.  But they're white men and they're just women, so that makes it OK?   And while everyone insists on crying over Japanese citizens being placed into interment camps during WWII(which of course WAS another blot on American history), what about the westward movement of white Europeans (originally) encroaching on indigenous  native land, pushing them off as if the white guys owned it and the placing of those natives in reservations that at best were only twice as miserable as the Japanese camps.  And the fostering the notion that their attempts to save and keep their land made them "murderous savages"?   Who, in reality, were the real savages?   But you know...

Much of that doesn't bother me since a Western in which the story is of a man trying to leave his past as a gunslinger behind has no connection to the brutal treatment foisted on Native Americans by the White man .  But genocide of indigenous natives doesn't, to some, seem to be as bad or worse than having slaves do all the work.  

Sepiatone

The cause of the Civil War was reuniting the nation into one country - period.  While the North, Lincoln, et. al. did not like slavery, ultimately they would accept it if it meant preserving the Union.  It did not become a war against slavery until 1863, and not even then in reality.

The North profited greatly from slavery, but in an indirect manner.  Slavery in the plantation system would not have been profitable if Eli Whitney, a Northerner, had not invented the cotton gin. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

1.   Wasn't the gist of the storyline to relate the story of Scarlett O'Hara and how her world(self centered as it was) was turned upside down and how she adapted and endured, but only to wind up not really too much changed for the better in the end?  And not necessarily a condemnation of slavery?  Look.  By the time the book and movie hit the public, most Americans knew of the blot on America's history slavery was.  And I don't think anyone with a working brain thought the movie "endorsed" slavery.  And just how would displaying ugly scenes of slavery brutality support the treatise of Scarlett's tribulations?  

2.  Seems to me in the Antebellum South the socio-economic system was based on cotton and tobacco.  Maybe a few other crops.  Slavery was just(to them) a way to produce those resources cheaply.  That to eradicate the practice of slavery and the slave trade was the main cause of the civil war,  that had little bearing on showing the effect the war had on Southern non-combatants(you know, just plain citizens).  One might have thought that the striking scene of Scarlett walking through a train yard littered with the wounded and dying bodies of Confederate soldiers, most who weren't slaveholders to begin with would have proven to people of the folly to defend such a practice as slavery.   And to show how wealthy plantation owners lived in the Antebellum South doesn't mean they "laud" it.  Although I can't say the same for BIRTH OF A NATION. 

But then it's only one example of "problematic"  film history.  What about westerns?  and the similar(to you) silent endorsement of the treatment of women and Native Americans?  

Why no outrage about that?  Too small of a BANDWAGON?   That in many old "classic" Westerns prostitutes were "masked" as "saloon girls" who were shown sitting around looking pretty with big smiles on their faces while many smelly, drunken saddle tramps pawed them and bought them drinks(which usually meant two at a time, one for her and one for him of which he'd wind up drinking both)  .  And that those girls had not much other choices in order to survive?   Or else become brood mares for their menfolk?  It all was just another form of the slavery you're so lathered about.  But they're white men and they're just women, so that makes it OK?   And while everyone insists on crying over Japanese citizens being placed into interment camps during WWII(which of course WAS another blot on American history), what about the westward movement of white Europeans (originally) encroaching on indigenous  native land, pushing them off as if the white guys owned it and the placing of those natives in reservations that at best were only twice as miserable as the Japanese camps.  And the fostering the notion that their attempts to save and keep their land made them "murderous savages"?   Who, in reality, were the real savages?   But you know...

Much of that doesn't bother me since a Western in which the story is of a man trying to leave his past as a gunslinger behind has no connection to the brutal treatment foisted on Native Americans by the White man .  But genocide of indigenous natives doesn't, to some, seem to be as bad or worse than having slaves do all the work.  

Sepiatone

It seems you are using a three-prong strategy of micro-analyzation to obscure the issue, introducing other topics to confuse the discussion, and a tide of words to overwhelm the reader.  All for what?  All to maintain you position that it's wrong to criticize Gone/Wind (1939) for racist content because it takes place in slave times.  Or that it's a love story.  Or that its the story of Scarlett O'Hara.  My comments aren't focused on the movie, but like others it has overt stereotyping, mis-characterization of the conditions of slavery, and, through it's portrayal of plantation society, gives tacit approval of the system.   This allowed southern audiences to feel validated and others to overlook the abomination of slavery due to their racism. Silence gives consent.

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

It seems you are using a three-prong strategy of micro-analyzation to obscure the issue, introducing other topics to confuse the discussion, and a tide of words to overwhelm the reader.  All for what?  All to maintain you position that it's wrong to criticize Gone/Wind (1939) for racist content because it takes place in slave times.  Or that it's a love story.  Or that its the story of Scarlett O'Hara.  My comments aren't focused on the movie, but like others it has overt stereotyping, mis-characterization of the conditions of slavery, and, through it's portrayal of plantation society, gives tacit approval of the system.   This allowed southern audiences to feel validated and others to overlook the abomination of slavery due to their racism. Silence gives consent.

Excellent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 9:17 AM, TopBilled said:

As someone else said this is an example of southern apologists trying to suggest slavery wasn't all that bad. Quoting these things only suggests that people are still trying to find ways to defend the movie and say the historic abuse presented in it is okay.

That's like thinking Hitler probably wasn't all that bad if he was nice to the cook that made his favorite strudel.

The truth is that no sugar-coating or romanticizing of historic abuse is ever going to make any of it acceptable.

Again TOP....  Make up your mind.

I thought the issue was that the "historic abuse"  wasn't presented in the movie.   And wasn't it the lifestyle the plantation owners lived what was being romanticized?   And NOT the "historic abuse"? 

A lot of the other responses here are pretty much tunnel-visioned hyperbole.   And another example of seeing and/or hearing what you may wish to.    

"Mischaracterization of the conditions of slavery"?  Sure.  I'll go along with that somewhat.  But as the conditions of slavery wasn't the focus nor intended purpose of the movie, including it unabashed would have proved to be too much of a distraction to it's main point of interest.   And Southern audiences feeling validated somehow due to slavery's brutality being excluded from the movie is also another example of people seeing what they wish to.  I'll never believe it was the film makers intention to "downplay" or "glorify" or "romanticize" Southern plantation owner's also owning slaves.  Most of the rest of American movie audiences already knew full well what slavery was and it's cruelty.   And besides....

Since nobody here(including me) was there when it all took place, how can anyone be sure there weren't any slaveholders  who treated their slaves with some modicum of what might eek by as "decency"?  After all, they were (to them) considered property.  And beating or whipping ALL of them constantly wouldn't help maintain their value as property if comes a time a trade or sale is in the works.  This of course, doesn't make slavery less distasteful,  but still....  And BTW----

Which "other topics"  did I introduce that seemed to confuse you so much SLAYTON? 

And JAMES-----

Your comment suggesting I might think slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the civil war was surprisingly dimwitted for someone of your intellect.   I don't recall ever alluding to that belief.  It did however, remind me of something in the past---

Back in the '70's, at the time when Gary Gilmore demanded to be executed for his crime and started the country discussing the death penalty again, debates about it sprung up everywhere.  And my wife's( the ex) sister, an avid church goer,  got involved in one of those discussions at my house.  Now, all I said was,  "I don't know... I can't really support having the death penalty."  And her response?  Well, not really different than many responses to my feelings about the movie we're discussing. (Not in spirit)  SHE replied;  "So,   you think murderers should get off Scott free."    :o    Well, I didn't recall saying anything of the sort.   All I did was refuse to jump on yet another cacophonous bandwagon.  Like in here.  ;) 

Sepiatone

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

It seems you are using a three-prong strategy of micro-analyzation to obscure the issue, introducing other topics to confuse the discussion, and a tide of words to overwhelm the reader.  All for what?  All to maintain you position that it's wrong to criticize Gone/Wind (1939) for racist content because it takes place in slave times.  Or that it's a love story.  Or that its the story of Scarlett O'Hara.  My comments aren't focused on the movie,

Which is rather unfortunate, as that's what everyone else in the thread IS talking about.

Quote

but like others it has overt stereotyping, mis-characterization of the conditions of slavery, and, through it's portrayal of plantation society, gives tacit approval of the system.   This allowed southern audiences to feel validated and others to overlook the abomination of slavery due to their racism. Silence gives consent.

I can't speak for the "others", but it's the same as schools trying to ban Huckleberry Finn because it has slavery in it, when Huck is told by his elders of the day that slavery is "good" and "holy" and that escapees need to be returned for their own good, and starts to seriously question his own morality after getting to know his old friend Jim as a partner--Even if Jim is also a product of his culture, more than a little stereotypic around the edges from a rich white author, and doesn't speak 100% perfectly educated English.  Twain was clearly making a radical anti-slavery statement, and yet progressive educational history-washers don't want mention of slavery to exist, or to contain even the slightest ambient hint of historical pro-slavery sentiments to exist because, for either culture, it would make them look bad.  And more often one than the other.

That's absolutely zero difference from GWTW showing that Hattie McDaniel's Mammy, on the lowest rung of the Atlanta social ladder, had a more balanced view of the world than a handful of deluded rich-kid toy-soldiers and upper-class brats who couldn't deal with the tides of the world changing their most cherished views and social privilege.  The realists were the victims and those who had to work for a living, and they persisted.

Some movie viewers know that Movies Aren't Real, and therefore not meant to be Public Indoctrinational Social Lectures on the part of the source-author, writer or director.  If (like the above mentioned Southern audiences) you can't see the plot-arc message for the embarrassing historical details, it's like looking in your old high-school yearbook:  Either you remember the entire year, or you're embarrassed by your hair back then, and want to rip the photo out of every existing copy.   😆

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Again TOP....  Make up your mind.

I thought the issue was that the "historic abuse"  wasn't presented in the movie.   And wasn't it the lifestyle the plantation owners lived what was being romanticized?   And NOT the "historic abuse"? 

A lot of the other responses here are pretty much tunnel-visioned hyperbole.   And another example of seeing and/or hearing what you may wish to.    

"Mischaracterization of the conditions of slavery"?  Sure.  I'll go along with that somewhat.  But as the conditions of slavery wasn't the focus nor intended purpose of the movie, including it unabashed would have proved to be too much of a distraction to it's main point of interest.   And Southern audiences feeling validated somehow due to slavery's brutality being excluded from the movie is also another example of people seeing what they wish to.  I'll never believe it was the film makers intention to "downplay" or "glorify" or "romanticize" Southern plantation owner's also owning slaves.  Most of the rest of American movie audiences already knew full well what slavery was and it's cruelty.   And besides....

Since nobody here(including me) was there when it all took place, how can anyone be sure there weren't any slaveholders  who treated their slaves with some modicum of what might eek by as "decency"?  After all, they were (to them) considered property.  And beating or whipping ALL of them constantly wouldn't help maintain their value as property if comes a time a trade or sale is in the works.  This of course, doesn't make slavery less distasteful,  but still....  And BTW----

Which "other topics"  did I introduce that seemed to confuse you so much SLAYTON? 

And JAMES-----

Your comment suggesting I might think slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the civil war was surprisingly dimwitted for someone of your intellect.   I don't recall ever alluding to that belief.  It did however, remind me of something in the past---

Back in the '70's, at the time when Gary Gilmore demanded to be executed for his crime and started the country discussing the death penalty again, debates about it sprung up everywhere.  And my wife's( the ex) sister, an avid church goer,  got involved in one of those discussions at my house.  Now, all I said was,  "I don't know... I can't really support having the death penalty."  And her response?  Well, not really different than many responses to my feelings about the movie we're discussing. (Not in spirit)  SHE replied;  "So,   you think murderers should get off Scott free."    :o    Well, I didn't recall saying anything of the sort.   All I did was refuse to jump on yet another cacophonous bandwagon.  Like in here.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Didn't you write a similar post in the thread 23 hours ago? Why are you repeating some of this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry.  Clicked on the empty reply box on the bottom of the page and it popped up giving me the impression that your quote and anything else hadn't been entered .  So I went on from there.  

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Sorry.  Clicked on the empty reply box on the bottom of the page and it popped up giving me the impression that your quote and anything else hadn't been entered .  So I went on from there.  

Sepiatone

Thanks for explaining. Wasn't sure if you were trying to get james and myself to reply to you by rehashing a previous point...or if you meant to edit your previous post and add on to what you were saying.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

I can tell you from experience....in 1980, at 19 years old, I wanted to get my first apartment rooming with my best friend. My Mother forbade it! I was completely clueless as to why and she tried discouraging me, saying it wasn't "safe" for 2 young girls to live alone "in the City". Pressing her further,  she revealed fears of others attacking us because one of us was black. Huh? I could not FATHOM the idea.

About a decade later when traveling with my business manager, we could barely book (separate) rooms in hotels or get seated together in restaurants. He finally explained this was happening because he's black, I'm white and this was typical treatment in the south towards interracial couples. I was flabbergasted.

So I can completely buy Joanna, brought up in an upper class sheltered situation not really believing anyone would be "prejudice", since I was the same.

 

That reminds me of an experience I had in Pittsburgh back in the late 1980's.  I had lived in a 2nd floor duplex for several years in one of the City of Pittsburgh neighborhoods but decided to move to  a bigger place a few miles away.  I had to arrange to sublet my duplex since my lease would not be up for a few months and my landlord asked me to deal with finding a new tenant.  So, I put an ad in the newspaper and the first people who came to look at the duplex were a young black couple, both of whom worked for the University of Pittsburgh as instructors/adjunct professors. (My neighborhood was probably 15 minutes from where several universities are located so it was an extremely convenient location for university personnel to live.)  They were very nice people and they told me they had a 4 year old but the duplex had 3 bedrooms so, no problem there. I told them that they could have the place but they would have to contact the real estate company to fill out the appropriate paperwork to finalize the deal.   The next day they called me at work.  They told me that they had gone to the real estate office to fill out the paperwork and were told that they could not rent my place since the owner did not want to rent to people with kids.  I said:  "Well, that's very interesting because the people in the 1st floor duplex have 1 child and 1 on the way."  The next thing that happened is that several neighbors (who had never spoken to me before) started knocking on my door and telling me that there was no way I should be trying to "rent to some _____ couple."  I was completely flabbergasted.  I had no idea that I was living in a neighborhood of  bigots but clearly I was. Then, my landlord  contacted me and asked me  what I thought I was doing, attempting to rent "his property"  to a black couple. OMG.  So, I called the Pittsburgh Fair Housing Authority and reported both my landlord and the real estate company and let the couple know. Unfortunately, it was going to take months for the Housing Authority to investigate and act on this discrimination so the couple ended up having to find another place to live.  So not fair. But, I swear, I was mind blown.  In all my years of living in Pittsburgh I had never imagined people could think or act this way. This wasn't the 1920's in Alabama, this was the 1980's in Pittsburgh.  Like Joanna, I was raised to believe that "everybody was equal" so I never gave "prejudice" a thought.  I wasn't prejudiced so I assumed everybody else was the same way.  Clearly that is not the case, but "you are how you were raised."  So, like TikiSoo, Joanna's attitude always seemed completely plausible to me. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shana Krenz said:

The other night I watched "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", with Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn.  Not the first time I've seen this movie.  Sidney Poitier is fabulous, and I'll mention his line in a minute.  But afterwards, the three hosts discussed the "white man" and "white father" 'theme dominating the whole film.  They ridicule the lines that Tracy's character delivers at the end of the movie, and chide about him telling the black father how things were going to be.  I have always had an entirely different take on the entire theme of this movie.  The black father is not a main character in this movie, yet no one acknowledged that, and of course it wouldn't be from his perspective mainly.  But the thing that got me was the NO ONE mentioned Poitier's line towards the end of the film where the son is discussing the difference between generations.  What surprised me even more that no one brought attention to this, was that the host asked the question, about what part of the film or line did they think was critical.  No one mentions the line referencing that the dad thought of himself as a black man, and the son thinks of himself as a man.  That is so key, so critical...and yet no one wanted to acknowledge that line, and instead were stuck on the whole 'white father domination'.  Seriously...I wondered how they could ignore that!!!

You said the black father is not the main character in this movie. However, he is the main character in the remake.

In GUESS WHO (2005) the races are reversed. Ashton Kutcher is a young white guy who goes to meet the family of his black girlfriend. Bernie Mac plays her concerned father.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who_(film)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ElCid said:

History is always rewritten - over and over and over.  It is one thing that keeps the historical research and book industry in business.  The history of the Civil War and the periods before and after have been rewritten many times in past few decades.  Just one example is the views of Robert E. Lee.

The victors write the history is a very old and very accurate adage.  The victories may be in war, but are also in politics and popular culture shifts as we are having today.

Not rewritten but suppressed, censored, redacted and in general kept hidden.  To rewrite means the original existed and was changed. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 1:43 PM, ElCid said:

You need to watch the movie again.  Norma Rae did not pick cotton; she worked in a textile mill.

Maybe he's confusing "Norma Rae" with "Places in the Heart" where Sally Field *did* pick cotton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jameselliot said:

Not rewritten but suppressed, censored, redacted and in general kept hidden.  To rewrite means the original existed and was changed. 

I would add, cleansed and generally misunderstood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 2:30 PM, ElCid said:

Have you ever read the book?

 

I have.  Trash.  Boring.  And much more racist than the movie, which means it's very very racist.  World's most overrated Harlequin romance novel.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 7:32 AM, TikiSoo said:

Are any of you aware Irish Immigrants were considered lower than slaves? I recently read a historical piece about a Philadelphia project where that is clearly stated:

 

 

 

That is not accurate.  No one was lower than a slave.  That's axiomatic.  If Irish immigrants were allowed to perform work that slaves weren't, that's because a slave was after all valuable property.  Thomas Jefferson mortgaged his slaves!  So if a certain form of labor leads you as a slave owner to believe that your slaves might get injured or killed doing it, thus depriving you of some of your wealth, then sure, you might pay wages to the Irishman to do it.  But it certainly doesn't mean that you think the Irish are "lower" than your slaves.

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

I have.  Trash.  Boring.  And much more racist than the movie, which means it's very very racist.  World's most overrated Harlequin romance novel.

Thank you for stating this.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Richard Brody has a piece on the series on his blog.  I appear to have run out of free New Yorker articles before I could read it, but he appears to say that one really pernicious Hollywood practice in dealing with certain ethnic groups was simply to ignore them altogether:  https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/how-to-think-about-classic-hollywoods-problematic-movies

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vidor said:

 

I have.  Trash.  Boring.  And much more racist than the movie, which means it's very very racist.  World's most overrated Harlequin romance novel.

Response to "Have you read the book GWTW?"

Well, it's been a couple decades but I enjoyed it when I read it. It was well written, fun to read & I recall the principle charactors as more fleshed out, definitely more detailed.  Scarlett's self centered nature and her comeuppance was my favorite element of the story, call that a romance novel-fine. It was a best seller, so obviously others liked it too.

So that goes to show you everyone can have different opinions of the same thing. This is why I take umbrage when I hear anyone lump any people into any group:  "women like/dislike ____" or "white people think_____" etc.

Remember when I mentioned I think of my horse as livestock? Well there's people who think that's a horrible, elitist attitude & treat their horse as a family member.

 

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

 

Remember when I mentioned I think of my horse as livestock? Well there's people who think that's a horrible, elitist attitude & treat their horse as a family member.

 

Why, TIKI! I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find you admitting to being such a...such a...well..."equestriCIST"!!!!

;)

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

 

You beat me to it Darg.  But I was going to suggest the movie hosts ignored that line( and too, a favorite of mine from that movie)  because it might mean leaving their argument without any merit. 

I've always supposed that it all took place in the "White man's house" not because the movie maker's desire to exhibit white supremacy, but because even in proposed marriages between couples of the same ethnicity it's always been customary to approach the intended bride's family first.   And it's reasonable to have the young couple seek out her parents at THEIR house, and not HIS parent's home.   And I too, brought up that line in previous discussions of this movie as most poignant.     and TIKI

I'll again(and tirelessly) bring up YET AGAIN cartoonist AL CAPP'S reply to the question:  "What's your feeling about interracial marriages?"  Which was---

"Interracial marriages?  I'm afraid I don't know of any.  All the marriages I know of involve members of the HUMAN race!"  ;) 

Sepiatone

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

You said the black father is not the main character in this movie. However, he is the main character in the remake.

In GUESS WHO (2005) the races are reversed. Ashton Kutcher is a young white guy who goes to meet the family of his black girlfriend. Bernie Mac plays her concerned father.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guess_Who_(film)

I saw that.  It could have been better but also could have been worse.  But, IMHO anything with Bernie Mac in it is OK by me.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

I saw that.  It could have been better but also could have been worse.  But, IMHO anything with Bernie Mac in it is OK by me.  ;) 

Sepiatone

It's been awhile since I've seen GUESS WHO, but if I recall correctly, the interracial couple gets married on screen at the end of the movie. So they take the basic concept of the original a step further.

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

Response to "Have you read the book GWTW?"

Well, it's been a couple decades but I enjoyed it when I read it. It was well written, fun to read & I recall the principle charactors as more fleshed out, definitely more detailed.  Scarlett's self centered nature and her comeuppance was my favorite element of the story, call that a romance novel-fine. It was a best seller, so obviously others liked it too.

So that goes to show you everyone can have different opinions of the same thing. This is why I take umbrage when I hear anyone lump any people into any group:  "women like/dislike ____" or "white people think_____" etc.

Remember when I mentioned I think of my horse as livestock? Well there's people who think that's a horrible, elitist attitude & treat their horse as a family member.

 

It's been at at least 20 years since I read GWTW but I remember thinking it was well-researched, well written and definitely worth my time. It provides, of course, much more historical background and much more in-depth information about key characters such as Rhett, Mammy and Ashley.  Scarlett's mother, Ellen, who is a pivotal character in the book (it is she, not Gerald O'Hara, who runs all of Tara) is given short shrift in the film and seems to me to be horribly miscast.  Barbara O'Neill comes off as a bit cold and distant and she barely gets any screen time.  This is unfortunate because Ellen is THE major influence on Scarlett who adores her mother and constantly aspires (but often fails) to be as "perfect" as she feels her Mother is/was.  Obviously, in a book there's time to explain why certain characters are the way they are and do what they do. A  film (especially a film which covers an epic event like the Civil War & Reconstruction) can only provide broad strokes.   

After all this GWTW discussion, I am compelled to read GWTW again and see how I feel about it today.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

You beat me to it Darg.  But I was going to suggest the movie hosts ignored that line( and too, a favorite of mine from that movie)  because it might mean leaving their argument without any merit. 

Thanks, Sepia. 

I was beginning to think my post up there where I offered up a possible explanation as to why the TCM hosts failed to even make note of the Poitier and his father's interaction scene and that most salient line within the film, was either never read by anyone here, or if it had been read had been dismissed as nonsense by those who had read it, or EVEN might have felt it too much of a "hot potato" by those that had read it and so then didn't want to take it on by replying to it.

(...and so, it was nice to have had it acknowledged by someone around here anyway...thanks again)

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

was either never read by anyone here, or if it had been read had been dismissed as nonsense by those who had read it,

I didn't comment because like you, I thought it obvious. I'm sorry to say, I borrow the line all the time in conversation-doesn't matter the context-it still delivers. (you can substitute any gender/nationality)

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